Link to Final Project Presentation

Hi everyone!

Here is the link to my presentation:

http://prezi.com/tb0vxgjg8lxx/591-final-presentation-multimodality-and-technical-communication/?auth_key=465d34554a7fd95fa914fc254a120810b538b53f&kw=view-tb0vxgjg8lxx&rc=ref-18592584

My Final Project

Hiya everybody! Here's my idea for my final paper:

Next semester I am teaching English 402: Technical/Professional Writing. In an effort to help me generate new material for the syllabus I began compiling last spring, here is my research question: how do multimodal projects help technical writing/communication students better conceptualize audience? I first plan to discuss the theoretical underpinnings of how technical communication tries to teach students about audience. Then, I will use the texts from class and others discussing multimodality to explore the ways in which multimodality frames audience. Last, I will try to bounce the two parts against each other to figure out what technical communication values in audience awareness, and how multimodal approaches can promote this endeavor.

Understanding/Processing O'Gorman's Arguments

Okay, so here goes my attempt to try to summarize/condense/make sense of O'Gorman, after reading the first two chapters:

Chapter 1 lays out his thesis best that in order to fully embrace the new realm of hypertextual and new media composition, we are actually going to have to abandon our preconceived notions of how text, argument, and language are structured. Until we can let go of these preconceived notions, we trap ourselves into pitting one against the other, and making one type of organizational structure better than another, which is actually already happening when we think in the terms of  "The Republic of Scholars." Furthermore, in preferring one mode over the other, we ignore "the remainder" (3) that provides rich landscapes of exploration. Remediation our notions of texts and arguments, which generally happen through alphabetic language is difficult to accomplish in one jump, O'Gorman breaks down the costs and benefits of introducing ourselves to hypertextual and new media composing through the use of pictures. To illustrate the different perspectives on images, he discusses Deleuze and Guattari, Barthes, Foucault, and other theoretical heavyweight champions. 

On the whole, I got really fired up about the clarity and command with which he expressed his theoretical concepts and ideas. I know that he is a legitimate academic, DUH, but he seamlessly navigates these very complex ideas and makes his thread very easy for readers to follow. As a side note, I wonder about this rhetorically speaking. The first chapter in particular discusses how "The Republic of Scholars," vis-a-vis his example of submitting a hypertext manuscript to a traditional literature journal, limit his ideas by contextualizing them in terms of linear, alphabetic, traditional text. Instead of letting him run wild with his ideas, and convey non-linearity as he pleases, they tell him to ease up on the "cyber jargon" and "techno-manifesto-ish tone" (6). However, he still chooses to present his arguments in clear, logical linearity. Interesting! Because, honestly, the way he talks about these theories, shouldn't this book be three-dimensional, hella hyperlinked, and starting at pretty much any angle the readers chooses? And shouldn't he be speaking only in puns? I guess this gets back to doing what you have to do to satisfy academic standards to move the discipline forward.

But let's talk more about the puns, which was one of his assertions that I enjoyed most. When discussing the critique he received of his hypertext document, he observes: 

"What is being proposed in the referee's comment is that the logic of connection employed in the hypertext essay was objectionable because it relied not on conventional, logical, sequential progression, but on what Gregory Ulmer has called 'the puncept' (1989). In punceptual writing, data is organized according to the logic of the pun, the most base and primitive species of remainder; punning is what makes the work of Marshall McLuhan, for example, both brilliant and annoying. By drawing on the pun as a means of organization, a research program can be carried into fields of inquiry which may be pertinent to the study, but otherwise ignored or excluded due to a conventional commitment to 'relevance' or specialization" (7). 

I just adore his description of how puncepts are supposed to work, and I think they create a very nice example of how to tinker with and break linguistic/alphabetic associations. Rather than focusing on denotation or even connotation, which have to do with structured writing and language, puns just draw meaning from each other, almost like linguistic hyperlinks! Cool beans!!

For the most part, I grooved on all of the points he made about how to theoretically and conceptually adjust to hypertext. However, I have a bone to pick with the struggle to decide if images really can exist without words. This was also where I started to get bogged down in the theoretical concepts he was juxtaposing, so correct me if I'm wrong. BUT: what about paintings? They do not depend on words. Or do they...hmm well I guess by having a title, painter/author, and standard museum to be displayed. So I guess there is an alphabetic structure surrounding even non-alphabetic texts? Okay, now I'm confused.

