Composition Theory Blog

A blog for the University of Idaho's Composition Theory class. 

[ultraenglishnerd]

Strategic Plagiarism and Multilingual Composition

Part One: 

I chose the three texts I did as they were the only ones listed. I still thought it necessary to include this section though and found the various readings in their different formats to be an interesting combination. I cannot say that I would be particularly interested in such material had it not been presented to me, simply because I am not an educator and have no classroom experience to compare the notes on pedagogy to. 

Part Two: 

In class, we have yet to dive into the concept of multilingual composition at all, but most specifically in relation to multimodal composition. The Fraiberg article provided a neat introduction to the idea and intersected with our other readings by expression how “most of the work on writing focuses on the product as opposed to process” (499). I still think this is an imperative idea to consider, especially in the classroom, as often it is the process of creating something, be it an academic formal piece or a multimodal composition, that shows the thoughts and intentions behind its creation. 

The Kairos piece, while short, had many things that stuck out to me. Most notably in the concluding quotes, it reads, “When a rhetorician has successfully produced and strategized the third-party use of boilerplate files, text, images, and videos by a third party, a strategic type of ‘plagiarism’ becomes the desirable ‘end’.” Authorship and plagiarism is a topic we discussed in class. This intersects the most with the Digital Griots reading and its discussion of remixing. To some extent, the successful end of composition is creating something that someone else might in turn use to remix or reference, so I agree that a “strategic type of plagiarism” is a useful goal to keep in mind while writing, especially in today’s society where nothing is truly original any more. 

Finally, the Braun, McCorkle, and Wolf curriculum extension was incredibly difficult to understand at first, most likely because some of the links would not open up on my computer. That aside, I think it might be difficult for a student or an outsider to comprehend the complete curriculum without any guidance. It is a unique way of structuring a course and sharing it, which I think intersects mildly with last week’s discussion of new media scholarship vs. scholarship of new media. Despite this not being scholarship that explicitly involves the topic of new media, this interesting curriculum setup certainly uses multimodal features in order to address scholarship. 

Part Three:

Honestly, these three texts have not influenced my thinking or questioning of my final project. Most likely this is because my intended project is so far removed from pedagogy or multilingualism that these ideas cannot apply. I was certainly intrigued by these concepts regardless and I think, if I do ever manage to teach, will be helpful to apply most specifically to English language learners and considered intersection between language in composition. Otherwise, my project is rather separate from this week’s discussion. 

[ultraenglishnerd]

My composition assistant. :3

[ultraenglishnerd]

My Three Article Discussion

This week, I chose to read and focus on the last three articles (Wysocki, Sheppard, and Ball). I definitely based this decision off of what the titles suggested, choosing to spend the most time considering ideas and arguments that would benefit my progression as a scholar more so than as an instructor (primarily because I am currently not involved in teaching). Wysocki’s “awaywithwords” was immediately interesting to me because of the design choice she made in the title itself and I was curious to see what she meant by “Unavailabe Designs.” I read Sheppard’s article because I found the direction of looking beyond skill in rhetorical work intriguing and wanted to learn more about his experience creating a multimodal website about the environment for children. Finally, Ball’s article stuck out to me via title as well, seeing as throughout every creative writing class I have taken, we were told to “show, not tell” and was curious to see how this could be applied to multimodal productions that usually tend to rely on the visual anyway. 

The arguments produced in each article intersect with what we’ve read in class because they strongly urge for the use of multimodal literacy in scholarly work, as well as attempting to guide the reader through ways to best accomplish this. Wysocki’s discussion of material, most notably when she says, “that it is always worth asking how our materials have acquired the constraints they. Have and hence why, often, certain materials and designs are not considered available for certain uses” (303), harkens back to our conversation about multimodal pieces being more than just technology. This is significant for me and what I am planning, as my final project is a physical piece. Not quite construction paper and crayon, but it uses material that would not be associated with what I am trying to do. (I’m being vague on purpose.) The Sheppard article falls neatly into the concept of collaboration that we have talked about, in which the use of rhetorical devices when making his website often conflicted with his own ideas and the reception of the audience, or between him and the scientists he was working worth. The collaboration process for multimodal texts works between both the creator/author and the audience, as the both change and interpret the text based on their preconceived ideas. Ball also works with items mentioned in class, mostly in regard to thinking beyond just text as the only form of scholarship. I specifically liked how detailed the author went into the “Digital Miltiliteracies” text and how she showed us the different rhetorical devices and concepts instead of just telling us what they were. While working outside of the academic box has its risks, Ball explains the benefits and necessities to doing so fairly well. 

