# data[].attributes.body
As did our textbook, this article emphasized the multiple differences in terminology in the multimodal world. The definition that was most helpful to me was at the bottom of page 717, where Werner described that multimodal writing is "about designing texts by utilizing various modes of writing," but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is digital. The gift box example on the top of page 718 made me realize that this is a modality that could really be applied in a high school classroom; the students get very tired of writing the typical essay, so something as creative as that could lead to student buy-in and engagement that wouldn't otherwise be possible.

# data[].attributes.body
In Freiburg's article, he discusses the intersections of multilingualism and multimodal pedagogy. To me, his thoughts on this are well summed up with his concept of "knotworking," which is "the continual tying and untying of genres, objects, texts, and people" (105). To really cross the two pedagogies, this type of knot work is necessary; if one thinks about it, multimodal pedagogy could be described in this way, as well. Different pedagogies (genre, process, etc.) could be portrayed in different modes, and therefore the intersectionality would continue! This also relates to his concept of codemashing, which is the "complex blending of multimodal and multilingual texts and literary practices" (102). I wonder how this is really different than codemeshing, though; couldn't code mashing be coined a multimodal type of codemeshing? Would there really need to be a different term for it?

Overall, though, crossing multilingualism and multimodal theories sounds like a good idea!

# data[].attributes.body
Viewing a synthesis of how different universities approach multimodal instruction was a key goal of this study. Much of the article was spent discussing the research methodology; while this was interesting, I feel that I didn't take much that was easily applicable to the classroom. What I did learn, though, was that at the time of publication, multimodal instruction was a mixed bag. Many universities still did not have a set definition of what multimodal instruction was, and it was largely up to the instructor if that type of activity was used. I wonder what the results would be like today; all universities use some type of online platform, but I wonder how many of them would have true multimodal instruction!

# data[].attributes.body
This chapter discusses teaching writing courses online through both synchronous and asynchronous means. Hewett begins the chapter by addressing a few different divides present in online teaching, but one that stuck out to me was that "between the so-called 'tech savvy' and 'non-tech-savvy, online instructors'" (196). After listening to some of my students' and family members' complaints about their online courses, this has got to be one of the biggest barriers to successful online learning. If a course is not laid out in a user-friendly way and teachers aren't using the technology correctly, it's going to be really hard for students to learn. This chapter had lots of good tips, though, but perhaps the most useful was the section "A Synthesis of OWI Components" on pages 204-205. This list explains everything that instructors should ask themselves when designing a course, and that would be the most helpful part (personally) when outlining an online writing course!

# data[].attributes.body
This chapter focused on New Media pedagogy, and the debate about whether it should be called new media was interesting to me. I do agree that calling it new media excludes some important types of media from the past, but I also think that it's okay to call it such as that reminds people to always be keeping up with new technologies. The statement "that we should be joining our students where, when, and how they write" was very powerful to me, and I feel like it's true across all pedagogies (188). However, pulling in types of writing that they are doing, such as Instagram, Twitter, or blogging, is a very powerful way to both engage them and make them realize that instructors want to make the learning applicable to their lives. On age 183, Brooke started discussing access challenges, and the entire section sounded like conversations our district had about access to technology during the Covid shutdowns. Her discussion about infrastructure supporting use of new technologies reminded me of the bond that was passed for our district last year; when our facilities were built, it was very much in the time of teachers standing at the front of the room and delivering information. Now, though, we are focusing on student collaboration and teachers being facilitators of learning, so the layouts for renovated classrooms are more conducive to that style. This type of updating for the times is what New Media is all about!

# data[].attributes.body
In this chapter, Jody Shipka explains how she organizes and teaches her FYC course. She encourages readings of composition strategies, but what I enjoyed the most of her chapter was the toolkit approach (215). Instead of viewing composition as an individual task, this approach helps writers realize that there are many tools available to them that make composition not an individual task. Something I was leery of was how detailed all of the reflections in this course seemed to be. We always try to make students have as few assignments attached to reading as possible so that they can enjoy it as much as possible, but this type of reflection could be beneficial in a college course, though. On page 228, Shipka said that the goal of the course is for students to become more "sophisticated and flexible rhetoricians" who can "rigorously reflect on their own work" is a great goal, though!

# data[].attributes.headline
FYC 8: Beyond Text and Talk: a Multimodal Approach to First-Year Composition

# data[].attributes.subject
FYC 8: Beyond Text and Talk: a Multimodal Approach to First-Year Composition

# data[].attributes.body
This article is relatively straightforward: Shipka lays out her FYC class, stating that while assignments, activities, and texts might change for a course, her beliefs have and will not: "That those teaching first-year composition should be teaching composition, and that the proper subject matter for composition courses is composition" (211-212).

