Braun – “Audio Ethnography: Listening to Cultures and Communities”

1. Why are you drawn to these arguments/ideas?
   1. I was instantly drawn to Braun’s article because the theme of her course was “reading cultures and communities”. One of the aspects of sound studies I have been focusing on is the reading of sound. I do think this is a great assignment, but I wonder how it could be made to encompass less formatting of a traditional essay. I like many of the ideas Braun presents, such as the creation of layered audio essays rather than linear.
2. How do these arguments/ideas intersect with what we’ve read so far in class?
   1. Braun places emphasis on design a composition with the audience in mind; this is something that has been brought up in many of the readings we have done for this class. And, like many, she makes it clear to her students that there is not a “right” or correct way to communicate.
3. How/if do these arguments/ideas help you think about some larger scale questions for your final project?
   1. Because I am making curriculum content centered around sound, it is nice to read a write up of something that has been taught. Braun seems to break her assignments down in a way that allow students to periodically check in via traditional written word. I like that she does this; however, I wonder if there is a way to break some of this up. How can these assignments be made to fully step away from “traditional,” written composition? What would this project be like with just noise rather than a spoken word commentary? How much is written text needed in a world where students are traditionally taught that first?

Wolf – “Audio Essays: A First Attempt”

1. Why are you drawn to these arguments/ideas?
   1. I was draw to Wolf’s article because of the wide variety of digital media projects she states she has included in her courses (slide shows/website constructions/online magazines). I also love the “real world” approach that is taken here by having students spend some of their time in an urban elementary school. The connection between their own literacy journeys and what they witness in the classroom is a great way to help them grow as effective communicators and see the importance of literacy.
2. How do these arguments/ideas intersect with what we’ve read so far in class?
   1. Wolf places a lot of emphasis on process and revision. Because of the way these articles are written, they are a lot less technical and definition heavy than many of the articles we have read. However, her work relates strongly to many of the recent articles we have read that discuss the roles our social and cultural environments/experiences play in the design of communication and understanding of it as an audience.
3. How/if do these arguments/ideas help you think about some larger scale questions for your final project?
   1. Wolf’s assignment is helpful because she clearly shows what the students deemed important during feedback and revision. It also shows how invested the students were in this particular assignment, which I think backs up the idea that this type of work is important in students’ learning.

Ridolfo and DeVoss – “Composing for Recomposition: Rhetorical Velocity and Delivery ­­– Composing for the Future and Teaching Rhetorical Velocity”:

1. Why are you drawn to these arguments/ideas?
   1. I was drawn to this article because it pinpoints the idea that students are always composing. I was also drawn to this article (well, portion of an article) because it seems the most relevant to creating course content. What I mean by that, is that it most directly discusses an assignment. The idea of remix is brought up in the beginning and strongly used to show how we are constantly remixing. I like this, and I think it can be an important thing to teach students.
2. How do these arguments/ideas intersect with what we’ve read so far in class?
   1. This text aligns itself with the views of Yancey, who we read earlier in the semester. I cannot remember right now if it was just Yancy or also someone else who talked about the importance of showing how often writing happens during the design process, even when we don’t think of it as a written composition. I believe this falls inline nicely with the idea that we are constantly composing, especially on social media, which I think many students to think as distinct and separate entities from anything remotely related to schoolwork.
3. How/if do these arguments/ideas help you think about some larger scale questions for your final project?
   1. I like the idea of finding press releases and looking at how they are represented differently. By looking at a common type of communication, it is easy to find the pattern of what makes a press release. While this is one type of recomposition, I wonder what would happen if this took a stronger turn towards multimodal composition. For instance, how could one turn a press release into an audio essay? What would be the benefits of that? Who would the audience be?

