Video credits listed on YouTube page.

Entitled Disabling Composition: Toward a 21st-Century, Synaesthetic Theory of Writing, my dissertation examines the ways in which composition pedagogies have, both in theory and in practice, systematically worked to exclude individuals with disabilities. As Patricia Dunn and Brenda Brueggemann have both noted, persisting in composition studies is the ideological belief that traditional writing and intelligence are somehow inherently linked, that traditional literacy is central to defining one’s intellectual worth. My dissertation suggests that studies in digital media and disability give us reason to think otherwise. It suggests that we disable composition studies—what we think we know about composers, composing, and composition(s). This privileging of composing as print-based, I contend, masks the notion that writing is simply one among many systems of making and conveying meaning, that among our readers are those who cannot always access the messages delivered within print-based texts.

Disability studies allows us to perceive the ways in which traditional writing—and composition studies’ investment in traditional writing—normalizes and has been normalized by our understanding of “the” rhetorical triangle. But disability studies also allows us to regard the ways in which multimodal composing normalizes and has been normalized by our understanding of “the” rhetorical triangle. Expanding on work by Jay Dolmage, the New London Group, Patricia Dunn, Margaret Price, and Robert McRuer, I maintain that this critical work—considering what it means to compose, and what it means to compose multimodally—has scarcely been considered within a disability studies framework.

My first chapter establishes the significance of disabling as a rhetorical move. I maintain that disabling is a way of coming to reshape and reclaim what it means to compose, of what it means to compose multimodally, and what it means to be composed. In examining the work of the New London Group, Gunther Kress, Theo van Leeuwen, and Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis, I suggest that dominant theories regarding multimodality are ableist and exclusionary. In considering Jay Dolmage’s claim that multimodality has come to mean, in practice, multi-multi-modality, this chapter analyzes key digital media theory and composition texts and suggests that these texts privilege individuals without sensory impairments. Of note in this chapter and the chapter that follows is the positioning of synaesthesia within multimodal composition scholarship. This scholarship, I assert, distances synaesthesia from its pathological origin as a sensory impairment and instead reformulates it as an able-bodied, cross-modal heuristic. I maintain that this disability-distancing move positions multimodal composition as a terrain meant primarily for the able-bodied.

I begin chapter 2 by examining neuroscientific literature on synaesthesia, which largely emphasizes pathology, involuntary cross-modal experiences, and brain abnormalities. From there I segue into Gunther Kress’s claim that heuristic synaesthesia is not to be conflated with disability-related synaesthesia, which represents a “severe pathology” to be avoided. I also maintain that Kress’s understanding of synaesthesia seems analogous to multimodality. In particular, I posit that these disability-distancing representations of synaesthetic composing—and the privileging of making cross-sensory meaning in normative ways—unfortunately renders disability as a project outside the scope of multimodal composition.  I argue that this re-presentation of synaesthesia, though a well-meaning move toward transformative access, invokes what I call the rhetoric of shininess—a concept that sounds wonderfully robust and inclusive in theory, but is often empty and exclusionary in practice. In order to avoid shiny, happy rhetoric, and in order to center disability, I posit that we (re)disable synaesthesia and reclaim its pathological meanings.

Synaesthesia as heuristic (and pathology) drives my two middle chapters, both of which are case studies. Chapter 3 examines the ways in which usability and accessibility are often forwarded as separate (but not equal) concepts in digital composition and technical communication scholarship. This, I argue, is largely the result of an ableist conception of audience. My examination includes analyses of usability-related articles from Computers and Composition and Technical Communication Quarterly from the past 10 years. Using both rhetorical analysis and critical discourse analysis, l investigate the ways in which these scholarly conceptions of usability assume an able-bodied audience. Furthermore, this chapter explores the rhetorical nuances of accommodation and assistive technology in these TCQ and C&C articles, as opposed to accessibility and universal design. More often than not, I maintain, digital media technologies such as screen-readers or social networking web sites are described functionally as accommodating or assistive, which implies that disabled users are best served by an add-on or a quick fix. Conversely, accessible and universal design involves centering disability from a design’s very inception.

