Write.Write.Write.

The readings, What is Rhetorical about Digital Rhetoric? Perspectives and Definitions of Digital Rhetoric, and the CARS model, connects knowledge on writing styles and research. The CARS model, developed by John Swales, provides information in a model type approach on how to organize and develop research. Connecting to digital rhetoric, using online spaces and platforms allows us to expand our research using digital media. An important question to think about within the reading was how digital rhetoric different from digital writing. Digital rhetoric is an approach to persuade a specific audience through the use of digital media. Within all the different social media platforms, different writing styles are used. For example, on Instagram, the only writing style that is used are small captions and sentences, mostly. When you post a picture, you post a caption along with it. When you post a story, usually there is a small caption, also. Digital rhetoric plays a big role when conducting research. How else would papers be constructed using sources, or research questions be developed without the use of digital rhetoric? Online platforms provide an abundance of information used every day for research and the composition of writing. Being able to develop a research topic, then develop a research question, argument, an outline of sources and information, and structure of a research paper would nearly be impossible without the use of digital media. I can reflect the readings and information given for my own writing discipline. Anytime I am writing or researching, I am using online sources. It is minimal that I go to the library or a book store and use books for my research; that’s just how my generation operates! The use of digital rhetoric and research models is significant in the development of writing, so we are able to firmly develop research arguments, questions, information with the use of digital platforms.

What is Rhetorical about Digital Rhetoric? discusses the intersection of rhetoric, media, and technology and to investigate the ways digital rhetoric connects to and is different to digital humanities. The term and peoples definitions of digital rhetoric is also heavily discussed. During the symposium participants were asked “How do you define digital rhetoric?” and most had trouble answering the question despite them utilizing it quite often. This surprised me very much so if one is using digital rhetoric within scholarships, projects, and teachings and cannot define the term. This was quite comical to me despite it being commended within the article, “While the field may still lack a clear definition of “digital rhetoric,” the essays… our inability to put a finger on this term-to nail it into place once and for all-is not to be lamented but embraced….”  How can you utilize the term or even try an teach it to someone else when you yourself can’t even grasp what it’s about. I understand that it can be seen as better to let it go undefined due to it really bing up for interpretation and it changing every so often.

Defining and Expanding Digital Rhetorics, New Directions in Digital Rhetoric, Digital Rhetoric: Positions and Perspectives and Doing Digital Rhetorics are also discussed in sub categories within the article. Digital Rhetoric: Positions and Perspectives was one section that interested me most due to it discussing way to expand digital rhetoric to include a wider range of discourses and mainly its discussion of Digital Outragicity.  I would have never thought that being outraged based on something on a social media platform had a term associated with it, “…that expression of outrage in digital spaces constitute ‘the feeling or sentiment of outrage over not a reality but a representation based on various levels of aware and unaware aggregations.” What will resonate with me most would be the example of digital outragicity based on the killing of Cecil the lion. I myself was saddened and angered over the killing of Cecil the lion when it first happened and took to social media to see how other people were reacting to it as well. I agree with the notion that emerging logic on reality is increasingly getting mixed with anger, backlash, and or aggregations. Overall this article has taught me that simply Digital Rhetoric is very vast and has various topics and information that goes along with it. 

My basic approach to digital rhetoric is to look at it as both as a product (digital media) and process (inform, persuade, create by using digital technologies and distributed in multimedia platforms). This is the most simplistic/basic explanation of it. 

For this Wednesday’s reading on What is Rhetorical about Digital Rhetoric? Perspectives and Definitions of Digital Rhetoric it was about how digital rhetoric came to be and how is it a hard topic to define because everyone views digital rhetoric differently. Even in the video that is attached in the article, scholars themselves have a hard time defining what digital rhetoric is. Most of them joke about asking an easier question or tried to go around from answering the question. From that video, my understanding is that when talking about digital rhetoric there is a wide range of things that can perfectly fall under that definition. From the Indiana Digital Rhetoric Symposium I gathered that the people attending were challenged to our their minds and try to see from different perspectives and to consider the information that is being displayed to them. This conference made scholars think differently and maybe even change their views on digital rhetoric to be more wide ranged instead of viewing it to be one main topic of conversation. They also explained how culture also influences how people view digital rhetoric which makes it harder to create one definition. So, from this I learned that it depends on who is describing digital rhetoric because they will influence how they view and define digital rhetoric because it will be different from person to person.

