Here are the Scribe Notes for the February 6 class!
“By focusing on the human shaping of material, and on the ties of material to human practices, we might be in better positions to ask after the consequences not only of how we use water but also of how we use paper, ink, and pixels to shape—for better or worse—the actions of others.” (Wysocki 59)
Wysocki discusses the ways in which humans shape materials, and how we are often confined by the cultural implications of certain technologies. Barry, on the other hand, often discusses how materials and words shape us, and she gives several examples of poems, images, and colors that create and shape our memories and dreams.
Where, then, is the true intersection of modality, materiality, and our own imagination? Do the materials we use shape us? Or do we shape the modes and materials we use? [LW]
Kress, G. (2005). Gains and losses: New forms of texts, knowledge, and learning. Computers and Composition, 22(1), 5-22. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2004.12.004
This source, which is the primary text that Wysocki is responding to, is accessible through Google Scholar. Kress explores what can be gained (affordances) and lost when we shift communicative representation away from writing, and toward materiality, images, digital media, and other non-traditional forms of communication. He also discusses how these shifts toward design can impact learning, forms of reading, knowledge, and human agency. [NW]
Saenger, P. (1997). Space between words: The origins of silent reading. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
This book, which Wysocki references in her discussion of space, is accessible through Google Books. Saenger documents the history and process of how reading–which was originally an oral activity–has become a silent activity due to writing and the written space between words. The space on pages (which makes reading a silent activity) originates from and continues to shape how we comprehend words and reading. [NW]
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u
This article, which I’ve heard framed as a foundational text for multimodality (and has been cited in several of our readings already), is accessible through Google Scholar. The New London Group argue that we need a broader understanding of literacy–one that encompasses the multiple communication channels students use daily. They argue that embracing a multiliteracy / multimodal pedagogy can empower students to design and shape their social futures. [NW]
Ball, C. (2012). Assessing scholarly multimedia: A rhetorical genre studies approach. Technical Communication Quarterly, 21(1), 61-77. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2012.626390
Per our conversation about assessing visual texts, this article, which is accessible through Cheryl Ball’s website, might be helpful. Ball outlines what scholarly multimedia texts are–what they look like–and recommends that teachers invite their students to help generate assessment criteria with which their work can be assessed. She also argues that when assessing multimedia work, the content and form cannot be separated from the text’s rhetorical purpose. [NW]
Norman, D. Affordances and design. Retrieved from http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/affordances_and.html
This source, which was listed in Wysocki’s works cited page, explores Norman’s concept of affordance. He explains that the term affordance has gained traction with design work, but the concept of perceived affordance raises important questions about physical and cultural constraints. Norman also argues that we can be well served by thinking about affordances relationships between various design elements/stakeholders. [NW]