Digital Rhetoric

Standard

Digital Rhetoric –      

Becca Fabian, Tiffany Luong, Maureen Daum

Part 1

1)  (1) The rhetorical conventions of new digital genres in everyday discourse
(2) Public rhetoric via electronic distributed networks or hypertext
(3) Scholarly methods of interpretation for the critical analysis of new media
(4) The verbal and visual culture of information (as opposed to knowledge)
http://www.digitalrhetoric.org/what1.html

2)
Digital Rhetoric, Electracy, and Video Cultures
3)
Our Definition:
Digital Rhetoric- Digital rhetoric is a multimediated form of literacy, which does not include writing on a piece of paper.  Digital rhetoric contains the characteristics of fluidity, connectivity, and visual or audio components. Hyperlinks, which appear as only text but have a whole other world connected to them, are a major component in creating digital rhetoric.
Part 2:
                Fibre Culture
1) One of the first things you notice is the bold accent color, which leads the eye to different links and pages. They have a “belief statement” that says Internet = theory + criticism + research. It is supposed to be a conversation website because it encourages posts that provide a point of view which encourages other list members to respond.
2) No, this artifact is not multimodal. It consists almost completely of text and text-links that connect to other text articles. It says that unannotated URLs, text-art, promotional material, etc. is not permitted on the site. They want this site to be solely people reading and commenting on article.
3) In the rhetorics, they quote sources and other site and they provide links in the articles to other resources and sites to back up their arguments. People are also allowed to comment and provide input to what is being posted on this artifact.For example, in issue 17 2011: unnatural ecologies, Matthew Fuller is quoted, and there are two endnotes referencing related works.  This site is primarily discussions and debate concerning information technology and the policy that concerns it.
                The Chronicle of Higher Education:
1) This online journal is scholarly because it is giving the reader information about a certain topic. IT has statistics about the site, with most popular webpages, and so on. People are able to comment on the articles, and there is also a related content box on most or all of the articles that can reference you to more credible sources. In the article, In Colleges’ Rush to Try MOOC’s. Faculty Are Not Always in the Conversation, for example, the commenters have conversations related to the information in the article and they share their views and opinions, educating each other during the process. Other people can also like comments that people have posted, and it is connected to Facebook and other social media sites. This website is very connected with the outside world.
2) There are several links and other references to outside sites and sources all throughout this artifact. The top-level navigation contains main navigational categories, and when they are clicked, there are subcategories as well. For example, when the “Facts ad Figures” tab is clicked, underneath it, sublinks to “Administrator Data”, “Financial and Institutional Data”, “Faculty Data”, “Student Data”, and “Almanac of Higher Education” appear.
3)  There are a lot of hyperlinks all throughout this source, which was a big component to digital rhetoric. This journal also flows well and is easy to navigate. It is appealing to the eye and is organized and laid out well. Opinions, statistics, news are all very abundant and credible.

#3 – Scholarly Multimedia

Standard

Creativeness, convention, modernization. The world is delving ever deeper into the new age of literature. No more does a student sit down to read a paperback book from front to back. Rather, now the students are becoming the teachers as scholarly multimedia and technology are becoming the model of academic works. As literature is evolving, the lines between what used to be and what could be are becoming increasingly ambiguous.

In their multimedia videos, both Kuhn’s The Components of Scholarly Multimedia and Wesch’s The Machine is Us/ing Us try to show what these lines are and where the barriers are between convention and innovation. After watching both of these videos, I am supposed to be analyzing them and explaining how they show conventional rhetorical principles and how they are innovative, scholarly works. Both of these videos are definitely trying to get some message across and they are trying to do it in a different and artistic way. I will analyze each one separately.

Wesch’s The Machine is Us/ing Us does a very good job on using multimedia in a creative and interesting way to get across a point that would have been received differently through any other media. This video, I thought, used rhetoric and the four principles of scholarly media to deliver a persuasive and grasping film. Students and teachers alike could use this video as both a writing model for future pieces of work, and to learn from the message it is trying to get out that the web and technology is starting to take over and become whom we are.

Alternately, Kuhn’s video, The Components of Scholarly Multimedia, tries to do this as well – present a unique message in an even more unique format. However, this video was a flop in my opinion. I did not think the message that was trying to be conveyed was ever truly presented in a way that could be fully understood, and I was trying to wrap my head around what was going on the whole time instead of actually looking into finding the deeper meaning. It was also very repetitive in the wrong areas and bored me as a viewer. I think that this video took the balance between convention and innovation and pushed the line a few steps too far.

Obviously, these two videos were trying to take serious subject matters in literature and present them in creative and different ways. While one video was successful in doing this, the other was not. We, as academic writers, can learn from them and take the good and the bad from each. Scholarly multimedia is the new trend that is sweeping the world. But do you think there is a line? Is there a point where the balance between creativity and convention gets thrown off? I have shared my opinion on this… What’s yours?

Blog #2 – Rules, Rules, Rules

Standard

Writing rhetorically can mean something different for everyone. Is my style the same as yours, the same as hers, the same as his? No, of course not! Writing varies from person to person, topic to topic, culture to culture.

In the past, we have all been taught how to write according to “the rules,” the dreaded writing process. Our whole lives, writing a paper meant following the strict orders of our teacher. Whatever they asked for, we provided; whatever they said was good, we did. When I was little, there were always a few rules that seemed to stand no matter who my teacher was or what I was writing. Always have an intro, 3 body paragraphs, and a conclusion… and always make sure they follow an organized and logical order. My personal least favorite rule: ALWAYS spell out numbers if they are less than 10. There are so many others, but why bore you with that?

I do understand the point of these rules – to make sure the reader understands and to make sure that you are writing with enough detail and example. It was good to have guidelines growing up; they made me the writer I am today and gave me a strong foundation to mature from.

Now, however, we are growing up and finally moving beyond the 5 paragraph, 10 sentences per paragraph essay. This is rhetorical writing, where all the rules are thrown out the window and our true feelings, emotions, and creative writing styles finally are expressed. Looking back now, grade school was teaching us the very beginnings of rhetorical writing. My teacher was the audience I was trying to please. Only now instead of my teacher, I am writing for the world, for my peers.

I learned a lot from “the rules” and I developed a lot of good writing habits too. One thing I always do before I start to write a paper is create an outline. Sometimes it is detailed, sometimes it is not. But organizing my ideas and knowing where I am going with my writing always seems to help ease the anxiety we all feel when starting to write.

I hope you are enjoying this post because I am writing it for you, whoever you may be. I want to make this interesting and easy to read. As I write this blog, I always have you, my reader, in mind. That is writing rhetorically, right?

What do you think, is this post written rhetorically?

Literary Narrative Ideas

Standard

            *Topic: When I first learned my alphabet

  • When/where/with who did this event take place?
    • 1996 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania at my Nana’s house with my Nana
  • Order of events
    • Going over to Nana’s house every month
    • Sitting in the sunroom, playing
    • Describe the foam letters in the net bag
    • Specific Event
    • Mom and dad were on a trip for the weekend, so I stayed with Nana
    • I was 2 years old
    • She sat me down and we would play games with the letters
      • I learned it as A for Ashley (my sister)
      • B for Becca
      • C for Champie (my dog)
      • Etc.
    • When my parents got back at the end of the weekend, I could recite all of the letters with some sort of symbol attached to them
    • I then went on to learning and reciting the alphabet from beginning to end, in the correct order
    • Everyone was so happy for me
    • I kept on practicing my letters and soon after, I was forming those letters into words and even phrases
  • Summary of the main point of the story
    • When I was two years old, I went over to my Nana’s house and she taught me the alphabet. After a weekend, I was able to learn the letters and knew the alphabet.
  • It’s a happy and cute, reflective story

Quick Outline

  1. Introduction
    1. Grabber
    2. Background Information
    3. Going over to Nana’s House for the weekend
    4. Learning the alphabet
    5. Parents came back
    6. Conclusion
      1. Continued Learning and Improving
      2. The End

Questions

1)   Does this story interest you at all?

2)   Do you think there is enough of a story here to write about? Is there enough information?

#1 New Literacies

Standard

Hello everyone!

My name is Becca Fabian and welcome to my blog. I know for this post, I am supposed to discuss statements and opinions from different articles, but first I am going to start with a little bit about myself.

I am a freshman at the University of Michigan, and I could not be more excited to be here and start this amazing journey. I am planning on studying Cellular and Molecular Biology in hopes of achieving my ultimate goal of becoming a pediatrician. I do love the sciences obviously, however I also have found a passion recently for politics as well as for certain arts. I have a wide range of interests and different activities that I enjoy outside of the classroom. Above all though, I truly enjoy sports, traveling, and being with the people that mean the most to me in my life. This is my first time ever doing a blog or anything related to it, so bare with me for a little bit as I am still figuring this out as I go along!

It might be surprising that this is my first blog considering the fact that we are in the 21st Century and it seems like nowadays everything is done online. This new method of online reading and a “new way” of learning is not one that is widely accepted. There is much discrepancy over whether technology is helping or hurting the students of today. In his article, Online Literary is a Lesser Kind, Bauerlein explains how the modern day way of learning online and constantly being on the web is actually hurting students. At one point in his article, Bauerlein claims “If digitized classrooms did pose strong, novel intellectual challenges to students, we should see some pushback on their part, but few of them complain about having to learn in new ways.” In my opinion, this statement could be taken a few different ways. I think it depends on what students are being addressed, as well as what the challenge is. For example, if it was a class of third grade students that were having problems, they might complain more than a student in high school. Students of higher education, college students, might take this as a new challenge and go to new lengths to learn from it and figure out this new digital craze.

Overall though, learning does require a fair amount of “pushback” by both the student and the teacher to be considered real and worthwhile. If everything presented was taken as fact, then the earth would still be flat and we would still be living by candlelight. Disagreement, discrepancy, and discussions all lead to more meaningful and valuable learning. So in reality, the pushback that students are not giving could be contributing to the recorded lack of success with the new technological way of learning.

This view that Bauerlein has presented that digital learning is useless is just one of many viewpoints on the subject. Jones-Kavalier and Flannigan claim that technology is contributing positively to society and the new technological era is helping achieve great successes.  In reality though, only time will tell which viewpoint is correct, if either one is at all.

Technology is both a blessing and a curse. But what do you think… Is digital learning the way to go?