The major argument and main point of What is Rhetorical about Digital Rhetoric is that digital rhetoric is an extremely complex subject and is also one that continues to evolve everyday. I was surprised while reading this article but could also understand where the authors were coming from. Both the authors and those they interviewed in the attached video no one could put a strict definition on digital rhetoric. I feel like those in our class and myself included also have trouble trying to define what digital rhetoric due to its complexity. The authors convey this complexity in the article by bringing in many both long and short essays but also projects on digital rhetoric and not being able to get one clear connection between the pieces to better define what rhetoric is. The authors then close their article stating that rhetoric has been an ever changing subject and the same is to say about digital media, which is why it is important to understand aspects of digital rhetoric for future research and to reflect on past understandings of these subjects. (Hodgson, Barnett, 2016)

The facts that digital rhetoric is ever changing suggest that with the study of digital rhetoric come a lifetime of learning. This is also true for those in computer science and cyber security. As the authors stated above on how digital media is always changing those in computer science and cyber security must also evolve with these changes due to the continuous development of new languages, algorithms, etc.. 

In the article, What is Rhetorical About Digital Rhetoric?, Hodgson and Barnett go into detail about digital rhetoric and how enigmatic it can be.  One example they give is how when going through the job listing’s at Indiana, there was only two mentions of “digital rhetoric” in the job listing.  However, since then there has been an increase in the use of the term “digital rhetoric” with more job listings for people specializing in digital rhetoric.  

During the Indiana Digital Rhetoric Symposium, the questions on whether digital rhetoric is different from digital writing or digital humanities and what is rhetorical about digital rhetoric where posed to be answered.  However, no definitive answer was given and not even a general consensus was formed.  During the Symposium, McElroy, Davis, and Lee interviewed participants, the result was that no one could even begin to define digital rhetoric, even if they use it in classes they teach.

The authors analyze multiple different projects and essays about digital rhetoric.  However, besides the term “digital rhetoric” being used, their is no underlying connections between them.

I am surprised that many in the field of digital rhetoric can not but a solid definition to it.  However, I also understand this since it is always evolving and covers such a wise variety of topics.  This is similar to the computer science field where technology is ever evolving and you need to keep up with it constantly as it is being redefined and reinvented constantly.

In “What is rhetorical about digital rhetoric? Perspectives and Definitions of Digital Rhetoric” I found out that no one knows what digital rhetoric truly is. They can only explain it in pieces, meaning they connect it to one idea and show how digital rhetoric applies to that category. Such as the delivery of digital rhetoric in the classroom, someone can explain what this means and how to use it effectively but this concept alone does not define digital rhetoric. Overall there isn’t one clear definition and that is mainly because of digital rhetoric being a changing concept. Everything digital is constantly changing throughout the years. I found it interesting that professors and graduate students couldn’t even give a clear answer and were stumped before being able to define digital rhetoric. It makes me feel better for not fully understanding rhetoric.

Lastly, the author touches on how digital rhetorics is applied to technology today, such as digital media. We often use social media but we never realize how much we use rhetorical strategies, it is just something that comes naturally to us in this world of social media. We are always trying to convince the masses of something when we are online, whether it be taking a stand on something and trying to bring attention to a cause or simply trying to persuade someone you are living your best life on Instagram. These were not ways digital rhetorics were used 20 years ago but now it is all around us. This also shows how much the meaning and perspective of digital rhetorics is at a constant change. 