Response to Issues of Aurality, Rhetoric, and Composing

I really enjoyed revisiting Selfe's "The Movement of Air" piece, and also to follow the dialogue that her article initiated. This is not my first time reading Selfe's piece, and the dialogue between Hesse and Selfe mimics some of my own internal dialogue and experience teaching a music-themed English 101 course. Allow me to explain.

Patty Ericsson first introduced me to "The Movement of Air" to help me frame the C's proposal that our panel was working on for March 2013. Once I read it I also wished that I had known about the article when I was creating justifications for my music-themed English 101 class. I was, and still am, struck by Selfe's argument that the language arts, popular culture, music, sound, speech (any/all forms of aurality) help students gain a better understanding of rhetoric, writing, persuasion, and all the issues we discuss in FYC, and that NOT exploring these modes create a limited version of writing, rhetoric, argument, etc. Way back last year, when I was taking English 501, I remember wracking my brain trying to think of a way to approach FYC in a way that my students would enjoy. In other words, an easier way to "make the medicine go down," while also increasing the odds (*crossing fingers*) that my students might learn something. I remember the epiphany like it was yesterday. Right before I was about to put my head to the pillow, inspiration hit: if I focus on a music theme, I will be able to use something with which students are familiar (music, popular culture) and blend it with "academic stuff" and something potentially relevant to their intended major (economic, social, political, gender issues). I remember running around the apartment looking for a pen and paper, and just taking as many notes about potential research topics as I could think of. The possibilities were endless! I was stoked!

And I am still fairly stoked. Although, as Lindsay pointed out about her multimodal project in class yesterday, the way an idea looks in the brain definitely shifts depending on available means, resources, student ideas, etc.  Hesse's hesitation about the ways in which aurality will function in the classroom, and Selfe's exploration of how writing is still a large part of aurality, and how to define both, theoretically mirror issues I've faced. Despite my intention to include more multimodal learning opportunities, such as listening to songs and music videos, and analyzing them rhetorically, my students still conduct WRITTEN rhetorical analyses of a song. And the works cited page lists Youtube links rather than the live videos themselves. This fact always makes me a little bit sad: in my head I envision more sharing, linking, perhaps even blogging. Side note idea for future: I think next time around I will have students set up blog accounts and post videos/analyses, so others can watch and respond. I've wanted to do discussion forums on Angel, but in all honesty, Angel is still a bit yucky/confusing for me, but I am getting used to it.

As far as Selfe's positing of the question "What is the proper subject matter for composition classes?" (606) via Hesse's question "rhetoric/compositing versus writing/composing" is a question that I find relevant to what I was pondering when initially trying to figure out how to teach English 101. In terms of my themed English 101 class, I felt that the subject matter it discussed was proper, and I also felt that the means of getting to those proper subjects -- through issues about music -- was a new way to blend familiar with unfamiliar for my students. This goal seems to hold up: every semester, students come up with really innovative, creative, and invested topics. Some students are even musicians or music aficionados, and have an easier way to carve out their opinions on a research topic.  That said, I am still somewhat dismayed that some awesome topics, to which I thought students might gravitate, remain untouched in favor of "how has technology changed music throughout the decades" or "is marijuana use connected to musical talent." So I guess this loops back to the bias about what kinds of topics are proper in terms of academic standards. Discussions of music can deviate into heavy, explicit content, but my students handle all topics tastefully, and I think, get a lot more out of research, analysis, and writing, because they get to start with something familiar.

Attempting to Make Sense of NLG and Shipka

I actually think I've gotten a little rusty from not posting for awhile. With no other smooth transition, I'll just dive right in.

I found it amusing that the NLG in 1996 was worried that issues of literacies (intentionally plural) were not being sufficiently addressed on the eve of all the new technologies making their way into the classroom, society, and world whereas Shipka (2011)  in Chapter 1 asserts that composition as a discipline has been too conservative in its approach to composition. The NLG is so conscientious about creating a literacy theory of all-encompassing inclusion, that they create a handbook of terms to describe the pedagogical world that they see. When I first saw the "Designs of Meaning" clump of definition, I found it almost too theoretical and circular. I guess, to answer the question of where the NLG fits on the timeline, I think that they would have had a blast with Bolter and Grusin, and their circular remediation definition. The other definitions presented later, such as "Some Elements of Linguistic Design" made more intuitive sense as far as what the definitions meant. However, at the top of the article, this is what I write after reading: "My general impression: they overthought this definition and explanation business. But then again, now it [meaning literacy discourse] is maybe too automatic when issues are not sorted out...?"