Marbeck – “Embracing Wicked Problems: The Turn to Design in Composition Studies”

1. Why are you drawn to these arguments/ideas?
   1. Marbeck seems to focus his argument on the idea that habits and familiarity, while a good start, should not be realized on during the design process. “Wicked problems” because there is not one solution or right or wrong (259). He also argues that “Design begins with the immersion of the designer in responsiveness, responsiveness to artifacts as well as to others as users of artifacts” (272). I was drawn, in general, to the use of the phrase and definition of wicked problems: “Wicked problems are wicked because they are never finally solvable; they are contingent problems of deciding what to do that require resolution ‘over and over again’” (259) “the wicked problem is any science of the artificial” (261)
   1. I also really liked his discussion of shows such as Project Runway and American Chopper as these are shows I grew up watching and had not thought about in this way.
2. How do these arguments/ideas intersect with what we’ve read so far in class?
   1. Marbeck seems to take many of the ideas we’ve discussed, including vocabulary, and push it to a new level. He seems to agree with many people we have read but believes that they have no fully embraced what he is referring to as “wicked problems”. It is his unwavering focus on the idea that there is no one way to solve a problem that seems to push him past this. There are many pieces and interactions that must come together to respond to the artifact we are creating. Marbeck refers to design as a responsibility to a response (262). I feel like this is very aligned with a lot of the articles/books we have read this semester.
3. How/if do these arguments/ideas help you think about some larger scale questions for your final project?
   1. Well, I am still a little unclear of my final destination for the final project. However, I like the idea of the wicked problems. Hopefully discussing it will help solidify my understanding of it; however, I think, if anything, there will not be one solution to the project that I am creating.

Wysocki – “awaywithwords: On the Possibilities in Unavailable Designs”

1. Why are you drawn to these arguments/ideas?
   1. I was instantly drawn to Wysocki’s article based on the “imagine if” structure of the Introduction. Wysocki writes: “The lesson is that things can be put to many uses, often neither just nor humane” (302). The idea of considering why certain design materials/final designs are not used in certain scenarios is something that I’m not sure we have read this semester (303). I believe this is a great idea and should be standard practice in most teaching scenarios. I also like how Wysocki includes compositions that we would not generally think of including in a composition class. While film is one that can be, it is probably not included enough, and thinking of a tattoo as a composition can really push students to consider the world we live in.
2. How do these arguments/ideas intersect with what we’ve read so far in class?
   1. Wysocki seems to resist others whose work we have read; she doesn’t resist them completely though as she states that she wants to know and understand some of the same things as them. For example, she refers to Kress as predictable because he has already accepted what he believes to be his logic. While she is not necessarily saying he is wrong, she is saying that he is leaving out possibilities for other interpretations, creations, experiences, etc.  
3. How/if do these arguments/ideas help you think about some larger scale questions for your final project?
   1. What would happen if my final project was made with crayon? I have a hard time expanding being design processes and compositions that I am familiar with. I am drawn towards videos and traditional written responses. This is likely due to the fact that a large part of my K12 education was spent making videos (we did this several times except with video cameras!) and learning how to compose in MLA. I think this article will help me think a little outside of the box as I continue to develop my ideas for the final project.

Sheppard – “The Rhetorical Work of Multimedia Production Practices: It’s More than Just Technical Skill”

1. Why are you drawn to these arguments/ideas?
   1. I really like Sheppard’s argument that “careful attention to practices of production can demonstrate the critical negotiations writers/designers must undertake as they compose multimedia texts” (391). I had previously never thought about design decision making as a negotiation. How something is used should be thought about in relation to the affects that it (or the product) will have on those interacting with it. Sheppard really focuses on the idea that “Failure on the part of the designer to navigate these constantly evolving constraints can create not just aesthetic problems but also rhetorical and usability problems” (396). I also really appreciated her more “formally” written student learning objectives on pages 400-401.
2. How do these arguments/ideas intersect with what we’ve read so far in class?
   1. Sheppard’s article seems very different than most of what we have read so far this class. She seems to be focusing more on the technical/rhetorical process and less on theory (or a merging of the two like she suggests should be taught). Her vocabulary is less specific, and she does not spend time defining terms. However, it seems like she is very familiar with a lot of the terminology/theories we have discussed in this class. She is also very specifically discussing the work of middle school aged children
3. How/if do these arguments/ideas help you think about some larger scale questions for your final project?
   1. I think this idea of negation the student learning objectives could be interesting and useful for me as I think through how a composition pedagogy inclusive to sonic rhetoric could be utilized in a classroom.