It’s clear that digital rhetoric is important to the humanities on technological platforms, but it’s becoming more desirable in disciplinary and institutional careers. Rhetoric as a whole is seen as both a means of persuasion through composition and a craft of sorts. Composition, as was previously mentioned, isn’t restricted to writing. Any form of interactive or observable media can be a rhetorical composition. People across all career fields learn differently, and thus, they explain what they learned to others differently as well.

While reading What is Rhetorical about digital Rhetoric I came across the main argument that in our everyday lives we come across a new way on how it can evolve. My class and I can agree that digital rhetoric is extremely difficult and tricky to understand along with no one being able to fully understand the whole concept. According to authors digital rhetoric is used to inform and persuade on an everyday basis. But it is not that simple. This generation was brought up with using technology to submit essays, homework, projects and basically anything that needs to be graded. We can easily look up someone else’s work and learn off of what they wrote from the past. But knowing and understanding the future is the hard part. 

After reading and going over digital rhetoric, I can conclude that there will never be a specific answer on what digital rhetoric really is. On the other hand, you can tell that it is always being updated based on what is going on in the world.

What is Rhetorical about Digital Rhetoric? Perspectives and Definitions of Digital Rhetoric is an article published in 2015 by Justin Hodgson and Scot Barnett about their experience hosting a Symposium at the University of Indiana on Digital Rhetoric. While the panel brought upon many interesting and creative ways on viewing digital rhetoric, there seemed to be no clear definition on the term. I found this to be quite interesting as the article later on explained that this is due to “digital rhetoric” being evolutionary and adapting alongside digital life and the everchanging dynamics within those fields. I was quite taken away by the video in the article in which many experts and scholars were puzzled and unresponsive when asked to define “digital rhetoric.”  

As the authors and other scholars at the Symposium gained insight and learned much more about digital rhetoric and its transformative meaning over time, there were still many questions left to answer. Ultimately, digital rhetoric can be defined in one way, as an art that is rooted in contingent matters and states of affairs and thus will be ever changing. The authors reflect and conclude that like its ancient origin, to study digital rhetoric is to understand rhetoric and how it is a strategic way of expression in which a “rhetorician” addresses specific concepts and delivers impressive persuasion over the matters and topics being discussed.

The article was published in 2015 but just three years prior in 2012, digital rhetoric was defined or labeled as “multimodal composing”, “digital writing”, “new media studies”, “digital media”, “digital humanities”, “computers and composition”, and “computers and writing.” The word and term “digital rhetoric” has many vocabulary boundaries and multimodal divisions that when brought together, paint an overall picture and give purpose to its meaning.

It is now 2019 and social media platforms and digital media as a whole, rule and influence everyday life. This advanced composition class for example, relies on our ability as students to express ourselves through multi-modal digital means on a social media platform. Tumblr is just one example of how rhetoric has been applied over the creation of software and how computers are algorithmically developed to translate code into meaning, persuasion, and expression. Ironically, all of those programs are created for its organic users to express themselves and to persuade others. As technology advances and continues to develop, so will the meaning of digital rhetoric and thus continue the never-ending study and research of its definition.

Throughout the reading, What is Rhetorical about Digital Rhetoric? Perspectives and Definitions of Digital Rhetoric, the definition, or rather the lack there of, of digital rhetoric was discussed. Indiana University hosted the IDRS (Indiana Digital Rhetoric Symposiums), a labor intensive panel where scholars and researchers gathered to discuss what the true definition of digital rhetoric is. However, during the symposium, the conclusion was drawn that there is in fact no true, valid definition of digital rhetoric. Despite the continuous discussion among some of the smartest people, no-one was able to come to an agreeance on a single, solid definition. Digital rhetoric is limitless and is interpreted differently from one person the the next. However, this is a good thing. Have a lack of boundaries in the world of digital rhetoric allows everyone to create their own viewpoints and be more free with their composition and expression. When watching the attached video, it was clear that most of the scholars weren’t 100% confident, or prepared to give a solid, accurate statement. Despite all the research that has gone into digital rhetoric, we still do not have a clear idea of its definition, however we are aware of the importance it plays in our everyday lives. I thought this article was quite interesting because I never realized that there isn’t a true definition of digital rhetoric. With the way we work with digital rhetoric in class I have noticed that it is free flowing and leaves a lot of wiggle room for our personal interpretation, however, I still assumed that there was a legit definition that was at least used as a foundation for the composition. The way I can relate this reading to my future career as an educator is somewhat abstract. While reading, I related myself to the scholars and the way they were unable to establish a clear answer. As a teacher I may not be able to establish a clear answer for everything, similarly to how all the scholars were unable to come to a conclusion for a definition. 

