In-class Writer/Designer Activity

(So basically I took the email I sent you and expanded on this based on what I experienced moving through the assignments in Writer/Designer)

 

Regardless of how I choose to represent this concept, I want to write about the body and how with notions of (digital) composing and multimodality the body often gets left out (or not as highly considered as either a “mode” to which informs digital composing, or either is something that’s not present at all). 

To tackle this, I’m thinking about two different things:

1. I’m thinking about doing a “music video” (I think I briefly mentioned this in the car on the way home from class). The music video would have 2 parts. The first part would be from the perspective of the teacher, and how multimodality is like a “bug” that teachers catch, becoming so wrapped up with notions of 21st century literacies and multimodality that they forget about the body and discourses and how the social and material factors into how we make meaning. The second half of my project would be from the student perspective to which I would have students offer responses on a multimodal argument assignment they did for Zarah’s 101 class, reflecting on the ways in which their bodies were or were not used. Within both of these sections I am juxtaposing the argument with the physical response to EDM music (I want people to dance). Not only will this be kind of a comedic approach to persuasion, but also EDM music is a primarily digital composing practice that invokes a bodily response (there isn’t much of a “performance” aside from someone standing behind a DJ set up, but yet people come together and gather to respond with their bodies). In addition EDM music is a remixing (DeVoss and Ridolfo) of new music and old music..I’m not quite sure what to do with this, but I think there’s something there.

• In thinking about a rhetorical analysis of multimodal texts that fall within the genre of music videos, I'm immediately drawn to the EDM music videos for the songs I want to include within this project. Both songs are by EDM artist Avicii. The first is a collaborative song with another DJ (Nicky Romero) and is about transcending mundane repetition and the 9-5 lifestyle. In considering this notion alongside the "traditional" narrative of composition, I think this song is appropriate in situating alongside the multimodality for teachers segment of my project in that is pushes agasint the notion that comp hasn't had a lineage in multimodality (a myth Palmeri debunks within his book). The second video (Levels by Avicii) has almost 0 lyrics and is a similar narrative, but I think is important to tell from the perspective of the student in that there is a long tradition of "text" in the classroom but not as much in multimodal projects. Because I'm complicating and considering the body, I think movement is important to showcase as a "bodily response" both to composing and ideology (as both of these music videos are entirely about bodies responding to how the sound takes them out of the montonous zombie lifestyle of the 9-5 and pushes them to explore alternative rhetorics) and I think it's important to showcase how multimodality can offer the same type of pedagogical philosophy and composing practice. 

1. The second option is more of an interactive website that looks at the body and vine compositions. Vine is a particularly interesting app for composing because it is time sensitive (only 6 seconds long) and often a mashup of author and another text, infused with a text description, sound, and gesture used in accordance to all invoke meaning). This multimodal composing platform is one of the few that directly implicates the body in how users experience and engage with the platform. For me this piece has a lot to do with DeVoss and Ridolfo and the notion of rhetorical velocity and remixing. In addition I’ve been thinking about it alongside Selber’s notion of rhetorical literacy and how there’s a classical influence in vine culture of “performance”.  There might also be a way for me to tie in an example of a platform like snapchat that’s moving towards complicating the body with the juxtaposition of emoji’s and identity, and how platforms like vine contest this….hm…

•  I think working with the different design principles presented within chapter 2 of Writer/Designer can have a lot of validity in talking about the rhetorical situation in how the rhetorical velocity of this vine culture is particularly effective/ineffective in how it uses the body in juxtaposition with how they're considering proximity, alignment, organization, contrast, and emphasis. In this project it is almost as though I'm doing a rhetorical analysis of vine culture, so reading through chapters 1-3 of Writer Designer helps me to contextualize the ways in which vines are considering different elements in order to convey meaning (I think also a lot about access and the ways in which medium allocates for a layered experience of mode (text+gesture+aural+visual). 

Regardless of what I present, I want to talk about the body, and the material. And how no matter how we occupy or use digital technologies, our bodies are always involved...

Stuart Selber: Multiliteracies for a Digital Age

Part 1:

Write a 2-3 paragraph summary of your key takeaways from Multiliteracies for a Digital Age and make sure to include 5 metadata tags for the book

I really enjoyed reading Selber's Multiliteracies for a Digital Age in its entirety. I used excerpts from his book last year in my seminar paper for our other course in considering what a computer literate student should be able to do, but this time I was able to read from start to finish, conceptualizing how Selber's discussions about literacy fit into our discussions about multimodality, new media, and the role of computers within the composition classroom. 

Selber offers three different types of literacy in approaching computer literacy initiatives at the institutional, curricular, departmental, and pedagogical levels: functional, critical, and rhetorical. Within each of these literacies, Selber breaks them down further to explore the different components that contribute to each. The only problem I had for Selber's text was that the charts did absolutely nothing for me within each chapter. I am an especially visual person, so I always appreciate when information is presented to me in such a way that I'm able to conceptualize the information in ways that are spatial or categorical (in that they also extend the information that the text may offer). However, I felt as though all Selber did with the majority of his charts was organize the same text in a top down approach (sometimes literally word for word). It wasn't until the last chapter where we were given a more circular graphic to represent the computer literacy application (p. 185) that I felt as though I gained something from the visual. 

I also was a bit disgruntled with how little time Selber spent on graduate student computer literacy. We got a bit of discussion about the online teaching certification in the end of the book and a brief nod towards graduate student computer literacy within the functional literacy chapter (with also a discussion about access to technology based on rank, which made me think of Northern Michigan University and how as an adjunct you have to teach a certain amount of credits to get a "newer" Thinkpad and classrooms that have/don't have technology access, which is something that affects us greatly based on which building we teach in at WSU). I felt this was a bit of a hole in the conversation and one that is important and worth spending more time on. 

My personal opinion aside, I really appreciated how Selber attempted to complicate and extend the notion of functional literacy to mean something much deeper than the material hardware and proficiency in operating the machine. It was also interesting to me how Selber discussed that people often associate functional literacy with a working incentive, stating "people inevitably link functional literacy with literacy for work, especially with concrete training in technological skills, because such a commonsense linkage capitalized on the economic benefits that could be derived from investments in literacy initiatives" (34). I thought this was important to mention in juxtaposition with the classical notion of function as an attempt to "living the good life", which is a particularly Platonic notion. 

Critical literacy extends this conversation in that it "interrogates biases, power moves, and human implications" (86). It is also important to note that within each discussion of the different literacies, Selber plays with the metaphors that are commonly attributed to each (functional= tool, critical=cultural artifact, rhetorical=hypertexual media, which breaks down even further to encompass nonlinear, nodes, and associative links). Selber mentions that although the literacies to do not have to be linear, in considering computer literacies, functional and critical literacies often feed into rhetorical literacy.