Because I do not want to reveal what my final project is (hopefully) going to be yet, I will need to be vague about what concepts apply. The concept of text and material, and how they can be used to create different meaning, relates distinctly to my project. It makes me question how to best get my point across, as it is mostly a visual piece that I intend to create. I have a goal/criticism in mind with what I am working on, and Sheppard’s discussion of misinterpretation speaks to me in this regard. If what I intend to say with my piece is not what the audience takes away from it, is it still successful? How obvious do I have to be/how close to constraints ought I to be in order to properly make a piece that can be considered both scholarly and artistic? Can repurposing a material into a completely different form than it came still count as authorship in a scholarly manner? These are merely a few questions I am considering after reading these texts. I hope, perhaps, you might help me puzzle these out in the time we have between now and the reveal of my intentions on April 7th. 

[ultraenglishnerd]

Multimodal Social Semiotics

Part One:

Signs and communication in all forms is based off of societal interactions and the resulting cultural demands. The division between society and culture is distinct in the way the authors use it, such that society is a collection of human interaction, whereas culture is the result of social action. Language itself also transcends the usual definition of writing, as we know well by this point in the term, but laying the foundation of society and of what language means and can include is necessary for understanding the following chapters. This concept connects as well to design, in that design rather relates to the idea of representation analyzed a bit later in the text, which, if design is taken to be the same as what we discussed last week, dictates the mode of representation and affects the overall interpretation. 

The first half of the text makes important broad claims that are imperative to understanding what exactly they are talking about, such as that communication is always multimodal and that the “pace of technological change cannot possibly be mirrored by social institutions.” The latter explains why this theory is important to education and understanding multimodal social semiotics because technology has already far surpassed what social institutions can mimic and our understanding of communication and representation through these technologies and new signs has to start somewhere. The former point, that all communication is multimodal, is specifically important to this class, but also begins to point out how social factors influence the modes of our representation, making it multimodal because the outside influence of our societies have already altered the signs with which we work. The concept of interest is significantly necessary to the discussion of social semiotics as well, seeing as interest relates to design and influences the way in which we represent something and why we do it. It also works on the receiving end, the side of communication and interpretation, because it depends upon the interest of the receiver to turn a representation into communication. 

Social semiotics in regard specifically to multimodality (although I suppose it always is if all communication is multimodal) gives meaning to each mode in a multimodal text, to the modes interacting with one another, and to the piece as a whole. The social signs that construct representations have meaning on multiple levels and every sign is newly made for the social situation it is being used in. Representation relies on interest of the communicator (say, me) and communication relies on reception and interpretation of interest (potentially becoming a prompt) on the end of the audience or recipient. The prompt in this sense is seemingly most important in regard to education, in which the interest of a student must be engaged and receptive to the representation of the teacher in order for a prompt to be registered within the interpreter. The final few points of note of the first section include the discussion of power, in that it influences the transparency and opacity of sign making, and how bodily communication, or signs which we receive and interpret from a three dimensional stand point, are still invaluable assets and necessary components to semiosis. 

Part Two:

Considering my first multimodal text of the course (the composition process) in the terms of discourse, design, production, and distribution is decidedly tricky. In terms of discourse, I automatically made the multimodal text to reflect the highly connected culture in which I thrive, that being primarily the internet and somewhat relying on the knowledge that the interpreter of this text would know that particular Spongebob scene and who Markiplier is. Specific factors of discourse, such as my socioeconomic status and age, automatically played into the creation of the text and perhaps alienated some audiences from full comprehension. The design itself is simple as it consists solely of image and text, with the minor attempt at including audio through the link. The design relied heavily on my interest in representing my composition process to be as confusing to the audience as it is to me, while also incorporating popular pieces of media to influence understanding of who I am, seeing as this was a sort of introduction piece. Production was also fairly simple because I used a word doc and screenshots to complete the text. It turned my design concepts into a material vision that can be interacted with, such as someone could look up the YouTuber shown or type in the link to find the playlist referenced. Distribution of the text is thanks to Tumblr and the hashtags at the bottom that allow it to reach audiences outside of just our class. 

