USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

From real to reel :


Material Information

From real to reel : performances of influential literacies in the creative collaborative processes and products of digital video composition
Physical Description:
Kozdras, Deborah
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Dissertations, Academic -- Childhood Ed & Literacy Studies -- Masters -- USF   ( lcsh )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )


ABSTRACT: In this study, I used a lens of performance theory to examine the creative collaborative processes of middle school students who composed digital videos. More specifically, I investigated the multiliteracies involved in a filmmaking camp and how students performed those literacies in ways that influenced the composition processes and the resulting texts. In order to study collaborative composition processes, I used ethnographic methods. In order to analyze data, I employed a mixed methodology of constant comparative analysis and dramaturgical analysis of interactions in three main informant groups in order to understand how students used multiple literacies to influence the composition processes and products. During these processes, students employed tactics and style to gain authority over designing group attention to their ideas. This resulted in an overall model of PAID Attention (paying attention, attracting attention, immersing attention, and designing attention). The use of influential literacies in this project was two-fold: students used literacies to influence texts, and as a result, those texts required the students' attention. Furthermore, when the students paid attention to the emerging task-at-hand, they were able to gain authority and agency for designing attention (to their texts by an audience) through influential performances of literacies. As found in this study, these patterns were not a solid package of cultural norms. Rather, the style emerged with the text and transformed with the different multiliteracies required during composition processes as students performed literacy knowledge. This study initiated an examination of influential literacy performances as the use of creative tactics during collaborative composition processes. I recommend further work examining multiliteracies as knowledge performances in a variety of settings in order to develop models to help students influence texts with their creative ideas and gain authority in collaborative groups.
Dissertation (EDD)--University of South Florida, 2010.
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Deborah Kozdras.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains X pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0004607
usfldc handle - e14.4607
System ID:

This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 007 cr-bnu---uuuuu
008 s2010 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0004607
XX9999 (Online)
1 100
Kozdras, Deborah.
0 245
From real to reel :
b performances of influential literacies in the creative collaborative processes and products of digital video composition
h [electronic resource] /
by Deborah Kozdras.
[Tampa, Fla] :
University of South Florida,
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains X pages.
Dissertation (EDD)--University of South Florida, 2010.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
3 520
ABSTRACT: In this study, I used a lens of performance theory to examine the creative collaborative processes of middle school students who composed digital videos. More specifically, I investigated the multiliteracies involved in a filmmaking camp and how students performed those literacies in ways that influenced the composition processes and the resulting texts. In order to study collaborative composition processes, I used ethnographic methods. In order to analyze data, I employed a mixed methodology of constant comparative analysis and dramaturgical analysis of interactions in three main informant groups in order to understand how students used multiple literacies to influence the composition processes and products. During these processes, students employed tactics and style to gain authority over designing group attention to their ideas. This resulted in an overall model of PAID Attention (paying attention, attracting attention, immersing attention, and designing attention). The use of influential literacies in this project was two-fold: students used literacies to influence texts, and as a result, those texts required the students' attention. Furthermore, when the students paid attention to the emerging task-at-hand, they were able to gain authority and agency for designing attention (to their texts by an audience) through influential performances of literacies. As found in this study, these patterns were not a solid package of cultural norms. Rather, the style emerged with the text and transformed with the different multiliteracies required during composition processes as students performed literacy knowledge. This study initiated an examination of influential literacy performances as the use of creative tactics during collaborative composition processes. I recommend further work examining multiliteracies as knowledge performances in a variety of settings in order to develop models to help students influence texts with their creative ideas and gain authority in collaborative groups.
Advisor: James R. King, Ed.D.
Dissertations, Academic
x Childhood Ed & Literacy Studies
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856


From Real to Reel: Performances of Influential Literacies in the Creative Collaborative Processes and Products of Digital Video Composition by Deborah Kozdras A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the deg ree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Childhood Education and Literacy Studies College of Education University of South Florida Major Professor: James R. King, Ed.D. John Ferron, Ph.D. Janet Richards, Ph.D. Jenifer Jasinski Schneider, Ph.D. Date of Approval: June 3, 2010 Keywords: performance, multiliteracies, design, composition, attention Copyright 2010, Deborah Kozdras


DEDICATION To my husband, friends, and family who pushed me forward Avanti Sempre Avanti!


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to pay respect to several individuals for their assistance and support in this exciting and challenging endeavor. Professionally, I thank my major professor, James R. King, who helped me put order to complex chaotic thoughts. I also thank my committee members for their time and expertise in helping me complete this project. I thank the Carnegie Corporation and the National Academy of Education for their generous support through the Adolescent Literacy Predoctoral Fellowship Award. This fundin g helped me extend my data collection and ensure I was able to spend time to capture the cultural perspectives required by ethnographic studies. I would also like to extend my appreciation to the Florida Center for Instructional Technology (FCIT) at the Un iversity of South Florida and the Tampa Theatre for their willingness to allow me to study the film camp. FCIT provided me with both technology training and creative artistic ideas. Thank you to James Seaman of FCIT for permitting my use of his illustratio n "Guardian at the Gates." I would like to extend particular gratitude to James Welsh, the camp director, who provided valuable insights into the camp culture and activities. Last, but certainly not least, I thank the students and counselors who participa ted in this ethnography. You taught me so much more about learning than I could possibly condense into these pages. Finally, to all emerging screenagers Surgite!


i TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... v LIST O F FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ vi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ................................ .................. 1 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ ............................ 1 Background to the Problem ................................ ................................ .................. 5 Real Literacies as Multiliterac ies ................................ .............................. 5 Multiliteracies as Reel Literacies ................................ .............................. 7 Designing from Real to Reel ................................ ................................ .... 9 Theoretical Basis of the Study ................................ ................................ ............ 11 Composition as Design ................................ ................................ ........... 11 New Literacies Studies: Literacy Practices in Discourse Spaces ............. 17 Summary: From Social Semiotics to Performance ................................ .. 18 Inquiry of Design Through Performance Lens ................................ .................... 21 Qualitative Research Questions ................................ ................................ .......... 22 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ................... 22 Definition of Terms ................................ ................................ ........................... 23 Delimitations of the Study ................................ ................................ ................. 27 Organization of Remaining Chapters ................................ ................................ 28 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ................................ ........ 29 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 2 9 Multiliteracies Research: From Consumption to Production ............................... 29 Focus on Multiliteracies in Digital Video ................................ ............... 30 Multiliteracies Provide Opportunties for Agency ................................ .... 35 Digital Video and Multiliteracies: From What to How ............................ 38 Composition as Processes and Products in Design ................................ ............. 39 Composition as Stages or Processes ................................ ....................... 40 Composition as Socio cultural Practices ................................ ................. 42 Composition as Design ................................ ................................ ........... 44 Available Designs ................................ ................................ ....... 44 Designing ................................ ................................ ................... 47 The Redesigned ................................ ................................ .......... 50 Exploring Design and Performance Knowledge ................................ ................. 54 From "A s" To "Is" Performance ................................ ............................. 58 Performance and Dramaturgy ................................ ................................ 60


ii Roles ................................ ................................ .......................... 61 Action: Doing Roles and Creating Opportunities ........................ 62 Teams and Communitas ................................ .............................. 64 Regions as Performing Spaces ................................ .................... 69 Framing ................................ ................................ ...................... 70 Keying ................................ ................................ ........................ 70 Shifts in Frame ................................ ................................ ........... 73 Summary: Digital Video Composit ion as Performance of Multiliteracies ........... 75 CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ................................ ................................ .................. 78 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 78 Research Design ................................ ................................ ................................ 78 Researcher Perspective ................................ ................................ ...................... 82 Context of the Study ................................ ................................ .......................... 86 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 87 Selection of Participants ................................ ................................ ......... 88 Data Selection and Collection Procedures ................................ .......................... 89 Videotaped Observations ................................ ................................ ........ 91 Interviews ................................ ................................ .............................. 92 Informal Questions ................................ ................................ ..... 93 Member Checking Interviews ................................ ..................... 93 Interviews in Filmmaking Role ................................ ................... 93 Data Analysis Procedures ................................ ................................ .................. 94 Data Analysis: Available Designs ................................ ........................... 97 Designing Phase 1: Literacies Used ................................ ...................... 100 Design Phase II: Collaborative Composition ................................ ........ 103 Designing as a Collaborative: Contextualization as Method ...... 104 Designing as Composition: Entextualization as Method ............ 107 Re designed ................................ ................................ ......................... 113 Step One: The Re designed ................................ ....................... 114 Step Two: Redesigning ................................ ............................. 115 Step Three: Redesigning Through Influential Literacy Performances ................................ ................................ ............ 117 Ethical Considerations ................................ ................................ ..................... 117 Limitations of the Study ................................ ................................ ................... 118 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ................................ ................................ .................... 123 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 123 Available Designs as Affordances for Literacy Performance: Part I ................. 126 Getting Ready for Camp ................................ ................................ ....... 127 Campers Sign In ................................ ................................ ................... 127 Introduction of Cast of Characters ................................ ........................ 128 Overview ................................ ................................ ............................. 129 Location S couting ................................ ................................ ................ 130 Popcorn Break ................................ ................................ ...................... 131 The Workshops ................................ ................................ .................... 132


iii Shots and Angles ................................ ................................ ...... 132 Lighting ................................ ................................ .................... 133 Camera and Tripod Worksh op ................................ .................. 134 Sound workshop ................................ ................................ ....... 135 Learning to Use iMovie Software ................................ ......................... 135 Homework ................................ ................................ ........................... 136 Genre and Story Structure Presentation ................................ ................ 137 Scriptwriting Demonstration ................................ ................................ 138 Storyboarding Instruction ................................ ................................ ..... 139 Dialogue and Acting Demonstration ................................ ..................... 140 Expanding Ideas ................................ ................................ ................... 141 Summ ary of Available Designs as Literacy Practices ................................ ....... 141 Designing: Part II ................................ ................................ ............................. 146 Macro Analysis of Influential Literacies ................................ ............... 148 Getting into Groups ................................ ................................ .. 148 Filling in Planning Sheets ................................ ......................... 150 Creating Scripts and Storyboards ................................ .............. 150 Filming ................................ ................................ ..................... 151 Digital Editing ................................ ................................ .......... 152 Summary ................................ ................................ .................. 153 Microanalysis of Influential Literacy Performances .............................. 153 Phase I: Collaboration Coming Together ................................ .............. 156 Phase II: Composition Moving Forward ................................ ............... 162 Making Success ful Pitches ................................ ........................ 163 Brainstorming ................................ ................................ ........... 165 Norming Ideas Through Writing ................................ ............... 168 Performing Dialogue ................................ ................................ 173 Becoming Filmmakers ................................ .............................. 174 Negotiating Individual Positions ................................ ............... 175 Negotiating Filmmaker Roles. ................................ ....... 176 Negotiating Roles for Digital Composition. ................... 176 Negotiating Roles Through an Economy of Attention. ... 178 Influential Literacy Performances as an Emerging Attention Economy ................................ ................................ .................. 181 Summary of Designing ................................ ................................ ......... 184 Redesigning: Part III ................................ ................................ ........................ 187 Idea Group: "I'm So Scared" Scene ................................ ...................... 189 Design of "I'm So Scared" ................................ ........................ 189 Redesigning Blair Witch ................................ ........................... 191 Group Group: "Who done it?" Scene ................................ .................... 197 Design of "Discovering the Dead Body" ................................ ... 198 Redesigning Clue ................................ ................................ ...... 2 01 Forming Group: "The Director's Dead!" Scene ................................ .... 209 Design of "The Director's Dead!" ................................ ............. 210 Redesigning "The Director's Dead ................................ ............ 212 Summary of Redesigning: Knowledge Performance ............................. 225


iv Multiliteracy Knowledge and Performing With Tactics ............. 226 Summary of Design ................................ ................................ ......................... 229 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS ................................ ........... 236 Available Designs as Influential Multiliteracies ................................ .... 240 Designing: PAID Attention and Performing Knowledge ....................... 241 Attention Economy: Performance Knowledge .......................... 242 Designing for Attention ................................ ............................ 245 Designing with Style ................................ ................................ 246 Redesigned: A Bricolage of Playing Wit h Literacies in Action ............ 250 Wrighting: Transformations in Text Through Knowledge Performance ................................ ................................ ............. 251 From Mimesis, to Poesis, to Kinesis ................................ ......... 253 Performance of Knowledge and E ducational Implications .................... 260 Designing for Students ................................ .............................. 262 All the World's a Stage for Creative Collaboration ............................... 263 Available Designs: Performance in Figured Worlds .................. 267 Designing as Emergence ................................ ........................... 271 Redesigning with Tactics for Attention ................................ ..... 274 Designing for Social Futures ................................ ..................... 276 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 280 Films Cited in Study ................................ ................................ ........................ 304 APPENDICES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 306 Appendix I: Shots and Angles ................................ ................................ .......... 305 Appendix II: Lighting ................................ ................................ ...................... 308 Appendix III: Planning Sheet ................................ ................................ ........... 310 Appendix IV: Sample Script Using Celtx ................................ ......................... 311 Appendix V: Storyboarding Form ................................ ................................ .... 312 ABOUT THE AUTHOR ................................ ................................ ................ END PAGE


v LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1. Data Collected Throughout the Let's Make Movies Camp ............................ 90 Table 4.1 Influential Literacy Practices as Available Designs ................................ ...... 143 Table 4.1 continued. Influential Literacy Practices as Available Designs ..................... 144 Table 4.2 Influential Literacy Practices During Designing ................................ ........... 149 Table 4.4 Three Focus Groups With Members' Purposes for Joining ........................... 158


vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1 Data Transcription as a Script ................................ ................................ ..... 100 Figure 3.2. Collaborative Composition: Inward and Forward ................................ ....... 103 Figure 3.3. Dramaturgical Interactions: Model of Socio grams Used ........................... 110 Figure 3.4. Bauman & Briggs (1990) Dimensions of Transformation .......................... 116 Figure 4.1. Getting Ready for Camp ................................ ................................ ............ 127 Figure 4.2. Campers Sign In ................................ ................................ ........................ 128 Fig ure 4.3. Introduction ................................ ................................ ............................... 129 Figure 4.4. Overview of the Week ................................ ................................ ............... 129 Figure 4.5. Location Scouting ................................ ................................ ...................... 130 Figure 4.6. Popcorn Break ................................ ................................ ........................... 131 Figure 4. 7. Shots and Angles Workshop ................................ ................................ ...... 132 Figure 4.8. Lighting Workshop ................................ ................................ .................... 133 Figure 4.9. Camera and Tripod Workshop ................................ ................................ ... 134 Figure 4.10. Sound Workshop ................................ ................................ ..................... 135 Figure 4.11. Learning to Use iMovie ................................ ................................ ........... 136 Figure 4.12. Presentation on Movie Genres and Story Structure ................................ ... 138 Figure 4.13. Scriptwriting ................................ ................................ ............................ 139 Figure 4.14. Storyboard ing ................................ ................................ .......................... 139


vii Figure 4.15. Dialogue and Acting ................................ ................................ ................ 140 Figure 4.16. Ideas ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 141 Figure 4.17. Collaborative Composition: Coming Together and Moving Forward ....... 153 Figure 4.18. Ideas Influenced by Performances of Literacies ................................ ....... 154 Figure 4.19. Influential Literacy Performances: Tactics of the Pitch ............................ 164 Figure 4.20 Attention Economy ................................ ................................ ................... 182 Figure 4.21. Verbal Art as PAID Attention: Politics and Poetics ................................ .. 185 Figure 4.22. Ideas as Mimesis (copy), Poesis (making), and kinesis (transforming) ..... 188 Figure 4.23. Model of Infl uential Literacies as PAID Attention ................................ ... 232 Figure 4.24. Verbal Art as PAID Attention ................................ ................................ .. 234 Figure 5.1. The Performance Text ................................ ................................ ............... 237 Figure 5.2. Multiple Literacies Through Pe rformance ................................ .................. 237 Figure 5.3. The Five C's of Design ................................ ................................ .............. 239


viii From Real to Reel: Performances of Influential Literacies in the Creative Collaborative Processes and Products of Digital Video Composi tion ABSTRACT In this study, I used a lens of performance theory to examine the creative collaborative processes of middle school students who compose d digital videos. More specifically, I investigated the multiliteracies involved in a filmmaking camp and how students performed those literacies in ways that influenced the composition processes and the resulting texts. In order to study collaborative composition processes, I used ethnographic methods. In order to analyze data, I employed a mixed methodology of constant comparative analysis and dramaturgical analysis of interactions in three main informant groups in order to understand how students used multiple literacies to influence the composition processes and products. During these processes, students e mployed tactics and style to gain authority over designing group attention to their ideas. This resulted in an overall model of PAID Attention ( p aying attention, a ttracting attention, i mmersing attention, and d esigning attention). The use of influential li teracies in this project was two fold: students used literacies to influence texts, and as a result, those texts required the students' attention. Furthermore, when the students paid attention to the emerging task at hand, they were able to gain authority and agency for designing attention (to their texts by an audience) through influential performances of literacies. As found in this study, these patterns were not a solid package of cultural norms. Rather, the


ix style emerged with the text and transformed wi th the different multiliteracies required during composition processes as students performed literacy knowledge This study initiated an examination of influential literacy performances as the use of creative tactics during collaborative composition proces ses. I recommend further work examining multiliteracies as knowledge performances in a variety of settings in order to develop models to help students influence texts with their creative ideas and gain authority in collaborative groups.


1 CHAPTER ONE: I NTRODUCTION TO THE S TUDY Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to investigate the multiliteracy practices of creative composition in a digital filmmaking camp. More specifically, I investigated how multiple literacy practices informed the crea tive collaborative processes and products of digital video composition. In this study, I borrow from Bailey (2007) in terming these Hitchcock literacies as reel literacies. Furthermore, I considered the real literacies to be the social practices and perf ormances with which students engaged during composition. I subscribe to these views and add that "literacy" education should continue its move toward a pedagogy of multiliteracies (Cope & Kalantsis, 2000) which include and go beyond written text to include visual, performance, and moving image texts. More specifically, I am interested on how students use literacies in the real world. Rather than envisioning literacy as a set of skills, I am interested in studying literacy as practices or performances of kno wledge (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003). In this particular study, I focused on studying performances of literacy knowledge as students composed multimedia films. Recently certain researchers have recommended studying multimodal composition through the lens of d igital video (Bruce, 2008a; Miller & Borowitz, 2007). Bruce (2008a) suggested studying multimedia "through the lens of video" because "it is still the


2 dominant medium with which all students are familiar in reading, particularly in forms of TV and movies" (p. 13). Similarly, Miller and Borowicz (2007) recommended the use of digital video for investigating multimodal literacies in that the process conveniently integrates many modes, "with its many opportunities for symbolic expression, digital video product ion is a tangible and potent meaning making system and mediator for empowering literacy" (p. 3). A "movie" is a familiar multimodal "medium"; through movie creation, teachers and students can engage in tasks that are consistent with those encountered in sc hools, such as genre, character, and audience studies. These literary elements, found in real, out of school contexts, are familiar to teachers and engaging for students. For example, students have created movie trailers, advertisements, public service an nouncements, cartoons, spoofs, newscasts, or other short narratives based on their media literacy schema, while they simultaneously learn about the concept of genre within specific content areas that are intrinsically appealing. In effect, digital video ca n be a provocation toward engagement with literate activities. Figure 1.1. Guardian at the Gate @ Created by James Seaman and Used with Permission Media literacy, and in particular, screen activity, is a central part of life for


3 American children and te ens (Rushkoff, 2006; Trier, 2007). For example, a survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation (2001) found that children ages 8 to 18 spend almost eight hours per day using media (television, movies, video games, books, recorded music, Internet, magazines, news papers). According to a more recent study by Pew Internet & American Life (Lenhardt & Madden, 2005), over fifty percent of teens have created media content speeding on down the multimedia highway as illustrated in Figure 1.1. Additionally, at least one thi rd of those teens have shared their content online. While educators may protect the children from the impact of media guarding the door, holding the keys to the kingdom (literacy and learning) the walls have crumbled and children are speeding through on th e multimedia "highways", producing as well as consuming complex media texts. Despite the cultural proliferation of multimedia, educators typically rely on traditional textual and language competencies the school "preference for print may preclude teachers from even noticing their students' competence with multi and digital literacies" (King & O'Brien, 2002, p. 41). Researchers (i.e., Buckingham, 2007; Hobbs, 2006; 2007; Kress, 2003; Kress & vanLeeuwen, 2006; Kress & vanLeeuwen, 2001) have discussed the nece ssity of competence in multimedia discourses, including images, text, and multimedia elements as essential for both reading and "writing" or designing with multiliteracies. Anstey and Bull (2006) defined multiliteracies as "being cognitively and socially l iterate with paper, live, and electronic texts" (p. 23). Furthermore, they noted that a multiliterate person must be, "a problem solver and strategic thinkeran active and informed citizen" who is literate with a range of texts and technologies (p. 23). In creating film, the range of multiliteracy processes combines a multiplicity of reel literacies that go


4 beyond reading and writing. In order to become literate in moving image literacy, one must understand both the language (Metz, 1974) and syntax (Monaco 2000) of film, but also the intertextual meanings that develop as viewers interact with movies. As adolescents work with new technologies, they design/create their own remixed music videos (Knobel & Lankshear, 2007), write their own fan fiction (Thomas, 2007), create their own digital video versions of their favorite T.V. shows and movies (Jenkins, 2006a; 2006b). Furthermore, adolescents participate in transmedia navigation (Jenkins, Clinton, Purushotma, Robison, & Weigel, 2009) as they view and then app ropriate popular texts in their compositions as "mash ups" (a synthesis or bricolage composition that takes bits of existing content into new compositions), and other semi original digital video compositions (Jenkins, 2006a). Often adolescents learn their skills through online learning communities such as those that support fan fiction (Thomas, 2007). Other times, they subscribe to blogs, watch director's commentaries on DVD's, search for informational websites, and read creator's notes about their favorit e new video shorts found on sites like YouTube. In essence, adolescents are engaging with both Hitchcock and Hemingway strategies in their travels through multimedia; both Hitchcock and Hemingway inspired literacies are essential an increasingly multimedia ted world (Brown, 2005). Despite the emergence (and proliferation) of these practices, few researchers have investigated the multiplicity of literacy processes, strategies, and interactions of the students as they produce these multimedia works. In fact, B ruce (2009a) was one of the first individuals who created a model of multiple literacies involved in the composition processes of digital video. Bruce (2008a) recommended studying multimedia production as composition; thus, creating a model of digital vide o as visual composition (Bruce, 2009a),


5 a concept I investigate further in Chapter 2. Bruce's (2008a; 2009a; 2009b) work was influential in my present inquiry. However, I was interested in both what multiliteracies students used and how they used these to make meaning in both their texts (products) and the contexts (processes) of composition. Furthermore, beyond the visual model, I was interested in how students' performances of literacies were influential in their collaborative composition processes. Bac kground to the Problem Even though children can and do create their own media, most media literacy research has focused on critical media literacy (i.e., Alvermann, Moon, & Hagood, 1999; Anderson, 1983), which views children as consumers (i.e., Neuman, 199 1; Norris, Sullivan, Poirot, & Soloway, 2003) of media education (Hobbs, 2006). Recently, media literacy/education researchers have begun to shift focus from strictly critique to a perspective that focuses on digital media creation (Burn & Durran, 2007). Real Literacies as Multiliteracies New literacy studies (Gee, 1996) or socio cultural literacy studies (i.e., Street, 1995) envision literacy practices as connecting the activities of reading and writing to real social contexts; that is, they relate liter acies both in terms of situated contexts, as well as how those practices helped to create the contexts (Barton & Hamilton, 1998). As Lankshear and Knobel (2007) recently stated, "Reading and writing can only be understood in the contexts of social, cultura l, political, economic, historical practices to which they are integral, of which they are a part" (p. 1). Lankshear and Knobel also noted that when literacy is understood as "simply reading and writing," or as a set of skills, or cognitive processes that are disengaged from human practice, it is impossible to make


6 sense of the "literacy" experience. Making meaning involves engaging with the texts as they are embedded in social contexts. In addition to a new way of envisioning literacy (as social practices ), New Literacy Studies (NLS) also locates the new digital media literacies. Lankshear and Knobel (2003) defined the "ontological" definition of "new" as "the idea that changes have occurred in the character and substance of literacies associated with chan ges in technology, institutions, media, the economy, and the rapid movement toward global scale in manufacture, finance, communications, and so on" (p. 16). Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, and Cammack (2004) further described these "new" media literacies as multiple i n nature and at three levels: meaning is represented with multiple media forms; the Internet and other ICTs offer multiple tools to construct many forms of communication; and, students create "new literacies" and require "new literacies" skills as they enc ounter information from multiple social and cultural contexts around the world. New literacies are further transformed with multiple tools, multiple modalities, and the multiplicity of socio cultural influences. In terms of a digital narrative, where meani ng is represented with multiple media forms multiplicity might read in the following ways: students use digital photos, digital video clips, music, voice overs, and other effects found in the slide show programs to construct meaning in their products. Fur thermore, students use multiple tool s to construct meaning. They may use video cameras, digital photo cameras, search engines (to find images, music, sounds), musical instruments and other sound creators, computer (with editing software), books (for refere nce), websites (for reference), and video clips (for reference). Finally, students create "new literacies" and require "new literacies" skills through the processes and products of digital media productions. Throughout these


7 processes, students encounter i nformation from multiple social and cultural contexts : students collaborate in their planning and appropriate materials from a wide variety of source texts (i.e. books, oral retelling, movies, television shows, news, magazines, websites). In addition to th e traditional textual elements (oral and written), the visual design features used in creating "movies" include media conventions color, angle, point of view, sound, scale, spatial manipulation as well as moving image literacies. Multiliteracies as Reel L iteracies Texts including multimodal compositions are part of a "sign complex formed by print and other communication systems in relation to situational context" (Harste, Woodward, & Burke, 1984, p. 169) This sign complex, when re ferring to filmmaking, includes a wide variety of real literacies. These real literacies include oral language, reading, writing, visual literacy, and digital/technological literacy. In addition, filmmaking also includes a group of literacies not often cit ed in literacy based research: moving image literacies. Envisioning reel literacies requires examination of the language of film. Film, Monaco (2000) argued, has no official "grammar" per se, but rather is guided by conventions and rules of usage that evol ve "in cinematic language, and the syntax of film" (p. 172). Monaco cautioned, "it is important to remember that the syntax of film is a result of its usage, not a determinant of it" (p. 172). This definition suggests an evolving "language" that is sociall y and culturally maleable, a perspective that is congruent with sociocultural theories of literacy. Although certain elements (i.e. shots, angles, music, sound effects, frames, lighting, transitions) have come to denote "meaning" these elements also change meaning as different composers reappropriate them with different


8 connotations, and when different viewers re interpret the meanings in dialogic processes. Although researchers and theorists in film studies have described complex meaningmaking in film, mu ch of the discourse has been viewed through a critical rather than a creative lens. In order to teach digital video, educators must understand the complex multimodal processes involved in moving image composition. Burn and Parker (2003) created an analysis /evaluation methodology as a multimodal analysis technique for moving image productions based on multimodality literacy (Jewitt & Kress, 2003; Kress & vanLeeuwen, 2001) and social semiotics of visual design (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006). Burn and Parker (200 3) noted that the "multimodal nature [of film] has been recognized in many different ways throughout the history of film theory" (p. 13). Specifically, they cited Metz (1974) as the film theorist "who wanted to propose a way to analyze film as a language" (p. 13). In deciding what elements of film created the "language," Metz designated specific elements of film practices (i.e. shots, angles, lighting) as cinematic. Metz grouped other elements that make up a film (i.e. dialogue, music, gestures, action) an d grouped them into a category he labeled as filmic. Alternatively, Burn and Parker combined both cinematic and filmic elements into what they called the kineikonic mode the mode of the moving image (Burns & Parker, 2003). In the mode of the moving image Burn and Parker (2003) recommended an analysis of the set pieces within both filmic resources and cinematic language, as well as an analysis of "pulling the pieces together" which, taken together, represent the multimodal kineikonic mode. This combination of processes, Burn and Parker (2003) noted, can be discussed in terms of functional load. Functional load refers both to "which mode has a stronger weight or a determining function at any given moment" as well as


9 how "the modes impact on each other" (p. 2 5). Furthermore, multiple modes of film representation can be explained in terms of relationships: oppositional (where one mode is juxtaposed with another to create a tension/reversal of meaning a smile paired with a negative situation to indicate irony), complementary (where one mode accentuates another scarey music is coupled with an extreme close up of terrified eyes), or compensatory (where one mode aids in comprehension text on screen further explains the setting shown on the screen an old image of a b uilding is shown, while text on screen reads, "a long time ago"). While this research has provided a productive analysis methodology for the products of digital video, Burn and Parker (2003) also stipulated the importance of studying the processes of film making as well as the product. Burn and Parker (2003) consider their approach to multimodal "textual" analysis as semiotic, in which "understandings can be developed for systems of communication [i.e. gesture, sound, image] other than language" (p. 1). Di ffering from traditional semiotic approaches, new semiotics based in postmodernism, and cultural studies (which represented a shift in emphasis from text to audience), Burn and Parker followed an approach based on exploring and developing "theoretical appr oaches which look both at what a text is saying and how it is saying it, in a relatively clear and systematic way; while at the same time considering how real audiences engage with texts, and how texts are produced in the real world" (p. 3). For this study I considered this approach as a model for studying how real interactions transform reel texts. Designing from Real to Reel As the NLG stated, the use of multiliteracies pedagogy will help students participate as valuable, contributing members of society ; t his becomes necessary in an


10 ever increasing multimedia laden Internet culture. Jenkins et al. (2009) noted, in our current, participatory, Internet intensive culture where the tools exist for all individuals to create, critique, and consume digital media prior to their participation, students require preliminary skills. In fact, Jenkins et al. (2009) stressed that in order to engage in the new participatory culture, individuals must develop a vast repertoire of literacy skills, which include both traditio nal textual literacies and new digital media literacies: "new media literacies include the traditional literacy that evolved with print culture as well as the newer forms of literacy within mass and digital media" (p. 19). They further note that although m uch writing about twenty first century literacies "seems to assume that communicating through visual, digital, or audiovisual media will displace reading and writing" (p. 19), Jenkins, et al. "fundamentally disagree" (p. 19). Before students can engage wi th the new participatory culture, they must be able to read and write. Just as the emergence of written language changed oral traditions and the emergence of printed texts changed our relationship to written language, the emergence of new digital modes of expression changes our relationship to printed texts (p. 19). First of all, prior to participation, students require preliminary skills, such as oral literacy; reading; writing; visual literacy; digital/technological literacies; and moving image literacies Additionally, Jenkins et al. identified a set of core social skills and cultural competencies that young people should acquire if they are to be full, active, creative, and ethical participants in this emerging participatory culture: play, performance, s imulation, appropriation, multitasking, transmedia navigation, networking, collective intelligence, judgement, negotiation, and distributed cognition.


11 In the next section, I will elaborate on themes of multiliteracies and socio cultural skills and strateg ies as I illustrate the relevant theories used to inform this inquiry. Theoretical Basis of the Study The major theoretical basis of this study is based on a pedagogy of multiliteracies (NLG, 1996) that is informed by "new" literacy studies (Gee, 1996) or socio cultural theories of learning (Wertsch, del R“o, & Alverez, 1995) that view literacy learning as social practices (Street, 1995; 2007). Within a sociocultural perspective on literacy (Lewis, Enciso, & Moje, 2007; Prior, 2006), I studied the multimedi a composition processes in a filmmaking space; while viewing the processes through a lens inspired by performance theory (Bauman, 1977; Bauman & Briggs, 1990; Bell, 2008; Goffman, 1959; Schechner, 1988; and, Turner, 1974; 2004). In the following sections, I investigate the relevant theoretical perspectives that informed the study. First, because this study focused on composition, I provide an overview of composition theories as they inform this study, leading to my focal theory of multiliteracies as Design (NLG, 1996). Second, because I studied a filmmaking community, I examine Gee's (1996) notion of a Discourse community. Third, I discuss these theories as based in social semiotics and socio linguistics. Then I turn toward performance theories (Bauman, 1977 ; Bauman & Briggs, 1990; Bell, 2008; Goffman, 1959; Schechner, 1988; and, Turner, 1974; 2004) in order to investigate these systems as they play out in creative collaboration in composition processes Composition as Design The New London Group (NLG) (1996 ) offered design as a metaphor for composing and comprehending in the new literacies. In a new approach to literacy


12 pedagogy that they call multiliteracies, the authors discussed increasing social and cultural diversity, which call for broader views of bot h reading and writing in terms of "designing social futures" (p. 60). Design includes the multiple semiotic systems involved in the processes of both consuming and composing multimedia texts. In fact, researchers (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; Kress, 2003; Kress & vanLeeuwen, 2001) have noted a variety of elements of design as particularly important in the composition of multimedia. Researchers in the field of media Literacy (Hobbs, 2006; Lemke, 2006; Silverblatt, 1995); film theory (e.g. Metz, 1974; Monaco, 2000 ); moving image literacy (e.g. Burn & Parker, 2003) and, visual literacy (e.g. Kress & vanLeeuwen, 2006; Messaris, 1994) have documented a variety of conventions used in design. In order to explain processes involved in multimedia design Kress and van Lee uwen (2001) outlined a theory of communication for the age of interactive multimedia. Beginning with the concept of design' they discussed an approach to social discourse where color and font can play roles equal to that of language. They outlined a multi modal theory of communication that concentrates on both resources and practices. First they focused on the semiotic resources of communication, the modes and media used" (p. 111). Second, they considered the "communicative practices in which these resourc es are used" (p. 111). The key point is that meaning is made "not only with a multiplicity of semiotic resources, in a multiplicity of modes and media but also at different places' within each of these" (p. 111). In summary, Kress and van Leeuwen (2001) h ave proposed a social semiotic model of multimodal design that involves a variety of semiotic modes of communication (visual design, language, music, moving image, text on screen) integrated into a product (in this case digital video). Ideas travel through a scheme of "four strata" of


13 development: discourse (planning talk about meaning making), design (choice of mode: oral, writing, visual, moving image, text), production (choice of medium pen, audio recording, video), and distribution (audience -magazine, TV, movie). Although design has become a model for examination of multimedia processes in digital video (Burn & Parker, 2003), other researchers in digital video have examined composition through lenses of written composition and/or film production. Recen tly, Bruce (2008a) discussed the creation of media texts as composition rather than production, "production the word most associated with writing with media has connotations of a factory line, a conveyer belt of piece by piece assemblageit follows that st udents need only to follow a series of sequential steps to create their intended project" (p. 15). Critiquing this construct, Bruce recommended composition as a more appropriate term, noting, "even though this term [composition] is more often associated wi th print literacy, composition speaks broadly to authoring, no matter what the final product takes" (p. 15). Although Bruce recommended using the term composition associated with print literacy he also noted that the "difference s between print and video co mposition are profound" (2009a, p. 427). First, he explained the use of a visual modality for meaning making. In film, Bruce noted, meaning is depicted mostly through image; whereas, in printed text, individuals rely on symbolic representation (Danesi, 199 4). Bruce further noted that although visuals are the primary form of representation in film, audio and textual cues could also be important. Bruce noted that Miller and Borowicz (2007) called digital video a "supertool" for both developing and expressing understanding. Another difference, Bruce noted between text and film composition is task setting. Whereas researchers (i.e. Flower, 1989) have discussed the importance of social contexts for making


14 meaning, much research on print composition is with writer s performing individual tasks rather than writing within collaborative contexts (Dyson & Warshauer Freedman, 2003). In fact, Bruce noted (2009a) not much research in collaborative writing has been peformed with school age children. In contrast, Bruce noted much video composition work has been taught in collaborative contexts (Goodman, 2003; Miller, 2008; Tyner, 1998). However, the "collaborative" effects have not often been the focus of the video situated studies (Bruce, 2009a). Another contrast between co mposition theories in digital video and print, which relates to this study, is the difference in the way studies have presented composition models. In print composition, researchers have noted that writing is not linear, but rather involves a recursive act where the writer assumes different roles, such as, writer, reader, revisor, editor (Emig, 1971; Graves, 1975; Hayes & Flower, 1980). For example, Flower and Hayes (1981) created the Cognitive Process Model of Writing, which accounts for the stages the wri ting process, while also allowing for the reiterative nature of composition. Dyson and Warshauer Freedman (2003) noted that the process studies of stages (prewriting, drafting, editing, revising, etc.) should be taken as a vocabulary, rather than structure to discuss writing. Furthermore, Hillocks (1986) stated, "stages are not discrete" because "they are frequently interrupted by other processes" (p. 28). In contrast, Bruce (2009a) noted, while some researchers have described differentiated processes as isolated stages, others have acknowledged the recursive nature of the activities. For example, Goodman (2003) acknowledged that the stages he found were not necessarily fixed linear stages; rather, he elaborated on the iterative nature of the students' wor k within and across stages. Further Bruce (2009a) noted that some


15 researchers (Kajder, 2006; Robin, 2008; Ware, 2006) have noticed an interaction between the print and video processes. For example, Kajder (2006) combined discourse from literacy (prewritin g, storycircle, revising) with discourse from film (storyboarding), research (artifact search), and drama (script) Some studies used the stages of video production ( Northern Film & Media n.d.) of development, pre production, production, and post producti on to conceptualize activities, rather than segment them into specific tasks (Welsh, Kozdras, Schneider, & King, 2009). Welsh, et al. (2009) found a connection between the 6+1 Traits writing model, based on the work of Diedrich (1974) T he 6+1 traits model was developed to create a common language for teachers to use while assessing student writing (e.g. ideas, organization, voice, word choice, sentence fluency, conventions, and presentation). As Welsh et al. noted "although the application of writing trait s to the scriptwriting processes within moviemaking may seem seductively obvious" they also found that the 6+1 Traits model "more productively maps onto the whole of the digital video production, when that production is understood as the composition of a m edia text" (p. 189). Furthermore, Welsh et al. found that the composition did not end with the script; rather, these traits occurred as a recursive process throughout the phases of video production. For example, while some ideas occurred during the plannin g and scriptwriting, others occurred during filming, and still others occurred while developing creative solutions to meaning making problems that emerged during developing (i.e. transitions needed for scene changes, text on screen for more understanding, voice overs for actions that don't seem to speak for themselves). Recently Bruce (2009a) noted the need to document "not only the larger sequences of how students compose but also how those stages interact as well" (p. 430). In a teacher


16 researcher study using ethnographic methods, Bruce described common video composition processes across the three groups and, through the overlap, created a model of video composition. This model focused on visual processes, including: visual conceptualization (of product a s planning), visual production as camerawork, and visual production as editing. Bruce described video composition as "a complex, recursive process that allows for sequential multimodal representation of thoughts and ideas" (p. 443). However, as Bruce noted his particular study was "not an attempt to create a defining video composition model transferable to all situations and scenarios" (p. 446). While Bruce's model was more inclusive of the multiple processes of digital video than previous models, it focu sed on the visual and was not entirely transferable to contexts such as a filmmaking camp the locus of the current study where the processes include instruction in story structure, scriptwriting, screen, filming, acting, digital editing. For this study, I was more interested in the multiple modalities of literacies engaged in the processes and the interactions during creative collaboration. For this more inclusive look, I turned to the NLG's (1996) perspective on viewing multiliteracies through Design. With in the principles of Design, the NLG discussed three distinct, yet interwoven, principles: Available Designs, Designing, and the Re designed. Available Designs refer to the availability of spaces, equipment, modalities, and human expertise. These are the p rerequisites, requirements, and available resources for composition. Designing most closely represents the composition processes noted above; these are the actual processes of creating the multimedia product. Finally, the Re designed refers to how the reso urces came together through Designing and became a product. Design is a more inclusive theoretical lens through which to view the complexity of composition. In order to investigate Design,


17 I studied the Available Designs of the community through a lens of Discourse (Gee, 1996). New Literacies Studies: Literacy Practices in Discourse Spaces According to Heath (1982) a literacy event is "any occasion in which a piece of writing is integral to the nature of participants' interactions and their interpretative p rocesses" (p. 93). Since that time, it is safe to consider that explicit acts of written alphabetic texts are not necessary to qualify an event as literate. Literacy events have also been considered as elements in "literacy practices" (Street, 1984), which take place in "communities of practice" (Lave & Wenger, 1991). In fact Barton and Hamilton (2000) stated that literacy is a social practice" in that within a given culture "there are different literacies associated with different domains of life" (p. 11) Barton and Hamilton noted that these real practices in everyday life contribute to an idea that "people participate in distinct discourse communities, in different domains of life" (p. 11). "Domains" (Barton & Hamilton, 2000) are situated contexts where particular literacies are used and learned; in other words, these are "situated learning" (Barton & Hamilton, 1998) spaces. Barton (1991) noted that situated literacies include real life discourses associated with activities within particular cultures that use a variety of media and symbol systems. Within these domains, there are specific patterns of practices and ways in which people act within these contexts or Discourse communities (Gee, 1996). Gee (1996) defined discourse as "ways of behaving, intereac ting, valuing, thinking believing, speaking, and often reading and writing that are accepted instantiations of particular roles (or types of people') by specific groups of people (p. viii). Gee further noted that discourses are, "always and everywhere soc ial and products of social histories" (ibid, p. viii). For Gee, there are two major forms of discourse. First of all, there is an


18 individual's primary Discourse, which is the manner in which the individual communicates regularly at home and in their commun ity. Second, there are Discourses that emerge within public spheres; these discourses are often tied to affinity groups. Discourses are ways in which individuals engage in social practices that are "distinctive" and "repeatable" (Gee, 2007). Therefore, wh en people practice a specific socially situated identity in a specific cultural practice, they learn cultural models, or Discourses. These "models" include more than just discourse, as words or language. Rather, Discourses (distinguished with a big D') en compass cultural ways of using words, actions, objects, tools, and spaces to enact an identity (Gee, 1996; 2007). Furthermore, Gee (2004) noted that Discourse communities "start with spaces' and not groups" (Gee, 2004, p. 78). Therefore, in a filmmaking e ndeavor, one could think of the creation of the learning environment as an "affinity space" within which to investigate "Available Designs" for multiliteracy composition. Gee, furthermore, cautioned against the assumption of a "community" because within a space, there are different sorts of people who have different motives. Different people use the space in terms of "what they do there and what they get from that space" (2004, p. 78). Gee further explained, that if researchers talk about spaces rather tha n communities, it is possible to examine how the individuals, or a subgroup of them, do or do not form a community. Thus, interactions become an important component in the humans engaged in Designing. Summary: From Social Semiotics to Performance As previo usly explained, much of the past research in multimodality has been envisioned through a lens of social semiotics and sociolinguistics. While these theories have provided useful lenses through which to view multiliteracy processes and products,


19 they often do not address the how or the effects of interactions of individuals within creative collaborative composition activities. Recently, within literacy studies, researchers have begun to look at "performance." In fact Leander and Wells Rowe (2006) proposed a definition of student live performances during presentations, noting their multimediated nature, "even a cursory review of some of the complexities of student presenations reveals that they are composed of diverse types of texts, objects, and bodies and t hat power and meaning within them are stretched across diverse media, performers, and audience members" (p. 428). They stressed the importance of these performance texts, based not only on identity practices, but also for "important cues for understanding the kinds of textual interpretations students are making, the kinds of texts they are producing, and the links between student identities and engagement with literacy" (p. 431). Leander and Wells Rowe noted that although the literacy field has developed wa ys to represent relationships between multimodal texts and bodies (Scollon & Scollon, 2003) and has built from theories that realize understanding of social interaction as dialogic (i.e. Bahktin, 1981), the literacy field has not defined literacy performan ces. They explained this difficulty in terms of the current, popular methods of representation: "at best, our methods of transcription freeze continuous streams of action as moments in time and space. As a result, they seem more fixed and more structured than the lived through experience of participants would suggest" (p. 431). They note that although representational analyses assist researchers, they also think that there is a necessity to recognize a "break" in the frame (Goffman, 1974). Leander and Well s Rowe used rhizomatic analysis (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987) to map literacy performances as events. While Leander and Wells Rowe completed what I regard as a ground breaking


20 study, I would like to take notion of literacy performances further. That is, whil e Leander and Wells Rowe envisioned literacy performances in the manner in which drama would consider something "is" performance, I decided to use a Goffman inspired (1959) view that sees everyday life "as" performance (Schechner, 2006). Schechner distingu ished between "is" and "as" performance in that "there are limits to what is' performancebut just about anything can be studied as' performance" (p. 38). In fact, in this study, I employed Goffman (1959) as a starting point for performance theory, in h is seminal work where he views levels of performance as the performance of self in everyday life. In order to study performance, I employed some of Goffman's concepts, such as frames, teams, and staging. I provide an overview of these concepts in Chapter T wo. Goffman (1959) cited Aristotle in proclaiming, "All the world is a stage." He did not mean to imply, however, that performance was mimicry. Bell (2008) provided an excellent overview of three lenses of performance, which extend beyond mimicry: mimesis poesis, and kinesis. Bell discussed an initial level of performance as mimesis, as defined by Aristotle in Poetics in that "the purpose of staged drama is to imitate the action of life" (p. 12). Therefore, mimesis, as imitation could be associated wit h "faking" even though the audience can experience real feelings. Bell further elaborated on the next level of performance as poesis Citing Turner (1982, p. 93) she described a lens of performance as "making not faking" in that the rich performances that hold the culture together, also make the culture. Reconnecting with texts, Bauman and Briggs (1990) used a poetic lens to study performance as a shift "away from the study of formal patterning and symbolic content of texts to the emergence of verbal art in the social interaction between performers and audiences" (p. 60).