 Rhetorical literacy deals primarily with interface design and asks students to assume the role of producer. In creating, analyzing, and mapping interface design, rhetorical literacy asks us to move beyond purpose, audience, and occasion and calls for action. Selber maps out particular components of rhetorical literacy as persuasion, deliberation, reflection, and social action (146). I was particularly taken by the reflection component in that it asks students to be critical of interface design in considering questions such as "who gets left out? To whom is this designed for?". I found it interesting that Selber both cites and references critique to Selfe and Selfe's The Politics of the Interface. as this is a central text that I think of in considering critical reflection of interface design. 

Selber ends his book with a discussion as to how to implement his notions of literacy into an institution, department, curriculum, courses, and pedagogy. I thought he had some really good takeaways here and he reminded me a bit of Palmeri in how he focused less on theory, but rather more on praxis (I liked the discussion of analyzing a listsrserv). One thing I found interesting is that throughout his book, his makes mention of how all of these literacies are pertinent to writing classrooms, yet almost all of his examples are overtly for a technical writing classroom. How can we envision these types of assignments and philosophies to extend to first year comp? I found myself often writing DTC 101? in the margins, because I see this as something that appropriately fits into an introductory DTC 101 course, but I'm struggling with ways to extend some of the theory to EN 101 (I did however like his discussion about email etiquette as a part of computer literacy and this is something i've done with comp courses in the past). 

Part 2:

 How is (or is) the way Selber works with multiliteracies compatible with how other authors we've read this semester have engaged with multimodality?

Although Selber is talking about multiliteracies, I saw a lot of connection between the scholarship we've read in regards to new media scholarship, collaboration, and the extension of literacies outside of the classroom with the literacies developed within. As an overtly obvious connection (one that's even referenced within the text) Selber and Yancey make similar arguments in their attention to 21st century literacies. I also saw a bit of a connection between Cheryl Ball's discussion about distinguishing between scholarship about new media and new media scholarship and Selber's notion of nonlinear text (168). With this notion of nonlinear text, he's really talking directly about what Ball refers to as new media scholarship. 

In addition, I saw a lot of nod's to Kress in Selber's arguments about how computer literacy is always considering the social implications about design, power, and action (I found myself writing "Kress" multiple times within the margins). There's also a nod to Marback within the rhetorical literacy chapter with Selber's discussion of the "wicked" problems of design (though he doesn't cite Marbeck). In addition, Selber talks within the rhetorical literacy chapter about speed and that "speed might be manipulated to achieve certain rhetorical effects" (138), which made me think about DeVoss and Ridolfo and rhetorical velocity. In short, although the text doesn't explicitly mention "multimodality" there are many connections going on within the text in reference to past readings and conversations centered around the role technology plays within the writing classroom. 

metadata tags: #praxis, #functionalliteracy, #criticalliteracy, #rhetoricalliteracy, #interfacedesign

Ball, Fraiberg and Ridolfo & DeVoss

Cheryl Ball "Show, Not Tell: The Value of New Media Scholarship" 
& Steven Fraiberg "Composition 2.0: Toward a Multilingual and Multimodal Framework"
For me, these two have to go together. I had them separately at first but I found myself talking about them together. I read Cheryl's article first and thought for sure I would not return to this in my blog post for this week because I whizzed through it so quick. However, this article really stuck with me in how I understood a lot of the applications in the other chapter's (mostly within the Sheppard piece). I see a lot of the same structure in the Lauer piece in how Ball attempts to map out a framework and ideology for how we not only situate terms, but also how we categorize different extensions of new media scholarship. Ball offers important distinctions and is (justly) critical at other compositionists attempts to create "new media scholarship" but instead are rein-scribing traditional linear print conventions in a new media landscape. I was however surprised to see that there was really a lack of discussion concerning culture and the rhetorical agency new media scholarship offers composers who either contest Westernized composing practices (or who truly don't use them). I thought that Fraiberg kind of extended Ball's conversation in considering the globalization of composing and how multimodality alongside multilingual composing is inherent in regards to new media scholarship (though I'd argue in his example it more reaffirms Western notions in how Israel situates itself alongside America in how it remixes English and Hebrew.

I was drawn to Fraiberg because I'm not really familiar with multilingual composing or ESL theory and practice. I thought this marriage of multimodality alongside multilingualism was important, and Fraiberg uses it to consider globalized rhetorical practices and consideration in new media composing. Fraigberg also discusses this notion of "home literacies" and "classroom literacies" (though he doesn't use those terms, that's me), stating "moving toward a practice-based framework are studies of the ways digital youth use new communications technologies, text-messaging practices in national and international contexts" (499). I thought a lot about Fraiberg alongside Rhodes and Alexander and how we might ask students to explore and play with digital technologies and how we may collaborate with ESL students in understanding different rhetorical ways of composing and situating ourselves within the world. I also thought a lot about Kress and his discussion of discourse and how multimodality is a social semiotic theory and how resources and signs are culturally specific. In looking to the future and my work with emoji's, Fraiberg was an important article for me to read in considering colonization, globalization, and affect.

 In returning to Ball, I felt as though this piece was important in considering the articulation of how our final projects are to be envisioned. According to Ball new media are text that "juxtapose semiotic modes in new and aesthetically pleasing ways and, in doing so, break away from print traditions so that written text is not the primary rhetorical means" (165). My final project has text as the most underrepresented mode within the argument of my project, so for me I truly feel if I were to describe my project as either scholarship about new media, or new media scholarship, I would be falling on the spectrum of new media scholarship that makes an argument ABOUT scholarship within new media. I hope that makes sense. While the readings for this week are looking at new media scholarship, I'd argue none of them enact the ideology they advocate, with even the web texts containing a primarily textual overtone in order to convey meaning (Ridolfo and DeVoss was certainly intentional though in their press release).

My final project has to do with the body, and how bodies are often left out within new media scholarship and composing. In reading Fraiberg, I'm extending this notion to consider if particular bodies (identities more specifically) are left out of the conversation concerning multimodal composing and what we can learn from multilingual composing alongside multimodality. In considering this notion alongside Ball, I think that these pieces have asked me to not only consider myself and where my project stands alongside scholarship in the field, but also what colonizing narratives I may be rein-scribing or contesting in how I choose to structure my project. As I discuss below, I also consider notions of how that project may be repurposed or remixed, and what they may mean for a layering of audiences.


Jim Ridolfo and Dànielle Nicole DeVoss "Composing for Recomposition: Rhetorical Velocity and Delivery"

I was interested in this article primarily due to how frequently it came up within our classroom conversations. However, I found it to be really salient in some of the research question's i'm asking within my scholarship having to do with snapchat. I think that rhetorical velocity is really important in considering the role the remixing plays within composition practices. Ridolfo and DeVoss extend this notion of remixing beyond merely copying and pasting and instead offer it as a WAY of composing, which makes me think of Kress and his notions of production and distribution. Ridolfo and DeVoss offer up remix as a composing practice that is MEANT for what they refer to as "recomposition". I believe that Ridolfo and DeVoss also share Kress's framework in discussing authorship in the digital age. Ridolfo and DeVoss acknowledge that what it means to compose is strongly informed by the rewrite or remixing, mashing, merging, and pasting of a digital culture. Kress also affirms this notion and acknowledges that traditional notions of authorship are complicated in a digital age (though he never really offers what we are to do with this, I made my critique of this clear during our presentation last week).