Admittedly on the surface level, this seems like a straightforward and simple proposition: isn't the point of a course to teach the things outlined in the course? However, Shipka takes this idea deeper, pointing out that in too many courses, "the terms 'composing' and 'writing' are too often, and erroneously, equated" (212). Rather than teaching about the ways in which we utilize writing for each circumstance in our lives, composition classes often instead focus on how to write an essay, how to understand rhetorical concepts, how to utilize proper grammar, etc. The class instead becomes a course focused on sterile writing, not overly applicable to the world at large.

Shipka argues instead for a focus on what James Werstch calls a "tool kit approach" which gives students the understanding of how to approach multimodal situations in the 21st century and how to properly create accordingly in that multimodal space (215). What writing is appropriate for a blog? For an advertisement? A bumper sticker? Shipka focuses instead on the writing that is all around us, and instructs her students to instead on the ways in which they can effectively implement strategies to get the job done in the context they need the job to be completed in - not just randomly creating a writing sample.

# data[].attributes.body
Though the purpose of the survey was to explore the integration of multimodality into composition education at a time when the practice was seemingly peripheral (2005), I was initially a little unnerved by the small survey sample of 45 respondents. The authors admit the research limitation, and explain it as a result of no comprehensive list of instructors existing at the time. To me, a proponent of multimodal composition, this strengthened the justification for the need of the survey in the first place.

At the time, the survey finding that “the majority of multimodal composition was occurring at the individual level and not necessarily in program-wide efforts” (69) served as a notable contribution to the field, because it demonstrated the need for a myriad of support. Access to technology, training, and instruction materials, in addition to faculty promotional incentives were identified as challenges to be addressed for advancement of the field.

To those in composition studies who were indifferent (or in denial) about multimodality when this article was published, I suspect Anderson et al. intended to get their attention with the inclusion of Kress’s passionate position on the detrimental and exclusive focus on written language in the article’s introduction. Described as “an often repressive and always systematic neglect of human potentials,” Kress makes it incumbent upon the composition profession to look beyond text and recognize the undeniable meaning-making of images sounds, music, and animation.

# data[].attributes.headline
Anderson et al: Integrating Multimodality into Composition Curricula: Survey Methodology and Results from a CCCC Research Grant

# data[].attributes.subject
Anderson et al: Integrating Multimodality into Composition Curricula: Survey Methodology and Results from a CCCC Research Grant

# data[].attributes.body
Anderson et al. came into this research grant with a relatively understandable problem: they and others in the field have begun to recognize that "the bandwidth of literacy practices and values on which [composition studies] has focused during the last century may be overly narrow" (59). As the world around composition studies has continuously undergone change, only a few members of the composition studies community had begun to change with it at the time of the publishing (2006). Indeed, the study that Anderson et al. created showcased this finding, explaining that "although teachers who responded to the survey understood multimodal composition as involving texts that combined words, still and moving images, sound, and animation, the primary instructional focus for such assignments in 2005 was on the inclusion of visual images and photographs, rather than video, animation, or sound" (79). In other words, while composition teachers recognized the changing nature of the study they found themselves employed in, they were largely not embracing the change itself.

I found this study to be informative, but not overly helpful, if I were being honest. I think it's important to understand where the composition studies community is on such a topic as multimodal instruction and practice, but that the fact that this article was published in 2006 makes it outdated. For instance, the first iPhone was not released until the following year, and since then, technology has only continued to evolve at an increasingly-rapid pace. Where would this study be now?

# data[].attributes.headline
Werner: How Rhetoric and Composition Described and Defined New Media at the Start of the Twenty-First Century

# data[].attributes.subject
Werner: How Rhetoric and Composition Described and Defined New Media at the Start of the Twenty-First Century

# data[].attributes.body
This article served a very simple and direct, yet important purpose: that "new media is defined and situated within two distinct scholarly conversations (composing in contemporary society and composing in academia) and has varied definitions supporting arguments made within these overarching conversations" (713). In focusing on this point, Courtney L. Werner echoes a message that many other readings for this chapter have stated in one way or another: the writing classroom is changing, and we as teachers of writing had best change with it. Rather than sticking to the old conventions of the writing classroom, Werner argues, "our students' increasing personal engagement with multimedia technologies, as well as the steady adoption of multimedia in the classroom, challenges the primacy...in how we communicate" (715). We need to focus on implementing strategies of composition and rhetoric that work with the various aspects of 21st-century writing, and Werner highlights how the composition community has shifted that way in the study she implements.