21 Furthermore, Bauman and Briggs noted that a performance based study prompts researchers to "stress the cultural organization of communicative processes" (p. 61). In addition to the cultura l organization, performance as kinesis, stresses a "movement, motion, fluidity, fluctuation" (Conquergood, 1995, p. 138). Bell noted that whereas Turner described performance as poesis as "cultural invention," Conquergood's lens of kinesis turns cultural i nvention to intervention In fact, Bauman and Briggs (1990) notion of poesis and performance involve both cultural invention and intervention in that they embody an "agent centered view of performance" (p. 69). From a performance theory perspective, Bauma n and Briggs recommend a shift from a study of texts in isolation to the analysis of the "emergence of texts in contexts" (p. 66). Considering emergence entails a shift from thinking of context as objective to a notion of contextualization: "communicative contexts are not dictated by the social and physical environment but emerge in negotiations between participants in social interactions" (p. 68). In the current study, I considered Bauman and Briggs (1990) concept of an "agent centered view of performance particularly important because I was interested in how individual students working within collaborative groups were able to influence the filmmaking compositon processes. An agentive perspective, based on performance theory, goes beyond the now familiar semiotics or meaning of the texts and the language used to compose those texts. Rather, through performance theory, I hoped to capture how performances of everyday life influenced the compositon of texts in context. Inquiry of Design Through Performance Le ns As a participant researcher in reel literacies, I realize there are many complex


22 traditional literacies and literary elements embedded in digital videos created by students. Adolescents bring a variety of literacies with them into a situation as funds o f knowledge. Many times these manifest as literacy practices, which have used successfully in authentic out of school contexts. Additionally, there are a variety of reel literacy engagements (digital, visual, media, filmic) with which they engage while doi ng digital media literacy. Collaborative digital video composition is a complex process. Envisioned through a lens of Design, as informed by the NLG (1996) and deconstructed through a performance theory perspective, I hoped to uncover the Available Design s as what multiliteracies were used in the filmmaking camp. Furthermore, I was interested in investigating Designing processes as creative collaboration and how multiliteracies influenced the composition processes and Re designed products. Ultimately, I st rived to uncover how students engaged in creative collaboration and used influential literacy performances in order to influence the emergence of texts in context (Bauman & Briggs, 1990). Qualitative Research Questions 1. What are the Available Designs in the filmmaking Discourse community? 2. How does creative collaboration emerge within a filmmaking team during Designing? How do individuals perform literacies to influence the text during Designing? 3. When examining the Redesigned as processes over time, how did influential literacy performances inform and transform the text throughout composition? Significance of the Study Despite the cultural proliferation of multimedia and screenagers' self production and distribution of multimedia "texts" on the Internet, ed ucators continue to rely on traditional textual and language competencies. Indeed, teachers may not even realize their


23 students' competence with digital media literacies or would not know what compentency in the creation of a multimedia digital video even involved. However, before educators can implement changes in curriculum, they need to know what to change. While the schools stand guard, holding what were once the keys to the kingdom, the pillars of the arborescent society (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987) have been permeated and/or made less significant by creative endeavors from outside academia. Within the participatory culture enabled through the Internet, children are running past, learning, networking, and creating their own Re designs (see Figure 1.1). A nd indeed, what students need to know may well exceed traditional reading and writing literacies; Hitchcock may be as important as Hemingway. In order to grasp this "language" of composition, one must learn to read (consume) and write (produce) with the fi lmic and cinematic elements of the moving image, just as one learns to read and write with the literary elements of traditional texts. It may take both Hitchcock and Hemingway to create a literate space. In this study, I hope to provide some insight into s tudents' interactions during collaborative Designing and the ways in which they perform with multiple literacies to influence both the processes and products through creative collaboration. Definition of Terms As' performance vs Is' performance: Schechn er (2006) defined "is" performance to be situations that are traditionally considered to be performance (i.e. plays and performances for stage and/or film). Goffman (1959) called these "contrived" performances, in that they are theatrical, more of a formul ated, planned, and predetermined act. As Schechner noted, "there are limits to what is' performance" (p. 38). In contrast,


24 Schechner noted "just about anything can be studied as' performance" (p. 38). From a Goffman pserspective, these are "reality" perf ormances or the "legitimate performances of everyday life" (p. 73). Cinematic elements: Metz (1974) designated specific elements of film practices (i.e. shots, angles, lighting) as cinematic. Contextualization: Bauman and Briggs (1990) stated: "communicat ive contexts are not dictated by the social and physical environment but emerge in negotiations between participants in social interactions" (p. 68). Therefore, contextualuzation includes not just the context, but the making of the context in a continous t ransformative process. Decontextualization: Bauman and Briggs (1990) define decontextualization as taking texts out of their original contexts. Through decontextualization one is able to establish how once a text is entextualized into a unit and decontextu alized out of the immediate act or social context. Digital media literacy: Digital media literacy combines the multimodal properties of media literacy with the technological capabilities of digital literacy. In order to be digital media literate, one must be able to critically consume and creatively produce multimedia "texts" using digital technologies. Digital video: In this study, I consider digital videos to be those projects created with the use of a digital video camera and edited with some form of no n linear multimedia editing tool (i.e. iMovie, MovieMaker, Adobe Premiere, PowerPoint). Discourse: Gee (1996) defined discourse as "ways of behaving, intereacting, valuing, thinking believing, speaking, and often reading and writing that are accepted insta ntiations of particular roles (or types of people') by specific groups of people (p. viii).


25 For Gee, there are two major forms of discourse: an individual's primary Discourse, manner in which the individual communicates regularly; and secondary Discourses that emerge within public spheres and are tied to affinity groups. Dramatic realization: Goffman noted that in dramatizing one's work, an individual must convey the skills essential for the task at hand through the production of significant activity. Fil mic elements: In describing the language of film Metz (1974) called filmic elements (i.e. movements, rhythms, costumes, gestures, speech, music), which include both pre filmic found' ideas filmmakers appropriate into their movies to signify elements of cu lture as well as pro filmic (Burn & Parker, 2003) resources, "multimodal assemblies" created post filming to add meaning. Impression Management: Impression management is a term Goffman (1959) used to encompass the expressions an individual gives (either ve rbally or through other performative representations) and the expression given off (how the "audience" reacts to those expressions). Interactions: Goffman (1959) defined interactions as "the reciprocoal influence of individuals upon one another's actions when in one another's immediate physical presence" (p. 15). Furthermore, he stated "An interaction may be defined as all the interaction which occurs throughout any one occasion when a given set of individuals are in one another's continuous presence; the term "an encounter" would do as well" (p. 15) Kineikonic Mode: Burn and Parker combined cinematic' and filmic' elements into what they called the kineikonic mode the mode of the moving image (Burn & Parker, 2003).


26 Lines of Flight: Lines of flight are ti mes when a rhizome (trajectory of intent) is shattered and lines of territorialization are broken and the rhizome starts up on an old line or a new line ( Dimitriatis and Kamberelis, 2006) Lines of Articulation or Territorialization: In terms of rhizomati c analysis, lines of territorialization are times when ideas flow into an organized territorialized space ( Dimitriatis and Kamberelis, 2006) Media Literacy: Burn and Durran (2007) recommend that evolving definitions of media literacy should include not o nly the critical analysis of media products, but also the creative function (especially in composition), as well as the cultural (including popular culture) contexts with which students engage. Moving Image literacy: Burn and Leach (2004) defined moving image literacy as a subset of media literacy that specifically involves the moving image. New literacies: New Literacies studies recommends viewing literacy through a situated socio cultural lens. My theoretical perspective is that literacies are always si tuated as communication tools used in social situations and reflecting cultural contexts. Performance: Goffman (1959) defined a performance as "all the activity of a given participant on a given occasion which serves to influence in any way any of the othe r participants" (p. 15). Position: Goffman noted that the routine or "position" an individual takes is most essential for impression management. This signifies something "special" about the individual. An individual could maintain a position, fall out of role, or shift positions or frames. Real Literacy: Using the term real literacy, I wish to capture literacy practices with


27 which individuals engage in real world contexts. I use the term real literacies to describe the out of school literacies with childre n engage as they perform authentic literacy tasks. Bringing the outside ( real literacies) in involves a wide variety of multimodal literacies ( reel literacies) including to a large degree media literacies. Recontextualization: Bauman and Briggs (1990) note that once a text is decontextualized, this text becomes recontextualized within another frame. The strength of this process is that it enables a researcher to "determine what the recontextualized text brings with it from its earlier context(s) and what em ergent form, function, and meaning it is given as it is recentered" (p. 75). Reel Literacy: Reel literacy (Bailey, 2007), in this study refers to moving image literacies as well as well as other more traditional literacies involved in the creation of a dig ital video. Reterritorialization: Reterritorialization occurs when a line of flight rhizome starts up either on the old line or the new line of organized, territorialized space. Rhizomatics: Rhizomatics or rhizomatic analysis is an analysis methodology us ed for spatializing literacy performances, which is based on theories of Deleuze and Guattari (1987). Traditional literacies: Forms of literacy reading and writing that are traditionally valued in a school setting. Delimitations of the Study The generali zability of the results will be limited to the subject sample ( 8 18 year old students situated within a nested environment Movie Camp ). These students


28 generally come from middle to upper middle class families who can and/or are willing to invest the cost ( $150.00) and time commitment (five half days plus one full Saturday morning festival showing). From past experience, I have noticed that the parents were generally very engaged with their children. This is perhaps not a reflection of the general population Another delimitation is the use of iMovie and iStopMotion as editing/authoring tools. If this study were to be completed using other software with fewer features (such as Windows Movie Maker) or with more complex features (Adobe Premiere, Final Cut Pro) there would be differences in the editing processes. Organization of Remaining Chapters In the remaining chapters, I present information relevant to this research. In Chapter Two, I present a review of literature relevant to studying the literacies in act ion in a digital video filmmaking space. Then in Chapter Three, I detail the methodology I will use in this study, including a discussion of the participants, ethical considerations, instruments, procedures, research design, and analysis of data. In Chapte r Four, I consider the results of my data analysis in terms of a Design model of literacies in action, including: Available Designs, Designing, and the Re designed. Finally, I discuss how literacies in action served as influential during the composition pr ocesses (designing) and the emergence of products (re designed).


29 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATUR E Introduction In this chapter I provide a review of the literature that was influential in my investigation of literacies in action (Brandt & Cl inton, 2002), which I conceptualized through the lens of Design (NLG, 1996). The structure of this chapter follows the structure that was initiated in Chapter One. First, I provide an overview of multiliteracies studies as they have moved from consumption of meaning to production of message. Second, I narrow the focus to multiliteracies as they are used in digital video production. Third, following Bruce's (2008a) recommendation, I envision digital video through a lens of composition theories and the NLG's (1996) concept of Design. Fourth, I introduce performance theory as a productive lens through which to envision multiliteracies Design. Multiliteracies Research: From Consumption to Production Through a New Literacies Studies (NLG, 1996) perspective, texts are increasingly defined in terms of multiliteracies. The International Reading Association (2009) has previously called for research investigating skills and strategies necessary to interact with multiliteracies. Although the researchers in the field of new literacies have been actively involved in multimedia literacy, most of these studies have focused on the analysis of the consumption of media/multimedia texts. The emergence of child from amateur to auteur (Jenkins, 2006a; 2006b) has become a reality. That is, we currently witness children


30 expertly using technology to create sophisticated professional looking multimedia products. Yet, little research has addressed the processes of this work. Hobbs (2006) has synthesized the past research on media litera cy. True to the predominant pattern, three studies cited by Hobbs have examined the consumption of multimedia literacies in schools (Neuman, 1991; Norris, Sullivan, Poirot, & Soloway, 2003). Similarly, others have reported on critical media studies with s mall numbers of students (Alvermann, Moon, & Hagood, 2001; Anderson, 1983). These studies focused on critical media literacies as the analysis of products that were created by professionals. Recently, researchers (e.g. Bruce, 2008a; 2009a; Callow, 2003; Go odman, 2003; Kajder, 2006) have investigated the use of media techniques with students in their creation of multimedia productions. More specifically, researchers have used digital storytelling or video ( Bruce, 2008a; 2009a; Goodman, 2003; Kajder, 2006) as a medium to study multiliteracies in production. Focus on Multiliteracies in Digital Video Recently, researchers (Bruce, 2008a; Miller, 2008; Miller & Borowicz, 2007) recommended the use of digital video for investigating multimodal literacies. Bruce (20 08a) stated, "As multimedia becomes more prominent in our culture and schools, it offers the opportunitiy for challenging and expanding traditional concepts of literacy. This is true not only in reading media texts but also in writing them" (p. 13). Miller (2008) called digital video the "quintessential multimodal literacy" (p. 442). Film has long been known as a medium that is "omnivorous" in that it "swallows" multiple modes and "it is able to assimilate the most diverse materials and turn them into eleme nts of its own" (Langer, 1953, p. 412). Bruce (2008a) noted that video "encompasses numerous modalities" including: oral language, performance, audio, text, still images, moving


31 images, graphics, visual effects, and transitions. Furthermore, video is "the dominant medium with which all students are familiar, particularly in forms of TV and movies" (Bruce, 2008a). Through digital video creation, teachers and students can engage in familiar tasks within genres that are engaging for adolescent learners (Miller & Borowicz, 2007). In a recent review of literature on adolescent digital video composition, Bruce (2009a) noted that researchers (c.f. Bruce, 2008b; Goodman, 2003; Kajder, 2006; Miller, 2008; Ware, 2006) illustrated that "students demonstrated remarkabl e incliniation for working with video" (p. 427). Furthermore, he noted that a possible explanation for this high interest could be the context. Whether research was conducted in or out of school, Bruce (2009a) noted that the manner in which individuals tau ght video composition had many commonalities. Some aspects involved students, such as: the ability to use out of school literacy expertise, choice in topic, and an audience outside of the composition context. Furthermore, most students worked in collaborat ive groups and had time to experiment with equipment. Other aspects involved the instructors, who often worked as facilitators. In other words, they were "guides on the side" rather than "sages on the stage." Schuck and Kearney (2004) has previously discu ssed the importance of the process of digital video for developing digital media literacies. Citing Meeks and Illyasova (2003), Shuck and Kearney noted digital video requires intergrating multiple modes of communication, multiliteracies, and the language n eeded to communicate about film, music, and images. Similarly, Lauricella (2006) discussed students' use of a variety of media content (textbooks, newspapers, Internet, music, images) in order to create


32 presentations of historical accounts from a critical perspective. In addition to the use of powerful images and music, these students used a variety of genres, such as movie trailers and political commercials, to re interpret historical events from alternate perspectives. Additionally, Shewbridge and Berge ( 2004) found through creating these media, students also developed critical viewing skills. Likewise, Yildiz (2003) found that individuals learned to be critical consumers of media through their production of digital videos. In addition to digital media li teracies, many studies emphasized the importance of traditional text literacies used within digital video production. In fact, most of the digital video/storytelling studies detailed at least scriptwriting and/or storyboarding as part of the process. In fa ct, some researchers described how writing was an essential step of the process of composition of digital videos (Banaszewski, 2002, 2005; Goodman, 2003). In addition to scriptwriting, some projects required media diaries (Pombo & Bruce, 2007) or involved cue card writing (King, Schneider, Kozdras, Minick, & Welsh, 2007). While some projects required reading of traditional texts, such as Antigone (Winters, Rogers, & Schofield, 2006) others involved researching historical documents (i.e., Lauricella, 2006; L evin, 2003; King, Schneider, et al., 2009). In all, it is safe to suggest that much traditional writing and reading is embedded in digital video production. But does it have any impact? Some researchers claimed students' digital video projects enhanced tra ditional written communication skills (i.e. Banaszewski, 2002; Reid, Parker, & Burn, 2002). In a digital storytelling project with fourth and fifth graders Banaszewski (2002) noted students found voice, confidence, and structure in their writing as a resul t of using a


33 multimedia approach to composing. All of these are amenable to traditional writing. In this project, students selected topics with which they made a meaningful personal connection. They wrote about important places, and added visual dimensions Banaszewski described the importance of traditional literacies in the composition processes. S tudents created outlines and "hooks" for readers. The teacher used prompts, encouraging students to ask questions. Students engaged in revising and editing each other's stories as they added digital dimensions, such as sound and graphics. The study did not show, however, direct transfer of voice, confidence, and organizational competence to traditional writing. Therefore the question of the relationship between d igital and traditional composing remains open. Oral language was also an important skill in digital video production as indicated by past research. Ware (2006) discussed the importance of oral language and audio in the composition processes of digital vide o production. Kist (2005) noted that children children found there were things they could say with non print media (visual and aural) that they couldn't say with print. The students found the limitations of print were sometimes ameliorated through alterna tive media as it helped them more thoroughly express emotions in their productions. Students expressed emotional content through the addition of visual and audio modalities. In addition to oral language during the process and in the videos, researchers ha ve also found metalanguage or talk about the digital media literacy process/choices as significant in the recursive process of multimodal composition; a factor supported also by research by Reid, et al. (2002). In an evaluation report of the BECTA (British Educational Communications and Technology Agency) that studied 50 schools across the


34 UK in order to collect evidence on the use of digital video and student engagement and behaviors, Reid, et al found that student use of appropriate film language resulted in increased learning about content and higher quality products. While oral language, traditional literacies, and media literacies were important in digital video production, it was the combination of these multiliteracies that created powerful learning. Goodman (2003) reported multimediating strategies being de ployed by students at the Educational Video Center (EVC) a documentary workshop conducted in order to use media education to help urban teenagers develop literacy and critical thinking skills. Durin g the workshops, students were taught to critically analyze information from a variety of sources (i.e. television, newspapers, books, films, church, school, and real lives) and remix texts through a variety of semiotic processes. In the program, students learned how to examine, pull apart, and reconnect semiotic elements of stories using digital tools. Although students struggled with new skills and ideas, Goodman noted that the process yielded powerful results; students grew both intellectually and emotio nally. Students used judgment about materials to make personal connections as they networked with others. As a result, Goodman noted that the students became more self reflective about their learning, and envisioned themselves as more capable learners. In summary, past studies have illustrated the opportunities for multiliteracy practices in digital video projects. From oral language to traditional literacies to digital media literacies, students enacted a variety of practices, which enabled opportunities f or agency, as illustrated in the next section.


35 Multiliteracies Provide Opportunties for Agency As illustrated above, multiple modalities offered opportunities for students to be successful, both in and out of school. Because multiple modalities and multl iteracies offer multiple opportunities, students have a variety of ways to exhibit agentive performances as contributors in digital video production processes. In fact, Reid, Parker, and Burn (2002) found students who were less able to write found alterna tive avenues of expression through digital video. Kajder and Swenson (2004) also discussed how digital storytelling could be helpful for students who are may struggle with writing. Kajder and Swenson described a digital storytelling project with middle sch ool language arts students, which involved the creation of personal narrative coupled with still pictures. Students gained a greater understanding of being a writer and exhibited motivation to read for a purpose in order to create digital storytelling as t hey discussed their texts. In another study, Kajder (2004) reported on adaptation of techniques developed at the Center for Digital Storytelling ( ) to use in English classrooms with middle and high school students. In the project students created short, digital personal narratives as response to questions. Then, they shared their own stories and balanced them against authors with strong autobiographies such as Frank McCourt, Gary Soto, and Alice Walker. During the presentation ph ase, students discussed some of the stories created. For example, one student explored her identity and relationship with mother in her video. Other students shared family stories or books from their childhood. Kajder (2004) noted the strength of digital storytelling in that, "language is a way of sorting out one's thoughts about things, and story paired with digital images provided


36 an entrance into writing for those students who wrestled with putting the right words together to communicate exactly what th ey wanted to express" (p. 21). Formerly unmotivated students "dove into the book cases" and "read actively in the library after school" (p. 21). Through the analysis of these digital storytelling experiences, Kajder found "effective teaching practices pair ed with powerful technologies provide student readers and writers with unique experiences to transform their understanding of events, printed texts, words, and images" (p. 21). Digital storytelling is a literacy process that helps students make meaning wi th variety of texts, and use multiple literacies in ways that relate to their lives. Throughout the process, oral language significantly effects both the telling of stories, the planning and collaborative process, and the presentation (as children describe their texts). This can be especially important for helping struggling readers and writers. Maier and Fisher (2007) researched digital video as a tool to enable "low reading and writing level learners to explore role playing and real decision making scener ios in social, personal, and health education for middle school students in marginalized communities" (p. 176). The researchers noted their decision to use digital video because it offered creativity for students as well as opportunities for decision makin g. The program, "Stealthy Choices," was created to deliver health information about underage drinking and provide opportunities for students to investigate choices. During the process, students watched a short video with three endings and later created alt ernate endings with tabletop digital video. The program supplied backgrounds, themes, and characters from original movies for students' appropriation into their own stories. Once students were familiar with the technology, they generated collaborative stor ies with conflicts and narrative threads that


37 followed through plotlines and resulted in final resolutions. Researchers noted the key factors for success were group dynamics, and making the pieces relevant to their own lives. They students were "having fun as they focused on task, engaged in quick exchanges, and compromised. Maier and Fisher stated another key factor was how well students connected to the use of video, the thought prompts, and the realistic and familiar places/situations. Researchers noted the connection to students' real world identities, experiences, people, and places helped trigger ideas for similar experiences and increased student voice, creativity, and productivity. Here, agency is connected with authentic or real literacy, a topic that is developed later in the chapter. Maier and Fisher (2007) found that digital video was an important new tool that can be used to engage and enhance multiple literacies by tapping into students' identity and agency needs. The teachers in the study al so noted transformations in the students; some former "floundering" students became more involved and initiated actions within the classroom. Another positive outcome that the teachers noted was that through digital video production, students developed a s ense of "agency and community" because they were in charge of their own learning. Other studies have investigated student agency in multiliteracies projects involving digital storytelling. Hull and Nelson (2005) and Hull and Katz (2006) reported on agenti ve performances of students involved with DUSTY (Digital Urban Storytelling for Youth project). In their experience with the project, Hull and Nelson found that multimodal digital texts "allow individuals those compositional means and rights that used to b e associated just with the world of mass media" (p. 11). As a culminating activity at DUSTY, participants and other audience members view the digital stories on


38 the big screen of a local theatre. This activity created an agentive identity transforming expe rience as it positions digital storytellers as "authors composers, and designers who are expert and powerful communicators, people with things to say that the community and world should hear" (p. 11). Hull and Katz (2006) reported on two specific individu als involved in the project: Randy Young, a young adult street artist and Dara, a 13 year old girl of Guatemalan and American heritage. In particular, they examined how the individuals constructed "agentive selves" through authoring multimedia, multimodal autobiographical narratives. Researchers noted that connections between Dara's social life and her sense of self as writer, illustrated how the multimodal composition processes helped individuals "embody more agentive stances toward themselves and their s ocial worlds" (p. 62). Hull and Katz concluded that although there are great challenges that accompany incorporating digital multimodality into classrooms there is also much to gain. Despite the fact that both Randy and Dara shared a dislike of school and negative writing experiences in that institution, they both claimed a love of writing (and wrote enthusiastically at DUSTY). The comfort of attending a program where "people actively encouraged them to speak their minds, genuinely wished to hear what they had to say, responded respectfully to their ideas, and treated them as knowledgeable members of their peer groups and communities" provided an atmosphere in which the participants learned technical and language/literacy skills (p. 70). Digital Video and Mu ltiliteracies: From What to How Most of these studies reported on the what: what multiple literacies were involved in digital video and what opportunities were afforded through multimodality. In this


39 study, while I was interested in the what, I was also in terested in how students use these multiliteracies and opportunities during creative collaborative digital video composition. In particular, I subscribe to Bruce's (2008a) analogy of digital video to composition, as follows. In writing, one creates underst anding through words. Alternatively, in digital video, one is able to make meaning through different modalities, and must choose the media that makes the best meaning. Often, multiple modalities are combined and the film "swallows everything" (Langer, 1953 ) into a "poetic presentation" that "accounts for its power to assimilate the most diverse materials and transform them into non pictorial elements" that "enthralls and commingles all senses" made by "visual meansby words, which punctuate vision, and musi c that supports the unity" (Langer, 1953, p. 414). In addition to this additive/recursive nature of the product of film, the composition processes are themselves recursive. During digital video composition, students continuously add modalities to improve meaning as they move through planning (characters, plot) scriptwriting (dialogue and actions), storyboarding (shots, angles, and setting), videotaping (performing, scripts, and storyboards), and digital editing (adding transitions, visual effects, music an d sound effects, text on screen, and voice overs for enhanced meaning). In the next section, I provide an overview of digital video as composition. Using Bruce (2008a; 2009a) as a point of reference, I investigate the past research in traditional composit ion studies as well as the link to digital video composition. Composition as Processes and Products in Design Bruce (2008a) suggested that print literacy studies in composition could provide valuable guidance to the evolving field of digital media literacy He cited Dyson and


40 Warshauer Freedman (2003), noting that writing research in the past two decades has drifted away from studying pieces of writing as products to studies of writing as "how to do it" processes. Emig (1971) was one of the first researcher s to writing as a process. In the study, The Composing Processes of Twelfth Graders Emig used case study methods, think aloud protocols, and qualitative interviews with students to understand writing as a process. Her results indicated that learned compos ition was recursive more than linear. In addition she considered students' interests and out of school writing as well as decision making processes. Composition as Stages or Processes In contrast to traditional conceptualizations of composition, Bruce (2 009a) discussed the past research on digital video, noting, "in examining models of how video is produced, descriptions are not as defined as they are with print" (p. 429). He noted that the stages of producing a video are often described in professional m edia terms of pre production, production, and post production (i.e. Goodman, 2003). However, other researchers have described stages that relate more closely to the writing process (Kajder, 2006). Bruce (2009a) stated that although researchers have describ ed stages of video production, they have also reported iterative aspects of processes during composition. For example, Goodman (2003) found that storytelling was nonlinear in that learning constantly interrupted the process of digital video creation. Yet o ther studies (Kajder, 2006; Ware, 2006) reported an intereaction between students' use of video and print based processes. In fact, Ranker (2008) noticed a "dialogic relationship" (p. 421) between the multi modalities involved in digital video. Furthermore Welsh et al. (2009) illustrated a reiterative process of digital video composition as viewed through a 6+1


41 Traits (Culhan, 2003) lens, where students braided multiliteracy tasks, based on creating meaning making for their video texts for an audience. In his critique of this past research, Bruce (2009a) noted that there was a need to more fully describe the interactions between video and print processes, as well as how the stages interact. In his visual model of digital video composition, Bruce stated that students usually began with visual conceptualization of how they thought their videos might look. Then, as they began the "physical work" to create videos, they shifted to visual production, which included camera work and editing. These two elements of vi sual conceptualization and visual production "were balanced on a fulcrum" (p. 438) of evaluation where students vacillated between considering their visual concept and their production work. Within visual conceptualization and production, Bruce also discu ssed multiliple literacies that were used in action during the process and concluded, "video composition is a complex, recursive process that allows for sequential multimodal representation of thoughts and ideas" (p. 443). This recursive nature of compos ition is common in the literature that deals with writing as a cognitive process. In composition, these decision making processes have been investigated through stage models have been used to illustrate writing processes. Writing stage models typically env ision the writing process as: prewriting, drafting, editing, and publishing. Stage models "model the growth of the written product" (Flower & Hayes, 1981, p. 367); however, these models are often mistakenly envisioned as the "inner processes of the person producing" (ibid.) the text. Furthermore, Hillocks (1986) suggested that even the stages should not be seen as "discrete" because "they are frequently interrupted by other processes" (p. 28). More recently, Hayes (1996) revised


42 this cognitive model to add the social (audience and collaborations) as well as physical (text and composing medium) as well as affective components (such as motivation) and how these interact with cognitive processes and working memory during the writing process. Therefore, as an an alogy for digital composition, stage models provide a temporal growth frame through which to view the processes of production. Composition as Socio cultural Practices Recently, writing research like literacy research in general shifted from a cognitive app roach to sociocultural theories (Prior, 2006). Prior (2006) conducted a literature review of a socio cultural theory of writing in which "activity is situated in concrete interactions that are simultaneously improvised locally and mediated by prefabricated historically provided tools and practices" (p. 55). Student writers are seen as apprentices; they are "socialized into literacy through participating in a kind of social dialogue" (Chapman, 1995). They learn from experiences (from social interaction) tha t they internalize (individual insight). Several areas of research have shaped this social turn in research since the mid 1980's, including those inspired by: Vygotskian activity theory (e.g. Wertsch, 1998), ethnographies of communication (e.g. Heath, 1983 ), Bakhtin ian influences (e.g. 1923/1981; 1986), and the New Literacy Studies (e.g., Gee 1996; The New London Group, 1996). From this sociocultural perspective there is a shift toward envisioning writing development as a practice where students learn writt en language through the internalization of social actions (Dyson, 1993). As children participate in social language, they are socialized into literacy (Chapman, 1995) in a "dialogic" process (Bakhtin, 1923/1981) where they appropriate the words of others. In this dialogic, genre inspired


43 process students transform these appropriated words into their own words with the help of the words of others. Chapman noted that far from a passive process, young writers are considered actors (Bloome & Egan Robertson, 199 3) who act and react and, as literacy apprentices (Rogoff, 1990; Vygotsky, 1935/1978) who appropriate cultural ways of using writing from those who are more experienced. Sociocultural theories have been used in ethnographies of communication, which provid e insights from anthropological methods to literacy. For example, Heath (1983) illustrated how children are socialized into ways of using oral and written language, which leads to different experiences and potentialities for success with language and liter acy in differing social contexts. In particular, Dyson (2003; 2008) discussed how children's participation with popular culture might influence writing. Dyson's (2003) interpretive case study of work with five African American first graders investigated wi der cultural symbols or "textual toys" (ie. folk and pop music, movies, TV children's rhymes, words of sports announcers, deejays and movie stars) the children used during the during writing. Dyson's work showed how children bring a rich culture to school. She traced their popular culture appropriations and traced how they used these cultural references as they remixed textual toys to accommodate school based writing tasks. For Dyson, the popular culture wisdom the children brought to school, along with the ir imaginative use of these wider cultural symbols, enriched their school learning. In fact, Dyson found that the material children brought in was "real" because it was "subjectto their own agency as they engage with others" and "amenable to the recontext ualization processes that are integral in learning to write" (Dyson, 2008, p. 468). Dyson further noted that this metaphor of "realness" is compatible with new literacy studies (Street,


44 1993) because it "emphasizes the contextualized nature of literacy use (Dyson, 2008, p. 468). While this past research in composition has shifted to a socio cultural perspective, recent studies in multimodal composition have also envisioned composition as a social practice (Newell, Rish, & Bloome, 2009). In order to study t he processes and products of creative collaboration during composition during a multimedia activity (digital filmmaking) I decided to employ Design (NLG, 1996) as a "meta definition" that "encompasses a broad spectrum of composition modes and describes the ir common processes" (Bruce, 2009a), which include Available Designs, Designing, Redesign" (NLG, 1996, p. 74). Therefore, in the next section, I examine composition through a lens of Design. Composition as Design While students are in the act of Designing students and teachers draw from Available Designs (in this case the social conventions and language of filmic and cinematic). The NLG stated "semiotic activity as a creative application and combination of conventions, that in the process of Design, trans forms at the same time it reproduces these conventions" (NLG. 1996, p. 74). As students use the conventions, combined with their own creative ideas, they don't just reproduce the conventions, but they re produce meaning (Redesign). In the following sectio ns, I provided an overview of the Design (NLG, 1996) concepts Available Designs, Designing, and Re designed as they relate to both traditional composition research and digital video production studies. Available Designs


45 The NLG (1996) defined Available De signs as "the resources for Design" that include the "grammars" of a variety of semiotic systems: "the grammars of languages, and the grammars of other semiotic systems such as film, photography, or gesture" (p. 74). Furthermore, these Available Designs in clude "orders of discourse" (Fairclough, 1995), which include: "the structured set of conventions associated with semiotic activity (including use of language) in a given social space a particular society, or a particular institution such as a school or a workplace, or more loosely structured spaces of ordinary life encapsulated in the notion of different lifeworlds" (NLG, 1996, p. 74). Furthermore, within orders of discourse, there are particular Available Designs that become conventions. These include dis courses, styles, genres, dialects, and voices. Therefore, in designing texts and interactions, people draw on different systems: "sociolinguistic practice" as well as "grammatical systems" (p. 74). Finally, Available Designs include the "linguistic and dis course history of those involved in Designing" (ibid) or "funds of knowledge" (Gonzˆlez, Moll, & Alverez, 2005) students bring into the space. When students design with multiple literacies, they use both the Available Designs in the space and the funds of knowledge (Gonzˆlez, Moll, & Amanti, 2005) they bring to the spaces. Therefore, they may appropriate "textual toys" (Dyson, 2003) into their creative compositions. In addition to the Available Designs brought in, it is also important for this particular study to discuss the moving image literacies (Burn & Parker, 2003) learned in a filmmaking Discourse community. This film language or "grammar", as previously discussed in Chapter 1, includes both filmic and cinematic elements as well as issues involved in combining elements into a moving image. Burn and Durran (2006) analyzed


46 units of work completed by Year 8 students (ages 12 13) in terms of how they engaged in moving image literacy, addressing film language on a microlevel, "the grammar of how shots are sequenced to make meanings" (p. 276). In essence, Burn and Durran defined this grammar based partly on the continuity system of film (see Bordwell & Thompson, 2001) modified to reflect the moving image as a signifying system or kineikonic mode (Burn & Park er, 2003) in which the moving image is viewed "as an assemblage of the different communicative modes" (i.e. music, action, shot level, speech, movement over time, designing social space). In the activity, which included editing Baz Luhrmann's Romeo and Jul iet the students analyzed one short sequence that occupied 13 seconds of film and 12 camera shots. First they watched the whole film. Then they were given the shots as still images on cards and were asked to put them in sequence. Then they were asked to a nalyze each shot in terms of its technical aspects and function in terms of conventions (i.e. reverse angle shots; clues in the eye lines of characters; continuity of action; point of view shots, juxtaposed with shots that identify the character looking; t he avoidance of jump cuts; and reaction shots). Then the students used Adobe Premiere software to edit the sequence into a longer sequence of the film (about 1 minute). While editing, the students had access to not only other shots from different parts of the film, but also the original music (romantic and tragic) with which to manipulate their sequence. Burn and Durran (2006) found that not only did the students' understanding of moving image grammar improve, they also made new meanings: "these might move beyond the strict conventions of the continuity system and use forms of juxtaposition between shots and between image and music more characteristic of the montage elaborated in particular by Eisenstein" (p. 279). Eisenstein was a pioneer of the use of


47 mont age as film editing as illuminated in his writings collected by the British Film Institute (Eisenstein, 1994). Eisensten believed that editing could be used for more than just illustrating a scene through a linking of related images. Rather, he felt a "col lision" of shots could add meaning and manipulate the audience. Multimodality theory (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001) also alludes to this collision or juxtaposition in that "the kineikonic mode combines a range of different signifying systems, the important on es here being music, visual drama sequences, and the affordances of editing shot structure, transitions, duration, pace, and rhythm" (Burn & Durran, 2006, p. 279). This combination process is significant in both Available Designs, and in Designing strategi es, which follow. Designing The NLG (1996) defined Designing as a process of "shaping emergent meaning" which involves "re presentation and recontextualization" (p. 74). Designing is "never simply a repetition of Available Designs" but, rather, involves t he "transformation of the available resources of meaning" (ibid). In fact, Designing will re produce and transform Available Designs depending on the social conditions or context. "Designing always involves the transformation of Available Designs; it alway s involves making new use of old materials" (ibid). In digital storytelling, Hull and Nelson (2005) similarly noted that multimodal composition isn't just an art where individuals add different modes together; rather, it becomes more of a gestalt where me aning is increased by the putting together and juxtaposition of modalities. Rather than simply being a hodge podge of ideas, Hull and Nelson discussed multimedia composition as a process of "braiding" (Mitchell, 2004) or


48 what Kress and vanLeeuwen (2001) ca ll "orchestration"in which "a multimodal text can create a different system of signification, one that transcends the collective contribution of its constituent parts" (Hull & Nelson, 2005, p. 2). Multimodal composition is not just a new way to make a new meaning (an original composition) but different kind of meaning. It is through both the Redesign (changes) and braiding/orchestration (selection, organization, and co nnection ) that the texts take on new meaning. In essence, it is a bricolage of texts in co ntext or the creation of a synthesis text (Spivey, 2007) Lvi Strauss (1962/1966) first used the word bricolage to describe the patterns of mythological thought. A bricoleur, says Lvi Strauss, is someone who uses the "means at hand", that is, the instr uments he finds at his disposition around him, those which are already there, which had not been especially conceived with an eye to the operation for which they are to be used and which one tries by trial and error to adapt them, not hesitating to change them whenever it appears necessary, or to try several of them at once, even if their form and their origin are heterogeneous (Derrida, 1978, p. 285). Adapting the notion of bricoleur to children's digital video compositions would then assume children bor row from the "means at hand", that is the instruments (i.e. video cameras, computers, video editing programs, location specific settings, available images and sounds) that are already around them. Although these means were not specifically created for the composition, children will use trial and error to adapt them or to try several at once. In the case of digital video composition, children may combine a variety of modalities, for example, to enhance meaning. Then they may edit out some of those


49 modalities to clarify meaning. When Designing, individuals "appropriate" material from available sources, or what has been called writing from sources (Spivey, 1997; Spivey & King, 1994). In fact, the NLG (1996) noted that design always involves some form of approp riation. Regarding the previous mention of texual toys, Dyson (2003) investigated processes of borrowing (appropriation) and redesigning that occurred as children appropriated words and genres and braided from popular culture and re appropriated them into new meanings. She stated: "They [children] are not joining a chorus of like voices but, rather, entering into dialogues with many other speakers, both present and long since gone" (p. 13). Over time writers or speakers (or actors) of a certain genre have enacted particular social situations in similar ways; thus, their utterances acquire certain features (ibid., p. 13) or what Bakhtin (1986) termed the "flavor of a given genre" which "knit together with specific points of view, specific approaches, forms o f thinking, nuances and accents characteristic of the given genre" (p. 289). Dyson (2003) described how young children naturally copy these flavors, "young children first borrow and revoice words as they learn to participate in the routine activities, or p ractices of their everyday lives" (p. 13) (i.e. dressing, eating, playing games such as peekaboo). In essence, children articulate possible selves through early storytelling and imaginative play. For example, they use particular voices or speaking genres ( Bakhtin, 1986) and weave these together as based on their own experiences and ideas. Similarly, children learn to combine social and cultural forms that they borrow from conversation and literature. Children use "familiar frames of reference" (familiar pra ctices) to make sense of new content, discursive forms, and symbolic tools. At the


50 same time "new frames or practices" allow them ways to view both new and old. Reframing textual material (from one media to another) social activities (playing with texts a nd playing during creation), and ideologies (values about how time is spent in school and home), sometimes exposes the seams that exist between real literacy processes at home and those traditional practices in school, which most often do not include media Dyson noted, however, these seams are not necessarily negative; they can become material for reflection on differences in usage. Through borrowing and revoicing from many areas, children learn about "symbolic, social and ideological options, limits and b lends" of practices (Miller & Goodnow, 1995, p. 12 as cited in Dyson). While students use literacies extracted from these practices in the processes of composition, or Designing, they also appropriate some of these textual toys into their products the Rede signed. Furthermore, through the processes of Designing, people transform their selves and their relationships with others. Through listening, speaking, reading, and writing, students transform resources they have received into the Redesigned. The Redesig ned The product of Designing is a "new meaning" (NLG, 1996, p. 76). The Redesigned may be "creative" or "reproductive" in relation to the materials and resources in Available Designs. However, it is neither fully reproductive, nor fully creative. Through n egotiations in text creation and reproduction, the designers both transform text and themselves. Through bricolage, using the processes at hand, the texts and contexts are transformed as well as the individuals involved in the composition processes. As Dy son (2003) showed, from a very early age, students are familiar with Available Designs in the forms of genre elements of texts and textual toys. In Dyson's


51 studies, children performed with textual toys and transmediated them into multimedia creations, whic h included text and illustrations. While in static one dimensional creations, students can use a combination of images and text to create meaning, in film students may use a variety of semiotic systems to create meaning. In film, in addition to text and im ages, moving images, shots, angles, lighting, framing, and music also play into the processes and the products of composition. It is in the braiding that these moments take on a new meaning; they mix with the youth culture, the other elements of the movie and the re mix of their actual form. Recall the previous discussion about the language of film (Burn & Parker, 2003) presented in Chapter 1. In the language of film, although certain cinematic elements (i.e. shots, angles, music, sound effects, frames, l ighting, transitions) have come to denote particular meaning (e.g., fuzzy dissolves that transition viewers to a dream sequence), even these meanings can change as different composers re appropriate signs/symbols with different connotations, and when diffe rent viewers re interpret the meanings and re mix elements in their own dialogic processes. In addition to cinematic elements, insiders also derive meaning through what Metz (1974) called filmic elements, which include both pre filmic found' ideas filmmak ers appropriate into their movies to signify elements of culture (textual toys, iconic characters) as well as pro filmic (Burn & Parker, 2003) resources, (i.e. movements, rhythms, costumes, gestures, speech, music) as "multimodal assemblies" created throug h moving image to represent/re present reality. Burn and Parker further noted a third important principle of multimodal combination is the question of functional load (which mode has a stronger impact on meaning) and how the modes impact each other. As pre viously stated, when modes come together, as in a


52 moving image, they exhibit functional relations, which include: complementary (modes complement each other), compensatory (create meaning with one mode to augment meaning in another), and opposition (modes provide a juxtaposition). The cinematic and filmic elements can function together with these relationships to create meanings. Sometimes these meanings can become so strong, they create iconic connections in viewers. As viewers watch films, they make ico nic intertextual connections with recognizable filmic and cinematic elements in the movies, as they recognize "intertextual frames" (Eco, 1986, p. 200). For example, they may recognize a specific extreme close up of frightened eyes combined with spooky mus ic as foreshadowing an attack. Likewise, they may hear a familiar phrase like "play it again," in a parody and know they have heard it before in another context (their brains make further connections as they transact between that text and their experiences with past texts). In Travels in Hypermodality, Eco further distinguished between intertextual frames and "magic" intertextual frames. By intertextual frames, Eco meant "stereotyped situations derived from preceding textual tradition and recorded by our en cyclopedia, such as, for example, the standard duel between the sheriff and the bad guy or the narrative situation in which the hero fights the villain and wins" (p. 200). Beyond these connections, Eco explained that audiences can recognize "magic" frames in that they "display a particular fascination" and are recognizable as "belonging to a sort of ancestral intertextual tradition" (p. 200). For example, in Casablanca one may recognize "Here's looking at you kid" or "Play it again [Sam]" (although many pe ople think "Sam" is part of the original text, the actual phrase is "play it again"). Thus these iconic meanings often are reappropriated even in their repeated form. Additionally, from the Star Wars screen, the back story streams down the


53 screen while the theme music plays. These instances, separated from the film and re appropriated into another context, bring with them not just a familiar meaning, but they are also so powerful they can be separated from a film and still maintain that magic iconic meaning of the whole original text; a meaning which is at least liminally brought into the new text. Cult movies are cult movies because they offer iconic moments. The selection of intertextual frames brings part of the ethos of the movie into the new movie. Eco termed these "magic" intertextual frames as "intertextual archetypes." (p. 200). By archetype, he does not mean to claim psychoanalytic or mythic connotations but implies "a pre established and frequently reappearing narrative situation, cited or in some way recycled by innumerable other texts and provoking in the addressee a sort of intense emotion accompanied by the vague feeling of a dŽjˆ vu that everybody yearns to see again" (p. 200). He further explained that these intertextual archetypes and interte xtual frames are not necessarily universal, but can belong to recent textual traditions. For example, in current popular culture, intertextual frames can include such iconic moments as the "photo shoot" or "eliminations" (that currently occur in a reality T.V. show genre), cult classic movie theme songs, and strong "magic" archetypical characters such as Darth Vader, Scarlett O'Hara, Hannah Montana, James Bond, and Indiana Jones. A cult movie provides these intertextual frames/archetypes that allow for the ir parsing into units that are suitable for quotation. Similarly, children's popular culture, television shows, comics, magazines, movies, and the Internet, provide intertextual frames/archetypes that are used strategically and at times unwittingly by cons umers Dyson (2003) found, for example, that even first grade children skillfully appropriated archetypes, which she called textual toys (cultural songs and jump rope rhymes, popular


54 music, TV, movies, words of professional announcers and deejays), into th eir writing. Dyson found the use of children's textual media toys as especially useful as units of study because they were easy to identify as coming from an out of school source. She explained, "I could follow the threads of these toys to their nonacademi c sources and at the same time track their academic fates as they children wound them into varied school defined practices (e.g., reporting what one has learned, narrating a true story or a fictional one, crafting a poem)" (p. 15 16). I also consider the u se of these textual media toys (which are more inclusive of a variety of media other than film) as parallel to Eco's (1986) use of intertextual frames/archetypes and accentuate their usefulness as a source for evaluation as following Dyson's insights in th at they were easily identifiable as coming from an out of school source. In the above sections, I have illustrated how the NLG (1996) concept of Design provides a metaphor for envisioning the complex processes involved in digital video composition. Ultima tely, the NLG describes Design as a social semiotic model. While I consider research through a social semiotic lens as essential for literacy studies, in this inquiry, I observed that there was something special about the performance of literacies that mad e them influential. In order to study Design from this new angle, I investigated performance theory. Exploring Design and Performance Knowledge As previously stated in Chapter One, while many past studies using the meta definition of Design have focused on language and semiotics, I was interested in studying the multiliteracies in action from a performance theory perspective. That is, what literacies were used (in action) and how did performances of these literacies influence the


55 processes and products of d igital video composition? Since the NLG (1996) proposed the metaphor of Design, there has been a proliferation of knowledge and information exchange through the increased use of the Internet (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003). In fact, Lankshear and Knobel go so far as to state that the status of knowledge has changed. Because of the abundance of informational texts available in the digital age, or information economy (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003), no one can know everything. What is essential in this information eco nomy is "performance knowledge", which Miller (2008) defined as "knowing how to find, gather, use communicate, and imagine new ways of envisioning assemblages of knowledge" (p. 442). This change from knowing facts, to "knowing as an ability of perform" (La nkshear & Knobel, 2003, p. 173) reflects a revisioning of knowing in an "attention economy" (Lanham, 2006) where, through social practices, individuals attempt to design or influence the use of literacies. These practices or performance of knowing "reflect a range of strategies for assembling, editing, processing, receiving, sending, and working on information and data to transform diverse resources of digitalia' into things that work'" (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003, p. 173). Lankshear and Knobel noted that expertise and competence are "developed in performance and not in absorbing content" (p. 176). In fact, they noted that knowledge performance is best learned "in contexts where people are enacting meaningful purposes within authentic and collaborative sett ings, where high quality performance exists to be emulated" (p. 176). While Lankshear and Knobel (2003) have lucidly discussed this "ability of perform performance theories have rarely been used in literacy studies to investigate Design of multimodal te xts. However, recently researchers in literacy (Alvermann &


56 Hruby, 2005; Eakle, 2009) have discussed the use of dramaturgical methods for studying literacy performances. Furthermore, although performance theories were not specifically cited in past studies in digital video research, I found many discussions about student performance, as illustrated in the following discussion. Performance theories may be especially useful in studying Design spaces, especially considering the active, collaborative nature of digital video. While traditional writing has frequently been studied with writers performing individually (Dyson & Warshauer Freedman, 2003) most video projects are taught in collaborative groups (Bruce, 2009a; Goodman, 2003; Miller, 2008). In fact, man y of the studies dealing with collaborative groups, report on the performative aspects of designing. For example, Miller (2008) noted that working with in digital video requires teachers that engage in "design based performances" and ha ve "embodied experien ces" of designing truly multimodal products in order to create meaning with their students Therefore, t hrough digital movie creation, teachers and students can engage together in new literacies that also include familiar tasks and familiar genres. In add ition to performing and having these personal experiences in Design spaces, students "try on" a variety of roles. For example, Goodman (2003) discussed the use of video inquiry as a play/problem solving process where students "acted" as professionals. He f ound that when students worked on a documentary, they took on multiple roles, such as interviewer, writer, and narrator; however, although they acted in role as professionals, they also performed as children. Goodman explained that the composition process "challenged them to struggle with new skills, ideas, and ways of knowing themselves and each otherthey grew intellectually and emotionally through that struggle, although they


57 each found different entry points into the project and took different paths of learning." (p. 96 97). So performance of different roles helped the students gain entry points into the composition processes. Role play figures highly in performative texts like moving image compositions. Winters, Rogers, and Schofield (2006) used proce ss drama (O'Neill, 1995), which works in the "realm of the pretend" (p. 37), using imagination to explore perspectives and understandings. In the study Winters et al. used process drama to help adolescents engage with new roles and construct understandings of narrative and characters through role play and performance. Essentially, the students put themselves in the story and then transacted with the story world through active simulation. Within this project, the students appropriated ideas from the texts; h owever, they also "wove together multiple literacies including drama and print literacies in unique ways" (p. 41). The resulting projects became synthesis texts that related to the students' own lives. Hull and Katz (2006) discussed data from the DUSTY pr oject, which involved a multi year investigation of the use of digital storytelling as a means of integrating technology and literacy to "bridge the digital divide" (Warschauer, 2003). In order to analyze agency through a variety of semiotic systems, they were influenced by Bauman and Briggs (1990) and "agent centered" verbal performance (pp. 67 71). Bauman and Briggs discuss "decontextualization" and "retextualization" from one setting to another in terms of speech, while Hull and Katz (2006) expanded this notion to include the multiple modalities inherent in digital storytelling. In their data analysis, they looked for turning points in agency; these turning points served important entry points for the lens into an "agent centered" view of performance.