Instead of offering ways to situate this notion of authorship, Ridolfo and DeVoss instead extend it, arguing that there is no such thing as single authorship in reference to rhetorical velocity and delivery, arguing that ethical considerations are not at the remixing stage, but rather fall within the delivery. I appreciated the example of Wikipedia as a platform that embodies the notion of authorship and collaboration. "What does it mean to compose with recomposition or remix in mind?" To me this question is really important in regards to how fully we consider our audience in regards to the composition we produce and how we deliver content (by the way, I also super appreciated the discussion on classical rhetoric because I'm finding the connections between Victor's 509 and our course to be tied together through the notion of delivery).

 I thought about this notion alongside my final project for this course and how I might envision turning it into a piece for a publication within Kairos or Enculturation. How would my multimodal piece by remixed or recomposed for particular audiences? How might the feedback I receive for review rein-scribe the cohesion, argument, and structure of my work? Will I compose my final project with my end-user as someone in Kairos? Or will I compose with an audience that situates itself within my seminar? In considering the role of authorship, how might I extend to make my final project a collaborative piece? Will I consult users outside of my class? institution? rank? 

Gunther Kress: Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication

Part 1:

Write a 2-3 paragraph summary of your key takeaways from the first half of Multimodality and make sure to include 5 metadata tags for the book. 

For me this book was much more tangible than the co-authored text by Kress and VanLeeuwen. While Kress and VanLeeuwen provided a lucid conceptual framework for how multimodal text are disseminated/created, Kress brings us back to the root of multimodality in Multimodality: A social approach to contemporary communication through a semiotic approach grounded in social and cultural context (for me, this book continually brings us back to the discourse phase, emphasizing how it is always a factor in every step of communication). 

I flew through chapter 1 and fell in love with Kress's attention to rhetoric and identity as well as the construction of power. Who has the power? How is it disseminated? What does power mean in reference to the designer or the audience? With this, Kress stresses that "communication isn't really the issue, power is" (3). In reference to power, Kress does an excellent job of defining his terms as he moves through his social semiotic theory noting that resources are culturally defined and constantly remade. Because of my interests, I found a lot of currency in what Kress was theorizing in reference to emojis as a socially constructed resource that is constantly changing. With these constantly changing resources that are culturally bound, Kress asks us "what about a translation of a movement, an action, a gesture that is entirely understood in one society and either entirely misunderstood or nor understood in any way or another?" (11). In considering this I return to Kress and Van Leeuwen and think about articulation and interpretation and think that somewhere within this stage of their conceptual framework is where meaning becomes refigured and transformed. In considering this alongside emoji use, we see different interpretations that are internalized in new ways based on social construct and cultural signifiers (I think here of how someone sends me a "fried shrimp" emoji and how I may think it is a signifier for "random" when the sender is really using it in a literal fashion to mean "food"). 

Kress also calls attention to the ethical considerations in communication and how access and dissemination need to be cognizant of the "affordances and facilities that they offer....of what is socially possible at any one time" (19). If communication is to be successful, there needs to be some type of internalization taking place from sender to receiver.  Kress calls attention to the global market and the "Westernization" of how we consume and disseminate information and the power of choice. With this, new notions of authorship and plagiarism have surfaced and the resources that way may use are constantly being remade and refashioned in how we ethically view/use information. 

I'm going to clump chapters 3 and 4 together in one paragraph because for me, they both had a lot to do with rhetoric. Kress provides a solid foundation for how communication is orchestrated under Saussure's methodology of communication. For Kress the semiotic sequence for communication is "attention-->framing-->interpretation"(32). In considering this sequence Kress stresses that design is "the servant of rhetoric....or to put it differently: the political and social interests of the rhetor are the generative origin in shaping influence for the semiotic arrangements of the designer" (50). Where rhetoric is the political and social considerations, representation is rather concerned with the individual. Communication on the other hand is more concerned with the societal implications of the design, specifically considering who has the power. Within social semitoic theory, Kress stresses that signs are "made, not used" (62). Kress contrasts and discusses Saussure alongside Peirce, noting that the Peirce is more concerened with the individual whereas Saussure contrasts the inner with the outter world. Kress ends the first four chapters with different examples of salt and pepper packets and how social considerations and rhetorical implications greatly influence the designs in which produce the labels. 

Part 2:

Choose a multimodal text you've created in this class (preferably the one from in-class on 9/21). Work to describe this text through K&V's terms from last week (discourse, design, production, distribution). Do your best to see how you might talk about and/or analyze your text through this terminology.

Discourse: For my multimodal piece, I chose to look at instagram and the affect instagram plays within my life. For me, discourse surrounding my multimodal piece situates the technology of instagrm in how I use it was a social construct. Instagram is a paticipatory platform in which users engage in to share, communicate, and collaborate in a visual way. For me, the discourse is really the language of the platform. Using the hashtags and also participating within the genre of visually communicating is a big consideration of the "culture" that surrounds this piece. For example, I chose to select a picture of food because this is a common cultural signifier of Western instagram use. Instagram has become a "topoi" for shared recipes and dissemination for how we are eating and living our lives. I wanted to represent that in my multimodal piece so rather than take a picture of myself (a selfie), I wanted to represent my primary social use of instagram, which is to share (and participate) in a culture that visually communicates around the social construct of recipes and healthy living. 

Design: For me the "blueprint" and rhetorical considerations of my multimodal piece was really about capturing the linear form of communication that Instagram represents in how the sender projects the message, the receiver views it, and then they internalize its content and project their understanding of it (they can "like" comment, or even choose not to participate in it at all"). For me I wanted to make those blueprints visible, so I chose to use arrows to represent the path of communication in the platform of instagram. I also chose to put the pros and cons list under the sequence of communication because I wanted the audience to internalize the process before they were either critical or complimentary of it. 

Production: Within the production of this piece, I found that it was relatively easy for me to produce this multimodal text within the software of Piktochart. I knew I wanted to create a document that could encompass all of the information I wanted within one frame. I knew already that I wanted my multimodal text to really represent the nature of instagram, so I wanted to include visual, text, and video (all of which are features that you can use in instragram). Having visual be the focus was important to me, so I wanted to make sure that my linear flowchart was the biggest focus for my text (as our visual compositions are the biggest emphasis within the platform of instagram). For instagram, the text almost becomes supplemental to the image, so I wanted that same ideology to mirror the way in which my multimodal text represented that technology. In production, I also wanted to have my content be the focus, not the construction of the materials, so I chose a soft background. In addition, I chose specific hashtags attributed with "foodie" pictures so that my audience could make the connections based on a cultural signifier (provenance). The experiential meaning potential is the representation of the flowchart with the arrows in that the action (the posting of the picture) becomes the knowledge (the image is internalized and processed in a way that allows the receiver to articulate their knowledge of it by commenting or liking).