In order to highlight how things are changing, Werner ran a study examining two questions: (1) "In what ways do scholars frame discussions of new media within rhetoric and composition studies from 2000-2010?" and (2) "How do scholars define new media from 2000 to 2010 in published scholarship?" (720). By asking these questions, she scoured through four main journal databases in the composition world and their publishings from 2000-2010: College Composition and Communication (CCC), Research in the Teaching of English (RTE), Computers and Composition (C&C), and Kairos (721). Searching through the databases, she examined key themes and trends among the articles in order to find the answers to her questions.

The predominant answer to the first question is as follows: "scholars in the field frame issues of new media in seven minor categories of conversation, three major categories of conversation, and two overarching, framing conversations" (725). She points out that the different trends in discussions of new media all have different through lines, and she highlights them in her article. Overall, she found that new media is discussed through "composing in contemporary society" and "composing in academia" (725) and this feels no different than discussions from previous moments in composition. However, when she breaks it down further, she finds that these discussions go so far as to discuss minor topics such as "digital text," "composing technology," and "issues about/defining modern and traditional concepts of composing" among others (725), further showcasing that while these conversations are far from over, they have begun as a composition community in general.

To the second question, Werner found that new media itself is defined through six key areas: "new media is digital composition...new media is multimodal...new media is interactive...new media breaks from print traditions...new media is crucial for the development of the discipline...and new media is a concept of originating in other fields of study" (726, emphasis original). While these also branch off into further discussions, the results of both of these are clear: the discussions are ongoing, and the discussions are headed in the direction of multimodal composition and education.

# data[].attributes.headline
GCP: Fully Online and Hybrid Writing Instruction

# data[].attributes.subject
GCP: Fully Online and Hybrid Writing Instruction

# data[].attributes.body
In short, this chapter is a simple discussion on some of the things an instructor needs to consider with online writing instruction (OWI). Hewett starts with a brief history of OWI by addressing what was then called, "distance education." What distance education generally entailed was educational material that was mailed to a student and/or sent via voice messages. The student would independently go through the course material, and take a proctored exam at a later date. Other times, the student would answer test material by bubbling in response sheets, and providing some written artifact, usually an essay, and then mail them to the institution for grading. Ironically, when I was stationed in Bosnia, I completed two college courses in this manner. It was the best that technology had to offer at the time.

As with any new technology, institutions and instructors struggle to find an appropriate way to use it for instruction. The detractors of OWI argue that the instructor-student relationship needed for effective writing and learning suffers when buffered through various modes of technology; the "human touch" is lost. With our ability to interact through  "virtual" conferencing with applications such as Zoom and Google Meet, instructors can retain a lot of the face-to-face interaction in-class students enjoy. As with any technology, the greatest obstacle for institutions and instructors have for effective OWI is their collective imagination.

Hewett asserts that there are several components or "building blocks" (196) of OWI needed to create a functional writing program. They are: "course setting, pedagogical purpose, digital modality, medium, and student audience" (Ibid).

An OWI really only has two-course settings; a completely online course where the instructor and student(s) never actually meet in person and a hybrid setting in which a portion of the instruction is in a classroom setting and the instructor and student(s) will meet. (197) Although, some may feel a hybrid setting is better than a completely online class, I feel that it depends on a number of criteria (some of which I'll mention later in greater detail) such as the student or instructor's personal and/or resident condition, socioeconomic and/or geopolitical considerations that may preclude the ability for a traditional (face-to-face) instructional format.

The pedagogical purpose shouldn't be impacted by the type of instruction or the ideology of the instructor. I do believe though that a course that has some "virtual" facetime (Zoom, Google Meet, etc), as opposed to one that has none, feels more connected. The pedagogical focus should remain the same regardless of the instructor's approach to instruction.  The one potential detriment through OWI could be how an instructor provides feedback to their students. (Ibid) Again, I haven't experienced any noticeable depreciation in how instructors provide meaningful and thoughtful feedback to my writing assignments.

Whether instruction is asynchronous or synchronous, the material is the same. Yes, with asynchronous modality, the immediacy of interacting with one's instructor is not present, but as with all elements of OWI, both the instructor and student must be mindful of this reality and modify their expectations. As an online student and English teacher, I encounter both modalities on a daily basis. For either party, a common-sense understanding and patience with instruction and learning are elements one needs in order to be successful.