The composition of this text was also done purely by me, which is interesting in regard to the importances the authors placed upon the collaborative process of moving from design to distribution. The only outside interaction that came into the creation of the multimodal text is from audience reactions and discourses that change interpretation of what they see. 

Part Three:

As you can probably tell just by reading the second part, our current reading has already influenced my though process of composition. When I created my multimodal text, the interest of the representation was solely what I wanted to show, not what I wanted someone to get out of it. While I thought this was communication just because it could be read, I understand a bit better now that communication relies on the interest of the audience. The interpretation of the representation is just as important as my own interest in the matter because that is how it becomes communication and not just a sign with no meaning. It is also interesting to note now the influence that culture and society plays on the reception and creation of the text. It is clearly from a Western culture, yes, but the societal groups I participate in are obvious just from looking at the composition. This was not something I necessary intended because, while I did want to show a bit about myself in the beginning, I did not think how this would actually be interpreted and communicated  to someone that most likely does not have the same interests as I do, complicating if communication was properly achieved or if I constructed a meaningless sign on the basis of representation without communication. Basically, to sum up, social semiotics influences communication and composition. For example, the multimodal texts I create would perhaps be drastically different if my social context was different in anyway, such as gender, economic status, location, age, etc. 

[ultraenglishnerd]

Part One:

This chapter interacts with what we’ve read so far by breaking down the steps and pieces involved with multimodal creation and explaining how each one leads to a different result interpretation. Many of the other texts have focused on the final result, and while they have mentioned that the process is either more important or just as important, this text expands upon the process concepts at every step and asks the reader to engage with the different levels of meaning making.

Part Two:

The introduction to this text was highly informative in regard to discourse and how it effects the results of the stages of design, production, and distribution. The importance placed upon interpretation of the user or viewer illustrated the difference between intention and reception, in which obvious objects like traffic signs have a nearly universal intent and reception, whereas a film or a book may not. The end section of the introduction, Stephanie’s room, was interesting to note because it spent a lot of time delving into the different types of interpretations that come from a magazine and a children’s book and the goals that a designer and producer would use depending on which medium they were working with. 

Part Three:

Shown above. I attempted to show the framework like a formula, but some of the concepts (like discourse) are both individual categories and affect the other categories of the framework. 

[ultraenglishnerd]

DJ Griots (Week Five)

As implied by the title of the work, the book focuses on the importance of the digital griot and how DJs specifically relate to and continue the work of griots. Over the course of five chapters, the author discusses groove, mix, remix, mixtape, and fade, all different aspects of what DJs do in their composition and what we as writers should strive to do as well. The first chapter responds in part to the need for composition instructors to keep up with the changing technologies, much like many of the other works we have read, but it also discusses this specifically in tandem with the time and research put into African American folktales and why the overlap between griots and digital composition should be considered. 

The mix section was, for me, the most interesting because it challenges the traditional idea of community scholarship, in which generally it is seen as a service to the community and not a give and take scenario. The step by step process and decisions that the author took to starting his community project was highly interesting as it detailed why the outcomes were not easily visible, and what reasons he had for not engaging in a traditional model of literacy work. The success of creating an engaged community stemmed from mixing relatable and interesting fields of study, cultural conversations and politics, and having a space in which to form the beginnings of the community by being together rather than being instructed. The discussion of the village was also significant in this section because it again ties in the old with the new, the griot of the villages with the modern day DJ, who both work with history and rememory. 

The final three chapters worked to reinforce the claims made in the first two, first by attending to the generational gap and the idea of “back in the day” narratives. History is remembered differently by each generation, for example old school meaning Earth, Wind, and Fire for some and “Candy Girl” for others. The mixtape chapter was interesting for a variety of reasons, but sticking to the composition side, the concept of plagiarism and copyright was significant. Like DJs, new compositions can be made by using older texts and models in new ways with our digital modes if only we get passed the idea that borrowing things from other authors is automatically wrong. Finally, the last chapter summarizes the compositional themes of the book fairly well by giving the reader the type of composer they should strive to be, stating, “the digital griot demonstrates a synthesis of deep searching knowledge of the traditions and cultures of his or her community and futuristic vision; the skills, ability, and comfort level to produce in multiple modalities; the ability to employ those skills toward the purpose of building and serving communities with which he or she is aligned; and awareness of the complex and layered ethical commitments and questions facing that community; and the ability to “move the crowd,” to use those traditions and technologies for the purposes of persuasion” (155). 

