Blog #5 Wysocki-awaywithwords

Wysocki, Anne. “awaywithwords: On the possibilities in unavailable designs.” Computers and Composition. 22(2005): 55–62. 10 Oct. 2011. Web. <10.1016/j.compcom.2004.12.011>

In this article, Anne Frances Wysocki argues that there is a need to rethink the limits that the field has placed on the use of materials we use to communicate in order to make unavailable means available. The argument begins by claiming to be “pushing at the edges” of Gunther Kress’s division of word and image by “question [ing] what becomes unavailable when we think of word and image as Kress has suggested we do, as bound logically and respectively with time and with space.” She encourages the reader to question the how and the why of the constraints placed on the materials we use to communicate. This is followed by an examination of the use of space in text, specifically in relation to her title: does it read “a way with words” or “away with words”? In order to compose texts that function as intended, we need to teach our students to consider space not only as they use it in a given time, but also how they came to understand space and how it can be used. Wysocki then addresses the treatment of the divide of the image and text thus far in the field and argues that the two are indivisible. The text has a visual aspect (even if it’s just space) that is necessary for communication. It is argued that we need to expand our conception of what an image is beyond the traditional photograph because the time, place and social function of each image is different. We need to be aware of what our readers don’t expect to see in addition to being aware of what they expect to see.

Wysocki’s article is important because it extends the discussion of word and image present in the field at the time. By asking the reader to consider the fluidity of the materials we use to communicate, she is encouraging an expanded view of our composition practices. It is important to consider how our use of materials changes based on time, place, and context because those things ultimately change how the message is being communicated. Her example of our uses of water helped to drive home this point in particular. The article is useful because it asks questions that have yet to be asked. It asks us to consider what we have made “unavailable” to communicative practices by putting “word” and “image” into constrained boxes of usage. In addition to expanding the types of alphabetic composition possible, it’s particularly useful to arguments for an expanded definition of composition to include images as just as valid as alphabetic. It’s one more step to a broader acceptance of these types of composition.

eHandout for Roundable Presentation

Abstract:

           

The theory that great composition can be taught by great reading is one that is apparent in the discussion of rhetoric and composition dating back through to Aristotle’s time. These theories, the pedagogies they’ve led to, and the idea of the "digital native" are derived from the same belief: modeling translates to production. If you are exposed to a specific type of composition, you will “pick up on” the skills necessary to turn around and produce a composition in the same medium. The lack of real composition instruction in modeling theories, along with the discussion of literacy definitions and expansions (complete and incomplete), the rhetorical treatment of the visual throughout the history of formal rhetoric and the relationship between the visual and the verbal show that visual rhetoric is important; however, it has always been supportive of the verbal instead of being treated as a valuable communication tool in and of itself. Therefore, it is missing an important piece of the communication process: production. Most students in college composition courses are not being asked to produce visual images that stand on their own. It is being assumed that anything you could say visually could also be said verbally instead of giving students access to all “available and unavailable means” Instructors should not be assuming that analysis and modeling equates to competence in students in regard to visual rhetoric because it perpetuates the “teaching in a vacuum” that composition in school is often accused of and creates an incomplete vision of literacy.

References:

Aristotle. On Rhetoric. Trans. George A Kennedy. New York: Oxford UP, 1991.

Brumberger, Eva. “Visual Literacy and the Digital Native: An Examination of the Millennial Learner.” Journal of Visual Literacy. 30.1(2011): 19-46. Web. 

Covino, William A.  ”Rhetorical Pedagogy.”  A Guide to Composition Pedagogies. Eds. Tate, Rupiper, and Schick. New York: Oxford UP, 2001. 36-52.

George, Diana. "From Analysis to Design: Visual Communication in the Teaching of Writing."College Composition and Communication. 54.1 (2002):11-39. 18 Sept. 2011.Web. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1512100 .>

Hill, Charles, A. “Reading the Visual in College Writing Classes.” Visual Rhetoric in a Digital World. Ed. Carolyn Handa. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2004. 107-130. Print. 

Hobbs, Catherine L. "Learning from the Past: Verbal and Visual Literacy in Early Modern Rhetoric and Writing Pedagogy." Visual Rhetoric in a Digital World. Ed. Carolyn Handa. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2004. 55-70. Print.

Prensky, Marc. “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants.” On the Horizon. 9.5 (2001):1-6. Web. 20 Sept. 2011.

Whately, Richard. “Elements of Rhetoric.” The Rhetoric of Blair, Campbell and Whately.  Eds. James Golden and Edward Corbet. Southern Illinois University, 1990: 273-396.

