What role does remix play in invention? Is invention intrinsically an act of remix?
2. What’s the context?
In and outside the classroom; teaching and composing texts.
3. What’s at stake?
The concept of originality, legality, informed pedagogical practices, the state of composing in the 21st century, a better understanding of our own composing processes, authorship and ownership.
4. What’s the way forward (i.e., references, procedures, research: our way to get to the question)?
Not only acknowledging remix as a viable practice but also circulating that understanding of remix—to our students, in our scholarship (conventions, journals, books, etc.), in our field (think: position statements), to our university stakeholders, and to the world outside the classroom. In short, we need to reconfigure our understanding of ownership and of what counts as meaning making.
5. What else?
• The fear of the null set: if we see everything as remix, then remix has no value. We need to flesh out an understanding of what remix is and what practices it entails. • The tracing of the history and evolution of remix and remix practices. • The shift in focus to technology (Deicity of technology, remixing technologies for purposes other than they were intended—but is this remediation instead of remix?). • The relation between invention and the social construction of knowledge (the tension between individual and society). • The state of genius—does it exist according to our traditional understanding?
What is the relationship between invention and transfer? What invention practices work well for transfer? In educational settings where transfer is a goal, how might the teaching of invention be approached?
*The questions above could be complicated by such questions as "transfer for what?" and "what is transfer?"
2. What's the context? From wide to narrow, the context is education, writing classes, and FYC classes.
3. What's at stake? A set of flexible best practices for teaching, maximization of transfer, and re-institution of invention into the teaching pedagogy.
4. What's the way forward? A research plan might include implementing two models in an FYC program or class: Model 1) Multiple Choice (introducing a variety of invention practices into the classroom for one assignment which the students can choose from to invent) Model 2) Fill-in-the-blank (introduces one invention practice and uses this invention practice for a variety of assignments)
5. What else? This approach would require particular knowledge (on the part of the researcher/teacher) in invention practices, transfer theory and purpose, and pedagogical practices.
This post is based off notes from Elizabeth & Matt's conversation--if something is misrepresented, don't blame Matt! :)
What happens when we rewrite the history of invention based on the history of technology?
2. What's the context?
The history of invention previously focused on cultural and historical influences on invention, neglecting the material and technological influences.
3. What's at stake?
Our understanding of invention is limited for understanding our current moment where technology is front and center. This perspective would change not only our understanding of inventional history, but also our understanding of how invention functions at the current technological moment. When looking at a historical period of invention, we would look first at the technology of production and circulation and consider how those technologies transact with inventional processes. For example, we would consider the scriptorium in medieval invention or Roman circulation methods when examining Cicero.
4. What's the way forward?
A material history of invention would provide us with a critical stance for examining current technology as it interacts with invention. As Foucault says, it is easier to understand discourse formation of the past than it is to understand the present because we are in it. If we understand invention/technology in the past, we will be better prepared to address technology in the present.
5. What else?
We believe that all the canons could benefit from this technological historical perspective.
Becca and Kendra answered "Theory and the Student" (1-5) using a mental frame "ratio" in terms of teaching (FYC)
1. What’s the question?
How much theory is "just right" for FYC classes? How much foundation in Invention is necessary/useful to the students to have?
2. What’s the context?
The type of scholarship that those who teach composition are engaged with/ the type and extent of their exposure and work with rhetorical theory
the knowledge that students bring with them into the classroom
3. What’s at stake?
The shape of the discipline-- if we ascribe to the belief that something can be created "new" and we don't help them adopt/adapt the means to do so, then we are not teaching effectively; if we ascribe to the belief that everything is a remix and do not face head on the problematics of originality vs. re-cycling within Invention, then they will (1) not be able to value or understand the nature of their own contributions, and/or (2) be shut down by the fear of committing theft.
4. What’s the way forward
Use Reflection as a tool for acknowledging Invention. Bring students to a conscious state of their own composing practice. Expand our toolset so we can hand tools to students (i.e. Kara's Key Terms).
5. What else?
What kind of language will we use to make key terms? How to frame the canon? Are the five canons of rhetoric ----Memory, Invention, Style, Arrangement, Delivery--- interchangeable in value? Or is Invention the Master Key? As McLuhan said medium changes message (and by extension method)-- Through the lens of new technologies, Invention leads to re-purpose, re-mix, multi-modality. So what is the instructor's willingness to use other media to explore/demonstrate Invention? What is the ratio of the canons to each other; what is the ratio of Invention to agency?
Scott and I dealt with teaching invention and the visual:
1. What's the question?
How does/should the teaching of invention be re-imagined when working with the visual?
