Recent Changes

Wednesday, May 28

  1. page Seth Long edited Howdy! I'm Seth Long, and well, I guess you'll be to wondering what I am doing here. {282507_2207…
    Howdy! I'm Seth Long, and well, I guess you'll be to wondering what I am doing here.
    Well, I'll tell ye. I'm a PhD student at Syracuse University. I'm PhDing in Composition and Rhetoric. I used to be interested in classical rhetoric (from Gorgias to Cicero) and how all thems is used and appropriated by us modern folk, especially how we square our postmodern philosophes with the philosophies of all those old timers. I'm still interested in that, but nowadays, I'm particular interested in Global Englishes and in using linguistics to describe the writing and speaking practices of L2 English speakers. In particular particular, I'm curious about how L2s are talking and writing about ecological issues. Is there a Spanish or Bengali word for "sustainability"? Does folks learning English in Singapore ever talk about "greening" their consumer habits? I just don't know!
    Bye now! If you wanna contact me, just lean your head out the window and holler and I'll holler back. Or you can view my new blog.

    (view changes)
    2:31 pm

Monday, September 16

Sunday, January 8

  1. 10:30 am
  2. user_add jigilfus jigilfus joined CCR733
    10:30 am

Thursday, December 1

  1. page Syllabus edited 5 Dec 2011: C&W vs. DH (Fight! Fight! Fight!) Kalmbach, Jim. "Reading the Archives: Ten …
    5 Dec 2011: C&W vs. DH (Fight! Fight! Fight!)
    Kalmbach, Jim. "Reading the Archives: Ten Years on Nonlinear (//Kairos//) History." Kairos 11.1
    Computers and Writing Town Hall: Are You a Digital Humanist? (this is a video of a Town Hall session from C&'s about an hour long)

    28 Nov. 2011: The Late Age of Print
    If what we discussed last week on digital composition was concerned with how networked spaces and multimodal production affect the creation of texts, our discussion about "the late age of print" should be concerned with how digital texts are consumed. The consumption of e-texts raises several interesting questions about late capitalism, access to knowledge, the circulation and distribution of texts, and the cultural functions of literacy.
    (view changes)
    7:10 am

Monday, November 28

  1. page Syllabus edited ... The future of the book, in particular, is important to the humanities because, as Gary Hall no…
    The future of the book, in particular, is important to the humanities because, as Gary Hall notes, "it is books published by respected international presses, rather than journals, that are the most valued and prestigious mode of publication, functioning as the main criteria for tenure and promotion" (12). As Hall and Kathleen Fitzpatrick make clear, however, the print codex is becoming a less viable option for many humanities scholars. On top of this crisis in academe, a more agressive copyright law is increasingly jeopardizing access to knowledge for everyone. The Senate's proposed PROTECT-IP Act, for example, would allow the government and IP holders (i.e. multinational companies) to block infringing websites, while the House's Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) -- a expanded version of PROTECT-IP -- would make copyright infringement a felony. Anything since 1900, of course, is freely available (see Project Gutenburg for free e-books).
    I encourage you to start by just reading some of the brief, one-page news items from the Times, Inside HigherEd, Wired, and Prof Hacker first, then moving to the history of books/e-books (Finklestein and Striphas), then finally checking out some of the discussion on the future of publishing in academia (Hall and Fitzpatrick). The optional pieces include some media theory (Duguid) and implications for pedagogy (Tulley and Blair).
    Some questions to consider:
    What can the history of the book tell us about the present and future of the book (perhaps in terms of its production, dissemination, reception, or consumption)?
    Striphas argues that the ebook presents a critique of consumer capitalism in that it produces an "intensification or, rather, the emergence of new practices of controlled consumption" (45). What does he mean by this? How might the emergence of the ebook affect knowledge production, negotiation, and consumption in the mainstream and in the academy?
    How has print, as both a product and a process, limited access to knowledge? How have humanities scholars responded to these challenges?
    Is Kathleen Fitzpatrick's book (or MediaCommons Press more generally) the best example of what's possible with the future of humanities publishing, or is it merely "a prosthetic extension of print" (Hall 58)?
    Hall argues that "digital reproduction … has the effect of highlighting the irreducibly violent and aporetic nature of any [disciplinary] authority, making it much more visible" (78). Through the process of judging what gets included or excluded in the development of an open-access digital archive, Hall challenges cultural studies scholars to use new media as an occasion to rethink itself. Can this same logic be applied to the (perhaps similarly transdisciplined) digital humanities?