Let me translate my code: from what I gathered, the NLG basically said that they wanted to make sure to include all different kinds of demographics of students in the technological changes that would be occurring in pedagogical strategies, and that inclusion needed to be as genuinely attempted as possible. Assuming I got the right message out of this reading, that message sounds like something I can both comprehend and stand by. However, the fact that the NLG overcompensated with theoretical definitions divulges that they weren't sure what the new regime of technology would bring, so they would try to think ahead through intellectualizing. Unlike some of the other articles we've read that discuss technological advancement, nothing that the NLG said sounded dated to me; however, their approach to discussing literacy through linguistic definitions indicated that their handle on what multiple literacies with new technologies would bring was a bit "clunky," to put it in high-falootin' language!

Yet, after reading Chapter 1 of Shipka, I think that she would have appreciated the complexity that the NLG bring to discussions of literacy, technology, and the intersection of these two entities, given her exploration of the ways in which composition theory both limits discussions of technology and writing. On pages 30-31 Shipka expresses concern that Handa, Selfe, Selfe, and Selber's discussions of "nontechnological environments" and assertions that "in this particular context technology (original emphasis) is meant to signal new (or the newest) technologies, in this case, computer technologies." After setting up this concern with definitions of technology, she claims, "I am equally concerned with how a narrow definition of technology fails to encourage richly nuanced, situated views of technology (original emphasis)." So Shipka's fear that technology is defined too narrowly reiterates the statement I made earlier: the NLG in 1996 worry more about inclusive definitions of literacy, technology, pedagogy, and linguistics than Shipka claims that the composition departments do in 2011. Despite this observation, I'm not really sure what this means. Could it be that as technological advance becomes more commonplace, it is easier to exclude and categorize "new" versus "old" technology, whereas when everything felt new, everything got included? I suppose if these labels and biases occur when defining types of technology, then Shipka's assertion about how definitions of literacy suffer also holds. After all, if a technology is now considered old, then everyone knows how to properly use it, right? And if everyone knows how to properly use it, we no longer need to talk about it, right? I guess these questions also loop back to my transcribed note on the NLG article: the NLG's desire to make complex definitions for their complex world feels more dated as rapid technological change becomes more commonplace, even though issues still surface.

Well, since that somehow managed to come together in the end, I better not disturb it. I think I'll go soak up some sun on my patio instead...

Dear Blog, It's Been Awhile...

...So here is a timeline!

Hello all my fellow teaching with technology enthusiasts!

Below you will find the link to my web page, which will take you to my timeline. I'm making an attempt to be "meta" with a link within a link. Or maybe I'm just being confusing. Either way, here it is!

Elizabeth's Multimodal Timeline.

Kirschenbaum and Fitzpatrick: Deja Vu?

Here is my attempt to make as many connections as I can between Kirschenbaum and Fitzpatrick and everybody else. Ready, set, GO!

Fitzpatrick, on the whole, reminded me most of Claire Lauer's Kairos piece, and all the issues upon which that piece touched. Here is the general listing of topics I recognized: FUNDING (as always); developing a new sense of community through the new naming of digital humanities while also figuring out if the name actually fits and what to call it (and how this correlates to getting money through grants!); conflict among "proper" usage of digital humanities; taking the theory and developing it into classroom practice; more semantics and weaving this new fangled thing into university discourse; making tension between disciplines productive rather than detrimental. 

Kirschenbaum, although he uses a very strongly stated skeptical quote from Selfe to start, I still sense that he ends on an optimistic note about the fact that coining the term "digital humanities" fixed most, if not all, issues (much like Cooper/Selfe believed in the power of discussion forums to save the meek, non-verbal students from obscurity. While the creation and naming of "digital humanities" does create new venues for exploration, most of the discussions we've had in class via previous readings indicated that, of course, there are more battles to be won.

Kirschenbaum's example of the "coolness" and modern vibe of digital humanities via Brian Croxall's MLA conference paper going viral during the actual conference brought up some interesting connections and critiques for me. To start, as a doctoral student trying to network and carve out a spot as a future university professor, I can attest to the fact that conferences are crucial to professional development of doctoral students, but are often expensive to attend/difficult to receive support for (*cough* funding in humanities battle *cough*). Therefore, the fact that Croxall still managed to make a name for himself and get press through Twitter and "in absentia" is awesome. However, how realistic is it to think that grad students, up and coming professors, and other "noobs" will be able to uproot traditional conferences and make them happen through Twitter eventually? The Twitter versus MLA idea is interesting when thinking back to Ohmann's description of the difference between technology used by institutions and technology used by citizens. In this case, MLA the institution, which is the gold standard of "humanities-ness," might decide to hold an expensive on-site conference where we discuss what digital humanities is doing in theory. However, the masses may think instead: let's use twitter and other online sites to make a digitalized virtual conference. Clearly, two different takes on an umbrella term "digital humanities." Could the latter actually happening? Is it happening anywhere yet? Just curious!