Throughout the reading What is Rhetorical about Digital Rhetoric? Perspectives and Definitions of Digital Rhetoric it was discussed how digital rhetoric has evolved throughout the years. To this day professionals have a difficult time defining digital rhetoric. This was shown in the video of interviews presented by Stephen McElroy, Matt Davis, and Rory Lee. The individuals being interviewed stuttered on the question and delayed their responses due to confusion. Digital rhetoric is constantly being discovered and it still lacks a clear definition. This is due to the extensiveness of the term digital rhetoric and everything it involves. Digital rhetoric includes a range of perceptions and is constantly evolving throughout the years. Since digital rhetoric is such a broad term even professionals struggle to narrow it down to one simple definition. The Indiana Digital Rhetoric Symposium resulted in diverse conversations regarding personal beliefs on digital rhetoric. Individuals spoke about their beliefs regarding digital rhetoric and it lead to diverse conversations. Digital rhetoric is constantly changing and discovering new aspects, so individuals perception on digital rhetoric will continue to change. 

For my two rhetorical strategies I chose visual (gif) and linguistic. I chose this visual gif because it is an example of evolution. Just as individual’s beliefs are changing, so are the ideas present inside of them. For linguistic I wrote a reaction on the article What is Rhetorical about Digital Rhetoric? Perspectives and Definitions of Digital Rhetoric and discussed key components I believed to be most important.

In chapter 9, the main connection was on science and rhetoric. I thought that this was interesting because I never realized how much rhetoric was used in everyday things. Rhetoric is a tool that is used to help be more persuasive and this becomes helpful when it comes to theories. Scientists have to persuade different audiences to believe or see their work and with the use of rhetoric that becomes easier. We saw some main focuses so far about rhetoric being used in the media, but never really saw it used in the scientific way. I know that being an athletic training major, scientific rhetoric is interesting and makes you think a little differently. A big point in the reading was the difference between metaphor and metonymy and the biggest difference was that metonymy comes up with 2 ideas from one place while a metaphor has two ideas that come from two different places. I thought that it was interesting to see the connection between the two of them. Rhetoric is used every single day and in many different forms. It can be used in English like how we use it, or in the scientific form which the reading highlighted.The two forms i used was linguistic and visual because as I have said in my previous posts that I like to talk about things in detail but then when you add the visual aspect, it gives the points you are trying to convey, more meaning to it. 

The human mind is a complicated network composed of a vast collection of information ranging from thoughts, ideas, and emotions varying in theme all determined from wisdom gained throughout the lifetime of each individual. As such the statement made within On Multimodal Composing in which “composing is tied to the human experience of time” holds true and strong.  To compose any work of art, music, or form poetry, a person relates and reflects on their life experiences and prior occurrences to constructively display meaning and expression. Along with mental and cognitive expressions, the mind is also able to manipulate and influence the human body into reflecting a visual interpretation of the thoughts residing within each individual. “Composing is inherently multimodal” that sentence within On Multimodal Composing is accurate in that the formation of composing for each human has a personal value and develops throughout a lifetime from experiences influenced by family, associations like friendships and partnerships, influential teachings, and knowledge exchanges. Every human being has their own physical, digital, spiritual, and mental way of processing and composing their writings.