The primary methods in which to deliver OWI are by voice recordings, audio, and video. Which medium of delivery is utilized is dependent upon the institution. In the late 90s, I received instruction through a series of voicemails that I would call once or twice a week. I could listen to the voicemail as many times as I needed. I felt that they were too impersonal, but I still managed to gain instruction, learn, and complete the course. Today, students of OWI have the benefit of interacting more closely through visual means such as Zoom meetings or Google Meets. Additionally, institutions have created entire departments dedicated to online learning, allowing students the flexibility to attend college courses from across the country with minimal differences in content material and instruction. Essentially the only difference for some is the location.

I think the greatest element to successful OWI learning is the students themselves. A lot of factors have to be considered before learning in an OWI setting. As with anything, a student must want to learn in this manner or at least be willing to try to learn in OWI. Students must be self-motivated and unencumbered from external distractions, which is why using online instruction for secondary students in less-than-ideal home environments can be fraught with obstacles to their learning. As with any OWI program, a well-structured course will provide a number of ways for the student to be successful. Although, even the best-laid plans can fall apart if a student isn't technically and mentally prepared for the rigors of OWI; the onus for success, especially in a post-secondary setting, is squarely placed on the student.

# data[].attributes.body
I did not find any particularly deep insight into OWI in this chapter, but I appreciated the things that Beth Hewett put forth. I found it slightly funny that Hewett put an emphasis on distance education and OWI in this chapter, given the way education has been shaped by distance learning for the previous year and a half. However, the historical context did provide insight into how distance education was predominantly thought of.

In particular, Hewett really focused on six core components to consider when implementing OWI in an online setting: Course Setting, Pedagogical Purpose, Digital Modality, Medium, Student Audience, and Technology Availability (196-203). Without getting too far into the weeds on these subjects, I think it's important to note that these aren't too different from how we think about teaching in a general classroom setting (even before COVID-19 forced many of us into an entirely-online setting for a while). It is always important to consider such ideas such as how you are going to engage with your students, what pedagogical decisions you are making for your classes, what content and media genres are you engaging with, who your students are, and how technology will be implemented. These are not new questions to ask about a classroom; the only difference in this context is that Hewett focused particularly on how these questions are answered via an online class.

# data[].attributes.body
I personally loved the reflection that Collin Gifford Brooke offers in this particular reading. In the chapter, he offers the insight that "it is our responsibility as writing teachers...to understand the scenes where our students write, the tools they will be using to write, and the often uneven attitudes (and access) that our students may have with respect to these technologies. To put it in Davidson's terms...our students will be responsive to their technological moment, and as teachers we had best be prepared to join them in that moment" (177-8). In summation: students don't just write using pencil and paper: with the advancement of technology, students use various sorts of media genres in order to accomplish different acts of writing. It is our job as teachers of writing to notice these genres and teaching writing accordingly.

In recognizing this idea, Brooke sets out four core principles that teachers of writing should follow with the teaching of writing in the 21st century:

First, "new media pedagogy is more than 'teaching to the text'" (180), implying that the goal of teaching writing in the 21st century is more than telling students how to create a different product in a particular medium. Instead, we should focus on the practices used to create that product. In other words, teach the skills, not just the content - just like in other classes, where teachers are instructed not to just "teach to the test" but rather to teach skills and have them be applicable to the assessment.

Second, Brooke argues that a 21st-century writing classroom should "[involve] creating the classroom spaces that can encourage our students to experiment" (181). In the 21st-century, as writing rapidly changes, so too must the means of writing change. Not only that, but because of the rapidly-changing media being implemented, teachers of writing must facilitate a culture of trial-and-error within their classroom. This helps students truly engage with the newness of the writing while naturally acquiring the skills necessary to be successful.

Third, Brooke stresses that writing in the 21st century often "operate[s] on 'Internet Time' (and so must we)" (181). Rather than focusing on a specific equation for how to get to a successful outcome in writing (for instance, the drafting and editing process of a paper) we must recognize that multimodal products, particularly those which are created for the purpose of being shared on the internet, may not follow the same structure. I particularly found this influential, and I think that this is a strategy that can be implemented on a wider basis in the writing classroom.

