Skip to content
2018
Volume 52, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0007-8204
  • E-ISSN: 1943-2216

Abstract

In this conceptual essay, the author argues that computational methods and computer science more broadly should be embedded into English education programs. Positing that computational methods can deepen and expand the way literature is already taught in many English education programs and secondary English classrooms, the author first makes a theoretical case for English educators to embrace computational methods, then shares a prototypical assignment called a mixed literary analysis. The essay concludes with a series of concrete recommendations for English educators who wish to explore further how to embed computational methods into their professional pursuits and programs.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.58680/ee201930312
2019-10-01
2024-04-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Applebee A. N. (1974) Tradition and reform in the teaching of English. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Berry D. (2011) The philosophy of software: Code and mediation in the digital age. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Blau S. (2003) The literature workshop: Teaching texts and their readers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Coiro J. Knobel M. Lankshear C. Leu D. J. (2008) Handbook of research on new literacies. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (2013) 2013 CAEP Standards. Retrieved fromhttp://caepnet.org/~7media/Files/caep/standards/caep-standards-one-pager-0219.pdf?la=en
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Delyser L. A. Goode J. Guzdial M. Kafai Y. Yadav A. (2018) Priming the computer science teacher pump: Integrating computer science into schools of education. CSforAll. Retrieved fromhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1DXgpLjl_k87TVpQ0cLusfdjnYySIgIjT/view
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Finley K. (2014, December8). Obama becomes first president to write a computer program. Retrieved fromhttps://www.wired.com/2014/12/obama-becomes-first-president-write-computer-program/
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Frabetti F. (2015) Software theory: A cultural and philosophical study. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Golden N. A. (2017) Critical digital literacies across scales and beneath the screen. Educational Media International, 54(4), 373–387.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Graff G. (1987) Professing literature: An institutional history. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hicks T. (2009) The digital writing workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hirsch B. D. (Ed.) (2012) Digital humanities pedagogy: Practices, principles, and politics. La Vergne, TN: Open Book Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Jewitt C. (Ed.) (2009) The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Jockers M. L. (2013) Macroanalysis: Digital methods and literary history. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Jockers M. L. (2014) Text analysis with R for students of literature. New York: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Kafai Y. B. Burke Q. (2014) Connected code: Why children need to learn programming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Kitchin R. Dodge M. (2011) Code/Space: Software and everyday life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kress G. (2011) Discourse analysis and education: A multimodal social semiotic approach. InRogersR. (Ed.). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Lynch T. L. (2014) Bards at bat: The sport of quantitative literary analysis. English Journal, 104(1), 89–91.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Lynch T. L. (2015a) Feeling Walt Whitman: Introducing new literatures and quantitative techniques to interpret poetry. English Journal, 104(4), 100–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Lynch T. L. (2015b) The hidden role of software in educational research: Policy to practice. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Lynch T. L. (2015c) Where the machine stops: Software as reader and the rise of new literatures. Research in the Teaching of English, 49(3), 297–304.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Lynch T. L. (2016) Saving computer science education from itself. English Journal, 105(6), 101–103.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Lynch T. L. (2017a) Below the screen: Why multiliteracies research needs to embrace software. English Journal, 106(3), 92–94.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Lynch T. L. (2017b) How English teachers will save the future: Re-imagining computer science as the language art it is. STEM Journal, 18(4), 163–180.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Lynch T. L. Gerber H. R. (2018) An ontological imperative in the researching of digital phenomena. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 10(1), 112–123.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Lynch T. L. Hicks T. Bartels J. Beach R. Connors S. Damico N.Zucker L. (2018) Beliefs for integrating technology into the English language arts classroom. National Council of Teachers of English [Position statement]. Retrieved fromhttp://www2.ncte.org/statement/beliefs-technology-preparation-english-teachers/
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Manovich L. (2013) Software takes command. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Margolis J. Estrella R. Goode J. Holme J. J. Nao K. (2008) Stuck in the shallow end: Education, race, and computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Marlatt R. (2018) Literary analysis using Minecraft: An Asian American youth crafts her literacy identity. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 62(1), 55–66.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. McEneaney J. W. (2011) Web 3.0, Litbots, and TPWSGWTAU. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 54(5), 376–378.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Mills K. A. (2010) A review of the “digital turn” in the new literacy studies. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 246–271.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Mills K. Stornaiuolo A. Smith A. Pandya J. Z. (2018) Handbook for writing, literacies, and education in digital cultures. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Montfort N. (2016) Exploratory programming for the arts and humanities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Moretti F. (2000, January-February). Conjectures on world literature. New Left Review (pp.54–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Moretti F. (2007) Graphs, maps, and trees: Abstract models for a literary history. New York: Verso.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. National Council of Teachers of English (2012) NCTE/NCATE Standards for Initial Preparation of Teachers of Secondary English Language Arts, Grades 7 12. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Groups/CEE/NCATE/ApprovedStandards_111212.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  38. O’Neil C. (2016) Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. New York: Crown.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Proctor C. Blikstein P. (2017) Interactive fiction: Weaving together literacies of text and code. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC ’17). New York: ACM 10.1145/3078072.3084324
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Purcell K. Buchanan J. Friedrich L. (2013) The impact of digital tools on student writing and how writing is taught in schools. Pew Research Center. Retrieved fromhttp://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Teachers-technology-and-writing.aspx
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Ramsay S. (2011) Reading machines: Toward an algorithmic criticism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Rosenblatt L. M. (1938) Literature as exploration. New York: Modern Language Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Rosenblatt L. M. (1978) The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Rosenblatt L. M. (1994) The transactional theory of reading and writing. InRuddellR.RudellM. R.SingerH. (Eds.). Theoretical models and processes of reading, 4, 1057–1092). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Rosenblatt L. M. (2005) Making meaning with texts: Selected essays. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Seehorn D. Carey S. Fuschetto B. Lee I. Moix D. O’Grady-Cunniff D.Verno A. (2011) CSTA K–12 computer science standards. Retrieved fromhttps://csta.acm.org/Curriculum/sub/CurrFiles/CSTA_K-12_CSS.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Stornaiuolo A. Smith A. Phillips N. C. (2016) Developing a transliteracies framework for a connected world. Journal of Literacy Research (pp.1–24 10.1177/1086296X16683419
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Sulzer M. A. (2018) (Re)conceptualizing digital literacies before and after the election of Trump. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 17(2), 58–71.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Vasudevan L. Schultz K. Bateman J. (2010) Rethinking composing in a digital age: Authoring literate identities through multimodal storytelling. Written Communication, 27(4), 442–468.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Vee A. (2013) Understanding computer programming as a literacy. Literacy in Composition Studies, 1(2), 42–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Vee A. (2017) Coding literacy: How computer programming is changing writing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Wing J. M. (2006) Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Woolf V. (1925) Mrs. Dalloway. Gutenberg of Australia. Retrieved fromhttp://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200991.txt
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.58680/ee201930312
Loading
/content/journals/10.58680/ee201930312
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error