Distribution: Within this last phase, the re-production of this text could take a physical form in being disseminated as a poster or flyer. I thought about potentially making this a movie on jing, where I move through the text explaining it as it could be a resource I could even embed within instagram. As I consider the distribution phase, I think of the features of piktochart and how to even share the image, it needs to be recoded as either a jpeg or a png. In addition, there are more features to share the image but they require you to pay. With this I consider issues raised in the Kress book about ethical considerations and access and how I might work to distribute this text in a way that allocates access for the public. 

Part 3:

NOW, describe how what you've read so far in Kress adds to this analysis in any way. Does it? How so? If not, why? The gist here is to try to figure out what this book adds to your/our understanding of multimodality.

The Kress book really helps my analysis in that it helps me to situate my terms and where the rhetoric takes place within the design phase. Whereas the rhetor is considerate of the political and social affects, the convention and interpretation are mindful of the power. I felt as though the Kress and Van Leeuwen was really missing a conversation centered around power and what power does to communication. Kress really helped me to contextualize power and rhetorical considerations and how cultural and social semiotics are a continual factor in how we design, produce, and distribute our text (and how they are constantly remade and remixed resources in which we use to articulate meaning). I really liked the Kress book and I thought it was a nice build to the framework that Kress and Van Leeuwen laid out, it allowed us to zoom in on the semiotic framework, recognizing the essential humanizing that takes palce within communication, and how we need to consider the ideologies and cultural frameworks that people come to communication with, and how these social semiotics asks us to be more rhetorically aware in how our choices impact others. 

Kress and Van Leeuwen: Multimodal Discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication

Part 1

Briefly explain how you see this book intersecting with what we've read so far. 

For me this book really made sense to read after Alexander and Rhodes and Shipka. Whereas Palmeri's book was more of a foundational text for understanding the historical stake multimodality has had within composition and its movements, Alexander and Rhodes reconfigure those historical conceptions to be more critical of multimodal and new media use. In asking our students to reconceptualize new media and to play and explore, we open up the classroom as an avante garden of rich theoretical and conceptual affordances in how to not only make meaning, but also understand the metacognition behind our multimodal compositions. Shipka also resonates with metacognition in how she asks students to explain their composing process with her SOGG statements. I see Kress and Van Leeuwen pairing up nicely with Shipka in the discussion of semiotics and the different affordances modes offer to our conceptions of technology. Like Shipka, Kress and Van Leeuwen are skeptical to limit our notion of multimodal composing to merely the digital (in fact, I would argue that they don't even begin to really conceptualize the digital until about the design/production phase of their conceptual framework). Although there are cultural and socioeconomic considerations about technology within discourse, Kress and Van Leeuwen instead place much more emphasis on the material (much like Shipka) in looking towards the semiotics and the sensory experiences in how we make meaning. 

One thing I really enjoyed about Kress and Leeuwen is their argument that the digital makes our compositions (that perhaps were once multimodal) monomodal in the limiting of our ability to experience these compositions in the distribution phase. I think Shipka would have a similar take on how notions of curation and reproduction of text, and how the medium really does impact the message. Rhodes and Alexander would agree with this as well, though I think they would further advocate for a return to the design phase once distribution is considered. Palmeri for me returns to the pedagogical implications of such semiotic considerations. I was tempted to do a handout for my multimodal response to Kress and Van Leeuwen in considering how this translates to the classroom (which I think is always what Palmeri was thinking about in Remixing Composition). However, I resonated much more lucidly in Kress and Van Leeuwen's ideology of moving through the different phases (I know some found this book challenging, but for me this is how my brains works and it was much more tangible to me to think in these terms then some of the dense-theory that Alexander and Rhodes stated to touch on.

Part 2

Post a 3-5 sentence summary of the book (give us the gist) and include 5 metadata tags for the book. 

Within Kress and Van Leeuwen's Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication we're provided a framework for understanding the methodology of multimodality within semiotics. This methodology is rather linear and moves in a way that begins at considering social/cultural and place (discourse) and moves to designing, producing, and then distributing (re-articulating for a macro-audience). Within the text a variety of examples are introduced to help synthesize the information in a way thats tangible to readers. Kress and Van Leeuwen stake most of their emphasis in the material, referring to sensory experience and rules of semiotics and linguistics to help ground their framework. Though complex in their phrasing and articulation, Kress and Van Leeuwen asks meaningful and critical question of the digital and how our (re)production affects the initial composition and in doing so, how we may 'flatten' an object in our attempts to move from the interpretation of a text to the articulation of a text within a public sphere. 

metadata tags: #semiotic, #discourse, #provenance, #experiential meaning potential, #sensory

Part 3

Work to create a table or chart that sets up Kress and Van Leeuwen's framework. If you're feeling befuddled on how to set it up, imagine you are going to use their language to analyze a text, what terms/questions would you need to ask? Or imagine you're giving your students a handout to use to analyze a text through the lens of K&V? What would this handout look like?

I realize that my chart might be kind of hard to read, if you want to head to the original so you can view it bigger, click here 

Jody Shipka: Toward a Composition Made Whole

Part 1:

Directions: Choose a technology you use with some regularity. I'm using the word "technology" broadly here, so you can consider hardware (the cell phone, the laptop, the fitbit) or software (an app, a social media platform) or entirely outside the computer sphere (say, a sewing machine or a cookbook). Reflect on how "our sense of humanity, individually and collectively, is potentially enhanced, extended, delimited, estranged, dispersed" (199) by/through/with this technology. Create a multimodal text that represents/shares your reflection.

I chose to look at Instagram and the ways in which it disseminates information. Here is a link to my poster using Piktochart because the writing is super small in this view. Although I value that Instagram is a primarily visual communicative tool, it still prioritizes the alphabetic text in not only how users communicate with one another in the comments section, but also how they annotate their photos and archive their photos with hashtags. Instagram is a great tool because it allows people to stay connected and to view other's lives from an interesting perspective. In these ways it extends humanity in rich ways that are encouraging for composing in ways other than print and primarily written text. However, as stated previously, there is a connotation towards prioritizing the written over the visual in how that composition is understood (it's almost as though there is a "justification statement" for each photograph. In my multimodal response I've made a flowchart of how information is disseminated with Instagram as well as a list of pro's and con's that I feel the app contains. I use Instagram frequently and love the hybridity of the app, however, in looking from a macro-perspective and considering the reading's we've done thus far, there is a sense of "colonization" (Selfe and Hailwasher in Alexander and Rhodes) that occurs in the need to create a hybridity with the visual (meaning, they won't allow the visual to stand alone). I see this as potentially limiting to people wanting to interact visually who may not speak the same language. 