Wysocki, Anne. “awaywithwords: On the possibilities in unavailable designs.” Computers and  Composition. 22(2005): 55–62. 10 Oct. 2011. Web. <10.1016/j.compcom.2004.12.011>

Blog #4 Brumberger: Visual Literacy and the Digital Native

  Brumberger, Eva. “Visual Literacy and the Digital Native: An Examination of the Millennial Learner.” Journal of Visual Literacy. 30.1(2011): 19-46. Web.         

Brumberger begins the article by explaining the debate (via a literature review) over visual literacy as it relates to the digital native. It has been suggested (Prensky) that those born into the digital world we live in will become visually literate through exposure throughout their life-time. She then supplies a working definition that includes both an interpretive and a productive component. The study conducted consisted of a survey given to students in several types of writing classes at Virginia Tech. They received 485 responses that could be used and asked questions pertaining to students’ experiences with entertainment and navigational technologies, cameras, student use of personal technology, evaluation of video and images, the interpretation of images, and interpreting tone.     

The results suggest that students are far from being able to analyze and produce visual communication, which contradicts the digital native argument. Their self-perception of their visual communication skills was limited. They then give examples of what could be done in future studies. She claims in the end that the question is not only how proficient are students, but how proficient do they need to be? The data set from this study does not show that “digital natives” are able to “translate” visual images naturally. In fact, it is claimed that their ability to do this is weak. It is suggested that the study may show a stronger visual literacy than the age group actually has because the sample represents a more affluent group that has access to the technology. This study ultimately argues against the idea that repeated exposure will translate to understanding of visual images (as suggested by the digital natives argument). She argues for teaching students to be visually literate because we cannot assume that exposure to images and experience using technology translates into visual literacy skills.   

The strengths in the article were the survey questions themselves, the limitations and the future research section. While the study itself was limited, the data was surprising and convincing (while I suppose it would be easier to convince someone that already agrees with you). This article is important because it begins to take the theories about visual literacy and a specific group of people and work toward investigating them. Giving the reader a good sense of the limits and possible directions for the future opens the investigation up to the rest of the field. In addition, it’s important because we, as a field, need to know what has to be taught. If it’s assumed that students know something that they in fact are not proficient in, we’re doing them a disservice.

Reading the Visual in College Writing Classes

Hill, Charles, A. “Reading the Visual in College Writing Classes.” Visual Rhetoric in a Digital World. Ed. Carolyn Handa. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2004. 107-130. Print. 

 

In this article, Charles Hill begins by lamenting the neglect of visual literacy in classrooms. According to Hill, this neglect is largely due to the perception that the visual is some how “less than” the verbal. He claims this idea is based largely on invalid assumptions including that the visual and verbal are separate entities. He refutes this and argues that the visual is not simply another way to say something that can be said verbally.

This idea leads into a discussion for visual rhetoric pedagogy. After posing a list of current questions in the field, Hill tries to answer the question of how we determine which images to consider rhetorical. He identifies “imagistic events”(first-hand images) and “symbolic events” (second-hand images categorized by “intent”) as the two types of visual images. He does go on to caution that these are both subjective; our perceptions of these events are influenced by our cultural values and assumptions.

After discussing the why of visual rhetorical pedagogy, Hill poses suggestions for implementation: 1. looking at the image in the context of American culture by having students consider how images work in society 2. teaching images as rhetorical constructions; students should learn how images are persuasive and 3. teaching the visual aspects of written text as a way to “ease” students into a discussion of visual rhetoric.

Hill then turns to the application in First-Year Composition. He argues that the visual should be taught in FYC because it’s often the only exposure to rhetorical theory that students have in their college careers, and the primary purpose of rhetorical education is to teach students how to respond to messages in the “real world.” He ends the discussion of FYC with the acknowledgement that general education writing courses are considerably over burdened. His solution to that problem is a multi-departmental rhetoric program built around the idea that writing, visual literacy and oral communication are all essential and inexorably intertwined.

Hill gives a lot of good examples to explain his ideas in trying to answer some of the questions that the field has run into. This seems to be his attempt to try and move forward to application with the theories of the “visual” that were circulating. He does seem to differ from George (Blog 2) in that he does still only focus on the analysis and not the production. His discussion of visual elements of text was thorough and again his examples drove the point home-the visual and verbal together help to construct our communication in every way. I particularly found his definition of what images are considered rhetorical and the subjectivity we bring to images to be useful in that it helps to solidify a definition of what we mean when we say “visual.” Not quite sure I can buy into his solution to the whole situation, but the article is useful to start pulling some of the previous theories into the modern classroom.