58 In this project, Hull and Katz described a multimedia digital storytelling piece entitled Lyfe N Rhyme created by Randy Young, an Oakland California street artist. Throughout the project, Randy performed in a variety of roles artist, writer, videographer, poe t, and musician. Researchers thought Randy's compositions offered "performative moments" (Urciuoli, 1995) when "an intense awareness of the opportunity to enact one's identity to self and others comes to the fore" (p. 54). Although the researchers in the above mentioned studies suggested performative effects and performance related activities, they operated from a social semiotic perspective and did not illustrate these perspectives through a lens of performance theory. That is, how did students use "perf ormance knowledge" (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003) and/or perform literacies to influence the Design of multimodal texts? From "As" To "Is" Performance Brandt and Clinton (2002) noted that researchers should consider social practices as the "shock absorbers" o f literacy's imposition rather than the shapers of meaning. A more active view of strategic uses of literacies, necessitates a look at performances of knowledge and literacies that serve as influential: That people manage to absorb or mollify these demand s in different ways may be evidence of local ingenuity, diversity, agency, as much recent research emphasizes, but it is just as much evidence of how powerfully literacy as a technology can insinuate itself into social relations anywhere (p. 354). As illus trated above, while this recent attention to "performance" has provided some attention to to the evidence of "local ingenuity, diversity, agency," these instances were mainly viewed circumstances when the students were in a mode Schechner (2006)


59 considered "is" performance. However, when I read through the past research, I wondered how literacies in action influenced the text if they were considered "as" performance (Schechner, 2006); that is, as Goffman's notion of performance in everyday life. In fact, I considered this notion of life "as" performance a way to investigate performance knowledge and how this knowledge is used to influence the composition of texts in context. In a recent text on performance theory, Bell (2008) provided definitions for perform ance as a theory. First, Bell noted that performance is "both process and product." Theorists explain performance "as something that happens, emerges, and grows in and through a process, a set of activities or specific behaviors" (p. 16). Bell noted that t his process is often termed "emergent." Etomologically, the word "performance" stems from the Old French word "parfournir" par (thoroughly) plus fournis (to furnish). Therefore, performance does not imply a structuralist stance, "but rather the processual sense of bringing to completion' or accomplishing.'" (p. 16). Therefore, performing encompasses complex processes rather than a single act (Turner, 1982). In my study, these processes were particularly important as I was searching for influences and chan ge over time, not just in one scene or within a single act. Second, Bell noted: "performance is productive and purposeful" (p. 16). Goffman (1959) defined this purposeful productivity in a statement I find essential to this study: "A performance may be de fined as any of the activity of a given participant on a given occasion which serves to influence in any way any of the other participants" (p. 15). In my study, I was particularly interested in the ways in which individuals performed literacies in action in order to influence the composition processes.


60 Third, Bell defined performance as both "traditional and transformative" (p. 17). Performance is traditional because it always refers to "former ways of doing, acting, seeing, and believing" (p. 17). While these references could maintain the status quo, the also may provide potential for change through "performing anew" (p. 17). In fact Conquergood (1995, as cited in Bell) stated that performance privileges characters of change and allows opportunities for p erformers to engage in shape shifting behaviors, which "value the carnivalesque over the canonical, the transformative over the normative, the mobile over the monumental" (Conquergood, 1995, p. 138). In my study, because I was examining a creative endeavor I was particularly interested in the transformations of text as shifts and changes that could influence the Design processes. Performance and Dramaturgy My perspective on performance theory was highly influenced by a "dramaturgical" perspective, which im plies a social behavioral rather than phenomenological or cognitive perspective on human interaction (Brissett & Edgley, 1990). Dramaturgy has been used to study social movements and how these communicate power and influence. Benford and Hunt (1992) stated that the social movements of individuals can be described as "dramas" in which protagonists and antagonists compete for audience attention; this attention is socially constructed and communicates power. Erving Goffman is considered the "Godfather of Dram aturgy" (Brissett & Edgley, 1990, p.1). Brissett and Edgley contend that a dramaturgical insight "emerges most forcefully in the face to face encounters between human beings" (p. 1). When I studied the use of the dramaturgical perspective, I was particular ly influenced by Goffman's (1959) definition of performance: "A "performance" may be defined as all the activity of


61 a given participant on a given occasion, which serves to influence in any way any of the other participants" (p. 15). Viewing the world thr ough such a performance inspired lens requires dramatistic thinking. Burke (1945/1969) recommended using the dramatistic pentad act, scene, agent, agency, purpose in order to study "what is involved, when we say what people are doing and why they are doing it" (p. xv). Focusing on "motives" Burke noted that one must have the terminology to name: the act that took place, the scene in which the act occurred, the agent or person who performed the act, the agency or means or instruments used in the act, and the purpose. Any understanding about "motives" would include answers to these questions. Within a dramaturgical perspective, there are five performance concepts that are particularly relevant to this inquiry: roles, action, teams, regions, frames, keys, and shifts. In the following sections, I will discuss these concepts in terms of how they could relate to the performances of knowledge and literacies in action. Roles Bauman (1977) noted, "performance roles constitute a major dimension of the patterning of p erformance within communities" (p. 29). The concept of playing a particular role in a performance could imply a static position. Brisset and Edgley (1990) noted that dramaturgy uses role as a concept "as a way of accounting for people's connections to one another and other organizations and structures with which they are identified" (p. 28). Furthermore, they state that conventional "role theory" has little to do with this dramaturgical perspective of role. While the dramaturgical perspective of "role" doe s describe a certain organizational structure or limit on human interaction


62 conformnity theory dramaturgy stresses not the conformity, but the use of roles. This includes "other roles played by the same individual" (Bauman, 1977, p. 31) as well as ways tha t influence others as "audience" members. Once again, audience does not necessarily imply an external audience; rather, in dramaturgical theory, members within a working team pay attention to other team members who are acting in influential roles, as an "a udience" would attend to a performance. Brisset and Edgley (1990) noted it is "in their very utilization of roles that human beings distinguish themselvesbut they do so, not merely by playing roles, but more importantly, in the art and practice of making them" (p. 29). Therefore, rather than envisioning people as puppets enacting predetermined roles, a performance theory perspectives sees people as instrumental in creating the roles that they use as tools in order to perform. People are actors, "only in t he sense that they act"; however, more importantly, "are doers and in the process of their doing, roles, among other things, emerge" (Brisset & Edgeley, 1990, p. 29). Therefore, in performance theory, "role play" is not "robot like" but one in which an "ac tor" is able to shape shift (Gee, 2004) depending on the situation. Rather than being "swallowed up in the role" or "playing a role" individuals play with roles. Action: Doing Roles and Creating Opportunities The notion of performance implies action. Ther efore, studying performance means not just observing the taking of roles, but also the making of new roles and breaking in and out of role. Brisset and Edgley (1990) stated that how people play with and use roles is an important concept that dispels some o f the critiques of dramaturgy as a perspective implying mimicry or faking. While playing with the roles may imply mimesis


63 or fakery, the construction and use of these roles creates a poesis (making not faking), and a potential for kinesis (breaking and cha nge). Brisset and Edgley noted that roles can be powerful tools, however the empowerment is not in the playing or fulfillment of roles, but rather in the doing (p. 30). When dramaturgy is defined as a study of an interaction order, this does not imply "dw elling on structural limitations and enhancements of the interaction order" rather it focuses on action of what people do within the contexts that are available to them" (Brisset & Edgley, p. 27). Dramaturgy does not focus on why contexts exist or what t hey allow, but rather on "what interactional possibilities are forthcoming" (Brissett & Edgley, 1990, p. 27). In fact, it is in this "doing" that creates a self. Brissett and Edgley note that in dramaturgy the self is determined through actions, "we are al l just possibilities until we act" or "pop the qwiff" (p. 20). They appropriated Lincoln and Guba's (1985) notion of "popping a qwiff" through an example of the quantum physicist Edwin Schrodinger, who first posed a problem of multiple realities existing a t once. Lincoln and Guba discussed the elements of their example as follows: 1) A closed steel case containing one radioactive atom. The atom has a half life of one hour, that is, in a large sample of such atoms half of them would remain after the passage of one hour while the other half would have decayed. Thus, after one hour, the probability of finding the atom in the case is .5. 2) A photocell sensitive to emitted radiation. If the atom decays the resulting radiation trips the photocell, which in turn release s a deadly gas.


64 3) A live cat is introduced into the cage at the same time that precisely one atom of radioactive element has been released in it. Question: at the end of one hour, what will we find on opening the case, a live cat or a dead cat? (p. 85 86). L incoln and Guba stated that according to quantum physics, the answer to this question lies in the act of opening the cage. There are two distinct possibilities: the cat can live or the cat can die. If an individual reaches over to open the cage, a result i s activated. Without this activation or "popping a qwiff" these two parallel universes (cat may live or cat may die) could go on forever. Lincoln and Guba note that in opening the cage "you create the reality that you find" but until you act or do "there i s only potential" (p. 86). In fact, "popping a qwiff" involves any action that creates possibilities. Therefore "popping a qwiff" involves creating realities where none existed through acting or doing. In fact, Brisset and Edgley (1990) state that "selves" are meanings that arise in the context of situations: "because the self is a meaning and not an entity, it has a kind of fictional, constructed, concensually validated quality to it. One's interaction does not reflect, but rather establishes a self" (p. 1 6). Dramaturgy studies the interaction order of "how one's psychology [self] is realized and how one's society and culture are lived" (Brisset & Edgeley, 1990, p. 26). Being a dramaturgist equals having sensitivity to the expressive dimension of behavior ( role creating, using, and doing) and the constant change within situations. Being a dramaturgist in multiliteracies studies means attending to actions of individuals in roles as well as the shifts created through qwiff popping. Teams and Communitas


65 Brisset and Edgley (1990) noted, it is in the doings of people that the social structural features of social life emerge, become recognizable, and are utilized" (p. 27). In social situations, such as a filmmaking space, students form into teams and carry out spe cific roles to complete the task at hand. While researchers (Bruce, 2009a; Goodman, 2003) have discussed that individuals have worked collaboratively in composing digital videos, they have not deconstructed the elements of the group work as it both affecte d and was affected by the collaboration. In other words, they talked about the collaboration and effects of collaborative work, but did not trace patterns of performance within these groups or teams. In performance theory, Goffman describes "teams" and the face to face interactions that occur. However, I was also interested in how these teams form and evolve through experience and ritual. Schechner (2006) stated that rituals are "among the most powerful experiences life has to offer" in that while people ar e in a "liminal state" they are taken out of the demands of everyday life and "uplifted, swept away, taken over" (p. 70). Furthermore, while immersed in ritually inspired experiences, people "feel at one with their comrades" and "personal and social differ ences are set aside" (p. 70). Turner (2004) used the term "communitas" to describe this experience of "ritual commaraderie" (Schechner, 2006). In Goffman's (1959) definition of a performance team is "any set of individuals who cooperate in staging a singl e routine" (p. 79). Therefore, studying interaction equals the investigation of the individuals' performances plus the set of participants and their interactions. Goffman noted that there are two basic components of a team: 1) "reciprocal dependence" (any member may disrupt or give performance away); and, 2) "reciprocal


66 familiarity" (all members share an equal familiarity with the team). Despite these shared rights and responsibilities, certain performances become more influential within teams, as Goffman n oted, in examining a team performance an observer will find that "someone is given the right to direct and control the progress of the dramatic action" (p. 97). This dominating individual operates as a "director" who also "plays an actual part in the perf ormance he directs" (p. 97). This directorship is a shifting role within a team. In fact, all members of the team take on different roles. As Goffman (1959) noted some of these roles are "purely ceremonial roles" (p. 103) in that the performers will be co ncerned more with appearance. Often times, in educational situations, students may take on roles due to cultural expectations. In these times, other roles will be more focused on completing the activities. Students may or may not experience pleasure from t hese performances. If they fail to be engaged, they may perform in a "perfunctory key" (Hymes, as cited in Bauman, 1977). Whether students enjoy their roles or not, if a team is to be successful, their "intimate co operation is required" and their groupin g is related less to the social organization, but rather "in relation to an interaction or series of interactions in which the relevant definition of the situation is maintained" (p. 104). This implies that although the individuals may have begun their tas k with a "purpose" this motivation evolves within the group through interaction and ritual. In fact, Goffman noted that if a performance is to be effective, it is likely that much of the ritual and intensity of the co operation will be concealed; the team has a "secret society" character. This intensity and secret society ritualistic integrity is similar


67 to Victor Turner's (1974) notion of "communitas." Bell (2008) discussed communitas: as normative, existential, and spontaneous in their composition. While Bell used a prototypical example of musical jam sessions among jazz musicians to illustrate this point, I have appropriated her ideas for a filmmaking camp. First of all, a filmmaking group is normative in that it possesses a "we" character: the group "is mobilized toward a goal" to make a film together "that no one member could make alone" (Bell, 2008, p. 134). Second, within a filmmaking group, an existential feeling exists; individuals get caught up in the moment as "direct and unmediated communication takes place" as filmmakers seem to "read each other's minds" and know the next direction for the film composition (ibid, p. 134). Third, communitas is spontaneous in that there is a "shared flow' of action and awareness" and the structure is created by ru les and rituals that emerge in the processes of filmmaking rather than governed solely by outside rules. Communitas is a particularly relevant concept to use in collaborative learning situations, because, as Victor Turner (2004) noted, it occurs in the "l iminal phase" (van Gennep, 1909/1960) of rites of passage. Using van Gennep's concept of phases of rites of passage as "transition" Turner noted three phases in a "rite of passage" : separation, margin or limen, and aggregation. The first, separation invo lves the group separation and the symbolic behavior that emerges within the team. For example, in the film camp, when students formed collaborative groups they separated into a new frame or "a detatchment ofthe group from an earlier fixed point in the soc ial structurefrom a set of cultural conditionsor from both" (Turner, 2004, p. 79). In this case, the students, operating from their liminal positions as learners, separate into a new social structure (as filmmakers) and a new set of


68 cultural conditions ( creators rather than learners). Second, is the interstitial, intervening, or liminal period during which individuals pass "through a cultural realm that has few or none of the attributes of the past or coming state" (Turner, 2004, p. 79). Ultimately, I co nsider this liminal phase a learning period. Turner denotes the attributes of liminality as "necessarily ambiguous" because in this condition "persons elude or slip through the network of classifications that normally locate states and positions in cultura l space" (p. 79). Because filmmaking camp is not "real" space of professional filmmaking, much of the time would be spent in this liminal space. Within this liminal space, individuals emerge into a social team "as an unstructured or rudimentarily structure d and relatively undifferentiated comitantus community, or even communion of equal individuals who submit together to the general authority of the ritual elders" (Turner, 2004, p. 80). In filmmaking camp then, one would expect these communitas to evolve a s the students emerge through the rites of passage of becoming filmmakers. Finally, in the third phase of "reaggregation or reincorporation" (Turner, 2004, p. 79) the "passage is consummated" and individuals are placed back within "a relatively stable sta te" and the rights and obligations are clearly defined (p. 79). Within the filmmaking camp, this reaggregation could occur as the task became a group purpose, and the high of "communitas" would gradually dissipate as the team completed their task. As Turne r (1982) noted, communitas doesn't last much past the experience; "the experience of communitas becomes the memory of communitas" (Turner, 1982, p. 47). One would consider the teams (Goffman, 1959) formed in camp as emerging into communitas while their co operation is required. Furthermore, one would also consider


69 how communitas would disperse when the task is completed. Regions as Performing Spaces Goffman (1959) used the metaphor of a swinging door between a restaurant kitchen and dining room as a place to observe a putting on and taking off of role or character. While in the kitchen, the server may be arguing with the chef, when she crosses through the swinging door, she shifts into the friendly, enthusiastic role of a server. This swinging door represe nts a barrier between different "regions" in performance spaces. Goffman defined region as "any place bounded to some degree by barriers to perception" (1959, p. 106). Drawing from theatre language, the frontstage becomes the region of politeness and decor um; these are spaces where team members are performing for an audience. Alternatively, backstage regions are spaces where formalities may be dropped as people prepare for roles and do work they will later perform in the frontstage regions. Both frontstage and backstage regions imply an attention to a task at hand. However, within a situation, a team is not always focused on the task at hand. Take for example the restaurant. Individuals take breaks from the task at hand and often discuss or attend to matter s that are off task or "off stage." For example, in the restaurant example, after completing a service, the individuals could take a coffee break, during which they discuss their favorite movies or other interests outside of the context. Off stage also rel ates to individuals who are not part of the team. These intruders may enter the active regions front, back, or offstage during which the team will be torn by two possibilities. These intrusions interrupt the team's line of action and often result in a shif ting frame, as I discuss next.


70 Framing A setting suggests appropriate activity and a range of possible roles (Hare & Blumberg, 1988). A setting provides a frame (Goffman, 1974) for action. Hare and Blumberg noted "frames are constructed in order to make s ense of complex happenings of nature and the doings of personsthey answer the question "What is going on here?" (Hare & Blumberg, 1988, p. 70). In addition, Burke's "scene/act ratio" (1945/1969, p. 7) indicates range of behavior appropriate to a situated setting. The scene does not need to be changed to create a different type of performance; rather a "frame" may be invoked. Goffman (1974) cautioned that the character of a frame is not always clear. Even when it appears clear, "participants in interaction may have interests in blurring, changing, or confounding it" (p. xiv). A frame analysis, therefore, is about the "structure of experience" at particular moments. In order to frame activity, an observer may "obtain a sense of what is going on but will also (in some degree) become spontaneously engrossed, caught up, enthralled" (Goffman, 1974, p. 345). Goffman names the process by which a particular frame is invoked as "keying" as in, what key is the particular song played. Keys are codes, conventions or lang uage that frame an event. In other words, envisioning a digital video camp, there would be times when the performance is keyed in the professional discourse of filmmaking. However, there may also be more playful times, when the performance is keyed in a mo re casual tone as students perform in their roles as kids at camp. Therefore, keys to performance include the patterns or styles of "verbal art" (Bauman, 1977) that identify discourse. Keying Bauman (1977) noted that within the nature of performance, there are patterns or


71 styles of speaking, which vary from "everyday talk" to more performative or ceremonial acts. Speaking is a cultural system, which varies between speech communities. Individuals use speech events for particular purposes. Bauman (1977) creat ed a list of communicative means that serve as keys to performance. He stated, Each speech community will make use of a structured set of distinctive communicative means from among its resources of culturally conventionalized and culture specific ways to key the performance frame, such that all communication that takes place within that frame is to be understood as a performance within that community" (1977, p. 16). His seven keys to performance included: special codes or specialized languages; figurative use or tone of language; parallelism or systematically repeated elements of language, sounds, meaning or structure; special paralinguistic features; special formulae; appeal to traditional "genres" of performance; and, disclaimers of performance such as denial of competence. Bauman further stated that this list of keys is of limited use because the essential task in performance ethnography is "to determine the culture specific constellations of communicative means that serve to key performance in particul ar communities" (p. 22). He further noted that a full ethnography would "indicate the keys to the entire domain, viewing speaking and performance as a cultural system and indicating how the whole range of performance is keyed" (p. 22 23). Within a speech community, there are different modes or styles of discourse. While speaking is part of a wider cultural system, within the system there emerge different ranges of speech activities. These are distinguished through performance keys. These keys are identifie d through a patterning of performance, which is interpreted through an analysis of


72 events, acts, roles, and genre. The event within which the performance takes place is the most important organizing principle. The ways in which performance is keyed can sig nal a particular performance genre. These include conventional performances as well as those genres "for which the expectation of probability of performance is lower, for which performance is felt to be more optional, but which occasion no surprise if they are performed" (p. 26). For example, in a filmmaking community, one would expect some student performances to be keyed as students (when they act as learners in groups lead by instructors), filmmakers (as they similuate the roles of filmmakers when they c reate the films), and actors (when they act out their lines for their films). The act of performance includes: "situated behavior, situated within and rendered meaningful with reference to relevant contexts" (p. 27). This is what Bauman means by performan ce being keyed. For example, in a filmmaking camp, when individuals are acting in front of the camera, they are performing in the key of actors. As students act, there are specific keys exaggerated facial expressions and gestures, reading dialogue in role, and wearing costumes that indicate they are performing as actors. At the same time, other students may be performing in the key of filmmakers speaking with authority, arranging settings, placing actors in scenes, and critiquing acting as they direct and f ilm the actors. Bauman noted that these performance patterns of keys should be illuminated both within roles, and across social and behavioral roles taken by the same individual. Bauman further discussed the emergent quality of performance. Performance s tructures are not fixed; rather, they emerge within contexts. That is, the performance keys can be used as clues to formal patterns that enable participation through an "attitude of collaborative expectancy" (Burke, 1969, p. 58). Elaborating on this attitu de of


73 collaborative expectancy as emergence, Bauman noted: The structured system stands available to them as a set of conventional expectations and associations, but these expectations and associations are further manipulated in innovative ways by fashioni ng novel performances outside the conventional system, or working various transformational adaptations which turn performance into something else (p. 35). Bauman and Briggs (1990) discussed how performance keys could be considered as "indices of entextual ization" (p. 74) or ways of making a "stretch of linguistic production into a unit a text that can be lifted out of its interactional setting" and become "discourse rendered decontextualized" (p. 73). These indices of entextualization relate to the degree to which a language production is available for or amenable to use in another situation. The process of entextualization encompasses a "reflexive capacity of discourse" (p. 73). Through decontextualization one is able to establish how once a text is entext ualized into a unit and decontextualized out of the immediate act or social context, this text becomes recontextualized within another frame. The strength of this process is that it enables a researcher to "determine what the recontextualized text brings w ith it from its earlier context(s) and what emergent form, function, and meaning it is given as it is recentered" (p. 75). I further elaborate on decontextualization, entextualization, and recontextualization in Chapter 3, when I describe how I used these notions in my data analysis procedures. Shifts in Frame Within a filmmaking composition community, one would expect individuals to join a group and emerge as a team, within which some keys to performance are given (the rules


74 and goals of the filmmaking ca mp) and some keys to performance emerge (the specific performances within composition teams dependent on the individual members, the text, and the context). Furthermore, at certain times, one would expect students to perform in the key of filmmakers or act ors. These would all be considered as influential performances of literacies that helped the composition fit like keys would fit to open a door. These would be seen as organized paths or constellations. Within a filmmaking community, however, not everythin g would "fit" into a key. In fact, shifts in key or frame are particularly significant means of "popping a qwiff" or creating new possibilities. Goffman found shifts or breaks in frame as particularly strong points of interpretation. Goffman (1974) stated that when these breaks in frame occur, individuals act through flooding (flooding in and flooding out) or key shifting Flooding refers to breaking in and out of frame. For example flooding in happens when an individual, previously on the periphery, flood s into the task at hand. Alternatively, flooding out occurs when an individual temporarily (or permantly) stops interacting and fails to take on a new role (either temporarily or permanently). Whereas flooding breaks the frame, shifting occurs within the f rame. Key shifting can manifest as either downkeying or upkeying. When playfulness gets out of hand, particularly at times of activity shifts, downkeying can occur. Downkeying is a shift, from a lively to a more low key, and focused stance. Alternatively, upkeying occurs when activities move from a slower pace to a quicker, more playful stance. In fact, at times, this upkeying can grow to such an extreme that the team may break the frame from the task at hand, turning it into a "horseplayed version of the t ask at hand" (Goffman, 1974). Shifting keys does not mean the activity is over; even if a frame is broken, individuals can still continue with


75 performing roles. However, those roles are influenced by "a mounting cycle of responsea surging of feeling" that often shifts the team away from the task at hand. Individuals who create shifts in frame are said to either increase or decrease their footing (Goffman, 1981) or influence. Goffman defined a change in footing as "a change in the alignment we take up to o urselves and the others present as expressed in the way we manage the production or reception of an utterance" (p. 128). In other words, keying can create a change in tone or shift in activity that could result in a change in footing. If an individual beco mes influential through literacies in action, that individual would gain footing within the team. Goffman's considerations on framing are important to educational or education like contexts where focus and attention are accepted and expected as "productiv e" behavior. But Goffman's theory also suggests that disruption may be important influences on meaning making. Summary: Digital Video Composition as Performance of Multiliteracies Through a New Literacies Studies (NLG, 1996) perspective, texts are increas ingly defined in terms of multiliteracies. Much attention has been given to research involving the consumption of multimedia literacies (Alvermann, Moon, & Hagood, 2001; Anderson, 1983; Neuman, 1991; Norris, Sullivan, Poirot, & Soloway, 2003). More recentl y researchers (c.f. Bruce, 2008b; Goodman, 2003; Kajder, 2006; Miller, 2008; Ware, 2006) have been studying the production of multiliteracies. Many of these studies have focused on the multiliteracies and multimodalities involved in digital video. Recently some researchers have discussed agency (Hull & Nelson, 2005; Hull & Katz, 2006) and the opportunities for students afforded through the multiliteracies involved in


76 multimedia projects. While most of these studies focused on the what, Bruce (2008a) recomm ended a shift toward envisioning digital video through a lens of composition theories. Next, I elaborated on how composition theories could inform digital video production. After tracing a brief history through cognitive theories of s tages (Flowers & Hayes 1981), I elaborated on the socio cultural perspective of writing (Prior, 2006) in which "activity is situated in concrete interactions that are simultaneously improvised locally and mediated by prefabricated, historically provided tools and practices" (p 55). While composition implies action, I was interested in a greater meta model that encompassed the act of composition, as well as the texts produced and context in which the composition took place. Therefore, I proposed envisioning composition through the multiliteracies pedagogy of Design (NLG, 1996). After providing an overview of Design (NLG, 1996) concepts Available Designs, Designing, and Re designed as it relates to both traditional and digital video compositions, I discussed how these theories focused on a language centered social semiotic approach. However, in this study, I was interested in not just knowledge of the semiotics, but what Lankshear and Knobel (2003) call performance knowledge. While Lankshear and Knobel (2003) discussed this "abi lity of perform" as important to the investigation of new literacies, performance theories have rarely been used in literacy studies to investigate Design of multimodal texts. Furthermore I expect this "ability of perform" to manifest through literacy perf ormances, where, as Goffman defined performance as "all the activity of a given participant on a given occasion which serves to influence in any way any of the other participants" (1959, p. 15).


77 In the next section, I describe my methods for data collectio n and analysis. As previously indicated, I was interested in tracing Design over time. Therefore, first, I conducted a descriptive analysis of the Available Designs. That is, I provided an analysis of the variety of literacies used during the training port ions of the camp. These provided a framework to envision what could be available as tools for a "bricoleur's" creative uses. Second, I conducted an analysis of Designing. This analysis was two fold, in that I first conducted a thematic analysis. Then, I su bjected the data to a more in depth dramaturgical analysis. Third, in order to discuss the concept of Redesigned, I followed one specific team's use of a textual toy over time and noted the transformations in text and influential liteacies used to create t hose changes.


78 CHAPTER THREE: METHO DS Introduction Chapter Three addresses the method and the methodological issues relevant to the investigation. While this study was originally planned to take place over one summer ('08), generous d issertation fundin g from the Carnegie Corporation, through the National Academy of Education, enabled me to conduct a more intensive ethnography over two summers ('08 and '09). Research Design This inquiry is part of the larger ethnographic research project investigating a movie making summer camp over two summers ('08, '09). Ethnography is a good fit for the design of a study of literacy performance. Recently Althanases (2008) recommended the use of ethnography to partner theatre and theory: Ethnography is one means of tap ping Dionysian [theatre, sensation, emotion, instinct] encounters with text and experience, situating study within processes that unfold over time, generating data that aid new discovery, and considering reflections and an Apollonian [deliberate, rational, reasoned] clarity that theorizes values and problems in the uses of drama and performance. (p. 119). Like theatre, filmmaking is a sort of performance text. Students write scripts and enact them. However, enactment is often non linear in digital video. O ne does not need to


79 film scenes in sequence. Film is also spatially different. While on stage, the whole stage is in view. While filming a scene, only the framed object is in view. Further, in a filmed event, only a two dimensional representation of the pr evious scene is available. Theatre, it is a live text. What you see is what you get in real time. With a film text, more flexibility is possible in the virtual world of adding special effects, manipulating images, and creating illusions of reality. What yo u see in film is a constructed sequence. In a well designed ethnography, a researcher "aligns theoretical perspectives with methods" (Athanases, 2008, p. 123). Furthermore, becoming immersed in the culture, I used a "relativistic view in which cultural no rms are examined on their own terms, rather than through a deficit lens" (ibid. p. 121). That is, I used a creative, rather than a critical lens, through which to view the creative collaborative processes of digital video composition. Work by Patton (2002) and Geertz (1973) influenced by view of ethnography. Patton (2002) noted that the goal of ethnography is to discover cultural patterns through participant observation. While I considered identifying these cultural patterns as essential, I was also interes ted in Geertz (1973) and his notion of a "control mechanism" view of culture (p. 45): Culture is best seen not as complexes of concrete behavior patterns customs, usages, traditions, habit clusters as has, by and large been the case up to now, but as a set of control mechanisms plans, recipes, rules, instructions (what computer engineers call "programs") for the governing of behavior. The second idea is that man is precisely the animal most desperately dependent upon such extragenetic outside the skin contr ol mechanisms, such cultural programs, for ordering his


80 behavior (p. 44). Within the filmmaking camp, while I was interested in the "customs" of the filmmaking culture, the "usages" of multiple literacies, the "traditions" of how things are done here, and the "habit clusters" of individuals that created both functional and dysfunctional results; I was also searching for "plans, recipes, rules, instructions" or the "programs" that ordered behavior. Ultimately, I wished to discover "control mechanisms" that seemed to drive the creative collaboration of filmmaking camp into organized composition. Guided by a theoretical frame of investigating creative collaboration and the use of influential literacies as viewed through a performance lens, I used ethnographic methods to understand cultural patterns and control mechanisms from an emic or insider's position (Green, Dixon, & Zaharlick, 2005). As researchers become immersed in the culture, they develop an emic perspective, an insider view essential to a full unde rstanding to the process, as opposed to a traditional etic or outsider's view where "the etic viewpoint of the ethnographer implie[s] some important degree of detachment or higher' level of conceptual analysis and abstraction" (Patton, 2002, p. 84). In re search that closely studies popular culture in terms of youth interpretation, a certain amount of emic insider information is necessary. One difficulty with an emic perspective is that culture under investigation becomes familiar. Because an ethnographer searches for "rich points" (Agar, 1994) or shifts, it is necessary to remain somewhat a "professional stranger" (Agar, 1980). As Green et al. (2005) noted, the ethnographer "seeks to make visible the everyday, often invisible practices of a cultural group and to make the familiar or ordinary practices strange (i.e.,


81 extraordinary)" (p. 156). Recently Alvermann & Hruby (2005) discussed the use of a dramatistic (Burke, 1945/1969) approach for making data extraordinary or to "capture with a certain degree of vividness much of what would have been lost or remained unspoken in a more traditional form of reporting" (p. 275). Alvermann and Hruby state that using a dramatistic approach for "fictive representation" of data is not synonymous with fiction; rather, fictive representation attempts to use the techniques of fiction to frame and present factual data that has been gathered with all of the methodological rigor" (p. 276) that is necessary for good qualitative inquiry. Because I am a recreational fiction wr iter, this methodology resonated with my thinking processes, which resemble a creative approach of social constructionism (Hruby, 2001) rather than a critique of the processes. More specifically, I was searching for "control mechanisms" (Geertz, 1973) or s ystems that appeared to guide the processes toward successful completion. Like Wertsch (1998), Alvermann and Hruby (2005) elaborated on Burke's dramatistic pentad (Burke, 1945/1969), which includes questions about the act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose These researchers stated that the implications for using the pentad are more profound than questioning the journalistic five w's (who, what, when, where, how, why). In fact, Alvermann & Hruby stated: "While a purely sociological account of human action w ould stress the influence of scene (social context), and a psychological account would stress the influence of the individual (agent), a more complex embrace of human action would use all five of the pentad's terminological screens as tools for analysis" ( p. 288). In this instance, a terminological screen indicates using who, what, when, where, how, and why lenses to envision the multiplicity of interactions.


82 Furthermore, as an interpretive frame, Hunt and Bedford (1997) noted that dramaturgical methods mig ht provide a "reflective sociological method" that help researchers avoid common "pitfalls" in social science because it pays attention to details such as impression management, audience, and securing resources. By "equating research with drama" or "fictio nalizing data" (Alvermann & Hruby, 2005), dramatistic methods may "limit the pretentiousness that seems endemic to most social science work. Instead of presenting a window to "reality," a dramaturgical method serves as a constant reminder that researchers are in the business of reality construction'" (Hunt & Bedford, 1997, pp. 116 117). In essence, I attempted to approach "the real" through dramatic reconstruction; however, I realize this "real" is biased by my own terminstic screen (Burke, 1966). As Burke (1966) noted "Any given terminology is a reflection of reality, by its very nature as a terminology it must be a selection of reality; and to this extent it must function also as a deflection of reality" (p. 45). Furthermore, Geertz (1973) noted "cultural analysis is (or should be) guessing at meanings, assessing the guesses, and drawing explanatory conclusions from the better guesses" (p. 20). In this study, I considered the reality construction, as I paired dramatistic theory with dramaturgical methods t o search for the influences of performances of multiliteracies through the composition process. Then during my interpretation, I "guessed at meaning" for the performances I observed, "assessed the guesses" in terms of my data analysis methodology, and "dre w explanatory conclusions" from the "better guesses" that triangulated with my other data. Researcher Perspective My researcher perspective is highly influenced by the manner in which I view the world. As a writer of fiction, my brain searches for patterns of activity and programs that


83 make things come together and work. I consider this a creative cultural view. Alternatively, much literacy research is influenced by literary theory, and, thus, employs a more critical perspective, based on models of literary criticism. While I think this critical perspective is essential to the field of literacy studies, I also believe that my creative perspective is necessary, especially in the study of composition or the making of texts. However, I also realize that this pe rspective may bias my findings. Ultimately, I chose to study the filmmaking camp because, after my first summer (2007) observing and interacting with participants, I considered the context to be a successful learning community. Therefore, for my overall e thnography, I was interested in studying what made this camp work. Using this creative lens, I viewed literacies in action dramaturgically, which envisions language as "as species of action, symbolic action and its nature is such that it can be used as a tool" (Burke, 1966, p. 15). A dramatistic approach relies on "designing the attention" toward a "symbolic action" (p. 44). In essence, Burke cautioned that as individuals, our "at tension" is filtered through "terministic screens" through which we envision "reality." While I realize the reflective/selective/deflective nature of any inquiry, I considered my perspective a "dialogic approach" in which "text's narrative is reshaped to make room for additional narrative pathways, perspectives, images, and positi ons" (Edmiston & Encisco, 2003, p. 870, as cited in Athanases). This dialogic approach, based on Bakhtin's (1923/1981) notion of dialogism; our speech is filled with the words of others who have previously spoken. Likewise, in this study, I consider that o ur actions are filled with the actions of others who have previously acted. Bauman and Briggs (1990) operationalized this definition through their notions of entextualization,


84 decontextualization, and recontextualization of texts, which attempts to "elucid ate how these dialogical relations are accomplished, and in ways that take full account of form function interrelationships and the sociology and political economy of Bahktinian dialogue" (p. 78). An ethnographer interested in such an approach "would coll ect data sensitive to students' fits and starts of exploring new pathways" (Athanses, p. 123) and would realize that certain features of language increase social capital (Lin, 2001) or cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1977; 1984). This concept of fits and start s, I consider similar to "lines of flight" from Deleuze and Guattari's (1987) theory of rhizomatics. In Deleuze and Guattari's (1987) rhizomatics, a variety of forces are conceptualized as "lines." First of all, there are molar lines; these lines help def ine structures and concepts. Furthermore, molar lines operate and order systems of molecular lines, which are formed, metaphorically speaking, like underground rhizomes. Rhizomes are "produced" in the multiplicity of molecular lines "in the constant strugg le between lines of articulation and lines of flight" (Kamberelis, 2004, p. 167). Lines of articulation operate as "fits" in that they complement the work of the molar structure but also represent those molar lines segmented into multiple relations. Altern atively "lines of flight" (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987) open up "new configurations of space (i.e. reality) so that new possibilities for thinking, acting, and being may be opened up" (Kamberelis, p. 167). In other words, these lines offer "starts" through qw iff popping (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The concept of "lines of flight" is important to this study because it relates to the transformational processes of "deterritorialization" and "reterritorialization" (Dimitriatis & Kamberelis, 2006) of ideas, such as th e changes that would occur w hen a textual toy is


85 appropriated into a film. For example, if one were to appropriate the iconic saying from Casablanca "Here's looking at you kid" and use it in a traditional milk commercial where a man states "Here's looking at you kid" to a child wearing a milk moustache the original meaning of the saying is deteritorialized from its original context. Although the language is used, the new frame and performances within that frame, re appropriate the meaning. From a Bauman an d Brigg's (1990) perspective, this would be considered a "re entextualization" or a "transformation" which could occur through: framing, form, function, indexical grounding of time/space, translation to different literacies; and the emergent structure of n ew the context "as shaped by the process of recontextualization" (p. 76). This re design of meaning is particularly important in studying composition, especially in fictional representations, where the act appropriati ng of intertextual archetypes as textua l toys may be obvious but the impact less so In order to examine re designed meaning, Deleuze and Guattari (1987) believe one must examine the interrelationships as assemblages that create "a system of interruptions or breaks" (p. 36). Deleuze and Guatta ri consider lines of flight as representations or enactments of "desire" that serve to create breaks or differences in the molar structure of social organizations. Specifically Deleuze (1995) in Negotiations, discussed "active, positive lines of flight" as dynamic circumstances that emerge from a build up of potentialities. Desire as lines of flight are "not a matter of escaping personally,' from oneself, but of allowing something to escape, like bursting a pipe or a boil" (Deleuze, 1995, p. 19). These l ines of flight form a "field of immanence" (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987) of possibilities or "the terrain upon which life comes to be" (Albrecht Crane & Slack, 2003). These transformational terms fit


86 well within a performance based metholdology that considers the decontextualization and recontextualization of texts that change through emergent processes of Design or composition. Context of the Study Recently, Langer (2009) noted the significance of context in studying adolescent literacy. While I provide a bri ef overview of the study context in this section, I detail a more detailed analysis of the context as "Available Designs" in Chapter Four. Let's Make Movies (LLM) is a summer camp for students in grades 3 12. The students work in teams to write and produc e a movie based on content of their choice. Students attend the camp three hours a day for five days for a fee of approximately $150. At the end of the session, students premiere their movies for their families and friends on Fridays. LLM began as collabo ration between the Tampa Theatre, an historic downtown theater and the Florida Center for Instructional Technology at the University of South Florida. The technology center provides trainers, digital cameras, and laptop computers. The theater provides the venue, support staff, and administration. The LLM program supports education and outreach missions of both the university and theater Each year the LLM has grown, with a large percentage of returning campers. Camp counselors are drawn from the College of Education students and graduates, further supporting the technology center's mission of preparing educators to effectively integrate technology. During 2008 9 camps, students learned scriptwriting and storyboarding as well cinematic elements of video prod uction (e.g., lighting, sound, digital video editing with iMovie, adding music, sound, special effects to movies, shots, camera angles, text, font,


87 colors, motion, titles and credits), and transitions). Additionally students brought their "funds of knowled ge" (Gonzˆlez, Moll, & Amanti, 2005) as individual ideas and knowledge of film as learned through out of school interactions with popular culture These included a variety of textual toys (Dyson, 2003) as well as filmic elements such as theme music, chara cters, and settings. Depending on their knowledge and experience with video, some students arrived equipped with knowledge of cinematic elements (i.e., shots, angles, lighting) as well. Participants Each summer, eight age differentiated groups of students (N= 120; age range = 8 18 yrs.) enrolled in a week long summer camp. Each group of students spent five half days learning about digital video and creating their own movies in small filmmaking teams that were ultimately shown to a real audience at a public "Movie Premier" celebration at the theater. Five paid counselors served as instructors or "guides" during each week of camp. Some of them were preservice teachers and others in service teachers. Each counselor was assigned to a group of students once th e small group filmmaking composition began. Most of the counselors were repeats over the two summers, which allowed me the opportunity for a trust based relationship among LMM staff, and with returning campers. The camp director was in charge of the organi zation and operation of the camp. Having created the concept and directed the filmmaking camp for six years, he was able to provide specific insight and interpretive assistance to the inner workings of filmmaking camp. The staff directly involved with da ily operations of the camp included the theater

PAGE 100

88 director and one of her staff members. They ensured the logistics (pick up, drop off), communicated with parents, and provided detailed information about the theater (including ideas for setting). Selection o f Participants Due to the ethnographic nature of the study my sample size consisted of one cultural group (Creswell, 1998). This cultural group included all participants in all sessions of the camp. My overall sample was a convenience sample ( a group read ily available and willing to participate) due to the nature of the ethnography. Within this sample, those who agreed to participate as key informants formed a layer of purposeful sampling. Within this sample, I focused on a purposeful sampling of cases or informant teams, which were of "central importance to the purpose of the research" (Patton, 2002, p. 46). In terms of my purposeful sampling, initially I thought I would choose three groups with strong ideas to follow. However, when immersed in the situat ion, I modified my choices as follows. In the first week, I chose a group with a strong idea. Three of the students had been to camp previously, two of them numerous times; this was an experienced group, that I called the Idea Group. Therefore, during the second week, in order to select a group that could provide a more contrastive perspective, I chose a less experienced group in order to reach a broader range of "typical" campers. Also as a contrastive perspective, this was an all female, close knit group, as opposed to the all male group of the first week. This group of girls who were new to digital video, appeared to bond as a strong team during the activities on the initial day. I called this the Group Group. While both of these groups provided me with different experiences, they were similar in their high level of cooperation in collaborative work. I wondered what would happen in a

PAGE 101

89 group that did not begin with such a common shared idea or purpose. Therefore, for the third group, I decided to choose a g roup that was less consolidated in purpose, both in their idea and their collaborative team; I called this group the Forming Group. In Chapter Four, I provide a more thorough analysis of my decisions, as well as descriptions for these groups. Data Selectio n and Collection Procedures In order to st udy digital video creation I collected data from a wide variety of sources as indicated in Table 3.1. In the first summer, I collected data across the four one week sessions of the camp. This initial data set inclu ded videos created during camp, as well as my videotapes of analysis of my three focus groups of middle school students. As indicated previously, within the larger ethnographic study, I followed three groups of students as designated informants. My first g roup was my main team of informants and I used the other two groups as a "contrastive" perspective for data triangulation, searching for "frame clashes and rich points as contrastive spaces for identifying cultural knowledge" (Green, et al., 2005). Prior t o visiting during my second summer, I conducted a preliminary constant comparative analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 1994) where I searched for emerging themes in my data. Then, during the second summer, I focused more on confirmatory interviews and observations in the form of a photo ethnography. These observations provided further opportunity for engaging contrastive perspectives (Green, et al., 2005) from my initial interpretations. The data set included all of the videos created made during the four weeks of Making Movies Camp For the systematic investigation of the film context, I employed an ethnographic design, based on a modified version of the data design recommended by Athanases (2008) in his study of performance of poetry. In the following section, I provide

PAGE 102

90 a more detailed discussion of how I collected, transcribed and analyzed my data. First, I provide a description of how I conducted my videotaped observations and interviews. Then I describe my reiterative collection, transcription, and analysis pro cesses. Table 3.1. Data Collected Throughout the Let's Make Movies Camp Focus Data Collected _________________________________________________________________________ Training Sessions Videotape s of large group sessions Videotape s of practice sessions Observations of understandings of film and use of digital editing tools Informal interviews with children about their knowledge of movie making Discussions with counselors about children's understanding Photograph s of key moments of literacies in action Video Planning Videotape s of planning sessions A rtifacts: planning sheets, scripts, storyboards Informal interviews during processes with children and camp counselors Observations for textual toys to follow through video creation Discussions with children about their use of these textual toys where did they come from? What is their understanding? Why did they choose them? Observational notes of change from initial planning to scripts to storyboards Ob servational notes about role and team emergences Filming Videotape s of filming sessions special attention to groups who planned with textual toys and watching for the emergence of these in other films Informal expert interviews with children during the f ilming process Observations of textual transformations during filming Observation notes on performances of literacies in action as students move from pretext to performance of text do they change roles? Editing Videotape s and observations of editing proce ss attend to text transformations Informal interviews with students as experts during the editing process Observation of changes in student roles. Reflections and Impacts Videotaped interviews of the children in expert role about their movies: what did yo u learn? How did your ideas evolve? How did you solve problems especially those dealing with lines of flight?