Finally, Brooke underscores the importance of exploration and engagement. Specifically, Brooke does this by challenging old notions of teaching, stressing that "teachers must abandon the notion that all expertise must flow from the front of the classroom, particularly when it comes to technology. Even those who are considered experts...cannot expect to master every single program or application, and many of the platforms associated with new media lends themselves to (and indeed encourage) collaboration" (182). In other words, when engaging with the different media genres present in the 21st-century writing classroom, it is important to understand that students come to the exercise with not only a different set of expertise in the area, but also with a need for collaboration in order to create the best outcome possible. This too, I believe, is an important outcome to take away for classes in general: we as teachers are not the only ones in a class with expertise, and we should tap into the student expertise accordingly to be successful.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Mental map by a student in a Chilean EFL teacher education program from http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0123-34322017000100057

# data[].attributes.body
Through his experience at a high tech firm in Israel, Fraiberg looks at the infusion of English across multiple spaces and applications to develop a multilingual-multimodal framework for the future of composition. In response to communication technology innovation, globalization, and the growing population of multilingual students, combining Canagarajah’s process-oriented World Englishes codemeshing approach with multimodal and remixing perspectives makes sense to operationalize in classrooms.

Fraiberg argues the codemashing of multilingual and multimodal are shaped by cultural ecologies, “a constellation of historical, economic, social, and ideological factors” (101). In addition to ecologies, the framework for his analysis integrates knotworking, remediation, and actant-network theory. I found the latter concept fascinating, as Fraiberg’s observation of techies communicating with one another while using various tools and engaging with mediums demonstrated how “individuals shape the tools, and in turn the tools shape the individuals” (106-107), creating a third agent, or a space “co-constituted by the participants and deeply bound up in a process of (re)mediation” (107).

His findings suggest the need to re-articulate and remix composition teaching, research, and administration to consider: literacy regimes, convergence culture, co-constructed literacy practices, an approach less bounded by institutional borders, and an expanded definition of writing.

# data[].attributes.body
In brief, Fraiberg examined the intersection between different languages coupled with the manner in which, depending on the one language or culture has either sent or created the text or received it, it was sent (the modality and medium). He provides an anecdote of a graffitied sign in Israel that read (in English), "Know Hope," which is addressing very real issues in Israel but has used English to convey a potentially ambiguous message; to know or learn of hope, or simply that hope doesn't exist, "no hope." Here the intersectionality of English being as the medium to convey a culturally, socially, and geopolitical statement specific to Israel.

So why is this important? To Fraiberg, he believes that understanding how multilingual and multimodal intersections of communication work and are interpreted would be something of great importance in composition pedagogy for the twenty-first century. (101) Nowadays, strict country boundaries are becoming more and more blurred through our growing global economy, our ability to connect with others across the world, and the impact social media, in general, has had on the globe. This, Fraiberg, asserts is how composition can bridge the gap between traditionally restrictive monolingual policy and one that goes toward creating a more heterogeneous student body (Ibid) and destroy the myth of linguistic homogeneity. (102)

Fraiberg looks at four concepts that are intertwined that create a coherent multilingual compositional perspective. They are 1. Ecology 2. Knotworking 3. Remediation, and 4. Actant-Network Theory.

With ecology, one works with trying to better understand languages as circulating in complex ecologies. In other words, how are words of one location or culture used and interpreted elsewhere in the word? With regards to "knotworking," Fraiberg looks at how different locations of intersected language are constantly "tying" (binding a word, modality, or medium) to one locale or "untying" by separating the two apparently disparate differences and then tying them back up under a different context or framework.

As with remediation, Fraiberg wants to understand how a language of one country travels and changes over time to be "repackaged" to represent something else. And the fourth concept is called the Actant-Network Theory, which seeks to erase the binary between objects and people. (106-7), a key element that allows for a greater interconnectedness and reinterpretation than ever before.

He feels that this could open an entirely new theater of compositional exploration that he calls a "convergence culture." (117) "This analysis suggests a need for a re-articulation, re-assembly, and remixing of teaching, research, and administration" (116).

Although I find value in what Fraibeg has argued, I wonder if it is really practical for first-year students to be exposed to a new concept while they are already busy enough learning the basics of composition. I think this area of concern could and should be a more comprehensive examination of multi modalities and multi linguistics in other, more focused courses.

# data[].attributes.body
If you could have coffee with one of this week’s authors, who would it be? I choose Jody Shipka. Despite my love affair with written words, Shipka’s holistic philosophy of examining “the relationships among words, images, codes, textures, sounds, colors, and potentials for movement” encapsulate the reasons I pursued the academic discipline of communication rather than English. Composing meaning with multiple modes beyond text is a magnificent performance art of which I never experienced in my 1990s undergrad English classrooms, so I’m thrilled to see this evolution in composition.

It would be difficult for me not to hijack all of her ideal course intentions bulleted on pages 212-213 in a classroom, though I’m particularly fixated on getting students to “attend not simply to what a text says or means, but to what the text does” (213), supported by Briggs. Like the reference to Dunn, I believe encouraging students to investigate the purpose and motives of communication, while considering multimodal contexts, makes students more engaged and informed citizens (212).