For last week’s multimodal piece, I would have strived to layer the concepts a little better. The comparison of composition to music (even though music is composition) challenges me to better sync up my ideas and modes in which I express them. It felt like, for last week, that I merely took different modalities and forced them to work together. Did it work? Yes. But could the same thing have been expressed in a better way? Probably. After reading this text, I think I understand better the necessity use mediums that work together and make the transitions and overlaps between them appear as natural as a good DJ moves from one song to the next. Going beyond my own composition and thinking about what we did in class, I also think the way my partner and I worked with the Found Texts to create a narrative was forced as well. We focused so much on making a cohesive narrative in which all of the pieces were part of the same story that we (or at least I) did not consider how multiple narratives might overlap and share similar beats. 

As for traditions that might shape my voice, I cannot think of any other than the way in which I compose texts, that being the academic, straightforward style. Even when allowed to move beyond the traditional academic form, much like this blog, I still fall into the habit of not using contractions, of structuring sentences in various lengths, and attempting to use “I” as little as possible unless it involves personal reflection. I do know, based on what I learned in this reading and in a sociolinguistics course that I took last semester, that my writing and speech is influenced by my race, where I grew up, my economic status, and plenty of other factors, which is why I think I write incredibly straight laced and perhaps always sound more formal than I mean to. 

[ultraenglishnerd]

5 posts! Woo!

[ultraenglishnerd]

Part One: ^^^

Part Two:

Shipka’s arguments made me consider greatly what it was I wanted to represent. I do use my sewing machine or my PS4 quite frequently, but I felt after reading what Shipka’s students did and understanding that I need to think beyond text and invest myself more in the process than in the final product, I changed my mind and decided to bring my dress form into play. This was based heavily off of her discussion of the environment and the technical tools around me that influence my work and life on a daily basis. I see my dress form every day in the corner of my room and it constantly makes me think about what to do next, what projects I have waiting in my closet for me to work on, and about the time and setting that those compositions require me to have. For example, even creating this minor multimodal composition, my environment was a nightmare, as my adorable demon cat kept attacking the dress form and the measuring tape I draped around its neck. I was also highly concerned about dropping the sewing pins all over the floor and not being able to find them, so I had to work extra carefully. While I do not have the time at the moment to do a 20 page statement of goals and choices (nor do I think such a small creation could fill 20 pages), Shipka did make me think deeply about why I was doing what I was doing. I did not want to create just another voice over video or sticky note collage to represent how nearly every piece of technology I engage with enhances and challenges my creativity, so I instead focused on how my sewing tools allow me to explore and complicate my creation process. This also led me to placing it in a video and adding music (which is a mashup of Persona 5’s “Life Will Change” and JoJo’s Bizarre Adventures Part 3 Theme; I have made and worn costumes for both, so it felt fitting). My mini project overlaps quite well with some of Shipka’s examples, in that it is physical, it engages with more than just text, and while the final product is quite simple, the process of coming up with the idea, executing it, and turning it into a video resulted in changing my goals, original design, and final presentation and explanation.

Part Three:

Chapter One

Composition and writing, while interchangeable in the discipline at times, do not necessarily denote the same things. Composing is the more fitting term because it includes the act of multimodality, even without direct reference to the technology around us, such as lights and floor tiles. The method of instructing composition in the classroom should be different than the traditional English classroom because it ought to involve cooperation with communication studies, like psychology and philosophy among others. Finally, limiting writers to the term of “students” and their writing to just what comes out of their heads eliminates consideration of the place and space within which they write and instead places them inside a written text based box.

Chapter Two

This chapter focused on discussing Wertsch’s concept of individual(s)-acting-with-mediational-means. There were four primary points of discussion, those being 1) using the meditational means framework, a text-based work cannot truly be judged as monomodal because the process of the text might have included outside sources and influences upon its creation. 2) this viewpoint challenges our concepts of technology as only being whatever recently modern creation we use. 3) the framework forces us to acknowledge the psychological and technical tools that go into composition and how the tools we choose to use affect our physical bodies. 4) The framework denies us the ability to see each reader or writer as an individual in composition because of the changes that certain mediational means require. The final point of note in this chapter is about how technology will fade into the background and become transparent when it is working properly as a part of our daily lives. This also has an effect on how we view text based compositions because it forces us to consider the mode in which we compose and how what we choose to write or create with is a technology with its own specific demands.

