Media theory of composition

Commonly called “new media,” a media-centered theory of composition (hereafter referred to as “media theory”) focuses on the tools used in the composition process, and their opportunities and constraints. Stemming from the rise of computers as word processing tools, media theorists now also examine the rhetorical choices new media offer writers, implications for literacy, as well as questions of identity.

Theoretical Construct

During the 1980s, which saw the rise of the personal computer and the word processor, composition theorists began to examine the effects digital composition has on the writer. The ubiquity of personal computing has not diminished the computer’s role in understanding composition, but media theory’s view has expanded beyond simply digital word processing.

Visual rhetoric, the consideration of visual, as opposed to written or spoken communication, has had a strong influence on composition studies. Scholars such as Cynthia Selfe, Geoffrey Sirc, Anne Wysocki, Richard Lanham, and many others, have explored the role of visual communication in the composition classroom.

Identity creation is explored in media theory through the act of composition. Drawing from social construction and discourse theories, scholars such as Cynthia Selfe, Dickie Selfe, Kris Blair, Andrew Mara, Angela Haas, Gail Hawisher, and Lisa Nakamura examine implications for online composition, electronic contact zones, and representation of the self in electronic composition.

Research

The earliest research that can be considered part of media theory involved the use of computers as word processors. However, with the advent of applications like HyperCard for the Apple Macintosh, the focus in media research shifted to hypertext’s implications in the writing classroom.

Much research has been done regarding technological literacy, and questions of literacy in general. Richard Ohmann^[1], as early as 1985, questions the focus on technological literacy appearing in schools at the time. Insisting that technological literacy is tied to socioeconomic class, Ohmann, and others like him began to research the possibility for educational ostracism because of a lack of access to technological tools. This contrasts starkly with much of the utopian visions of the technological classroom that others exhibited.

Current research is being conducted multimodal composition, broadening composition to encompass video, video games, music, and other interactive media Digital Media.

Pedagogy

Media theory focuses on how to use tools, other than the pen and pencil, to facilitate other composition theories. Whether the writing instructor favors process, post-process, formalism, or social constructivism, or some other theoretical approach.

Computers in the classroom can reduce hierarchical constructs in the classroom. They can provide “basic writers” with a more appropriate learning atmosphere^[2] or provide them with tools that simplify the revision and feedback process, in the proper conditions^[3].

Collaboration is also a key focus for media theorists, since computers and the internet can provide opportunities for synchronous or asynchronous writing environments.

Criticisms and Constraints

With literacy and identity becoming important in electronic spaces, some theorists caution us against placing too much weight on new media in the composition classroom. From investigations into the rhetorical constraints user interfaces place upon the user^[4] to increased concerns regarding plagiarism ^[5], electronic spaces in particular have wide-ranging implications for the composition classroom.

Further reading

Lester Faigley, “The Achieved Utopia of the Networked Classroom.” Fragments of Rationality: Postmodernity and the Subject of Composition. UPitt Press, 1992. 163-199.

The New London Group, "A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures." Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures. Ed Bill Cope and Mary

Jeffrey T. Grabill, “Utopic Visions, the Technopoor, and Public Access: Writing Technologies in a Community Literacy Program.” Computers and Composition 15 (1998): 296-315.

Works cited

1. ^ Ohmann, R. (2008). Literacy, technology, and monopoly capital. In R. Morris, E. Overman-Smith, & M. Sidler (Eds.), Computers in the Composition Classroom: A Critical Sourcebook (pp. 20-34). Boston, MA: Bedford / St. Martin's.
2. ^ Stein, L. (2008). Why OWLs? Teaching basic writers in class and online. In R. Morris, E. Overman-Smith, & M. Sidler (Eds.), Computers in the Composition Classroom: A Critical Sourcebook (pp. 389-403). Boston, MA: Bedford / St. Martin's.
3. ^ Hult, C. A. (2008). The computer and the inexperienced writer. In R. Morris, E. Overman-Smith, & M. Sidler (Eds.), Computers in the Composition Classroom: A Critical Sourcebook (pp. 326-332). Boston, MA: Bedford / St. Martin's.
4. ^ Ericsson, P. & McGee, T. (2008). The politics of the program: MS Word as the invisible grammarian. In R. Morris, E. Overman-Smith, & M. Sidler (Eds.), Computers in the Composition Classroom: A Critical Sourcebook (pp. 308-325). Boston, MA: Bedford / St. Martin's.
5. ^ DeVoss, D. & Rosati, A. (2008). “It wasn’t me, was it?”: Plagiarism and the web. In R. Morris, E. Overman-Smith, & M. Sidler (Eds.), Computers in the Composition Classroom: A Critical Sourcebook (pp. 308-325). Boston, MA: Bedford / St. Martin's.