    In the news
    Ferguson, Kirby. Protect IP Act Breaks the Internet. Vimeo, 2011. 20 Nov. 2011.
    (view changes)
    1:37 pm

Sunday, November 27

  1. page Multimodality edited ... MULTIMODALITY In the 1990s and early 2000s, there arose a scholarly push toward discussions o…
    In the 1990s and early 2000s, there arose a scholarly push toward discussions of creating texts that explored “alternative, blended, diverse, mixed, or experimental discourses” (Shipka, 2011, 7). Today, multimodality is explored in a number of scholarly journals—Kairos, Computers and Composition Online, Enculturation—and is discussed in a variety of ways. One of the great things about embracing multimodality is its variety: It allows students, scholars, and teachers to use any number of media to understand, evaluate, and create rich, rhetorical texts.
    Pyramid via USIUniversity of Southern Indiana
    The easiest way to define multimodality is by breaking apart the word. Because "multi" is widely known, the importance of multimodality is within the mode: What is a mode? How can we compose using multiple modes?
    Gunther Kress, a member of the New London Group and a leading scholar of communication and literacy, argues that modes are semiotic channels that are used to compose texts. That is, modes are ways of representing information. Kress and Van Leeuwen have argued that all modes can be created and manipulated by a single person in a single interface (2001, 2).
    In Multimodal Composition, Cynthia Selfe defines multimodal texts as those that "exceed the alphabetic and may include still and moving images, animations, color, words, music and sound" (1). Though this definition doesn't specify digital technologies, all of these different modes can be manipulated digitally (e.g. images through Photoshop, animations through Flash, sound through Garageband).
    Coming from a critical studies perspective, Tara McPherson defines a multimodal scholar (or creator) as someone who "aims to produce work that reconfigures the relationships among author, reader, and technology while investigating the computer simultaneously as a platform, a medium, and a visualization device" (120).
    Ambiguous Definitions
    There are some ambiguities concerning multimodality and what exactly the term means. In 2006, Daniel Anderson, Anthony Atkins, Cheryl Ball, Krista Homicz Millar, Cynthia Selfe, and Richard Selfe conducted a study and published their findings in "Integrating Multimodality into Composition Curricula: Survey Methodology and Results from a CCCC Research Grant." According to their survey, 62% of participants defined multimodal texts as those that "included a range of communicative modes including media such as audio, video, animation, words, images, and others"; 7% defined multimodal texts as either "digital" or "analog"; and 15% responded that their department had yet to come up with a definition "that would support pedagogical applications of multimodal composition" (68-9).

    ManyAlong with these ambiguities, there are many discussions of multimodalitythat revolve around
    Conflated Terms
    Multimodal texts can include any kind of media, not necessarily those that are limited to the digital realm, which is why it is problematic to associate “multimodal” with “digital.” Jody Shipka addresses this concern in Toward a Composition Made Whole: “I am concerned that emphasis placed on "new (meaning digital) technologies has led to a tendency to equate terms like multimodal, intertextual, multimedia, or still more broadly speaking, composition with the production and consumption of computer-based, digitized, screen-mediated texts” (8). So while multimodal texts are not necessarily digital texts, for a discussion of the Digital Humanities, it is important to recognize that with an increasing access to user-friendly software and technologies, much of the recent interest in multimodality is technologically grounded.
    Like many discussions of technology, integrating multimodality into the classroom is something that must be carefully planned prior to implementation: Will students have access to the software and technologies that they are encouraged to use? Do the projects serve the curricular goals of the course? How will such projects be assessed?
    In Nostalgic Angels: Rearticulating Hypertext Writing, Johndan Johnson-Eilola discusses the need to critically examine our technological practices in the classroom: “The growth of technologies requires us to rethink what we mean by composition. We cannot merely add these technologies to our classrooms and theories as tools with which our students arrive at their primary task (a common stance)” (7). Here, Johnson-Eilola asks us to reconfigure not only our teaching practices, but the field of composition itself. He continues, stating that “we must take these forms of communication to be at least as important (and often more culturally relevant) than singly authored papers arguing a single, clear point forcefully over the course of five, neatly typed, double-spaced pages” (7). This reads not only as a critique of the employment of technology (in 1997), but it is also an argument for the benefits of multimodality—for texts that can communicate in ways that are richer and more collaborative than the traditional text-only student paper.
    Cynthia and RichardeRichard Selfe. In
    In “Negotiating Rhetorical, Material, Methodological, and Technological Difference: Evaluating Multimodal Designs,” Jody Shipka takes up the issue of how to assess multimodal texts when the final products can vary so significantly from one another. Shipka discusses a “statement of goals and choices (SOGC)” (W353) that she asks students to create that asks students to reflect critically on the creation and production of their multimodal texts. These statements ask students “to catalog the various rhetorical, material, methodological, and technological choices they made with their work” (W356) in order to share student “understandings of that work’s purposes, potentials, and consequences” (W364). Shipka sees these student statements as a way for teachers to familiarize themselves with multimodal texts as rhetorical artifacts, thus framing assessment in terms of what students were able to rhetorically accomplish.
    New Media or Old Media?
    Likewise, many have argued that literacy and writing have always been multimodal. In Multimodal Literacy, Gunther Kress and Carey Jewitt argue that there is no such thing as monomodal communication. Pippa Stein takes up this argument when she argues that all texts are multimodal because they invariably involve multiple modes of communication. Stein argues that even the classroom where composition occurs is a multimodal place—its visual displays and furniture arrangements combined with the teaching and composing practices that take place within those spaces create a space where multiple modes converge to “shape the production of curriculum knowledge and pedagogic practices that lead to learning” (122).
    So multimodality isn't new in the sense that students have always bridged different modes of communication in order to compose and create texts. However, "new media," such as audio and video software, online presentation tools, and an increased access to communicative technologies add an extra layer to multimodality that many comp/rhet scholars are engaging (see Daniel Anderson, Chris Anson, Cheryl Ball, Steven Fraiberg, Claire Lauer, Jason Palmeri, Alexander Reid, Cynthia Selfe, Jody Shipka, Pippa Stein, Karl Stolley, and Anne Wysocki).
    Effects on Learning
    These issues could arguably be true of any shift that significantly affects teaching, learning, and composing practices. And despite the issues mentioned, there are a number of advantages to adopting multimodality within the composition classroom, particularly in terms of student learning.