PAGE 103

91 Interview s of counselors about movies Audience Observ ations and interview s with audience. Videotape s of sessions in order to view verbal, facial and gestural responses to idea generation. Videotaped Observations While collecting video data, I was mindful of my particular selection of what I recorded; I realized that all observations were selected through my terministic screen (Burke, 1945/1966 ). Therefore, these selections reflected my view of reality and also deflected ideologies different from my own. Furthermore, as I began to analyze the data, I narrowed my focus to search for my identified unit of analysis: influential literacy performance s. Therefore, in studying the culture of filmmaking camp, I do not assume I recreated the absolute reality. Rather, as Geertz (1973) noted: "Cultural analysis is (or should be) guessing at meanings, assessing the guesses, and drawing explanatory conclusion s from the better guesses, not discovering the Continent of Meaning and mapping out its bodiless landscape" (p. 17). Therefore, I used videotaped observations to create my best guesstimates or "to draw large conclusions from small, but very densely texture d facts" (p. 28). Schuck and Kearney (2006) discuss the use of digital video as a tool that enables the researcher to capture such densely textured facts for more close analysis. One important feature of digital video is that the eye of the camera captur es the raw process in motion, as opposed to observer notes written through a researcher's perspective. During the process, I observed all aspects of the filmmaking process, video taping those observations to maintain the multiplicity of meaning inherent in creation data. I videotaped the training sessions, the planning sessions, the filming sessions, and the

PAGE 104

92 editing sessions paying special attention to those instances of the use of textual toys to follow throughout the processes. Another strength of videot aping data is that it helped me capture interactions and changes over time. Videotaped data allows a researcher to view and review the data through different lenses. In this case, where I was particularly interested in mapping influential literacies, video taping allowed me to go back and view the events that created possibilities (popping the qwiff), the interactions during the influential literacies, and the effects of those literacies in action, in space and time. I came to consider videotaped data essent ial for a dramaturgical analysis. Interviews Dyson (2000) discussed the oral language "in, around, and about writing" (Dyson, 2000, p. 45) as essential to understanding text "on its own, isolated on an expanse of paper" (p. 45). Similarly, Britton (1970) d escribed the "sea of talk" on which "writing floats" (p. 164). Dyson noted that the sea of talk is something that "provides the links between you [educator] and them [students] and what they write, between what they have written and each other" (p. 45). T herefore, in addition to paying close attention during oral discussions, I employed both informal and formal interviews "in, around, and about" composition of digital videos. Morse (1994) recommended collecting between 30 and 50 interviews. I conducted th ese interviews with my focus group teams, as well as with a representative sample of all stakeholders in the filmmaking camp (i.e. camp director, counselors, students, theatre employees, parents, and other audience members who attended the final premiere). These interviews were not necessarily formal interviews, but rather, consisted of strategically

PAGE 105

93 placed questions and comments during the flow of work. In the following sections, I elaborate on my methods of interviewing employed in the study. Informal Que stions During my initial observations, I found that interviewing during the creative process of filmmaking to be highly interruptive. Therefore, I used more unobtrusive informal questions during natural breaks in the creative processes. In general, studen ts enjoyed showing their works in progress to adults involved with the camp. More specifically, when I followed a group closely, they asked my advice, shared their ideas, and confided in me sharing secret rituals and other "off the record" moments. Most of these off the record moments involved playful moments, during which I turned off the video camera. Member Checking Interviews I conducted regular member checking interviews as I collected my data. When I noticed something interesting (something that rea lly caught my attention) I discussed it with the camp director, the counselors, and the students. I continued this recursive process as themes began to emerge within my data. I checked my interpretation of these themes with the perspectives and activities of the participants. Interviews in Filmmaking Role In past experience with LMM, many of of the post production interviews were conducted in role, where the researcher would ask the students about the decisions that they had made as directors, actors, writ ers, and editors. Students responded, not from a child like stance, but more from a dramaturgical (Goffman, 1959) perspective, where I interviewed the children in their filmmaking roles. In a dramaturgical approach, I

PAGE 106

94 assumed the position of interviewer/re porter, while the students assumed the positions of filmmakers in response to my questions to them as experts. Therefore, the students answered questions from a frontstage (Goffman, 1959) perspective in role as filmmakers, in front of a presumed audience r ather than a backstage (Goffman, 1959) perspective. Like any questioning method, I considered the legitimacy of the answers. However, I used this method because it was a regular activity in camp. Part of the camp process was to interview students as the d irectors of their movies similar to the idea of directors' interviews on DVD's. Because this was part of the dramatic role in camp, the questions were co constructed with the organizers of the camp. They were interested in learning what worked and didn't w ork for the students in camp. However, because these questions were performed as if the students were directors on a talk show, they were perhaps not as rigorous as detailed qualitative questioning methods. They were not intended to be typical qualitative questions. Therefore, when I used the data to triangulate my findings, I took the positive and performative nature into perspective. While I used this data to triangulate other findings, I did not use this data as a primary source. Data Analysis Procedures To capture Bauman and Briggs (1990) notions of "entextualization" and "decontextualization" I created a meta narrative. The meta narative included my own observations and how these appeared to link to other events. Bauman and Briggs recommended the use of "meta narration" as a methodology that could include elements that are usually overlooked in transcripts. Meta narration includes "features of the ongoing social interaction but also the structure and significance of the narrative and the way it is

PAGE 107

95 linked to other events" (p. 69). Through the creation of meta narratives, I added an interpretive perspective to descriptive analysis; thereby, providing "thick description" (Geertz, 1973). Geertz (1973) noted that "thick description" means not only a full descr iption of the study, but also an interpretation of meanings: "it is an interpretive; what it is interpretive of is the flow of social discourse, and the interpreting involved consists in trying to rescue the said' of such discourse from its perishing occa sions and fix it in perusable terms" (p. 20). I considered these meta narratives as interpretations of what I observed, in conjunction with descriptions of what took place. Furthermore, these interpretations included connections of how observed social in teractions are "linked to other events" or recontextualized within the composition processes. More specifically, I examined multiliteracy events as a modification of Heath's (1982) definition of a literacy event: "any occasion in which a piece of writing i s integral to the nature of participants' interactions and their interpretative processes" (p. 93). For example, I considered a multiliteracy event as "any occasion in which one or more [multiliteracies] were integral to the nature of participants' interac tions and their interpretive processes." As I inserted the meta narrative notes into my script, I attempted to capture the literacies students used, and in particular how the performances of these literacies served to influence the collaborative compositio n. I used meta narration as a way to relate observed social interactions to their significance within the performances of literacies. The meta narration functioned like an aside in literary plays. Consider, for example, the Shakespearean aside where the m ain character gets out of character and tells you what is happening in a first person point of view. I considered meta narration to be an essential component throughout my data

PAGE 108

96 collection and analysis. As previously indicated in the data collection section I wrote notes on my reflections and connections throughout the process. During camp, I participated in a complex cycle of data collection, transcription, and analysis. I viewed the filmmaking processes and participated in aside discussions with the coun selors, in order create narratives of the processes and metanarratives about my understandings of these students' use of multiliteracies in collaborative composition. I took researcher's notes of what I observed. I filmed and took digital photos. I observe d and copied student artifacts. This is what I called visions recording what I saw. Interpreting data or discussing my views of what happened is synonymous with its collection, but also entails the selection that is an active part of collecting data. After all, nobody can nor should, collect all the data. Rather, the recognition that a particular object, artifact, behavior or verbage is worth selecting is acknowledged in visioning data, as a selection of what I saw as a researcher. During the initial stage s of research, I created meta narratives of my views, or what I thought was happening. I recorded the literacies students used, how they used them, and how these served to influence the context (collaboration) as well as the creation of text (composition). Then, as an ongoing process throughout data collection, I participated in member checking through informal discussions and interviews. That is, I checked my views with those of the participants and created a meta narrative within a "hermeneutical circle" (Kvale, 1987). Within hermeneutic approaches, researchers must negotiate the meaning through a community of interpreters. Kvale discussed the interpretation of meaning as "characterized by a hermeneutical circle or spiral" (p. 62) of understanding and mea ning making. Kvale further noted that understanding a text (or any

PAGE 109

97 other representation) "takes place where the meaning of the separate parts is determined by the global meaning of text" (ibid.) and that "such a hermeneutical explication of the text is an infinite process while it ends in practice when a sensible meaning, a coherent understanding, free of inner contradictions has been reached" (ibid.). Although I realize an interpretation can never be absolute, the use of hermeneutics helped me create an in terpretive perspective that was dependent on intended meanings and the cultural context (Patton, 2002). As I wrote and rewrote my notes, I employed what Richardson and St. Pierre (2005) called creative analytic writing practices, as a method of inquiry. Be cause I am a recreational writer, scribbling down good ideas and expanding these through word play and metaphors is a comfortable activity for me. Expanding these activities to research, I used writing as a method of inquiry (Richardson & St. Pierre, 2005) similar to St. Pierre's (2000a; 2000b) notion of nomadic writing, which is "a kind of nomadic inquiry" in which the writer has the ability to "deterritorialize spaces" and travel between the writing and what the writing produces, in a practice she called "circling the text" (2000b). In describing the strengths of nomadic writing, St. Pierre (2000b) noted, "As I write, I think, I learn, and I change my mind about what I think" (p. 57). Likewise, in this study, as I wrote, I thought and talked to participan ts, an act which helped create a mindset of meaning that was "situated" within a socio cultural context (Barton, Hamilton, and Ivanic, 1999). Data Analysis: Available Designs My first level of analysis was to determine the Available Designs in filmmaking c amp. As previously stated, Available Designs are "resources for Design" and the

PAGE 110

98 structured set of conventions within a multiliteracies community of practice (NLG, 1996). Within these communities, one would expect what Brandt (1995) refered to as literacy s ponsors : the institutions, policies, and individuals that make the learning of literacy possible. Literacy sponsors have power over knowledge and uses of literacy in particular contexts. Furthermore, they can provide and/or control access to literacy tools which in the case of a filmmaking space, would include: digital cameras, computers, and informational sources about moving image techniques. In this study, I considered these literacy sponsors as part of Available Designs. Hamilton (2000) recommended "id entifying elements of literacy practices more closely" and "challenging and elaborating the concepts of practice and event" (p. 16) Therefore, while I identified literacy sponsors, I also attempted to elaborate on traditional views of literacy practices a nd events. Through this largely descriptive analysis, I viewed the activities through a dramatistic lens where language is viewed as just one of many symbolic actions (Burke, 1945/1966). Geertz (1973) noted that once behavior is seen as symbolic action, a debate o n whether culture is "subjective' or "objective" together with the essentialist insults of "idealist! materialist!"; "mentalist!" "behaviorist!"; "impressionist! positivist" is "wholly misconceived" (p. 10). Geertz noted that the question is not "w hat their ontological status is" but, rather, "what their import is" or their influence within the culture (ibid.). When I examined literacies in action in this study, I considered how these literacies appeared important or influential in the filmmaking ca mp. I determined these Available Designs through two years of observation and video data. Through the use of photo ethnography (Pink, 2002) I gathered images. I separated

PAGE 111

99 the activities into scenes or episodes based on Harr and Secord's (1972) notion of a n episode as a natural division of social life. Within these episodes, I envisioned the processes through a position of constructed reality (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) on the nature of reality as "constructed by an actor" or "created by a participant" (p. 87). I also collected researcher notes, paying special attention to the use of multiliteracies during the activities. In order to examine the multiliteracies performed in camp, I first examined the structure of camp or the "this is what we do here" contextual o rganization of the filmmaking camp. In case study research, Dyson and Genishi (2005) call this process, "casing the joint" (p. 19) where "situated on the edge of local action" researchers "amass information about the configuration of time and space, of peo ple, and of activity in their physical sites" (p. 19). In order to define the Discourse community, I used a combination of video footage, researcher notes, informal interviews, and photo ethnography. Using these multiple sources, I first constructed a nar rative of the activities in camp. Then I searched through a photo bank of 800 shots taken over two years in camp. I chose a photo that appeared to be representative of the narratives I had constructed. Finally, following the photo narrative, I summarized t he multiliteracy practices engaged during these activities and entered these into a table (see Table 4.1) where I summarized the literacies used in performance of instruction. After this descriptive analysis of the Available Designs in camp, I participated in a more local analysis of my three focus groups as they participated in the collaborative composition processes of designing their own films.

PAGE 112

100 Designing Phase 1: Literacies Used A second level of analysis reviewed the filmmaking camp activities to provi de a descriptive analysis of the multiliteracies used by students in collaborative composition. I watched the videotapes of processes of the three major focus groups and transcribed these into a script using Celtx ( www. ), the same scriptwriting software the students used in camp (see Figure 3.1). Figure 3 .1 Data Transcription as a Script Because I worked from a dramaturgically grounded perspective where I considered language to be only one of many symbolic actions the script was more representative than more traditional language transcription methods. The scriptwriting program was an invaluable aid to organization of my data. For example, as illustrated in Figure 3.1, the scriptwriting program automatically formatted actions and dialogue. As I organized the ongoing actions with scene headings, the program automatically created hyperlinks to the scenes (see the lower left hand corner of Figure 3.1).

PAGE 113

101 Furthermore, within each scene, I was able to add my interpr etive notes (see right hand side with notes tab) and link photos or video data (see media tab) relevant to interpretation. Ultimately, creating these scripts helped me to organize the continuous flow of activities into a more coherent narrative that could be broken down into scenes. I broke the actions down into scenes based on interruptions; that is, as I observed continuous actions, I created scene shifts where someone did or said something that caused my attention to shift. Therefore, I considered the t ranscription through a Deleuze and Guattari inspired (1987) process philosophy construction. I envisioned "lines of articulation" as the ongoing flow of activities toward the "molar" goal of creating a film. Meanwhile, I also considered the "lines of fligh t" as shifts in attention or activity. Furthermore, I considered my side notes as rhizomatic connections, which tied the transcript to the ongoing activities, as well as the effects in future scenes. Within any social situation, there is the possibility o f several realities existing at once, as was discussed by Lincoln and Guba (1985) and their discussion of Schrodinger's cat in the cage. William James (1950) described the use of selective attention to differentiating different "worlds" that our attention makes possible. Each of these subworlds has "its own special and separate style of existence" (p. 291) and "each world, whilst it is attended to, is real after its own fashion, only the reality lapses with the attention" (p. 293). In interpreting Design, I "attended to" literacies in action as interpreted through my terministic screen, which was illustrated throughout Chapters 1 and 2 of this dissertation. In Language as Symbolic Action (1966) Burke stated that a human is a "symbol using animal" (p. 3) in that "reality" is built of a "clutter of symbols about the

PAGE 114

102 past combined with whatever things we know mainly through maps, magazines, newspapers, and the like about the present . a construct of our symbol systems" (p. 5). This constructed reality equal s an individual's terministic screen. Furthermore, even though there is a "world," much of a situation is "reducible to a small set of interdependent rules and practices" (Goffman, 1974). In Designing, I used my terministic screen to search for specific li teracies in action and the system of rules and/or practices that help define and analyze social life. More specifically, I envisioned Designing as how performances of literacies helped to influence the collaborative composition processes. Following the co llection of data, I reviewed my notes and re viewed (viewed again) the process through my video data. I watched myself as a participant and played the tape for stimulated recall (Bloom, 1954). It created a new reflexive viewing persona: I was me (the resea rcher) watching tapes of me (the data collector) as I interacted in the research context. For example, I remember sitting in my study, watching the playback on the camera's viewfinder. I actually rotated the camera to try to include an off screen voice as if I were filming. After I completed this transcription analysis procedure for all three groups, I recorded the use of multiple literacies of the groups across the formal episodes (Harr & Secord, 1972) of composition Within camp, there were distinctly l abeled activity structures that created shifts in campers' activity. The camp director introduced these activities in the following manner, "First you will form into groups. Then you will complete your planning sheets. When you return tomorrow, you will cr eate scripts and storyboards. Once your scripts and storyboards are complete, you can begin filming. You

PAGE 115

103 should wrap up filming and begin editing on Thursday." (video data, 7 19 08) Therefore, I used these distinct activities as a way to break my analys is into the formal episodes of : 1) forming groups; 2) completing planning sheets; 3) creating scripts and storyboards; 4) filming; and, 5) editing. Then, in Table 4.2, I recorded the major literacies used by the groups when working at these five events o f filmmaking. Design Phase II: Collaborative Composition When I completed the scripts/transcripts for my three main informant groups, I had identified the major literacies used in collaborative composition. However, I had yet to determine how the students used these literacies. Because I was looking through a lens of Designing (NLG, 1996), I tried to envision all of the activities as occurring on a continuum. Because I was studying collaborative composition, I realized there were two major motions I needed to examine: the inward coming together of the collaboration as well as the forward motion of the composition. In order to envision these literacies in motion, I created diagrams that mapped the activities of students in their filmmaking groups (see Figure 3.2). Figure 3.2 Collaborative Composition: Inward and Forward

PAGE 116

104 I recorded the inward motion of how the students performed with socio cultural skills and competencies to collaborate. Then, I designed the middle "roadway" as the path of forward moving co mposition. Along this pathway, I recorded various instances where students' performances of literacies affected a transformation of the text. As I recorded these activities, I placed asterisks on the lines of flight (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987) as times when I noticed shifts in activities that lead to transformations in text. I also searched for rich points (Agar, 1994) as times when I noticed shifts in culture or development of the newly formed teams as microcultures or communitas (Turner, 1974). In the foll owing two sections, I will discuss my interpretation methods as I followed both the collaborative (coming together or emergence of communitas) as well as the composition (creative processes manifesting as influential literacy performances that lead to text ual transformations). The overall frame of interpretation I used was based on Bauman & Briggs (1990) discussions of contextualization and entextualization, which I describe in the next two sections. Designing as a Collaborative: Contextualization as Method In order to interpret the collaborative composition, it was necessary to define the emerging context. Rather than simply describing the context as dictated by the social and physical environment, I used a performance theory inspired notion of contextualiz ation (Goffman, 1974) as an interpretive lens. Using this notion of contextualization, I illustrated how the social and physical environment emerged "in negotiations between participants and social interactions" (Bauman & Briggs, 1990, p. 68). In order to analyze this emerging contextualization process, I searched for "contextualization cues" (ibid.) as signals for producing interpretive frameworks. That is, I searched for keys to

PAGE 117

105 performance (Bauman, 1977) that helped me discern "larger formal and function al patterns" (Bauman & Briggs, 1990, p. 69) that guided the collaboration. For example, I watched for emerging patterns of behavior within the context that seemed to bring the group together and move the process forward. In order to contextualize the activ ities of filmmaking, it was first necessary to frame behavior by asking, "What is going on here?" (Hare & Blumberg, 1988, p. 70). Sarbin (1977) noted that a dramaturgical approach places an emphasis on the context or contextualism, in that events consist o f a collage of many complex scenes or episodes. Each of these scenes lead to another and each, in turn, was influenced by parallel scenes and multiple actors who performed actions to meet their responsibilities and desires. The implications of these actio ns are that of constant change in the situations and the positions/roles actors occupy. Also, in order to identify shifts in behavior I was guided by Goffman's (1974) notion of identifying the structure of interactions at particular moments as constantly c hanging; "participants in interaction may have interests in blurring, changing, or confounding it" (p. xiv). Because I was interested in collaborative composition, it was necessary to study the emergence of teams (Goffman, 1959). Recall Goffman's (1959) d efinition of a performance team is "any set of individuals who cooperate in staging a single routine" (p. 79). Within these teams, I studied this emergence of the collaborative through the performance theory lens of communitas (Turner, 1974), where I cons idered emerging ritual behaviors and routines that helped students work as a performance team. As the team developed a sense of shared purpose as communitas, one would expect them to develop inside jokes and ritual behaviors as part of their backstage per formance. These

PAGE 118

106 would differ from the frontstage behaviors students would exhibit when they were interacting with individuals outside of their collaborative team. As I searched through the different episodes, I was able to identify the emergence of these b ehaviors as they related to influential performances. As these teams developed, I identified particular rituals that manifested as performance keys (Bauman, 1977). As Bauman (1977) noted, the essential task in performance ethnography is "to determine the c ulture specific constellations of communicative means that serve to key performance in particular communities" (p. 22). In a community, however, one would expect students to perform in different keys. For example, in a school like situation like filmmakin g camp, one would expect the individuals would perform in the role of students during learning activities; there would be behaviors that signify performing in the key of a student. However, one would also expect students to perform in the role of actors du ring filming. Performing as an actor would be keyed differently than performing as a student. In the analysis process, I identified students performing in four different keys performing as a kid, performing as a student, performing as a filmmaker, and perf orming as an actor and I noted how performing in these keys were influential. As students worked together and communicated, one would expect they would develop specific ritual behaviors and guiding routines for their teams. In the results I show how the d evelopment of performance keys helped me identify the students performing in different keys and how these keys, as roles, facilitated students' work. All of these rituals and routines are important in identifying the emergence of the collaboration and how this coming together influenced on the composition processes and

PAGE 119

107 ultimately, the texts that were produced. The use of contextualization implies an "agent centered" (Bauman & Briggs, 1990) view of performance as an "active process of negotiation" within whi ch "communicative competence, personal histories, and social identities" of the participants will "shape the reception of what is said" and done (p. 69). Designing as Composition: Entextualization as Method While I described the emerging context through co ntextualization, I also participated in a parallel analysis of the transformations of texts through entextualization. Bauman and Briggs (1990) noted that studies of performance are not simply poetic or aesthetic uses of language. Rather performance could p rovide a "frame" that "invites critical reflection on communicative processes" that would involve, in this case, envisioning literacies in action as an evolution or emergence over time: A given performance is tied to a number of speech events that precede and succeed it (past performances, readings of texts, negotiations, rehersals, gossip reports, critiques, challenges, subsequent performances, and the like). An adequate analysis of a single performance thus requires sensitive ethnographic study of how its form and meaning index a broad range of discourse types, some of which are not framed as performance. Performance based research can yield insights into diverse facets of language use and their interrelations. Because contrastive theories of speech and as sociated metaphysical assumptions embrace more than these discourse events alone, studying performance can open up a wider range of vantage points on how language can be structured and what roles it can play in social life (p. 60 61). Bauman and Briggs' (1 990) description of the use of performance for a frame was

PAGE 120

108 highly influential in my investigation of the uses of literacies in action across the Design processes. I searched for performance keys (Bauman, 1977) that I identified as "indices of entextualizat ion" (Bauman & Briggs, 1990, p. 74). While contextualization focused on "grounding of performance in situational contexts" (p. 72), entextualization enabled me to examine the "reflexive capacity of discourse" (p. 73) and take specific instances of influent ial literacies out of their contexts. Bauman and Briggs proposed an approach to the process of entextualization in performance, "by exploring the means available to participants in performance situations to render stretches of discourse discontinuous with their discursive surround, thus making them into coherent, effective, and memorable texts" (p. 73 74). In this study, I used th e concept of entextualization as I pulled scenes where students used literacies in ways that appeared to influence the compositi on processes. Recall that as I created the script/transcript, I was particularly mindful of influential literacies as spaces where literacies caused "lines of flight" or provided "popping the qwiff" possibilities. Using data and notes from my three main in formant groups, I recorded in the notes tab how students' use of literacies in action became influential in the processes. Lahr and Price (1973) in the book Life Show: How to See Theater in Life and Life in Theater describe the dramaturgical perspective calling the participants "life performer[s]" who are "continuously being placed in cultural scenes in which special performances are demanded" (p. 6). Therefore, after mapping the emerging cultural "scenes" (contextualization), I was interested in studyi ng the influential "performances" of literacies in action (entextualuzation). More specifically, I used Bauman and Briggs'

PAGE 121

109 (1990) framework of performance analysis, which investigated entextualization (verbal art forms through performance keys), decontextu alization (decentering from context), and recontextualization (recentering into a context) as a way to open: A way toward constructing histories of performance; toward illuminating the larger systemic structures in which performances play a constitutive ro le, and toward linking performances with other modes of language use as performances are decentered and recentered both within and across speech events referred to, cited, evaluated, reported, looked back upon, replayed and other wise transformed in the pr oduction and reproduction of social life (p. 80). Bauman and Briggs (1990) noted that in order to study the mechanisms of entextualization, it is first necessary to decontextualize texts and then recontextualize them back into the surrounding activities. U sing this notion of decontextualization and recontextualization in my study, I first decontextualized scenes of influential literacy performances to study as text segments. In order to visualize the differences in agency and power between individuals in te ams, I created visual dramaturgical socio grams, where I showed which individual/s appeared to be the center of attention or influence. I adapted a conceptual illustration Hare and Blumberg (1988) used to depict dramaturgical interactions (see Figure 3.3). In this model, it is necessary to first define the pentadic elements: the act, the agents, the agency (individuals, literacies, and tools that affect the idea), the scene/s, and the purpose or motives. Next, the action area or region is defined. Individua ls are placed, depending on whether they are performing in a frontstage, backstage, or off stage (off task) position. Students are depicted as circles; the most influential student in each scene

PAGE 122

110 is depicted as a large circle and the other students as small circles. For example, in Figure 3.3, the influential student, depicted as the large circle, was the one who had the most attention of the others on the team. Within each scene, I also placed interaction/attention arrows to show the movement of discourse. One way arrows mean the discourse goes one way. Two way arrows equal transactive, attentive discourse. In most scenes, there was usually some form of interaction with a counselor. Occasionally the team members asked for researcher input. As a researcher, I filmed the entire process, with the exception of very few requested off camera moments; I respected those times when the students asked me to keep the filming "off the record". Figure 3.3 Dramaturgical Interactions: Model of Socio grams Used

PAGE 123

111 In the sc ene illustrated in Figure 3.3, the students are working in "backstage" functions as a crew. At this point, one student, "Len" was in the principle role as the idea generator or possible future director (as his pitch and gestures signify). The smaller circl es represent the others who joined as a team. Hare & Blumberg (1988) noted this observance could be thought of as similar to the chorus in a Greek Tragedy, where they begin to parrot ideas as supporters, but also function as potential actors depending on a gency and power shifts. In the diagram, I also depicted the "audience" and the offstage characters, which may occasionally infiltrate the small circle of the team. Using this diagram, I deconstructed particularly influential literacies in action and discu ssed how these became influential within a "web of meaning" (Geertz, 1973). Because I was interested in how literacies influenced the processes of Designing, I considered Bauman and Briggs (1990) elements of access. Bauman & Briggs referred to the followi ng four elements access, legitimacy, competence, and values which "bear centrally on the construction and assumption of authority" (p. 77). I consider Bauman and Briggs notion of "authority" to be similar to Foucault's (1980) notion of power as "productive ": power is "a result of interactions and relationships, rather than an entity that is possessed by some and desired or resisted by others" (Moje & Lewis, 2007, p. 17). Although Foucault (1977) noted power relationships and acknowledged how some groups wer e dominant over others, he argued that power is produced through practices within systems. These systems are part of an "archeology of knowledge" (Foucault, 1969/1974) or an historical treatment, which searches for dominant discourses operating within syst ems, resulting in authority. Authority is necessary for influence. From this perspective, authority consider s

PAGE 124

112 none of these elements as a "social or cultural given" because these elements are all "subject to negotiation" through the processes of entextuali zation, decontextualization, and recontextualization (p. 76). Rather, these elements are based on "the construction and assumption of authority" (Bauman & Briggs, 1990, p. 77). Citing Bakhtin's (1923/1981) notion of "authority," Bauman and Briggs (1990) n oted that an authoritative text is "one that is maximally protected from compromising transformation" (p. 77). Therefore, authority in constructing the text could be considered an influential performance of literacy (Goffman, 1959). That is not to say that this authority may not be compromised. In fact, based on a Bakhtinian approach to authority, carnivalesque (Bakhtin, 1941/1965) performances, like parody, engage individuals in both a simultaneous performance, but also a resistance of order through transf ormations. These questions helped me deconstruct the transformations and explain how the different literacy performances are enabled by shifts in agency and create changes in power structures throughout the process. Therefore, within a specific performanc e team, I studied the ways in which students performed literacies that ultimately influenced transformations in text. I identified tactics (de Certeau, 1984) students appeared to use to gain attention and gain influence (Goffman, 1959) within teams. Recall Goffman's notion of teams that I discussed in Chapter Two. Despite the emerging rituals and shared rights and responsibilities, certain performances of literacies were more influential in the teams and resulted in individuals who were "given the right to direct and control the progress of the dramatic action" (p. 97) and exert more influence over the resulting text. Using this Bauman & Briggs (1990) method of contextualization and

PAGE 125

113 entextualization, I created an emerging model of influential literacies th at combined the emergence of the coming together of collaboration with the forward motion of the transformation of text through composition. Then, in the third section, the Re designed, I examined the influence of the elements of this model as I participat ed in a micro analysis of an idea changed over time. Re designed The New London Group (1996) defined Re designed as how ideas are "reproduced and transformed through Designing" (NLG, 1996). While the word "Re designed" denotes a static, completed product, the definition implies an active performance. Therefore, in investigating the "Redesigned" I was interested in how influential literacies served as acts of Redesigning to transform the text over time. In order to follow a particular transformation I used all three groups. Within each group, I provided an analysis of one particular idea and how it transformed over time. By using three groups, I was able to provide a comparative and contrastive analysis, where, using the Available Designs and the Designing p rocesses, I was able to envision how students performed multiple literacies in order to transform texts over time. Below, I describe the methodology used for all three groups individually. First of all, I chose an intertextual archetype (Eco, 1986) that st udents used as a textual toy (Dyson, 2003). Students appropriated these ideas as "memes" (Dawkins, 1976; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003) or particularly strong ideas, from popular culture. I considered the idea and what I knew about it as an intertextual archet ype (Eco, 1986). Second, I analyzed the product using a methodology based on Burn and Parker's (2003) method for analyzing media texts. However, rather than focusing on a social

PAGE 126

114 semiotic interpretation, I used a lens of performance theory. More specifical ly, I focused on the influential performances of literacies that created transformations in the text over time. Like Burn and Parker, I chose a particular segment of a short video created by one of the student groups. In this study, because I wanted to fol low appropriated ideas, I chose to analyze a scene from the Idea Group. In particular, I focused on the "I'm so scared" scene as appropriated from the movie Blair Witch, and followed its transformations across a variety of modalities and media. I organized my analysis similar to Burn and Parker; however, as previously stated, I focused on performances of literacies, rather than representational meanings of text. First, I describe the Re designed text of the scene. Second, I follow the scene through the Desi gning process, keeping note of how performances of multiple literacies and tactics influenced changes the Re designing of the texts over time. Third, I provide a summary, in table form of the influential literacies and tactics that appeared to be influenti al in Re designing. Finally, I summarize all three groups in terms of influential literacy performances and tactics and discuss these 2008 results in terms of my observations during the 2009 camp. Step One: The Re designed First I provide a brief summary of the film, which includes a discussion of the genre and how the film fits into the culture of camp. This is followed by a more detailed description of the actual "I'm so scared" scene. In this description, I also provide a description of the different m odalities based on Burn and Parker's (2003) kineikonic analysis of a scene. As described in the first two Chapters, Burn and Parker discussed Metz's (1974) notions of the language of film, which include both filmic and cinematic elements. Like Burn and Par ker, I provide an analysis of the following modes: music,

PAGE 127

115 action, shots and angles, written language, speech, movement over time, designing social space, and putting the modes together. Step Two: Redesigning Next, I consider the "I'm so scared" scene as it transformed over time. As discussed in chapter 2, I chose an idea that represented a textual toy (Dyson, 2003) that I identified as a strong popular culture "intertextual archetype" (Eco, 1986) from film. I began with the assumption that even though stude nts appropriated a strong idea into their movie, they did not just "meme" (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003) or replicate the original idea. Rather, they "repurposed" the textual toy to fit within their storyline (Jenkins Jenkins, Purushotma, Weigel, Clinton, & Ro bison 2009). I considered this repurposing in terms of Bauman and Briggs' (1990) notions of transformations through contextualizations of texts. I began with "mimesis" where the idea "memed" or resembled the text from which it was appropriated. Then I sea rched for a "poesis" or how the text was re made within the context; that is, I searched for influential literacies in the composition processes that involved "making" of the particular scene. Within this poesis or creation I searched for evidence of kines is or change, using the PAID Attention model described in Design. While I used the model to illustrate the construction of the text during Designing as lines of articulation (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987), in Redesigning, I show how this model can also be used to illustrate transformations as lines of flight (ibid.). In order to locate transformations, I was guided by Bauman and Briggs (1990) who noted that the process of decontextualization and recontextualization of texts "is transformational" and in the ana lysis, one must "determine what the recontextualized text

PAGE 128

116 brings with it from its earlier context(s) and what emergent form, function, and meaning it is given as it is recentered" (p. 75). Bauman and Briggs noted that in mapping "dimensions of transformati on" through decontextualization and recontextualization, the following elements were essential to examine, both independently and interrelationally: framing, form, function, indexical grounding, translation, and emergent structure. Therefore, I considered the guiding questions found in Figure 3.4, when envisioning textual transformations. Figure 3.4 Bauman & Briggs (1990) Dimensions of Transformation 1) Framing. What is the footing (Goffman, 1981)? Is it linked to prior renderings? What are the changes in gen re? 2) Form. Is there a change in form in terms of grammar, speech style, or use of multimodalities? Is it placed in a particular space in the text to evoke a key emotion or a "whole" feeling of the past meme? 3) Function. How is the textual toy used? Is it used for entertainment? Is it used as part of the literacy practices? Is it used for influence? Is it used for pedagogy? 4) Indexical grounding. Where are the changes in person, location, and time? How did the audience make connections from this textual toy? 5) Tra nslation. What uses of different language elements and/or different media influenced the transformations of this text? How did different literacies in action influence this text and the context? 6) Emergent structure. How did these changes in text translate into changes in the situational context?

PAGE 129

117 Therefore, when analyzing these texts, I chose specific points where the composition processes focused on issues surrounding the composition of the text scene and mapped these scenes based on the model developed in Designing. Ultimately, I provide a more detailed microanalysis, where I document how individual students perform literacies in order to influence the attention of their group toward their ideas, which lead to transformations in text. Step Three: Redesign ing Through Influential Literacy Performances After each section of analysis, I provided a table, which summari z ed the multiple literacies and tactics engaged during influential literacy performances. Furthermore, I summarize d the multiliteracies and tacti cs of performance students used and then compare/contrast these across my three main focus groups in order to provide further evidence of my findings. This provides a contrastive (Green, Dixon, & Zaharlick, 2005) viewpoint to illustrate how different group s of individuals working within the "control mechanisms" (Geertz, 1973) I discovered in camp. Finally, I summarize these findings and then provide another layer of generalizability: I examined these results of the 2008 camp and compared them to my experien ces in the 2009 camp. In 2009, I had subjected my 2008 data to the first round of data analysis and had discovered the Influential Literacy Performances. Then, during the four weeks of the 2009 camp, I observed episodes of behaviors of all groups in the ca mp and made notes as to how these new observations triangulated with my findings. Ethical Considerations I completed an IRB the first year of data collection for the main study. I have completed continuation forms for an extension of the study. Other ethi cal considerations

PAGE 130

118 include the fact that I remained available for parent inquiries throughout the entire process. In addition I videotaped all questioning so parents could have access to these sessions if they wished. Mindful of students' creation process es first and foremost, I ensured to maintain a low profile and unobtrusive questioning so as to not interrupt the flow of work. Furthermore, placed the data in a locked filing cabinet. Only the research team (listed on the IRB) had access. Within the body of the results and discussion sections, I have provided pseudonyms for all participants. Limitations of the Study Johnson and Christensen (2004) defined external validity as how extensive the results of a study can be generalized. Due to the fact that th is research was conducted with a specific sample within a population, the results cannot even be generalized to the population. However, research in the area is new and this study will attempt to define parameters to be studied in the future. T ashakkori an d Teddlie (1998) defined legitimation (validity in quanitative research) as the degree to which interpretations meet rigor and the degree to which alternate explanations can be ruled out. Threats to legitimization in this study include the degree to which participants are truthful in their discussion of techniques used to create their movies. I attempted to maintain rigor and trustworthiness by constant observation and maintaining an emic perspective. I also consistently provided on the spot, recursive memb er checks with the participants as I wrote my researcher observation notes. In addition, in focus group interviews, I ensured the answers were interpreted as the participants planned. In addition, I used rhizomatic validity (Lather, 1993). Lather (1993) s uggested

PAGE 131

119 "rhizomatic validity" in qualitative research addresses: A nomadic and dispersed validitya strategy of excess and categorical scandal in the hope of both imploding ideas of policing social science and working against the inscription of another regime of truth'rather than prescriptions for establishing validity in post positivist empirical work [rhizomatic validity offers] a forthrightly personal and deliberately ephemeral antithesis to more conventional and prescriptive discourse practices of v alidity (p. 677). Lather suggested rhizomes supplement and exceed those concepts that have been ordered to represent more stable concepts. Therefore, rhizomatic validity lets "contradictions remain in tension, to unsettle from within, to dissolve interpre tations by marking them as temporary, partial, invested" (p. 681). I was particularly interested in concepts "unsettl[ing] from within"; therefore, I attempted to link my interpretations to past or future actions of the individuals within the study and to show how these were temporary interpretations that were linked to particular circumstances and transformed over time. After each observation and subsequent videotape I went home, wrote notes, observed the videotapes, and checked any interesting findings wi th the participants the next day. Therefore, rather than maintaining my own observations and interpretations, I infused opinions of the participants into my interpretations. When their opinions and observations matched my findings, I considered these as va lidations. Alternatively, when their observations did not match my findings, I further questioned these participants and tried to view "reality construction" through their eyes or add elements of their terministic screen (Burke, 1945/1966) to my own. In te rms of external credibility ( the degree to which findings can be generalized

PAGE 132

120 across different populations settings, contexts, and times) t he findings of the qualitative phase of this study should be considered in terms of the specific sample of students, performing the same task, within the same context (building and instructional). I addressed internal credibility as well as qualitative rigor in the following ways. In terms of structural corr oboration, I used investigator triangulation (Denzin, 1978) to v iew this process through the eyes of the multiple students as they create these projects, attempting what Eisner (1991) called a "confluence of evidence" (p. 110) In order to guard against observational bias (Onwuegbuzie, 2003) I participated in p ersisten t obser vation and prolonged engagement, as suggested by Lincoln and Guba (1985). I also obtained a sufficient sample of behaviors (through videos) from the underlying data in order to guard against observational bias (Onwuegbuzie 2003 ). Furthermore, when I found interesting "rich points" (Agar, 1994) I discussed these with the camp director and/or counselors to gain their perspectives. Due to the fact that this was an exploratory study, I held no preconceived notions of participants' responses. However, I tend to view the world through a glass half full perspective; that is, I "see" what works and try to think of ways to move learning forward and transfer what works to other settings. I understand that my personal positive bias has potential to skew data. A dramatistic lens aligned with my philosophy and allowed me to be less personal with the data interpretation. Therefore, using a dramaturgical lens, I tried to detach myself from the immediate data (and my expectations) and re view and create a sense of or der about the social interactions through the use of scripts and social interaction diagrams about "what it was" from my own terministic screen of background knowledge. I employed the following techniques to assess or increase legitimation: prolonged

PAGE 133

121 enga gement, persistent observation (including video and photos), leaving an audit trail, reiterative member checking, weighing the evidence, checking that data adequately represents the experience, check for bias, making contrasts/comparisons, theoretical samp ling, checking the attributes of and meaning of outliers and negative cases, using extreme examples for extra evaluation thick and rich description, assessing rival explanations. I continued member checking (which establishes overall credibility) of the d ata as a reiterative process throughout my data collection. As Lincoln and Guba (1985) recommended, member checking is "the most critical technique for establishing credibility" (p. 314). However, as Miles and Huberman (1994) found, few interpretivists emp loy member checks probably due to time constraints. I experimented with a variety of "member checking" methods and decided to use an ongoing reiterative process with my research notes. When I identified something "interesting" I checked with different stak eholders and asked for their opinion on my impressions. Then I compared their impression with my immediate thoughts and recorded the ideas that agreed and kept investigating "lines of flight" in my thoughts for further evidence. Finally, during data analys is, I checked my interpretations with the camp director for three reasons. First, I wished to capture the molar structure in relation to his intents and purposes of the camp. Second, I wanted an experienced set of eyes (ran and observed the camp for 6 year s) to review what I saw. I treated these discussions as a "do you see what I see" exercise. Third, for any lines of flight, I reviewed my data and discussed these with the camp director. These instances provided particularly insightful discussions that bot h informed my data and provided ongoing structural/functional changes to camp.

PAGE 134

122 Through my use of contrastive triangulation (Green et al, 2005) I was able to determine differences as "outliers" as advocated by Miles and Huberman (1994). In fact, as a rhizo matic perspective suggests, these spaces of deterritorialization important spaces for interpretation. In terms of discussing these contrasts, I used condition seeking methods (Greenwald, et al., 1986) through my dramaturgical analysis where I searched for influences of literacies in action. I assembled video clips and then went back and wrote the script by first envisioning the actions and discourse in terms of a script. Then, in another layer of inquiry, I illustrated these activities as scenes and searche d for the ways in which literacies influenced the composition processes. After I identified influential literacies, I searched for how the texts and contexts shifted following these influential uses of literacies. In chapter 4, I report on my findings for these methods. Following the overview in this chapter, I first provide a descriptive analysis of the Available Designs. Next, I focus on the Designing processes, during which I create a model of how influential literacy performances can be envisioned as a creation of an attention economy. Finally, I take the model of attention economy and show how students' influential literacy performances affected the Redesign of their filmmaking.

PAGE 135

123 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULT S Introduction In this chapter, I provide an anal ysis of data from a study of collaborative composition in a digital filmmaking community. The analysis was inspired by performance theory and framed within the New London Group (NLG) "Designs" of meaning (1996) in a Discourse community (Gee, 1996). Accordi ng to the NLG, when students are designing with multiliteracies, they draw from Available Designs as they work on Designing their own products, which are then considered the Redesigned As previously discussed, the NLG framework is heavily inspired by a so cial semiotic stance. However, in this study, I have operated from a stance informed by cultural performance theories. First I examine the Available Designs as performances of literacy in the filmmaking Discourse community. The NLG defined Available Desig ns as "resources for meaning: available designs of meaning" (p. 77). Therefore, in this first section, I provide a descriptive analysis of the instructional sessions in filmmaking camp. This descriptive analysis creates an overview of the contexts, materia ls, strategies, filmic resources, literacies, and language used during instructional sessions; these are construed here as "raw material" that has the potential to be used (or ignored) when students construct and perform their meaning.

PAGE 136

124 This descriptive ana lysis creates an overview of the Available Designs of multiple literacies in the filmmaking Discourse community. Here, I examine how these Available Designs are taken up and performed as literacies during the instructional sessions. As previously mentione d, rather than using a semiotic framework, I was interested in looking at a cultural model of how multiliteracies were used or performed, in this instance, by the camp director. These available performances served as a form of "modeled filmmaking" where mu ltiple literacies were used throughout the instructional practices. I described the filmmaking camp instructional processes through a descriptive analysis of the director's predetermined categories of multiliteracies engaged during the instructional proces ses in camp. As discussed previously, rather than considering the available designs through a social semiotic perspective, I created predetermined categories based Jenkins (2009), which include: oral language, traditional literacies (reading and wri ting), visual literacies, and media/digital literacies. Furthermore, I augmented the media/digital literacies to include visual and moving image literacies (Burn & Parker; 2003). Therefore, in the first section, I provided a descriptive analysis of what mu ltiliteracies are used during instruction in the filmmaking camp, categorized as oral language, reading, writing, visual, moving image, and media/digital literacies. Second, I examined the processes of Designing or the "the work performed on/with available designs (NLG, 1996, p. 80). In other words, I examined the processes of collaborative composition. First, I completed a constant comparative analysis (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998) to find major influences during the collaborative composition processes. This i s where I discovered two emergences that required attention for analysis: the inward development of the collaborative as teams and the forward motion of composition

PAGE 137

1 25 as influenced by individuals. Second, I conducted a performance based analysis, inspired by performance theory (Bauman & Briggs, 1990; Burke, 1945/1966; 1969; Goffman, 1959) as illustrated in Chapter Three. Because I examined collaborative groups, the dramaturgical lens provided an interaction based perspective through which to view the cooperat ive nature of how multiliteracies were used throughout the composition processes. Furthermore, using influential literacies as a unit of analysis, I examined how individual students within the collaborative groups were able to affect the composition proces ses and create transformations in the emerging text. This analysis resulted in a model of collaborative composition, which accounted for both the emerging collaborative contextualization (inward motion) as well as the textual transformations over time as i nfluenced by individual performances of literacies. Third, I provided an overview of the Redesigned, where I show how resources were "reproduced and transformed through Designing" (NLG, 1996). In other words, I examined the product and its change over time as Redesigning. Ultimately, I traced back through Designing to create a model of how literacy performances influenced the transformation of texts. Using Deleuze and Guattari's (1987) notions of lines of articulation and lines of flight as a temporal lens, I located and traced "textual toys" (Dyson, 2003) as "intertextual archetypes" (Eco, 1986) to map how literacy performances transformed ideas throughout the composition processes; I called this process Redesigning. In this analysis, I used lines of fligh t (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987), or the incursion of difference as rich points (Agar, 1994) for transformations in text as a process of Redesigning. According to Agar (1980; 1994), rich points offer contrastive looks at data, as they appear in high relief as compared to the existing pattern (e.g. Deleuze and

PAGE 138

126 Guattari's notion of lines of articulation as existing pattern and lines of flight as contrastive). The use of c ontrastive analysis forces/allows alternative perspective taking. Available Designs as Afford ances for Literacy Performance: Part I In the filmmaking Discourse community the camp director's objective was to engage students in a rich, multiliteracy experience, where they could use a variety of literacy practices to create well constructed stories that reflect film genre knowledge. In order to examine the multiliteracies performed in camp, I first examined the structure of camp or the "this is what we do here" contextual organization of the filmmaking camp. The camp, as an event, constituted a boun ded case. In case study research, Dyson and Genishi (2005) call this process, "casing the joint" (p. 19) where "situated on the eduge of local action" researchers "amass information oabout the configuration of time and space, of people, and of activity in their physical sites" (p. 19). In order to define the Design community of the film camp, as described in Chapter 3, I used a conbination of video footage, researcher notes, informal interview, and photo ethnography. Using these multiple sources, I first co nstructed a narrative of the activities in camp and chose a photo that represented episodes within the narratives I had constructed. I chose these photos based on how I thought they represented the descriptive narrative. In the following sections, I provi de a step by step photo ethnographic narrative of the structured activities of camp. The experience of photo ethnography can be enriched by simultaneously consulting Table 4. 1 for the constituent activities. The photos provide a snapshot of the ongoing ac tivities and the narratives situate the activities as part of the Available Designs in filmmaking camp. In each section, I introduced how

PAGE 139

127 the multiple literacies were introduced to students and applied as knowledge performances. ` Figure 4.1 Getting Read y for Camp Getting Ready for Camp Prior to the students arriving at camp, the director, instructors, and theatre staff prepare the learning space (see Figure 4.1), which consisted of the theatre stage and tables filled with filmmaking equipment. This prep aration includes setting up all of the equipment necessary for the day's activities, including: projector, cameras, computers, lights, microphones, and tripods. All of the technical equipment is plugged in, turned on, and tested prior to the students' arri val. The theatre staff members also assist with the creation and organization of nametags and sign in sheets for the students. Right before the students arrive, the camp director opens his files on his presentation computer and checks the projection. As an observer, I found the atmosphere organized and energetic. Campers Sign In Before the students arrived, one theatre staff member and two instructors waited outside to the check in (see Figure 4.2), which was located at the car drop off spot

PAGE 140

128 outside of the theatre working entrance. Figure 4.2 Campers Sign In This was an organized process, where the theatre staff member asked parents to sign a sheet to signify they had dropped off their child. Then, one instructor handed a nametag to the student before t he student entered the building. Another instructor guided the student from the doorway, into the theatre. As an observer of the process, I found the activities set a tone of order to the camp. I speculated that this order, sequence, precision, and prepare dness indicated to campers that this was a safe, structured space for learning. Introduction of Cast of Characters Once all the students had arrived, the camp director provided introductions (see Figure 4.3).

