A New Dawn...

As the dawn of a new creative horizon is upon us, I am anxious to get crack-a-lackin'! Dr. Wilferth is moving into uncharted territory in UTC's English Dept by challenging old methods of writing and reading and providing those of us who require immense amounts of creative freedom with room to spread our wings. The push for technologies in the classroom and in academia is rapidly moving us to learn and expand our own abilities causing many of us to feel "outdated" ourselves. I am an advocate for utilizing various technologies to enhance the acquirement of knowledge, but continue to find myself facing off against those still clinging dearly to the old methods. There is need for both methods and finding a balance is certainly challenging but necessary. So listen up keepers and preservers of antiquity!!! We young, techno-geeks are not seeking to cause a print genocide, but merely advocating for the enhancement of learning. Below is a response I wrote for one of the readings in Comp Theory last semester. I thought I would share since it sheds a little more light on the battle that is waging between print media and the digital world.

Miller_Beth_5-1.doc

           Technological trends have introduced us to Apple, Facebook, MySpace, blogs, and the list goes on and on and on. We are “linked-in” at the coffeeshop, grocery store, hotel, and even on our phones. No matter where we go, there we are. Ball introduces this influx of media, but only as it applies to composition, scholarship, and tenure. She introduces a definition of new media “as texts that juxtapose semiotic modes in new and aesthetically pleasing ways and, in doing so, break away from print traditions so that written text is not the primary rhetorical means” (405). The issue of whether online publications are appropriate locations for scholarly work in an effort to secure tenure is still up for debate. The lingering fear is the stray from print tradition, which is considered to be of a somewhat higher quality, will only offer “flashy” versions of poor quality work. Ball travels further down the rabbit hole presenting the aural, visual, and audio characteristics that take the reader away from traditional, linear, reading and interpreting habits and replaces it with a more interactive learning process. She feels that new media scholarship serves “to expand the field’s notions of what could be considered and valued as composition scholarship” (404).

            Ball cleverly presents her argument in an online journal, Science Direct: Computers and Composition, but the article is formatted just like a traditional, peer-reviewed, journal article found in print. The article is set up with an abstract, introduction, various sections, and finally, a conclusion, but comes with four visuals. She is careful to present a sensitive topic that is not ready to step out into the light for a thorough examination. Something else that sticks out is Ball’s scholarly tone throughout her piece however, she litters many detailed explanations that she feels are her own shortcomings through the use of first-person, which is not traditionally utilized in a scholarly paper. She seems more concerned with simply introducing her ideas and then stepping away from them to see what happens. “Digital Multiliteracies” is used as an example of new media scholarship that Ball feels “is appropriate for scholarly publication.” Rather than simply thrust this example as THE perfect example for the reader, she instead explains that there are many grey areas with this type of medium as scholarship. Throughout the article she is careful to point out the potential problems and then a potential solution. Ultimately, the biggest problem is that of misinterpretation from lack of exposure to this type of scholarship, but remedies this with a simple idea—practice makes perfect. We have had to learn how to do everything up until this point so what is the problem with learning a new way to learn?

            I am faced with this issue daily as a graduate assistant working to help my boss on her journey to tenure. I work in the School of Nursing and technological advances in the medical field are traveling at the speed of light. Naturally, this is pushing educators to step up their teaching methods resulting in strained research and scholarship production. The need for immediate publication of their findings is stifled still taking place in “print” time and like computers, the scholarship is quickly outdated by newer and more advanced research. The need for immediacy in the medical world is detrimental. I feel Ball’s argument to support new media scholarship would be extremely beneficial in the medical field where visual aids are mandatory and a necessary part of the learning process. Text supported by audio, visual, and aural media characterizes the “language” found in the medical field so for students and professionals in this field reading an online article with these types of media is normal and the chance for misinterpretation would be small. However, I can see how attempting to transfer a text-driven medium to cyberspace could pose many problems for those not familiar with reading visuals along with text. Returning to my opening statement concerning the explosion of technological stimulation, I feel what Ball proposes is imminent if not necessary to support the generations of students who are growing up in an age where technology is simply another “language” or form of communication. As a communication major (undergrad), I am very comfortable with supplementing my articles with audio and visuals to enhance the experience and to further my argument. I am very visual and prefer to interact rather than be “talked at” or forced to read another black and white text. I am not advocating the complete annihilation of literature or the current texts that serve to educate and move us forward. I, like Ball, feel there is a time and place for this supplementation because “with each choice a designer makes, the meaning of the text is affected” (414). Finally, I would like to address the issue of poor quality that stereotypically characterizes online publications. I agree that much of the online work has grammatical errors and typos as well as poor research at times. In order to move with the times, I believe this new media scholarship should be held to the same standard as print the only difference being that of a time and money savings in the absence of the many steps that are required to go to print. I believe the need for online editors is going to be up and coming, and I hope to fill one of those spots—soon!