connect. create. question.

So, I’ve been reading a few things about blogging. And I’ve been reading a few things about writing. And I’ve been reading a few things about both blogging and writing, and I’m starting to think I’m missing something. Or need clarification, at the very least.

I’m going to keep this philosophical, much like my assessment post a while back.

First, a question:

If (text-based)¹ blogging is a kind of writing, then aren’t all bloggers writers?

And now, the statements:

1. I (foolishly, perhaps) believe that all my students can become good writers² of some kind.
2. I therefore believe that all my students should try their hand at blogging, just as I believe all my students should try writing poetry, maybe a short story, a personal narrative, an e-mail, and oodles of other writing types.
3. I do not believe a great writing teacher needs to be a great writer; he / she simply needs to “know the ropes” and be great teacher, period.
4. I therefore believe a great blogging teacher does not need to be a “master blogger”, but that he / she just needs to know how it works, and be a great teacher, period.

And finally, more questions:

• Those of you out there who use blogs with your students, how do you use them?
• Do you assess them? If so, how?
• And if you don’t use blogs with your students, why not?

The background

I am changing (quite drastically) the way I use blogs with my students for the remainder of this school year, and next. And so, I’m looking for ideas and anecdotal feedback… errr.. feed-forward… from those who have walked this path before me.

¹Of course, the visual-types of blogs aren’t really writing, but a different kind of communication

²I define the term “good writer” as one who creates “good writing.” And for the definition of “good writing,” I turn to one of my most influential mentors in both teaching and writing, Carl Leggo, who once stated, “Good writing gets the job done. It works.” I should also note that I have different definitions of “great writing” and other comparative terms.

This article from the lovely Creative Commons Blog caught my eye today, particularly because the forum aims to look at “how digital technologies and new media are changing the way that young people learn, play, socialize and participate in civic life.”  Definitely cool (and no surprise that it’s being hosted at Stanford, either).   However, I am rather curious.  They say that proposed topics include:

Teen Socialization Practices in Networked Publics

Understanding New Media in the Home

Hip Hop Music and Meaning in the Digital Age

New Media from a Youth Perspective

(emphasis mine)

I feel like this is one of those segments on Sesame Street:  “One of these things is not like the other.”  Socialization and networks - OK.  New media in the home and from a youth perspective - OK.   Hip Hop Music and Meaning - huh?  This stands out rather unusually to me.  My questions:

• Why hip hop?  Why not other genres of music?  Or maybe there is another topic:  “Classical Music and Meaning in the Digital Age: from Chopin to Garage Band”?
• Why only music?  Why not video, television, and podcasts? (although perhaps these are the other “new media”)

Anyone else?