Part 2:

In considering Jody Shipka's Toward a Composition Made Whole in reference to the technology i've chosen to analyze, I think a lot about hybridity and how Shipka might be more of an advocate for taking actual photos and developing them. Sure, Shipka is critical of what we mean when we say technology and that it doesn't always have to be digital, but she also makes it a point to emphasize that all communication and composing is inherently multimodal. Not only is it multimodal, but also Shipka attunes to sensory experiences in composing (how did something smell? how did it feel?). I think when reflecting on something like Instagram Shipka would be weary of the collaborative aspect missing from sharing pictures. We don't get to feel the waxy photographs in our hands, we don't get to have an actual conversation where the photographer explains the moment of the photograph. We don't get to hear the stories, we don't get a real sense of the emotion behind the photo. In a program like Instagram I think Shipka would find the whole experience very monomodal. 

---------

Part 3:

Introduction: The introduction of Jody Shipka's Toward a Composition Made Whole discusses the past and current conversations and terms associated with multimodality. Shipka makes a point to caution her readers against viewing terms such as "technology" to only function alongside new media, encouraging us to reshape our perspective of place and our classroom and what we make revision as "technology" in looking more towards the semiotic features we inhabit within the classroom. As part of setting up her conceptual framework within the chapters to follow, Shipka seeks to begin to explore composing questions such as "how do we choose what to include? What to leave out? Who does the choosing? And based on what grounds?" (17).

Chapter 1 "Rethinking Composition/ Rethinking Process": To begin, Shipka returns to her discussion in the introduction concerning technology stating "a composition made whole requires us to be more mindful about our use of a term like technology" (21). In reflecting critically about the material, Shipka discusses technologies such as the light bulbs in the classroom, the books and seating and how we might be more attuned to how these objects factor into not only our ability to compose, but also how they contribute to our meaning making process. To expand upon this notion, Shipka also asks us to consider what it means for a composition to be "whole", stating "by asking students to examine the communicative process as a dynamic, embodied multimodal whole--one that both shapes and is shaped by the environment--studnets might come to see writing, reading, speaking, and ways of thinking and evaluating as 'a function of place, time, sex, age and many other elements of life' (Malstrom 1956 qtd in Shipka 26). 

Chapter 2 "Partners in Action: On Mind, Materiality, and Mediation": To follow the previous chapter's discussion of asking students (and teachers) to reconceptualize composing and its relationship to "technology", Shipka begins to provide a theoretical framework grounded in the sociocultural and mediated action. Within this framework, Shipka attunes to "social and individual aspects of the composing processes without loosing sight of the wide variety of genres, sign systems, and technologies that composers routinely employ while creating texts" (40). Within chapter two we also are introduced to considerations of the body and how the physical and new mediational means "impacts or alters the body and in individuals relationship with his or her body" (51). In addition, chapter two also enourages us to reconfigure and reconceptualize cultural tools, questioning roles of who decides what cultural tools are used and which are not. In addition, there is also a strong connotation of communal practice in how our text are shaped by others and the institutions and environments in which we author. 

Chapter 3 "A Framework for Action: Mediating Process Research": Chapter 3 deals primarily with the application of the framework Shipka presents within chapter 2. With important visual depictions within the chapter, we learn about Shipka's students process sketches and assignments in which they detail their composing process for their projects. What I found so interesting is that all of the students projects were radically different. From running around Walmart to composing on a Abercrombie tshirt, each student engaged with their composing process differently, reflecting critically on not only their struggles, but also the inherent effect their community had on their relationship to their project (in considering both other people as well as the materiality of the "technology" they incorporated). From there Shipka discusses semiotic remediation and the ways in which Muffie engaged with writing and the body in her project. What I found most interesting is that writing didn't make it into Muffie's final project, but rather served as a process activity that helped her revise and reconceptualize her final project (which was a collaborative dance performed in person). Although Muffie had a fear of writing, Shipka notes that Muffie used writing as "a way of tracking the relationship between what her classmates' "moods would be on paper versus what they did with their bodies" (70). 

Chapter 4 "Making Things Fit in (Any Number of) New Ways": Chapter four focused on the rhetorical sensitivity and what it meant for students to be in control of their own choices within an assignment, stating "what is crucial is that students leave their courses exhibiting a more nuanced awareness of the various choices they make, or even fail to make, throughout the process of producing a text and to carefully consider the effect those choices might have on others" (85). With this, Shipka highlights how she turns to the sociocultural framework within chapter 2 to craft assignments in which students exhibit nuanced understandings of how cultural, historical, and technologically mediated practices shape their work (85). We learn within chapter 4 about three students projects and how they exhibit rhetorical sensitivity in the way they approach their projects (and the struggles the record along the way) in the mirror project, the power interpretations, and lastly, the lost and found assignment of the OCD diary. I really appreciated the reflection questions and objectives listed within the back of this chapter and plan to include them in some way when I teach 101 next. 

Chapter 5 "Negotiating Rhetorical, Technological, and Methodological Difference": The last chapter within Shipka's book focused primarily on assessment and reflection. I thought it was interested that Shipka didn't really highlight rubrics or any "concrete" assignment techniques but rather encouraged having students articulate their rhetorical choices and composing process. In asking students to look back on their work, Shipka stresses that they articulate how they're meeting objectives or making particular rhetorical moves. I think this model serves to mitigate some of the "critical feedback" we give students and changes the dynamic of the assessment process in really thought-provoking and important ways. Shipka notes that while others have discussed multimodality and assessment with similar text, she focuses on the production and assessment of dissimilar texts (112). Moreover, Shipka argues predominantly for "the importance of requiring that students assume responsibility for describing, evaluating, and sharing with others the purposes and potentials of their work" (112). For me this is really important and practical for students and I appreciate Shipka's move with the SOGC's in asking students to not only reflect, but also be critical of themselves. 

Conclusion "Realizing a Composition Made Whole": Shipka concludes by arguing that we need to expand our "disciplinary commitment to the theorizing, researching, and improvement of written discourse to include other representational systems and ways of making meaning" (131). Though she stresses this may come with resistance and will continue to be a daunting task, she advocates for doing so in that it better prepares students for the ways in which they will be asked to compose in the future as well as what we (as teachers) conceive what it truly means to compose. Shipka turns to Dunn and the misconception that asks students to compose beyond words is merely "play" and not as critical as written text, urging us to push back against this notion and construct assignments with our students that asks them to be critical and rhetorically sensitive about the ways in which they compose using, engage with, and understand technology. Lastly, Shipka highlights what is "academic writing" and encourages us to push against this notion, reconceptualizing and rethinking our understanding of composing and meaning making in an ever changing world. 

Metadata tags: #Muffie, #semioticremediation, #balletslippers, #technology, #thebody

---------

Part 4: 

Question for Jody Shipka:

 Within our conversations with Jason Palmeri and Alexander and Rhodes we’ve talked a lot about reflections or justification papers accompanying multimodal projects. As I learned about your project within chapter 3 and more specifically your student Muffie’s project for your class, I see the writing was instrumental to the process, but didn’t actually show up in the final project. I think this is an interesting approach and I’d be curious to try something like this. Do you ever include reflections or justification statements asking students to explain the choices they made, is it ever a multimodal response? 

