FROM+THEORY+TO+PRACTICE

It seems silly to have to write it – but computers and the internet have fundamentally changed how we communicate. Anyone with a smartphone or laptap can shape a fairly sophisticated multimedia message. “Print. . . is certainly no longer the dominant communicative technology in the culture at large. . .we have shifted from a world where the image was fitted in around the demands and logic of the print text on a page to one where [the text] is subject to the logic of the image” (Williams, 2007 p. xi). As composition teachers – we are expanding our instruction to “allow for a more inclusive and expanded field of composition and rhetoric” (Hart-Davidson/Krause 2004, p. 494). Selfe (as quoted in Takyoshi and Selfe 2007) states the idea more bluntly, “if our profession continues to focus solely on teaching only alphabetic composition – either online or in print – we run the risk of making composition studies increasingly irrelevant to students engaging in contemporary practices of communicating” (p.2). Asking students to compose via remix is an attempt to allow students to explore these expanded ideas of composition beyond alphabetic texts.
 * Expanded notions of composition**:

Consider the traditional writing process we attempt to instill in our students: It probably contains some form of these components: brainstorming, planning / outlining, drafting, revising, publishing. But it might be argued that so many of the writing tasks that we ask students to complete, (i.e. responding to various texts, the research paper, etc.) are essentially acts of collaboration and combination between the student writer and his/her source material (e.g. the multitude of researchers, writers, and thinkers referenced or read). . In addition, consider the types of texts students encounter on the web as part of their research. “On the web, students must. . .navigate complex and layered hypertexts, texts that often have embedded and complex graphical content, audio, and rich graphical features. . .” (DeVoss / Rosati 2002, p.157). In other words, a vast majority of the “texts” our students encounter, particularly on the web, are the result of collaboration, combining, patch-working – the essence of remixing. Furthermore, the web itself has transformed into a “network of systems for harnessing collective intelligence ” or what might be referred to as “crowd-sourcing. . .a large group of people [creating] a collective work whose value far exceeds that provided by any of the individual participants” (O’Reilly and Batelle, 2009 p. 235). Like the web itself – the remix is the result of collaboration between the remixer and his/her source material, which hopefully transforms the source material into something that “exceeds” what the individual could have created by him/herself.
 * Remix as fundamental to the composing process**

The hope is that this project provides a venue to explore the relationship between creativity in the composing process and the expectation of originality (or the lack of it). Too often composition instructors discuss plagiarism in purely negative or punitive terms, and certainly there are blatant examples of plagiarism no teacher should tolerate, (e.g using essays from cheat sites or paper mills.) But I would suggest that there is a value in exploring the idea of plagiarism (i.e. copying / imitating /appropriating) through the lens of the remix. The internet has forced “students [to adapt] their literacy, research, reading, and writing skills and processes to the virtual space – and complexity – of the web” (Devoss and Rosati, 2002, p. 153). For example, “cutting and pasting is almost natural [on the web]” (Devoss and Rosati, 2002, p.158). In another sense the web gives students the opportunity to “borrow, manipulate, work through new concepts by piecing their material with original work. . .and mimic. This sort of [composing]. . .allows students to test new approaches, process new ideas, and learn new. . . strategies” (Devoss and Rosati, 2002, p. 154). Similarly, creativity may not be the result of an original, singular imagination; rather, it is the result of the essential ingredients of the remix: copying, transforming, and combining. Likewise, innovation is the result of reworking / transforming / perfecting what others have already completed and developed. During this project students will consider the relationship between creativity, innovation, and the ability to effectively remix.
 * Intellectual Property, Plagiarism, and Creativity**

But if remixing is viewed as the foundation of creativity – where does that leave room for respecting the work of others? Devoss and Rosati (2002) recommend engaging students in a “larger discussion of issues of copyright, fair use, and plagiarism. . .and what intellectual property means” (p. 160). In addition to exploring the importance of respecting the works and ideas of others, this project will ask students to consider whether the enforcement of intellectual property rights is conducive to the evolution of ideas and innovation.

The design of this lesson is an attempt to move students intellectual experience with the concept of remixing through Bloom’s Taxonomy
 * Higher Order Thinking**

Understanding – watching Kirby Ferguson’s documentary, //Everything is a Remix// Applying – The response guides for “Everything is a Remix” Analyzing – determining ways of remixing and placing those on a chart axis Evaluating – multiple class discussions; reflection questions Creating – the creation of a remix