Among Briggs, Dunn, and others, Shipka links her pedagogy to Odell and Prell’s “comprehensive view of composing” (212) and Downs and Wardle’s writing about writing. Students examine the functions, contexts and modes of compositions to see composing as a craft that can be learned (as opposed to an ability one is born with) and reinforce an awareness “compositions are built, constructed” and not magical revelations (217). Investigating and answering three key questions helps students acknowledge the components and moves of composition: (1) What is it? (2) What is it comprised of? (3) What work does (or might) it do?

Like other pedagogies, reflection is a key component throughout the course, and relied upon for assessment. I especially see value in formalizing reflection in the Statements of Goals and Choices (SOCGs) for the transfer purpose of building student self-awareness of the challenges they encountered and the choices they made to accomplish the task. For instructors leery of grading unfamiliar new technology formats students may elect to use for their compositions, SOCGs assist the instructor with the very practical benefit of “navigating, responding to, and assessing such texts” (228).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Things They Left Behind: The Estate Sale as Archive

# data[].attributes.body
In a Political Rhetoric and New Media course, students created video remixes as a means to learn how to apply rhetorical concepts, understand the role of parody and pop culture in activism, and compose and amplify activist messages for a broad public audience. Dubisar and Palmeri cited prior research indicating students found multimodal projects engaging, and composing digital remixes served as a method of invention and a skill useful in the workplace and public realm.

I was very interested in the instructor’s hypothesis the “process of remixing might help hone students’ skills in rhetorical analysis, since a remixer must necessarily attend closely to the ways in which language is used in her or his source texts” (80). The research findings from student interviews showed the importance of having students write reflectively about the conscious rhetorical choices made in creating their videos, to transfer their rhetorical analysis knowledge in future situations.

The video remix assignment showed students how they could compose for and engage an audience outside of the university, which I also found compelling. Among others that we’ve read this semester, Redd used a book review assignment involving Amazon.com (FYC 175) and Adler-Kassner and Estrem (2003) featured research writing at their “Celebration of Student Writing” event to give students the opportunity to compose for real world audiences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LOOK HERE'S THE DEAL!  Trump vs Biden REMIX (2020 US Presidential Debate) - WTFBRAHH

# data[].attributes.body
While multimodal itself is often a collaboration of literacies and modalities, Collin Gifford Brooke reminds instructors of the reciprocal opportunity to learn from and collaborate with students using technology that may be unfamiliar. “Teachers must abandon the notion that all expertise must flow from the front of the classroom” (182).  I adore this quote, along with the advice from the WIDE Research Center Collective, “if we want to teach writing or help students learn how to write more effectively, then we have to be with them where they write” (188).

Of the principles the author outlines for incorporating new media into learning, a few particularly resonated with me. First, the importance of designing a program in which students are developing and practicing effective communication as opposed to fixating on a final product. While slick productions may be alluring, I think students likely find using multimedia and multiliteracy for the process of invention and development more engaging in and of itself anyhow.

Second, the principle of encouraging students to capitalize on trending topics (“Internet time”) was also noteworthy. (In honor of #BritneyFreed, check out this YouTube gem. How many hours did this student spend analyzing lyrics for rhetoric?)

Third, an assessment strategy that addresses the composition of text, images, and sound must be clearly articulated and understood by students. We’ve see reflection used in assessment previously, however I’m really curious about additional assessment criteria (such as the context, artifact, process management, substance/content, and habits of mind identifies by the National Writing Project). So far I’ve found Digital Writing Assessment and Evaluation edited by McKee and DeVoss (2013) helpful.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
21 Examples of Rhetorical Devices: Britney Spears

# data[].attributes.body
Dubisar and Palmeri open an excellent discussion on the use of digital multimodalities, specifically during political rhetoric and its application in the classroom of composition pedagogy. The article discusses how during (for the article's purpose) the 2004 Presidential Election, digital technologies like YouTube were being used to create, amplify, and disperse political rhetoric about a specific political candidate. (77) In future elections, a greater and more intense digital campaign emerged with a variety of digital multimodalities coupled with popular culture references to have had a great impact in recreating new narratives about individuals.

Naturally, the writers wanted to take digital multimodalities into the classroom to see how they can be used with students that 1. Have grown up with these technologies and 2 Will, in all likelihood, use these same technologies in the future and develop a digital composition pedagogy to be implemented in composition courses.

Some things the writers wanted to examine were:

How are digital artifacts influenced by cultural ecologies?