Part 1:

On the first page, Kress wrote something that stuck with me while I continued reading: “Multimodality can tell us what modes are used. It cannot tell us about this difference in style; it has no means to tell us what that difference might mean” (1). For example, with signs, there are always going to be design principles that are the same (like framing), but the way people go about doing that is different. Kress refers to these not as “universal” but as “shared by all human cultures” (10). What I believe to be one of the more important parts of Kress’ theory in relation to semiotics, is the difference between ideas and reactions/responses.

Kress discusses, in length, the difference between the rhetor, the designer, and the audience. The rhetor’s job is to create the message; the designer’s job is to realize who the audience is and how they react in order to create something they will acknowledge. If they do not engage the audience appropriately, there will be no true communication. One passage stuck out more to me, and it was:

“The rhetor has a political purpose: to bring about an alignment between her or his message, with its ideological position and the position of the audience with their ideological position. The designer has a semiotic purpose: to shape the message, using the available representational resources, for the best possible alignment between the purposes of the rhetor and the semiotic resources of the audience: mediating the features of what is to be communicated with the resources and characteristics of the audience.” (49)

Sometimes, and likely often, the rhetor and the designer are the same person. Modes are fairly common amongst human cultures, but the semiotic resources used to create them will be interpreted and engaged with differently by different audiences.

Metadata tags: signs; rhetor; design; multimodality; semiotics

Part 2:

I will be applying Kress and Van Leeuwan’s terms to my Fitbit video created for Post #4. My video is situated in two discourses (at least more so than any other): Fitness watch users and YouTube users. The semiotic resources (which also include mediums and modes I believe) used were an iPhone 10, a Fitbit Versa, a kitchen scale and container, food items, and the door to my house. These resources could have different meanings, but when situated together and within my discourses, they can be understood as items related to health and fitness. My design was dramatic on purpose; if any reason is applicable, it was to draw attention. A simple video about the “negative” effects of a fitness watch may not be first choice to watch. Because a Fitbit is already a piece of technology, creating a YouTube video is not stepping too far out of bounds in that regard. In terms of distribution, there really wasn’t any aside from the publication on YouTube and uploading it to the blog for this class. While YouTube can be a simple form of distribution, without proper advertising and placement elsewhere, people will most likely not watch it.

Part 3:

I think that this book touches on a lot of important things and expands greatly on the article we read last week. It makes important points about the role of the rhetor, designer, and audience to show how each of those roles need to consider different things that all assist in the process of communication. If the rhetor/designer communicates but the audience doesn’t, there is no real communication happening. My composition more or less did not have an audience other than you, but there are definitely some things I would have done differently had I had a different intended audience. For me, it is hard to consider these things hypothetically.

Part 1: Kress and Leeuwen’s framework intersects with the other material we’ve read this semester because it provides us with a different understanding of what many of the scholars we’ve read have touched on. By talking about modes as the material, social, and cultural resources they are, we can see how creation and interpretation can be different between and amongst people. If we focus on the mono-modality of “academic writing” we can attempt to create a universal understanding that is explained and received equally, but we do not all communicate in the same way. For example, we can all associate the same sound (such as sirens or a loud bang) with different meanings.

Part 2: Kress and Leeuwen wish to move away from the idea that modes have set boundaries (for example: the inclusion of a song in a movie is strictly to evoke emotion). They argue that we should allow for meaning making to have multiple articulations and that production and distribution are equally as important as discourse and design. The frequent use of semiotics in the article reinforces the idea that no one else has the same experiences shaping their articulation of communication, and they show this through their analysis of the children’s bedrooms in the House Beautiful magazine. By thinking about design, audience, how the communication will be distributed, and who will be articulating it, we can better understand the ways we communicate.  