Also, Kirschenbaum's exploration toward the end of the article of how Twitter and other technologies might be increasing the urgency for scholars to distribute their work more "freely to an audience apart from or parallel with more traditional structures of academic publishing" (60), brings up all kinds of questions. First, as Lester Faigley points out, there are a lot of imperfections with the university as a learning institution and labor force, so implementing technology is only going to complicate intellectual property ownership etc. (point arrow back towards Lanham also). Second, just because we've now created a "digital humanities" category, this does not mean that digital and web stuff counts officially toward tenure, or maybe it does, or how does that work? As long as tradition holds, "digital humanities" research, projects, explorations will just be supplementary, yes? Third, was this written when Twitter first emerged and everyone thought this would be the new world of online learning? Just curious, because Kirschenbaum has a lot of faith in the power of Twitter. 

CCCC vs. Faigley as the Proverbial Tension between Theory and Practice

If it is okay, I would actually like to start with my impression of the CCCC Position Statement, and then pinpoint the places where Faigley's argument directly critiques it.

With no official segue, I'll just dive right in. I did not find any large bones to pick with the 5 assumptions. I did notice, however, that they sound a lot like WSU's learning goals involving information literacy. Also, the problem I do notice with the assumptions is the fact that students are not often "reflective practitioners" of technology, nor do they often "apply digital technologies to solve substantial problems." Yes, that is what we as educators want them to do. However, as technology develops, use becomes automatic and intuitive to the point that deep reflection and problem solving increase in difficulty, but are possible with the right amount of prodding.

I did, however, become skeptical of what I call the political campaign promises made in the list of what "administrators with responsibilities for writing programs" will do for students and faculty, especially "assur[ing] that all matriculated students have sufficient access to requisite technology," "assur[ing] that faculty have ready access to diverse forms of technical and professional development before and while teaching in digital environments." Et cetera, et cetera. However, the bummer is that WSU's Y2K Zzusis snafu is proof enough that these promises are often too large to keep. Also, many of these promises are contingent upon funds and budgets allowing for successful implementation of new technologies.

As a side note, I also found it interesting that they made such bold statements against machine scoring of writing. In Bill Condon's assessment class last fall, we discussed a lot of these issues in assessment, and I even delved deeper into some of it for my final project. Their statement against sounded a bit like "this is what we advocate as proper use of technology, but this is what we think is malevolent misuse, even though it might be a nice shortcut." It is like they could hear people's inner dialogues saying, "if only we could outsource essay grading to robots or other willing minions!" and CCCC was saying "Hell no don't even think about it!" And yet, sadly, that's basically what the SAT/ACT/GRE have morphed into doing. And universities have been battling this assessment issue ever since.

Faigley's lament about the abuse of resources and writing teachers brings the idealistic feel of the CCCC assumptions and promises back to reality. The first place where his critique directly contradicts the CCCC position statement is thus: "...providing venues for the discussion of public issues does not necessarily lead to a more informed public, increased civic engagement, or enhanced democracy" (Faigley, 36). In the context of CCCC, I take this to mean that getting students to think critically about technology by using technology in the classroom is still idealistic, considering that academic use of technology still differs in the intent to which students use technology during their free time. 

On page 39, Faigley asserts that "...Web sites need to be placed in a larger perspective. Pointing to their work as proof that digital literacy necessarily leads to democratic participation and civic engagement is another version of the good classroom leading to good society." I agree wholeheartedly, and hear the sentiment he argues against in the CCCC Position Statement. Just because the committee motions to include technology in academia, this does not mean that there is a relevant context or a constructive use beyond tinkering with different applications. The position statement presents some gaps between what they claim to provide, and how the provisions will lead to direct outcomes. As we all discussed in class today, interfaces like Blackboard, Angel, whatever require a lot of expertise, improvisation when they fail to work, and an institutional learning curve before they allow for more creativity and utility. Yeah....

                                                                      Works Cited
Faigley, Lester. "Literacy after the Revolution." College Composition and Communication 48.1 (1997): 30-43.

CCCC Position Statement on Teaching, Learning, and Assessing Writing in Digital Environments. Conference on College Composition and Communication. (2004).

