Monthly Archives: November 2011

Syllabus: Studies in Sonic Rhetorics

I’ve been working on a hypothetical graduate-level course that I’d love to teach one day. Look it over and let me know what I’m over- or under-emphasizing! But wow–I’d like to take this course!

(Note: none of my italics made the copy and paste from Google Docs. Forgive me for not going through and re-inserting them.)

Studies in Sonic Rhetorics

Course Description

Interest in sound and music studies grows each year in the rhetoric and composition community, as evidenced by special issues on sound in the journals Enculturation (1999), Computers and Composition (2006), and Currents in Electronic Literacy (2011). But beyond these disciplinary boundaries, issues pertaining to the rhetoric of sound have been discussed in musicology, aesthetics, and media studies. What meanings can we develop together through a broad investigation of the scholarly work on sound and music, read through the lens of our own disciplinary understandings?

To answer that question, this course introduces students to the study of sound as nondiscursive rhetorical communication that deserves to be studied alongside visual and textual rhetoric. We will listen broadly, always considering what sound offers us that text and images do not–and whether those affordances tend to help or hinder in particular settings. Not content to analyze, we will also compose our own digital audio texts for a variety of informal and formal purposes, playfully practicing the moves we read about in scholarship–and moving beyond them.


By the end of this course, you should be able to:

  1. Demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of the rhetorical possibilities of communicating with sound
  2. Compose audio texts with audio software for a variety of rhetorical purposes
  3. Adopt the academic discourse of rhetoric and composition scholars by creating a publishable text

Course Requirements

This course requires you to do simple audio editing on freely available software like Audacity or Garage Band. No special skill in audio editing is required, but you must have regular access to a computer of sufficient power and reliability to perform basic editing tasks. You’ll also be served well by having a teachable spirit that is willing to scour online tutorials when the software doesn’t perform the way you’d like it to.

You must also have regular access to a microphone (or variety of microphones). You’ll use your mic to record your own voice, to interview others, and collect sounds as you explore. We’ll discuss our options for purchasing and renting mics on the first day of class.


Most texts are available through Blackboard, in your course reader, or for free online.

Required Texts

  • Miller, Paul D., aka DJ Spooky that Subliminal Kid. Rhythm Science. Cambridge, MA: Mediawork and MIT P, 2004. Print.
  • Course Reader

Recommended Texts

  • Schafer, R. Murray. The Soundscape: Our Sonic Environment and the Tuning of the World. Rochester: Destiny, 1994.
  • Kelly, Caleb. Cracked Media: The Sound of Malfunction. Cambridge, MA: MIT P, 2009.
  • Murray, Joddy. Non-discursive Rhetoric: Image and Affect in Multimodal Composition. Albany: SUNY, 2009.


Weekly Sonic Sharing

Ironically, this course includes a lot of reading. To balance that logocentrism, we’ll also critically listen to sonic texts that we collect ourselves. However, to expand the reach of our ears, each member of the class (including me) will share a digital audio file of some kind each week with the rest of the class in our class blog, accompanied by a short written description. You should expect to share both musical and non-musical texts (even as we question those definitions) along with sounds that you discover online, download, digitally capture, or record yourself in the field. We’ll begin each class by listening to some of the most evocative sounds you shared and discussing how they intersect with our readings. As we share, we’ll question the affordances of sonic messages as contrasted with the textual.

Composing Activities

You’ll compose three minor audio assignments throughout the semester. Each should last between three and five minutes and will require you to perform minor audio editing tasks.

  • Composing Soundscapes: Choose at least three different sound files from and blend them together in some way. Then write a short (two-page) rhetorical analysis of your completed soundscape. When and where would this newly composed sound play? What effect would you hope it would have on a specific audience?
  • Composing Audio Essays: Using the short NPR news story as a guide, compose an audio essay that reports on an issue of importance to you. This should primarily be voiced by you, but as with the best audio essays, you should also include at least one interview and various pertinent sound effects. Your topic is less important than your method and your rhetorical purpose; what techniques will you use to guide your listeners toward the understandings you want them to have?
  • Composing Pedagogies: What is the role of sound in composition pedagogies–both in terms of the assignments we give our students and our delivery of course objectives? (For instance, this syllabus is delivered as a text; why?) To work toward answers to these questions, compose an audio text that you could use when teaching an undergraduate composition course (at any level). This might be a resource that answers common student problems, an assignment that you think is better heard than read, a sample text to show students some of the possibilities of digital audio, or almost anything else that is designed for a student audience. What exigencies do you sense in your teaching that sound can help you address?