PAGE 141

129 Figure 4.3 Introduction First, he welcomed the students to camp and established their position and the purpose of camp: "We are here to help you create films." Then he introduced himself to the campers as part of the team of counselors. Next he introduced the theatre staff and counselors and discu ssed their roles within the film camp. In this process, the camp director established a "cast of characters" of the theatre staff and counselors as "people who are at camp to teach you filmmaking and to keep you safe." At this point, the camp director, alo ng with the staff and counselors, became part of the Available Designs. Overview After the camp director introduced the staff and elaborated on behavioral expectations of camp, he provided an overview of the week's activities (see Figure 4.4). Figure 4. 4 Overview of the Week He began by explaining, "Filmmaking is a collaborative activity and you will be working in cooperative groups" (Fieldnotes, July 2009). Then he narrated a Keynote presentation where he provided a general overview of the multiple li teracy activities involved in filmmaking, including: scriptwriting, storyboarding, lighting, shots and angles, camera and tripod use, digital editing with iMovie, and story writing skills. He

PAGE 142

130 also discussed the learning objectives and group activities (mak ing films in collaborative groups) to be accomplished over the week of half days. This activity resulted in an organizational structure for the entire week, which is illustrated in the following sections. Figure 4.5 Location Scouting Location Scouting Following the overview, one of the theatre staff members led the students on a location scouting tour (see Figure 4.5). The theatre staff members conducted this tour as if the students were location scouts for a film studio. While discussing the history a nd features of the theatre, the guide also provided ideas on how to use theatre settings in "imaginary" ways. For example, the doorway to the downstairs bathrooms is also gated with a black wrought iron gate an "artistic" embellishment for this 1920's Ital ianate themed movie palace. For previous film camps, this gate has been used as a jail cell. Throughout the tour, students were encouraged to use their imagination, to visualize selected theater "locations" as possible sets for their future movies; and, to share these ideas with the group. Location scouting helped immerse students in the Available Designs of camp. While the theatre staff members pointed out possibilities, they also

PAGE 143

131 encouraged the children to use visualization and fantasy as strategies to pr oject their own meaning onto these items of Available Designs. Figure 4.6 Popcorn Break Popcorn Break After the location scouting tour, the students stopped for a popcorn and drinks break (see Figure 4.6). This was a daily routine that occurred approxim ately in the middle of the session. The first popcorn break set the tone for the week. During each popcorn break, the students sat down in the theatre and watched clips from television, movies, YouTube, and music videos that depicted a variety of moving im age literacies. These example videos, and their cinematic elements, became part of the Available Designs. During this time the counselors engaged students in large group discussions about topics such as the use of shots, angles, lighting, music, and specia l effects in movies. For example, in order to teach the concept of a tracking shot a shot where the camera follows the action counselors would first define the concept. Then they would show a movie clip that illustrated the concept. The viewing was followe d by a discussion of the shot; this extended to connections the students made to other films they had seen. After

PAGE 144

132 the first popcorn break, the students learned the routine, and this time became ritualized as "the popcorn break" a time for watching, learnin g, and discussing moving image literacy which is a decidedly different purpose than simply enjoying film clips. The Workshops After popcorn break, the students were randomly assigned to rotate among four workshops in groups. This random assignment was one of two activities during which the students had opportunities to work with different people prior to choosing their filmmaking teams. There were four simultaneous workshops, t hrough which the students rotated on a fifteen minute schedule. These workshops i ncluded: shots and angles, camera and tripod use, lighting, and sound. After the students were sorted into the four groups, they followed the instructors to their assigned activities as noted in the following descriptions. Figure 4.7. Shots and Angles W orkshop Shots and Angles During the shots and angles workshop, students learned about the different shots

PAGE 145

133 and angles used during filming; such as, extreme close ups, close ups, medium shots, long shots, over the shoulder shots, wide angle shots, high angle s, low angles, and Dutch angles (used in horror movies before something crazy is about to happen). As shown on the information sheets, in Figure 4.7 (see Appendix I for a complete listing ) students learned both how to film shots/angles and also why someone would use a particular shot to convey meaning. Then they practiced shooting different shots and angles with the video camera. After shooting, they watched the footage on the viewfinder and discussed whether they thought they chose the best shot for the vi sual purposes. Counselors reviewed the vocabulary of shots and angles with the students and encouraged them to use the vocabulary of filmmaking as part of the Discourse community of camp. This vocabulary and the shots became part of the Available Designs i n camp. Figure 4.8 Lighting Workshop Lighting During the lighting workshop, the students learned the construct, procedures, and terminology of three point lighting, including: key light, fill light, and back light. After the counselors reviewed the ter minology with the students while reading the hand out together (see Appendix II for the hand out), the campers participate d in a hands on

PAGE 146

134 session where they were able to try out the lights and see how they affected the appearance of the shots on the screen as illustrated in Figure 4.8. Later, the counselors scaffolded the students' use of this vocabulary while setting up their lighting systems during filming. The lighting information became part of the Available Designs in camp. Figure 4.9 Camera and Tr ipod Workshop Camera and Tripod Workshop In the camera and tripod workshop, illustrated in Figure 4.9, the students learned how to operate the cameras, insert and eject video tapes, change the batteries, set the cameras on the tripods, and manipulate the tripods in order to shoot at different heights and angles. For example, they learned how to pan, zoom, and tilt the camera whle using the tripod. While working, the students learned the vocabulary of the parts of the cameras and tripods. In addition, they learn the language of filming, such as: "three, two, one, action"; "cut"; "quiet on the set", and "that's a wrap." They also practiced saying action" prior to hitting the film button and waiting to say cut until after they finished filming the shot. Came ra manipulation and its vocabulary became part of the Available

PAGE 147

135 Designs in camp. Figure 4.10 Sound Workshop Sound workshop During the sound workshop, the students took turns reading from a script and filming different shots, with and without the use of microphones (illustrated in Figure 4.10). They shot a short scene that required six shots: a long shot, a medium close up, and four close ups. The close ups were of two different people having a conversation. After filming, they watched the clips and dis cussed why it is better to use close ups for speaking shots. During these speaking shots, they also critiqued the voice and learned to speak clearly and not too quickly while being filmed. Next, the counselor showed students how to use microphones, and the y refilmed the long shots and medium shots. The counselor downloaded the clips into iMovie and showed the students how to do voice overs for some of the long shots. The use of sound techniques and vocabulary became part of the Available Designs in camp. Le arning to Use iMovie Software After the four rotating workshops, the students returned to the theatre seats and watched the big screen as the camp director demonstrated the use of iMovie the video

PAGE 148

136 editing software used in filmmaking camp. Students learned how to download a movie into the program. Then they learn how to add transitions (i.e. fades, wipes, flips) and visual effects (i.e. aged film, fog, rain). Figure 4.11 Learning to Use iMovie The course director also demonstrated the many ways audio cou ld be used to enhance a film, including: how to add sound effects, how to do voice overs, and how to add music. After the students watched the demonstration, they downloaded the footage shot at the sound workshop and took turns practicing the skills they l earned using iMovie, as illustrated in Figure 4.11. Editing and editing software became part of the Available Designs in camp. Homework At the end of the first day, students received an idea sheet with instructions, (see Appendix III for a copy of these s heets). The camp director instructed students that their homework was to write down three ideas for possible movies. The counselors discussed the difference between a "seed" and a "watermelon" idea a seed idea is small, whereas a watermelon idea is a huge plot, filled with several

PAGE 149

137 small ideas. Before the students left, the camp director reminded them that these ideas should not be "epics"; rather, they should resemble a seed idea that could build into a simple video short. During the large group discussion the counselors helped the students make connections to examples from some of the short movies and YouTube clips they watched during the instructional sessions. Students left with the task of coming up with small seed ideas as opposed to big watermelon id eas for a movie that will last from three to five minutes. Genre and Story Structure Presentation Day two began with a presentation on film genres (i.e. horror, comedy, reality, documentary, mystery) and story structure. Students learned the discourse of g enres, as well as the specific filmic and cinematic elements found in these genres. For example, they discussed how extreme close ups or Dutch angles are used in scary movies to produce specific effects something crazy is about to happen. They viewed examp les of extreme close ups of frightened eyes and linked these to scary movies. They also discussed how the use of music and sound effects could be used to enhance the mood of the film, such as: scary sounds and suspenseful music for horror, lively music and funny sound effects for comedy, and sad, slow music for dramatic effects. In essence, they learned how certain genres provide particular Available Designs for filmmaking. Students also learned how to use a traditional three act structure to frame a screen play, as illustrated in Figure 4.1 2 They learned beginning, middle, and end, using the metaphor of a Shark (bite, body, tail). The counselors also used the plotline shown in Figure 4.13, which is a simplified version of Freytag's (1894) pyramid. At the en d of the workshop, the camp director used shared writing (McKenzie, 1985) to plan a group story

PAGE 150

138 to use for the next activities: the scriptwriting and storyboarding demonstrations. The planning structures and the camp director's modeling added to the Availa ble Designs in camp. Figure 4.12 Presentation on Movie Genres and Story Structure Scriptwriting Demonstration During the scriptwriting demonstration, the camp director showed students how to use Celtx ( ), a scriptwriting software that is available online for free (see Figure 4.1 3 ). Once again, the students were seated in the theatre and the camp director was on stage; his computer screen projected onto the big screen.

PAGE 151

139 Figure 4.13 Scriptwriting While they worked together on a shared writing of a script, the camp director demonstrated how to format using the automatic formatting tool (see where it says scene heading in Figure 4.14). The students learned how to properly format their scripts in terms of d ialogue, actions, and scene headings. They learned the ratio of one page of script equals one minute of movie. Additionally, he taught students that their scripts should be approximately 4 pages long, which includes: one page for the bite or beginning, two pages for the body or middle, and one final page for the tail or ending. Celtex became a part of the Available Designs in camp. Storyboarding Instruction The camp director and counselors demonstrated on large chart paper how to create quick storyboards t o plan shots and scenes as illustrated in Figure 4.14. Figure 4.14 Storyboarding During the storyboarding large group session, counselors emphasized how the

PAGE 152

140 storyboards are used to plan shots. The counselors began by modeling the process for the first shot. Then they switched to a more interactive strategy of "shared illustrating" a process similar to shared writing (McKenzie, 1985). Together, counselors and students created a storyboard for the short script they had previously written together in the scriptwriting demonstration. As they worked through the illustrations, the counselors helped the students choose the best shot to illustrate actions within the script. Storyboarding was used as part of the Available Designs in camp Dialogue and Acting Demo nstration The counselors helped the camp director demonstrate how to read/speak dialogue, make meaningful gestures, and act while being filmed. Using the script and storyboards produced in the last two lessons, they performed in role. They modeled reading a script in front of the group members and asking them if it "sounded right and looked right." The counselors also demonstrated how to "set up" for a shot by arranging the camera, lights, actors, and microphones (if necessary). Enactments like these enter ed as literacy performance models for Available Designs in camp. Figure 4.15. Dialogue and Acting

PAGE 153

141 Expanding Ideas Before students self selected their filming groups, they participated in a whole group discussion, where they shared some of their ideas f or movies. The counselors recorded ideas and asked the rest of the group to expand upon those ideas. The counselors also modeled expected discourse for discussing ideas, including: praise, polite critique, and questioning for clarification. Figure 4.16 Ideas Summary of Available Designs as Literacy Practices The above description defined the scene of filmmaking and sketched the expected literacy behaviors that were modeled and taught to the students. From a Deleuze and Guattari (1987) inspired interpret ation, the available designs defined the "molar" structure of filmmaking camp; that is the "situated literacies" (Barton & Hamilton, 2000), the "domains" (Barton & Hamilton, 2000) or the patterned contexts of literacy practices that are routinized ways in which people acted in Discourse spaces (Gee, 1996). The

PAGE 154

142 scripted molar expectations were both explicit and implicit. Explicit expectations were stated through the instructional sessions. During each session, the instructors either modeled appropriate behav ior or provided practice tasks for the students to complete under supervision with feedback. For example, during the sound session, after watching the instructor's example, students recorded a five shot sequence. Then the camp director provided a demonstra tion of the use of iMovie. Finally, they downloaded the shots into iMovie and learned how to use this application. During all of these activities, the students received explicit "how to" instructions. In addition to the explicitly stated molar expectation s, a more implicit culture of communication also emerged during the instructional period. Because I focused on multiliteracies, I coded each episode based on the dominant literacy practices that were engaged during these instructional periods. I used a com bination of video data, field notes, and photos to capture these literacy practices. In Table 4.1, I provide an overview of the dominant literacies I viewed during all of the sessions. Individuals practiced these literacies, which became ritualized within the community as emerging scripted" expectations. As Hunt & Benford (1997) noted, "scripting refers to the construction of a set of directions that define the scene, identify actors, and sketch expected behavior" (p. 107). As these practices were performe d by instructors and mimicked by students, they became part of the ritualized implicit structure of camp culture. In essence, they merged with the molar structure and became part of "the way we do things here" or the staged behaviors of camp. In Table 4.1 I provide an analysis of the ways in which literacies were performed during the instructional time. Realistically, these literacies were practiced as a

PAGE 155

143 multiplicity. However, in order to clarify the overall use of different literacies, this artificially discrete system of labeling helps to identify a structural overview of the emerging Discourse community. Table 4.1 Influential Literacy Practices as Available Designs Activity Literacy Practices: Oral (O), Reading (R), Writing (W), Visual (V), Moving Imag e (MI), Digital/Technological (DT) 1) Sign in: (O) Introduction to sign in sheets (W) by theatre staff & parents on sign in sheet (R) S tudents read tags to check spelling of names 2) Introduction: (O) C amp director oral introductions and an overview o f expectations. 3) Overview (V) S lide show (O) O ral narration (R) T ext in slideshow (MI) M oving image examples (DT) Sl ideshow shown on computer attached to an LCD projector, projected on the theatre big screen. 4) Location Scouting (O) Narrated tou r with student questions (V) S tudents invited to verbalize imagine d scenes in a movie as they tour 5) Popcorn Break (V & MI) S tudents watch movie clips (O & V) C amp director discusses specific moving image literacies (shots, angles, lighting, and effec ts) used in clips as students observe. 6) The workshops There are four simultaneous workshops 6 a Shots and Angles (R) Students read a page that details the different shots and angles. (O) C ounselor guides students through the information on the pa ge. (DT) C ounselor shows students how to shoot different shots (V) Students can see these shots in the viewfinder of the camera (MI) Students shoot different shots and angles. They also learn to use the specific vocabulary. 6 b Lighting (R) Students handed a page that details 3 point lighting. (O) C ounselor guides the students through the page (DT) C ounselor demonstrates how the "points" of lighting are set up. (V) Students learn effects of the lighting on the big screen as they manipulate the li ghts. (MI) Students discuss how to use lighting to create effects in movies. 6 c Camera and Tripod (O) C ounselor discusses how to use the camera and tripod. (V) Oral discussion is accompanied by visual demonstration. (R) During the demonstration, the counselor refers to a chart that details the step by step instructions. (DT) After the brief demonstration, the students form into groups and use the chart to set up their cameras. (MI) Learn moving image terminology (i.e. zoom, pan) and how to manipul ate the camera to create different angles. 6 d Sound (O) Counselor describes the use of sound and microphones. (V) Students create a visual demonstration to watch. (DT) Students learn how to use microphones for shots other than close ups. (MI) Stude nts learn how to manipulate sound with different shots. They also learn how to do voice overs. (R) Students read from cue cards

PAGE 156

144 Table 4.1 continued. Influential Literacy Practices as Available Designs 7) Digital Editing (O) Camp director introduces t he digital video editing program (V) During his oral discussion, camp director shows a visual interactive example on the big screen. (R) As he points to parts of the program, camp dir e ctor points out specific tabs and words for students to remember. (D T) Students learn to download films into a computer and manipulate their films through the use of digital technology. As they watch the demonstration, the counselor asks questions to guide them through the process. (MI) Students learn how to add transition s, visual effects, sound effects, and music to enhance films. 8) Homework (O) Students are sent home with a task. Come up with up to three ideas for a movie. (W) Students fill in an "idea" sheet provided in camp. 9) Day 2 begins with a presentation on ge nre and story structure (O) Oral discussion on film genres and story structure. (V) Oral discussion with a visual presentation on a slide show. (MI) Students learn about different genres of screenwriting and discuss genre specific elements. They also l earn how to create a "three act play" structure for their films (i.e. beginning, middle, end) (W) Students learn how to create a problem solution story that has a beginning, middle, and end. They also learn how to plan a climax for a story using Fre ytag's pyramid. 10) Scriptwriting (O) Oral discussion on scriptwriting. (R) Students are directed to read what is on the script screen (V) Oral discussion with a visual presentation on a slide show. (MI) Students learn about different genres of scre enwriting and discuss genre specific elements. They also learn how to create a "three act play" structure for their films (i.e. beginning, middle, end) (W) Students learn how to create a problem solution story 11) Storyboarding (O) Oral discussio n on storyboarding (V) Oral discussion with a visual demonstration on chart paper. (MI) Students learn how to plan specific shots for their stories, using a storyboard (W) Students learn how to describe their shots and plan the visual/audio. (R) St udents learn how to work on the scripts and storyboards simultaneously, reading the script to plan the storyboard. 12) Dialogue and Acting (O) Oral discussion on speaking dialogue and acting. (V) Oral discussion with visual presentation on a slide sho w. (R) Counselors demonstrate "reading" lines on a script with expression, gestures, and actions. (MI) Students learn to speak slowly and clearly. They also learn to not look into the camera, unless this is used as a special effect. 13) Ideas (O) Stud ents are given oral instructions on writing ideas. They communicate their ideas orally. (R) Students read the ideas both from their own idea sheets and the group brainstorming the counselor created. In Table 4.1, I listed the literacy practices in a de scending order; the most

PAGE 157

145 influential literacy used appears first in each activity. This is followed by the other influential literacies used in these activities. As I recorded these influential literacy practices from an observer's perspective, I realized these were times when specific literacy practices mediated my attention. Wertsch, del R“o, & Alverez (1995) noted that Burke's dramaturgical pentad (act, scene, agent, agency, purpose) provides a useful organizing framework in connection with "mediation," "mediational means," and "mediated action." Wertsch et al. defined mediation as "a process involving the potential of cultural tools to shape action, on the one hand, and the unique use of these tools, on the other" (p. 22). I considered mediated actions to be knowledge performances of literacies that shifted my attention. From a cursory examination of the multiliteracy practices listed in Figure 4.1, one could view the predominance of oral communication in the Available Designs of filmmaking camp. While much of the initial oral communication initiated with camp director or counselors presenting ideas or modeling activities, the discourse eventually evolved into a two way information exchange or process between the instructors and the participants. Further more, as a mediator, oral communication either augmented or was augmented by other modalities of presentation. For example, oral communication augmented other literacy practices when the camp director or instructors used oral communication to describe how to write scripts, create storyboards, film scenes, and edit movies with digital video software. Likewise, oral communication was augmented with other literacy practices in instruction, when the camp director or instructors used visual or moving image props to enhance meaning in their presentations. In examining all of these practices as detailed on this analytic chart, it appears that oral communication bound the

PAGE 158

146 literacy practices together. Oral communication, however, was not just the words and language, but included a performance communicating the other multiliteracies involved in camp. Therefore, in the next section, I use a performance based interpretive frame in order to discover how performances of multiliteracies affected the Designing processes. D esigning: Part II An underlying requirement of camp was the creation of collaborative composition; collaborative group work and decision making were a big part of the culture of camp. In fact, the camp was premised upon an underlying assumption and require ment that filmmaking, and therefore, camping in general, would be carried out in small cooperative groups. The camp director stressed these principles from the very first day as a culture of collaboration was created within the camp. When I interviewed the camp director about the collaborative composition focus, he described his decisions as follows, There is a theoretical base but also a practical base for the use of collaboration. In filmmaking, there are so many things to do. You can't possibly make a fi lm by yourself; you need to collaborate. This collaboration requires communicating a vision to others. Also, you need to learn how to incorporate other people's visions into a project. If you can't cooperate, this process is a potentially difficult ride. I n reality, you physically cannot do this by yourself with limited resources and time. In order to successfully create a film in this environment, you need to learn how to collaborate through communication, cooperation, and compromise. ( I nterview notes, Se ptember 15, 2009) From this response, it is clear that the camp director had intentionally created the

PAGE 159

147 group structure for the purpose of efficiently completing the tasks of camp. What was not clear at this point was the degree to which the camp director h ad considered the social impacts of this grouping on the outcome of the films T his question drove my analysis of the cooperative aspect of collaboration and the individual communication aspect of influencing composition. Examining collaborative compositio n required an inquiry into two movements: the moving together of the collaborative (creating the context), and the individualization of ideas that created transformations in the composition over time (creating the text). In general, I found that the litera cy practices during group activities mirrored, to some extent, those identified as Available Designs in the instructional sessions. However, as I followed these literacy practices across the different episodes, I noticed that specific literacy practices we re more influential than others. While instructional sessions provided an explicit focus for students (instructor presents, the students participate as "audience"), the creative collaborative composition processes required engagement and enactment of multi literacies by students. This is where I began to notice how students performed literacies in order to influence the emergence of text. In the following sections, I first provide a macro analysis of influential literacy performances throughout the five epis odes (see Table 4.2 for a summary). These data come from my observational notes across all sessions in filmmaking camp. Second, I provide a more detailed, performance based micro analysis, focusing on specific teams and how their performances of literacies influenced the collaborative composition processes. Within the micro analysis, I was interested in discovering how individual students were able to perform literacies in order to influence the decisions within their collaboratives, which ultimately lead t o

PAGE 160

148 transformations within the filmmaking text composition. Macro Analysis of Influential Literacies Because my analysis was guided by a process philosophy overview, I considered the transformations over time. Therefore, as indicated in Chapter Three, I sepa rated the processes into episodes for analysis. Furthermore, as previously noted, I used the Harr and Secord (1972) distinction of formal episodes these were distinct activities that were regulated through the structure of camp. Within the camp structure there were distinict activities which occurred as part of the structure of camp: 1) forming groups; 2) completing planning sheets; 3) creating scripts and storyboards; 4) filming; and, 5) editing. Within these formal episodes I envisioned the evolving co mposition as a continuous process of multiliteracy engagement of the molar "Available Designs" that emerged as the culture of influential literacies as knowledge performances (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003) in camp. In Table 4.2, I provide an overview of the d ominant literacy practices that occurred across groups during filmmaking. In the following sections, I elaborate on these findings as I provide an overview of the five episodes. Getting into Groups As illustrated in Table 4.2, as students got together in g roups, the major influential literacy was oral language. As students discussed their ideas in small groups, some used their idea sheets as visual props. Furthermore, as they read their ideas out loud, students who read with fluency and expression who maint ained eye contact and a confident posture gained more attention and were able to influence the idea of the group.

PAGE 161

149 Table 4.2 Influential Literacy Practices During Designing Episodes Literacy Practices: Oral (O), Reading (R), Writing (W), Visual (V), Movin g Image (MI), Digital/Technological (DT) 1) Getting into Groups (O) Oral language gathered people around an idea. (V) Students used their idea sheets as visual props. (R) Students read their idea sheets out loud with fluency, expression, and eye contac t. 2) Filling in planning sheets (W) The main activity is filling in the planning sheet taking over the position of writer helped student gain attention. (O) Oral discussion was influential for emergence of ideas. (R) The person "in charge" of the p lanning sheet constantly re read the written ideas to the group (MI) This serves as a part of "pre production" where students plan the characters, possible scenes, general storyline, and props/costumes. 3) Creating Scripts and Storyboards (O) Collaborat ive writing requires oral communication (DT) Being in charge of typing requires digital expertise or knowledge of scriptwriting software. (MI) Both skills require knowledge of moving image literacy. Those with the knowledge become more influential (V) Fo r both scripts and storyboards, students needed to both read and manipulate the visual structure of a text. For storyboarding, students need to visualize shots and draw (stick figures). (R) Reading script to decided on shots for storyboard. Re reading sc ript to decide on future actions. 4) Filming (DT) Students use digital cameras for filming. (MI) Students use moving image literacies, such as: lighting, sound, shots, angles. (O) Collaborative planning requires oral communication (V) Students transm ediate simple illustrations of shots/angles into elaborate scenes. (R) Students read the script and transmediate language into actions. 5) Digital editing (DT) Being in charge of editing requires digital expertise or knowledge of digital editing software. (MI) Students skilled in moving image literacies are influential in editing if they choose to participate (V) Visually, the students "read" the moving images and decide if they need to augment the meaning with audio or other effects. (O) Oral communic ation occurs mostly at decision points. (R) Use the script and storyboards to order the editing (W) Students type titles, credits, and text on screen. Counselors mediated this process. While one student may have discussed the original idea, counselors intervened to ensure that the other students had a voice; they asked if other students either had different ideas or had something to add to the dominant idea. Ultimately, during the initial getting into groups, the students either gathered around an idea they liked, or gathered together and created an idea. The student who was able to perform knowledge the most influentially, gained attention and was able to direct the

PAGE 162

150 direction of the text composition. The influential literacy performance of knowledge b ecame my unit of analysis; therefore, I will elaborate on this concept throughout the results on Designing. Filling in Planning Sheets After students agreed on an idea, the counselor brought out the planning sheets (see Appendix III). In most groups, the c ounselor initiated this activity by gathering students and encouraging discussion based on the focal points of the planning sheet. At this point, written and oral language emerged as the most influential literacies. While the counselors were initially in c harge of filling in the planning sheet, in many groups they eventually allocated the task to a willing student. Writing filling in the planning sheet was the main objective of this episode. Oral language once again played a key role as an influential perfo rmance of literacy. Ideas emerged on the planning sheet based on students' ability to influence their team members. For example, students who were able to engage the group through discussion gained attention. Furthermore, students who used the language or vocabulary of moving image literacies referencing filmic elements (genres, characters, scenes, props, storylines) or cinematic elements (shots, angles, lighting, special effects) gained attention and influence within their groups. Thus, the emerging texts reflected their ideas. Creating Scripts and Storyboards As previously indicated in Available Designs, students used a free scriptwriting program, Celtx ( ) to create their scripts (see Appendix IV for an exe rpt from a script). Typically, the scriptwriting process began with counselors either beginning to type or asking students if anyone was interested in typing.

PAGE 163

151 As in previous episodes, collaborative writing required oral language skills. Furthermore, digit al/technological literacies became more influential in this episode: a student who was able to type and knew how to use Celtx took charge of directing scriptwriting. Both scriptwriting and storyboarding required moving image literacies. As in previous epi sodes, students who used the language of film (filmic and cinematic) gained authoritative attention of the other group members. Additionally, for both scripts and storyboards visual literacy visualization and the ability to visualize and illustrate shots w as an influential knowledge performance. Students who were able to describe the action in a scene influenced the text. Often these descriptions were accompanied by acting, gestures, and expressions. Furthermore, as students wrote the script, they reread al oud (often in role) to determine future actions. In this episode, the multiliteracies expanded. Influence depended on skills and performance in a variety of different literacies. Different students, depending on their strengths, were able to influence the text in a variety of ways during scriptwriting and storyboarding. More literacies meant more roles, and more opportunities for performance. Filming During filming, students in all groups became more active. Preparation for filming required that students as sembl e the cameras, tripods, lights, and props need ed for filming. In all groups, students used the scripts and storyboards as guides. Because digital editing allows manipulation of clips, students did not have to film in a linear fashion; that is, they we re able to film shots out of sequence if necessary. For example, sometimes two groups required the same location, so instead of one group sitting and waiting, they could

PAGE 164

152 choose to film another scene. Filming became a time of constant role shifting; studen ts shifted from acting to directing throughout the process. This multiliterate process required students to transmediate their ideas from scripts and storyboards, into actions. Once again, a wide variety of literacy tasks and roles were available as opport unities for performance. Students read scripts silently. Then they read their lines orally with fluency and expression. Furthermore, shifting back and forth from filmmaker roles to acting roles, the students were able to critique others' reading of lines. As they critiqued, they applied what I called fluency filters; that is, while the actors read (or performed) their lines, they asked the other students (serving as directors or future audience members) if they were speaking/acting in a manner that relayed their message. Digital Editing The final episode I report on in this dissertation involved the digital editing. Digital editing involved downloading the film clips into a computer loaded with iMovie. Students downloaded the clips, placed them in order, an d then began cutting and editing them into a coherent film. Being in charge of editing required digital expertise and knowledge of the use of digital editing software. All students gained experience with iMovie on the first day. In most groups, the student s took turns with the digital editing process. Ultimately, digital editing was a less active episode than filming. While editing required many different forms of moving image literacies cutting, splicing, creating titles and credits, making transitions, a dding sounds, recording voice overs, adding music, creating visual effects these processes involved sitting in front of a computer

PAGE 165

153 screen. While students enthusiastically joined the editing processes, their motivation waned as the process became long and s ubsequently tedious. This resulted in many groups where either the counselor or one really dedicated student took over the editing. Summary In the above episode descriptions, I have provided a brief description of the multiliteracy processes. While I illus trated from a macroanalytic perspective how these literacies were influential in the collaborative composition processes, I began to notice how specific students performed literacies to influence Designing. Therefore, in the next sections, I illustrate a m icroanalysis of individuals within the groups and the effects of influential literacy performances. Microanalysis of Influential Literacy Performances Within the collaborative composition groups, while the counselors provided activity scaffolding and tech nical support, the majority of work was student driven. As I further investigated collaborative composition, I observed two movements : the coming together of the collaboration and the movement forward of the composition. Figure 4.17 Collaborative Comp osition: Coming Together and Moving Forward As indicated in Figure 4.18, the students came together with the camp objectives of making a film as a mandate. Furthermore, they joined together in a collaborative group with a team purpose of making a film base d on an agreed upon idea. However, in

PAGE 166

154 addition to the collaborative coming together, the students also brought in a film idea, which was constantly transformed throughout the composition processes. So far, I have described the contextualization of literac y practices as influential performances within the filmmaking Discourse community. While these practices are essential to understanding the workings of the learning community, I was also interested in how individual students used multiliteracies to influen ce the composition of the text. Furthermore, as I observed the groups, I identified certain instances as influential literacies or shifts in the attention structure, which resulted in transformations in text and/or context. More significantly, I noticed th ere was something about the performance of literacies that helped students gain the attention of the group and, thus, influence the composition processes. It wasn't just the knowledge of Available Designs; rather, there was something about the manner in wh ich students performed literacies that made their new suggestions stick and influence the idea. Figure 4.18 Ideas Influenced by Performances of Literacies In the next sections, I provide an analysis of how the performances of literacies

PAGE 167

155 influenced the text composition processes. I illustrate the two movements of collaborative composition as both inward (toward camp objectives and team purpose) and forward (as progressing toward a completed film). In Phase One, I contextualize the activities of the three focus groups of students, by grounding their performances in the "situational contexts" (Bauman & Briggs, 1990). I discuss how patterns of activities brought the group and ideas together as a collaborative these served an organizing function. Then, I conc lude with my observations that although collaboration is essential, there was something else that ultimately drove the processes forward individual influential literacy performances. In Phase Two, I use Bauman & Briggs notions of decontextualization, ente xtualization, and recontextualization to examine how influential performances of literacies drive the composition processes forward. I consider influential literacy performances as times when individual students were able to shifts group attention toward a particular suggestion or idea. Using influential literacy performances as a unit of analysis, I entextualize the stretch of discourse from the script transcription and lift it out of its interactional setting as a text. Next, I specifically focus on the l iteracy performances I considered as influential; these include times when a student performs knowledge (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003), which ultimately influences the other students. Finally, I recontextualize the text in order to envision the historical acti ons that preceeded the influential literacy performance and the future of how the student's performances of literacies influenced the text and context. In this section, while I completed an analysis of all three groups, I provide an ongoing analytical des cription of one particular group the Idea Group in order to

PAGE 168

156 more clearly illustrate transformations over time. Then, I provide comparative and/or contrastive examples from the other groups to illustrate how these performances are generalizable to the conte xt of camp. Through an episode by episode analysis, I trace how individual students gain attention through influential performances of literacies. Finally, I create a model of how the attention economy appeared to work with in the groups. Phase I: Collabo ration Coming Together The process of "getting into groups" was chaotically creative. While some students pitched their ideas for movies, other students shopped around for an interesting group. Still other students struggled to come up with a big idea for a film. The head counselor directed the students to talk to the other filmmakers and get into working groups of approximately four people. As the students formed groups, the counselors circulated; they helped some students initiate collaboratives and assi sted others in finding a group. Within any team where a group works together, as activities are shared and rituals build, so does a collective experience. Anything verbalized or acted within the group becomes part of group knowledge or the team collective brain. Within performance theory, this collaborative could be considered communitas or as Edith Turner (2005) stated, "sense of sharing and intimacy that develops among persons who experience liminality as a group" (p. 97) and can be shared by any group t hat "engage[s] in a collective task with full attention" (p. 99). A training situation, such as the filmmaking camp, is a context where learners are naturally in a lower hierarchical position of power than the camp director and counselors. Furthermore, th ese filmmakers share in a

PAGE 169

157 "collective task" of making a film with "full attention" during the processes of composition; therefore, creating a prototypical example of communitas. Bell noted that most importantly "communitas invites critique of established rules and structures because it arises "1) through the interstices of structure in liminality, times of change of status, 2) at the edges of structure, in marginality, and 3) from beneath structure in inferiority (Turner, 2005, p. 98). I found this notion of communitas particularly relevant for this stage in the filmmaking processes. It was a time when students broke from the established structure of camp into a liminal position between a student and filmmaker. As one student so eloquently asked, "Is the l earning over now?" To which the camp director answered to the students, "Yes the learning is over. It is time for you to get into groups and make your films." This statement provided a shift in status from learner to creator. While the students had entered the filmmaking camp performing in the key of students, they knew that once they learned the required literacies, they would be able to shift into the special world a place where they could create the rules to a certain extent. As previously stated, the m ain goal of camp was that of collaborative composition: forming ideas was just as important as the team formation. In addition, as the teams formed, they separated from the camp culture into their own emerging microstructures. Interestingly, as I discovere d in the following contrastive analysis, all three teams formed their communitas around a big idea, which guided their composition processes. The first group, I named Idea Group, because one student, in this group, Len, created an idea for a movie that th e group members all liked and they formed their group

PAGE 170

158 around the idea. Alternatively, the second group, I called Group Group, because these four girls met early on the first day of camp and continued to form a group like relationship throughout the week, a pparently based on the relationships they developed while at the camp. They decided on the genre as a funny murder mystery. Finally, the third group, I titled Forming Group, because they collected together as a forming process. Initially three 8 th grade bo ys put together a few ideas into one plan, when two 6 th grade boys asked if they needed any actors. Then, once the two 6 th grade boys heard the idea, they decided to join in. Table 4.4 Three Focus Groups With Members' Purposes for Joining Idea Group 4 b oys gather around one idea Group Group 4 girls want to work together & act in role during composition Forming Group 3 boys (8 th grade) form idea & 2 (6 th grade) join as "actors" Len idea guy Gabby part of group Mark idea (8 th grade) Jared likes to act and likes idea Mary part of group Roger new to camp likes idea (8 th grade) Chase likes idea Tilly part of group Aiden likes idea (8 th grade) Ned knows Len and likes idea Jessica part of group Randy (6 th grade) joins as actor And y part time in group Bobby (6 th grade) joins as actor In Table 4.4, I provide an overview of a cast of "characters" that includes the individuals' stated reasons or rationales for joining groups. The main difference in groups can be defined through the ir purpose for forming into a collaborative. In the following sections, I illustrate how the groups came together, based on both student and counselor influence. As indicated above, the members in the Idea Group predominatly stated their purpose (Burke, 19 69) or motive (Mills, 1940) as an interest in creating a movie based on Len's idea, of creating a movie about two guys who make a bet that they can spend the

PAGE 171

159 night in a haunted house In fact, in one of the informal interviews, the three other members state d one of their main motives for joining the group was that they liked Len's idea. Therefore, one would expect the direction of their future activities to be devoted to the development of that idea. In the following transcript expert, I isolated the first multiliteracy event, and discussed how literacy performances influenced the composition processes. LEN Well there is this guythis is kind of a Blair Witch spin off. There is this guy that does a project on a deserted, haunted house. It is a haunted mansio n Prior to Len reading his idea off of his paper, the counselor had asked if anyone in the group had an idea they wanted to share. Len raised his hand and read his idea. After he read his idea, the counselor asked if any other students wanted to read the ir ideas. They all stated that they liked Len's idea; they had already agreed to use his idea prior to the counselor joining their group. Then the counselor asked if any students had anything to add to the idea. Counselors also helped students organize the ir ideas, directing their work forward. This counselor assistance was similar in all three groups. In fact, I noticed this pattern in all groups that I partially observed over two summers: counselors helped initiate dialogue and then ensured that all stud ents had a voice in formulating the movie idea. In the Group Group, as described above, the girls came together as a group who wanted to work together; this was their main purpose. They stated that it didn't matter what movie they made as long as they coul d work together. Furthermore, in describing their idea, they collaboratively agreed on a text of a "funny murder mystery" that reflected the context of "this spooky place," indicating the 1922 Italianate designed

PAGE 172

160 historical theatre. Therefore, one would ex pect this group to work well as a cohesive team and it did. For example, here is the initial scene I observed with the group. The counselor had just joined the group of girls Gabby, Tilly, Mary, and Jessica while they filled her in on their idea. COUNSELO R Okay listen. (Students stop talking and look at her) This is what we have so far. (She looks down to read her notes). Matilda finds Uncle Harold dead. She screams. Everyone rushes in. Grandma is slow. She gasps. Points suspicious finger. Next scene they go to kitchen. Margaret accuses Matilda because she was the only one in the room. Matilda accuses Joon because of money. Joon accuses grandma because she never liked Harold. Grandma accuses Margaret of cheating at cards. Counselor looks up and smirks and t hey all laugh. JESSICA I think Grandma should get there first. COUNSELOR Grandma first. (says as she records on her notepad). JESSICA And then she's already there and says, "what took you so long?" TILLY Yeah GABBY She'll be like, "Harold you did it" and y ou'll be like say JESSICA I'll go, "Mom, Harold is dead!" MARY AND TILLY Yeah! TILLY Margaret did it (points at Mary, who will be playing Margaret). JESSICA Margaret cheated at cards. COUNSELOR Okay, so someone has to say "whoever did it could come for u s next" or something. JESSICA One of them (points to Tilly and Mary who will play Matilda and Margaret) next. COUNSELOR

PAGE 173

161 No. Remember Grandma falls down and they think she died. But it's just a broken hip...or a charley horse Everyone laughs Because they had already begun to orally plan their idea as a group, they collaboratively described their story, while the counselor recorded their words, like a shared writing (McKenzie, 1985) session. Finally, the Forming Group performed differently than the other t wo groups. They had a lot more difficulty coming together as a collaborative. They seemed to function as they began: three 8 th graders with an idea, plus two 6 th graders who join as actors. While the three 8 th graders developed a system of cooperation, the two 6 th graders took position behind the group in a liminal space on the periphery. Three 8 th graders sit around the computer. One 8 th grader has taken control of the keyboard (claimed to be a good typist). The 6 th graders stand behind for a few minutes, then they begin their own off topic conversation. COUNSELOR Hey, Randy and Bobby, we need your input here too. ROGER Yeah guys (moves back to make room for Randy and Bobby). RANDY Is this where we use the guns? THREE 8 TH GRADERS There are no guns. Don't y ou listen? No guns allowed. BOBBY Yeah, Randy. (looks at the screen). Oh I have an idea for that As Bobby turns his attention toward the screen, Randy begins to poke and tickle him. BOBBY Hey, stop that (he says to Randy and then turns his attention towar d the screen). RANDY I'm going to start the storyboard. COUNSELOR We need to focus on the script together before we start the storyboards. In this scene, Randy and Bobby pitched in suggestions from the margins. The other students listened to these suggest ions. However, once Randy and Bobby began

PAGE 174

162 "fooling around" by poking each other or participating in other off topic behavior, the 8 th graders became irritated and asked them to pay attention. However, they soon drifted back a few feet and sat in the theate r seats discussing future ideas for the script. This is an example of the disruptive nature of the divided attention that occurred during less active parts of the composition processes. While initially observing the process, the counselor and I had a dis cussion about why this group might not be "running as smoothly" as regular. As an experienced counselor, she noted that there seemed to be more conflicts between individuals in this group, especially between the 6 th graders and the 8 th graders. We wondered at first, if this could be an age difference. However, in the previous week, with the Group Group composed of two 8 th grade girls and two 6 th grade girls I did not notice a similar conflict. As I further distinguished the groups I found that the "purpose" was one of the main differences as they formed. However, as the Forming Group progressed, and became more of a collaborative, their conflicts diminished. Phase II: Composition Moving Forward While collaboration or coming together was important in this act ivity, I was also interested in examining the moving forward motion of composition. Conceptually, from a process philosophy perspective, the collaborative ordering and organization of creative ideas functioned as lines of articulation (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987). These lines of articulation or emergences brought ideas and the group together. In this section, I follow one specific team (Goffman, 1959) through the Designing processes: planning, scriptwriting, storyboarding, filming, and digital editing. This team included: Linda (counselor); Len (experienced in this filmmaking camp and originator of

PAGE 175

163 idea); Jared (experienced in filmmaking camp); Ned (friend of Len who came to learn filmmaking); and Cameron (had previously been to camp and joined the other thre e because he liked the film idea). After illustrating a particular influential literacy performance with one group, I provide a contrastive analysis by discussing similarities and differences within the other two teams. I use excerpts from my script based on the video transcription to illustrate influential literacy performances and to build a model of how students used tactics to gain attention; and, thus, influence Designing. Making Successful Pitches Oral language was the predominant literacy during the initial team organization. In fact, the room vibrated with the sound of idea "pitches" one of the most attention getting tactics at this point of composition. A student, who convincingly articulated an idea for a movie and gained an audience of other stude nts to listen to the pitch, most likely took charge of the initial idea generation process. Indeed, this is what happened in this filmmaking team. Len is holding his idea page while the counselor and other students wait for him to read. LEN Well there is t his guythis is kind of a Blair Witch spin off. There is this guy that does a project on a deserted, haunted house. It is a haunted mansion. Len looks up and makes eye contact with the group members. Some nod and the others appear to be paying attention. In the above scene, four students sat in chairs in the front row in the theatre. One of the students, Len, held his "idea" sheet in his hand and explained his idea to the boys as they turned their heads, moved closer, and made eye contact. As Len spoke, h e used eye contact and gestures. In turn, he appeared to watch the reactions of his "audience" as they responded with nods and/or visual contact. Then, he wrapped up his idea with a

PAGE 176

164 director like hand gesture. From a recontextualization perspective, these tactics created both change in the group and in Len's agency and power. As indicated above, Len was the major literacy performer, who assumed the main position as speaker. He held his idea sheet (literacy tool) as he read with fluency. Occasionally he paus ed and made eye contact with his audience of listeners. The counselor and the researcher stood nearby observing and listening as receptive audience members. However, possibly more important, the other three boys became an "audience" through their body post ures (leaning in), attention to Len (gazing in his direction), and gestures (occasional nodding and positive facial gestures). Figure 4.19. Influential Literacy Performances: Tactics of the Pitch I illustrated tactics Len used in his influential literac y performance, which ultimately gained the attention of his teammates, and transformed the text under composition. First, Len used his knowledge of the discourse of film; he brought his idea in as illustrated in Figure 19. Second, he confidently used a lit eracy tool (his idea sheet) and literacy knowledge as he performed by reading from his idea page with fluency, expression, and audience engagement. Third, his actions drew attention from the other

PAGE 177

165 team members, through eye contact, posture, and gestures. In the other two groups, The Pitch was the heartbeat of the idea; once it gained momentum, it set the idea in motion. The Forming Group experienced a slightly similar situation. As they talked about the movie Tropic Thunder where the director died and the actors thought they were acting in a movie, but were really in danger Mark mentioned how they could use the idea in a haunted house. Then he discussed a movie he had starred in the previous summer Poultrygeist: Refried and initiated a discussion about diff erent kinds of ghosts that could be used. In the Group Group, they had already decided on a funny murder mystery earlier in the week. However, Jessica initiated the idea of "Aunt Joon" killing "Uncle Harold" because she was so tired of him. When she consol idated this original idea into the funny murder mystery plot, the group accepted her pitch. Brainstorming After Len gave his initial pitch, the process was interrupted as the students were asked to spread their teams out further into the theater to allow for more private small group interactions without distractions (from noise and discussion from the other teams). The four guys in the Idea Group followed their counselor to the back of the theater, joking with each other along the way. When they settled o n a spot (the ledge behind the back row of seats) the playfulness performing in the key of a kid continued for a while. This seemed to provide an opportunity for all students to talk and play like kids in an interlude of bonding outside of the task at hand I found that when students performed as kids, their performance both helped them to bond (gaining attention within their group) as well as hindered their progress in creating their film composition. "Attention seeking

PAGE 178

166 behaviors" (normally seen as disrupt ive within classroom settings) detracted too much from the task at hand, and this had a negative effect on the attention seeking students' authority. Counselors, however were able to monitor these behaviors and allow just enough playfulness for creativity, but not too much to detract from the task at hand. Within the camp, while I noticed variability in counselors' tolerance of "attention seeking behaviors" this was not necessarily an essential point of focus for this study. After a few moments of joking around and settling in, the counselor asked if they were ready to continue. Then, she specifically gestured to Len to begin. Len stood at the ledge with his idea sheet in hand. The other students gathered around him. Len raised his idea sheet and read. LEN So there's this guy who goes into this big house with a theater inside of it. And he goes inside with his buddy, his cameraman. And while they are talking about the house, the cameraman goes missing so he has to film the remainder without his cameraman. A ndahlike later on he sees a ghost and drops the camera and you see his hand Looks up and models shaking hand as if terrified. Then looks back at page. LEN And then it fades out. He lowers page, makes a "that's a wrap" gesture with his hand, and looks at his team members. As indicated after the group relocated, Len continued with his movie idea, moving from "pitch" to an overview of the beginning, middle, and end. He had positioned himself in the previous scene, as influential; therefore, the counselor directed her attention toward Len so he could continue reading his idea. During this scene, he further consolidated his position through tactics: his oral reading included accurate film knowledge and his delivery was performed with expression, gestures, an d eye contact. In essence, he gained influence within the group, by setting a frame for the activity.