Chapter Three

The explanation surrounding Muffie and her body/dance based text was fascinating to someone like me who drastically prefers written word to body language. It felt significant that much of the chapter was dedicated not the writing process so much as the location in which it occurs, such as in the beginning of the chapter when a student ran into complications of distractions while making their t-shirt composition. When it came down to the various places and stages Muffie had to go through to get to her final product, it made me think about my own environment when I write, which is normally either complete silence in my room, listening to the Carole and Tuesday soundtrack, or forcing myself into Starbucks to not be distracted by my kitten Darcy. Finally, it was increasingly significant in this chapter, seeing how the author built it up to this point, that the final product is not necessarily the most important part of composition because much of what is multimodal about certain texts is the path and tools used to get there.

Chapter Four

This segment of the book was incredibly interesting and informative because of how the author explained the goals and processes of the two students’ projects. Particularly, the intent of each project informed not only the topic, but the form that the end product took (in this case the goal was to get their audiences to explore the frustration and pain they had gone through in producing a multimodal composition). I found it helpful that the author showed how multimodal assignments do not make things easy or unacademic, as some believe, but rather require different thought and consideration than an essay about a word from the OED might. Asking students and teachers to reevaluate their text based academic worlds is beyond imperative to the ever expanding field of composition and its relationship to technology. This chapter was significantly informative to me because of what I am considering for my final project in this course. (I shall not reveal it yet, but it will be physical multimodal composition).

Chapter Five

As we discussed in class last week, grading and finding criteria for analyzing multimodal compositions is a challenge. The author appears to propose as a solution to this problem that student’s write a statement of goals and choices that is highly detailed and extensive, such as the 20 page example she mentioned the student of the Lost and Found journal wrote. It is this extensive self reflection that opens up a way for instructors and audiences to understand decisions and aims of the project and be able to compare it to the final product. This connects back well to the rest of the book, in which the focus is once again placed upon the steps taken to get to the end rather than looking at the product on its own.

Conclusion

Composition must go beyond writing to include other forms of meaning making, or risk educating students to hold a narrow viewpoint of what writing is. We must also learn to value texts that are not merely linear and traditional and work towards an accepting writing community that will not dismiss a text based solely on appearance. Finally, acknowledging and creative spaces for academic composition to mix with creative and multimodal positions is imperative to spreading and teaching proper, modern composition skills.

[ultraenglishnerd]

On Multimodality Summary

The key takeaway gleaned from Alexander and Rhodes’ On Multimodality: New Media in Composition Studies is that we as composers and instructors need to understand that text is not a necessary foundation for multimodal composition. Numerous examples were provided that showed how many of the old thinkers still rely on essays and structure despite attempting to work video and image into their classrooms. Of the numerous video literacies explored in their survey, many of them told stories that relied upon the linear style of essay writing, and many of the voice overs describing the literacies were merely written down and then read aloud. The authors point this out in order to provoke understanding and change in regard to composition of multimodal forms, specifically through their use and description of Kyle Kim’s “Closer” and the student’s instructor’s response to his composition. 

“Closer” safely illustrates how composition can soar beyond text. A story is told using just music and images, much like original black and white film did. While his instructor wished for more text within the piece, the authors point out how he misses the rhetorical function of video that Kim explains in his reflection. Their discussion of “Closer” reflects back to their discussion of Viewmaster in the introduction. They argue against the idea that “everything is writing” by comparing how, had they merely attempted the same feat of Viewmaster through an essay format, the unsettling urge of the conversation due to the position of the eyes would be missing. Calling out the fetishization and reliance on the essay provokes composers, readers, and instructors to consider how to remove ourselves from the continuous, linear writing loop. 