Publication-Ready Article

The course will culminate with a publication-ready “seminar paper” that is ready to send out to a peer-reviewed journal in the field. This can take one of three forms:

  1. Traditional Essay: This twenty-page essay will explore an issue pertaining in some way to sonic rhetoric, perhaps responding to a gap or problem that you’ve identified in the course readings.
  2. Audio Essay: This audio essay of at least ten minutes will also respond to some pressing issue in sonic rhetoric studies. It should feature your voice prominently, but you may use any other audio technique to supplement your voice.
  3. Web Text: Web texts for online journals can take make forms, often including a good deal of text alongside multimedia elements–though they can also be spaces for unexpectedly creative modes of communication.


  • 15%: Weekly Sonic Sharing
  • 15%: Composing Soundscapes Assignment
  • 15%: Composing Audio Essays Assignment
  • 15%: Composing Pedagogies Assignment
  • 40%: Publication-Ready Article

Reading Schedule

Week 1: Epistemologies of Sound

  • Selections from Katz, Steven B. The Epistemic Music of Rhetoric: Toward the Temporal Dimension of Affect in Reader Response and Writing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1996.
  • Selections from Burrows, David. Sound, Speech, and Music. Amherst: U of Massachusetts P, 1990.
  • Selections from Attali, Jacques. Noise: The Political Economy of Music. Trans. Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1985.

Week 2: Soundscapes and Ambience

  • Selections from Schafer, R. Murray. The Soundscape: Our Sonic Environment and the Tuning of the World. Rochester: Destiny, 1994.
  • Bull, Michael. “The Seduction of Sound in Consumer Culture: Investigating Walkman Desires.” Journal of Consumer Culture 2.1 (2002): 81-101.
  • Rickert, Thomas. “Music@Microsoft.Windows: Composing Ambience.” The Writing Instructor (2010).

Week 3: What Does Music Say? Aesthetics and Music Philosophy

  • Selections from Langer, Susanne K. Philosophy in a New Key: A Study in the Symbolism of Reason, Rite, and Art. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1957.
  • Selections from Meyer, Leonard B. Emotion and Meaning in Music. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1956.
  • Selections from Hamilton, Andy. Aesthetics and Music. London: Continuum, 2007.
  • Price, Kingsley. “Does Music Have Meaning?” British Journal of Aesthetics 28.3 (1988): 203-15.
  • Erickson, Gregory. “Speaking of Music: Explorations in the Language of Music Criticism.” Enculturation 2.2 (1999).

Week 4: Musical Rhetoric Foundations

  • Selections from Bonds, Mark Evan. Wordless Rhetoric: Musical Form and the Metaphor of the Oration. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1991.
  • Burke, Kenneth. “Rhetoric–Old and New.” Journal of General Education 5.3 (1951): 202-09.
  • Selections from Murray, Joddy. Non-discursive Rhetoric: Image and Affect in Multimodal Composition. Albany: SUNY, 2009.
  • Rickert, Thomas. “Language’s Duality and the Rhetorical Problem of Music.” Rhetorical Agendas: Political, Ethical, Spiritual. Ed. Patricia Bizzell. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2006. Print. 157-63.

Week 5: Musical Rhetoric Applications

  • Sellnow, Deanna, and Timothy Sellnow. “The ‘Illusion of Life’ Rhetorical Perspective: An Integrated Approach to the Study of Music as Communication.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 18.4 (2001): 395-415.
  • Vickers, Brian. “Figures of Rhetoric/Figures of Music?” Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric 2.1 (1984): 1-44.
  • Halbritter, Bump. “Musical Rhetoric in Integrated-Media Composition.” Computers and Composition 23.3 (2006): 317-34.
  • VanKooten, Crystal. “A New Composition, a 21st Century Pedagogy, and the Rhetoric of Music.” Currents in Electronic Literacy (2011).
  • Clark, Gregory. “Virtuosos and Ensembles: Rhetorical Lessons from Jazz.” The Private, the Public, and the Published: Reconciling Private Lives and Public Rhetoric. Ed. Barbara Couture and Thomas Kent. Logan, UT: Utah State UP, 2004. 31-46.

