For the following Voyant visualization, I used student essays from one of my Composition I course. For this assignment, the students had to write a proposal argument offering a solution to an environmental problem. This visualization offered some intriguing information. One of which was that the word “plastic” was the most used word at 169 times. My hunch for this is that marine plastic pollution was the sample topic that I offered to the class, so I’m attributing this one, and the fact that “ocean” was used 74 times, to mimicking. When I look at the students who chose marine plastic pollution as their final topic, it It makes me realize that I need to remove my sample topic as an option for them to use because they’re not doing the critical work of topic proposal discovery and research that is necessary for them to meet the outcomes of this assignment. On reviewing the grades of those students who coat-tailed on my sample topic, it was evident that their essays did not investigate the topic deeply enough because they started off at a shallow point. Another important thing that I noticed was that the word “problem” showed up much more than the word “solution” in these essays. To me that indicates that they focused more on problem aspect of their essays vs. the solution. I’m not sure if that is a negative observation or not. On one hand, I would like to see it to be more even. On the other hand, this is a first year composition course, and I wonder if that sense of balance is more an aspect of the second level of composition. Perhaps, I should be happy that they worked so hard in describing, researching and explaining this portion is enough to show that they have met their academic goals of the course.

With further reflection, I think this tool would be very useful in the classroom at the rough draft level to show the students the results of their collective writing. I think this will create an unique visual of their collective body of writing. I think viewing this group visualization earlier in the drafting process will allow for observations that are more useful in their individual writing processes. I can use our teaching management system through our bulk downloading and uploading option to facilitate the use of this tool in the classroom.

In Marie-Laure Ryan’s essay, “Multivariant Narrative,” she discusses the ways in which “digital media” and “digital texts” effect the concept of narrative.  The two specific shifts that stood out for me were the “reactive and interactive nature” and the “peformatial aspect.”  She writes that “[c]omputer code is based on conditional statements (if…then) that execute different instructions” (Ryan).  She also distinguishes between reactive and interactive: “I call a system reactive when it responds to changes in the environment or to non-intentional user action;  it is interactive when the input originates in a deliberate user action” (Ryan).   Ryan continues to explain “performatial”: “its written inscription is meant to be executed…”  I think these concepts allow some interesting impacts to narration and how we, as writers, us it.  Because the digital narrative is reactive and interactive, the role of the audience or reader is performatial.    The reader must perform in order to execute the narrative.  The path of the narrative depends on how the reader interacts with the text.  This allows for a host of narrative variations and experiences with the text.  However, I did find in my interaction with “Galatea,” that the interaction and performance (and Galatea’s reaction) were limited by the variations of code used within the programing of the digital text.  While the narrative is varied, it is not limitless.  She did not respond to questions or commands that she was not programmed to make or understand, thus “limiting” my narrative experience.  We see these “limitations” within static, traditional narratives but imagination allows us to conjecture in the spaces between the lines of the text and fill them in with our interpretations depending on our theoretical lens because the narration stands still.  I’m not sure how this would work when interacting with a digital text because traditional analysis requires stability and digital texts may be too varied for the stillness that current theoretical approaches require. This textual movement also greatly changes the role of reader.  Our own actions affect the outcome of the text. How does that impact our role as critic?  Can one maintain the distance critiquing a text requires while one is a participant in the narrative?  Honestly, it makes me feel disoriented, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

My interaction with Galatea was not pleasant.  She and I were both limited based on our trained executions.  Our conversation was brief and unfulfilling for both of us.  Her narrative was brief.  My interaction and reading of that narrative was too short to permit me to do a close reading or approach it with any of my tried and true theoretical tools.  However, maybe that’s the point.  Maybe it’s time to get some new tools, for theory to adjust to new modes of reading and interpretation.  Maybe it’s time to Feng Shui our critical closets and keep the classic pieces, but get rid of things that are outdated and no longer working for this medium or maybe we need to keep it all and just layer accordingly.  Either way, I’m not used to moving while reading and I’m a little sea-sick at the moment.  Perhaps, once I get my sea-legs and the appropriate glasses, I will be able to have a less limited experience with this new narrative technique.

One hope that I have for this course is to exit with a body of knowledge and a set of skills that will allow me to incorporate this into my classes.  Being as the walls of the classroom are becoming more and more porous and accessible through the use of technology, I want to capitalize on the phenomenon to improve student interaction and inspiration within my classes.  I also hope to develop a platform to which I can archive my course content in which to allow students to have access to it and interact with it once the course has ended.  Another hope that I have is to be able to create a digital platform in which to store and present my academic and scholarly work and to connect with a community that supports and interacts with that scholarship through an intersection of thinkers and readers.  I am excited by the notion of DH as a “communal space” that creates a new kind of “public” which will allow for a new type of social activism.  This would allow both myself, my students, and the general audience to have a point of access to social movements.