My fourth chapter explores the ways in which autistic individuals have used online spaces to build a thriving autistic culture. These communities, I argue, have much to teach compositionists about learning, writing, difference, and ways of coming to know the world. Using the disabled (or synaesthetic) theory of composition laid out in chapters 1 and 2, as well as the disabled reclamation of audience from chapter 3, I analyze four literacy narratives of autistic writers, all of whom share experiences about composing, advocating, and learning. In emphasizing disabling as a rhetorical move, I purposefully subvert scholarly discourse surrounding autism and composing, which largely represents autistic people as unempathetic, audience unaware, and pathologically arhetorical. Instead, I suggest that our conceptions of audience are normalized to such an extent that autistic people are rarely considered to be audience members themselves. Sections of my fourth chapter have been published in Disability Studies Quarterly and in Computers and Composition Online, and this work on autism and rhetoric, I feel, is but one example of how we might re/envision composition studies.

In my final chapter, I consider the concept of “best practices,” and how such a concept applies (or doesn’t) when we disable composition and when we disable multimodal composition. Here I emphasize the importance of accessibility to composition studies, of the ways in which our choices—at conferences, in our syllabi, in our scholarly work—reflect who it is we value as audience members. Additionally, I also provide concrete suggestions that work toward universal design, suggestions that compositionists might consider in both their work as teachers and as scholars.

Finally, my dissertation is a multimodal, born digital project. It includes video and audio elements, and it experiments with universal design and accessibility in its very form. I recognize that my audience likely contains individuals who work best with print-based texts, as well as individuals who work best with other modes of expression. Individuals who in other contexts might be considered able-bodied may, at many points, feel disabled as they encounter this dissertation, something that I explore, trouble, and play with throughout.

My experiences at the Geneva College Writing Center informed my decision to pursue graduate study in writing and rhetoric — and digital media, too. For what felt like the first time, my freshman days as a Computer Science major seemed relevant to my work in language and literature.

As a Masters student at DePaul University, I held a 25% appointment at the University Center for Writing-based Learning. There I worked as a peer consultant and served as a web and technology coordinator. In Fall 2005, I created an Access database for tutor records and implemented it during Winter 2006. Additionally, in Spring 2007 I redesigned the site to match the new university brand.

The most exciting project that I participated in while at DePaul involved webcam tutoring. Fellow graduate student Katie Wozniak and I worked with then director Pete Vandenberg to test, troubleshoot, and pilot an audio-visual-textual tutoring program for use at DePaul’s suburban campuses. During the course of the 2006-07 school year, we tested dozens of web programs, performed mock campus-to-campus web tutorials, and eventually trained a dozen tutors in the new system. Our work on this project culminated in a presentation at the 2007 International Writing Centers Association Conference, as well as a webtext in Kairos (winner of the 2009 Best Webtext Award).

With fellow WPA Jenny McKeel, I co-designed a new assignment, the Writer’s Log, for the FYW curriculum. Moreover, we piloted a digital version of this assignment, called the Writer’s Blog, with 14 GTAs during fall, winter, and spring quarters. The Writer’s Blog was added and adapted to the general FYW curriculum during the 2009-10 and 2010-11 school years.

[ Spring 2008 syllabus ] [ Design notebook project ]

I taught ENG 110 for three quarters, each in a hybrid classroom environment. During Fall 2007 and Winter 2008, I used the curriculum provided by the First-Year Writing program and modified it to suit my course theme (media and disability). During Spring 2008, I worked with FYW and Digital Media Project Staff to implement a new, pilot assignment, called the analytical design notebook (see link above).

Introduction to Disability Studies (ENG 277) – Fall 2009, Spring 2010

[ Spring 2010 blog ] [ Spring 2010 syllabus ] [ Blog carnival project ]
[ Disability studies jeopardy ]

ENG 277 is a core course in the interdisciplinary minor in Disability Studies. During the first half of the course, students read a series of short, theoretical texts that positioned disability in myriad ways (social, medical, political, cultural, etc.). Students then applied these critical concepts to literary, popular, and digital representations of disability throughout the second half of the course. During spring 2010, I taught 277 in a computer-mediated environment, and students were responsible for keeping their own blogs, as well as participating in a blog carnival project (see link above).