Week 6: Sonic Composing: Making Music

  • Selections from Fisk, Josiah, and Jeff Nichols, eds. Comzposers on Music: Eight Centuries of Writings. New and Expanded Ed. Boston: Northeastern UP, 1997.
  • Selections from McCutchan, Ann. The Muse That Sings: Composers Speak about the Creative Process. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1999.
  • Selections from Zorn, John, ed. Arcana: Musicians on Music. New York: Granary, 2000.

Week 7: Sonic Composing: Multiple Modes and Mediums

  • Selfe, Cynthia L. “The Movement of Air, the Breath of Meaning: Aurality and Multimodal Composing.” College Composition and Communication 60.4 (2009): 616-63.
  • Yancey, Kathleen Blake. “Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key.” College Composition and Communication 56.2 (2004): 297-328.
  • Selections from Kress, Gunther, and Theo Van Leeuwen. Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold, 2001.
  • McKee, Heidi. “Sound Matters: Notes toward the Analysis and Design of Sound in Multimodal Webtexts.” Computers and Composition 23.3 (2006): 335-54.
  • Rickert, Thomas, and Michael Salvo. “The Distributed Gesamptkunstwerk: Sound, Worlding, and New Media Culture.” Computers and Composition 23.3 (2006): 296-316.

Week 8: Cognitive Angles

  • Selections from Patel, Aniruddh D. Music, Language, and the Brain. New York and Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008.
  • Selections from Jourdain, Robert. Music, The Brain, and Ecstasy: How Music Captures Our Imagination. New York: Harper, 1997.
  • Swain, Joseph P. “Music Perception and Musical Communities.” Music Perception 11.3 (1994): 307-20.

Week 9: Technologies: Foundations

  • Selections from McLuhan, Marshall. Essential McLuhan. Ed. Eric McLuhan and Frank Zingrone. New York: Basic, 1995.
  • Benjamin, Walter. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” Visual Culture: Experiences in Visual Culture. Ed. Joanne Morra and Marquard Smith. New York: Routledge, 2006. 114-37.
  • Selections from Sterne, Jonathan. The Audible Past: Cultural Origins of Sound Reproduction. Durham: Duke UP, 2003.

Week 10: Technologies: Applications

  • Stoever-Ackerman, Jennifer. “Splicing the Sonic Color-Line: Tony Schwartz Remixes Postwar Nueva York.” Social Text 28.1 (2010): 59-85.
  • Winner, Jeff E. “The World of Sound: A Division of Raymond Scott Enterprises.” Sound Unbound: Sampling Digital Music and Culture. Ed. Paul D. Miller aka DJ Spooky that Subliminal Kid. Cambridge: MIT P, 2008. 181-202.
  • Oliveros, Pauline. “Quantum Improvisation: The Cybernetic Presence.” Sound Unbound: Sampling Digital Music and Culture. Ed. Paul D. Miller aka DJ Spooky that Subliminal Kid. Cambridge: MIT P, 2008. 119-30.

Week 11: Rhythm Science

  • Miller, Paul D., aka DJ Spooky that Subliminal Kid. Rhythm Science. Cambridge, MA: Mediawork and MIT P, 2004. Print.

Week 12: Genres: Hip-Hop

  • Shusterman, Richard. “Rap Remix: Pragmatism, Postmodernism, and Other Issues in the House.” Critical Inquiry 22 (1995): 150-58.
  • Rice, Jeff. “The 1963 Hip-Hop Machine: Hip-Hop Pedagogy as Composition.” College Composition and Communication 54.3 (2003): 453-71.
  • Rice, Jeff. “The Making of Ka-Knowledge: Digital Aurality.” Computers and Composition 23.3 (2006): 266-79.
  • Sirc, Geoffrey. “Proust, Hip-Hop, and Death in First-Year Composition.” Teaching English in the Two Year College 33.4 (2006): 392-98.
  • Vazquez, Alexandra T. “Can You Feel the Beat? Freestyle’s Systems of Living, Loving, and Recording.” Social Text 28.1 (2010): 107-24.
  • Wilson, Nancy Effinger. “The Literacies of Hip Hop.” College Composition and Communication 59.3 (2008): 538-47.