What kind of rhetorical work does it accomplish and how influential is it?

What have students learned? (78)

Some of the interesting things that came out of their observations were how students gained a deeper and more contextual appreciation for the types of digital mediums used, how they worked and didn't work with other types of media, the difficulty in blending the technologies to create the type of messages they were initially seeking or how their concepts migrated from the initial idea into a different one. Additionally, the students were also faced with the very real issue of intellectual property and fair use. (Ibid)

The writers felt that first, students entering into a composition course need to be immersed in digital multimodalities because it is simply what is being used now and for the foreseeable future; it's just another tool in their composition toolbox. They also felt that the study showed that students used the digital technologies in much the same manner that they had with other resources; they were forced to think about not just what types of technology to use but how it was being used, its social and cultural relevance, importance and potential consequences, the limitations and bridging capabilities of certain digital applications. Furthermore, students' ability to blend a number of digital multimodalities to create (invent) something new. (Ibid)

As with most articles discussed in this part of our course, it provided another example of how integral digital media like, blogs, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, Facebook, and a number of other applications are to our digital society. Composition, as we have seen, can't remain a stagnant concept of pencil and paper; it has to be able to evolve and work with the society it is meant to represent. I feel the greatest hurdle for emerging composition pedagogies, technologies, and modalities to be fully embraced and taught in the classroom comes from us. We can't continue to play "catch up" all the time.

# data[].attributes.headline
FYC 8: Beyond Text and Talk: A Multimodal Approach to First-Year Composition

# data[].attributes.subject
FYC 8: Beyond Text and Talk: A Multimodal Approach to First-Year Composition

# data[].attributes.body
Author Jody Shipka provides a straight-forward approach to how instructors should approach a first-year composition course and what students should expect and what's expected of them. Shipka opens the chapter with two clear positions; "those teaching first-year composition should be teaching composition, and that the proper subject matter for composition courses is composition" (211-2). It's sounds simple and that's the point, it is; Shipka's argument is that a composition course should focus on how one "composes" their writing, to include the various elements that go into composing a piece of text; having a thorough theoretical understanding of the communicative process; understand the variety of mediums students can use to communicate; appreciate the "dynamic whole" of communication that includes the arrangement of words, the types of mediums that can be used, the interconnectedness between words and cultures and languages, and what a text can do not just say; to actually think about how one's words are composed to create nuanced meanings between words, images, people and ideas; and lastly create a deeper sense of ownership of what one puts on paper by being more accountable. (213)

Shipka argues that students in various other disciplines write about their discipline, but in composition the focus seems more on writing about subject "X" and less on the actual art of how one composes the work; students' sole focus in a composition course should be about composition. In [Shipka's] "course [she] has students reading, thinking, and learning about composition as a course, object, and multimodal communicative practice" (214).

Part of this immersive approach is for students to be aware and have access to their "mediational means" or what Lev Vygotsky calls their "'psychological tool'--language, various systems of counting, mnemonic techniques, algebraic symbol systems, works of art, writing, diagrams, maps, mechanical drawings, etc." (215). Shipka believes that students need to take a conscious inventory of these tools as they compose their work to fully appreciate the dynamism of composition. With this in mind, students can look at composition as actually composing, putting together--with their tool kit available--"the built, constructed, crafted, and material dimensions of compositions and composing practices" (217).

Part of Shipka's student's responsibility is to be versed in historical, theoretical, conceptual, and practical aspects of composition. Historically, students should know the general historical evolution and tenets of composition. A strong theoretical understanding of the art of composition and of written texts and production of written text is to appreciate different styles of composition. Also, students must fully embrace the multitude of mediums available to implement within their composition, not just as a means of communicating but also to conceptualize different ways in which we can communicate and become more interconnected with others. Lastly, Shipka offers her own list of essential texts to incorporate in her students' tool kit, something that each instructor should personalize depending on their particular institution, ideology, and goals. (219)

Shipka's assignments are, for the most part, typical assessments like, group presentations, and large research projects, but what she focuses on with these assignments is how the students think when they compose (not write) their work. The subject material is secondary if not superfluous to her. What is important is how they build their work, shape it into something that is layered and thoughtful.

When she assesses her students, her aim is for her students to take ownership of their work, she wants them "to ensure that students think carefully about the choices they make" (227). In order for her to accomplish this task, she questions not the substance of the work but the process in how her students go there in the end, for example, "What, specifically, is this piece trying to accomplish"? (Ibid) She wants to know their thought process. In doing so, students must truly "think" about not only what they composed, but more importantly, the why.

