Tag Archives: pedagogy

IP Stories at CCCC

This is an exciting CCCC for me: I have a solid presentation planned with solid colleagues in a solid slot (B, at 12:15 on Thursday), and I’m more excited about this year’s Intellectual Property Caucus than ever.

Here’s why: Elizabeth Woodworth and I are co-leading a table at the IP Caucus on teaching with IP. But we were worried that we might come up with all these great ideas and then not put them into practice when we return home. So we decided to focus our energies on one pedagogical approach: storytelling.

And even better: you can share too. (“Me?!” Yes, you. Teacher, student, passerby, whatever.)

Can I just have the short version? I’m busy.

  1. Share your story of learning or teaching IP.
  2. Use the DALN to record and archive your story so others can read/hear/see it.
  3. Keep an eye on #ipstory for updates and links.
  4. Spread the word at your sessions–even if you only briefly draw attention to the #ipstory hashtag.

What form will these stories take?

We’re encouraging people to share their stories with the Digital Archive of Literacy Narratives, a stellar repository of stories about people’s experiences developing various literacies (including, we believe, IP literacies). We like the DALN because it already has the mechanisms in place to make adding metadata a snap and to allow story-tellers to choose how their stories may be used in the future. The stories can be composed of text, audio, or (our favorite) video.

Best of all, submitting to the DALN is easy either from home or by dropping by their booth outside of Exhibit Hall 1 in America’s Convention Center at C’s.

What kinds of stories do you want?

Surprise us! But in general, we expect two basic directions: 1) narratives about learning IP issues–perhaps stories of being accused of plagiarism or copyright violation, of boldly exercising fair use rights, or of suspecting that your own intellectual property had been wrongly used–and 2) narratives about teaching these issues to students, including informal explanations of pedagogies.

Here’s a perfect example that’s already available in the DALN (though it wasn’t recorded as part of this #ipstory initiative): http://daln.osu.edu/handle/2374.DALN/1279 The composer of the narrative tells a story about being accused of plagiarism in the 4th grade and how it affected her. It’s shortinformal, and memorable.

You can also check out IP Stories from Kyle and Elizabeth below or through other sites (Kyle’s at YouTube or DALN and Elizabeth’s at Vimeo or DALN).

How will people access all this stuff?

Throughout the C’s, we’ll be tweeting updates on the project with the hashtag #ipstory. That’s where we’ll add links to any IP stories that we’ve found, and that’s where we’ll add a link to an open Google Doc that will host the pedagogical suggestions on how to use these stories in composition classes. (We’ll post a link to the Doc to #ipstory when it’s ready, and certainly before the conference proper begins on Thursday morning.)

Exciting stuff, eh? I think so.

UPDATE
Please post suggestions on how to teach with IP Stories at this Google Doc. Thanks!
Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

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.

Objectives

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.

Texts

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.

Assignments

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 http://www.freesound.org/ 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.

Grading

  • 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). http://www.writinginstructor.com/rickert.

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). http://enculturation.gmu.edu/2_2/erickson.html.

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). http://currents.cwrl.utexas.edu/2011/anewcomposition.
  • 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: http://www.ubu.com/sound/index.html

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). http://currents.cwrl.utexas.edu/2011/auralacyfromplatotopodcasting.
  • 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). http://www.bgsu.edu/cconline/comstock_hocks/

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.

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

What do New Literacies Look Like?

Thought I’d share a piece I wrote over the last couple of days for a new edition of our Composition 1 (ENC 1101) textbook at USF. It’s generally just the things that came into my head, so I’m especially interested in hearing what people think I got wrong, or painted in a subtly misleading shade, and such.

UPDATE: A newer, revised version of this piece is available at the free online textbook Writing Commons.

Krista76, "Old New Media Readings"

Krista76, “Old New Media Readings,” available at http://www.flickr.com/photos/slimcoincidence/406910873/

The Traditional Model of Literacy

We usually think of a particular skill when we hear the word literacy: knowing how to read. If a teacher’s students can barely read, she’ll complain to her principal, “They’re barely literate!” If a politician says, “Kids today are illiterate!” he means that they can’t read–or perhaps more subtly, that they can’t read very well. That is, they don’t understand the complexities and nuances that practiced readers see in a big splattering of words on a page or screen.

That politician’s claim reminds us of another aspect of literacy that’s usually tied to the reading angle: the ability to write. When he riles up the crowd by calling kids illiterate, he probably means, “Kids today don’t understand complex reading, and they can’t produce complex writing, either.” So implied in the skill of literacy is also the ability to write. This makes sense; if I can’t make sense of a piece of writing’s purpose, organization, figures of speech, and rhetorical moves, I probably can’t create a piece of writing that uses those aspects of writing in sophisticated ways.

And as you can hear from my examples of the teacher and the politician, literacy is often a word that shows up when people want to describe something that people don’t have. I’m unlikely to be praised for my literacy when I accurately summarize a tough essay in class, and I’m unlikely to read a particularly nice magazine article and respond to the author by saying, “Oh, you were so particularly literate in that piece!” Literacy is usually used more as a base-line for competence, something that we ought to have but that stands out most noticeably when it’s not there, like the space where a demolished building used to be, or when we see a person not wearing any pants.

New Models of Literacy

Why go into so much detail about the traditional model of literacy–the skill of knowing how to effectively read and write? Because when literacy is applied to new contexts–as it is all the time–it often retains the baggage of its traditional usage, as something to describe a lack that we wish were filled, and as something that involves both effective reading and effective writing (though sometimes reading and writing are expanded to different forms of understanding and acting).