PAGE 179

167 Through his performance of literacies, he influenced the group through his tactics. Envisioning these tactics through Bauman & Briggs (1990) elements of a uthority (access, legitimacy, competence, value of texts), Len established power through an assumption of authority. While all the students had access, Len was the first one with the knowledge and ability to "carry out the decontextualization and recontext ualization of performed discourse" (Bauman & Briggs, 1990, p. 77). He was able to translate what he had written into convincing discourse within his group; he established competence through his actions. Furthermore, in the days prior to this activity, Len had answered a variety of questions using the language of film (establishing legitimacy) and the knowledge of camp procedures (establishing his membership of access or inclusion). However, just because Len lead this initial idea, it didn't mean he remained as the center of attention for all ideas and transformations in text. As Bauman & Briggs (1990) noted, the authority is not a social or cultural given, but is rather, "subject to negotiation" (p. 76). In the next sections, I illustrate how this authority that was gained through influential literacy performances shifted as students used different tactics to gain attention for their ideas. Brainstorming, prior to the official writing, was the time when students in all groups were most free to contribute new ideas. In fact, in all groups, I observed an active free flow of ideas. However, just because students contributed an idea in space, it didn't mean this idea continued on in time. While students contributed ideas during oral discussion, and were able to ga in the attention of their team members, these ideas were consolidated only when they were written down, as I illustrate in the next series of practices.

PAGE 180

168 Norming Ideas Through Writing In all groups, sometime after the initial brainstorming had settled down the counselor initiated the use of the planning sheet. As students used the planning sheet, only certain ideas were recorded, as illustrated in the following expert from the Idea Group. After Len finished reading the idea to the group, there was a short pause in activity and interaction. Then the counselor interrupted this inactive space with a question. Holding up the planning sheet, the counselor made eye contact with all students and asked if anyone still had a pen in their hands. Len raised his hand, holding a pencil, and said, "I do" as the counselor handed him the planning sheet. I n terms of a dramaturgical approach, the counselor's question served as a sort of performative utterance (Austin, 1962), which invited doing something with words. In other words, the way in which the counselor structured her question, invited participation and opened opportunities for action. Once the counselor opened the possibility for someone to take over the planning sheet, she offered over control of the planning sheet. She was no longer the scribe. Len, who was obviously paying attention perhaps performing like a "good" attentive student took over the scribal role without dispute from the other team members likely due to his emerging authority within the team. Once agai n, through a tactical literacy performance, Len put himself in a new role, the lead planner/writer. As the other students moved closer to Len, the counselor edged her way toward the periphery to serve as a guide at the side. Then Len took the pen and plann ing continued. LEN So this is going to be a documentary.

PAGE 181

169 JARED What is this a mix of? Cloverfield and what? LEN Blair Witch. JARED (Nods)So is it a spoof? CAMERON What's Blair Witch ? After Cameron asks his question, Jared and Cameron look toward Len and t he counselors. In a parallel activity, Ned moves in close, showing his notebook. He has illustrated a scene for the film while the boys were talking. During this scene, Len started answering the questions that were written on the planning sheet: "list the genre of the movie." First, through discourse, Len framed the movie in terms of the genre of a documentary. He established his legitimacy and competence. He already discussed the hand held nature of the film, which could bring other hand held movies like Cloverfield into the frame. Indeed, both movies fit into a genre frame: Cloverfield was a more recent film that followed the Blair Witch genre of a hand held self created mock documentary film. However, when Jared brought the Cloverfield reference into the discussion, he also established his competence in the discussion. Then Len nodded at the Cloverfield reference giving attention to Jared and added Blair Witch to the interaction, further valuing both texts as legitimate references. Within this interacti on, there were both verbal and unspoken tactics to understanding. For example, it appeared that Jared made connections between hand held mockumentaries, like Blair Witch and Cloverfield Although he did not name Blair Witch his reference to Cloverfield im plied his knowledge of the genre. Furthermore, the use of this professional film language positioned Len and Jared as film experts in the group. Although the face to face dialogue was between Len and Jared, the others appeared to listen; their gestures, fa cial expressions, and body language moving

PAGE 182

170 closer implied they were an interested audience. These moves added attention and, thus, influential impact to these literacy performances. Now, both Len and Jared were the center of attention. Then Cameron made a move that caused a shift in attention. He asked a question about Blair Witch. Like Jared, because he questioned only one of the movies, one could imply his familiarity with Cloverfield When I initially decontextualized this segment of text, I thought that this could go either way. Glancing strictly at the words the page, "What's Blair Witch?" could be construed from many angles: did this imply he knew Cloverfield, but was interested in Blair Witch ? Or was he trying to take over the conversation? Both of t hese options could be examined as possible motives. However, what was more significant was the emergent structure of the new context" (Bauman & Briggs, 1990). When I recontextualized this segment of transcript and examined what followed, I noticed that wh at his comment meant in space was not as significant as what it did in time What I mean is, while a researcher may interpret his motives in many ways, what actually mattered was the effect this question had on the emerging context and texts. Ultimately, C ameron's question triggered a discussion of Blair Witch It also led to future sharing among the team members of their bits and pieces of knowledge about the film which engaged Cameron as the center of attention. While he had previously showed interest, he stood more on the periphery (Lave & Wenger, 1991) Then, as he engaged in conversation, he also shifted his body position closer, immersing himself in the team's emerging frame of ideas and activities. During this initial time students were just beginning to frame their activity, as a time when they "obtain a sense of what is going on but will also (in some degree) become

PAGE 183

171 spontaneously engrossed, caught up, enthralled" (Goffman, 1974, p. 345). Jared and Cameron's questions implied interest they asked quest ions to clarify what was going on as well as attention (their questions related to the task at hand and demonstrated that they were paying attention). Simultaneously, as a parallel activity to the above discussion, Ned had been creating an illustration of Len's idea in his notebook. While the group discussed Blair Witch Ned stood on the periphery discussing his idea with the researcher (me). While the others had been contributing verbally to the planning sheet, Ned had been working on a parallel activity that was somewhat out of frame. However, Ned first "tried out" his idea on me, in my role as researcher, orally describing his illustration. After receiving an affirmation, Ned moved in closer and described his idea to the group, bringing it from the perip hery, into the creative frame. Using his illustration as an attention gaining tool, Ned described his idea using a multiplicity of literacies including drawing, labeling drawings with writing, and explaining the drawing within his group. Ned broke frame, flooding in (Goffman, 1974). His influential literacy performance initiated an attention of the other group members and gained him authority as a contributing member of the team. His illustrations became an influential part of the planning process as he in troduced his visual literacy skills through a strong interactive performance between showing the researcher his work on the side, which resulted in some interested side glances from the rest of the boys as they talked about the story. Then, as he raised hi s sketchbook (as a visual prop) the others looked up and moved a little closer to see what he had drawn, as he explained his idea for a scene and gained attention.

PAGE 184

172 Once again, through an interruption or break in frame, students were able to insert new key s into the context. However, through a performative interpretation of the students' actions, it wasn't just their discourse that created influence. Cameron's interested facial expressions and posture, beginning with his initial joining of the team, existed as nonverbal performances. Additionally, Ned's enthusiastic rendition of his drawing his upkeyed performance (Goffman, 1974) may also have had something to do with the attention he received in the interaction. Both of these individuals broke the frame, as they created situations where attention was shifted; thus, creating footing (Goffman, 1974) and attention for them within the frame. In the other groups, I noticed similar patterns of behaviors. Students gained attention of their peers while performing i n the key of kids; however, this attention was not always positive. For example, while acting like kids could entertain the group, when it interfered with the flow of activities, the rest of the team regarded it as "fooling around." More positive attention gained from performing in the key of kids emerged from group sharing ideas getting to know each other, rather than all about me. Performing as kids brought the students together through their sharing of kid culture. Alternatively, performing like student s gave them cultural capital with the counselor. When students were able to gain the attention of the counselor through knowledge performing, the counselors generally rewarded them with attention or an authority role. As one would expect, in a school like setting, when the campers performed like "good" students, they were rewarded. While I have illustrated how the students gained attention while performing in the key of kids and students, as time progressed, they also gained attention through

PAGE 185

173 performing as actors and filmmakers. Performing Dialogue Most of the attention gained by students so far was through the consideration of everyday life as performance (Goffman, 1959). However, they also gained attention through their tactical performances, acting in r ole as their chosen characters. For example, as the students began to plan the characters for their film, Jared spoke suggestions for dialogue in role; he used gestures, actions, and intonation in his enactments of dialogue. In other words, he performed as an actor, which directed attention toward his activities. LEN We need a name for the man. We can't just call them man 1 and man 2. JARED I'm the camera man (makes a silly face). He can be called Len. Jared smirks at Len. The team members laugh. Len rolls his eyes and grins. In the exchange, Len discussed the need for a name for one of the characters. Jared, speaking in role as the character, said, "I'm the camera man." When Jared noted that he would like to be the cameraman, he also spoke in an "acting" or "front stage" voice and made cameraman gestures (clicking an imaginary camera). In essence, he authorized his own role. Furthermore, through his tactical performance, he gained attention; thus, influencing the team acceptance of his role. After Len ack nowledged this performance (with a grin), he recorded Jared's name in the planning sheet as the cameraman. I noticed a similar pattern, of students gaining attention through speaking in dialogue, in the other groups. In fact, in the Group Group, the couns elor took over the scriptwriting as a shared writing activity while the girls quickly developed and spoke their dialogue in role. Speaking dialogue in role usually gave individuals authority over

PAGE 186

174 text, whether it was their own role or the role of one of th eir team members. Becoming Filmmakers While the students worked, they began to use the terminology of moving image literacies, a practice one of the counselors and I called "vocabulary in action." In all groups, the counselors scaffolded moving image lit eracies and helped the students operationalize these new literacy practices. However, in some groups, students came to camp with both filmic and cinematic language. When they performed this language, they assumed authority as illustrated in the next sequen ce from the Idea Group. At this point of time, the counselor asked Len which character he wanted to play in the documentary. When she asked this question, this opened the possibility for the students to act. Furthermore, Len's correction of the counselor's terminology (documentary to mockumentary) further establishes his authority. In fact, it shifts his authority from a liminal (van Gennep, 1909) position in the team, toward a stance of performing more film knowledge than the counselor. COUNSELOR What do y ou want your name to be in the documentary? LEN I don't know. COUNSELOR A lot of times in documentaries you are yourself, so LEN It's a mocumentary (emphasis on word) though. It's not really happening COUNSELOR You just made up a word. JARED It's a word t hat's in the YouTube dictionary most likely. LEN No it's a real word. It's on IMDb. Len and Jared both validated the word "mockumentary" as authoritative by citing

PAGE 187

175 online movie sources like YouTube and IMdB where film aficionados may go to find movie voca bulary. This discussion further built on Len and Jared's authority in filmmaking language and served as a rite of passage" (van Gennep, 1909); students began to move from being "liminal personae (threshold people')" (Turner, 2004) into more fixed and au thoritative positions within the communitas (Turner, 1982; 2004) where they began to legitimate their social relationships and positions within the team. This wasn't unique to the Idea Group; in the other teams, as students moved together and consolidated their social relationships they also began to seek individualized contributions as well. In this situation, a filmmaking Discourse community, performing the language of the moving image helped students negotiate positions of authority. Negotiating Individ ual Positions Once student teams completed their planning sheets, they gathered around a computer to begin their scriptwriting (with Celtx) and their storyboarding. Students used their planning sheets from the previous day to refresh their memories. Then they negotiated for positions on typing the script, creating dialogue, illustrating action, and drawing the storyboard. With this new activity emerged new possibilities for influential performances of multiple literacies: writing/typing a script and illust rating a storyboard. Valued aspects of performing writing included the knowledge of: how to write a script, how to use the computer software for scriptwriting, and how to type quickly. Likewise, for the storyboarding, the performance knowledge and skills i ncluded: understanding shots and angles, drawing a shot by shot plan, and writing a shot description. Now that the groups and idea had formed, the students began to position themselves within the ir groups. While the previous idea generating activity requir ed a focused collective to create

PAGE 188

176 the collaborative idea, scriptwriting/storyboarding allowed more autonomy and individual effort within the group. Students began to take on different filmmaker roles within the creative team through negotiation of postitio ns. Furthermore, as they strategically deployed these roles through multiliteracy performances, they became influential. Ultimately, the scriptwriting and storyboarding helped the students to organize their plans and ideas into a coherent story. Despite th e group working as more of a collective consciousness (Durkheim, 1895/1982) with a common goal, this is also the time when individuals within teams began to perform with more personal identity; that is, although they worked toward the collective purpose, i ndividuals began to negotiate positions as they assumed agency in putting forth new ideas that created transformations in the emerging text. In the next sections, I identify the ways in which students performed in roles to influence composition. Negotiati ng filmmaker roles. I found that students were able to influence text when they took on specific roles within their teams. Sometimes students verbally accepted a position, while other times, they created roles for themselves. Recall in the first two episod es how Len appeared to fall into the position of the director and team leader lead writing planner through his performances. Furthermore, students were able to position themselves into filmmaker and roles often through an influential performance in the key of a filmmaker role Negotiating roles for digital composition. As the demands of technology increased (from verbal discussion and pencil and paper) toward more technology enhanced multiliteracy tools, student competence in the use of the tools became mo re

PAGE 189

177 important. For example, the students used Celtx, a freely available scriptwriting program (see ), to write/type scripts on the computer. This session began with the counselor sitting at the computer, setting up the script and providing a short demonstration of the software, while entering the following information: the title, the initial action for the first scene, and dialogue for the first speaker. Therefore, at this point, students were able to nego tiate more defined filmmaking roles, such as scriptwriter and storyboarder. Counselor is sitting at computer and has just opened Celtx. She stands and looks at students. COUNSELOR Does any one know how to use Celtx? JARED (Nods) I do because I went to the workshop at USF. COUNSELOR (To Jared) Do you want to be in charge of typing the script? JARED I'd rather help. I'm not a good typist but I know how to use the program well. COUNSELOR Who can type well? LEN I'm an okay typist The counselor motions for Len t o take the typist seat in front of the computer screen. Jared pulls up a seat beside Len on the right hand side. Ned stands behind the group (beside the counselor). Cameron pulls up a seat and sits to the left of Len. As shown in the above scene, the coun selor asked the students if any one knew how to use Celtx. Jared said, "I do because I went to the workshop at USF." Through this move, he established his legitimacy. However, when the counselor asked if he wanted to be in charge of typing, he said he'd ra ther help, "because I don't type fast." Therefore, he countered his access with a confession of his lack of technological competence, while maintaining his eligibility and legitimacy as an authority of Celtx.

PAGE 190

178 Len volunteered his typing skills "I'm an okay typist" and remained in charge of typing throughout the process. He added his technological competence to Jared's program knowledge. Therefore the two paired up; Jared sat on Len's left side to help as a scriptwriting advisor while Len typed. Negotiating roles through an economy of attention Meanwhile, Ned stood behind Jared, with his notepad in hand, reviewing his planning sketches. This notepad planning established his competence as a valuable member of the team. Because he contributed verbally and his illustrations were always on topic, Ned established a value added status for his texts. Cameron sat on Len's right hand side, close to the storyboards that were spread on the table. While he had not yet joined in on the conversation in this new activity f rame, he positioned himself as an active listener. Because this was a new activity at the beginning of the second day, in a new space (at a table in front of a computer) the entire space was reframed. Therefore, when the counselor introduced filmmaking rol es of the "crew" (scriptwriting, storyboarding), students flooded into this frame as they grouped around the computer. Then the counselor placed their planning sheet beside Len who was now seated in front of the computer and asked "What is your first scene ?" CAMERON I have an idea for that. LEN I was thinking that the opening shot would be from the overhead. Then I was picturing the whole thing as hand held. COUNSELOR I like the whole thing being hand held. Although Cameron had established his position wi thin the group both physically

PAGE 191

179 (paying attention) and verbally (asking questions) he had not yet contributed new ideas for the composition. Then, while the other students continued to discuss the scene, parallel activities emerged. Jared showed Len how to change from "scene heading" to "action" in the Celtx program. Ned stood behind Len and Jared as he sketched their idea in his notebook. While all of these parallel activities were on task, they were in slightly different frames. Even though students were e merging into communitas, they still self selected into specific roles to help the common goal of creating a film. Therefore, while a common frame of activities emerged within the team, students found or made their social roles within the communitas. At th is point, the camp director stopped by to check on the group's progress. He noticed Ned's sketches and said, "You draw well, would you like to create the storyboards?" Ned declined, stating that he preferred to draw detailed scenes more mise en scne (put into the scene) than a montˆge (sequence) of shots. At this point, the camp director stood back for a few minutes and watched the students work. I noticed Cameron sitting between Len and the storyboards still spread on the table next to the computer. In t he discourse below, Cameron began by stating he had an idea for the scene while Len was typing. The dialogue continued back and forth until Cameron asked "what kind of shot" they would use for the scene, while glancing at the storyboards. The counselor shi fted her attention between Len and Cameron, noticing his proximity to the storyboards. She also exchanged "knowing" glances with the researcher (me) and camp director, and then asked Cameron if he would like to do the sketches. CAMERON (Shifting his eyes b ack and forth from the

PAGE 192

180 storyboard pages to the script on the computer screen) What kind of shot would we use for this scene? COUNSELOR (To Cameron)Hey, can you do the sketches on the storyboards? Cameron pulls the storyboards closer. The researcher hands h im a pencil. Then he peers up at the counselor with a questioning look on his face. COUNSELOR Just draw quick images, like stick figures. Cameron quickly sketches the first shot and looks up. The counselor nods. The researcher (I) then handed one of my pe ncils to Cameron as he pulled the storyboarding sheets closer. Then he immediately drew his idea, following the stick figure directive of the counselor. She validated his work and he continued in this role. After he drew the first shot, he moved closer to look at the screen. This also put him in a more active position of designing attention in the group, as he began to parallel the storyboards with the scriptwriting. It was as if Cameron opened a possibility to his role as storyboarder by his comments, ques tions, and gestures. Then he took on the role of storyboarder. The counselor's affirmation of his actions signified his competence. They were an active audience to his ideas, providing social reinforcement (Sarbin & Allen, 1968) to his role behavior. Thus he continued in role as storyboarder with active participation in scriptwriting. CAMERON (Shifting his gaze from the computer screen, aiming his discourse at the other boys who are writing the script beside him) What did you just put there on the script? (Points to the screen). Maybe you should put, "I bet if you spend the night there, you won't come out alive!" JARED Yeah! LEN Okay. Len and Jared both look at Cameron as they express their affirmations of his idea, legitimizing his comment. Then Len types Cameron's suggested dialogue into the script.

PAGE 193

181 As I recontextualized this scene back into the continuing processes, I noticed that Cameron positioned himself as a more active oral contributor to the scriptwriting. While he had contributed a few other ideas in the past, this was his first "influential" discourse; this was a point when all of the group members replied enthusiastically, affirming his idea. This was a point when he gained full attention from the other group members and his contributions became value added into the group work. It was at this point that I recognized a model developing, where students appeared to develop into an attention economy. I noticed this similar pattern with the other two teams. In the next section, I describe, in general, how this pattern of influential literacy performances developed within an economy of attention. Influential Literacy Performances as an Emerging Attention Economy This was the point in my interpretation at which I noticed the importance of attention in co mposition. More specifically, I realized how the individuals within the teams functioned as an attention economy. While influential literacy performances appeared to drive the composition forward, students were only able to influence the texts once they ga ined attention and authority within their teams. They gained this attention and authority within their teams through a system I called PAID (see Figure 4.20). Working in collaborative teams, students first needed to "pay" attention to know what was going o n. They could "attract" attention; however, that attention became influential only if it was "immersed" in the task at hand. Finally, only after gaining authority through this cycle, students were able to "design" future attention toward their ideas.

PAGE 194

182 F igure 4.20 Attention Economy In the following interpretation, I use Cameron's experiences from the above scenes to illustrate this progression. First, Cameron decided to join the Idea Group (positions self as interested group member paying attention). He b ecomes an active listener (action, facial expressions, gestures paying attention) on the periphery, watching Len discuss his big idea for the movie. As time progressed he moved in closer (action as part of inner team paying and attracting attention). After he moved in closer, he asked a question (first verbal action attracting and immersing attention) about the movie Blair Witch from which the idea was appropriated. His questions and interest related to his paying attention throughout the session. At the en d of the first day, while waiting for his ride home, he discussed his interest with the researcher after the session (verbal on the periphery immersing attention). He stated that he wasn't familiar with Blair Witch but planned to watch movie (building his funds of knowledge) so he could contribute more ideas (design attention) the next day. On the second day, when the students first sat down and began to type, Cameron

PAGE 195

183 stated, "I have an idea for that" while everyone was talking (verbal action without follow up paying attention but not attracting attention). While he did not follow up his idea with an instant verbal idea, he shifted his eyes toward the storyboard sheet, and asked "what kind of shot do we need for that?" His timely question and gestures shifti ng attention from script to storyboard signaled how he had been paying attention At this point, he attracted attention of the counselor; she noticed the proximity of the storyboards to his line of sight as well as his discourse about shots. Then she asked if he would like to be in charge of storyboards (future designing attention). He accepted (verbal immersing attention) and pulled the storyboards closer (gesture immersing attention), two moves that further immersed attention into the ongoing activities. Next, the counselor handed him a pencil. After drawing first shot, he appealed to counselor (gestures, tool of literacy, language attracting attention) to see if his work was okay (immersing attention). As the counselor affirmed, she attracted attention of the other group members to his work. The other students also affirmed his work; thus, immersing attention into the task at hand. This also further immersed Cameron into the action of composition. He moved (positioned as co creator) closer to Len so he co uld see the computer screen as he created storyboards. As the students continued to plan the script, he began pointing to the screen, designing attention to his ideas for both the script and storyboard (connector of ideas back and forth between actions). I n summary, after Cameron joined the group, he paid attention to the discourse. He asked questions and further built his background knowledge about the movie Blair Witch. When he first tried to attract attention by saying "I have an idea for that" he was no t as successful as he was with his next question, "what kind of shot do we need for

PAGE 196

184 that?" His second attempt at attracting attention was successful. The group paid attention to his work and he immersed attention within the activities; therefore, the couns elor immersed him further within the activities, by handing him the storyboards. Once he was placed in charge of the storyboards, he consolidated his space within the frame and gained authority within the group. They listened to his suggestions, and from h is agentive position, he was able to design attention and influence the composition processes. From an interpretive perspective, based on interactions, Cameron performed into the frame of the emerging collaborative. His influential literacy performance tac tics -words, actions, gestures, and eye contact all may have played a part in this shift toward a more active role gaining a more solid footing and the social position of designing attention within the filmmaking collaborative communitas (Turner, 1988). S ummary of Designing As illustrated in Figure 4.21, the model PAID first depended on paying attention. Paying attention relied on: 1) funds of knowledge students bring into filmmaking camp; 2) attention to the camp structure; 3) attention to the team purpos e or motive; and 4) attention to the ongoing activities. For example, before and/or during filmmaking, students paid attention to filmmaking and other performances that they could bring into camp as influential literacies. Furthermore, if they paid attenti on to the Available Designs, they were at an advantage to the molar "keys to performance" (Bauman, 1977) or "how things work here" in camp. Paying attention during Available Designs meant, not only attending to the details, but also attending to "verbal ar t as performance" (Bauman, 1977) as the teams developed an idea (motive or purpose) and developed that idea text in context. As Bauman and Briggs (1990) noted, interpretation of performance

PAGE 197

185 depends on both "poetics and politics" that are "illuminated by th e poetics and politics of discourse within the communities" (p. 80). Figure 4.21 Verbal Art as PAID Attention: Politics and Poetics In Figure 4.21, I have combined the poetics (styles of performing) and the politics (attention) into one model. Students performed in different styles or keys (like a kid, like a student, like an actor, like a filmmaker) in ways that influenced the composition of text. However, with each new frame of activity, new patterns of behaviors became influential. These patterns requ ired attention to both the inward development of the collaborative, as well as the individual creative contributions students made as composition moved forward. Furthermore, as discussed above, as the activities changed, so did the performances that gained attention. While one student gained attention through "the

PAGE 198

186 pitch" that was accepted, many students were able to contribute ideas during "brainstorming." Then, although many students contributed ideas during brainstorming, only those ideas that followed th rough became part of the text. This "following through" developed through the written text. Once texts were recorded through written notes on a planning sheet, diagrams on a storyboard, or typing in a script they became more influential. To say something was one way of performing literacies; however, those literacies became more influential once they transmediated from oral language to text. Once they were "written in stone" it was more difficult to rewrite the idea or change it totally. Rather, the proces s resembled what Ivanic (2004) has called "wrighting" a text. Ivanic used the term "wrighter" as in playwright rather than "writer" to refer to composers who write in different modes. For example, in a play or film, writers must translate text into dialogu e and action. Ivanic used "wrighting" in the way that wheelwright would "wright" a wheel, continually adjusting and creating small changes until it worked. If students paid attention to both the behaviors within the collaborative, as well as the emerging t ext, they were more able to immerse their ideas. However, like in the above example where Randy kept referring to the use of play guns once the group had appropriated the camp rule of "no guns allowed" this continued reference was outside of the frame of a ctivity. Performing in the key (Bauman 1977) of the activity was particularly important for becoming influential. The further on in composition the students ventured, the more more important it was that they were able to both immerse themselves within the collaborative, but also gain individual attention for their creative ideas. Furthermore, the

PAGE 199

187 ways in which they performed these styles as they performed literacies, helped them to ultimately perform influentially: gaining authority and designing attention within their groups. Therefore, as depicted in figure 4.21, designing attention was something gained through both poetic and political performances of the knowledge of multiple literacies. In this discussion, I tried to illuminate some of the larger "sys temic structures" in which performances of literacies were influential (i.e. filmmaking as a primary Discourse). Furthermore, I linked performances of roles to styles of language use and the authority students gained to be able to design attention and infl uence composition. Redesigning: Part III The New London Group used the term Redesigned to discuss how resources are "reproduced and transformed through Designing" (NLG, 1996). This definition implies the actions or performances of individuals who "reprodu ce" and "transform" resources during the active process of Designing. In this section, rather than envisioning the final product, I wanted to focus on the processes as they affected the text in transition. In order to complete this analysis of Redesigning, I chose one specific idea to follow throughout the composition processes. Ultimately, in this section, I wished to follow an idea an "intertextual archetype" (Eco, 1986) brought into the composition processes. Furthermore, in order to provide comparative and contrastive perspectives to the model I created during Designing, I will follow an idea through my three main focus groups. Recall Bell's (2008) discussion of performance as mimesis, poesis, and kinesis. I will show how while this idea initially appea red as mimesis, students played with these ideas as textual toys (Dyson, 1997; 2008), thus remaking these ideas into poesis.

PAGE 200

188 Furthermore, through an analysis of one idea over time, I will illustrate the kinesis, or how the idea transformed over time throug h the performance of influential literacies (see Figure 4.22). Figure 4.22 Ideas as Mimesis (copy), Poesis (making), and kinesis (transforming) As discussed in Chapter Three, in order to map Redesigning over time, I chose a textual toy (Dyson, 2003) th at I identified as a strong popular culture "intertextual archetype" (Eco, 1986) from film. For this process, I chose particularly salient "magic" moments from all three focus groups. First, from my main focus group, the Idea Group, I chose the "I'm so sc ared" scene from Blair Witch. This magic moment was not only salient, it was also featured throughout the composition process. Therefore, I could map multiple student engagements with the idea and the text surrounding the idea. Second, from the Group Group I chose the initial "murder" scene in their of a movie inspired by the board game Clue. Finally, in the third group the Forming Group I chose the initial scene, where the actors discover their director is dead. They appropriated this idea from the movie Tropic Thunder, in which actors think they are starring in a movie about a war,

PAGE 201

189 but in reality, they are immersed in a real battle. Idea Group: "I'm So Scared" Scene The "I'm so scared" scene from Blair Witch involves an individual, who has just found one of a dead friend. The individual shifts the hand held camera to an extreme close up and completes an "I'm so scared" monologue. This scene has achieved iconic status in film, especially in the emerging mockumentary genre where hand held reflexivity about t he surrounding activities has become an integral activity. This scene has been appropriated and remixed in many different modalities and has become an intertextual archetype (Eco, 1986) for use in "reality" documentaries and mockumentaries. Within the movi e from this particular filmmaking camp, Len's group of students appropriated the "I'm so scared" scene into their own movie about a man who decides to create a documentary about a haunted house after two of his friends bet him and his cameraman that they c an't spend the night in a haunted mansion. During the night, he hears a scream and finds his cameraman dead. At this point, he shifts the camera on his face, as an extreme close up shot, and recreates a unique "I'm so scared" scene. In the following sectio ns, I will first deconstruct the "I'm so scared" scene based on a kineikonic analysis (Burn & Parker, 2003). I consider this the Redesigned analysis. Then I illustrate the emergence of this scene through the composition processes and show how the text tran sformed across Redesigning. Design of "I'm So Scared" After selecting the moment, I subjected the frame to a kineikonic analysis based on Burn and Parker (2003) by engaging the following questions:

PAGE 202

190 1) What are the prefilmic resources? (Resourc es appropriated into film). The resources appropriated in to the film include the "I'm so scared" scene. The students used a similar hand held camera and extreme close up shot. They also used some of the dialogue from the original movie. 2) What are the profilmic resources? (Resources created specifically for film). In this particular scene, the students used a new setting (a salon connected to a restroom at the theater ). The cameraman went to the restroom and screamed. Then Len (acting as himself) awoke, upon hearing the sc ream, called for his friend, and rushed to the restroom. Upon finding his friend dead, he screamed, picked up the camera and began the molologue, which was modified to fit the setting of this new movie. 3) What are the cinematic elements used to create this f ilm? What multimodal resources did the students use to represent this idea? The students used the hand held camera and the extreme close up shot. The students also used a stationary camera, which was manned by the "ghost" who breathed heavily while these s hots were filmed. In order to distinguish between the hand held shots and the shots being filmed by the "ghost" the students used text on screen they placed the word "record" and a red record button on all of the shots that were completed with the use of t he hand held camera. The stationary camera shots were still and most often, were accompanied by heavy breathing, which signified the ghost as an observer, and presumably as a cameraman. The "I'm so scared" scene was the textual toy most closely mimicked in the Idea

PAGE 203

191 Group's movie. In fact, the students appropriated many elements directly from the original film. For example, in the original scene from the movie, Blair Witch, the actor turned the camera on his own face and, using an extreme close up of frighte ned eyes, began a terrified, breathy monologue, describing the scene to the audience. Like the original, there was no extra music or sound effects and the visual "effects" included using a relatively inexpensive camera with low lighting this produced the g rainy effect. From a product based analysis, pulling this scene from the completed movie creates the impression that the students simply reproduced a scene from Blair Witch This is mimesis from a performance theory perspective; which, from an Aristotolean perspective, amounts to an imitation (Bell, 2008). Alternatively, if the scene is envisioned as it evolved throughout the composition processes, its performance is more poesis or "making not faking" (Turner 1982, p. 93) in that the rich performances that hold the culture together, also makes the culture. Furthermore, once that textual toy is remixed into a different setting, performance can serve as kinesis, where boundaries are broken and power structures can shift (Conquergood, 1995). From the poesis or "cultural invention" of Victor Turner to the kinesis or "cultural intervention" of Dwight Conquergood (1998), performance can sustain and also subvert traditions. Thus, in the following analysis, I assembled specific scenes from the composition processes t o show how the students appropriated a textual toy. Then I illustrate how students used multiliteracies to make their own meaning with the idea, and transform the text through their use of influential literacies. Redesigning Blair Witch Recall during Desi gning, that Len chose Blair Witch as a descriptive term for the

PAGE 204

192 type of movie he envisioned making. This set the initial tone for the movie. The setting, however, was also influential. Because camp was situated in an historic theatre, the students decided the setting for their movie would be a haunted mansion. Already the students created a remix; they combined the setting at hand with the mockumentary/reality horror tone of Blair Witch. Then, Len discussed the plot of the movie he envisioned. When he came to the "I'm so scared" climax, Ned became more actively involved in scouting the ideal location and illustrating the entire mise en scene. Simultaneously, Jared made an analogy to another reality horror mockumentary, Cloverfield. Then Cameron asked "What's Blair Witch" and the whole group discussed bits and pieces about their knowledge of the film. Jared and Len continued to lead the discussion on mockumentaries and the "hand held" reality horror genre. Len dismissed ideas about using visual effects because the movie was supposed to be reality horror; special effects would make it look like a movie, rather than reality. In fact, when the counselor asked for their title, Len stated, "There is no titlethis is supposed to look like it is reality." This discour se continued as the students progressed to their scriptwriting and storyboarding. CAMERON Okay, now he dies off in this scene (reads the script and draws the shot on his storyboard) LEN Do you have sleeping bags? JARED I have a pillow and sleeping bag and a teddy bear so if I get scared. (smirks and pretends to shake with fear) NED We don't want funny parts. LEN

PAGE 205

193 The comic reliefin horror filmsI've heard it a hundred timesdies first. NED Just like in my video games. The funny guy dies first. The nice one next. Len and Ned made the link to horror movies and video games in that the "funny guy" always dies first. As if this were a cue, Jared began acting like the "funny guy" and dictated his lines and actions to Len who scribed them into the script But Jared is also admonished for his "funny" improvisation. Ned, using an authoritative "we" stance, brings Jared back to the genre specifics. JARED I die. COUNSELOR How do you die? NED A ghost. LEN So how does this go? NED He's in the bathroom. (pick s up his notpad to show image to the other students). And two strings are tied here (points on diagram) you have to fix this first. The camera is going to there (points). He is going to panic (points to Len) and he will hear evil laughter. And (points to a nother space on the page, directing the attention of the other students) ghost noises come from over here. Then he runs in. The camera turns around. He screams. His camera falls to the floor. As illustrated above, while Jared noted his actions, Ned provid ed a detailed scene that included the action and the sound effects, which lead to further discussion about how to film the scene. NED So should we have the camera fall on the floor?

PAGE 206

194 JARED That sounds like a BAD idea. LEN It's from the camera's view. Soh it it to the ground and look as if it dropped. NED Is there a pillow we can drop it on? CAMERON I have an idea NED Just show it falling CAMERON You can have someone behind the camera and make it go fast and put it on the ground. NED So [on the screen]w e can just do static. LEN Oh. I've got it. If there is a camera falling, wouldn't there be frames missing? CAMERON Yeah, and on the computer, you can create a static effect for that. This discourse provides a glimpse into some of the complex problem solv ing discussions the students participated in through the scriptwriting. As illustrated above, this wasn't just a problem solving of how to drop a camera. It also involved how to shoot that shot. If the camera that had been shooting live footage fell, how w ould the audience be able to view that shot? Because of this conversation, the students realized they could use a static shot to signify the camera's impact. Next, they prepared to write "I'm so scared" scene on the scripts and storyboards. Len asked the counselor if he could look it up on YouTube to show the other students in the group. CAMERON What do we have to do for this scene? NED This scene is like the scene in Blair Witch. (Turns to counselor). They havent' seen Blair Witch so could I pull it up on YouTube? COUNSELOR Sure. (Sets up a computer with YouTube up

PAGE 207

195 on the browser) Do you know the exact scene? Does it have anything like LEN Inappropriate? COUNSELOR Yeah (nervous laugh). NED No. She's going "I'm so scared" with a close up on her face. (Tu rns to researcher and asks) Have you seen it? After he completed drawing a close up shot of the camera dropping, Cameron began to draw an extreme close up shot of Leo's eyes on the storyboard. The conselor hands the laptop to Len and he begins to search Y ouTube for the "I'm so scared" scene. During this time, as illustrated below, the students all chimed in with suggestions for finding the correct trailer to watch. While Len held the laptop, the other students helped him search for the scene. They all pro vided suggestions about possible search terms. Then when they watched the scene, they discussed how they could actually use the scene in their movie. LEN Oh these are all spoofs of the movie! NED We can make it scarey when the ghost is there LEN Maybe li ke ghost fog. Because we don't want to show it [the actual ghost]. LEN More spoofs of the scene of I'm so scared. NED Is there a thing in editing for like glowing eyes? COUNSELOR Look for an original. CAMERON Type in "I'm so scared" {points to the search s pace in YouTube) COUNSELOR (Points to the screen). That's a trailer. Could the scene be in the movie trailer? LEN Maybe. JARED (Points to trailer showing on the screen).

PAGE 208

196 "R" is for restricted. LEN Yeah, but it's a green trailer. That means it's okay. Green ones are g rated. Once the students completed the next and last scene in the movie, they moved onto filming. Because they were using digital editing, they knew they could shoot their shots in any order. They decided to film the "I'm so scared" scene firs t. They moved upstairs to the location. Ned took out his notebook and they studied his illustrations in combination with the script and storyboard. Prior to setting out their lighting and cameras, Len stood with the script as they all planned together how to film their idea with two perspectives: that of the filmmakers and that of the phantom. They shifted to a front stage discourse as they acted out the scene in the manner they would like it to appear to the audience. During filming they decided that the h and held camera part relied heavily on showing objects from the point of view of the videographer character. However, they also decided it would be interesting to let the audience feel the presence of the phantom during the still camera shots. So, as they filmed the shot before the "I'm so scared" scene from the phantom's perspective, Cameron breathed heavily into the microphone. This alternate point of view was further developed during filming when Cameron and Ned placed the stationary camera and figured o ut which shots they needed to take from the ghost's perspective. While this was not in the original script, the students developed the idea as they put together ideas from three different texts: the script, the storyboard, and the scene illustration. As t hey filmed, they also put more meaning making into the story. For example,

PAGE 209

197 although they had written the text for Len's "I'm so scared" scene in the script, as he read the lines, they coached him on looking scared. For example, they critiqued his reading w ith discourse such as, "When you sound scared, your eyes need to be wider" and "you need to speak quickly with fear' in your voice." When they finished filming, more multiliteracies were added to this scene to help make meaning. First of all, the student s added more heavy breathing during the phantom still camera shots. They decided they needed to apply more visual effects to distinguish between the shifts of hand held to stationary camera. They decided to add a visual effect to the stationary camera that uses a brown aged tone that would be used to differentiate the stationary shots from others Then, to the hand held camera shots, they added a date and red filming dot to the bottom of the screen as if it were live footage on a home movie filming live. Th e students stuck to their "no music" rule in order to maintain the reality horror appearance and experience. The students used multiple literacies to create this scene. While this literacy knowledge was essential, as previously noted, it was the performa nce of these literacies through influential tactics that allowed students authority over redesigning the text Group Group: "Who done it?" Scene Traditionally, the game of Clue begins with a murder of someone, in some location. This game borrows from the ge nre of the "cozy" murder mystery. The concept, setting, and characters of the game were borrowed and made into a movie entitled Clue, which turned the game into a comedy/mystery with stereotypical over the top characters The key to the murder mystery was to discover who, what, when, where, how,

PAGE 210

198 and why: who done it, what they used, when they did it, where they did it, how they did it, and why they did it. The characters were introduced, someone died, and the rest of the movie was spent solving the crime. W hen the girls in the Group Group first met, they decided to create a "funny murder mystery like Clue" (their words) that took place in a big old house like the house in Clue. During the location scouting, the girls noticed how they could use many spaces in the historic theatre to make their movie appear as if it took place in an old house. For their movie, Who Killed Uncle Harold like in Clue, the most important decision was where the dead body should be discovered. Then, the story focused on going through the different characters' motives, and eventually discovering the real killer. In Who Killed Uncle Harold the movie begins with opening credits, which introduce the characters. Then, during the first scene, the viewer hears a scream, and sees a close up of a short twin (they included twins one short and one tall as comedic juxtaposition) screaming as she looks down. The camera zooms out to a medium shot and then cuts to the title of the movie Who Killed Uncle Harold. This is accompanied by suspenseful mu sic. In the next shot, the music continues as the camera is focused on a close up of Uncle Harold, dead. The camera zooms out. Then the next shot is a medium wide angle shot of the other three characters in another room. They are arguing, when suddenly the y hear a scream. They rise and run toward the direction of the scream. Design of "Discovering the Dead Body" After selecting the moment, I subjected the frame to a kineikonic analysis based on Burn and Parker (2003) by engaging the following questions: 1) Wh at are the prefilmic resources? (Resources appropriated into film).

PAGE 211

199 The resources appropriated into the film include the "discovering of the dead body" accompanied by the scream and extreme close up shot. This is a typical scene that has occurred, not only in Clue, but also in most "cozy" murder mysteries both in movies and on television. 2) What are the profilmic resources? (Resources created specifically for film). In this particular scene, the students chose their setting as "the parlor" and used one of th e sitting rooms outside the women's restroom as their parlor (the same setting used by the Idea Group students). While their movie followed a typical "cozy" murder mystery plot, they relied heavily on comedy and also created their own unique characters for their movie. In fact, they spent a great deal of time on character development; each individual created their own character and often spoke in the role of the character while creating the script. Setting wise, they chose locations that could be made to lo ok like spaces in an old spooky mansion. They also chose many sound effects and music to enhance both the suspense of the plot and the comedic actions of the over the top characters. 3) What are the cinematic elements used to create this film? What multimoda l resources did the students use to represent this idea? Right before the scream, during the last opening credit of the character Grandma, she walks up to the camera and tilts her head sideways, saying "Hello" this made the shot appear as if it were a "Dut ch Angle" which is used in suspense movies before something is going to

PAGE 212

200 go awry. Then, the students cut to an extreme close up of the short twin's face, looking terrified as she screams and looks down as the camera zooms out and dissolves into the title Wh o Killed Uncle Harold? which served a subtitle role letting the audience know what happened. This cut to the title slide and then to a close up of Uncle Harold, lying down, with his eyes closed and his hat askew. Once again, the camera zooms out and then s hifts to a medium the setting in another room, where the three other characters hear the scream. The camera remains stationary, while the characters run out of the room (shot). In the Group Group, their whole movie resembled a Clue like plot. However, Clu e was so typical of the "cozy" murder mystery genre, that it was difficult to distinguish features specific to the original movie. Like the original, the characters were rather over the top. In the students' movie, however, they used original characters, r ather than relying on Professor Plum and company. Like the original, the students used a mix of humor and horror; they augmented these feelings with appropriate sound effects and music. In fact, of the three movies I compare in this section, theirs used th e most music and sound effects. The music and sound effects were very typical to a suspenseful mystery. In fact, sometimes when I am watching made for television movies, I recognize some of the "stock" sound effects and music they used. Furthermore, as in the typical murder mystery, the students used extreme close ups for the terrified faces. They also used close ups on the dead bodies. They also employed a skillful use of identifying the characters through opening credits in order to save time. Furthermore their strategic

PAGE 213

201 placement of the title, right after the scream, explained the plot of the movie: discovering who killed Uncle Harold. By placing this title after the scream and viewing of the body on the floor, the audience could assume: 1) the man was d ead; 2) the man was named Harold; 3) his niece had found him; 4) he was assumed murdered; and, 5) the main plot of the movie was to discover who killed him. Now that I have described the "product" of the scene, I will switch to an analysis of the creative collaborative development of this scene throughout the composition processes. Redesigning Clue As discussed earlier, the four girls had met earlier in the week and decided to make a funny murder mystery. Prior to completing their planning sheet, they descr ibed how they wanted to include mystery, murder, comedy, and crazy characters in a film that was "like Clue ." As I watched these four girls in action, I could see they were having fun bouncing ideas off of one another, providing group entertainment. This w as a highly performer/audience inspired group; students shifted in and out of performing ideas and accepting ideas. In fact, they each began to construct their own crazy characters prior to beginning the planning sheet. Once they began planning, they had a lready begun to speak their dialogue for their characters "in role." For example, the character performing as Grandma spoke in the Grandma voice, using facial expressions and gestures. Likewise, the "twins" spoke and acted as if they "were not exactly the smartest family on the block." The killer character, however, was not part of the family. Uncle Harold the murder victim was married to her. Initially, the girls did not have an individual to play Uncle Harold. When the

PAGE 214

202 counselor suggested Andy, they agre ed. Andy was a student who had been to camp many times. That week, he was working on a special project with the Tampa Theatre program director, Teresa, but also had time to help groups that needed assistance. COUNSELOR So who finds the body? TILLY I do an d then I scream. COUNSELOR Okay JESSICA Who is going to be Harold? We need to pick someone to be Harold. COUNSELOR What about Andy? JESSICA Okay In this scene, Jessica took authority over finding someone to play the role of her "husband" Harold. The couns elor made a suggestion. Because Jessica agreed, she took control over a design decision. They looked around for Andy and noticed him walking with the Theatre program director, Teresa. They called him over and explained their movie and plot to him. After A ndy accepted, they crowned him with the Uncle Harold hat. ANDY So I'm already dead at the beginning? COUNSELOR Yeah. Maybe you can look for a location to use for the scene. It's supposed to be a library. ANDY Yeah, okay. (He twists the Harold hat around on his head so it is sideways, and makes a silly face while the girls laugh) I've been in every inch of the theatre so... After Andy clarified his role, the counselor suggested a role for him: to be a location scout and find a good setting to film his scene. Andy accepted, taking the authority of location scout and augmenting it with his acting gestures in role with the hat. In this scene, he performed: as a student (accepting the counselor's suggestions), as an

PAGE 215

203 actor (spinning the Uncle Harold hat to a sidew ays tilt the position in which he wore it during the opening credits), as a kid (making a silly face), and like a filmmaker (letting them know he was on the job as the location scout). When he paused, thinking, the counselor turned back to the group and th ey continued to work on the script. Andy sat next to me (RESEARCHER). RESEARCHER So what do you think? ANDY I'm thinking RESEARCHER Go scout it out ANDY Oh, okay. Andy left to search for a location while the rest of the group continued with their scriptwr iting. About fifteen minutes later, he returned with the theatre program director, Teresa. She sat down beside me (RESEARCHER) and Andy joined us. TERESA Oh this is the clue group. ANDY Yeah, it is. TERESA So you need a "library" setting? We don't really have a space with nice books arranged on a shelf. RESEARCHER Or it could look look a parlor or something like that. They find him dead TERESA The dressing room. The parlor with the couch. Does that work for you? ANDY Yes! Interestingly, this conversation took place with just Teresa, Andy, and myself trying to figure out a location. The rest of the group was so immersed in the scriptwriting. Andy left once again to check out the dressing room. Following this exchange, the students completed the script. And y returned when

PAGE 216

204 they call him back for filming. Actually, the next time the scene was mentioned was during the initial filming; it was the first scene they shot. They were situated in the dressing room, setting up lights, props, and cameras. The Counselor and the students read the script to make sure it made sense, adding ideas along the way. At this point, they were situated in the dressing room. The counselor was organizing the lights and camera and the other students stood around her, waiting for direct ions. This is when I entered the room. Mary's comment about "making it look like he was in the library" was aimed at me MARY We're making it look like he was in the library. TILLY Does he haveshould he have ate a muffin before? Does he need a book beside him? COUNSELOR No I don't think we need anything. Just because we wrote it like that doesn't mean it has to be a library. It could be a parlor...did you bring the muffins upstairs? (Tilly nods) MARY Here's the script to review our lines. Where do we need to stop...that we need to memorize before... JESSICA Harold is dead. COUNSELOR Okay, dead Harold. Can you take your tag off Andy because you are not Andy you are Harold. Harold takes off his nametag and then lies on the floor and closes his eyes. GABBY H arold is sleeping again! (in her Grandma voice..she playfully pokes him). COUNSELOR So we want to zoom out from his face, right? The girls agree and arrange his hat askew and decide how his body should be positioned. Once again, in this group, the couns elor took more control initially in order to model what the students needed to do. While the counselor took control of "directing" the

PAGE 217

205 students took over organizing the set. She filmed Uncle Harold lying on the ground, while they stood around watching. She walked them through the filming and asked them questions about whether her shot was correct and if the lighting looked good on the viewfinder of the camera. JESSICA I think she should grab him and drag him out of the room After reading the script and e xamining the set up for the scene, June spoke to the group with confidence, noting she thought the student who was playing Grandma should grab Harold and drag him out of the room. The student who was playing Grandma shuffled over, in role. Using her cane, she poked "Harold" and told him to "stop sleeping" and come with her. Then she grabbed his foot and began dragging him, saying, "Oh Harold. You are so silly. Sleeping at a time like this." While this activity was actually part of the next scene they were shooting after the scream, the rest of the family rushes into the room and finds him dead I thought it was one of the turning points, where the students began to take more control over the filming; they actively translated the pretext script into an active performance text. Note how in the next section, the Counselor affirmed their "improv." COUNSELOR I love your improv. (looking at and guesturing to all of the students). Okay you want to get your scream filmed. Does someone want to do the camera? Notice during this exchange that the counselor validated the students' activities which added to the composition even though they had drifted into the next scene. She quickly redirected their attention to the task at hand and opened an opportunity for performance filming. As illustrated, the student who was playing Grandma accepted

PAGE 218

206 and they continue filming the scream. GABBY Okay. COUNSELOR Do you want to practice? Okay stay still for a minute and film the extreme close up first. Then, after she starts screaming, film for a minute then zoom out. GABBY Okeey doaky (in her Grandma voice). Notice during this exchange that the counselor validated the students' activities which added to the composition even though they had drifted into the next scene. She quickly redir ected their attention to the task at hand and opened an opportunity for students to take over filming. The student who was playing Grandma answered in her acting voice, which was not unusual for these students. In fact, during the planning and scriptwritin g the students often spoke in role, performing like actors a tactic that gave them authority over the construction of the script text. In the next scene, after the Counselor helped Gabby film the first shot, a still of Tilly's frightened face, they moved o nto filming the actual scream. TILLY (screams) COUNSELOR You know the scream was amazing but you were kind of smiling. (turns to Gabby and says) This time zoom out while she is still screaming. GABBY Okay. This shot actually took seven or eight "takes" before they were satisfied with the scream. During the process, Tilly got a case of the "giggles" and experienced difficulty trying to "wipe out" her smile. Finally they were satisfied with their shot. They all began to look in the lens and judge the screa m. The video reveal exaggerated facial

PAGE 219

207 expressions eyes wide and frightened, mouth not smiling, and scream loud. Then the next time they referred to the scene was during editing. In the scene illustrated below, the students have downloaded the clips into iMovie. They are examining the scream scene, in conjunction with the preceeding and following shots. COUNSELOR Okay where else do you want? TILLY We need a noise. It should be like evil laughter. GABBY It should be so loud it shakes the thearre. COUNSELOR You guys tell me where. Here, all group members were making decisions about the sound effects and music to accompany the finding of the dead body. MARY Do we want some cheesy? JESSICA Like elevator music but suspense. It's cheesy suspense COUNSELOR Okay g uys listen to these. JESSICA Oh I love that. I think it should be the scream and the da da da sound. I think the scream should be right after the cheesy music from the opening credits and then the da dad, suspense music after the scream. COUNSELOR Let's wa tch this again until you think we should hae another sound effect. TILLY I think you don't show me just hear my scream. COUNSELOR But we need to know you found him here. TILLY Maybe it should show Uncle Harold while you hear the scream and then show that I 'm there too COUNSELOR What should be in the backgrond when they find Harold?