Week 13: Genres: Sonic Art

  • Selections from Kelly, Caleb. Cracked Media: The Sound of Malfunction. Cambridge, MA: MIT P, 2009.
  • Explore the “Sound” section on UbuWeb:

Week 14: Pedagogies

  • Elbow, Peter. “The Music of Form: Rethinking Organization in Writing.” College Composition and Communication 57.4 (2006): 620-666.
  • French, Lydia, and Emily Bloom. “Auralacy: From Plato to Podcasting and Back Again.” Currents in Electronic Literacy (2011).
  • Hess, Mickey. “Was Foucault a Plagiarist? Hip-Hop Sampling and Academic Citation.” Computers and Composition 23.3 (2006): 280-95. Print.
  • Campbell, Kermit E. “The Goes the Neighborhood: Hip Hop Creepin’ On a Come Up at the U.” College Composition and Communication 58.3 (2007): 325-44.
  • Johnson, T. R. “Writing with the Ear.” Refiguring Prose Style: Possibilities for Writing Pedagogy. Ed. T. R. Johnson and Tom Pace. Logan, UT: Utah State UP, 2005. 267-85. Print.
  • Waller, David. “Language Literacy and Music Literacy: A Pedagogical Symmetry.” Philosophy of Music Education Review 18.1 (2010): 26-44.
  • Comstock, Michelle, and Mary E. Hocks. “Voice in the Cultural Soundscape: Sonic Literacy in Composition Studies.” Computers and Composition Online (2006).

Week 15: Reserved for Discoveries

As we explore worlds of sound through the semester, let’s keep our ears open for a textual, audio, or video text to explore for our final meeting.


Filed under Uncategorized

The Rhetoric of the Background Hum

Click play on this sound and let it play while reading:


It’s the sound that plays in the background during scenes from Star Trek: The Next Generation that are set in Main Engineering. The sound is hosted over on the remarkably complete page for “Star Trek Iconic Sounds” at

Here’s what got me thinking about that innocuous little background hum: a line from the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual, which a friend dropped off over here the other day after cleaning his house:

Most privileged visitors to our main engine room set are duly impressed with the sense of “really being on the Enterprise.” Even so, there is still something missing. That “something” is the almost subliminal ambience added through background sound effects. The viewer is rarely consciously aware of it, but the characteristic low thrumming sound of the engine room or the instrument sounds of the bridge are a powerful part of “being there.” (87)

I was struck by the passage for a couple of reasons:

1) First, it jumped out because I’ve always been a watcher of DVD special features and a listener to commentaries. Yesterday while doing the dishes I was listening to Joss Whedon’s commentary of the last episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and he used language similar to the Technical Manual‘s when describing the effects he was trying to have on the audience: things like immediacy, emotional power, and the sense of being there all speak to what must be part of the fundamental task of the television creator, or of the composer of any audio-visual text.

That’s right: we’re solidly in the category of rhetoric here. Ambient sounds are purposefully crafted to bring about a desired effect in audiences who will read/hear the cues and respond accordingly, whether they realize they’re being driven that way or not. Obvious, I know–but it’s still wild to me to think about, how subtly and multimodal our communication is. Unwittingly, this passage in the Technical Manual hints at the different rhetorical situation when touring a set and watching a show, how the identifications you’re asked to make are in a fundamentally different realm.

2) The passage also struck me because I’ve been thinking so much lately about ambient sounds and music that is purposefully designed to be either in the background or foreground of our attention. I wrote about this a bit the other day when discussing Thomas Rickert’s brilliant Music@Microsoft.Windows: Composing Ambience. But it’s a topic I’m rather obsessed with these days, as it keeps popping up everywhere I go:

  • In one book, I read Stravinsky’s claims that the radio would bring listeners to a point of lousy, inattentive listening (and wrote about that, too).
  • Then in another book (Andy Hamilton’s Aesthetics and Music) I read that “Muzak is an evil because it is ubiquitous and so erodes people’s aesthetic capacities–their ability to listen actively to anything–and degrades their response to music. . . . Muzak . . . belongs under the heading of sound-design, and while sound design can have an aesthetic purpose, muzak does not” (54). That is, music’s very classification as aesthetic or not has something to do with how it’s deployed, how much attention it’s designed to be given–and perhaps even how lousy it is.
  • Then there’s R. Murray Schafer, who insists on spelling it “Moozak,” presumably to distance it from any phonetic (wrong word?) similarity to the word music. In his discussion, he takes Stravinsky’s tack and claims that “Moozak resulted from the abuse of the radio” (98), as another instance of our filling the world with ambient noises that we don’t like or want or need. And one way to take the offensive, according to Schafer, is through our power of attentiveness: “By creating a fuss about sounds we snap them back into focus as figures. The way to defeat Moozak is, therefore, quite simple: listen to it” (98).

There’s something simmering here that I want to think more about. In what ways are rhetorically created soundscapes different than other rhetorical situations, when it comes to the amount of attention that may or may not be given to them? Do we have theories of attentiveness in rhetoric? Is this really the same thing as when a speech-listener drifts off to sleep to the rhythms of the speech, or when an essay reader starts thinking about something else while skimming a piece of written rhetoric, or–this is the best parallel–when the visual design of an advertisement affect us in ways that we don’t even realize?

In the end, I think the Technical Manual, however ridiculously geeky it is for me to be talking about so cavalierly, makes a good point. There’s a lot of ambient sound that goes into a show set on a spaceship. Listen to how much sound there is in this computerized walkthrough of the Enterprise:

Even a show like Firefly, which makes such a point during its outdoor effects shots to emphasize that there is no sound in the vacuum of space, uses the ever-present engine “low thrumming” when inside. Listen to all the effects in this clip:

As Schafer writes, “there is authority in the magic of captured sound” (90). By attending to it and wielding it, even when it’s as subtle as a background engine hum, we take hold of a magic that not everyone knows how to use rhetorically, like Harry Potter walking around London with a magic wand in his back pocket that no one suspects can do the things it can do. (That’s right: I found a way to insert one more geeky reference into this post. Sheesh.)

Or, to return to the Technical Manual: “The technical ability to exchange data is not in itself sufficient to permit communication. A common set of symbols and concepts–a language–is equally important before communications can occur” (101). Indeed. And sound effects comprise a crucial aspect of the languages we inhabit in our aural soundscapes.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Searching for Academic Jobs

Okay, I’ll admit it: I’m pretty proud of my job search techniques. So in the interest of helping future searchers (and in hopes of garnering comments on what I could be doing better), I’ll walk through what my days look like these days. Fun!

Prep Work: What’s Already Done

The Spreadsheet: As anyone searching for jobs knows, spreadsheets are glorious. Mine is in a Google Doc to which only me and my wife have access. The main tab documents the school, city, job title, if it has a stand-alone writing department, general list of what they’re looking for, teaching load, when the materials are due, how to apply (since mailed documents must be ready long before an online application due on the same date), what materials they want, where I got the info, any notes (maybe people I know who are there, how big the department is, interesting lines from the ad, etc.), and a link to the department’s page.

There’s also a column where my wife gives the job a rating (1-3, with 3 being awesome) based solely on the location, and a column where I give it a rating based solely on how well the ad fits what I’m looking for. Then I color-code the entire row based on my rating: green for “Yes! Hire me!” and yellow for “Yeah, I suppose it’s alright, even if it’s not ideal,” and red for, “I’m probably not qualified, or I really, really don’t want that job. But I’d take it.”

There’s also a tab in the same spreadsheet called “Links” where I keep track of links to job search sites and list the last date I searched each one. I also list a few other links here that I find myself using a lot. (More on those below.)

Then there’s a third tab in the same spreadsheet where I keep track of every expense for the job search. I’ve heard this stuff is tax deductible! Just in case, and just to be wise, I count it all.

I also download a copy of the Google Doc every once in a while just in case Google fails one day or is bought up by . . . I don’t know, Lady Gaga?

Screenshot from job search website

Ooh! So detail-filled!

The Site: But I had a problem. I wanted the sortability of a spreadsheet, but I also wanted to keep track of info that wouldn’t fit well in that format. So, my wife and I devised an awesome solution: a private Google site.

