Blog Post One
“The Movement of Air, the Breath of Meaning: Aurality and Multimodal Composing” by Cynthia Selfe’s, promotes a valient point about orality and how speech should be integrated into the classroom setting. While many classrooms do have a lecture component and even a discussion component, not many might have a presentation component. I agree with Selfe, students should be encourage to partake in speech and debate. It is through this auditory method that many rhetorical moves can be learned, as well as a learning of audience, voice, and tone.
These rhetorical moves are often overlooked or cannot be defined in writing. While many writing classes do encourage voice and tone, Selfe’s argues that a classroom based on writing only limits the student’s ability to understand composition as a multimodal process. For example, I took a public speaking course where I needing to write a script and recite it to the class. While this sounds simplistic on the surface level, there are rhetorical devices from the writing and aurality component at play. Not only was I needing to understand the concept and write on the topic, I also needed to understand how to deliver my script to the class. This included being aware of the length and choice of words used, and how much to write. I needed to understand and learn to say what I needed to say while being engaging with my audience. Many times in writing, we write and do not take into account how long our sentences may be, or how much we write. Orality assignments allow students the ability to talk enough and get to the point faster without needing to “fluff up.”
These rhetorical moves are often overlooked or cannot be defined in writing. While many writing classes do encourage voice and tone, Selfe’s argues that a classroom based on writing only limits the student’s ability to understand composition as a multimodal process. For example, I took a public speaking course where I needing to write a script and recite it to the class. While this sounds simplistic on the surface level, there are rhetorical devices from the writing and aurality component at play. Not only was I needing to understand the concept and write on the topic, I also needed to understand how to deliver my script to the class. This included being aware of the length and choice of words used, and how much to write. I needed to understand and learn to say what I needed to say while being engaging with my audience. Many times in writing, we write and do not take into account how long our sentences may be, or how much we write. Orality assignments allow students the ability to talk enough and get to the point faster without needing to “fluff up.”
Blog Pos Two
The point that I found most intriguing within this week reading, was Barry Hampe’s notion of visual evidence. While I feel confident in using evidence and textual support within writing, I do not know how I can accomplish this within a new genre that I have never tackled before: Documentary. I understand the concept of the documentary, and understand that it should entail, but Hempe’s section on providing evidence, most important visual evidence, was not only gratifying but also encouraging.
Hempe states that a visual media requires different evidence that just auditory or written media. He states that “communicating with an audience through an existential, visual medium is far different from communicating in a face-to-face or voice-to-voice situation” (Hempe 91). This, according to him, can lead to a number of problems including misinterpretation. Apparently, the audience has a notion of taking the evidence provided and turning them into the only form of evidence that the author creates. Additionally, the audience is only capable of receiving one message and that is the only message that the audience will be concern about.
Hempe gives multiple guides to help in making a documentary and using visual evidence. One of these examples is to use good footage and capture as much of it as possible. After editing, this footage will be a “coherent print that will clearly communicate your intentions to the people who will see it” (92). His main argument here is to capture as much footage as possible, and that after the editing process the footage can be a pricey commodity for the documentation.
He also suggest to use concrete nouns and action verbs to describe our documentary. He suggest to use as much concrete ideas instead of abstract ones. We should use precise timelines, instead of date ranges. We should use evidence that is precise, instead of elusive. All of this is to help the audience understand the points of our documentaries.
While I did find this text very informative and also captivating (mostly because I have not dealt with this genre in a personal level before), I did find some troubling aspects to his point of audience. While I understand Hampe’s notion of the unaware audience, I think by making this statement he places the audience into a category where they are uninform and unwilling to understand complex messages. I only say this because he continuously treats the audience as this simplistic being that has a “perverse habit of assuming that the way they think you are communicating is the way that you tended to communicate” (91). To me, this is problematic because it showcases an unrealistic expectation of the audience as a form that will only understand one simple message, but only if our message is placed in a simple manner.
Yet I believe that the audience can be an educated one that can continuously seek more information when pose with a difficult theme. Also, I believe that the audience is capable of complex themes. While I do see how many of his suggestions are true and I will definitely use in the production of my film, I disagree with him and his notion of the simply audience.
