I’ll be presenting the talk “A Methodology of Interdependence through Video as Method” during Computers and Writing 2018, session D7 at 3:45 PM on Friday, May 25. Here are the presentational materials if you can’t make it or if you would like to follow along.
Below, please find resources from our panel presentation at Mapping Terrains and Navigating Bridges, a conference held at Macomb Intermediate School District on June 24, 2017.
PPT slides from panel presentation: “Technical Writing and Digital Rhetorical Spaces”
Assignment from WRT 160 – Proposal for Research Inquiry
Assignment from WRT 160 – Annotated Bibliography
Assignment from WRT 160 – Inquiry through Video
Assignment from WRT 160 – Inquiry through Written Research
Assignment from WRT 382 – Job Package
Assignment from WRT 382 – Business Correspondence
Assignment from WRT 382 – Proposal
Assignment from WRT 382 – Progress Report
Assignment from WRT 382 – Group Research Project
Assignment from WRT 382 – Research Report
Assignment from WRT 382 – Pecha-Kucha Presentation
I’ll be presenting at the Indiana Digital Rhetoric Symposium on Friday, April 10, 2015. My presentation is entitled “Methodologies for Research in Digital Rhetoric: A Survey of an Emerging Field,” and I’ve attached presentational materials below. There is a script of my talk, PowerPoint slides, and a short annotated bibliography of sources related to digital methodology.
I’m teaching a class this term called Writing for New Media. As I prepped for class today, I read about anchorage, a new media composition technique drawn from the work of Roland Barthes, where a composer anchors a visual with written text, directing the viewer’s attention and changing the reading of the image based on the words, the anchor. Thinking of anchoring images in this way reminded me that I’ve been meaning to blog for a while about transitions, change, and the “anchors” that sustain.
So much has happened in my life over the past months, both academically and personally. Last year, I defended my dissertation and finished my PhD in English and Education at the University of Michigan, I was on the academic job market from September through February, and I got a job at the end of it all as an Assistant Professor of Writing and Rhetoric at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan. This past summer, I walked in graduation, my partner and I sold our house in Toledo, Ohio, and we moved ourselves to Rochester Hills, thirty miles north of Detroit.
Amid so much change, I feel anchored – personally, by my partner and family, but I also feel professionally anchored through my graduate training, the mentoring I received from my dissertation advisors, my experiences in the field of composition studies, and in particular, through what I’ve learned as a new media teacher and composer and a member of the computers and writing community. Let me offer a few examples.
In May, I worked as a Senior Instructor at the Digital Media and Composition Institute at Ohio State. I met and got to know wonderful teachers and friends there, led sessions on audio-visual composition and copyright, and watched as many participants composed their first audio and video compositions. At the end of the institute, everyone gathered at Cindy and Dickie Selfe’s home to watch the participants’ “Concept in 90” video compositions. We drank margaritas, ate desserts, sat outside in the yard as the evening turned dusky, and viewed and listened to each other’s compositions projected on a large sheet. The videos played consecutively in a row with no stopping. As I watched, insects were biting incessantly at my ankles. But I couldn’t move, riveted by the images flitting by and the sounds and silences filling my ears. I had observed and talked with participants as they conceptualized their Concept in 90 videos, looked at drafts, and tried to help trouble-shoot many technical problems. Watching the results of our efforts together in person was special, and magical, and meaningful. Teaching, and encouraging and helping as best I could, and then watching others use new media to communicate and to move an audience – this anchors me.
After DMAC, later in June, I attended the Computers and Writing Conference at Washington State University. C&W has always been an anchor for me – a welcoming, smaller conference, filled with friends and teachers grappling with how to best use technologies in the writing classroom and generous senior scholars willing to mentor and guide (and buy beers for) us junior folks. A few highlights from this year’s conference:
- speaking at the GRN (Graduate Research Network) and seeing all the bright, excited faces anticipating the job market – oh, if you only knew what lay ahead, the joy and the sorrow! (I presented this video on how to win the job market.)
- listening to Kyle Stedman, Jon Stone, Harley Ferris, and Steven Hammer present on sonic rhetorics, play weird sounds, and even sing!! (You can access my review of their session on the Sweetland DRC.)
- bowling with other video composition specialists!
- watching Sarah Arroyo’s, Bahareh Alaei’s, and Corey Leis’s video compositions at their panel – I cried!
- hearing UM colleague Aubrey Schiavone present on her research about multimodal composition and textbooks: smart.