Lanham, Hawisher/Selfe, Cooper/Selfe: From Trepidation and Awe of Technology to "Revolution"

As usual, I'm not entirely sure where to start. However, I think I will start with Lanham, because he provided me with the most comic relief during my intensive weekend reading schedule. I will start by presenting quotes from Lanham and then follow up with the comments I wrote in the margins. Lanham asserts in the first sentence: "Perhaps the real question for literary study now is not whether or not students will be reading Great Traditional Books or Relevant Modern ones in the future, but whether they will be reading books at all" (265), to which I respond "Oh here we go! If you were worried then, what about now?!" I repeat this in a couple other places in my notes as well. He then describes computers as "handy engines to produce printed texts" (265), to which I reply "LOLZ." Bee Tee Dubs, is Lanham still alive or no? Either way, I'm sure his mind is officially blown by Kindles, iPods, iPads, etc.

I was intrigued by his fear of copyright issues in the future, what will happen to traditional notions of text and words, the extent to which the literary field will follow or resist technological trends, and his desire to "break loose" by briefly inserting a goofy font into his academic article. I also admired the awe with which he conceptualized these novel inventions, especially since I know I have begun to take novelty for granted despite being about average on the technologically savvy scale. Furthermore, much of what he predicts now exists; however, I think he was a bit optimistic that we would construct concrete solutions to potential problems, making smooth transitions into new technologies for all. Take copyright infringement for instance: YES, there are all kinds of issues with physical, intellectual, visual property, and YES, society still struggles to legally define these rules as new online applications and website for posting "stuff" multiply. Now, as for redefining the norm that "apoplexy seems to come more naturally than apocalypse to literary scholars when we think about technology" (288), I think he'd be interested in the evolution of English studies and technology. Disclaimer before I continue: I'm not trying to start a bar brawl with the literature majors. Therefore, I will tread as lightly as possible, while still reiterating what rhet/comp and lit majors have seen. First of all, Lanham did not predict a splitting in English between literature/literary studies and rhet/comp studies, with rhet/comp grappling most with writing, pedagogy, and technological use. It is 100% true that at WSU all the English faculty bridge the gap as much as possible, by bringing digital humanities into literature and pedagogy, but historically, not all English departments have been as proactive in this endeavor, although efforts continually improve.

Therefore, on the whole, I do think that Lanham was outdated as far as the way he described possible technological advancements, but he was fairly accurate in terms of outcomes, with only a few oversights. While he expresses some trepidation about what may happen with change, he overrides it with curiosity and awe. 

If Lanham represents traditional notions of learning, reading, and writing while wondering how technology might alter this system, Cooper and Selfe compose the other half of the spectrum, which is complete faith that technology will undo all things bad about the traditional classroom setting, in favor of egalitarian expression and learning for all. Since you'll hear more about my opinions on Cooper and Selfe during the in-class critique, I'll just say here that Cooper and Selfe make too strong of a case against the traditional classroom setting as well as too optimistic a case that technology will fix all problems connected to tradition. Their desire for computer forums to replace (to as much a degree as possible) the traditional classroom confuses me, because they argued this in the 1990s, before discussion forums were the norm at all, and also because even in the post-2000s, educators struggle to figure out the right balance of new and traditional learning.

Now, if Lanham and Cooper/Selfe make the extreme ends of the technological acceptance spectrum, Hawisher and Selfe present the most realistic picture of technology's pros and cons in the classroom, keeping in mind the time in which it was written. As a side note, Hawisher and Selfe also made me LOL when they mentioned "overhead projection system[s]" (61), "drill-and-practice grammar software" (56), but their conceptualization of the technology of the time made their skepticism more realistic. After all, who can really get excited about grammar software and hot, blazing overheads with a short fuse? Furthermore, Hawisher and Selfe worry that, because teachers are so starry-eyed over what technology can possibly do  (*cough* Cooper and Selfe *cough*) (58), teachers may be overlooking student access issues and issues of control, referring to Foucault's panopticon. Therefore, they argue to maintain a view of technology that acknowledges both "paradox and promise" (64). In other words, remain objective about proper time and place for new technologies.

In sum, I argue that Hawisher and Selfe present the most centrist, decade-appropriate, and transcendent critique technological use in academic settings, when evaluating it in terms of Cooper/Selfe and Lanham.

Foucault and Ohmann: I'm Watching You!

After reading Foucault's "Panopticism" and Ohmann's "Literacy, Technology, and Monopoly Capital," it is really hard to figure out how to express all the connections I made on this linear piece of paper. However, I will do my best to be as linear/logical as possible.