That brings me to discuss the second reading, Multimodal Composing and Woman, Rhetoric, and Politics on Pinterest in which Pinterest was studied as an online space mainly directed for women and in which they express themselves freely. Pinterest is multimodal and all of its users use visual, linguistic, aural and text to convey thoughts and feelings. As the title suggests, Multimodal Composing and Woman, Rhetoric, and Politics discovered that although the target audience of Pinterest mainly being women and geared towards discussing more feminine topics, politics were discussed within the boards of its users and many pros and cons rose from these debates. It was incredible reading that although some women wanted to exclude politics from Pinterest to avoid online conflict or confrontation, many women freely expressed themselves and were vigilant in stressing how important it is to have a voice and to use it.  

I will personally state that Pinterest is not solely a social media platform for only women to use (I use it moderately to look for tattoo ideas, arts relating to specific things I like such as movies, video games and tv shows, future house design and arrangement ideas, love quotes to share with my girl, and for various other reasons). I use Pinterest in aiding certain agendas of mine and thus without even realizing it, I indirectly expand my insights on the way I personally compose.

I truly enjoyed reading these two articles and happy to say that I Love to express myself through visual modes, such as the influential GIF below and through text so that I can properly describe in words, the information I am trying to relay upon others. 

The quote that stuck with me through this reading was “This situation becomes all the more disturbing when one realizes that computers often exacerbate the very inequities that technology is so frequently supposed to ameliorate” (Selber 81). I felt like this was very important because as a generation we think computers are the best thing ever; we can do the simplest task with the tap a finger, it almost too easy. Although this is amazing and I wouldn’t trade it for anything in the world, it can also be a problem. We are so used to everything being technology-based and that being the easier route to take, but sometimes it can also the reason you pass or fail a class. For example, this Tumblr post. When we first got the assignment it seemed too easy, who doesn’t know what Tumblr or a blog is, who doesn’t know how to find the reading then write about and post it? The assignment seemed like it’s a good idea; however, look at how many problems most of us had the first and second blog post. We all struggled in some way to either figure out how to properly do and turn in the assignment.  Until Dr. Villa spent a whole class on setting up a Tumblr, and how to write and post, teaching that critical literacy of using the website, as a class we couldn’t all get it together. The point is we thought the incorporation of technology was supposed to make this course easier but that first simple task made it harder. I feel like that carries out through our whole college experience, in some classes the excessive use of technology can hinder some student’s ability to learn. For example, if class notes were all online, but a student didn’t have a personal laptop to access those notes during class; which is also mentioned in the “power moves associated with technological regularization” as a form of segregation, in my opinion. 

Also, the idea of critical literacy with technology is always thrown to the side. I remember my freshman year every teacher talked about using D2L and how everything you need is there but in all the orientation classes I was forced to sit through, not one person taught us what D2L was and how to navigate it. That set me back the whole first week of assignments because most of my time was trying to figure out how to use it. We are the generation of technology, we figured out how to use everything on our own that is why we are so tech-savvy, but that often makes everybody think we will just “figure it out” instead of teaching us how. Sure we all know how to write a paper but how many of us know how to retrieve a file if its accidentally deleted before it was saved. Yes we know computers but do we understand how to work it?

Overall, the text was about how technology is a big part of our life and it’s only going to continue to take over in the education system so we have to prep students now. However, because technology is constantly changing it’s not enough to have a computer technology class in high school and expect students to take that knowledge and apply it correctly in college to become successful. As far as the “systematic requirements for change” in Ch.5, I feel like we are going through those stages right now in this class with these Tumblr post. We are learning about critical and rhetorical literacy and using Tumblr to demonstrate our understandings is incorporating technology into our learning.