- learning about Mike DePalma’s and Kara Poe Alexander’s research on new media and transfer
- cheering for my advisor Bump Halbritter as he won the Computers and Composition Distinguished Book Award for Mics, Cameras, Symbolic Action
- walking and talking with UM colleague Liz Homan and celebrating my birthday with wine, cheese, and HGTV
- presenting on using audio-visual composition in FYC (drawing on my dissertation research) to a room full of interested and engaged scholars
As always, C&W was supportive, stimulating, fun, and I learned a ton. In other words, the folks in the C&W community, their openness and generosity, the cutting edge scholarship, and the opportunity to join in and to learn – this anchors me.
Now, in the fall term, I’m teaching three writing classes and finding out what it’s like to be a prof. I spend much of my time planning for teaching – oh, the planning! I have also mapped out a research agenda for the fall, and I’m drafting several articles and a video project. I go to meetings, and I’m starting to serve on committees. But amid all this, the planning and the mapping of my own agendas and the getting-through-the-day, I see my students, and I get to witness and encourage their writing and learning. I met with one student today, for example, who is grappling with developing specific inquiry questions for what will become a video project and a research essay on music therapy. I can’t wait to see, hear, and read what she’ll compose. I also gave feedback on essays, blog posts, and one collage made with Polyvore – some were creative, fun, and fantastic. And then, as I finished my work day and walked from my office to my car, I looked around, and the campus was suddenly beautiful. The sun was shining, and tinges of fall colors were edging their way onto the leaves of trees. Cicadas chirped, the baseball team was practicing on the field below, and it was beautiful. This – the students, the creativity, the beauty – this anchors me.
I started Cs 2014 with a pre-conference workshop “Sonic Pedagogies for the Composition Classroom.” The workshop focused on using sound in the writing classroom, but it also emphasized for me, right away, the importance of listening, of taking time to hear, think, pay close attention, and take in, all of this in preparation for composing, producing, teaching. My Cs experience as a whole can be usefully framed by such a listening experience, I think – listening to sound and its rhetoric, but also to words, visuals, and to the diverse community of scholars and teachers at the conference.
I first was given the opportunity to listen in the Wednesday workshop led by Kati Fargo Ahern, Steph Ceraso, Jordan Frith, and Jonathan Stone. We had a small but interested group, and the small size made it easy to participate and to really listen to each other. What I appreciated from the presenters was that they had us do activities like those we might ask our students to do when focusing on sound in the writing classroom, and then we talked about what we did, we reflected. We listened to music and described it, in our own words, and then shared, working toward developing terminologies to discuss sound together. We remediated a newspaper article into a plan for a sonic essay, considering what we might highlight or omit using sound as the medium. We designed a sonic product in pairs – Kati and I came up with a “sound palette” for essay grading that would prompt the instructor with comforting and encouraging noises. We looked at some social sound-mapping websites, and we talked about how and why we might ask students to develop rhetorical soundscapes. I walked away with ideas upon ideas for the new media classroom. More of Kati’s, Steph’s, Jordan’s, and Jon’s work can be accessed online in the Sonic Rhetorics issue of Harlot.
Wednesday night, one of my mentors, Lisa Ede, along with her writing partner Andrea Lunsford, was honored for her retirement at the Norton party. It was special for me to be there and hear about the power and reach of Lisa’s work. Lisa introduced me to Rhetoric and Composition as a field back when I was a Masters student at Oregon State in 2002. Of all the scholars I know, Lisa is so good at listening, and at responding – to her students, to her collaborators, to the field.
My Thursday was filled with panels of different sorts where I listened, took it all in, mulled it all over. Notable was session C10: “Opening Up: How Information Technologies Alter Composition Research Methodologies” with Timothy Laquintano, Quinn Warnick, Benjamin Miller, Amanda Licastro, and Brian McNely. The presenters discussed how different technologies and online spaces altered their methods for research, whether that be use of pseudonyms (or not), data collection in online forums, obtaining permissions, or publication of data. My big takeaway from the panel was that technologies in research highlight the complexity and context-specific nature of methodological decisions. As digital writing researchers, we can’t afford to adhere to blanket, one-size-fits-all methodological approaches that will always work in every research situation. We must be flexible, careful, and ethical, and this may require more work – and again, more listening to participants and to the research contexts we are in.