Metedata tags: monomodality; multimodality; semiotics; discourse; distribution

Part 3:

Term:	What it means:	Application:	Question:
Strata	The distinction between content and expression (discourse and design).	The strata of communication need to be expanded to include production and distribution.	How can we expand what we consider the boundaries of communication?
Semiotic Resources	The idea that resources are material, social, and cultural.	Consider that all modes have different material, social, and cultural meanings.	What material, social, and cultural meanings/contexts does our communication have?
Discourse	Socially situated forms of knowledge.	There are many different discourses for the types of communication we participate in. The appropriate one(s) should be selected.	What discourse fits the situation of my communication?
Design	Conceptualization of the form of communication, but not actual production/product.	Design includes the following three things happening simultaneously: Formulation of discourseAn interaction for the discourse to be embedded inA way to combine semiotic modes	What discourse(s) are appropriate for this type of communication and how do they interact with each other? What is the best mode(s) for these discourses?
Production	The articulation of communication in material form.	The creation of a perceivable form of communication.	What materials/modes/mediums work best to bring your design to life? How many drafts do you need?
Distribution	The “re-coding” of semiotic products/events for recording and eventual distribution.	Distribution is re-production. It is not changing the meaning or meaning making in itself.	Consider where you want your communication to be and who you want to be in contact with it.
Mode	Modes are semiotic resources that allow for simultaneous discourses and interactions to be used/occur (the way the communication occurs).	Modes should be selected based on the discourses integrated and interactions desired for a specific (or nonspecific) type of communication.	What interaction is desired for your communication? What modes work best with your selected discourse(s)?
Medium	Media are the material resources used in the production of communication (including tools).	Media are used in aspect of the creation process.	What tools and materials are required for the creation of your product? Will you need digital/physical media or both?

One of my key takeaways from Digital Griots is the failure Banks feels at not being able to properly link “black rhetorical traditions, writing, and technology” (78). I especially like that the activities outlined on pages 81-83 both begin and end with the creation of a mixed tape. This course has been designed, it seems, with the idea of keeping the cultural significance of storytelling alive by finding new ways and methods to tell stories. Making a soundtrack to tell a part of their life story is such a great assimilation into this. It’s weird to think that there is a huge generation of people not burning CDs for themselves or their friends (making playlists is significantly different). But these tasks are things that we do in some way anyways; we may not always think of the reason why or what caused us to pick a specific song. When students are asked to make a mixed tape as a reflection or narrative to the class, they are asked to think about something they’re already doing in a new way. If we can use songs to tell the stories of our lives, why can we not use them to tell the experience we had in a classroom setting?

Banks writes that “what makes the remix” is the “linking of ‘old school’ and ‘new school,’ a synchronizing of generational commonalities and tensions that allows, even demands, innovation while remaining inked with histories and traditions” (90-91). Banks claims that many members of the older generation believe the younger generation has lost some of these important “old school” qualities when in reality they haven’t. This disconnect is interesting as it seems that there is a gap that needs to be bridged between, not only these two points of view, but also the methods being used to convey the narratives. While not directly related to the discussion Banks is having throughout this part of the text, I am working on a non-thesis that looks at the way sound is interacted with by the characters of James Baldwin’s novel Just Above My Head. A large portion of this project will be looking at how the characters interact with sounds of time (the novel largely takes place in the Civil Rights Era) and the use of gospel music (both the act of singing by Arthur and the integration of lyrics at specific moments throughout the narrative). While I’m not talking about storytelling directly, even the act of writing about sound can have these same benefits.

From a strictly sound perspective, I do think it would be interesting to make a mixtape to show the relationship between our Fitbits and the way(s) we may let them “control” us. In terms of cultural/rhetorical traditions that I am a part of, I think the biggest one would be being an American in the 21^st Century. I’m from Eastern Washington and haven’t strayed far from there. And I think my generation has been in the middle ground of not experiencing a lot of technology growing up, to still being young enough to grow up with it as it became popular. I think this makes me more aware of the ways that it is affecting our lives. I think it is this awareness that caused to make a video themed the way I did in the first place.

Metadata: storytelling; narratives; composition; remix; rhetoric

This post is in response to Jody Shipka’s Toward a Composition Made Whole. (I apologize for my lack of page numbers – I read this on my Kindle.)

Part 1:

Below is the multimodal composition I made about my Fitbit. While I do use my Fitbit to track stats, I do not allow it to control my life. This is an exaggeration of how our Fitbits can know more about us and help us make our decisions if we give them that agency.

Part 2:

Shipka’s book was interesting, and I liked what she had to say. The idea that we have placed so much emphasis on “new” technology as being screen based is something I hadn’t thought of. It makes me rethink the fact that all of the multimodal compositions I have made for this class have been more or less made for the screen. It is most likely because of how used I am to working with my computer, but it does make me think of how I may have done something differently. For example, I could have created a poster, or a poem, or maybe even a sculpture. At the very least, it will make me rethink before creating one of these in the future and push me not just use­ “new technology”. The only “old” technology I used was an index card I used to draft out the shots of my Fitbit that I wanted to take. It’s easy to reach for technology and screens when an assignment is asking you to make a multimodal composition about said technology.

Part 3:

Chapter 1:  Rethinking Composition/Rethinking Process:

Shipka believes that we need to acknowledge that “literacy and learning have always been multimodal” and that we need to fully incorporate “the material, multimodal aspects of all communication practice”. She suggests that a well-rounded composition course should look at how writing relates to and works with other communicative modes and media. My overall takeaway from this chapter is that we need to consider all parts of our students’ identities (their backgrounds, where they’re from, the classes they travel between, how they act, communicate etc.) in the same way that we need to consider all aspects of communication, both the new and the old.

Chapter 2:  Partners in Action: On Mind, Materiality, and Mediation:

Shipka proposes a framework that traces how “texts are created, circulated, and consumed” through situatedness and distribution processes. She discusses the ways in which most activities we partake in use tools, whether physical or psychological (and the importance of realizing this). I like Shipka’s idea that labeling something as multi- or monomodal can take away from the fact that a wide variety of tools and resources were used in its creation—this is, I believe, a key takeaway from this section.

Chapter 3: A Framework for Action: Mediating Process Research:

Shipka uses chapter 3 to discuss, in detail, student work. She looks at the resources, technologies, and strategies used along with conflicts and disruptions. Shipka chooses to focus on the work of a student who did not have a good relationship with writing and who did not have a significant amount of experience with it. The student work and interview show that writing was used for more than just the tasks of thinking and organizing but also as a way of coordinating and utilizing other resources. Writing is more than just the final product, and students must find ways to work differently, not harder.

Chapter 4: Making Things Fit In (Any Number of) New Ways:

Shipka cautions instructors that what we consider to be an important text may not be relevant to the work our students are attempting. This compromises our ability to help students become effective communicators in the situations they may find themselves in, which are vastly different than those of their instructors. The purpose of this is to show how students should be given the flexibility to create flexible forms of communication.

Chapter 5: Negotiating Rhetorical, Technological, and Methodological Difference:

In this chapter, Shipka argues that students should “assume responsibility for describing, evaluating, and sharing” the purpose of their work and the potential it holds, thus allowing them to become more flexible and sophisticated in their rhetoric. By forcing students to write statements of goals and choices for all compositions, they are better able to see the weight their work holds. When students become aware of the steps they take and their effects on others, they become better communicators.

Metadata tags: framework; materiality; modes; composition; circulation

I read Alexander and Rhodes’ Techne first, and I found it both perplexing and fascinating. Not only did it explore topics and subjects in relation to composition in a way that I probably wouldn’t have otherwise, it was also very personal. And of course, it was the perfect example of what I would consider a 21^st century multimodal composition. Here, we see a mix of text (which could be found in any number of academic texts), images, videos (with and without sound), hosted on an html site, where the user can click and scroll through the various chapters and “pages”. As fascinated as I was by this (and as intrigued as I was by the content), I still had a hard time reading it. I’ve discovered that it is hard for me to read anything other than a mass market paperback or cheesy young adult literature fantasy novel electronically.

In their introduction to Techne, Alexander and Rhodes pose the question “Why write the self?” Their focus seems to be on the idea that we are constantly reinventing ourselves; we are never static. And because of this, the various ways we compose shift and emerge in new ways. I think part of the process of showing this in Techne, was showing how they have both reinvented theirselves. The talked about orientations, rhizomes, genealogies, and mobilities to show that these aspects of our lives, the ways we are queer and our connections/disassociations, seep into our compositions. Our cultural and societal experiences and expectations shape how we approach communication. The more we can understand not only ourselves, but others who may come in contact with our compositions, the better adept we are at creating meaning.

There were a few key point in On Multimodality that I held on to and grappled with while I read through the text. Alexander and Rhodes argue that “the field largely fluctuates between (1) the instruction of traditional alphabetic literacies and the creation of the ‘composed’ text and (2) an attempt to reconfigure the ‘essay’ through multimedia and multimodality” (45). The idea that no matter what medium the focus remains on the text sets boundaries on how we understand learn how multimodal compositions circulate. Throughout their book, I feel like they take us on a journey of whether or not we need to see everything through the lens of the essay. I would argue that we do not need to, but in some ways, I think this idea has been hammered into us so often that we may do some things naturally similarly. Think for instance how movies and video games (RPGs anyways) have introductions (and a story hook), a body of events, and some sort of conclusion at the end. However, the difference here is that we are not using text (alone or necessarily prominently) to get the point across.

While I have never played World of Warcraft myself, I was very intrigued by the chapter on gaming because I’ve recently (within the last year) started playing Dungeons and Dragons. This is a very collaborative and interactive game where the game master leads you through a plot, but the actions you and your fellow player characters make affect the outcome of the game. Lately, I have been writing a campaign that we will start soon. This has included world building (the creation of history, cities, timelines, and descriptions) and plot points that my player characters will interact with. Though this is different than something like a computer game where there are visuals and text messages, the focus is not totally on the text (it is for me as the game master but not my characters). Once we start, it’s more theater of the mind and relies heavily on grids drawn with the general layout of where the player characters are. This is all composing, and like they mention in Techne, the building of this world is partially reliant on my own experiences and the media that I’m in to.

I did not feel as good about visualization last week as I did the multimodal composition I made for the first post. I struggled with it, opting to create a collage of images I found on the internet and a sentence made out of words/phrases from each chapter that I felt represented the pieces as a whole (at least in some way). I think I could find a way to add more of my self to my visualization. What I made does not represent how I felt or interacted with the sources. I could do this by creating a video montage rather than a collage and discussing how each image connects to a specific text and end with the sentence I created. I feel that is more along the line of what Alexander and Rhodes would have done.

Metadata tags: rhetoric; multimedia; multimodal; composition; queering

Like most writing processes, mine is extremely messy. I often have a hard time getting what is in my brain into a coherent enough form to write about. I make haphazard notes, write things out of order, and skip the introduction altogether. Usually, I have to verbally talk through my ideas, especially if the content is something I’m unfamiliar with or threads I’m grasping at weaving together. Once the ideas are there, I write as much as I can with little worry about flow and organization.

My first draft is always atrocious. I print it out and go through it by hand, marking it up like crazy. I draw arrows, I cross sentences out, and I write new ones. And finally, I create a draft that I am (usually) proud of.

The multimodal text I created to show the process mentioned above from the beginning: the spark(s) of thought in my brain. The process was almost therapeutic in a way, and although my first thought was how am I ever going to create something that shows this, I went with my first instinct. Because I used a whiteboard like surface, I did not necessarily feel restrained by the materials as I was able to show the spark of an idea as well as the revision process. The integration of the printed pages was to show how the ideas merge from my brain (the white board) to a printed page after much thought. Because verbally talking about my ideas is not always a step I take, I didn’t represent it here. However, had I used a different format I may have incorporated this.

The verbal aspect of this process is a lot messier for me than I described above. It often takes me several attempts at explanation to get the ideas from brain speak form to human-to-human form. Because of this, I think the creative angle I took worked better for me than both linguistic or oral communication would have. I incorporated the music (which is from an rpg music site: https://tabletopaudio.com/) as a means to hopefully show the delight that can come from ideas sparking. I am very happy with what I made; it turned out a lot better than I thought it would.