2. What's the context?
Our students are becoming increasingly more visual and visual rhetoric brings with it a really different set of invention strategies. Likewise, the visuality of texts is gaining recognition, so our students are being asked to be visually literate so they can "read" them.
3. What's at stake?
If we are not teaching visual invention strategies, then we are not teaching our students a complete visual literacy or how to produce visual texts of their own.
4. The way forward...
We discussed a theoretical framework for teachers to justify that visuality requires a new way of thinking that moves from Cress to Hill ("The Psychology of Rhetorical Images) to Blair ("The Rhetoric of Visual Arguments").
A discussion of design elements is a useful place to start when introducing students to visual rhetoric and visual invention. For that we suggest Kostelnick's Shaping Information and from Cress's Multimodality perhaps "Design and Arrangements: Making Meaning Material." These texts offer a language for students to start to consider the visuality of their text productions and would introduce them to invention, even if only through imitation as a place to start, as they consider effective document design.
And hopefully, Scott, I didn't make a mess of transcribing our thinking :)
Invention and New Media 1. The question: How are students inventing outside of class? What tools are they using? How are they using those tools? How are those tools using them?
2. The context: Outside of class, obviously, but also inside of class as they bring their experiences and understandings of invention with them.
3. What's at stake: Our ability to reach them as teachers; the future of composition as a practice; and the future of invention techniques and theories.
4. The way forward: Polls/studies of (1) practices, (2) media, (3) interaction.
5. What else? As far as new media is concerned, we need more communication between humanities and sciences, specifically english/comm depts and computer science people (dreaming, we know). We need to come to a better understanding of the disconnect in students' minds between their outside composing and their in-class composing and of the disconnect between how they value composing in new media vs. old.
1. How does invention or (re)invention lead to a knowledge-base for empowerment?
2. Current research on invention often excludes these ways of knowing for marginalized groups; invention ideologies need to start included them.
3. Giving a group of people a chance to feel included: like they are a part of the larger population that isn’t marginalized.
4. More research that includes inventional research that leads to inventional strategies that are non-inclusive.
5. We need a theory of (re)invention, or in other words, more research on invention that is informed by a pedagogy of access, availability and knowledge—ways of knowing so that a particular group can participate in the larger non-marginalized group.
1. What’s the question?
ReplyDeleteWhat role does remix play in invention?
Is invention intrinsically an act of remix?
2. What’s the context?
In and outside the classroom; teaching and composing texts.
3. What’s at stake?
The concept of originality, legality, informed pedagogical practices, the state of composing in the 21st century, a better understanding of our own composing processes, authorship and ownership.
4. What’s the way forward (i.e., references, procedures, research: our way to get to the question)?
Not only acknowledging remix as a viable practice but also circulating that understanding of remix—to our students, in our scholarship (conventions, journals, books, etc.), in our field (think: position statements), to our university stakeholders, and to the world outside the classroom. In short, we need to reconfigure our understanding of ownership and of what counts as meaning making.
5. What else?
• The fear of the null set: if we see everything as remix, then remix has no value. We need to flesh out an understanding of what remix is and what practices it entails.
• The tracing of the history and evolution of remix and remix practices.
• The shift in focus to technology (Deicity of technology, remixing technologies for purposes other than they were intended—but is this remediation instead of remix?).
• The relation between invention and the social construction of knowledge (the tension between individual and society).
• The state of genius—does it exist according to our traditional understanding?
1. What's the question?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the relationship between invention and transfer? What invention practices work well for transfer? In educational settings where transfer is a goal, how might the teaching of invention be approached?
*The questions above could be complicated by such questions as "transfer for what?" and "what is transfer?"
2. What's the context?
From wide to narrow, the context is education, writing classes, and FYC classes.
3. What's at stake?
A set of flexible best practices for teaching, maximization of transfer, and re-institution of invention into the teaching pedagogy.
4. What's the way forward?
A research plan might include implementing two models in an FYC program or class:
Model 1) Multiple Choice (introducing a variety of invention practices into the classroom for one assignment which the students can choose from to invent)
Model 2) Fill-in-the-blank (introduces one invention practice and uses this invention practice for a variety of assignments)
5. What else?
This approach would require particular knowledge (on the part of the researcher/teacher) in invention practices, transfer theory and purpose, and pedagogical practices.
This post is based off notes from Elizabeth & Matt's conversation--if something is misrepresented, don't blame Matt! :)
Invention and History:
ReplyDelete1. What's the question?
What happens when we rewrite the history of invention based on the history of technology?
2. What's the context?
The history of invention previously focused on cultural and historical influences on invention, neglecting the material and technological influences.