I started Friday morning by earning my sparkle pony and some trading cards for Cs the Day, the conference game – wahoo! And then it was on to F24, “Mindfulness and Contemplation: Open Minds/Bodies/Writing in Classrooms” where I heard another mentor, Vicki Tolar Burton, along with Kurt Stavenhagen, talk about using mindfulness practices, meditation, and contemplative strategies to teach distracted students. Kurt led us through a few minutes of meditation, as well – what a calm, embodied, and collaborative start to the day. I was also making connections between Vicki and Kurt’s work with mindfulness and asking students to reflect more specifically in the classroom. Next, I attended G14, where the panelists presented revisions to the WPA Outcomes Statement (OS) to better include multimodal work. The revisions are extensive, and they involve language in the OS that is now more “verby,” less “nouny.” That is, it seemed to me that the revisions were concerned with how students learn to enact and talk about their writing and composition. In previous iterations, the OS focused more on product. The desire to include multimodal composition and digital writing throughout the OS, it seems, has taken some of the emphasis off of product for all kinds of writing, a change that I see as a great improvement.
I presented in H37, “Remixing Scholarship, Remixing the Classroom: Opening New Spaces for Teaching and Learning through Video.” With me was Ben Gunsberg, who talked about asking his students to make instructional videos to teach sentence writing, “remixing” the sentence. He showed some student work that used voice, gesture, and facial expressions in effective and hilarious ways. Steve Engel then presented a digital literacy narrative on plagiarism, the story of finding out a student copied from Wikipedia. Our audience was engaged with discussing what we might do in such a situation. Then I presented my video “Singer, Writer: A Remix Exploration of Sound and Writing.” Making the video was an experiment, as its title implies. In an effort to make a multimodal literature review, I put together footage from Mary Hocks and Jody Shipka’s 2013 Computers and Writing panel with my own footage of writing and singing. The video became a poetic comparison of choral singing and writing more broadly, and making it was very generative for my own learning about sound, remix, and process vs. product. Having students do a similar comparative exercise seems to me a good idea! It was also really fun to put sounds and images together in new ways and explore juxtaposition and repetition as compositional strategies.
On Saturday, I attended M22, “Videocy in the Age of Open Access: The Challenges for Scholarship.” Geoffrey Carter, Robert Leston, Sarah Arroyo, and Bahareh Alaei made arguments for “doing more” with video, for composing as a listener, for moving beyond the voice over – issuing calls to attend to sounds and juxtapositions. The presenters also gave us in the audience ample opportunity to see and listen right there: they showed some pretty dynamite videos, filled with magnificent visual juxtapositions. More of their work can be found in the Kairos piece MoMLA: From Gallery to Webtext.
The last panel I attended was perhaps the most memorable: Cynthia Haynes, Victor Vitanza, Jenny Rice, Byron Hawk, Thomas Rickert, and Jeff Rice razzing and celebrating the work of Geoffrey Sirc in N36: “Never Mind Geoffrey Sirc: A Tribute Panel.” Surprisingly (for me, knowing the names of the presenters but not knowing them personally), the panel was emotional. I’ve heard others describe it as loving and beautiful. One of the coolest aspects was experiencing the presentations in a room full of excited, interested, and emotionally invested scholars. There was laughter, murmuring, constant tweeting, shared photos, video recording, even tears. Some people knew Sirc; some people knew other people who knew Sirc. Some people knew Sirc’s work; others knew of it and jotted down notes to go home and read some of it. The presentations were lyrical, metaphoric, juxtaposed, associational, hilarious. Geoff Sirc’s work was lauded and his theories of box logic and serial composition were simultaneously enacted. When Sirc finished his response, the audience sat in stunned silence, almost reluctant to break the spell of the panel with a question. It was 1:55 on Saturday afternoon. The conference was over, but no one was leaving. We were still listening.
I was part of the organizing and editing team for the 2013 Computers & Writing Reviews, and I’d like to highlight some of them here. I also welcome any feedback on my review or others!
I composed a review of Katie King’s keynote address, “Living in Enough Worlds at the Same Time: Speculative Feminisms and Boundary Objects.” Writing the review was challenging and fun for me, as I had little background knowledge before the talk on feminist transdisciplinary post-humanities theory or research. However, I was excited to weave my own conference and writing experiences with quotations from King into an assemblage that, I hope, demonstrates and enacts some of her arguments.
My E&E colleagues Liz Homan and Merideth Garcia also wrote reviews, and I’d like to highlight their work here as well. Liz’s review connected Gee’s talk on making with her research on teachers and how they learn. Merideth’s review summarized Stolley’s arguments while intermixing live tweets from the conference and highlighting the importance of rethinking code as a writing skill, even if it’s not one that everyone in the field is an expert in.
And there are many other awesome reviews to look through, too – even some with visuals and video! So check them out!