Chapter five of Sebler’s Multiliteracies for a Digital Age focuses on how important it is for teachers and professors to incorporate programs in their classes and departments at universities that incorporate computer programs and teach functional, critical and rhetorical literacy in different applicable ways. Sebler agrees that insufficient amounts of English departments at universities provide these programs. ESU can be one of them, as they do not strengthen and use assistance or education for technology use. As far as that goes, D2L can be one of the few technological programs students use, which is not even that advanced. This chapter centers around the necessity of change within that. Computer literacy programs can benefit individuals in many aspects. It would provide technology education, as well as the knowledge on how the usage of developing technology is beneficial to us. The portion of the explanation of change in educational settings stood out to me the most. The development of educational change cannot take place without initiative from people. My knowledge on technological development benefited from the explanation of the requirements of change in technological settings. Providing education to not only students, but professors and hiring staff who are up to date with technology can benefit our knowledge of the usage as well.

The epilogue explains that is it obvious that computer technologies today fill educational environments. Within universities, there are little activities that do not require the use of any sort of technology. English classes are advancing with the use of technology and how were are not able to construct writing and learn about the difference from online literacy to other forms of it. If we, as students, want to grow in careers and grow in knowledge of relevance in today’s world, it is important to gain proper education on the use of technology and the understanding of its usage. When becoming familiar with technological advancements, functional, critical, and rhetorical literacies understanding are required. It is teachers and professor’s responsibility to provide us students with this education so we are able to keep up with the advancements. Gradually, all departments within universities will be involved with computer literacy. It is crucial of us to become involved, also. What caught my eye was the fact that these computer literacy curriculums overall will not prepare students to work socially, provide ideas of literacy that focus with values of writing and communication, and will not assist to improve the differences through the use of developing technology.

The main concept of this portion of the text, which is the requirement of change for technological use development, reflected my own educational discipline. I can benefit greatly from computer programs and education on technology so I can better my abilities and enable myself to use technology which can benefit me in school and a career in the future.

These chapters of Multiliteracies for a Digital Age really discuss computer multiliteracy programs and how teachers and their institutions should go about integrating programs with literacy and technology. It begins to discuss as well though, that change is not going to happen right away and there needs to be more commitment over time for it to be integrated. However, in order to make a change, one must understand all the parts of change but also understand it as a whole because literacy and technology is always growing and changing. It states that in educational settings, technology is seen as the primary intervention and honestly, I find that to be so true. I feel like in education, our focus is always toward technology and work is always to be done with some sort of technology. The text talks about four requirements and their approaches, in chapter 5 specifically. The first requirement for implantation is technical. This refers to the computer infrastructures on campus and discussing the technological requirements. It is also important to ask questions so everyone can understand the technology. The second requirement is Pedagogical, and this refers to scaffolding and understanding that students should be taught and handed technology information slowly so everyone can understand the information. The third requirement is Curricular which refers to the actual implanting of putting technology in the curriculum where it fits and even adding it to certain specific courses. The fourth requirement is Departmental and Institutional. This refers to how everyone can help everyone construct a better understanding of technology. It includes the importance of having certain people in charge of helping and setting up technology and it is important to have comfortable technology environments for all to feel comfortable when it comes to new technology. When I reflect on these four requirements personally, I do see this trying to be implanted into ESU. Maybe ESU isn’t doing it perfectly and is not making everyone super happy, but I believe for a smaller institution, we are technologically advanced and also, with our generation, we typically are known to just understand technology better, but if we do happen to need help from others, there is always help available on campus. This ended on a high note explaining that if students want to be people of the positive technology change, our education needs to be relevant and meaningful to our digital age. I believe this to be much more than people just believing us to know how to use technology, but I believe that having us interact and do more than just typing papers on technology will also help us engage more.  

Selber (2004), in the book Multiliteracies for a Digital Age, continuously calls to action for teachers and educators to create a a program to teach others how to communicate better in the terms of computer literacy. He does this by revealing the three categories needed to make someone technologically literate. These three categories are to be literate functionally, critically, and rhetorically. To be functionally literate is to have the ability to effectively be capable of using and understanding how the computer works so you can use it to its full potential. This means having a deep understanding of the capabilities and the limiting factors of a computer and understanding that they are not equipped to complete any task imaginable (Selber, 2004).