-----------

Lucy's Cool thing for this week 

-----------

Alexander and Rhodes On Multimodality: New Media Composition Studies

It was really great to read Alexander and Rhodes On Multimodality: New Media in Composition Studies after Palmeri. Whereas Palmeri did an excellent job framing the reconceptualization of the history of composition and how multimodality fit within that historical narrative, Alexander and Rhodes do a great job of positioning new media alongside our students, detailing a powerful narrative of how new media challenges and redefines our conceptions of literacy and what affordances multimodal composing does for students in allocating the marriage of "classroom" and "home" literacies. (I also really really loved the stuff about the zombies because I teach my comp class as a "themed" zombie course :) )

Within the text, Alexander and Rhodes continue to refer to a handful of scholars. Within these references include Kress, Gee, Hailwasher, Waren & Selfe (alongside others). To me, all of these scholars grapple with the expansion of what we conceive as what it means to be literate within the 21st century. With this, Alexander and Rhodes encourage teachers to question their own conceptions of literacy, stating "teachers themselves must critique and design multimodally if they are to teach future students well" (118). In reference to the critical literacies within multimodal composing, Alexander and Rhodes refer to "techno-literacies", which calls for students to be more critical and analytical about the ways in which they arrange, ordering, and making sense of their multimodal composing process (118). Within chapter 4 titled "Collaboration Interactivity, and the Derive in Computer Gaming" Alexander and Rhodes discuss the notion of gaming as an inherently multimodal process, noting the collaborative nature and critical literacies that are obtained in order to foster and facilitate effective participation and success. In reference to communication, these literacies are often learned through failure (such as the French Canadian who used inappropriate language because he thought it was a social norm within the game), where participants are learning (and teaching) alongside one another in order to effectively participate and prosper within the rules and objectives of the game. As Alexander and Rhodes mention, we (as composition teachers) have much to take away from the dichotomy of the gaming world in not only how the nature of the objective fosters multimodal composing, but also in the inherent collaborative nature that the relationship and communication between gamers fosters and is dependent upon.

I was so happy to read within Alexander and Rhodes about the body and the material. Although the Palmeri was incredibly thought provoking I felt as though this was a bit of an important gap that needed to be discussed. Alexander and Rhodes discussion of the body is an important one, noting the "norming" of bodies and how new media technologies can have a powerful impact photo manipulation. Within Alexander and Rhodes discussion of "techne" within queer sexuality states that "the body cannot be ignored" (116). I thought about this alongside chapter 5 and the discussion of the Virginia Tech shooting. Much of the focus of the YouTube video's and the shooters writing delt with his "aptitude" in his composing process. In focusing on the caliber of his written text, the commenters and largely forgetting about the shooters body and the material, his identity. In juxtaposing this notion with the ever present discussion of literacy throughout the book, I'm drawn to Alexander and Rhodes call for a more "humanistic--yet still critical--literacy of technology, one that takes as part of its ecology the affective realm of technology and technology use" (190). Rather than focusing on the written text, analyzing the rhetorical choices present and the influence of new media and information dissemination can help us understand Cho's literacy techno-literacy and rhetorical choices in his ability to use technology. Alexander and Rhodes approach this issue by asking a fundamentally important question: "how can we use new media to open up spaces, not just for immediate response but also for critical reflection?" (177).

metadata tags: #newmedia, #technoliteracy, #functionalliteracy, #collaboration, #queercomposition

-----------------------
Questions:
1. I really really loved the conversation centering around non-western rhetorical practice and the colonization within composition as a discipline, stating "the Web does not constitute a neutral compositional space, and that people who compose for the Web, who use new and multimedia, work in specific sociocultural contexts, bounded by intricacies of location, access, ability, and the ideology" (35). How do we create assignments within our FYC that foster and highlight "non-western" rhetorical practices with new media? How do we avoid perhaps stereotyping or assuming cultural practices that are more of a social construct than a cultural one?

2. How can we foster more collaborative multimodal assignments in FYC that equally disseminate responsibility? How do we assess multimodal collaborative work? Palmeri advocates that he lets students choose to be collaborative or to work independently. Do you agree with this? Why or why not?

---------

Here is my multimodal Palmeri response from last week

So because Zarah created the account for our multimodal response to Palmeri, my articulation of how I would incorporate Alexander and Rhodes voice into it would be from the perspective of the student. Whereas we have Palmeri as the central character within the majority of our slides, I believe that Alexander and Rhodes would be the voice of the student, advocating that within new media studies, our conceptions of literacy is coming primarily from our students. Alexander and Rhodes advocate for playing and unfinished work, Palmeri mainly historicies and offers more digitally nuanced approaches to historical applications of multimodality. Alexander and Rhodes ask us to be critical and questioning to the technology and new media we choose to work with, noting is collaborative nature and its potential to queer of composing practices and definitions of what it means to be literate and how we envision the ways in which we position or bodies and our identities within the technologies we use. For me, their message would be instead of "Tread carefully" it would be "Play Critically", encouraging us to mess around and try new ways of teaching and composing with our students. Rather than positioning ourselves as a literate person within the field of composition, Alexander and Rhodes push us to learn alongside our students, challenging our conceptions of what our assignments are asking and how we can approach them. With that being said, while our mutlimodal response is primarily visual, I might make it a bit more interactive and collaborative to better exemplify Alexander and Rhodes due to not only their call to collaborate in the classroom, but also to play and learn through collaboration (as though it's a fun game). I might add some photo manipulation too :)

Remixing Composition: A History of Multimodal Writing Pedagogy

First of all. I just want to say that I really really loved this book. What I appreciated most was Jason's voice throughout the historical overview, and how he makes it a point to not only situate himself and his teaching alongside (or against) historical notions of multimodality, but he also offers pedagogical takeaways and remixes in how we can include multimodality within our classrooms in ways that aren't so reliant upon new technologies (or they can be, he touches on that too by offering up really awesome assignment ideas). I felt like the introduction was really honest and hits home in the sense that we often question our validity in regards to if we are qualified to actually teach multimodal composing and how we "justify" this practice to our peers, the institution, and most importantly, our students.

I really loved Jason's discussion in chapter 2 on Edward Corbett's ties to multimodality and classical rhetoric. It just made sense. It provided a very tangible way to consider multimodality, and that composing and "translating" between modes is an inherently rhetorical process. I found this to be incredibly important because we often tend to value writing above all other forms of composing which makes us "tend to de-emphasize the relevance of the auditory elements of [our] classes--placing almost all of the evaluative weight on the alphabetic products that students write rather than on the spoken words that they say" (52). For me this demystifies multimodality and reminds us that it doesn't have to be this overly digital practice (as Jody Shipka reminds us). However it can be easy to fall into the new fads in technology and we have to remember the issues of access with our students, which Jason does a nice job of highlighting. Also, I appreciated that Jason discussed the digital divide  (Prensky) and how we (as instructors) are also not experts in the technologies that we ask our students to use, so we can also learn a lot from the 'home' literacies are students are bringing into our classroom in regards to technology.