Hempe states that a visual media requires different evidence that just auditory or written media. He states that “communicating with an audience through an existential, visual medium is far different from communicating in a face-to-face or voice-to-voice situation” (Hempe 91). This, according to him, can lead to a number of problems including misinterpretation. Apparently, the audience has a notion of taking the evidence provided and turning them into the only form of evidence that the author creates. Additionally, the audience is only capable of receiving one message and that is the only message that the audience will be concern about.
Hempe gives multiple guides to help in making a documentary and using visual evidence. One of these examples is to use good footage and capture as much of it as possible. After editing, this footage will be a “coherent print that will clearly communicate your intentions to the people who will see it” (92). His main argument here is to capture as much footage as possible, and that after the editing process the footage can be a pricey commodity for the documentation.
He also suggest to use concrete nouns and action verbs to describe our documentary. He suggest to use as much concrete ideas instead of abstract ones. We should use precise timelines, instead of date ranges. We should use evidence that is precise, instead of elusive. All of this is to help the audience understand the points of our documentaries.
While I did find this text very informative and also captivating (mostly because I have not dealt with this genre in a personal level before), I did find some troubling aspects to his point of audience. While I understand Hampe’s notion of the unaware audience, I think by making this statement he places the audience into a category where they are uninform and unwilling to understand complex messages. I only say this because he continuously treats the audience as this simplistic being that has a “perverse habit of assuming that the way they think you are communicating is the way that you tended to communicate” (91). To me, this is problematic because it showcases an unrealistic expectation of the audience as a form that will only understand one simple message, but only if our message is placed in a simple manner.
Yet I believe that the audience can be an educated one that can continuously seek more information when pose with a difficult theme. Also, I believe that the audience is capable of complex themes. While I do see how many of his suggestions are true and I will definitely use in the production of my film, I disagree with him and his notion of the simply audience.
Blog Post Three
While last week I disagree with Hempe on some of his notions, this week I completely am mesmerized by what I have read. I will focus on the research part of his book, for it give great insight on what needs to be done prior to entering the filming stage: research.
Prior to reading this chapter, I thought that a documentary was an organic medium, I believed that documenters go out, see a problem, and start filming it. I was unaware of the complexities of the thought process behind it. Hempe suggests that “making a documentary is, or should be, a process of discovery that begins with questions rather than answers” (Hempe 167). If we take this to be true, we must then set a loose path on what we would like to explore. I do say loose instead of rigid, because we, as documenters, need to have the ability of exploration.
Hempe suggest that we should first have an understanding of the issue. What is the issue concerned with? Are there people already working with this issue? Why should anybody care of the issue? Are there any controversies? And why am I interested in this? All of these are questions that Hempe alludes to readers to understand prior to the start of filming.
He then suggests to research the topic thoroughly. There should be an increase knowledge of the topic at hand. This knowledge will provide an educated backbone that can serve to further problematize the issue or help clarify it. There should also be multiple sources of information. This will allow to have multiple perspectives on the issue. Later one, these forms can become evidences for the film. Also, when you are gathering evince, if you do interviews there should be a systematic way that you approach people: never show off you knowledge but allow the interview to speak, always ask for more information, and always remember that this needs to interest your audience.
Like I stated before, this week I am discovering more gratifying conventions of the documentary genre. Where once I thought of it as a organic medium, it is not. There is a complexity to it and its form. The documentary has to have a plan stated and a purpose—it is not simply shooting for good clips. There must also be a logical component that is showcased through the documentary and allows for the viewer to understand such logical component. For this, I agree with and am thankful to Hempe.
Prior to reading this chapter, I thought that a documentary was an organic medium, I believed that documenters go out, see a problem, and start filming it. I was unaware of the complexities of the thought process behind it. Hempe suggests that “making a documentary is, or should be, a process of discovery that begins with questions rather than answers” (Hempe 167). If we take this to be true, we must then set a loose path on what we would like to explore. I do say loose instead of rigid, because we, as documenters, need to have the ability of exploration.
Hempe suggest that we should first have an understanding of the issue. What is the issue concerned with? Are there people already working with this issue? Why should anybody care of the issue? Are there any controversies? And why am I interested in this? All of these are questions that Hempe alludes to readers to understand prior to the start of filming.
He then suggests to research the topic thoroughly. There should be an increase knowledge of the topic at hand. This knowledge will provide an educated backbone that can serve to further problematize the issue or help clarify it. There should also be multiple sources of information. This will allow to have multiple perspectives on the issue. Later one, these forms can become evidences for the film. Also, when you are gathering evince, if you do interviews there should be a systematic way that you approach people: never show off you knowledge but allow the interview to speak, always ask for more information, and always remember that this needs to interest your audience.
Like I stated before, this week I am discovering more gratifying conventions of the documentary genre. Where once I thought of it as a organic medium, it is not. There is a complexity to it and its form. The documentary has to have a plan stated and a purpose—it is not simply shooting for good clips. There must also be a logical component that is showcased through the documentary and allows for the viewer to understand such logical component. For this, I agree with and am thankful to Hempe.
Blog Post Four
I enjoy this article, and the idea of “Wikinomics” as a forms of open communications within companies. I see that we are a society where knowledge is gained through a global network, and as such information is communal rather than individual. So why should we not be able to write collaboratively? Why not have this collectivist learning style? I believe that it is because we are so used to having an individualistic learning style, that any form of a group work is seen as tedious and non-beneficial. While the article raises other points, such as the legality between this, I wonder how practical a collaborative leering style is.
For one aspects, I question the ability for all individuals in one group to fully comprehend a topic rather than learn an aspect of the topic. This is a concern because will everyone in the community learn at the same rate and pace? I feel that this article, while intriguing, does not fully address other points such as the benefits of individualistic learning. Additionally, while I agree that many companies may work as a community and thus promote communal creativity and understanding, I believe that the individual can also learn without the need of the community. I will argue that and individual learning style allows for an individual pace to be set and understating to be acquired. this article presumes that we all learn at the same pace, and that we all learn at the same time, and that we learn in the same way. Is this not true?
For one aspects, I question the ability for all individuals in one group to fully comprehend a topic rather than learn an aspect of the topic. This is a concern because will everyone in the community learn at the same rate and pace? I feel that this article, while intriguing, does not fully address other points such as the benefits of individualistic learning. Additionally, while I agree that many companies may work as a community and thus promote communal creativity and understanding, I believe that the individual can also learn without the need of the community. I will argue that and individual learning style allows for an individual pace to be set and understating to be acquired. this article presumes that we all learn at the same pace, and that we all learn at the same time, and that we learn in the same way. Is this not true?
Blog Post Five
In “Collaboration and Concepts of Authorship,” Inge questions the idea of the author in any published, and to extend unpublished, work, and the relationship to an unrealistic notion of authorship. Inge constantly argues that we create the notion of authorship and romanticize the idea of the author as the sole creator, He continually suggest that no work is ever written in a solitary format, and that any involvement from any other person means that communal writing is occurring.
While I agree with him to an extent, I believe that Inge takes an extreme technical definition of communal writing. I question the idea of the “co-author” or a “communal” authorship. Inge brings forth examples from Khadka, and other writers such as Poe and Dickenson, and argues that they had multiple editors and multiple collaborators. Thus, Inge suggest that they are communal works and not that of a single author. He suggest that many works are viewed and aided by multiple people and collaborators. Therefore the single author does not exist. But this is an extreme.
I question the idea of evaluation and who deserves credit for the work. I agree, learning is communal, and learning is collaborative. But to what extent should a contribution be labeled as authorship? Does this mean that I am an author in my students work? Since I help through the writing process, and aide with suggestions, and offer different viewpoints … does this mean that I am a collaborative author in their work? I doubt it. So while Inge makes a very compelling point, I believe he takes the definition of a collaborative author to an extreme and does not see the complications
While I agree with him to an extent, I believe that Inge takes an extreme technical definition of communal writing. I question the idea of the “co-author” or a “communal” authorship. Inge brings forth examples from Khadka, and other writers such as Poe and Dickenson, and argues that they had multiple editors and multiple collaborators. Thus, Inge suggest that they are communal works and not that of a single author. He suggest that many works are viewed and aided by multiple people and collaborators. Therefore the single author does not exist. But this is an extreme.