“Closer” and Viewmaster also highlight another key idea of the book, in that the qualities and criteria we affix to print texts is not transferable to multimodal compositions. At the same time, multimodal needs to be used to encompass more than merely using digital media to write, peer review, and revise standard essay like texts. As discussed more later in the conversation about the literacies of gaming, collaboration is an imperative part of composition that is often neglected in classrooms, but can be facilitated easier using multimodal forms. The primary example provided for such collaboration is “A Costly Increase” in which students created a zombie Claymation video to discuss rising tuition rates and the rhetorical devices of zombie films. The story itself is still linear, but the qualities of the film cannot be measured in the same standards that we would assign to a normal text because it includes visual and audio components that a written story or essay does not contain. 

Another major takeaway from the book is the section about gaming. As a gamer myself, I can attest to the fact that it requires vast amounts of multitasking and engaging with multiple communication devices at the same time, adding benefits to my general literacy. For example, when I play Code Vein on the PlayStation 4, I play with my best friend and communicate both through the voice chat function on the system and through text when we are not literally playing together. While not nearly as complicated as WOW, any form of gaming complicates normal literacy because it involves much creation and composition that is not text, such as character creation and story conventions. In Code Vein, it is possible to not engage in the full story if you decide not to interact will all of the side quests or collect all of the memories. Depending on the extent to which the player neglects the memories, the ending of the game is altered. Composition in games goes beyond making a game or writing out a story, as even actions and characters within the game can compose individual stories that are not easily mimicked by another player. 

Finally, the last major point that struck me is the conversation about subjectivity in relation to the Vtech shooting. I honestly was too young to be in the know and be involved, so I was shocked at first that it had happened at all. Getting past that, the idea that the internet and other multimedia outlets can so radically change a person’s subjectivity is fascinating. People either condemned or sympathized with the shooter and attempted to analyze his writing to figure out why and how a person could go on a shooting spree, which was interesting because of how quickly people judged and turned on the commenters that critiqued his writing itself rather than the subject. The hate that they supposedly saw in the subject (Cho) was then used by them to attack other people’s opinions. The subjectivity of the writing itself spread more hate than it did critical consideration, especially because most people simply assumed that the content matter was how someone could have picked up that Cho was going to shoot up a school. Stephen King’s comment against such an assumption seemed to interact with the medium that the writing was in as well, seeing as had Cho’s plays not been posted on the internet, they would not have gotten much attention beyond the school itself. 

Final thoughts: Our reliance on text and essays is detrimental for the current and future standing of composition and rhetoric studies because the world has moved beyond just using print. Also, there are many different types of compositions (like video games, which I excluded in my original thinking for some reason) and views on composition (such as queer considerations, which I am curious to know more about.)

For my reflections and a bit about Code Vein, check out this video since Tumblr says the file is too big-> https://youtu.be/bgRLQqSxRaQ 

[ultraenglishnerd]

WEEK TWO

Article One Points

Multimodal texts are not new, as seen through maps and other older mediums, but the availability with which one can make such a text is broader than it used to be. As a result, students, not typically from economically neglected households, come into the classroom with abundant knowledge of technology and how to make multimodal texts. Teachers in turn must adjust to the technological divide, as well as guide students to understand and use multimodal texts beyond just writing in order to encompass art, music, production, etc.

Metadata tags: Title=“NTCE Position Statement on Multimodal Literacies”/ Author=National Council of Teachers of English/ Length=5 Pages/ Publication Date= November 2005/ Keywords=NTCE, Multimodal, Multimedia, Multimodal Literacies, Digital Learning

Article Two Points

The definitions of the terms multimedia and multimodal are closely linked together, with the main difference involving the users of the term and their goals. Multimedia was first and is still heavily used in industry, as it is the final product that is most important, whereas multimodal exists primarily within the academic community due to the focus placed on getting to the product rather than finishing in itself. This can be seen through the academic focus on design rather than production because being able to produce the necessary aspects of a final product are valued more in academia than simply getting the product. 

Metadata tags: Title=“Contending with Terms: “Multimodal” and “Multimedia” in the Academic and Public Spheres”/ Author=Claire Lauer/ Length=20 Pages/ Publication Date=2009/ Keywords=Multimodal, Multimedia, Production, Composition, Media

Article Three Points

Composition classes have strayed away from the experimental, both due the professional constraints placed on students and to the bland, “prison” like architecture of modern classrooms. It is important to look back in history to when writing was less about proper grammar and more about doing things that have yet to be done. The main example used throughout the article is the Happenings, but the author makes it clear that simply redoing the same sort of Happenings is not constructive to rethinking composition. Rather thinking back to the freedom of creativity can put us back on the right track. 

Metadata Tags: Title=“The Still-Unbuilt Hacienda”/ Author=Geoffrey Sirc/ Length= 20 Pages/Publication Date=2002/ Keywords=Happenings, Composition, Architecture, Bartholomae, Petrosky, Modernism, Lutz

Article Four Points

Change is coming, or rather is here, as technology has brought us away from simply writing with a pencil and instead challenge us to use new forms of media in their intended ways and in ways that go against their original design. It is necessary to embrace and adapt to these changes, for departments labeled English are disappearing, either due to shifts in title, to pure composition or communication, or because of being unable to keep up with the modern way of writing. Circulation of texts and ideas is also critical to the survival of composition in classrooms, seeing as those outside of instruction write freely and often to an open public, but classes usually just ask for one audience member for a student to write to. Ultimately, change is necessary in this moment in order to ensure proper education of composition. 

Metadata Tags: Title=“Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key”/ Author: Kathleen Blake Yancey/ Length= 27 Pages/ Publication Date: Speech= March 25, 2004, Print=December 2004/ Keywords=CCCC Convention, Composition, Graduation Rates, Rhetoric, Media, Circulation

Article Five Points

Designs and designing are key to meaning making and designing includes reading, seeing, and listening in order to make meaning of an Available Design and give it context. The Redesigning phase of the meaning making process attempts to make something new, knowing that it cannot simply repeat the original design, nor can anything creative be truly individual and personal. In order to make meaning, regardless of the discipline and discourse, metalanguage acts as a dictionary and communication tool available to both instructors and students throughout the process of making. 

Metadata Tags: Title=From A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures”/ Author=The New London Group/ Length= 18 Pages/ Publication Date=1996/ Keywords=Multiliteracies, Meaning making, Available Designs, Designing, Redesigning, Metalanguage, Transitivity, Nominalization

Article Six Points

The visual side of education has long been in place, but only in relation to keeping students interested and bridging away from pure text to include things the students would see on a daily basis, such as a television. Visual components to instructional books asked students to engage with more than words, as they were likely to be required to do outside of school and in a professional world. Beyond that, visual argumentation is a rare and valuable tool for the classroom that does not, like believed, require less effort than a research paper and allows students to not only be creative, but also explore how to make a nonverbal argument. 

Metadata Tags: Title=“From Analysis to design: Visual Communication in the Teaching of Writing”/ Author=Diana George/ Length= 22 Pages/ Publication Date=2002/ Keywords=Visual Communication, Visual Argumentation, Visual Literacy, NTCE, Composition

NOTE FOR THE IMAGE: May be a bit blurry, as I used my phone to capture the set up on my desk. The iPad shows my blog for those curious. 

[ultraenglishnerd]

My struggle of attempting metadata tags. Apparently, this is not what I need to do???

[ultraenglishnerd]

My composition process of this piece was much as described above, perhaps with more confusion and less procrastination though. It was incredibly interesting trying to put my process into something other than just words. In fact, I cannot say that I have ever described my composition process at all, so this assignment forced me to thing through the steps I take when creating. This is not the first multimodal text I have made, but is the first that is not a story using an online hyperlink format.

I cannot say that I am happy with what I have created. It is not terrible, in my opinion, but I feel like my composition process is better explained orally rather than through text and images. I am a rather scatterbrained individual at times, which is why this matching incoherent process is better represented through verbal conversation than it is through steps and images.

I also created this using Microsoft Word because my computer does not have any other creation software and I did not have time to download one yet. In any case, I would have preferred to include audio, specifically audio to the link I pasted in the middle that leads to Markiplier’s Outlast play through that I usually put on in the background when I compose anything of merit. I felt incredibly limited by what I could put together on Word. I constantly tried editing things to try to make them the exact way I wanted them, only to be denied such artistic footing due to the construction of Word. For example, I had selected an image from Google to use as a background, but could not get it to sit behind everything else already present. Perhaps had I tried using PowerPoint, it would have worked, but Word seemed like a decent place to try out a multimodal text for the first week of class.

Regardless of the construction and outcome, the thought behind multimodal texts is intriguing, and I look forward to learning about them and composing more of my own throughout the following months.

-Amy