For example, a quick Google search for literacy shows me these varied ways that people use the word:

  • Financial literacy: the ability to understand complex financial information, and the ability to act wisely on that financial know-how
  • Information literacy: the ability to find the right information for a given task, and the ability to use that information in the best way (for an essay, work assignment, protest rally, or whatever)
  • Media literacy: the ability to read or view the various tricks used by the media to subtly emphasize one point of view, and the ability to compose our own media messages that use media trickery effectively for a given rhetorical situation

In all three of those examples of literacies, I imagine that the term developed as people began to realize how illiterate their friends and colleagues seemed to be in those areas. (Perhaps most terminology begins this way: as a way for individuals to draw attention to their own strengths in comparison to a rabble of “those other people.”) In that framework, financial literacy works as a helpful term because so many people seem to lack basic skills related to budgeting, managing credit cards, and paying off debt; to people who have financial literacy, those who lack it seem to be missing a set of skills that is so fundamental that to not have them is akin to a reading person’s feelings toward someone who cannot read. Along the same tack, information literacy works as a term because so many people seem to lack the basic skills necessary to finding the information they need, especially in our increasingly information-centered world. And media literacy is a helpful term because so many people are duped, plain and simple, by the political and social messages embedded in the news, movies, and music we consume.

So what happens when we apply these same ideas to new media reading and writing contexts?

New Media Literacies

New media is an awkward term; on its surface, it seems to imply media (news, music, TV, movies) that simply has come out recently–it’s new. From that perspective, new media would be content that was distributed in the last few days or weeks, as opposed to all that hype about Justin Bieber, which was so last year.

But new media encompasses far more than that. In the introduction to an issue of the scholarly journal American Journal of Business, Jo Ann Atkin describes a complex mess of activities that could be termed “new media”:

What do we exactly mean when we say “new media?” Most definitions of new media (and there are plenty) usually focus on three characteristics. That is, new media is a form of interactive communication that is both digital in format and distribution. This definition would encompass such technologies as: gaming, web sites, chat rooms, e-mail, virtual reality, streaming video or audio, blogs, real simple syndication (RSS), short message service (SMS), Twitter, wikis, online communities (e.g., Facbook, LinkedIn), and YouTube to name a few. The definition also implies that the computer or information technology plays a critical role in both message content/design and dissemination.

Atkin’s list of new media technologies is a treasure trove for different angles through which we can understand new media literacy. As with other kinds of literacy, I’m reminded of all the people I know who aren’t literate in these areas (and I bet you know a few too). For example, from the reading angle, I can think of plenty of people who:

  • Are confused when faced with a video game, not knowing where to look for visual cues about what to do next
  • Don’t notice the visual cues on a computer desktop that instantly draw the attention of a more literate person
  • Miss the signs that an email is a phishing scam
  • Don’t realize that blogs are inherently spaces for dialogue in the comments section
  • Never stop to consider that web designers have purposefully chosen colors, layout, fonts, images, and multimedia elements to make viewers think and feel in specific ways

And from the writing angle, there are plenty of folks who:

  • Try to use Facebook in ways that feel weird to those who are literate in its use
  • Produce movies for YouTube that come across as boring, badly paced, ugly, or annoying
  • Write emails without knowing the expectations of their audience (who, for instance, might prefer to be addressed in complete sentences)
  • Think their Twitter followers really want to know every boring detail of their lives
  • Create graphics without carefully choosing effective fonts, colors, and layout options that will be most effective for their audience
  • Participate in wikis without respecting and following the formatting and structure decisions made by those who went before them

All of these people could be described as needing one or more of the skills wrapped up in the phrase new media literacy. These skills often have both a technical and a rhetorical angle. That is, those with exceptional new media literacy are masters at 1) understanding and using technologies (e.g. getting around on social media sites, using photo editing software, producing videos) and 2) understanding the rhetorical needs of reading and composing in a specific time and space, for a specific audience who will judge a composition to be effective (e.g. designing a website that visitors think is attractive, saying something to Facebook friends that is likely to be “liked,” not looking like an ass when plodding around online in general).

If you’re asking, “So what?” the answer should be obvious: illiterate people need training and practice in literacy to become effective in contexts where those literacies matter. And just as traditional text literacy can be taught, so can these other literacies, both through immersion in contexts where those literacies are used effectively (like a U.S. citizen moving to Japan to learn the language, or a seventy-five-year-old woman who spends hours online every day to learn the conventions used by effective websites) and through instruction from experts.

The good news is that many traditional-age college students already have a solid grip on many new media skills–and they may not even realize how skillful they are! But there’s a subtle problem, as well: like a child who goes around telling his family that he knows how to read when he really only knows his alphabet, it’s possible to over-estimate the sophistication of one’s new media literacy skills. That is, I might say, “Um, I’ve been online every day since I was eight. Of course I know what makes an effective website or video or audio essay.” But when given a chance to show off some of my skills, I might suddenly be found lacking. All that skill I have at navigating new media spaces may not have translated into a complex understanding of the literacies at play there, keeping me from effectively being unable to describe what makes an effective new media text and even more unable to make one myself.

That’s why writing new media texts–or in this case, composing is probably the better term–is so important: it gives us practice in using our new media literacies in powerful ways while showing us the places where our skills are most lacking sophistication. So go out and compose like crazy in any format you can find or invent–but all the while, ask yourself what you already know and what you still need to learn.

Works Cited

Atkin, Jo Ann. “Lost in Translation: New Media | Old School Lesson.” American Journal of Business 24.2 (2009): n.pag. Web. 25 Apr. 2011.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized