This 3.4 megabyte video has been sitting around the server for the last four years. If not resurrected now, when?

Posted by Daniel Anderson at 10:46 AM
Taged as >> halloween family fun | Permalink

I wish I was able to write more about the fascinating new media rhetoric playing out in the final throes of this year's political campaigns. For now, I'll have to settle for a link to a TPM posting on the controversial radio spot accused of layering tom-tom drums over the mention of Harold Ford's name. When I hear the ad what strikes me is the level of sophistication in the ways the sonic elements work to convey the message. From the intonations of the narrator to the swelling orchestral sounds to the final homey tone of Bob Corker approving the message, the aural composition is meant to move as more so than the verbal content of the narration. Given this level of sophistication, it's no wonder that accusations of race baiting based on the drum sounds associated with Ford have arisen. Everything else about the sounds is so deliberate, reminding us again that even especially when it comes to public media the rhetorical is also political.

Posted by Daniel Anderson at 09:43 AM
Taged as >> audio messages sway with sound | Permalink

Getting used to public writing means getting comfortable with idea sharing. Hard task, given that the currency of communication is built upon ideas, including the foundational original idea. Amplify that with mythologies of owning insights, and the call for claiming, collecting, and guarding ideas sounds clearly over the realms of academia and culture. Dragons with hoards, we protect our mental wealth, waiting for challengers and watchful for opportunity.

But private writers also suffer under the delusions of unique ideas. Take the textbook I’m beginning. I’ve decided to stop looking at other textbooks for a while, because I want to express my vision without having it gravitate too far toward the conceptions others have developed for teaching writing. How wrong is that? The question for me is not just rhetorical. Clearly it makes little sense to propose a complex system without looking at, even building from, what has already been done. And, the impulse to express a personal perspective merely places me in the mythology, finds me further retreating into the metaphysical cave of ideas.

So, yes, it’s wrong. But at the same time, I ask for the counterpoints. Duplication of ideas makes little sense without identifying those worth trying to emulate. And, it’s likely that I’ll have great difficulty escaping the constraints of the existing idea system for teaching writing, so the least I can do is make a strong effort to break away, to resist with the knowledge that the forces of inertia will pull the project back in the direction of the already known. So, for now, I write alone in avoiding the models that shape the field of first year composition texts.

But, of course, I write here publicly and welcome the thoughts of others. And, I write having spent plenty of time studying books meant to teach writing. Further, it’s clear that such conventions are fixed enough to influence the text, regardless of my intentions. Through the lenses of argument, the rhetorical situation, critical thinking, and the writing process come projected images of what writing looks like and of which instructional templates are needed to teach composition.

The question becomes even more pressing, then: how can I send out my message, given this institutional structure? I should admit I’m jumping straight to vowing to work within the institutions to try to evoke change. I like the more radical, overturn-the-system camps, and I know a leap is needed to assume I can have an impact within these constraints. But, I believe I can work with many of these structures, use the constraints, sonnet-like, pushing my ideas and teaching even as I borrow from existing forms. (I do know this is not an unfraught proposition.)

I really want to focus on the new media and the old media texts. To ask students, What are you making? In part, I think the technology-based writing I prefer necessitates this kind of foregrounding of projects, of texts, genres, and media. Working with code or cropping tools casts composition as construction, foregrounding files, tags, shapes. Really what’s needed is a strong focus on products. Of course, few compositionists would advocate for a product-based pedagogy in a writing text. But, I’ll figure out a way to help students focus on the physical aspects of the projects they will be making.

Similarly, I want to write expressively, and I want students to do the same. I want to invite students to identify personally with their writing projects. It’s not just that topics should be connected to interests, but projects should be relevant in form as well. Images. Sounds. Essays. Playlists. Enjoyable. I want students to have a sense that they can be insightful. I want them to be unsure about their tasks, to test and learn about new techniques and materials. I’d much rather err on the side of making things fun and creative, than on the side of making them familiar and formal.

And, I want students to know that, while it’s right to write the personal, much of what they say will be radically public. They will be buffeted by the media maelstrom. They will read and build upon the writings of others. And, they will address an audience. They will pass their compositions through a medium, feel it shape the writing, send the work through channels to be shared with others. They’ll project through space and time. They’ll project to people. Pitch. Sway. Entertain. Write.

So, the question again: How can I emphasize texts, advocate for expression from authors, and champion public writing given the constraints of educational and rhetorical institutions? My response is to build upon familiar ideas. The image here represents notes I’ve taken on my proposal for the writing guide. My notes pull out the time-worn rhetorical triangle, a structure handed down since Aristotle and featuring ethos, pathos, and logos (or author, audience, and text in other constructions).

I’d like to restate this three part structure with terms more in line with my goals for the project—identify (ethos, author), connect (pathos, audience), and construct (logos, text). I’m similarly thinking through how to respond to terms and structures like argument and critical thinking; more on that later. My hope is that this template and others will emphasize aspects of writing that matter to me. I also hope that this represents more of a building from than a capitulation to traditional structures and the status quo. In fact, I see a possible broadening of the current structures of writing instruction through terms like identify and connect, terms which not only derive from familiar conceptions like author and audience, but which, I hope, also urge writers to express their own ideas.

Posted by Daniel Anderson at 11:07 AM
Taged as >> planting pivots and shouldering forward | Permalink

Using applications on the Web is a bit clunky still, but there are some clear opportunities for writing and teaching through the new Web. In addition to the bubblesnaps image and the mychingo voicemail recorder embedded here, I've been experimenting with snapvine, which brings the cell phone into the mix.

Explore the portrait, and then, leave your thoughts as a voicemail message using the recorder.

Posted by Daniel Anderson at 12:56 PM
Taged as >> teaching through applications of the second Web | Permalink

For the past few months I've tried to write new media pieces when making posts on this blog. It's oddly fitting, then, that this post (the first installment of many) consists of all prose, since it is here that I'll finalize the manifesto for my future writing projects, projects that, I hope, strengthen the bridge between new media and printed texts. I've sketched out ideas for such a manifesto once or twice in the past, but now I need to further develop my approach as I begin two writing textbooks. I'm calling the project Write Now. It will consist of two books, a writing guide and a handbook, each with extensive new media emphasis and content.

Both books will involve a good deal of public composing and social networking in their development. In fact, a key aspect of the project will be the way the development is opened up to public participation. I'll gladly build from the models so well developed by the Institute for the Future of the Book. The open and public composition processes they have set up for both the GAM3R 7H30RY and Without Gods books represents the kind of shared or moderated writing I'd like to accomplish. I'll also point to Collin's Rhetworks, Jeff's Digital Detroit, and Jenny's Auditory Epideictic as paving the way for actualizing the social possibilities for scholarship. I'd like to do something similar with my next textbooks.

I hunkered alone for two years recently writing a literature textbook and CD. I just don't have a taste for such isolated writing right now, and I'd like Write Now to have the benefit of online feedback and development. Conceptually and logistically, conflicts will surely arise. I'd like to implement a personal vision and produce published books for profit. But I'd also like to see a shared process of development within an interested community of readers and contributors. I'd like to make materials freely available to the public through an open source model that will help the community and make the materials stronger. But I know the commercial nature of the project will limit a good deal of this outreach potential. My intent for addressing these conflicts is to be honest, to admit that the context of commercial publishing will shape the work, to strive to be reflective and progressive in working with and against the grain of publishing pressures, and to ask for and facilitate the giving of help.

I should begin with a brief reflection on the process of finding a publisher for the project. For the past year I've spoken with every major publisher for college writing. Interactions have ranged from informal conversations about the project, to extended face-to-face meetings with officers, editors, development teams, media teams, marketing teams, and sales teams. In all of these interactions I have found the publishers to be genuinely interested in the future of writing. I'm not naive enough to overlook economics in their motivations, but, in the face of frequent criticisms of publishers as unresponsive to and exploitive of college writing, I'd be remiss in not observing that I found every publisher to be eager to listen, open to new possibilities, and, in instances, more tuned-in to student needs and desires than many instructors. Publishers seem ahead of the field in acknowledging that Web 2.0, portable devices, and new media will create profound changes for writers in the next decade. We talked about these developments at an If:book meeting in April and I was pleased to see that publishers, although approaching from different standpoints, were absolutely ready to participate in similar conversations.

I also should say I've learned a lot through the process of looking for a commercial venue for Write Now, and for the most part what I've learned makes me happy. Publishers take seriously the process of discovering what students and instructors want. Hierarchies between signing, developing, marketing, and selling textbooks are breaking down; instead information and decisions are shared, in part necessitated by the increasing risk factors associated with the investment costs of new editions. Publishers are more focused on a holistic approach to fewer texts, which hedges investments and limits options beyond the main stream, but also has the potential to result in better books, provided the vertical flow of information makes its way into the development process.

Publishers are also keenly aware of the price concerns regarding textbooks. Across companies, it's clear that publishers are ready with shorter versions of books should instructors and textbook committees request them. Publishers also are financially motivated to respond to the pressures that prevent students from buying and keeping books; no surprises here. What's promising, though, is the trend toward customization. Again, without any exceptions I could see, publishers are moving toward providing custom versions of texts and media that will help instructors, textbook adoption committees, and students identify and create texts that meet specific needs.

And, publishers are ready to push technology and social writing both in the production and distribution of their products and in the content of the texts. I proposed playlist, podcast, photo essay, collage, video collage, online profile, and dozens of other technology-based assignments for Write Now. Everyone I talked to welcomed those projects and wanted to keep the media and technology focus of the books. And, not one publisher balked at the notion of shifting the production model of the book to one consistent with the second Web. I proposed adding a public dimension to the writing through social software. I suggested participation from a broad community, and asked that publishers fund and facilitate that participation. I asked that some of the materials be released for the community to use and modify. We all had questions about logistics and boundaries, but every publisher was eager to implement these processes in the development of the books.

In fact, my eventual selection of Prentice Hall as a home for the project was based mainly on their eagerness to figure out together how we might transform the development process by opening it up. I started with an admission that I felt like I was straddling two worlds: one the open source, communal knowledge sphere I admire and participate with online, and two the world where I wanted to publish textbooks that challenge the state of writing but reach mainstream writing classes. We sat down and started brainstorming about how that might happen. The results will evolve over the next several years, but I wouldn't have committed to the process if I didn't believe it would offer opportunities for future students, for publishers, and for me to push writing.

So, I'm going public with this writing project. Look for more reflections, links to resources, and calls for participation here. If it works, look for those materials to develop into a shape recognizable as some form of open publishing. I'm not sure what to expect if it doesn't work. Either way, the process will play out in this and the other public spaces that make up the social Web.

Posted by Daniel Anderson at 01:02 PM
Taged as >> writing push coming from the inside out | Permalink