    {.jpg} From "Multimodal Learning Through Media: What the Research Says," a study by the Metiri Group.
    In Multimodal Pedagogies in Diverse Classrooms: Representations, RIghts, and Resources, Pippa Stein uses the term "multimodal pedagogies" to refer to "curriculum, pedagogy and assessment practices which focus on mode as a defining feature of communication in learning environments" (121). A common theme in multimodal pedagogies is a multiplicity in teaching, learning, and composing practices. In terms of teaching practices, multimodal pedagogies are those that present information in a number of forms and formats. In terms of composing and writing practices, multimodality promotes the use of any number of media to create cohesive rhetorical texts. Stein advocates for multiple pedagogies because they "acknowledge learners as agentive, resourceful and creative meaning-makers who communicate using the communicative potential and multiple resources of their bodies and of their environment to interconnect" (122). This perspective emphasizes the importance of multimodal pedagogies to bring together diverse voices and resources to create knowledge and meaning. By promoting the use of different modes to create texts, multimodal pedagogies encourage students to take learning into their own hands, to “learn by doing” (Shipka, 2005, 291).
    {Cone_of_Learning.jpg} Cone of Learning: We Tend to Remember Our Level of Involvement
    Briefly mention Universal Design and multiple means of learning/composing/etc. Also, relevance.
    Multimodal Scholarship
    {Kress-Multimodal_Discourse.jpg} {Murray-_Non-Discursive_Rhetoric.jpg}
    Kress, Gunther R., and Van Leeuwen, Theo. Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Oxford University Press, 2001.
    Anderson, Daniel, Anthony Atkins, Cheryl Ball, Krista Homicz Millar, Cynthia Selfe, Richard Selfe. “Integrating Multimodality into Composition Curricula: Survey Methodology and Results from a CCCC Research Grant.” Composition Studies 34.2 (2006): 59-84.
    This article details a survey of 62 instructors to learn how teachers were employing multimodal resources in their writing classrooms. Their self-defined goal was to "learn more about what Composition teachers were doing with multimodal composing, what technologies they used in support of composing multimodal texts, and how faculty and administrators perceived efforts to introduce multimodal composition into departmental curricula and professional development" (63). The authors create a survey that examines a number of categories: praxis, assessment, technology resources, pedagogical training, scholarship, and participant demographics. Ultimately, their results show a tenuous relationship to multimodality: survey participants define it differently,
    Selfe, Cynthia L. Multimodal Composition: Resources for Teachers. Eds. Gail E. Hawisher and Cynthia L. Selfe. New Directions in Computers and Composition. Hampton Press, 2007.
    This book focuses on the first-year composition classroom. Selfe argues that the composition classroom is an ideal environment for moving beyond traditional texts that may limit what a student has to say; instead, she writes that composition teachers and students should use multimodal texts, those that “exceed the alphabetic and may include still and moving images, animations, color, words, music and sound” (1). Selfe offers this book as a practical resource for teachers to learn how to teach with these new texts, offering multimodal assignments and advice on how to navigate within multimodal environments.
    McPherson, Tara. “Introduction: Media Studies and the Digital Humanities.” Cinema Journal 48.2 (2009): 119-123.
    McPherson approaches multimodality from a media studies angle, identifying three different paths for digital humanists. The first she identifies as the "computing humanists” whose “efforts concentrated on archiving, digitizing, and preserving the human record" (119). The second type of DHers are "blogging humanists," who, due to interests in Web 2.0 technologies and frustrations with institutionalized processes of academic publication, “port the words and monographs of humanities scholarship to networked spaces of conversation and dialogue. They envision new modes of connection and peer-to-peer conversation, and text often remains the lingua franca of their scholarly productions” (119).
    What McPherson wants to focus on, though, is the third variation of digital humanists, emerging as the “multimodal scholar.” According to McPherson:
    This emergent breed, the multimodal humanist, brings together databases, scholarly tools, networked writing, and peer-to-peer commentary while also leveraging the potential of visual and aural media that so dominate contemporary life. This multimodal scholar complements rather than replaces other types of digital humanists, expanding the scope and reach of the field. She aims to produce work that reconfigures the relationships among author, reader, and technology while investigating the computer simultaneously as a platform, a medium, and a visualization device. She thinks carefully about the relationship of form to content, expression to idea. 120
    Selfe, Cynthia. “The Movement of Air, the Breath of Meaning: Aurality and Multimodal Composing.” College Composition and Communication 60.4 (June 2009): 616-663.
    Fraiberg, Steven. “Composition 2.0: Toward a Multilingual and Multimodal Framework.” College Composition and Communication 62.1 (Sept. 2010): 100-126.
    Kress, Gunther. Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. Routledge: New York, 2010.
    {Morrison-_Inside_Multimodal_Composition.jpg} {Selfe-_Multimodal_Composition.jpg} {Murray-_Non-Discursive_Rhetoric.jpg}