I also enjoyed chapter 1 and the discussion about the interdisciplinary affordances of multimodal composing. I now see Ann Berthoff in a totally new (and awesome) light and appreciate her call to collaborate and learn from other disciplines. It was really cool (and important) to see scholars such as Peter Elbow others with ties to multimodality. I really appreciated that this idea of "build[ing] upon the knowledge of composing that students already bring with them to the classroom" (40). Sure, we've heard this from scholars such as Kathleen Blake Yancey and Cynthia Selfe, but it was really moving to see it from the process theory scholars and how it has always been a historical part of the field of composition and rhetoric (I say rhetoric too in thinking all the way back to classical).

Lastly, I REALLY liked the discussion of different "textbooks" that allocated for students to work with content in rich multimodal ways. In looking at Kytle's Comp Box as well as Sparke and McKowen's Montage: Investigations in Language gave me insight into radically different ways to ask students to interact with course content (which makes not only the composing process inherently multimodal, but also the learning process as well, so cool!). These conceptions of instruction and pedagogical resources challenge the linear and and alphabetic tradition of higher education. For example Sparke and McKowen's Montage looked at "not just at how everything on one page or in one chapter is connected but rather looking at how fragments from diverse pages might be reassembled to create new compositions" (101).  

Awesome stuff. Truly

------------
Questions:
1. Historically, multimodality seems to be thought of as more of a low-stakes assignment geared towards assisting the writing process (at least that's the sense I got). Although a particular mode may help the process of how we consider our composing rhetorically, there is a push for a final written product. With the rise of new media and technology in the late 1970's-80's new and inventive ways to push against this notion and assign multimodal projects as major writing assignments come into conversation. You do make a valid point in asserting that we are in fact teaching a writing course. How do we work within this tension of curricular and WPA policies in teaching writing while also adhering to the call to teach students valuable and practical skills about composing and communicating effectively in the world (in ways that they may be doing outside of the classroom). I find this to be a really difficult paradigm that I don't have an answer to. How can we begin to see multimodal composing as more of a product in our writing courses and less of part of the process? 
      ----To accompany this, there always seems to be a push to "justify" or "reflect" in written discourse on multimodal projects (ex: you can do a multimodal rhetorical analysis but you need to write a justification paper to accompany your project). Why are we asked to justify our composing when we use modes outside of writing but never asked to justify our writing process? I've had conversations about this with or director of composition and my classmate Zarah and I just find this concept to be really problematic/interesting. I'm curious as to what your thoughts are on this issue.

2. I was glad you hit a bit on graduate education in the epilogue and what we need to see more of within higher education for those within the field of composition. I think one of the biggest scares for those of us just getting into this business if the allure of multimodality without much knowledge on assessment or critical assignment construction that inherently advocates for multimodality in the making, not just the product (in other words, not just slapping pictures with text but thinking critically about how each piece comes together to make the message). I find your discussion of considering the rhetorical principles in multimodal composing very important to consider but I'm wondering if there are particular scholars you can point me to that deal with assessment of multimodal projects and assignment construction? (for my own personal interests). I think the pedagogical resources and ideas you provide are so insightful and helpful for graduate students and I want more :)

3.  Lastly, what was your multimodal process like for writing this book? :)

Metadata tags: #interdisciplinary; #processtheory; #multimedia; #translation, #montagetheory

Multimodal Composition: A Critical Sourcebook

 EN 591 Response #1

A multimodal representation of my relationship to composing:

  Describe your relationship to writing:

      Process based. Very spatial and visual (outlines and diagrams). Always emotionally driven. My brain doesn't turn off and I am always thinking about my topic and how I'd like to go about composing my argument/ purpose. Writing for me is also very "place" based and personal. I can't write with other people around me. I've never been able to have "study dates" where I go to cafe's with peers and just write. I have to be comfortable. If I'm in public I people watch. Usually that means that a lot of the actual writing takes place at home. It's also an incredibly emotional process for me. It's almost like going through the stages of grief (in a sense), but mainly it's focused around my confidence (denial/acceptance that I can actually write well). My emotions guide what, where and how I write. I need to have a plan, I've always been a planner. Every facet of my life is organized and planned, the thought of jumping in head first stresses me out. I need to feel like I'm in control. I also need to be well prepared and in order to be prepared I read, a lot. I take lots of notes. My books look like a rainbow of post-its. 

EN 591 Response #2: The Reading 

NCTE Position Statement on Multimodal Literacies

  This article aims to not only broaden our conception of literacies to include multimodality, but also re-contextualizes what that expansion of literacy may mean for teaching within the english classroom. With this comes an attention towards assessing multimodal student work and a call to reassess overall literacy goals within curriculum and institution. Lastly, the article notes that we (as teachers) need to consider the role the digital places within our notions of literacy and how our students may be using such technology outside of the classroom, calling for teachers to encourage critical thinking and rhetorical theory in understanding the affordances of technology in its relation to multimodality. 

metadata tags: multimodality, technology, ethics, literacy, pedagogy

Contending with Terms: "Multimodal" and "Multimedia" in the Academic and Public Spheres by Claire Lauer

   Lauer's article seeks to define terms in a way that positions multimodality alongside academic discourse and critical thinking whereas multimedia is associated with production and the public sphere. Though Lauer notes that the two can be used (and viewed) as interdependent, it is important to note that multimedia primarily refers to the material (tools/technology), in contrast with mutlimodality which refers to the semiotic modes that work together to make and represent meaning (visual, gestural, aural, etc). Lauer positions these definitions within a historical context, noting the shifts and overlaps between the two terms. What I found most interesting was the association Lauer makes with those in the field who have their own take on what these terms mean, and how they are implemented. Lastly, the article makes an attempt to position the two terms alongside technology, noting historically how their "popularity" rose alongside the technology available within the 60's and 90's. 

metadata tags: multimedia, multimodal, public, production, design

The Still-Unbuilt Hacienda by Geoffrey Sirc

   Sric wants to return to the days where composition was seen as a "Happening". What this means is altering the conventions of space and formality within the composition classroom. Sirc pushes against the institution and calls out the field of composition as having to "prove" their worth within the academy and in doing so has lost their ability to be creative and blur boundaries. Sric discusses architecture and artist, and how their notion of breaking boundaries and manipulating space and perception allows for more enriched fluidity of making meaning. Sric also emphasizes the material, noting that material access isn't an issue in a Happening, its about using the objects around you to make meaning within production and performance. 

metadata tags: Happening, performance, perception, artist, material

Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key by Kathleen Blake Yancey

  For Yancey literacy is changing. Students are composing in ways that are new and inventive outside of the composition classroom in a setting where no one is forcing them to write. Yancey is concerned that what we assess and profess in our classrooms is radically different then how our students are composing and communicating. Yancey looks to the public sphere as a means to inform the content and pedagogy of the classroom, stressing the importance of more than just words. In order to better prepare our students, Yancey calls for a major in rhetoric and composition, a new curriculum, and revised writing across the curriculum goals.

metadata tags: public, literacy, institution, curriculum, change

From A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures by The New London Group

