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