    (view changes)
    4:14 pm
  2. page Digital Composition edited ... Alexander, Jonathan. "Gaming, Student Literacies, and the Composition Classroom: Some Pos…
    Alexander, Jonathan. "Gaming, Student Literacies, and the Composition Classroom: Some Possibilities for Transformation." College Composition and Communication 61.1 (Sept. 2009): 35-63.
    Anderson, Daniel, Anthony Atkins, Cheryl Ball, Krista Homicz Millar, Cynthia Selfe, Richard Selfe. “Integrating Multimodality into Composition Curricula: Survey Methodology and Results from a CCCC Research Grant.” Composition Studies 34.2 (2006): 59-84.
    Briand,Birr Moje, Elizabeth. "Standpoints: A Call for New Research on New and Multi-Literacies." Research in the Teaching of English 43.4 (May 2009): 348-362.
    Paul. "Turned
    Communication 21.3 (1970);(1970): 267-269.
    Dubisar, Abby M, and Jason Palmeri. "Palin/Pathos/Peter Griffin: Political Video Remix and Composition Pedagogy." Computers and Composition 27.2 (June 2010): 77-93.
    Eldred, Janet Carey. "The Technology of Voice." College Composition and Communication 48.3 (Oct. 1997): 334-347.
    Fraiberg, Steven. "Composition 2.0: Toward a Multilingual and Multimodal Framework." College Composition and Communication 62.1 (Sept. 2010): 100-126.
    Heid, Jim. "Getting Started with Multimedia. What Is It? Can You Use It? What Will It Cost?" Macworld 8.5 (May 1991): 225.
    Jewitt, Carey, and Gunther Kress. Multimodal Literacy. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2003.
    Johnson-Eilola, Johndan. Nostalgic Angels: Rearticulating Hypertext Writing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1997.
    Knievel, Michael. "What is Humanistic about Computers and Writing? Historical Patterns and Contemporary Possibilities." Computers and Composition 2.26 (2009): 92-106.
    ---. "A Multimodal Task-Based Framework for Composing." College Composition and Communication 57.2 (2005): 277–306.
    Spooner, Michael, and Kathleen Yancey. "Postings on a Genre of Email." College Composition and Communication 47.2 (May 1996): 252-278.
    Stein, Pippa. Multimodal Pedagogies in Diverse Classrooms: Representation, Rights, and Resources. New York, NY: Routledge, 2008.
    WIDE Research Center Collective. “Why Teach Digital Writing?” Kairos 10.1 (Fall 2005). Web.
    Yancey, Kathleen Blake. “Looking for Sources of Coherence in a Fragmented World: Notes toward a New Assessment Design.” College Composition and Communication 56.2 (Dec. 2004): 89-102.
    (view changes)
    2:10 pm