  The New London Group seeks to answer two fundamental questions: the "what" of literacy pedagogy; and the "how" of literacy pedagogy. In order to further explore these questions the New London Group calls for a metalanguage concerning multiliteracies concerning design and how to construct meaning. The New London Group breaks down design into three distinct categories beginning with Available Designs (which accounts for the resources), Design (which is more concerned with the process of the modes and how they are constructed), and The Redesigned (transformed meaning with a cultural and historical pattern/influence). To further assert this metalanguage the New London Group positions different key terms within discourse such as genre, style, voice, etc. as all relevant to the design process in the construction of composing and making meaning. Lastly the New London Group positions this framework alongside pedagogy, moving through the different (non linear) pedagogical approaches in relation to multimodality and elements of design. 

metadata tags: design, pedagogy, literacy, critical framing, nominalization 

From Analysis to Design: Visual Communication in the Teaching of Writing by Diana George

  George begins by discussing visual communication in her students work in the construction of their visual arguments. From there she moves through a historical conversation concerning visual communication and how it has been perceived as a means to support the written (supplemental). George frames this conversation around literacy and how our notions of literacy is more than words and that the visual takes as much critical thinking and rhetorical considerations as a written text. In addition the discussion of the television and media within the classroom is discussed as a way of understanding literacy acquisition. George returns to her students and stresses that the construction of their visual arguments were just as complicated and complex as a written argument, noting the research, rhetoric, and revision necessary to communicate their visual argument effectively. 

metadata tags: visual, communication, media, literacy, King Leopold 

Multimodal representation of this week's assigned articles: 

Final Assignments

Below you will find my final projects for EN 595:

DTC 101 Syllabus Materials

I've crafted an entire course for DTC 101 and have included a dropbox for all necessary materials to accompany the syllabus such as assignment sheets, rubrics, etc.

Final Proposal 

My final proposal focuses on the argument for including visual rhetorical practices in the EN 101 classroom using digital platforms like SMS spaces and more specifically the emoji feature that these SMS spaces host

DTC 595 Reflection

In reflecting upon the different projects, presentations, and readings throughout the semester, I've come to really personalize and shape my own literacy within the Digital Humanities. This course is 1 of 3 in order to obtain a graduate certificate in digital humanities and culture which means that my literacy will be an ongoing process as I learn more from Dr. Arola's teaching with technology in the fall as well as the knowledge obtained in both Dr. Arola's 595 as well as our course this semester. To begin, I want to situate my interest in the digital humanities as a scholar who hopes to bridge the gap between Writing Program Administration and Digital Humanities, recognizing primarily visual rhetoric as a necessary discourse in which students use to compose and communicate within and outside of the composition classroom.

The Reading and Analysis Papers and Participation: To help shape my understanding of the digital humanities, the scholarship we've read this semester (primarily Debates in the Digital Humanities and Digital Humanities Pedagogy) have been a strong foundation for me in regards to learning about the conversations within the field of DH, but also situating the iterative approach of theory/method/practice as weaved together and not separate entity's in the direct application of curriculum and classroom pedagogy. 

The Making: 
Final Proposal: With the ever advancing power of technology, my final proposal aims to explore its benefits by looking specifically at SMS platforms and the ways in which emoji's are utilized to maintain and exert deliberate rhetorical cultural practice. I see this proposal as an iterative foundation as I begin to merely scratch the surface of this inherently new visual communicative practice, understanding its use outside of the classroom in order to fully synthesize and understand the pedagogical affordances it offers within academia. For me, the final proposal is a way to put my foundational literacy of DH into practice, weaving together the theory of embodiment with the methodology of using digital tools and making waves in regards to understanding the pedagogical affordances this visual tools can offer within the classroom.

DTC 101 Syllabus: In addition, the DTC 101 syllabus has really been informed by Comparative Textual Media and Digital Humanities Pedagogy in regards to examination of specific DH projects within the classroom and outside in the public sphere. My literacy of DH has expanded based on this project in recognizing the spaces in which DH can be a part of (public, private, and classroom).


Presenting:

Having the opportunity to do multiple presentations in the course has shaped my understanding of Digital Humanities literacy in the very nature of what it means to present information. In asking us to create a presentation of less than 6 words and 12 slides to shape our understanding of DH, it really pushed me to condense and solidify what key concepts and terms were relevant in what I understand the interdisciplinary field of DH to encompass. Each time I received feedback on the presentations, I felt as though my classmates and I were making a transition towards "comp/rhet" type of feedback which focused on the rhetoric and language, to focusing more on the methodology and theory behind our content (which is inherently DH). Though there are multiple intersections with Rhetoric and Composition, DH literacy focuses on how the theory cannot be separated from the practice, and this is something that comp/rhet doesn't have as much difficulty with in regards to isolating these two concepts. 

The blogging:

For me the blogs were a great experience to help shape my DH literacy because it was a place for me to personalize the material I was creating or reading in ways that not only made sense to me, but also ways that I could speak back to or challenge. Having feedback from both my classmates as well as my teacher was exceptionally helpful and was great for me in regards to getting feedback and questions to push me further as I explored what DH meant to me and my research.


In addition, taken from my acknowledgements page from Scalar, I have a couple thank you's in order for those who have helped to shape my literacy in DH:

Dr. Kim Christen Withey: As graduate students within the field of composition and rhetoric, there is a strong connotation for a start of a project or summative seminar paper within a semester and a clear end. Dr. Withey encouraged us to break this mindset and begin to see our scholarship and application as "serious play", encouraging mistakes and start overs in theory, methodology and practice along the way. In asking students to do a proposal where we don't actually "do" the research, it gives us the opportunity to let our minds soar as we envision how our "dream" project would be conducted within the digital humanities. Dr. Withey, thank you for giving us the freedom to exceed our own expectations of ourselves in entering a new field and breaking the mindset of "start to finish" so that we could play, make mistakes, and learn in ways that wasn't so punitive.

The pride I have in my proposal and success in the course wouldn't be possible if I didn't have exceptional colleagues in the seminar with me to encourage, critique, and question my proposal in its progression throughout the semester. Entering a new conversation and field is difficult, and I am so fortunate to have had the opportunity to discuss and learn from some of the brightest minds in the fields of digital humanities and composition and rhetoric. Lacy, thank you for your constant critique, always challenging and always yearning to learn more and more each day. Your quest for knowledge and your drive motivates me to remember that we all have our own unique voice in these fields that deserve to be heard. Mark, thank you for your dialogue and analysis in each discussion of readings, theory and practice within the digital humanities. I appreciate your drive to want to do things well and the care and attentiveness you take towards your scholarship. You inspire me that our generation will still be comprised of scholars who care and who want to inspire and push our students in ways that are meaningful and proactive. I learn something new every time you open your mouth to contribute to the conversation. Thank you both for the opportunity to learn so much through your inquiry and optimism.

Thank you so much for taking the time to view my blog throughout the semester and helping to inform my perception and understanding of digital humanities literacy.

Lucy Johnson