PAGE 220

208 MARY Nothing. COUNSELOR Let's listen. TILLY I like that. COUNSELOR People use it a lot. MARY I like it COUNSELOR Then we are unoriginal. TILLY That's okay we're not original. CO UNSELOR How do you loop it? ANDY To loop it you just have to put it in a bunch of times. They listen. ANDY You need to turn it down a little in some points. JESSICA It's pretty loud. MARY I like subtle. GABBY Yeah first the "da d a da" and then a little less. They listen. TILLY I don't like that. Counselor plays more songs for them to choose from. ANDY Why don't you make up a song in garage band? COUNSELOR What about Dogma, didn't you like that? ALL Oh yeah MARY It seems happy. JESSICA I've heard that before ANDY It's calming. MARY What about that? We could speed it up. COUNSELOR Don't we need something more subtle? (she clicks to speed it up). Listen JESSICA I like that.

PAGE 221

209 I includ ed this extensive scene at the end to show how design was a shared process, where authority shifted constantly with new ideas and suggestions. Ultimately, during the editing processes, students either needed to find problems (something missing or unclear) or provide solutions (suggest how to augment their visual text with music, sounds, visual effects, transitions, and/or text on screen) to help make their film more interesting and understandable for an audience. In the next section, I examine the Forming G roup and describe some similarities and differences I found in their influential literacy performances. Forming Group: "The Director's Dead!" Scene In the original film, Tropic Thunder, a director is unable to control his group of self absorbed actors. Aft er an expensive special effects disaster, the studio plans to shut down productions. In order to save the movie, the director drops the cast in the middle of a real jungle in order to film their experiences and capture real emotions covertly from remote ca meras. When they land, the director gives an inspirational speech. Then, he steps on an old land mine and blows up. The actors are shocked at first. Then one of the actors convinces the others that this is just an elaborate stunt. Upon finding the director 's disembodied head, he tries to prove to the other actors, that the head is just a prop. Then shots are fired and they run; all the while thinking they are being remotely filmed for a real movie. However, they have really stepped into a real war zone. I n film camp, the Forming Group appropriated this "director's dead" concept into their own movie, The Set of the Haunted Mansion, about a mansion haunted by a werewolf ghost, which is supposed to be created by special effects. It turns out that the werewolf ghost is real. It kills the director and the camera man. Two FBI agents try to get

PAGE 222

210 the actors out of the building. They think this is part of the movie and refuse to leave. They continue hunting for the ghost, thinking they are still in a movie, being fil med by remote hidden cameras. However, they change their mind when they find the skeleton of their director and the detatched hand of their videographer still holding the camera. Then they realize there is a problem and they race out of the building. Three hours later, they watch themselves on television, being interviewed by the local news about their narrow escape from the werewolf ghost. In the next sections, I describe how the students appropriated and changed "The director's dead" scene into their mov ie Design of "The Director's Dead!" After selecting the moment, I subjected the frame to a kineikonic analysis based on Burn and Parker (2003) by engaging the following questions: 1) What are the prefilmic resources? (Resources appropriated into film). The r esources appropriated in to the film included the actors finding the director dead. Like Tropic Thunder they used body parts. However, they toned down the blood and violence considerably because of audience considerations (rated G for young brothers and s isters in audience) and the costs of special effects their budget of zero dollars did not allow for the types of effects produced by major Hollywood studios. 2) What are the profilmic resources? (Resources created specifically for film). In this particular s cene, the students used a new setting. They were obviously not in a jungle, but in a haunted mansion. They used

PAGE 223

211 some Hallowe'en decorations to make their props. For example, they used a skeleton wearing the director's jacket. Furthermore, they used a "hand in which they placed the camera. 3) What are the cinematic elements used to create this film? What multimodal resources did the students use to represent this idea? In this scene, the students use extreme close ups to show terrified eyes and faces. They a lso use close ups on the skeleton and hand to accentuate the scarey nature of what the actors are seeing. Dialogue is minimal but lets the audience know they think the danger is real and have to get out of the mansion. While the students did not use music or sound effects directly in the scene, they used a howl and growl sound effect throughout the movie to augment the visual shadow of the werewolf's ghost. Furthermore, they used the shadow of a cardboard puppet on the wall to stand for the ghost. They actu ally copied this idea from a film from the previous summer camp entitled Poultrygeist. This was a movie about a chicken ghost. Mark had been part of that group and brought these ideas over to this new movie. From a product based analysis, this scene was v ery different from the "finding the director dead" scene in Tropic Thunder. They didn't plan, however, to copy the idea. Rather, they wanted to use the general idea of the director being killed during the making of a movie and the actors thinking that the scarey things happening are part of the movie, when they are really "real." In the next section, I illustrate how the text transformed over time.

PAGE 224

212 Redesigning "The Director's Dead Recall how I initially named this group the Forming Group, because they came together as three older boys with an idea, and two younger boys wanting to act. They didn't always come together with their ideas. However, in the brainstorming session below, it is not obvious why I called this the Forming Group. During this brainstorming session, their ideas flowed, they were eager to accept all students' suggestions. It was during the less active flow periods, where the two younger boys (fifth graders going into sixth grade) often became playful (acting like kids) in ways that the older boys (two eighth graders and one ninth grader) construed as interfering with the task at hand. This caused conflict different from the other two groups. When the younger boys contributed to the task at hand immersed their ideas within the attention structu re of the activity their ideas were received by the three older students. However, when they interrupted the flow of activities (tried to get attention with a different ideas or through playful/silly behavior) they were not able to design attention within the group because: 1) their "different" ideas showed they were not paying attention to the frame of activities; and, 2) they were not immersing these ideas into the activity frame. These could be construed as "not so influential literacy performances." Thi s is an important point that contrasts with the analysis in the other two groups. Now in the following sections, I follow the director's dead scene across composition, beginning with the initial planning/brainstorming. RANDY Every time someone disappears, we could show the wolf shadow. COUNSELOR That's cool. I like it. BOBBY Like the wolf did it.

PAGE 225

213 MARK Yeah. You could have a projector there that points to the big screen and project the shadow on the wall. RANDY We could have some skulls and skeletons. COUNS ELOR Do your parents have any? RANDY I know how to make a skeleton out of pvc. BOBBY The places where people "disappear" (use fingers as quotes) that's where we will have them. COUNSELOR Who's going to bring in the bones? RANDY I can make them out of pvc. COUNSELOR Are you going to be able to make them tonight? RANDY Can't say I am going to be able to make it tonight. We might have to make it here. I can have [the pieces] for tomorrow. Hands and feet are made out of milk cartons. BOBBY I have plastic ones [ skeletons], a bunch. COUNSELOR Can you bring tomorrow BOBBY (nods) They have these eyes (widens his eyes, looking scared). COUNSELOR Bring those then we don't have to make them. AIDEN [We can use] skeletons as dead people. COUNSELOR You know how it happens that there is the guy that wants to get all the money out of it. REED He disappears last and has his hand because he is so greedy. During this planning session, Randy stood in front of a large chart and wrote down the students' ideas. He had posi tioned himself as the "writer" with a marker in hand. He gained authority over directing the discussions. However, all students contributed creative ideas during this brainstorming session. I found that brainstorming

PAGE 226

214 was a time when many new ideas could co me in and were accepted as possible design decisions. At this point, students needed to voice ideas that were immersed within the discussion of the general idea and they were accepted. However this wide acceptance narrowed as the text became more consolida ted into a script as illustrated in the next experts. MARK Hey guys they come out and they go "oh my!" and then you pan out and see that they see the skeletons. RANDY I say they [audience] should see the skeletons MARK Yeah they see them and then (he puts his hands up as if holding a camera) you pan out so you can see that they see skeletons RANDY I have another idea. We can have them looking at the skeletons and see the two skeletons and do close up on the face of the skeletons with the light shining up ..and then the flashlight they have the flashlight and the whole room is black The initial idea was Mark's idea. Roger already recorded it on the script. Then when Randy shifted to "another idea" the group dismissed it. Scriptwriting began the organization of thoughts. New or alternate ideas were not as readily accepted when something was recorded in the script. Authority over the written text the ability to attract attention for an idea and direct the text became a "first come first serve" acti vity. Unless there was a problem, a new idea did not usually replace something that was already written down in a script. Even though Randy had contributed many ideas during planning and he spoke with confidence, his idea was not validated by the group bec ause Roger had already recorded Mark's idea in the script. Through Mark's strategic use of tactics he gained attention. He used filmmaking

PAGE 227

215 Discourse (panning) and gestures (as if he were holding to camera). Furthermore, he immersed his idea into Randy's d iscourse, the flow of ideas Roger had already been recording in the script. Alternatively, as noted above, Randy shifted the idea out of the frame. Even though he spoke clearly, and with authority, his performance was not as influential he did not immerse his idea within the frame. In fact, while I was observing, I recorded this instance as a "Scooby Doo" moment a moment that caused me to pause, like Scooby Doo, tilt my head to the side, and think "huh?" These occurred at times when I was following the flow of ideas, and suddenly, a student would say or do something that was out of the frame of flow; my thoughts were interrupted and it felt irritating, rather than energizing (when ideas were added to the script). Viewing these types of "Scooby Doo" moments m ade me realize how different literacy activities (brainstorming) invite more creative (new) ideas, while other literacy activities (writing) were more organizational. While both activities flowed, the flow was different. Creative flow allowed more ideas in from the edge, while organizational flow required deeper immersion into the developing idea. During organization, edgy ideas often went right over the edge. At this point, after Mark discussed panning out, the counselor handed him the storyboards. Like Ca meron in the idea group, he was positioned next to the individual writing the script and discussed the appearance of a shot. Even though this was a different counselor in this group, she acted similarly and offered the job of storyboarding to the student w ho "performed knowledge" about storyboarding. In this case, rather than just asking what the shot should look like, Mark acted out the shot and discussed how the camera should pan out. After the counselor handed him the storyboard he began to draw

PAGE 228

216 the shot s, working closely with Roger. While Mark began the storyboards, they continued working on the scene in the scripts. AIDEN We can use an extreme close up when they find the skeleton. ROGER Extreme closeup on who? COUNSELOR One actor after the other. MARK Yeah and then after the close up we'll zoom out (puts up his hands again as if he was holding a camera) RANDY We see the skeletons and we turn around and we have a flashlight and its really scarey and then we turn around and there's the other one. BOBBY Wi th the flashlight and then they pan out. COUNSELOR Okay. why don't we show the skeleton hanging or laying wearing the director's jacket? ALL Yeah! COUNSELOR What is that jacket like? Is that jacket heavy? AIDEN Yeah. COUNSELOR We could probably lay it down and put the skeleton inside the jacket and you'll get the idea. RANDY And then for the cameraman we could have a tripod beside him MARK Are we going to have him hanging or no? COUNSELOR I dont' think we can. MARK So where do you want me to put him (on the storyboard)? COUNSELOR Just somewhere lying down. MARK Here? (points to space on storyboard) COUNSELOR Sure. RANDY So he is lying there or on the tripod?

PAGE 229

217 MARK Hmm. COUNSELOR So what is happening next? They just realized their director is dead. MARK I thin k they should now realize the movie is over since the camera man and director are dead. COUNSELOR Okay so they see the skeleton in the jacket and the tripod and camera on the ground? MARK Or we can have the skeleton hand holding the camera. (Turns to ROGER who is writing and repeats) "camera in skeleton's hand and tripod nearby" (then he draws on the storyboard) COUNSELOR So actor one is going to say... ROGER Maybe those FBI guys were right. Once again, there are several ideas immersed into the frame. Th e counselor helped organize students' thoughts and guided their story forward. However, the students, as they immersed their ideas into the organizing text, gained authority over design. The only time divergent ideas were accepted was when problems or ques tions about the text arose. For example, when the counselor reiterated what will happen with the skeletons, tripod, and camera, she asked it as a question. Then, Mark provided an alternative, which was validated by nods. Roger began to record the idea in t he script and Mark followed up by drawing it on the storyboard. This further consolidated the idea and provided design authority for both Roger and Mark. Within this short writing and drawing interlude, the two younger group members, Randy and Bobby, who had been playing the actor roles, backed away from the script and sat down in the theatre chairs. They began their own conversation outside the inner creative frame. As illustrated above, Roger had already created and recorded one actor's line. The counsel or looked back at Randy and Bobby and asked for their input on the

PAGE 230

218 script. They got up and moved in closer, standing right behind Roger so they could see the script on the computer screen. COUNSELOR Okay, so what is happening now? The actors realize the di rector and camera man are dead when they see the skeleton. They realize it's not a movie. MARK I think they should hear the coyote or the wolf howl. RANDY I'd say find some guns and try to attack it. ROGER They don't have guns MARK They don't get guns! The y [guns] don't work on ghosts, remember? BOBBY Yeah and why would they have any guns if it's not going to happen MARK They don't and if they did have guns to fight the wolf you will just use sound effects, remember? Mark referred to the discussion the stud ents had earlier that day with the camp director. One student had brought in a bag full of toy guns. The general rule in camp films is "no weapons allowed" so the students had figured out what else they could do. This is the third time Randy has brought up the use of guns. The other students look irritated as if this were already a done deal no guns. ROGER You can see the shadow (He writes it into the script.) COUNSELOR Okay let's see the shadow and hear the howl (to Mark as he records this on storyboard) ROGER You can have the shadow behind them (to Mark, who is illustrating the storyboard shot). MARK And then they exit stage left. ROGER (First he looks at his script then he addresses Randy and Bobby) You turn around you start screaming and you see the w erewolf. Randy and Bobby look at the script and storyboard and nod. As illustrated above, Roger and Mark, who are in command of the literacy tools, have design control. However, even though Mark has control over the storyboard s, he

PAGE 231

219 accepted Roger's suggestions about what to put in the storyboards. Then, Roger glanced at the script and informed Randy and Bobby about their acting. They responded through actions. They read the script, glanced at the storyboard, and nodded in agree ment. Although they did not initiate the discussion, they made design decisions through their agreement gestures. This scene illustrated how design authority did not always have to begin with a new idea. In this case, the students immersed themselves in th e text and agreed with the decisions, which contributed to the design. This was the last time the students dealt with this scene in scriptwriting and storyboarding. In the next section, I illustrate how they took their pretext and translated the scene int o performance and moving image. The students had just finished shooting the previous scene (where the director disappeared behind the curtain) so they were ready with their lights and position of their camera. They they began to set up the props. COUNSELOR Now we need the jacket on the skeleton. RANDY We want the big skeleton. COUNSELOR And we want him to lie on the ground there. RANDY We are. I thought we were going to do that downstairs. COUNSELOR Then we are going to have to move our lights. The audience is not going to know where we are. MARK So do we need the camera? COUNSELOR Yes. Okay come lay him out here where the light is. (Students lay him out and they put on the jacket). Okay right here where the light is. (They move the skeleton). RANDY Let's h ave his head bent to the side. (After some affirming nods, he bends the head to the side.) AIDEN Okay is that kind of creepy as I look at the

PAGE 232

220 skeleton in my jacket. RANDY Tell me when (to say quiet on the set). MARK Wait. COUNSELOR What are we doing, besid es filming? RANDY I thought we were just filming the skeleton. I say the actors should walk up to see it. ROGER That's in the script. MARK I say we should just have the actors stand over there and then you pan and look over at the skeleton. COUNSELOR (Read ing from script) "Oh this is not good. Maybe the FBI guys were right. We better get out of here." (She turns to the students) Right now all you are going to see is that (points to skeleton and camera) and then the actors walk in. MARK But I thought we woul d have the actors like scared. Like a close up and a mid shot and then we turn over there. COUNSELOR But this shot is just the skeleton. Then you are going to walk in and see him. They shoot the shot of the skeleton. MARK Isn't the shot supposed to pan to that? They shoot again, and pan down the skeleton's body. RANDY Am I in the shot here? COUNSELOR You are in the scene but not in this shot. This shot is just the skeleton. RANDY Oh (he watches as MARK and ROGER pan down with their shot). COUNSELOR Okay now we need actors to walk in and see the skeleton. MARK Take your name badges off. RANDY Are we just doing the walking up first or are we talking too. As we walk off are we saying lines or a close up? MARK I say as they walk in we have a shot. Then a shot he re and then (moves around as he speaks) walk get out and they see the skeleton.

PAGE 233

221 COUNSELOR So you want what shots? MARK I want just a mid shot from here up and then wide and out so it gets bigger and then you put the camera this way so you can see (points d own). COUNSELOR Yeah. At this point, Mark took control as the director while Roger stood at the camera. Mark assumed authority over the design of pretext into performance text. Once again, he used filmmaking discourse and immersed the filming into the act ions. From these actions, it was apparent that he had been paying attention. As he directed the actors, Randy asked a question about what the actors should be doing. Even though this was a question, he was still taking authority over design, by asking what he should do in his acting performance. Right after this shot they finished for the day. The next exerpt began the next day, after they have set up the scene once again to continue shooting the scene. BOBBY Okay I have a question (says after he reads his lines in the script). Are we saying the lines close up here? ROGER No. COUNSELOR Okay Mark I'm going to let you do it. It's going to be a wide shot. See the skeleton and they walk in. MARK Could I pan so I first get that then the skeleton and then them? C OUNSELOR Okay back up a bit so you get it all in your shot. Then what do you say when you see the hand (to Randy). RANDY Should I say Oh MY! COUNSELOR Sure or "oh my gosh"or whatever. ROGER Wait, should I like look at their face and then pan down? COUNSEL OR No we already filmed that yesterday

PAGE 234

222 ROGER Oh. Okay (He looks into the viewfinder on the camera) Hmm its really bright on this side of his face. It's really white (looking in the lens) MARK I'll fix it (moves light) ROGER Oh that's a good shadow...down t here. That's a good shadow...but do you think their faces are washed out too much? COUNSELOR Can you move the light back a little farther? Mark moves the light back. COUNSELOR Is that better? ROGER I guess. COUNSELOR (Looking at viewfinder) That's good. RO GER Allright so do you want them to say "oh my"? (Counselor nods. Roger turns to the two actors) Are y'all ready? COUNSELOR Say "quiet." ROGER Quiet on the set. Action! (No action. The actors don't say their lines) ROGER Okay y'all are supposed to say "o h my." BOBBY What are we supposed to say? ROGER "Oh my" and then I pan down. ROGER Action RANDY AND BOBBY Oh my! (They have terrified looks on their faces.) ROGER Cut. BOBBY I think we need to reshoot that shot. I looked up. COUNSELOR It looks like your ey es are closed. Tilt your head up. Don't look at the ground just really big. BOBBY Ah. (giggles and opens his eyes wider.) ROGER Big as you can like your eyes are going to pop out of your head. RANDY

PAGE 235

223 Come on you've got to do it. BOBBY (Rubs his eyes) Okay. (He opens them really wide). ROGER Action. (films for a few seconds) Cut. COUNSELOR Okay focus on him right now. Medium shot but move real close. (To Bobby) Your first line is "This is not good" but you are looking towards Randy. BOBBY Okay... ROGER Action BOBBY This is not good ROGER Cut COUNSELOR We need a quiet on the set and Bobby needs to be a little louder. RANDY Okay quiet on the set! BOBBY Okay what do I say? COUNSELOR This is not good. ROGER Action. BOBBY This is not good. COUNSELOR Now don't move Nobody move. Bobby your next line "Maybe the FBI guys are right." ROGER Okay action. BOBBY Maybe the FBI guys are right. COUNSELOR Maybe the FBI guys WERE right BOBBY. Oh ROGER Action BOBBY Maybe the FBI guys were right. ROGER Cut. COUNSELOR (To Randy) Your line is "I think the movie's over" ROGER Action RANDY

PAGE 236

224 I think the movie's over ROGER Cut. Don't look at the camera. COUNSELOR Don't look at the camera and this is very serious. You think you are going to die. This is very serious. Don't smile and lou d ROGER Action RANDY I think the movie's over COUNSELOR Wait don't move and say, "I think we need to get out of here" ROGER Action. RANDY I think we need to get out of here. ROGER Cut. COUNSELOR Good or louder? ROGER I think louder. COUNSELOR Okay again. R OGER Action. RANDY I think we need to get out of here. ROGER Cut. I used this extensive episode because the students continued to work, uninterrupted, on these shots. The episode illustrates how the authority over text design shifted back and forth among actors and the students performing as directors and videographers. While the style of speaking during filming was ultimately under control of the actors, the directors and videographers critiqued "how" it was said. Their critique included the appropriate use of the following: volume, tone, gestures, and facial expressions. The students were immersed in a shared design of transforming the pretext into performance text. This was the last time this scene was referenced during filming. The next time the

PAGE 237

225 studen ts referred to this scene was during editing, where they sat around the computer, watching the shots on the screen. RANDY Okay mister wide eyes (looking at Bobby). BOBBY What are you talking about? RANDY In the scene this is you (bugs out his eyes and ma kes a face). BOBBY Yeah (laughs). COUNSELOR What about that? ROGER Good. Keep that one. BOBBY What about that? They all watch the clip together ROGER Oh yeah. I'd rather have that one right there. I didn't notice it until you said something. BOBBY Yeah. I just noticed it. This interaction continued for a few more turns while they watched all of the shots and determined which ones they wanted to keep. At this point, the counselor controlled the keyboard while the students told her what they wanted to keep. D uring this time of critique and shot selection, there appeared to be much more flexibility for creative ideas or differing opinions. For example, even though Roger had decided to keep one clip, Randy noticed another one. Once they all watched Randy's choic e, Roger agreed it was better. In fact he said "I didn't notice it until you said something." Because Randy brought Roger's attention to his choice, he gained authority over that particular clip. As the students watched the clip, they all paid attention, a nd shared the authority over design choice. Summary of Redesigning: Knowledge Performance As illustrated above, the manner in which literacies influenced the text was highly

PAGE 238

226 performative. Dramatics figured strongly in both writing and filming. The student s performed the texts as they wrote. As they performed, they added multiple layers of literacies to enhance and make explicit their intended meaning in their digital videos. Rather than thinking or planning each modality separately, the different modes evo lved based on idea development and came together as needed students operated as bricoleurs ( LŽvi Strauss, 1966 ). Tone and mood were genre influenced and further evolved with the story. While the initial "I'm so scared" shot the dead Uncle Harold and the w erewolf version of Tropic Thunder were highly mimetic, the students wove the idea s into original tale s through poesis. Then, they made the ideas come to life as they employed kinesis to transform their words into live action. Lighting and visual/sound effe cts were discussed throughout the different episodes of composition processes. Students added new modalities to make meaning in the manner of bricolage; they used the tools at hand to create meaning. They used a variety of multiliteracies to influence the meaning of the text. However, it was the way in which they performed these literacies that ultimately influenced the films and the filmmaking processes. Although students performed collaboratively in teams, individually, they were able to influence the fil m and the filmmaking processes by bringing attention to their ideas. In the next section, I first discuss the multiliteracy knowledge performed and then I discuss tactics students used to influence the texts. Multiliteracy Knowledge and Performing With Ta ctics In all three groups, knowledge of moving image literacies was essential. While most students into camp with non academic knowledge of moving image, in camp they learned the academic film vocabulary and working cinematic skills, such as: shots,

PAGE 239

227 angles lighting, acting, and digital video editing. This vocabulary gave them authority over design. Writing skills were important. Students needed to know how to script dialogue and actions in order to complete their screenplays. Furthermore, typing skills and the ability to manipulate the screenwriting software program was an essential literacy skill. Reading was also highly important. Students needed to read with comprehension and expression. Furthermore, they needed to augment the expression in their voice w ith gestures and facial expressions. Additionally, they had to visualize how to translate what they were reading on the script into a live text. In moving images, visualization doesn't must mean making a visual picture like a still image setting but also involves: sound, movement, music, and the gestures of the humans as actions, reactions, and interactions. Reading for multiliteracies involves translating written texts into multimodal texts. Ultimately, students controlled the design through their use of these literacy skills, translated through oral language. However, as evidenced in the next section, it wasn't just their talking that was necessary. It was the tactics they used and their ability to gain attention that produced influential literacy perfor mances. These tactics were used during literacy performances, which, in most cases, involved the use of oral language; language that they augmented with style. For example, when Len made his initial pitch, he read with fluency and expression, spoke clearly and confidently, maintained eye contact with the other students, and used gestures. When I look across all three cases, I see a similar pattern of tactics used by other students when they influenced the other students. Students who were influential needed to focus on the

PAGE 240

228 rest of their team; those who maintained eye contact were more influential. Furthermore, this eyecontact augmented with gestures and confident speaking was essential. Those individuals who used filmmaking Discourse were also more influent ial. This language gave them cultural capital, especially when they were able to perform this knowledge. For example, when a student spoke about using a particular shot and then set up this shot, they gained more influence in design. It wasn't just the use of tactics in space, but the use of tactics across time. With each change in text, came more opportunities for transformations in text. If a student was influential during scriptwriting, but then did not use influential tactics during filming and editing, their ideas were less likely to be maintained in the design. The ability to tranform text through these tactics also varied over time. For example, during planning, brainstorming invited a constant influx of new ideas. However, once the text became organ ized under a written script, it was much more difficult to infuse a new idea. Once an idea was written down, it was consolidated; further changes needed to be immersed into this self organized structure. However, when the script became a pretext for perfor mance and filming, there was again more room for creativity. Students had more flexibility as problems arose as to how to show, in moving image, what had been written down on the page. During these transformation times, quick thinking, problem solving, and the ability to "argue" for a particular solution became important. Likewise, during editing, there were many opportunities to influence design. However, the nature of this influence was different. Editing is a time of critique and augmentation. Students w ho were able to notice something missing and figure out how to add modalities (sound effects, music, visual effects, text on screen, transitions)

PAGE 241

229 were able to influence design at this time. All of these influential literacy performances did not necessaril y rely on specific strategies that had been previously used in camp. While some students used strategies modeled by the counselors and/or appropriated by filmmakers, they strategically deployed these as tactics or ways of performing influentially. As deC erteau (1984 noted, a tactic is a way or style of performing. Furthermore, students who were influential, not only paid attention to "opportunities that must be seized on the wing'" (p. xix), they were also able to manipulate the activities "in order to t urn them into opportunities" (p. xix ). All of these tactics, therefore, were dependent on the attention economy model. No matter how knowledgeable students were about multiple literacies or how well they performed the knowledge, these tactics were only suc cessful when the students fit their ideas into the emerging attention structure. Students were more able to influence the design if they paid attention and knew what was going on. Furthermore, they attracted the most attention if their ideas were immersed into the frame of activities. Then, if they strategically used tactics, they were able to influence the creative composition processes. Summary of Design As indicated at the beginning of this chapter, I used the Design principles of the NLG (1996) to stru cture my analysis of data. In the first section, of this chapter, I provided a descriptive analysis of all of the activities and related literacies, as they became Available Designs. The NLG noted, that Design emphasizes: "the relationships between receive d modes of meaning (Available Designs), the transformation of these modes of meaning in their hybrid and intertextual use (Designing), and their subsequent

PAGE 242

230 to be received status (The Redesigned)" (p. 81). In this study, I specifically examined literacies i n action (Brandt & Clinton, 2002) and how these influenced the Design processes. Therefore, ultimately, I examined how individuals used multiple literacies to influence the processes (Designing) and products (Redesigned) of filmmaking composition. Because I was interested in temporal transformations in text, I reported on my three main informant groups. However, during the other sessions (both in 2008 and 2009) I observed short episodes of different groups working to see if these patterns and systems were similar. Through my observations and research notes, I discovered repeated confirmations to my findings. In fact, after the first summer, I discussed my findings with the counselors, and during 2009 many times counselors came to get me when they noticed si milar things happening once again. While I cannot generalize to a wider population, I considered that within these Available Designs, different children, working with different counselors experienced similar systems of creative collaboration during composi tion. As illustrated throughout the Design processes, students exhibited many examples of influential literacies that created constant shifts in both the power structures within the teams and the transformations to the text of the film during Designing. U ltimately, a series of influential performances continuously decontextualized and recontextualized students' gaining of attention, and thus authority over designing attention and the textual transformations. Through the use of literacies in action, individ uals transformed the texts of composition. These decisions about multiliteracies, were based on the attention students thought they could get from the audience. While they designed their

PAGE 243

231 texts, students expressed concern that they wanted to make sure the audience will get it and like it." Their initial choices for dialogue, actions, shots, and angles came from their conceptualizations during scriptwriting. Then, during filming, they edited ideas on the spot if they didn't "look" right. Finally, during edit ing, students often added sound effects, text on screen, music, or visual effects to make the "audience" pay attention to particularly important shots or scenes in their movies. While sometimes these extras were added for understanding, often students adde d visual or sound effects strictly for entertainment or attention purposes. Obviously, in a filmmaking camp, a good use of shots, angles, and lighting were valued for their cultural capital. Furthermore, students placed much attention on getting the right sound effects or music that made sense in their stories. Interestingly, the values of the multimodal literacies emerged as to both how they helped the text make sense and added to the "interestingness" of the story. From a mostly visual text, dialogue hel ped explain what pictures could not do. Performance (i.e. gestures, facial expressions, tone) helped fill in the blanks as the script came alife. Then, visual and sound effects (including music) were used for tone or mood. Finally, voice overs and/or text on screen were used for clarity. Ultimately, these texts emerged like a bricolage; students used tools on hand to continuously tinker at their work until it was as good as it could get based on the Available Designs. As previously noted, influential lite racies depended not just on what was said, but how it was said, who said it, when and where it was said, and for what purpose. This attention wasn't necessarily gained through attention seeking behavior. In fact, attention seeking behaviors that shifted ac tivities away from the purpose often resulted in that

PAGE 244

232 individual receiving less attention in the future. No authority was gained from just acting silly. Rather, attracting attention only influenced the task when students were able to immerse their ideas wi thin the emerging communitas and group motive. Figure 4.23 Model of Influential Literacies as PAID Attention With a specific group motive, the attention went to those who 1) paid attention and knew what was going on; 2) attracted attention for their co mpetence; 3) immersed their idea within the attention frame of the activity; and, then 4) designed attention through their influential use of multiliteracies in the product. As illustrated in Figure 4.23, the model PAID first depend s on paying attention. P aying attention relied on: 1) funds of knowledge students bring into filmmaking camp; 2) attention to the camp structure; 3) attention to the team purpose or motive; and 4) attention to the ongoing activities. For example, before and/or during filmmaking, students paid attention to filmmaking and other Discourses that they could bring into camp as influential literacies. Furthermore, if

PAGE 245

233 they paid attention to the Available Designs Discourse, they were at an advantage to the molar "keys to performance" (Baum an, 1977) or "how things work here" in camp. Paying attention during Available Designs meant, not only attending to the details, but also attenting to "verbal art as performance" (Bauman, 1977) as the teams developed an idea (motive or purpose) and develop ed that idea text in context. Second, in order students to influence the composition of text, they needed to attract attention of the team toward their idea. As previously discussed, attracting attention could occur from inside (lines of articulation) or o utside (lines of flight) the ongoing task at hand. However, once the students were involved in a teleological (Burke, 1945/1966) activity, attracting attention was short lived, unless it connected to past activities and/or fed into the frame (Goffman, 1974 ) of activities. Third, this connection depended on two fold immersion: immersion into text and immersion as part of the context. By immersion into text, I mean, in order for the idea to influence the text, it must somehow relate to or add meaning to the emerging composition. By immersion as part of context, I mean, the individual attempting to attracting attention with an idea must have been proved interest to the main goal, in order to attract the attention of the other team members. The verbal art of pe rformance depended not just on the "poetic" use of Discourse, but also the politics as the strategic use of "keys to performance" (Bauman, 1977) within the "larger systematic structures in which performances play[ed] a constitutive role" (Bauman & Briggs, 1990, p. 80) that provide "authoritative voice" through "access, legitimacy, competence, and values" (Bauman & Briggs, 1990, p. 77). As Bauman & Briggs noted, interpretation of performance depends on both "poetics and politics" that are "illuminated by the poetics

PAGE 246

234 and politics of discourse within the communities" (p. 80). In these findings, the playing the politics of discourse resulted in the use of tactics. Finally, once an individual gained a performative role of authority within the team, that individua l was able to more readily direct future activities. However, as Bauman & Briggs (1990) noted, the ability or authority to influence the text through the use of literacies depended on both poetics and politics as illustrated in Figure 4.24. Figure 4.24 Verbal Art as PAID Attention In Figure 4.24, I have combined the poetics (styles of speaking) and the politics (attention) into one model. Students spoke in different styles (like a kid, like a student, like an actor, like a filmmaker) in ways that influen ced the composition of text. Furthermore, the ways in which they performed these styles as they performed literacies,

PAGE 247

235 helped them to ultimately perform agentively: designing attention within their groups. As Bauman and Briggs (1990) noted: Building upon th e accumulated insights of past performance analysis, decontextualization (decentering), and recontextualization (recentering) opens a way toward constructing histories of performance; toward illuminating the larger systemic structures in which performances play a constitutive role, and toward linking performances with other modes of language use as performances as decentered and recentered both within and across speech events referred to, cited, evaluated, reported, looked back upon, replayed, and otherwise transformed in the production and reproduction of social life (p. 80). Therefore, as depicted in figure 4.24, designing attention was something gained through both poetic and political performances of literacies in action. In this analyis, I tried to ill uminate some of the larger "systemic structures" in which performances of literacies were influential (i.e. filmmaking as a primary Discourse). Furthermore, I linked performances of roles to styles of language use and the power students gained to be able t o design attention and influence composition. In Chapter Five, I elaborate on these findings of the influence of the poetics (styule) and politics (attention) of performance as tactics of influential literacies. I discuss the results of my findings throug h Design. Then I consider potential educational implications of my findings and discuss recommendations for future research.

PAGE 248

236 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUS SION AND IMPLICATION S In this study, I found the use of performance theory to be a powerful lens through w hich to view students' creative collaboration during composition of digital videos. Available Designs provided a context for Designing. The Redesigned illustrated the transformations of text. However, ultimately, Designing was the most active analysis, the place where I was able to illustrate the dynamic processes of how students' performances of literacies influenced the collaborative composition. My analysis of both the Designing and Redesigning allowed study of both the patterns of behavior, which were s pacially situated, and also the systems (Geertz, 1973) that emerged temporally. Temporal analysis, that is watching the video data over and over, helped me discover a system of interactions that appeared to help the two movements the inner motion of collab oration and the forward motion of creativity. Phelan (1993) noted that live performance cannot necessarily be "recorded" because the live disappears as it is happening. Phelan described performance as both process and product: as it happens (process), it i s a happening (product). Likewise, as I recorded what happened, immersion as a participant observer, allowed me to also capture the happenings in action. Phelan's discussion of live performance captured the complexity of the transformations in texts that e merged and influenced the digital video composition processes. While I observed students creating the text, I also observed them performing the text during filming. Their digital videos recorded this performance of the text (see

PAGE 249

237 Figure 5.1). THE TEXT P ERFORMANCE OF THE TE XT RECORD OF PERFORMAN CE OF THE TEXT Figure 5.1. The Performance Text I consider this record of the performance of the text essential to studying the ways in which knowledge was performed. In this analysis, I illustrated how, while th e skills and strategies of multiliteracies were essential, ultimately, the students' knowledge performances (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003) influenced the Design. I consider my analysis as a record of performance of the text. Figure 5.2. Multiple Literacies Through Performance This study was initially grounded in research on multiliteracies. I set out to investigate how students used traditional literacies and multimedia reel literacies in the composition processes and how the use of these literacies influenc ed their products. Because this was a collaborative effort, I thought oral language essential; however, I did not realize the extent to which the rhetoric or style of literacies would influence Design. As this became evident, and I moved toward studying th e multiliteracies in action as influential literacy performances, I realized I was working within a space of

PAGE 250

238 "performance of literacies" as illustrated in Figure 5.2. Envisioning students' knowledge performances, I was interested in viewing what was happ ening during Designing, and what transformations occurred through Redesigning. Using Schechner's (1988) inclusive definition of performance theory, I considered: Performance originates in impulses to make things happen and to entertain; to get results and to fool around; to collect meanings and to pass the time; to be transformed into another and to celebrate being oneself; to disappear and to show off; to bring into a special place a transcendant Other who exists then and now and later and now; to be in a trance and to be conscious; to focus on a select group sharing a secret language and to broadcast to the largest possible audience of strangers; to play in order to satisfy a felt obligation and to play only under an Equity contract for cash. These opposit ions, and others generated by them, comprise performance: an active situation, a continuous turbulent process of transformation (p. 142). In the current study, I found oppositions especially the spaces between those oppositions to be particularly salient s paces within which to study transformations of text. Envisioning influential literacy performances as the unit of analysis, allowed me to envision a model of how these affected both the emergence ( lines of articulation ) and the changes ( lines of flight ) as they have been conceptualized by Deleuze & Guattari ( 1987). The use of video ethnography was especially important in helping me to trace these influential literacy performances. As Schechner (1988) noted: The movie camera has given artists the ability to stop action, examine gesture

PAGE 251

239 frame by frame, go forward and backward, repeat, and study compositions as they condense and evaporate; these techniques have reshaped theatrical imagination (p. 211). I found, however, it is not just artists that benefit from the camera's ability to stop action and examine compositions. Although this was an essential skill for the students during the Designing processes, this also emerged as an essential researcher skill. Through stopping action, going to and fro, and studying Designing, I was able to examine the entextualization decontextualization recontextualization (Bauman & Briggs, 1990) processes and map these transformations as affecting both text and context as contextualization (Bauman & Briggs, 1990). Figure 5.3. T he Five C's of Design As I studied Design, I realized I was observing the "composition" of the text moving forward. As such, I was investigating collaborative creativity, as influenced by the culture of the emerging communitas (Turner, 1988) and the creati ve critiques of the group members, as they transformed their texts to make sense to an audience. In fact, my initial model of influences on composition included these five 5 C's: investigating

PAGE 252

240 c omposition as influenced by c ulture, c ollaboration, c reativity and c ritique (see Figure 5.3). While the activity studied was composition, I studied the creative collaborative efforts of students. Collaboration was essential and through creative influential literacy performances, students were able to influence the c omposition processes. Furthermore, as evidenced in the results, the culture of the camp influenced the compositions in the initial stages of production. However, as Designing progressed, composition decisions were also influenced by students' creativity an d critique. Students' creative ideas transformed the text. Their continuous critique also helped transform the texts for better audience understanding. As I continued to investigate these 5 C's I realized it was not just these concepts that were important, but the practices associated with them. These 5 C's emerged through students' knowledge of multiliteracy practices and influential literacy performances (as tactics). Ultimately the tactics students used in this complex system created a recipe of what wor ked, as I review in the next sections. Available Designs as Influential Multiliteracies During director's interviews, more than one student repeated a facsimile of this quote, "The most important thing I learned in camp is that this is not your home movie! It is so much morethe shots, the angles, the lighting, the scripts, the effects, the editing." Like Miller and Borowitz (2007), I found digital video a "supertool" for engaging multiliteracies. Instructors created a space for learning reel literacies, as well as engaging with traditional school based literacies (i.e. reading, writing, speaking, and listening). In fact, as shown in the results, the Available Designs included a wide variety of both Hitchcock and Hemingway inspired literacies. In the analysi s of Available Designs, oral language was a major source of communication, both receptive and projective. Directions

PAGE 253

241 for activities and discussions about learning depended on oral language. In particular, good performances through student participation lea d to a definition of influential uses of language. During Available Designs, the major secondary Discourse (Gee, 1996) of filmmaking was defined through social practices. These literacies in action defined the molar structure (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987) of filmmaking camp. It was not just the tools that made this space a positive learning experience. Ultimately, the students who came to camp shared an affinity for filmmaking. Gee (2004) stated that affinity spaces were spaces where people can participate in ways according to their interests and skills. In filmmaking camp, students were able to contribute by positioning and taking different roles throughout the multimedia processes. Gee also noted that affinity spaces depend on peer to peer teaching; this crea tes a constant motivation to improve skills and learn new skills because all participants feel like "experts" at some point, while they are also tapping the expertise of others. The film camp operated more as an affinity space than a formal learning enviro nment. Affinity spaces are usually short term situations that respond to interest related needs. Proof of learning is through interest and motivation rather than forces of learning and assessment. Furthermore Jenkins et al. (2009) noted, "Affinity spaces a re also highly generative environments, from which new aesthetic experiments and innovations emerge" (Jenkins, et al. 2009, p. 9). In the next section, I illustrate how these new "aesthetic experiments" and "innovations" occurred as the students participat ed in Designing. Designing: PAID Attention and Performing Knowledge As illustrated throughout the Design processes, students exhibited many examples of influential literacies that created constant shifts in both the power structures within the

PAGE 254

242 teams and th e transformations to the text of the film during Designing. Ultimately, a series of tactics continuously decontextualized and recontextualized students' authority over designing attention. Through the use of influential literacy performances, individuals transformed the texts of composition. Furthermore, as illustrated in the results, I found many instances where students shifted roles. Role shifting as "shape shifting portfolio people" (Gee, 2004), allowed students more opportunities to participate and pe rform. In performance theory, Schechner (1988) described a protagonist antagonist spectator triad, which illustrates a shifting perspective among societies, where: the roles shift during performance: this moment's observer may be the next moment's protago nist, while this moment's antagonist may be the next moment's spectator" (p. 212). This triad illustrates the shifting roles with which students engaged as they composed in groups; sometimes they were the center of attention (protagonist), sometimes they d irected changes (antagonist), and sometimes they listened and observed (spectator). As previously noted, influential literacies depended not just on what was said, but how it was said, who said it, when and where it was said, and for what purpose. As illu strated in the results, I found the major thread that defined influential performances was based on attention. Using the interpretive elements for authority as defined by Bauman and Briggs (1990) I found a web of "attention" that emerged throughout the pro cesses. In fact, attention became the means through which students flooded into the activity frame. Attention Economy: Performance Knowledge The use of influential literacies in this project was two fold: students used literacies to influence texts, and a s a result, those texts required the students' attention.

