The final week of Blendkit2012 is upon us, and this week's focus is on "quality assurance" related to the blended course. In other words, what strategies can I use to make sure my blended course is as effective as it can be? Who can I ask for feedback and when? These are the kinds of... Continue Reading →
Blendkit2012 Week 2: How & when will students & I interact?
I'm thinking this post is a kind of response to the weekly reading question "What factors might limit the feasibility of robust interaction face-to-face or online?" Correct me if I'm wrong... An opening note: I was struck by how the "techno expression" section of the reading focused on so many rhetorical factors--audience, purpose, writer/student positioning/need.... Continue Reading →
#Blendkit2012: week one
I am participating in a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) out of the University of Central Florida for the next 5 weeks: the course is Blendkit2012, and the focus is blended learning. (This is actually the second MOOC I've participated in, the first being a "Power Searching With Google" course I completed this past summer).... Continue Reading →
Mental note. . .
Don't forget about Jones' argument chapter in Writing Spaces next semester. . .
A book
I really need to read this: First We Read, then We Write: Emerson on the Creative Process by Robert D. Richardson. Unfortunately, Miami doesn't have a copy yet (it came out in Feb.) and there appears to be one copy on Ohiolink that is not yet available because it's not in the library's system just... Continue Reading →
And now, some quotes I found particularly interesting from these surveys
Question 1: "Why did you enroll in ENG 225 (required for major, wanted more composition courses, etc.)?" I wanted to enroll in a course that would give me more experience with different writing styles Cuz [sic] it was required, had I better understood the format of the course, I would have signed up for personal... Continue Reading →
Initial observations from the 225 surveys
12/16 (17) students filled out survey-approximately 1/3 left at least one question blank, and the questions left blank most often were the definitions. Most people took it because it was required by their major/program; 1 person took it on the recommendation of a pre-law adviser; a few people took it to develop their writing skills... Continue Reading →
What I need to read
to develop the LeFevre section a bit more: Plato's Phaedrus Elbert W. Harrington Rhetoric and the Scientific Method of Inquiry: A Study of Invention (Boulder: U Colorado P, 1948). . .thank you Ohio-link The 1971 Speech Communication Association's Report of the Committee on the Nature of Rhetorical Invention. . in Bitzer and Black's The Prospect... Continue Reading →
essaying the plains 