Thematic Approaches to Literature: Authoring Autism (ENG 275) – Fall 2010

[ Class blog ] [ Syllabus ] [ PSA project ]

Each year, the Department of English holds a “teach your dream course” contest — funded through the departmental teaching award — and invites graduate students to submit course ideas. I won the Fall 2010 slot for Authoring Autism, a course that focuses on popular and literary representations of autism and autistic people. For their final project, students are partnering with the Central Ohio chapter of the Autism Society of America to complete 60- to 90-second video PSAs.

Technical Writing (ENG 305) – Summer 2009

[ Syllabus ] [ Group web design project ]

The primary objective of English 305 is to help students communicate more effectively in a wide range of business and professional settings, with emphases on document design and presenting technical information in written documents. I taught 305 in a computer-mediated environment over a five-week summer term. Students composed several short documents; proposed and completed their own self-defined, field-specific projects; and, for their final assignments, collaborated on a mock web design project for an imaginary company and completed a usability analysis of a “competitor” website.

Language, Identity, and Culture in the U.S. Experience: Digital Documentary (ENG 367) – Winter 2010

[ Class blog ] [ Syllabus ] [ Documentary project ] [ Visual rhetoric activity ]

ENG 367 is a writing-intensive, workshop-based course designed to foster students’ development as active writers, speakers, and thinkers within their communities. Class readings, discussions, and writing assignments were designed to build upon the foundation established in English 110 (First-Year Composition) in order to support more sophisticated rhetorical analysis and practice. This particular section of 367 focused on documentary film and took place in a hybrid classroom environment. In addition to formal essays and informal writing, students produced their own short documentary films.

I was the last person my parents thought would become a teacher. In the days before autism was a household word, my teachers noticed that I didn’t communicate like other children they’d encountered. Given my frequent childhood silences, most adults in my life were certain that, best-case scenario, I’d be a basement librarian with several cats.

Now a teacher, I work with a diverse array of students, each with their own unique ways of knowing and communicating. A turning point for me, as both student and teacher, was my introduction to disability studies, and with it the idea that autism might be, at least in part, a social construction. I came to recognize autism as an inextricable part of myself, as a communication difference to be valued rather than eradicated. And the ways in which disability studies has affected my positions as a composition teacher and a writing program administrator are innumerable. I routinely ask: In what ways can I create a more accessible, welcoming learning environment, one that values and encourages multiple modes and methods of expression rather than suppresses them? Additionally, I continue to rework and reconsider my approach—that is, my own conceptions of accessibility and what it means to compose—based on student and peer feedback.

Whether teaching composition, professional writing, digital composing, or disability studies, I work toward developing accessible pedagogy in which multimodality and digital work is integral, in which multiple modes of expression are both valued and interrogated. In order to foreground accessibility as a critical concept, I encourage students to: 1) consider the varying abilities of their audiences, 2) advocate for, and take responsibility for, their own diverse ways of writing and learning, and 3) position themselves as researchers and meaning makers within the academy. I believe that students can empower themselves as rhetorically effective writers, designers, and researchers if they take on this critical work.

Encouraging students to consider the varying abilities of their audiences

Regardless of the course I’m teaching, I encourage students to examine the needs of their audience in critical ways, to account for the diverse readers, viewers, and/or listeners that encounter their texts. I work to create a class environment in which students feel comfortable directing analytical discussions about audience and accessibility. When I first started teaching first-year writing, I’d passionately drone on about how important digital media was in a writing class, about how important technology was for audiences with diverse needs. Much to my chagrin, at the term’s end, I received several evaluations in which students claimed they didn’t see the point of digital media in a writing class. As a result, I sought feedback from fellow graduate teaching associates. Through these discussions, I realized that I was doing too much of the discussing and positioning; I wasn’t letting my students discover the rhetorical affordances of new media on their own. And it was these discussions on student involvement that most contributed to my work as a WPA for First-Year Writing at Ohio State. During my time as a WPA, I co-developed and co-piloted a blogging assignment used by 14 first-year graduate student teachers in our program. Twice each quarter, I met with these instructors and discussed how blogging was working (or not working) in their classes. Each of the instructors remarked that blogging enabled their students to consider critically, and to discover, how their use of media affected their audiences.