# data[].attributes.body
Brooke examines the subject of introducing "New Media" technology into a composition class. At first blush, it would seem relatively straightforward; just do it. Unfortunately, it isn't that easy, in fact, there are a number of considerations to examine before one can "just do it."

For many traditionalists, change is an uncomfortable but needed element in education. We simply can't ignore the impact technology has had on the world and the need to evolve with it. For some teachers, using new media feels as if they are abandoning conventional written text and by doing so, students lose the value of composition. I would argue these very teachers had some instructors that viewed using computer programs like Word (back in the 90s) to write papers as being equally unnecessary. The fact is, as with all things, everything, even composition, changes (evolves) over time.

Brooke argues that "new media" isn't merely the various mediums in which to use to teach but an entirely new approach to teaching, a multimodal pedagogy. (178) A multimodal pedagogy addresses the various and innovative ways to approach teaching but also the "multiliteracies" created using multimodalities in composition. (Ibid) For example, Prezis were used to create annotated bibliographies instead of the traditional text-based written end product, the Prezis allowed students to develop different processes in organizing their information and by doing so create them in a way that allowed students to draw connections between the annotated bibliographies that they otherwise wouldn't have done the other way, this created different layers of literacies within the same assignment.

With technology, students can implement visual mediums to communicate, such as infographics (181) that allow students to be more innovative and experimental in how they communicate. Additionally, instructors need to understand that most, if not all of their students have lived with the internet all of their lives and think and operate in a less linear fashion. Students are more comfortable composing shorter passages in social media formats like Twitter, Snapchat, and Instagram. Instead of demonizing the new media students use to communicate, instructors need to incorporate these new forms in their instruction.

Like all things, there are challenges and considerations for fully embracing "new media" in the classroom. I think the most critical challenge is to challenge conventional norms of composition; people hate to change. Some very real challenges deal more with socioeconomic differences; not every institution has the financial means to integrate their departments in a meaningful way with new media opportunities for their students. Additionally, access to high-speed internet and wifi are very real obstacles in parts of the country. Lastly, how do instructors adequately assess "new media"? If students are offered multimodalities to use for composition, are there multi-assessment criteria to provide equity in grading?

Brooke doesn't definitively detail how instructors should implement a multimodal pedagogy for composition, only that it needs to be done. Brooke argues that instructors' resistance to modernizing their instructive approach isn't helping anyone. Students, for the most part, are already way more "computer savvy" than most of their instructors and the technological divide is only going to get bigger. Just as the chalkboard gave way to the whiteboard and the smartboard, so too must instructors and instruction meet the challenges and student expectations of integrating technology with composition.

# data[].attributes.body
Though Hewett is forthright (and maybe a little frustrated?) technology is moving faster than researchers can discern how to make it effective for Online Writing Instruction (OWI), I appreciated her discussion on the five components to consider in building an OWI program: course setting, pedagogical purpose, digital modality, medium, and student audience.

As a student, I highly value online instructors who provide the instruction strategy outlined on page 198, comprised of using direct language to explain problems in student writing, explaining why it’s a problem, and providing clear guidance on potential next steps to spur the student’s ability to make changes. I’m empathetic, however, to the time commitment such written feedback requires.

Since GCP was published in 2014, I’m hopeful technology advancements may have reduced the time intensiveness of some elements of OWI, in addition to improving the personal connection between students and instructors in an asynchronous modality. Although I thrived on extensive and very direct written feedback from an asynchronous instructor earlier this year, my classmates thought he was a heartless jerk. Using an easy video recording format like Zoom to deliver lessons and feedback may have demonstrated he was human and showcased a more likeable persona to improve immediacy.

Enough can’t be said about student preparedness to learn online. At Arizona State University, the first assignment in every online undergrad course I took was a quiz on the syllabus, including basic stuff like how to contact the instructor, reach tech support, use online library resources, meet discussion post expectations, and proper etiquette. Unfortunately student discipline and motivation aren’t pre-requisites for online courses, and I never encountered accommodations available to make OWI more accessible for diverse learner needs. These are significant considerations to achieve course learning objectives.

Patricia Webb Boyd’s assessment of students constructing knowledge through discussion thread responses was fascinating. Like the students in her research, I still find instructor feedback to be most helpful in learning. “She cautions teachers that their presence, therefore, remains crucial to the teaching and learning process even though students can be included in the construction of their course” (206). I respect professor Cole’s philosophy of not lurking on the discussion board, but I’d be lying if I didn’t admit I wish she’d chime in every now and then to confirm we’re on the right track or prompt us to continue probing.