I am home after a busy weekend in Frostburg, MD for the Computers and Writing conference. I come away energized by the work of others in the field, excited to continue to share my own research, and grateful for such a wonderful community of friendly and accepting scholars which I get to be a part of! Here are some highlights from the weekend:
Thursday: Thanks to Shelley Rodrigo and Kyle Stedman who volunteered their time to facilitate my table’s discussion at the Graduate Research Network. While 20ish minutes isn’t much to share your research or to explain your entire project to a table of (mostly) strangers, I always find it a useful and relatively low stakes space to ask questions and learn to talk about what you’re doing in a concise and understandable way. In the afternoon, I enjoyed the job workshop and gleaned some information from bouncing from table to table and listening to faculty talk about various topics: campus visits, job talks, publishing, negotiating a job offer. My favorite piece of advice from the afternoon was this: if you get a question you don’t know in a Q & A session after a job talk, it’s ok to say “wow, that’s a great question. I need to think some more about that,” and then you can talk about something that the question reminds you of – “that reminds me of so-and-so’s work on…” Then you have bought yourself some time to think through a further answer, or the questioner can pick up from there and talk about their work, which apparently is what some questioners want to do when something in your talk reminds them of their work! I will definitely be using this advice. Thank you to Janice Walker, Angela Haas, Quinn Warnick, and Patrick Berry as well for helping to organize the GRN for all of us grad students.
Friday: Gee’s keynote blew me away. He used a metaphor that’s stayed with me for the typical work that we are asking students to do in schools: it’s like reading a videogame manual without actually playing the game. We need to work toward getting students to “play the game”; that is, they need to write for purposes and audiences that are important to them and that have meaning. I also had a great time presenting on Friday with Anne Ruggles Gere and Liz Homan about research methods. For more on our pres, check out my conference presentations page.
Saturday: Sessions, sessions, sessions! I went to sessions all day! The highlights included listening to Jody Shipka and Mary Hocks talk about sound and the ways they use it in their own scholarship and teaching, being persuaded (again) by Karl Stolley that I need to learn to build more things, and thinking about some topics that I don’t often consider in relation to computers and writing, such as e-waste and preservation or opening up questions of gender and the computer more explicitly in the classroom. It was also my birthday on Saturday, so I celebrated in style with some friends that evening for dinner.
Sunday: I attended the accessibility panel on Sunday morning before heading home. The panelists pointed to the complexities of making texts accessible when we deal with the multimodal, and also how software and interfaces can screen attention away from accessibility if we’re not careful how we use them. Good, important lessons and reminders.
All in all, I had a wonderful conference! Fueled by all these ideas, I now return to diss writing. As I spend mornings and afternoons typing away in my office, it sometimes seems like I’m writing in a vacuum, but conferences like C&W remind me that the work matters, and there are many others who think it matters too, and collectively, we are doing great things!
On Monday and Tuesday, I attended the keynote addresses at the Digital Cultures in the Age of Big Data institute at Bowling Green State University. Lev Manovich skyped in on Monday morning for a talk on methods for studying contemporary interactive media, and N. Katherine Hayles spoke this morning, sharing with the audience her digital companion repository that pairs with her book How We Think: Digital Media and Contemporary Technogenesis. A few words here about my take-aways and the questions that arose as I listened to each talk.
Manovich made an extended argument that research in the digital humanities needs to turn away from digitizing and analyzing documents alone, but instead that researchers need to be looking toward cultural activities as data, meaning the processes and performances that occur when a user interacts with software. Practically, he was advocating for more attention to users and what’s going on with them when they use a technology and less attention to the technologies themselves. While I agree that these methods could be a useful line of inquiry for humanities scholars, I have been mulling over some of the claims and assumptions that Manovich made with respect to “old” and “new” media: old media as non-interactive or less interactive, new media as fundamentally different, and thus more interactive. It is true that users do interact with newer forms of media in shifted ways, but users also interacted with older forms of media–the scroll, the book, the pencil–but perhaps in ways not as visible as mouse clicks are today. Perhaps research methods of old could also have been shifted to pay more attention to interaction, then, too. I’m also left with questions about how to put Manovich’s ideas to practical use: how can we even begin to record and analyze user experiences on a big data level? Maybe the starting place is to begin small, working up to the big data inquiry that Manovich argued we need.
Hayles spent her talk describing and showing her own digital humanities project, the digital companion to her book, How We Think. Hayles created this companion site in part to make the data she used when composing her book available to more scholars. Using the repository, other users can come to their own conclusions and the data can generate new and different questions. I’d be interested to hear if Hayles has any information about if the site is being used, and if so, by whom. Also interesting was that the repository gave access to full recordings of interviews that Hayles conducted with prominent scholars in digital humanities as part of her book research. The recordings are tagged with key themes, so that a user can go directly to the portion of the data that is of interest. While the audio quality of the interviews isn’t superb, and navigating through the material isn’t the easiest with the controls provided, the raw data is available to others and visible in a way that research data usually is not.
