Although there are numerous challenges involved in collaboration in regard to new digital media, it is very important for today’s educators to learn about it and use it, in some degree, in their classrooms. Considering that now, most student’s in today’s world are more technologically savvy and driven, incorporating digital media collaboration may prove to be incredibly helpful in communicating with students and may be a more effective way for students to work with each other. Since most students today connect with each other and communicate using some form of digital media and social media platforms, including digital collaboration may be a more effective route for both collaborating and communicating. 

     “Humor not only can help teach the elements of writing and thinking while emphasizing collaboration, but it also powerfully makes the case for writing… Humor makes the writing process matter. In this process, invention is true invention: You’re creating something never thought of before” (Theune, 183-184). So, against common thought that writing needs to be serious, Theune shines light on the positive aspects that adding a humorous genre to one’s curriculum can have on student writing, thought, and collaboration. 

     There are some misconceptions when it comes to creative writing. Alexis writes, “The problem is that one image of writing dominates the popular imagination and is weighted with value more heavily than all others: creative writing, which is treated as if it’s interchangeable with fiction and poetry (188). Because of this there is a lack of acknowledgement of the creativity that goes into other forms of writing that are creative, such as manuals, texts, emails, etc. 

     Is creative writing much different from the other genres? Interestingly, Alexis states, “I began asking more people whose livelihoods depend on the written word, and who write daily, if they see themselves as writers.” With this in mind, everyone is a writer. However, there are different values or ideals about writing in society. Readers are easily acknowledged, unlike writers, Alexis argues. She then asserts, “It’s time we banish the idea that certain writing forms are creative and certain aren’t” (Alexis, 192). In sum, Alexis makes a positive case for creative writing genres and writers, by normalizing the topic and making it relatable to all people. In the end, we are all creative writers. 

The conflict about popular culture killing writing is described by Bronwyn Williams as, “Popular culture texts, according to these laments, are intellectually undemanding, too reliant on emotion, too informal, and often morally compromising” (194). After acknowledging the concern, the then confronts its’ falsities. 

Williams states that people are typically hesitant of new forms, ideas or items that change a way of doing something that they learned or used previously. This hesitation leads to the idea that pop culture is bad, with it ever updating and changing. Popular culture includes, “movies, popular music, television, computer games, social media, and more” (196). Williams argues that students don’t read these because they are easy, because some are quite complicated, but that they have time invested and a lot of practice familiarizing themselves with this genre. Like anyone trying something new, introducing new genres can cause confusion and frustration. But with practice and consistent exposure, it can get easier. In relation to writing, “ Like any of us learning to write in a new genre, students need writing classes that help them understand the conventions, and the reasons for the conventions, of that new genre” (Williams, 197). This will lead to more comfortability and willingness to engage in a genre.

       “Compared with thirty years ago, when television and film dominated popular culture practices, young people today are engaged in significantly more reading and writing” (Williams, 198). Did you know that? It makes sense. Williams ends with, “Students are adept at reading and writing popular culture because they practice it, learn it, control it. Given the same conditions, and motivation, they can learn to do the same with other forms of writing” (200). Like anything, practicing it makes a person better at it. Students will benefit from learning, practicing, and controlling their writing projects. More comfortability with a genre will increase the willingness to work with it. 

      Amy Devitt begins this chapter by discussing the evolving definition of “genre,” and refocuses the chapters by stating she will focus on three broad pedagogical approaches: teaching particular genres, teaching genre awareness, and teaching genre critique. (147)

       This is one of the longest standing pedagogies used by writing teachers.  Traditionally, teaching genres meant teaching writing  such as: lab reports, personal narratives, poetry, etc. However, “Because genre no longer means a simple classification of textual forms, too, teaching a particular genre no longer means teaching a static set of formal rules” (148).  Devitt uses a metaphor of teaching genres as knowing the rules of play to a game. Once you know the rules of a genre you can write it. 

    
   She discusses methods of teaching genres, such as the method of explicit instruction which has the teacher giving a model of the genre they’ll learn,  then they analyze the model, then the class collaborates to write a new text that conforms to the features being taught. Then, finally the students create their individualized draft of the genre.  Devitt mentions other methods as well. 

     Devitt ends by saying, “Learning to write a credible text within a particular genre remains the primary goal” (150). This goal is something many teachers and students are familiar with. 

This pedagogy argues to not teach genres specifically, like mentioned above, but to bring awareness to all that is offered. Genre awareness pedagogy is defined as “meaningful social actions, with formal features as the visible traces of shared perceptions. Analyzing the contexts and features of a new genre provides an inroad to understanding all genres” (152). This allows students to take a broader look at genres versus the specificalities of them.

      If one was to follow this pedagogy, Devitt suggests using a process found on page 152. This process, “helps students see what genres people read and write, where, in what forms, and why” (152). This allows for students to better understand all genres instead of capitalizing on just one. Genre awareness must highlight: rhetorical and textural features, and social and ideological contexts. A goal of this pedagogy is for students to transfer their knowledge to other writing tasks and other contexts. 

Teaching Genre Critique
This pedagogy teaches students to think critically about current genres and their culture. Some say that this pedagogy aligns and is codependent on Genre Awareness. Through this lens, there are a handful of prompting questions to use in the process of critiquing a genre. This list is found on page 154-55. A key aspect of this pedagogy is to discuss more than just the form of a genre, but to pick it apart by structure, compare/contrast, and understand the root of a genre. 

       “A critical perspective on genres can be used to critique not just the genre but also the society or culture within which the genre is embedded” (Devitt, 156) This allows for students to gain insight into cultures, more specifically, to gain context. Also, by studying genres in this way they can see how genres can modify as society changes and progresses. 

The goal of this pedagogy seems to be the idea of critiquing in order to reinvent it. More specifically, the goal is to increase rhetorical flexibility, writing more comfortably with unfamiliar technologies, and developing critical thinking and possibly enhancing change.

Personal Reflection and Curricular Connections

      Personally, I find a lot of value to the Genre Awareness and Genre Critique pedagogy. These pedagogies give students autonomy and skill in research and then application. It seems to teach the backbone of genre, and incorporates social and ideological thought, which can be difficult to find in other pedagogies. This pedagogy, however, is new to me, so I’d need more information before even attempting to teach it!

      Comparing Devitt’s chapter about genre to “Bad Ideas about Genre” I found that the audiences would be different. Devitt’s is more research based and broad, while “Bad Ideas” is more conversational, opinionated and specific. Holistically though, they're a good pairing. 

      I think some further conversations can be had about what genres are being taught and why, and what new genres are being taught. Is a more traditional pedagogy of teaching ‘types of genres’ still beneficial, or is this outdated? If it’s outdated, how can it be altered or what would replace them? I also relate this topic to Cat’s topic on digital tech because, at this point in time, they are blending together. If a goal of educators is to meet their students where they’re at, then incorporating and catering to this digital era is key to engagement and success.