I take Foucault's argument to be that the most effective tool for efficiency, control, production, and social interaction (a lot of political and economic metaphors, which I also noticed in Ohmann), is a mechanism, of any sort, really, that takes on a life of its own and camouflages perfectly with the status quo. The panoptic view accomplishes this goal of camouflage and obscurity, because it stems from a Freudian psychological impulse/instinct to watch, be watched, and everything in between. Therefore, another criterion for successful world domination is the threat of psychological intimidation, which can be as intense (or not) as the individual chooses to make it. 

As far as how Foucault's panopticism theory converges with attitudes about technological expansion, I could not help but instantly think that all of the online activities in which modern society participates -- Facebook, Twitter, Ratemyprofessor.com -- all let members of society know that we are being watched. Particularly, I made the connection between panopticism and technology when Foucault states "Power has its principle not so much in a person as a certain concerted distribution of bodies, surfaces, lights, gazes; in an arrangement whose internal mechanisms produce the relation in which individuals are caught up" (202). The online internet atmosphere provides the various "surfaces," "lights," "gazes," etc., and bodies collectively engaging in this atmosphere are presently very "caught up" in all of these different arenas for communicating. Therefore, the online atmosphere, and all the technologies that construct it, provide a great deal of power to someone -- maybe whoever chooses to look.

Also, on page 204, when Foucault explains that the Panopticon allows for constant supervision, ASSESSMENT, order, productivity, etc., I put in my notes: "I can't help but connect this to standardized testing!" I realize it is overwrought to assert that standardized testing directly equals the Panopticon, but much of the economic/efficiency arguments about standardized testing and placement discussed in Dr. Condon's writing assessment course last year reflect Foucault's description of the Panopticon's power to judge quality and quantity of production.

With no real smooth segue, having read Foucault first, I noticed all kinds of parallel arguments in Ohmann's piece.  Ohmann's observation that definitions of literacy have become a way to measure behaviors connected to class/status, and that literacy became defined technological advances used to further production make me ask this question: does literacy, or defintions of literacy connected to economics equal the Panopticon? I especially wonder, because Ohmann  illustrates in his examples on page 680 of what technologies could have become, if real agency existed, that agency and definition of a technology by actual users is often missing or in conflict with an institution's intended purpose. So, if institutions dictate how new technologies are used and assess levels of literacy with these technologies, then how are technology and literacy writ large NOT the Panopticon?

Due to these questions, I think that Ohmann's piece is still very relevant, especially because of the discussions I hear off and on about whether or not someone is using a technology correctly. Like, is there a wrong way to use Twitter, Facebook, etc.? I don't really think so, but others might. So, then, who decides? Do we or do institutions decide?

Response to Wysocki and Lauer

One interesting thread between the two readings was the way in which naming and labeling of multimodal, new media, digital, etc. text corresponds to the way that proponents think the texts should be used or perceived.  In the emboldened part right under "Opening 3" on page 15, Wysocki claims that "we should call 'new media texts' those that have been made by composers who are aware of the range of materialities of texts and who then highlight the materiality." As I understand this in the context of the rest of the chapter, the composers make a "new media text" suited for a particular purpose that those reading the texts can visually see and interpret. Based on Lauer's arguments and interviews in her piece, materiality correlates to the particular name or label that under which the "new media text" is put. 

This idea became evident once I began to listen to the "Audience-Oriented" section of Part 2, and particularly "Writing Grants." Prior to listening to that particular segment, I felt like I was floating along on this calm wave or even vacuum of thinking about names of texts in ways that possibly correspond to personal preference. However, DeWitt woke me up, so to speak, and reminded me that making, naming, and using text becomes an exercise in argument, persuasion, and securing monetary compensation. Also, the names change, depending upon the people with whom we speak, such as parents, colleagues, students, administrators. I was even struck by Palmeri's honesty in saying that as long as he could call the "thing" a ham sandwich and still do what he chose, he'd be fine with it. The "ham sandwich" concept also loops back to Wysocki's observation that "[b]eing alert to how agency and materiality entwine can also help us see how the definition we use -- and hence how we understand our technologies -- might obscure the agency we do have" (18), but in reverse. The interviews discussing audience indicate the materiality highlighted and the names/definitions constructed are what provide the agency in the first place. Yes, the different names for different audiences temporarily limits the perception being brought up for discussion, but the limitation happens wittingly and with the intention of creating various limited snippets, which add up to a complex picture.