Each job I’m applying for gets its own page on the site, organized under its geographical location for easy navigation. Then, I paste the job ad text into the left column, and then my wife puts some basic research into the area in the right column–things like population, links to city websites, arts and culture in the area, grocery stores, weather patterns, and so on.

The beauty of the Google site is that each page has an easy-to-use comments area and attached file area. So every time I submit anything to a school, I upload the file that I sent to them at the bottom of the page. Yes, that means there’s a host of practically identical CVs on the site taking up space, but it also means I can always know exactly what I told each school when it comes time for interviews–and I know I’ll have access to those files, since they now live online in an organized space. I also add a comment to the school’s page whenever I send letters of recommendation, transcripts, or even exchange emails with a school.

Then, the unique URL of each page on the Google Site goes in a column in the spreadsheet–so as I’m skimming the spreadsheet, if I think, “Wait, is that the school where they’re looking for creative nonfiction people?” or “Is that the city that’s the horse capital of the world?” I can just click through to the site. I loves it.

The homepage of the site also features a slick Google Map showing a pin in every school that I’ve applied to. If it didn’t seem kind of inappropriate to post publicly, I’d post it here, because it’s that awesome. Let me know if you’re interested.

The Dropbox: I want to have access to all my files regardless of what computer I’m sitting at, so I save all of my job stuff in a Dropbox folder (which automatically syncs any changes to online storage that’s accessible through a browser or in a regular old folder on any computer where I’ve installed Dropbox).

In my Dropbox jobs folder, I keep the current versions of any documents (all dated with when I last updated them). Then there’s a folder for older versions of docs (just in case), research of people at the schools I’m applying to or interviewing at, and a folder to keep track of teaching portfolio materials (since they were junking up the home folder).

The Applying: What I Do On a Typical Day

A usual day of job applying goes something like this:

Tabs I have open when searching for ads

  1. In a fresh browser window, I open my job spreadsheet and my job site in different tabs. Then, in new tabs that I spread out to the left (for whatever reason), I open the Carnegie Foundation’s Institution Lookup page (for quick glimpses into the enrollment numbers and research profile of any school), the MLA Job Information List (requires my institution’s password; for double-checks to make sure I have the most recent version of a job ad in my Google Site, and so I don’t accidentally say in a letter that I got an ad from MLA that really came from somewhere else), and the page on the Academic Jobs Wiki that lists Rhetoric and Composition jobs (to see if anyone has made any notes about a job–like if it’s been canceled, or if someone has contacted the search committee chair about a confusing line in the ad).
  2. I organize my spreadsheet by “date due” to see what jobs I should apply to next.
  3. I click through to the Google site to read over the ad, sometimes editing the page to bold any terms that especially apply to me.
  4. I head to the hiring department’s page to see who works there, to learn a bit about what programs they have, and to skim some course listings. (And to judge their webpage? Never!)
  5. I open one folder on my computer where I make a new subfolder for each school I apply to. Then I open my Dropbox folder in a new window for easy access to my core documents.
  6. Based on what documents the school needs, I copy the core docs into my subfolder for that school. (“Let’s see, they should get the research-focused letter, and the CV with no references, and the list of 6 references, and the 1-page teaching philosophy.”)
  7. In the school-specific folder, I open each doc and modify it a bit if necessary. Obviously, the letter needs the most work; I change the date, address, salutation, and change/adapt/add a very little or a very lot, depending on what I learned from the ad and the department.
  8. I print each doc into a PDF (unless I’m mailing in a paper application, which is rather rare) and give it a cleaner file name. Instead of “Stedman-job-letter-10-10-11-research-ukentucky.docx,” I name the pdf “Stedman-Letter.pdf.”
  9. I upload the docx version of the documents to the school’s page on the Google Site, so I can see some basic info about the file from its long, non-cleaned-up file name.
  10. I apply: either by printing out the docs and packaging them up, uploading them to an online application (some of which are far more logical than others), or emailing the docs with an extremely polite cover message.
  11. I make a comment on the school’s Google Site page saying that I applied. In the spreadsheet, I note the date I applied (for easier skimming and organizing later). On the Google Map, I add a pin for that school.
  12. Repeat!
I know this is a long post, but I think it’s good. I’ve learned a lot just in the last month about organizing large projects, learning that will affect how I teach project management to my students in the future. Sweet!


Filed under Uncategorized