I question the idea of evaluation and who deserves credit for the work. I agree, learning is communal, and learning is collaborative. But to what extent should a contribution be labeled as authorship? Does this mean that I am an author in my students work? Since I help through the writing process, and aide with suggestions, and offer different viewpoints … does this mean that I am a collaborative author in their work? I doubt it. So while Inge makes a very compelling point, I believe he takes the definition of a collaborative author to an extreme and does not see the complications
Blog Post Six
Out of all the reading, this reads the most like a “how to” guide than anything else that we have written. I enjoy the guide and they both make great points great suggestions. Much like writing, we need to be aware of our audience and the purpose when building a website. It is important to note that unlike a paper or essay, a website does not have a limited amount of audience, it is therefore important to accommodate most of the audience. It is here where a clear understanding of audience and purpose is important. Yet I do wish that Anderson would develop this idea of audience and purpose a bit more.
Anderson also suggest and talks about the digital portfolio and how it is becoming and integral part of the job search market. I completely agree with him in aspects of space. While paper may be traditional, paper is not able to encompass many aspects and multimodalities that a digital portfolio can. For example, paper can showcase the theory but not the application of digital and multimodal skill sets.
Looking into the future, and future development, I think I will be requiring my students to develop and create a digital portfolio or website. I think these reading will be accessible to understand so I will also be assigning the readings, just so they can understand the importance audience awareness and website design. I truly believe that a digital portfolio will encourage professionalism and allow students to acquire more multimodality.
Anderson also suggest and talks about the digital portfolio and how it is becoming and integral part of the job search market. I completely agree with him in aspects of space. While paper may be traditional, paper is not able to encompass many aspects and multimodalities that a digital portfolio can. For example, paper can showcase the theory but not the application of digital and multimodal skill sets.
Looking into the future, and future development, I think I will be requiring my students to develop and create a digital portfolio or website. I think these reading will be accessible to understand so I will also be assigning the readings, just so they can understand the importance audience awareness and website design. I truly believe that a digital portfolio will encourage professionalism and allow students to acquire more multimodality.
Blog Post Seven
Inhwa Kim and Jasna Kujis article, “Manifestation of Culture in Website Design” was a very interesting read. They continue sly showcase the difference in digital writing and how digital writing is created across culture. While I had not given much thought on the idea of of culture and its manifestation in digital writing, this article opened my eyes to the notion that culture does effect how we write digitally. I should not see this as a surprise, as culture continuously, and aggressively, influences many aspects of life. I understand that writing in the US is very different than writing in England, and very different than writing in Mexico, and very different from Chinese writing. So why should digital writing be any different?
The aesthetics are also a very integral part of website design, and it was fascinating to see how other cultures view website design and even layout their pages. This made me wonder if one layout is more powerful in performing a certain rhetorical component than another. And it got me questioning the ability to turn this into an assignment for students. Can students understand and write digitally in another culture, or mimic a different styles? This I will have to test with a class someday.
The aesthetics are also a very integral part of website design, and it was fascinating to see how other cultures view website design and even layout their pages. This made me wonder if one layout is more powerful in performing a certain rhetorical component than another. And it got me questioning the ability to turn this into an assignment for students. Can students understand and write digitally in another culture, or mimic a different styles? This I will have to test with a class someday.
Blog Post Eight
Anne Frances Wysoki article, “The Multiple Media of Texts: How Onscreen and Paper Texts Incorporate Words, Images, and Other media” is a very interesting read detailing how visual images and texts are in direct correlation with each other. She makes a great point when addresses the type face that is chosen for writing and how many academic setting default to one or two of theses fonts. She also suggest that there should always be intent when using lettering, and to be aware of the size that is being used as well. Because of this, we should be able to analyze the rhetorical value that is within digital work and the chosen creative format of the entire piece, not just the language. Both the artistic selection and the visual representation and continuously working together to achieve a certain message to the audience.
With this knowledge, as readers and website users, we can evaluate a website for more than just the language, but the choices that are being made—even lettering is a choice for understanding.
With this knowledge, as readers and website users, we can evaluate a website for more than just the language, but the choices that are being made—even lettering is a choice for understanding.