Overall, both talks got me thinking about methods, research, data, and how the digital offers different opportunities for developing, asking, and answering questions about texts and users of texts. As Hayles mentioned, these concerns are becoming more and more relevant to the academy, and soon, they will be the concerns.
Post-Vegas, my brain is a little fuzzy. I’m now 3 hours off, and I didn’t sleep much last night because I took the red eye into Detroit. Before I am swallowed whole by the coming week, which will involve continuing to draft my dissertation, driving to campus for class, and showing around the new class of recruits, I’d like to take a few minutes to reflect over my favorite moments from this year’s Cs conference.
Awesome moment 1: making myself compose with objects in the half day workshop “Evocative Objects.” We brought objects into the workshop, we traded with other participants, and we picked one object out of a bag. Then we had an hour to “compose” with the objects in front of us. I found myself sitting there with an organic paper stationary set, 2 notepads, chalk, and a cloth doll, rolling the paper and unrolling it, situating and re-situating the doll with the other objects before me. I kept thinking to myself what’s my purpose? What am I trying to say with this composition? I tried new combinations and new juxtapositions; I cut up letters and started to spell. Check out my composition here. But the the coolest part of the workshop was having others “read” our compositions to us once they were finished. Being able to see where my own piece was unclear or not as directive as I’d hoped was fascinating. And I also was a little shocked at my own ability to analyze and pick out the messages in the work of others. The entire experience left me with much to ponder about how composing with objects is different from and the same as composing with words.
Awesome moment 2: Yancey’s talk on Wednesday at the end of the QRN: “Navigating the Currents of Research Activity on Transfer of Knowledge and Practice in Writing.” It was the end of the day and I was exhausted, but Yancey’s concise summary of the transfer research in the field was so useful. She pointed me to several recently published texts, and made me think deeply about concepts such as the role of metalanguage in our courses.
Awesome moment 3: Kevin Roozen talked about transfer of writing knowledge across media in his Thursday morning session with Wardle and Nowacek. He called it “remediation,” drawing from Bolter and Grusin. I was just excited that someone else was actually going there.
Awesome moment 4: Saying hi, ever so briefly, to my wonderful mentor Lisa Ede after her feminist rhetorical practices panel on Thursday. She is so wonderful!
Awesome moment 5: My favorite panel of the conference was “Compositional Expansion: De- and Re-Composing Materialities” with Jody Shipka, Erin Anderson, and Trisha Campbell. Dr. Shipka showed her latest video, which was layered and complex in exciting ways. She layered together found home-video footage and sound material, along with a ghostly image of herself on the side – reminding me that there she was, underneath it all, mixing and remixing the materials. Some of the sound she used came from her classroom and some from interviews with others, and she layered multiple sound tracks at various points in the movie. The video we watched isn’t up on her website yet, but she has posted many of her other projects there. Erin Anderson then showed us her “Coerced Confessions” remix videos– she uses digital video editing to remix the words of actors into confessional statements. The videos are jarring and bizarre, but suggest much about what can (or should) be done with digital voice as a compositional medium. Finally, Trisha Campbell finished the panel by showing her “Composing Murder” project, where she maps and composes a network for the murders that take place in Pittsburgh each year. She also collects evidence of the victims’ digital imprint, archiving Facebook pages and images. I was emotionally moved by Campbell’s project and think it could have an important impact as a tool for the community, but it also challenges my notions of composing new media. Is her archive a composed text?
Awesome moment 6: Presenting with Chris Dickman and Ben Gunsberg during the last session to a much larger audience than expected! People hung in there for us, and we had a great showing. I talked about my dissertation research, and Ben and Chris showed really interesting work relating to making video resources for students and having students compose screencasts.
And there were other awesome moments, too – hanging out with others in my program, seeing graduates and catching up on their lives, seeing the fountain show at the Bellagio, and realizing that writing teachers, well, we just rock! But I already knew that before.
Thanks, Cs 2013 and everyone involved, for a great conference!
I’ll be going to the WIDE-EMU unconference at Michigan State on October 20, 2012, and my session is called
“Find It, Add It, Edit It”: Using a Do-It-Yourself Workshop Approach to Learn Video Editing.
The session is a “Do” session in which participants will take part in a do-it-yourself, collaborative workshop approach to learning how to video edit. After taking part in the workshop, we will discuss the possibilities and pitfalls of such a pedagogical approach for the composition classroom.
Check out the video preview of the session below, and I look forward to seeing (some of you) there!