ENGL 680M: New Media

K-Dawg and I (that’s Ms Kristen Moore for those of you not in the know) are currently working on a research proposal for Empirical class that involves assessing to what extent, and in what specific ways, instructors are utilizing new media and visual rhetoric in English 106. The way I’m approaching the research is to wrap it around the fact that the 106 Goals/Means/and Outcomes do specifically ask for New Media in the class.

But do they? The GMOs state that students will “create and evaluate a variety of texts integrating verbal and visual elements.” So, take a poster. Doesn’t have to be made with a computer, doesn’t pass the Manovich definition of NM. Could a poster be made to highlight its materiality (ala a Wysockian definition)? Of course it could, but is this how such an assignment is presented in the class? Maybe, maybe not; but either way, I reckon nothing in “creating texts that integrate a visual element” necessarily suggests that it should be presented in this way (though I’d personally like it to be).

Further in, the GMOs do state that productions should be partially “computer-mediated.” O.K., we’re back in some possible Manovichian new media territory. However, “computer-mediated” could simply be interpreted as have your students make a Powerpoint presentation at some point in the semester. Sorry, but by my standards, that just isn’t cutting it in terms of computer-mediated possibilities.

So here’s my questions. I realize that GMOs need, to some extent, be necessarily broad enough for us liberal academics to feel like our freedom to do what we want isn’t being completely squashed. But are they too open in their current wording? Can’t an instructor completely disinterested or completely uncomfortable with new media composing interpret the current GMOs to the most basic level, where the inclusion of technology and visual rhetoric in the class becomes mere tokenism? And is this ultimately all right? In other words, are the GMOs written this way to purposefully allow for broad interpretation? Some instructors can take a pass through them, while instructors like myself and others can embrace them wholeheartedly and integrate them to heavy levels? Should I personally just shut up and be happy that I’m at a university that at least acknowledges at all the legitimate importance of the visual and the technological in composing?

I’m really interested in all of your feedback, for as this research goes forward, I want to balance my personal (and unrealistic) feelings that everyone should be doing rhetorically based, materiality focused, multimedia composition (and let the essay die for the love of God!) with the realistic expectations of what we can actually expect instructors to do.