Erin's Response, Shipka (and Clark)

[Anonymous]

#881

In considering this question, I’m reminded of Andrew’s comment in last week’s class: that he could not imagine a composition studies that did not incorporate digital media into it. I have to agree with that, and I‘m getting a similar feeling about this class, in particular as I think about Shipka and Clark’s pieces. Having read Clark’s piece not long before the semester began, I viewed the rest of the readings through that lens. Of course valuing digital media as simply another mode of composing is crucial to examining composition in a more comprehensive way. Of course allowing students to work in multiple modes – or better, encouraging/requiring it – is essential to acknowledging the ways in which they communicate fluently on a daily basis and to helping them be better communicators in a technologically-oriented workforce. And of course our composing digitally this semester allowed us to explore new ways of making meaning in our projects. That’s just how I’ve viewed some of our discussion.

The Shipka reading has really helped me to connect this to our readings and discussions of embodiment as she refers to “spatial” and “temporal” elements of composing. Highlighting some of Clark’s discussion of the importance of the digital composing process, Shipka points to matters of process that have struck me significantly this semester. I’ve consistently returned to considerations of the space in which I compose, the materiality of what I’m composing, and both the time it takes to compose these digital pieces as well as the times at which I most effectively compose them. Shipka highlights these by emphasizing the importance of being attentive to the digital composing process – one of the points of criticism for naysayers of new media pedagogy and theory.

[Author]

Posts