My conversations with fellow instructors about audience, media, and discovery have profoundly altered my own teaching style, which is now a far cry from my earlier forays into teaching writing. A typical day in my class involves students guiding discussions, involves students contemplating how certain media can better reach (or not) target audiences. I often facilitate such discussions by breaking students into small groups, providing them with a short series of questions, and then reconvening the class for larger discussion. For example, I invite my students to tell me the affordances of certain media or genres (e.g., video documentaries), as well as how certain media or genres work to include or exclude readers (e.g., videos with/out captions). Furthermore, I support student learning by having students create their own blogs and maintain an active blogging presence. In some of my classes, for instance, I ask students to complete a blog carnival assignment, which involves synthesizing a dozen blog posts by outside authors on a particular topic. Students have crafted carnivals on topics such as self-advocacy and physical therapy—and in their course evaluations, many have claimed that this project made them feel like they were part of, and composing for, a real community with real needs. And perhaps most importantly, in their reflection papers, students have commented that working with new media helps them to feel more valued, as audience members, when encountering their peers’ texts.

Accommodating students’ own diverse ways of writing and learning

In striving to design pedagogy that is as inclusive and accessible as possible, I encourage students to take responsibility for, and to advocate for, their own best ways of learning. I believe that being a student does not have to be a passive position. In all of my classes, I strive to know students as individual writers and learners. I work toward this goal by asking students to compose short reflective essays about their own goals and learning styles (usually on their blogs) and by speaking with them individually. When students work in small groups in class, I make it a point to sit with one or two groups and ask them what they hope to get out of a particular session or assignment. Moreover, in my writing and digital media courses, I hold one-on-one conferences with students, during which we talk about how they best write and learn. Also important, I think, are the ways in which I consciously model this sort of advocacy during class. On the first day, I tell students that I have an auditory processing delay and that I frequently write on the board, or type on my laptop, so that I can be more responsive to their needs. Students have, in turn, responded with their own suggestions for making the class more accessible, asking, for instance, that I photograph whiteboard notes and post the images online after class. I’ve since picked up the habit of photographing whiteboards, and in their evaluations and in class discussions, students have identified this practice as a helpful one.

In order to engage multiple learning styles and be responsive to student feedback, I integrate a variety of technologies and media in class reading/viewing/listening content, as well as in class activities and projects. In my digital documentary course, for example, I ask students to research key terms in visual rhetoric, to demonstrate these concepts in their own photography, and to share their work with their classmates both through their blogs and during class discussion. In doing this activity, students engage multiple modes and methods of composing and making meaning, and they take responsibility not only for their own ways of learning but for teaching their peers as well.

Positioning students as researchers

When I first started teaching composition, the director of the First-Year Writing Program said something that struck me: “Your students are researchers.” Considering oneself a writer and researcher is often a new task for students, a position they do not consider because common preconceptions of education involve student passivity. My goal is to move students beyond the position of “receptacle” and toward the position of “meaning maker.” To accomplish this, I design course materials and activities that actively involve students in the direction, shape, and scope of the class. In my disability studies and composition courses, I ask students to engage in hands-on learning tasks that involve both research and presentation components. For example, I ask students to use Flip video cameras and document architectural inaccessibility, draft a report, and then submit their work to me, the student newspaper, or the ADA Office. Such an activity not only involves familiarization, on their part, with the genres of video documentary and formal letter writing, but likewise involves contributing to scholarly discussions on what in/accessibility itself is and how it is represented in the physical environment. This activity is one that students routinely highlight in their class evaluations.

Additionally, I encourage students to position themselves as researchers by partnering them with community organizations. In my autism and rhetoric course, students collaboratively develop video public service announcements for and with the Central Ohio Autism Society. As a class, we invite members from the autism community to our class meeting for a panel discussion, and students take responsibility not only for guiding the discussion with their own questions and topic ideas, but also in documenting (via video, audio, text, and image) the discussion for use in their PSAs. With community-based learning, I’ve found, students pay serious rhetorical attention to their work and recognize the ways in which their projects have direct effects on the world beyond the university—making access/ibility more than just a classroom tool or topic.

• • •

One of my most valuable experiences as a composition instructor has been re/seeing myself as a student through the lenses of both digital media studies and disability studies. This humbles me, allows me to be more reflexive, helps me to listen rhetorically and regard my students as co-participants in the larger project of making meaning, of making composition studies a more accessible place.