3. What's at stake?
Our understanding of invention is limited for understanding our current moment where technology is front and center. This perspective would change not only our understanding of inventional history, but also our understanding of how invention functions at the current technological moment. When looking at a historical period of invention, we would look first at the technology of production and circulation and consider how those technologies transact with inventional processes. For example, we would consider the scriptorium in medieval invention or Roman circulation methods when examining Cicero.
4. What's the way forward?
A material history of invention would provide us with a critical stance for examining current technology as it interacts with invention. As Foucault says, it is easier to understand discourse formation of the past than it is to understand the present because we are in it. If we understand invention/technology in the past, we will be better prepared to address technology in the present.
5. What else?
We believe that all the canons could benefit from this technological historical perspective.
Becca and Kendra answered "Theory and the Student" (1-5) using a mental frame "ratio" in terms of teaching (FYC)
ReplyDelete1. What’s the question?
How much theory is "just right" for FYC classes?
How much foundation in Invention is necessary/useful to the students to have?
2. What’s the context?
The type of scholarship that those who teach composition are engaged with/ the type and extent of their exposure and work with rhetorical theory
the knowledge that students bring with them into the classroom
3. What’s at stake?
The shape of the discipline--
if we ascribe to the belief that something can be created "new" and we don't help them adopt/adapt the means to do so, then we are not teaching effectively; if we ascribe to the belief that everything is a remix and do not face head on the problematics of originality vs. re-cycling within Invention, then they will (1) not be able to value or understand the nature of their own contributions, and/or (2) be shut down by the fear of committing theft.
4. What’s the way forward
Use Reflection as a tool for acknowledging Invention. Bring students to a conscious state of their own composing practice. Expand our toolset so we can hand tools to students (i.e. Kara's Key Terms).
5. What else?
What kind of language will we use to make key terms? How to frame the canon?
Are the five canons of rhetoric ----Memory, Invention, Style, Arrangement, Delivery--- interchangeable in value? Or is Invention the Master Key?
As McLuhan said medium changes message (and by extension method)-- Through the lens of new technologies, Invention leads to re-purpose, re-mix, multi-modality. So what is the instructor's willingness to use other media to explore/demonstrate Invention?
What is the ratio of the canons to each other; what is the ratio of Invention to agency?
*I would like to say, "Well done, Becca!" This transcription is awesome!
ReplyDeleteScott and I dealt with teaching invention and the visual:
ReplyDelete1. What's the question?
How does/should the teaching of invention be re-imagined when working with the visual?
2. What's the context?
Our students are becoming increasingly more visual and visual rhetoric brings with it a really different set of invention strategies. Likewise, the visuality of texts is gaining recognition, so our students are being asked to be visually literate so they can "read" them.
3. What's at stake?
If we are not teaching visual invention strategies, then we are not teaching our students a complete visual literacy or how to produce visual texts of their own.
4. The way forward...
We discussed a theoretical framework for teachers to justify that visuality requires a new way of thinking that moves from Cress to Hill ("The Psychology of Rhetorical Images) to Blair ("The Rhetoric of Visual Arguments").
A discussion of design elements is a useful place to start when introducing students to visual rhetoric and visual invention. For that we suggest Kostelnick's Shaping Information and from Cress's Multimodality perhaps "Design and Arrangements: Making Meaning Material." These texts offer a language for students to start to consider the visuality of their text productions and would introduce them to invention, even if only through imitation as a place to start, as they consider effective document design.
And hopefully, Scott, I didn't make a mess of transcribing our thinking :)
From Logan and me:
ReplyDeleteInvention and New Media
1. The question: How are students inventing outside of class? What tools are they using? How are they using those tools? How are those tools using them?
2. The context: Outside of class, obviously, but also inside of class as they bring their experiences and understandings of invention with them.
3. What's at stake: Our ability to reach them as teachers; the future of composition as a practice; and the future of invention techniques and theories.
4. The way forward: Polls/studies of (1) practices, (2) media, (3) interaction.
5. What else? As far as new media is concerned, we need more communication between humanities and sciences, specifically english/comm depts and computer science people (dreaming, we know). We need to come to a better understanding of the disconnect in students' minds between their outside composing and their in-class composing and of the disconnect between how they value composing in new media vs. old.
Rhea and Kara:
ReplyDelete1. How does invention or (re)invention lead to a knowledge-base for empowerment?
2. Current research on invention often excludes these ways of knowing for marginalized groups; invention ideologies need to start included them.
3. Giving a group of people a chance to feel included: like they are a part of the larger population that isn’t marginalized.
4. More research that includes inventional research that leads to inventional strategies that are non-inclusive.
5. We need a theory of (re)invention, or in other words, more research on invention that is informed by a pedagogy of access, availability and knowledge—ways of knowing so that a particular group can participate in the larger non-marginalized group.