Follow-up on Tufte

In his The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint (2003), E. Tufte argues that PowerPoint software "actively facilitates the making of lightweight presentations" (26). His arguments on this point are pretty well known, I think: PowerPoint encourages the "foreshortening of evidence and thought, low spatial resolution, a deeply hierarchical single-path structure as the model for organizing every type of content, breaking up narrative and data into slides and minimal fragments, rapid temporal sequencing of thin information rather than focused spatial analysis, conspicuous decoration and Phluff, a preoccupation with format not content, and attitude of commercialism that turns everything into a sales pitch" (p. 4).

What can Tufte's complaints tell us about writing in electronic environments? First, his focus on PowerPoint as a common tool for producing a particular kind of (multimodal) communication suggests that one of the electronic genres we ought to be thinking about is "overhead presentation."

Second, Tufte's actual complaints suggest that there are better and worse ways to develop this genre. Linda made this point in general in our meeting last semester, I believe: "best practices" exist!

A question we may want to consider is whether it's possible to separate the genre from the tool--to separate overhead presentations from PowerPoint, Keynote, Fireworks, or whatever. In principle, of course, the answer is yes. But, pedagogically, practically, is this the right way to go? (I expect that Linda answers in the affirmative.)

The bigger question, for me, is even more practical. Where do we go to find accountings of rhetorical "best practices" in e- or multimodal genres? I guess we have Tufte's work for presentations, Williams & Tollett (or others) for web design, and Linda's IEDP conventions for asynchronous chat. Who teaches e-mail in terms of conventions? Desktop publishing? Wikis? Blogs? Do we face a problem in emerging (or fast-changing) e-genres? Do situational inflections of particular technologies render talk of conventions too monolithic at the "environmental" level? Is this too much a skill-oriented approach in any event?

That's all for now--more later on symbolic/analytic--

J

Reference

Tufte, E. (2003). The cognitive style of powerpoint. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.

Datacloud

Here are some quotes from Johndan Johnson-Eilola's Datacloud that might guide us. In the first quote, his pointing out the tenuous relationship between online and IRL seems to parallel the paper and internet genre relationship; and why I like the use of environment.

- "Workers in such corporations, like the students in my classes, rely heavily on their abilities to communicate rapidly and in multiple media, to organize and circulate information, and to attack problems in creative, nontraditional ways. Increasingly, users in such spaces--both microcontexts and macrocontexts--—work and learn within visually and structurally dense, often frankly and intentionally chaotic spaces. They multitask, they surf, they filter and rearrange, and they push and pull data streams. The often-held separation between online and IRL ("IN Real Life"”) is fairly tenuous, with relationships developed online spilling over into the real world; information at the surface or at depth in the computer moves back and forth to PDA, web-enabled phone, video monitor, stereo, and more" (32).
- “"Unfortunately, current approaches to computers in education tend to prioritize more traditional types of work: writing essays and reports in word processors, analyzing profit and loss flows in spreadsheets, and calculating forces in numerical analysis programs. These are all useful skills, but they are the legacy of an earlier form of work; one that is being replaced by more complex forms. Because we have failed to understand the characteristics of symbolic-analytic work, we have yet to do an effective job of helping people learn to become symbolic-analytic workers"” (72).

mp

genre teaching

We'll have to do a bit of work to reconstruct how URI's CWP got into "genre" as a teaching approach. From what I have learned from Nedra, I think that Trimbur's textbook had something to do with it. Cultural studies perhaps even more.

Mike, as you've said, Linda's title for WRT 235 suggests a focus on expanded notion of electronic genres in terms of "writing environments." Yet, as you point out in your reference to Bauman (1999), many workers in our field have chosen to "see print forms as the default" in their exploration of electronic genres.

Pedagogically, too, this tendency seems to hold. In her report on teaching a "multimodal genre," C. Tardy (2005), for instance, deliberately minimizes the likely "environmental" impacts of PowerPoint software on the student writing processes she describes, choosing instead to emphasize the influence of rhetorical conventions associated with (print) science articles.

Nothing is necessarily wrong with her emphasis, of course. Even as she approaches the concept of multimodality, however, she describes the causes of writers' choices primarily with reference to a print genre and its contextual dynamics. Here, the choice of which cases are studied (Tardy: graduate and professional writers) certainly mitigates against any finding of "environmental" factors as the causes for writers' choices.

This is just one example, though. Are there any scholarly studies of teaching electronic genres in terms of "environment"? Any theory to help us make the link?

In her discussion of PP, Tardy cites E. Tufte, one of my favorites. He'll be useful, I imagine.

Reference:

Tardy, C. M. (2005). Expressions of disciplinarity and individuality in a multimodal genre. Computers and Composition, 22, 319-336.

Another article

Another article that might prove useful is Kathleen Blake Yancey's "Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key." It connects new majors with technology.

The title above links to it.

WRT 235 Article

Looks good. I'll check out the Bazerman.

There is an article that might be useful as a reference but not much more; I've pasted the abstract below. Although only written in 1999, it's funny how we've moved beyond this idea of internet genres in many ways. This view sees print forms as default.

The Evolution of Internet Genres (Oct. 1999, Computers and Composition)

MARCY BAUMAN

ABSTRACT New Internet writing environments differ significantly from print forms. They allow texts to evolve-to change their purpose and audience over time. They allow for new forms of collaboration-texts organize themselves without an omniscient editor shaping them. As a profession, we need to understand and experiment with these forms.

mp

So, here's our new blog. Let's use it to compose our Composition Forum abstract and article.

Now--on genre--here's a link I'd like to share:

Bazerman's Book Chapters

Lots of Bazerman's stuff is on offer on this site, but I point your attention specifcially to "The Case for Writing Studies as a Major Discipline" (under "Book Chapters 2005-2000"). If we get around to working with activity theorists' research on the relationships between genre and writing in electronic environments, we might want to use this piece as a way to get into that subject.

Mike, I believe you once suggested this article to me?

Giesler, C., et al. (2001). IText: Future directions for research on the relationship between information technology and writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 15, 269-308.

It's precisely the kind of thing I mean.

Just a few things to get us started thinking about the big picture--

More concentrated stuff to follow, I promise--abstract before article--

J