PAGE 255

243 Furthermore, when the students paid attention to the emerging task at hand, they were able to gain authority (Bauman & Briggs, 1990) and agency for designing future attention (to their texts by an a udience) through influential performances of literacies. Beyond the immediate learning space of filmmaking camp, attention is a concept with real world implications that reach beyond immediate learning spaces. Lankshear and Knobel (2003) discussed the imp ortance of relating classroom learning to changing knowledge in society. In particular they argued, "people's efforts to attract, sustain, and build attention under new media conditions can be seen already to have spawned a range of new social practices an d new forms of literacy associated with them" (p. 109 110). The PAID model was influenced both by the local space of filmmaking camp, the political contexts that emerged within the space, and the global contexts brought into camp. Individuals bring differe nt types of information and knowledge into spaces. Gonzˆlez, Moll, and Amanti, (2005) have referred to the cultural learning (in and out of school) of individuals as "funds of knowledge," suggesting how school should build on the knowledge already familiar to students. Working with adolescents in a filmmaking space, it is important to note that individuals arrive with their own cultural practices and understandings of moving image literacies. In fact, one could assume that those who have access to Internet resources in popular culture may have an advantaged access to information. Furthermore, within a filmmaking learning environment, students would be flooded with information about multiliteracy practices shots and angles, digital editing, screenwriting soft ware, lighting, sound, dialogue to which they must attend. Within such a complex environment full of multiple practices, it can become

PAGE 256

244 difficult to know what needs attention. In their citation of researchers, such as Goldhaber (1996; 1997; 1998) and Lanha m (1994), Lankshear and Knobel (2001) described the effects of the attention economy on new literacies. Lankshear and Knobel stated that attention is the scarce resource. Lanham (2006) also identified "attention" as the scarce resource. The reasoning is th at limitless information is available but one can only give so much attention. Attention, unlike information, is a scarce resource because "each of us has only so much of it to give, and [attention] can only come from us not machines, computers or anywhere else" (Goldhaber, 1996, n.p.). Economies are based on "what is both most desirable and ultimately most scarce" (Goldhaber, 1996, n.p.). While there is a "superabundance" (Lankshear & Knobel, 2001) of information, attention has become "most desirable" and "most scarce." In order for individuals to participate in the attention economy, they must know how to both pay and receive attention. Goldhaber (1997) stated that one must receive more information than one puts out. Furthermore, individuals must pay atte ntion in order to get attention. Attention involves an exchange and people will not pay attention if they lose interest in this exchange. Goldhaber (1997) also noted that gaining attention is about originality because it is difficult to get attention "by r epeating exactly what you or someone else has done before" (n.p.) Therefore, an attention economy is based on "endless originality, or at least attempts at originality" (Goldhaber 1997, n.p.). Attaining the attention of others is based on "everything that makes you distinctly you and not somebody else" (Goldhaber 1996, n.p.). Grabbing the attention of others is especially important in collaborative composition. Furthermore, what "makes you distinctly you and not somebody else" is an essential concept in cre ativity especially when an individual is able to influence the

PAGE 257

245 composition processes. In the real world Design has become more and more multimodal. As Lanham (2006) noted, "In the digital writing space, words no longer have it all their own way. They have to compete with moving images and sounds" (p. xii). Therefore, this isn't just a space where one can plop a few static images along with the text. Rather, as Lanham noted, moving image, or reel literacies are also important. Note my use of the word also. While I found moving image literacies to be essential learning, I also discussed the significant role traditional "school" literacies of reading and writing played in the composition processes. Like Jenkins et al. (2009) I share the idea that traditional school based literacies (reading and writing) and digital media literacies were essential. In addition, like Jenkins et al. (2009) I also found "ancestral" literacies of (oral language and performance) to be influential literacies in action during Design. Designing for Attention Lanham (2006) noted that design invites us to attend to a product "in a particular way" to pay a "certain type of attention" (p. 2). While on one hand Design is the embodiment of semiotics of the processes and products, it relies o n a micro economy of attention and performance. Designers influenced the text through performances of literacies. Furthermore, they strategically (politically) and stylistically (poetically) used literacies immersed within the task at hand. Ultimately, the ir use was all about style and attention. T he attention students previously paid to information outside of camp resulted in the funds of knowledge they brought in to camp (Gonzˆlez, Moll, & Amanti, 2005). In

PAGE 258

246 addition, the camp affordances offered a democrat ic access to firm language, no matter what the incoming sophistocation of the individual campers. Further, the Discourse of film or the screen was important: students needed to be informed screenagers to participate in camp This is because t he screen is d ifferent than the page. As Lanham (2006) noted, words on the page stay put, words on the screen "dance around." Images and color play a larger role. Sound is also sometimes present. "The digital screen depends on an economics of plenty" in that there is "c ompetition between word, image, and sound for our attention" (p. 20). Within camp, students negotiated the economics of plenty, and made sure they used enough, to gain audience attention for their films. For example, while students were editing, they made decisions to add or subtract visual and sound effects based on their message. In the appropriation of the "I'm so scared" scene, while Len specifically stated he wanted "no special effects" so the movie looked real, the students ended up using two cameras (one stationary and one moving) and placing a "record" button on the moving camera to help the audience with meaning. While not overdoing the effects, the strategic deployment of parsimony helped maintain the documentary feeling, while helping the audience distinguish between the perspectives. In fact, most additive special effect decisions the students made were based on the audience; they either wanted to help the viewers understand, or gain a reaction usually laughter or shock from their audience. Design ing with Style Communicating influentially meant delivering not just information, but "style" (Lanham, 2006). As Lanham has noted, in an attention economy information is everywhere. Attention is in short supply. Information is never clean. Never pure,

PAGE 259

247 info rmation is always full of purpose. The more information we get, the more filter we need. Lanham noted that the most powerful filter we have is "style" which, in Western culture, has been called rhetoric. Lanham (2006) discussed rhetoric, noting that it has not always been a "dirty word" or the "opposite of sincerity, truth, and good intentions" (p. 19). Rather, it means training in human communication: expression, spoken, and written language. Lanham (2006) further noted, that while digital technologies are new, the notion of an attention economy not necessarily new. In fact, oral and performance communication were highly significant in the ancient world. Lanham referred to rhetoric, which "taught you how to get people's attention and how to argue your case once you had it" (p. 23). Rhetoric in the ancient world (pre written text) required memory and voice a speaking and performing of ideas. Voice training was essential also volume and quality. Gesture was especially important in ancient world, which predated artificial amplification systems. This combination of speaking and body language was called "delivery." Successful delivery involved "communicating the message in such a way that it would be accepted and attended to rather than refused, ignored, or thrown [away]" (p. 24). Information does not come in neutral boxes. Influential literacy meant the ability to use the "right" language and "right" ways within a Discourse (Gee, 1996) space. Within the filmmaking space, because there are multiple secondary Disc ourses, there were multiple ways of being literate. Because it was primarily a "filmmaking" community, Discourse that represented knowledge about both filmic and cinematic (Metz, 1974) language was significant in gaining students early attention. For exam ple, Len brought in an iconic idea from Blair Witch the "I'm so scared" scene. Then he

PAGE 260

248 described his idea in terms of the genres of "documentary" and "mockumentary" and realistic horror. Jared quickly joined in this Discourse and established his own credib ility. Within the filmmaking community, however, film Discourse was not the only right language or way As Gee (1996) noted, there could be many different secondary Discourses. Within the filmmaking community, these included: idea generation, scriptwriti ng, storyboarding, video camera use, directing, digital editing, and acting (reading dialogue, gesturing, voice tone, facial expressions). Within the teams, students sometimes flooded into roles of completing these literacies; other times, they were asked or assigned these roles. Being in charge of a position was also a way to become influential. For example, once Cameron took over storyboarding, he became much more influential during the script construction process. With his tool (storyboards) in hand, he not only planned the shots, but began contributing more to the parallel activity of script construction. Because he was contributing more to the script, he gained more influence in the dialogue and actions. Being in charge was a result of a strategic use of "tactics" (deCerteau, 1984). Envisioning "tactics" is especially important in examining collaborative groups of composers. While students learned the skills and strategies of filmmaking in camp, their performances became influential through their use of tactics or a careful "watch for opportunities that must be seized on the wing'" (p. xix). Furthermore, events were constantly manipulated "in order to turn them into opportunities" (p. xix). As illustrated in the Designing and Redesigned results, student s constantly shifted spaces, based on their seizing or creating opportunities. Creating opportunities, like popping qwiffs (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) required new "ways of operating" (deCerteau, 1984, p. xix)

PAGE 261

249 which may contain elements of the "right" ways comb ined with individual influential tactics. For example, in the first episode, where the group worked toward establishing the big idea of the movie, the most influential genre was the use of the "pitch." Len pitched his idea to the whole group using filmmaki ng language, director like gestures, and communicative eyecontact. The initial "pitch" became influential, not just through oral language, but through a performance of language, text, gestures, and eyecontact. In other words, an influential pitch relied he avily on tactics (de Certeau, 1984) or rhetoric. Lanham (2006) recently called rhetoric a powerful "stylistic filtration" mechanism for information. Although rhetoric has been defined as the art of persuasion, Lanham noted "it might has wellhave been cal led the economics of attention" (p. 21). Rhetoric, therefore, refers to a performance based interpretation of oral language that "taught you how to get people's attention and how to argue your case once you had it" (p. 23). Rhetoric is about speaking a cas e in public, which requires: voice training, volume enhancement, and gesturing. In filmmaking, these tactics of rhetoric must also be projected onto imaginary space with the expectation that the audience will be persuaded in the way the filmmakers have pro jected. Lanham stated that "you had to learnto be an actor" and that the rhetoric, speaking, and body language put together was called "delivery." (p. 23). Successful delivery of information, like successful FedEx delivery requires "communicating the mess age in such a way that it would be accepted and attended to rather than refused, ignored or thrown in the wastepaper basket unread" (p. 24). In other words, students with good stylistic use of rhetoric would be expected to attract attention, and then immer se the other group members within the idea. Finally, they would be able to design attention, participating in the transformation of text through

PAGE 262

250 Redesigning. Redesigned: A Bricolage of Playing With Literacies in Action Play is a metaphor that has historica lly been met with mixed reviews in education. On one hand, teachers have worked toward making learning fun. On the other, they may feel guilty when kids are only having fun (playing). Jenkins et al. (2009) discussed this resistance to fun as reflecting "t he confusion between play as a source of fun and play as a form of engagement" (p. 24). Play as active engagement encourages risk taking, experimentation, and problem solving. Mackey (2007) described play as engagement in the second edition of Literacies A cross Media: Playing the Text, where she extended the use of the word "read" to include other texts such as video games, movies, and interactive media as notions of "playing the text." For Mackey, playing the text involves activities such as pretending/i magining, performing, engaging with rules/conventions, strategizing, orchestrating/designing, interpreting, fooling around/exploration, and play as "not working" (risk lowered, process over product). Playing the text implies an engagement, which is often t hough not exclusively ludic (Huizinga, 1950) Playing with multimedia texts, students engaged in bricolage (Lvi Strauss, 1962/1966) work, where the students worked at "wrighting" (Ivanic, 2004) their film texts across modalities. As discussed in Chapter Four, Ivanic used the term "wrighter" rather than "writer" to refer to composers making meaning in one or more modes, as "someone who wrights' a text in the way a wheelwright wrights' a wheel" (p. 282). Ivanic noted that this "wrighter" description is "i n line with the use of the term playwright' to mean a person who constructs the script for a multimodal performance"

PAGE 263

251 (p. 282). Interestingly, Ivanic noted that people in theater sometimes use term "playwrite" because it "implies the construction of a verb al text" (ibid.). However, this "misspelling" actually "misses the implication of the multimodal character of theater" (ibid.). As illustrated below, in examining the Redesigned as a product, as well as the Influential Literacies that "wrighted" (Ivanic, 2 004) the text across episodes and modalities of representation. Wrighting: Transformations in Text Through Knowledge Performance As indicated in Designing, students were able to design attention only after they paid, attracted, and immersed their influenti al literacies within the group. Ultimately, it was the students' performances of Influential Literacies that determined transformations in text. In Redesigning, I conducted a microanalysis of one particular "textual toy" (Dyson, 2003) so that I could illus trate how students used Influential Literacies to "wright" (Ivanic, 2004) the Design over time, in a teleogical goal toward "perfection." Burke (1945/1966) used the Artistotelian concept "entelechy" (a "telos") to identify the individual's movement potenti al toward the principle of perfection. Within the filmmaking camp, I was interested in the emergence of text in context. In essence, there was the "container and thing contained" (Burke, 1945/1966) where the container the what could be well defined, but th e thing contained the how was "marked by a possession of telos within" (Burke, 1945/1966, p. 17) or a kinesis "which includes something of both action' and motion'" (ibid. p. 17). Therefore, within the container (the emerging filmmaking texts) there was a kinesis manifested through actions. Burke defined this "container and thing contained" in terms of his dramaturgical pentad (act, action, agent, scene, purpose): "For the characters, by being in interaction,

PAGE 264

252 could be treated as scenic conditions or "env ironment," of one another; and any act could be treated as part of the context that modifies (hence, to a degree motivates) the subsequent acts" (p. 7). Therefore, theoretically, within this environment, as individuals formed into filmmaking teams (context s), their texts emerged, like recipes, keys, or a structure. Then as they situated themselves around the ideas, these emerging texts informed the context, as they operated as bricoleurs (Lvi Strauss, 1962 1966). I considered all of the acts, actions, agen ts and scenes part of the context of potentiality (Burke, 1969). However, I was also interested the performance emergence (Bauman, 1977) or the actus (Burke, 1969) as the actualization of the potential: the "making" or the purpose as a driving force of ent elechy. As Burke noted "in a state there are implicit possibilities, and in action these possibilities are made explicit" (p. 43). It is these actions of knowledge performance of influential literacies that I found to be particularly transformative. Within composition studies, Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) have discussed the difference between knowledge telling and knowledge transformation. Knowledge telling involves a simple linear way of writing; whereas, knowledge transformation is theorized as a more sophisticated, problem solving way of writing. Both knowledge telling and knowledge transformation are part of knowledge building (Scardemelia & Berieter, 2003), a constructivist approach to creative work with ideas that matter to the individuals involved with the work. Furthermore, these knowledge performances transform over time. Scardamalia and Bereiter (2003) discussed the term "knowledge building" as a trajectory of deep knowledge construction at all levels. Furthermore, they stated that knowledge buil ding is the key to innovation, which in this study manifested as

PAGE 265

2 53 transformations in texts resulting in original creative films. Scardamalia and Bereiter further discussed the importance of "knowledge building environments" that serve to support collaborati ve knowledge work. Further studies involving knowledge performance should include an examination of knowledge building, especially in consideration of how texts transform over time and across different modalities (from written text, to performed text, to film record of performed text) within the enactment of literacy performances. From Mimesis, to Poesis, to Kinesis In the collaborative composition process, I searched for transformations, not only in the text and context, but also in the "areas of ambigui ty that transformations take place" (Burke, 1969, p. xix). Transformations don't just happen as a shift from one state to another. Rather, then, change results through a complexity of actions and interactions. While the processes may initially appear as th rough mimesis (copying or imitating) they progress toward poiesis (making not faking). I think we should look toward entelechy or kinesis as "movement, motion, fluidity, fluctuation" (Conquergood, 1995, p. 138) as the energy/motivation/purpose that drives the process forward. The creation of movie texts in the context of filmmaking camp was a school like structured activity that also fostered collective creativity and play. First there was the molar structure of camp, the "this is what we do here to get th is (filmmaking) done" or the "recipes" (Geertz, 1973) of camp. This brings to mind dramatic concept of mimesis as imitation of the real world. This implies an authority or powerful discourse for the situated learning. An example of mimesis in filmmaking c amp would be having students learn to copy what "real" filmmakers do through observing instructors and then trying the

PAGE 266

254 activities (such as lighting, filming, digital editing) under their guidance. In camp, therefore, one could envision students following a recipe, a mimesis creating an exact copy of a scene from a movie. In fact, this is not what happened. While the students initially learned to copy what "real" filmmakers do, they also began to take on authority over the text and move into poeisis, a stat e of "making not faking" (Turner, 1982, p. 93). Individually the students used different styles of verbal art (performing like kids, performing like students, performing like actors, and performing like filmmakers). Their ability to use influential literac ies, and ultimately design attention, however, was not based solely on individualism, but rather it became a collaborative endeavor of individuals using their knowledge and skills toward a common goal. For example, in filmmaking camp, students took what th ey learned (mimesis) and gathered into creative teams, and worked as collaborative groups to make (poiesis) their movie magic thus, transforming these texts (kinesis) through personal actions and interactions. Filmmaking, like performance, allows for mul tiple modalities (talk, gestures, expressions). However, in addition to the performance, filmmaking also enlists "magic" that goes beyond the present moment. The filmmaker, rather than videotaping in real time, chooses shots to depict meaning. For example, in the "I'm so scared" scene, the students added the visual effect of having another camera film some of the shots from an outside view. Furthermore, they added heavy breathing as a sound effect during this outside view camera shot, which added to the emo tion of the scene. Then came the scream and Len's discovery of his dead friend. This was followed by the extreme close up of the "I'm so scared" shot. The use of these different shots as a montage (Eisenstein,

PAGE 267

255 1994) captured an "insider's view" for the aud ience and an anticipation that something spooky was going to happen. And this sequence is an example of the tactical use of additive multimedia to create meaning in the emerging filmmaking texts. As I completed the Redesigned analysis of "textual toys" (D yson, 2003) over time, I tried to capture the poesis and kinesis over time. In examining the Redesigned, I was able to illustrate the enactment of influential literacies, or times when the students gained design attention as authority to design the text. A s producers or "poets" (deCerteau, 1984) of their own acts, students created their texts through a creative process of invisible rhizomatic lines (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987) of trajectories, moving in different directions, as: lines of articulation (feeding into the creative processes) and lines of flight (transformative lines). As deCerteau (1984) noted, the word "trajectory" implies "a movement, but it also involves a plane [of] projection, a flattening out" (p. xviii). While these trajectories can never b e deconstructed in all of their richness, "tactics" can provide a way to interpret the "ways of operating" (deCerteau, 1984, p. xix). As I followed the textual toy across composition, it was possible to illuminate the tactics (deCerteau, 1984) students use d to gain influence in Design. As illustrated in Chapter 4, Len's initial idea set a "reality" style and "mockumentary" genre tone for the movie. His tactics for influencing the text included his use of filmmaking Discourse, his written idea, his speaking abilities, and his eye contact with teammates immersing them into his big idea. Once the team agreed on Len's big idea, they continued to use tactics to influence the text with their ideas as illustrated in the following examples. As the students created the script, they added specific shots and dramatic dialogue to "story ize" the reality. As

PAGE 268

256 story crept in, students came up with ideas to enhance the visual effects of their film, without using too many ready made visual effects in the digital editing prog ram. This kind of planning that is possible in moving image literacy, adds another layer to an already highly intertextual or intermedial (Semali & Paliotet, 1999) text. As the activity changed (planning, scriptwriting, storyboarding, filming, editing) so did the text, and the play "frames" (Goffman, 1974). For example, when the students moved from planning into scriptwriting, they shifted from a location in back of the theatre, to seats in front of a computer. The play frame included a new composition too l (computer vs. pencil) as well as new skills (typing) for "wrighting" the text. In the same frame, storyboarding emerged as a co activity, with a different tool (pencil) and a different set of skills (envisioning shots), which lead to further "wrighting" of the texts. This fits in with Bauman and Briggs (1990) noted that "play frames" have the power to "alter the performative force of utterances" (p. 63). Within these scenes, the discourse changed from brainstorming ideas to organizing dialogue and actions into a coherent story. Furthermore, once the play frame shifted, students began to critique past ideas. For example, when the students shifted from a pretext (script) to a posttext (filming) they questioned both dialogue (speech) and actions as representa tive of the style and message they wished to convey. I think these shifts provided a natural ability to critique that placed the students one step away from their texts. Similar to the idea of fluency filters instances when the students switched from acto r to director to critique the reading of dialogue through their filters of how the style fit into their film textual transmediation (texts changing from ideas to written text, to spoken dialogue, to edited multimodal texts) allowed students the space to cr itique their

PAGE 269

257 texts in a new frame. Therefore, rather than critiquing ideas directly (which some students find offensive) they creatively critiqued the text as it transformed through frames. Recall that "frames" are constructed through an emergence of perfo rmance keys (Bauman, 1977). Furthermore, these keys are performed in a particular "genre" (Bakhtin, 1986). As noted in Chapter 4, I found that the styles of performing (performing as a kid, performing as a student, performing as an actor, performing as a f ilmmaker) had different effects on the Redesigned, depending on the frame of activity. While the students spoke in different keys or "genres" they also did so within different frames of experience; these often resulted in shifts in play frames. For example Len's initial performing/speaking as a filmmaker framed activity around the primary Discourse of camp; this tactic lead to a series of actions, which shifted authority from the counselor to Len. However, if students wanted to influence the composition p rocesses, they needed to participate with other styles as well. For example, youth culture performing as a kid helped them to develop ritual keys to communitas. Jared created a playful culture, acting like the comic relief both in the movie and in the crea tive processes. This resulted in his role as the "comic relief" that "always dies first" as discussed by Ned and Len. Reference to the primary Discourse of filmmaking, lead to a decision that was not questioned within the group. As a group, they made a dec ision to wright the text through creative critique and genre reference. While performing like a kid created comeradery among the team members, performing like a student carried more cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1984) with the counselors. The tactic of on ta sk behaviors gained the most attention of the counselors.

PAGE 270

258 Furthermore, students who answered counselors' queries or took on assigned roles, gained more influence in the product design. For example, Len gained early influence during planning due to his atte ntion to the counselor's query about who has a pencil and wants to fill in the planning sheet. While the other students provided input to the planning, Len was ultimately in charge of the discussion and the text written down on the sheet. Performing like a n actor was an influential performance. Most often, performing like an actor became an influential literacy when a student either created dialogue (writing) or spoke dialogue (wrighted the style of the dialogue through speaking). Once again the students us ed creative critique and fluency filters to wright the text. For example, when filming the "I'm so scared" extreme close up shot, Len filmed the shot and then showed it to the other team members. Although the script was written and the shot illustrated on a storyboard, the students "wrighted" the representation through actions and viewing of the visual moving image. This illustrates how their performances as actor and filmmaker were so intricately tied together. The fact that these students were so readily able to shape shift, from actors to filmmakers, resulted in a sophisticated use of multiliteracies. In essence, they were using meta language (Bauman & Briggs, 1990) about their texts while they were composing. This meta language is the key to their "wrigh ting" of texts, as well as their ability to creatively critique their work. Although I spoke of these styles of performance as individual, these genres "are far more than isolated and self contained bundles of formal features;" rather, genre shifts invoke "contrastive communicative functions, participation structures, and modes of interpretation" (Bauman & Briggs, 1990, p. 63). The "illocutionary force" of the

PAGE 271

259 utterance (Bakhtin, 1923/1981) emerged not only from "placement within genre or social setting" bu t also is influenced from the relations between the performance and other events before and after" (Bauman & Briggs, 1990, p. 64). It was not just the tactics students used, but it was their "style" of performing literacies that influenced attention, and allowed them to direct the activities of "wrighting" the texts. Ultimately, shifts or interruptions were essential for studying the transformations in text over time. Brissett and Edgley (1990) note that to dramaturgists "it is only when an individual's activity is interrupted in some way does one become conscious of oneself, and then in a rationalizing manner." They further discussed this "disruption of the on going flow of behavior" as a way in which unself conscious (flowing) actions change into self c onscious (interaction) action. In the occasions where these interruptions occur, "a call for motives usually arises" (Brissett & Edgley, 1990, p. 23). Essentially, it is these "areas of ambiguity", the "lines of flight" (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987) where the "movement, motion, fluidity, fluctuation" occur and shifts happen. When these shifts "popped qwiffs" (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), an economy of attention was enacted in response to these ideas. However, these moments should not be studied in isolation, but r ather through the larger context. From Bauman and Briggs (1990) we learn that performativity is not "lodged in particular formal features alone but in larger formal functional units" (p. 63). Therefore, a play frame may "alter the performative force of utt erances" while at the same time "provide settings in which speech and society can be questioned and transformed" (ibid.). A precursory examination of the transformations of the "I'm so scared" meme appropriated from Blair Witch, indicates how the text tran sformed over

PAGE 272

260 time, through different modalities, and subsequent iterations or activity frames. Ultimately, when students were at camp, they worked like bricoleurs, using what was at hand to create meaning. They functioned like playwrights, who constantly wrighted" (Ivanic, 2004) or tweeked the emerging text and as "bricoleurs" (Lvi Strauss, 1962/1966), "making do" with the Available Designs on hand. As indicated in past studies (Bruce 2009a; Goodman 2003; Miller 2008; Tyner, 1998) digital video compositio n was a collaborative endeavor. As described previously, the camp director's main goal focused on collaboration; therefore, due to the multi role, multi tool, multi process nature of filmmaking, cooperative teams were essential. While Bruce (2009a) noted r esearchers should focus more on effects of collaboration, I focused on the evolution of this collaboration over time. In fact, as illustrated in the During Designing, I first described overall influential literacies. Then I deconstructed these further to s earch for effects of interaction and interruptions. As expected, the most influential literacies, at first, mirrored the secondary Discourse of filmmaking established through Available Designs. However, over time, the influential literacies developed as th e tasks changed. As the "cast of characters" acted in different roles, different literacy practices became essential when activities shifted. As illustrated in the results, I found the major thread that defined influential performances was based on attenti on. Using the interpretive elements for authority as defined by Bauman and Briggs (1990) I found a web of "attention" that emerged throughout the processes. In fact, attention became the means through which students flooded into the activity frame. Perfor mance of Knowledge and Educational Implications Recently, Lankshear and Knobel (2003) recommended an epistemological change

PAGE 273

261 in education from a focus on propositional knowledge (knowledge of what already exists) toward a performance epistemology "that is, of knowing as an ability to perform" (p. 173). A performance epistemology involves not only of thinking inside the box, but also breaking outside of the box: "this is an epistemology of rule breaking and innovation: of knowing how to proceed in the absence of existing models and exemplars" (p. 173). While procedural knowledge remains an essential first step, "knowing how to make new moves in a game and how to change the very rules of the game is of particular importance to higher order work' and other form s of performances including performances that gain attention" (p. 173). Lankshear and Knobel further explain that rethinking practices in a digital age will involve "working" as: attracting attention, stimulating imagination, meeting innovation demands, an d satisfying needs in an evolving information economy. Lankshear and Knobel (2003) stated, while social practices in digital media literacy evolving beyond the school are more performance oriented, those within the school tend to privilege propositional k nowledge. However, they state that expertise and competence is developed in performance and not from simply from "absorbing content;" rather, "it is best acquired in contexts where people are enacting meaningful purposes within authentic and collaborative settings, where high quality performance exists to be emulated" (p. 176). Rethinking these practices in school contexts, however, may be as difficult as rethinking the economics of education in schools. In school contexts the attention economy is "highly r egulated and controlled" (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003). In fact, Rowan, et al. (2002) noted that the school is a closed economy in terms of attention. Furthermore, within a school context, "attention"

PAGE 274

262 has traditionally been viewed as "attention seeking," whic h denotes behavior problems (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003). Rather, Bigum, Knobel, Lankshear & Rowan (2003) found students learned how to gain attention by passing on attention: through sharing and performing knowledge. Furthermore, they recommended a reconsti tution of attention in a school's attention economy through the ways in which students are positioned. Within an attention economy, Goldhaber (1998) envisions two "classes" as: "fans" and "stars." While stars have attention paid to them, fans pay attention to stars. However, there is also an "underclass" or the "losers" who don't get any attention, resulting in "less of a clear identity and place in the community" (p. 1). Teachers should resist positioning themselves as "stars" and the students as "fans." F urthermore, they should ensure that all students are able to participate within an attention economy in ways that build opportunities for knowledge performance of influential literacies. Designing for Students In this study, one of the key elements to succ essful learning was that filmmaking camp was a space of opportunities, not disabilities. According to Burke (1945/1966), negatives are "invented" by humans in relation to "unfulfilled expectations" (p. 9). As Alvermann (2001) stated, education too often cr eates a culture of disability based on such unfulfilled performance expectations; these unfulfilled expectations are invented constructs. From a cultural perspective, Alvermann noted: "all cultures, as historically evolved ways of doing life, teach people about what is worth working for, how to succeed, and who will fall short" (p. 13). Thus, disability perspectives like struggling readers and at risk students, which are often considered in education although well intentioned, may actually invent dis abilit ies. While cultures enable a wide variety of

PAGE 275

263 positions for individuals, traditional school based literacies recognize and grade limited forms of literacy. Alvermann (2006) noted that it is especially important in working with middle and high school studen ts to consider these individuals, not as lacking in adult knowledge and experiences. Rather, educators should know things that are relevant for students' lives and situations (Morgan, 1997). Referencing Street's ideological model of literacy practices Alv ermann (2006) argued for the potential for adolescents to "exercise such agency over their own reading and writing practices" (p. 19). Furthermore, educators should help students perform this knowledge (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003). As illustrated in the mult imedia processes of filmmaking, different students took on roles based on their multiliteracy strengths. Therefore, providing multimedia "knowledge building" ( Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003) environments have the potential to create learning spaces where mor e students can assume authority over the texts created. All the World's a Stage for Creative Collaboration In the current study, I illustrated how teachers and students collaborated into a working performance economy of attention. Whereas some students wer e able to position themselves through influential literacy performances, other students benefited from counselor suggestions or interventions. In the filmmaking context, because there were many different roles and positions as well as multiple literacies, there existed many possibilities for student success. Therefore, through the creative collaborative composition of films as reel texts, the students were able to real ize their influential literacy performances. In this study, I set out to study collabora tive composition, or Design. Ultimately,

PAGE 276

264 my study focused on creative collaboration with influencing Design as a goal. The use of performance theory illustrated the importance of collaborative creativity in digital video composition. Within the collaborati ve composition process, I was looking for transformations, not only in the text and context, but also in the "areas of ambiguity that transformations take place" (Burke, 1969, p. xix). Burke alludes to a cauldron of creativity as the molten middle of the v olcano these "areas of ambiguity", the "movement, motion, fluidity, fluctuation" where "transformations take place" the chaotic creativity of collaborative composition that became the focus of this study. Because this study took place outside of school, th ere were many opportunities for creativity. Buckingham (2007) noted that most digital media used in out of school contexts (both consuming and producing) of the multimedia (the Internet) is not educational' in the traditional definition. Rather, out of sc hool multiliteracy projects are construed by their participants as "pursuing hobbies, sports and leisure interest, chatting and exchanging instant messages with friends, playing games, shopping and downloading pop music and movies" (p. 50). These pursuits use real literacies children deploy by choice, in contrast to educational uses imposed on children by curricular demands. Many times the real literacies involve popular culture texts. Children access these multimedia products and texts because they choose to write and design. During these processes, children engage in deep states of concentration on task and experience deep enjoyment, leading to states of optimal experiences' (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Optimal experiences lead to a state of consciousness ca lled flow, a "state of mind when consciousness is harmoniously ordered" because children are able to "pursue whatever they want for its own sake" (Csikszentmihalyi 1990, p. 6). Likewise, in a collaborative learning

PAGE 277

265 experience, such as creating digital vide os in small groups, this state of flow can extend to a collective experience; it can producing a ritual like experience Emile Durkheim (1912/1967) called "collective effervescence" the sense of belonging to a group with a real existence where the ideas of individuals collect into an experience of collective creative brain. Csikszentmihalyi (1996) described the social system, consisting of both a cultural domain (the specific discourse in which the activity takes place in this case filmmaking) as well as the social field made up of people performing in specific culturally defined roles (i.e. writer, director, videographer). Csikszentmihalyi (1999) stated "creativity is a process that can be observed only at the intersection where individuals, domains, and fie lds interact" (p. 315). Therefore, creativity will vary due to the difference in individuals, materials, context, skills, knowledge, and tasks. Pope (2005) critiques Csikszentmihalyi's systems notion in that although the theory is sensitive to social netw orks and contexts, Csikszentmihalyi "still privileges the notion of the creator as a person' (singular)" (Pope, 2005). Alternatively, Pope recommended viewing creativity as a more collective or collaborative activity. Likewise, Hagel, Seely Brown, and Dav ison (2010), in The Power of Pull: How Small Moves, Smartly Made, Can Set Big Things in Motion, also discuss the importance of creative collaboration. They recommend viewing innovation as a collaborative of individuals pulling together ideas to work on cre ative problem. Hagel, Brown, and Davison discussed the importance of knowledge flows. However, they stated "knowledge [that] flows on the edge" (p. 53) is more valuable than others, like "knowledge flows within the core" (ibid.). They discussed how knowled ge flows in the core are places where "most of the resources

PAGE 278

266 are concentrated and where the old thinking and behavior hold sway" (ibid.). While these flows are important, they pale compared to "the importance of precipitating and participating in knowledge flows emerging and evolving on relevant edges" (ibid.). Edges are spaces where new ideas arise. As illustrated in the results, influential literacy performances involved new ideas, which transformed the core text based on ideas that started on the edge a nd then became immersed within the design of the composition. While edges are spaces where new ideas arise, they can also be spaces where one can go over the edge. Recall in the Forming Group, when provided an alternate idea to one that had already been re corded in the script. This was an edgy idea; however, the group attention economy was invested in the collaborative creation of the first idea. In a collaborative environment, being influential means straddling the edge, but also paying attention to what i s going on inside the box. James Seaman my artist friend who created the Guardian at the Gate illustration included in Chapter 1 said, when asked about creativity and thinking outside the box, "One must know the box in order to think outside the box." I th ink one must know the box and the systems operating within and around that box, if one wishes to become influential within a collaborative creative endeavor. Furthermore, when investigating dynamic concepts like creation or composition one must think about forward motion and transformations, rather than a fixed system in space. Pope (2005) in fact, discussed going beyond a "systems" approach to a complexity approach. Pope used work by Deleuze and Guattari to describe creation, or rather recreation, as a pr ocess of constant forward motion or making anew in "an ongoing transformation of past through present to future and self through other to

PAGE 279

267 otherwise" (p. 87). Pope specifically discusses Deleuze and Guattari's What is Philosphy (1994) book, which he conside rs a "main launch pad" (p. 87) for his concept of recreation. He noted that in this book, Deleuze and Guattari appropriated Nietzsche's notion of "eternal recurrences" which are characterized, not by identical repeating circles, but rather, by eternally varying cycles. Pope further noted that Deleuze and Guattari propose a particularly dynamic version of "intertextuality": "it is in this way that, from one writer to another, great creative affects can link up or diverge, within compounds of sensations tha t transform themselves, vibrate, couple, or split apart" (Deleuze and Guattari, 1994, p. 175). Pope further noted that although Deleuze and Guattari recognize that the artists as "the inventors and creators of affects" through "co creation", they also insi st that artists "not only create them in their work, they give them to us and make us become with them, they draw us into the compound" (p. 175). Likewise, within this study, I noticed that the filmmakers not only created in their work, they gave to me and helped me to become with them. Therefore in this report on their work, I hope I have given to you and helped you become with me as I explored the students' creative collaboration. In the next sections, I examine the performances of influential literacies as creative collaboration during Design as: Available Designs, Designing, and the Re designed. Available Designs: Performance in Figured Worlds Poetics as a method of studying verbal art creates a new emphasis on performance: directed attention away fro m study of the formal patterning and symbolic content of texts to the emergence of verbal art in the social interaction between

PAGE 280

268 performers and audience" (Bauman & Briggs, 1990, pp. 59 60). Furthermore, Bauman & Briggs noted that performances are "not simpl y artful uses of language that stand apart both from day to day life and from larger questions of meaning, as a Kantian aesthetics would suggest" (p. 60). Rather, performance provides a "frame" to study "communicative processes" (ibid.). Using communicativ e processes from a performance perspective, rather than language or discourse (which is inevitably tied to a language based interpretation), I was able to study language as only one of many symbolic actions (Burke, 1969) that influenced the composition of text in context. Future research should include the study of style in different literacy spaces, focusing on the tactics (de Certeau, 1984) used in these spaces. For example, I would recommend focusing on the Design community as it emerges, using a perspec tive of "figured worlds" (Holland, Lachiotte Jr., Skinner, & Cain, 1998) Using "figured worlds" would allow a researcher to envision how Discourse communities such as the filmmaking community featured in this study function as a "figured world" (Holland, Lachiotte Jr., Skinner, & Cain, 1998) that rely on individuals' actions and abilities "to form and be formed in collectively realized as if' realms" (p. 49). In other words, a figured world expands the notion of Discourse community to the "webs of meaning (Geertz, 1973) that create the lived experiences "real ized" by the participants. By real ized I mean both understood (traditional meaning of realize) as well as made real (reliving experiences through reflexivity making them real). Holland et al. (199 8) defined figured worlds as being made up of these "webs of meaning" in that: Figured worlds take shape within and grant shape to the co production of

PAGE 281

269 activities, discourses, performances and artifacts. A figured world is peopled by the figures, character s and types who carry out its tasks and who also have styles of interacting within, distinguishable perspectives on, and orientations toward it (p. 51). In this study, I used a dramaturgical perspective, to build a script of performances through my observa tions and videotaped processes. As previously noted, I augmented these scripts with my own interpretations, as well as the perceptions of participants (students, counselors, parents, theater staff members, the camp director, and my research team). I assimi lated these interpretive notes into the emerging script of my observations. Therefore, in essence, while the results included my own selections (of what worked and how in this figured world), they did not capture my deflections (things I did not notice or connect through my terministic screen). Ultimately, the results even other people's perspectives became reflections of my terministic screen (Burke, 1945/1966). Although I was able to study the textual transformation from my terministic screen (Burke, 194 5/1966) future studies could focus on the students' critical perspectives and interpretations of the filmmaking processes. Future research should involve not only an analysis of the transformations of text, but the students' perceptions of these texts in transformation. Using reflexivity (Bauman & Briggs, 1990) in independent case studies (Dyson & Genishi, 2005) would allow a more close and personal interpretations of students' and counselors' own perceptions of influential literacy performances in action and the effects on transformation. Furthermore, having the students' descriptions of Available Designs in their emerging figured worlds would help educators understand that although these Available Designs are presented and

PAGE 282

270 performed from the educators' en d, they only emerge as "knowledge performance" (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003) when the students understand and use the Available Designs in Designing/Redesigning. Education should remain culturally relevant; that is, learning should relate to the practices of "real" everyday life (deCerteau, 1984). Increasingly, literacy practices of everyday life include multimedia, "reel" literacies, and the infusion of popular culture. This inquiry taught me the importance of knowing youth cultures (Moje, 2008) and the impo rtance of listening to youth voices (Intrator & Kunzman, 2009) in that they are "self conscious, observant, critical consumers of educational experience" (p. 29). Many youth are participating as creative collaborators in "community, culture, and citizenshi p in cyberspace" (Thomas, p. 671). Furthermore, as Lenhart, Madden, & Hitlin (2005) noted in a recent Pew Internet study, almost 90% of youth (aged 12 19) are wired. Often, studies such as the Pew Internet study may skew educators' view of the importance of teaching multimedia literacies. If so many students are already speeding down the multimedia highway, why do they need education's help? In the real world, while some t(w)eenagers are engaging with complex digital video creations, most independent media endeavors involve simple intuitive applications, such as Instant Messaging (IM), emailing, and social networking (Facebook, MySpace). These are simple communication tools requiring little time and effort. However, as Burn and Durran (2006) noted, there ar e many other activities (web authoring, animating with animation software, digital video editing) that are not so intuitive. Rather, they require many sophisticated Hitchcockian techniques. Although digital video editing software has been available for man y years with i M acs/ M acbooks (iMovie) and with P.C.'s (Windows

PAGE 283

271 Movie Maker) these programs are not "as much used by teenagers as the cyberkid rhetoric would suggest" (p. 272). In fact, in the filmmaking camp, I also discovered this; while many students came to camp to learn digital video, very few actually practiced at home. Burn and Durran continued make an analogy to camera use and reel literacies. In the past, as camera use became widespread, few people made and used their own darkrooms. Likewise, althoug h domestic digital video camera ownership is widespread, "just as the extra step into the darkroom, a space between the domestic and professional realms, was a step too far for most people." (p. 274). Burn and Durran posited that although access to the tec hnology is not a problem, "the motivation to take point'n'press a step further toward production seems to be limited to an enthusiastic minority" (p. 274). Burn and Durran (2006) argue that the "interstitial space between domestic camcorder use and profess ional video and film work" is the "space" for education (p. 274) I would also add that this is the space for composing pedagogy. I would agree with Burn and Durran that the "interstitial space" between professional use and domestic use of digital video is a "space" for education. However, I also venture further, to state that filmmaking is an interstitial space that connects Hitchcock and Hemingway related literacies. In the current study, like Jenkins et al. (2009) I identified how important both traditio nal (Hemingway) and digital media (Hitchcock) literacies were in the composition processes. While I began to identify some uses of literacy through influential literacy performances, much more research must be done in this interstitial space. Designing as Emergence Using peformance theory allowed me to identify specific multiliteracy events as

PAGE 284

272 influential literacy performances and use these as units of analysis to follow in space and across time. I nfluential uses of literacy were dependent on performance p atterns. As Bauman (1977) noted, "performance genres, acts, events, and roles cannot occur in isolation, but are mutually interactive and interdependent" (p. 31). Therefore, while I labelled specific acts and performances in this study, I do not mean they occurred in isolation, but rather in the complex performance system of Design. For literacy purposes, I found the style of "performing like actors" to be a powerful way to help students critique their reading, writing, performing, and editing of multimodal texts. The use of fluency filters when reading in role is a space for future research. Without generalizing the results of this ethnography, the results suggest possibilities for the use of readers theatre, filming, or other performance modalties to work with "struggling" readers. As found in this study, these patterns were not a solid package of cultural norms. Rather, the "style" emerged with the text. Verbal art as performance (Bauman, 1977) and politics (Bauman & Briggs, 1990) emerged as rituals and p atterns that were transformed in space and time. Furthermore, these students operated as shape shifting portfolio people (Gee, 2000; 2004) in creating "agentive selves" (Bauman & Briggs, 1990) through their authoritative use of tactics while the texts emer ged. T he concept of "authority" over texts is an important focal point in future performance theory related research. Ultimately, composition is productively envisioned through lenses of emergence. As noted in the results, even upon examining the Redesigne d, the most important learning occurred during decision or transformation points during "lines of flight" (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987). As noted, my researcher perspective is grounded in the rhizome influenced perspective of Deleuze and Guattari (1987). De leuze (1991) who

PAGE 285

273 based many of his early theoretical perspectives on the French philosopher Henri Bergson, considered an evolution that does not necessary build or progress. Rather, "it divides and reconnects" (Hawk, 2007). Hawk, who recommended envisionin g composition through a lens of complexity, recognized Deleuze and Guattari's complexity theory as a way to formulate "post dialectical pedagogies," particularly in the arena of emerging digital media. Hawk recognized a new complex vitalism, which shifts m odels from systems theory to complexity theory. Rather than envisioning a fixed system, complexity "is the moment of transition from order to chaos and back to order" (Hawk, 2007, p. 155), resulting in an emergent, self organizing system. Future work in st udying collaborative composition or any other collaborative group projects should consider viewing education through a lens of complexity (Davis & Sumara, 2006) where learning in the social space of a classroom can be viewed as emergences of "self organizi ng collectives" (p. 83). By considering both the inward collaborative and forward composition movements in this study, I think I have made some small steps in this direction. However, at this time, I must also stress a cautionary note. In this study, I fo und actions, through performances of influential literacies, which appeared to influence the composition transformation processes. While I consider knowledge performances that occurred through the attention economy model as essential, these are situated wi thin a particular sociocultural context. This model relied on a context that valued creativity and attempted to move the children toward authority over the composition processes. Creativity which institutes chaos into order and a changing authority were es sential keys to transformations in Designing. While these findings cannot be generalized to other

PAGE 286

274 contexts, I would like to invite researchers to test the attention economy model, and build on or modify it to serve the students in their particular sociocul tural settings. In Designing, it is important to view both the social practices of literacy, as well as the uses of multiliteracies as tactics. As illustrated in the current study, students used influential literacies to gain designing attention within t he composition processes. However, designing attention was also dependent on attracting attention of an external audience. Therefore, while students created text, they were mindful of the audience's understanding. Future research should focus on students' reflexivity on their perceived influence during the emergences of the composition processes. Furthermore, researchers should consider students reflexive comments during the times of individual performances where "power is put into action" (Deleuze and Guat tari, 1987, p. 219). Do students realize the impact of their use of tactics? Did students use tactics purposefully to influence the transformations in the text? Redesigning with Tactics for Attention In the Redesigning analysis, I noted how some particula r tactics students used helped them gain authority over the texts as they emerged. Like Bruce (2009a) I found the texts emerged visually during the initial planning processes. Then, as they transformed from concept to script, dialogue and specific actions /scenes emerged. As these pretexts went "live" further meaning came through performance. From textual literacies, performance/oral literacies became valuable. Finally, during editing, the gaps were filled in; that is, different literacies were chosen from the tools at hand, to help design attention through meaning and entertainment. Ultimately, students attended to multiliteracy choices in particulary important points in the story: points where they

PAGE 287

275 required audience attention Attention to a n envisioned f uture audience was a large factor in the decisions students made, especially as they progressed toward filming and editing. Kearney & Schuck (2006) discussed the importance of authentic learning experiences and found that students' awareness of audience wa s central to their choices in themes, props, language, and how they presented information in their videos. Additionally, knowledge of audience motivated students to create high quality work and to use genres and content that their peers would both understa nd and enjoy. Brandt and Clinton (2002) also described this process of attention to the audience or the "sponsors" of literacy in this case the camp counselors and parents of the students: When we use literacy, we also get used. Things typically mediate t his relationship. Attention to sponsors can yield a fuller insight into how literate practices can be shaped out of the struggle of competing interests and agents, how multiple interests can be satisfied during a single performance of reading or writing, h ow literate practices can relate to immediate social relationships while still answering to distant demands (p. 350 351). The attention to audience mediated the students' choices of multiliteracies, but also influenced their future choices. While students used literacies in influential ways, those literacies influenced the ways in which students composed both the texts and the contexts. Audience plays a key role in students' composition of meaningful and authentic texts. More research on students' use of ta ctics as they relate to audience and focus on the purposeful use of tactics to influence texts is an important next step in research.

PAGE 288

276 Designing for Social Futures At rare occasions during my study of the multiliteracies involved in the digital filmmaking camp, I was confronted with some version of the question, "So what does all this filmmaking stuff have to do teaching reading and writing, you know, the basics?" To this question, I answer with an insight from Elizabeth Daley (2003), the dean of the Univer sity of Southern California's (USC) School of Cinematic Arts. Daley stated that her work with multimedia literacy began when George Lucas one of the most famous alumni of USC's School of Cinematic Television asked her a "provocative" question: Don't you th inkthat in the coming decade, students need to be taught to read and write cinematic language, the language of the screen, the language of sound and image, just as they are now taught to read and write text? Otherwise, won't they be as illiterate as you o r I would have been if, on leaving college, we were unable to read and write an essay? (Lucas, as cited in Daley, pp. 5 6). John Seely Brown (2005) elaborated on this discussion, stating it is just as important for students "to know as much about Hitchcock as they do about Hemingway" (p. 20). Furthermore, citing Lucas, Brown stated, To tell a story now means grasping a new kind of language, which includes understanding how graphics, color, lines, music and words combine to convey meaning." (2005, p. 20). T (w)eenagers are screenagers (Rushkoff, 2006); thus, their "funds of knowledge" (Gonzˆlez, Moll, Amanti, 2005) about multiliteracies include Hitchcock influenced discourses that emerge in popular culture. However, although their discourses are Hitchcock in fluenced, that does not mean they are able to participate in knowledge performance (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003) of the discourses of filmmaking. Educators,

PAGE 289

277 working in the interstitial spaces, need to help students peform both Hitchcock and Hemingway inspired knowledge in order for these students to gain attention for their efforts and authority over their compositions. Hull and Nelson (2005) noted, "multimodality can afford, not just a new way to make meaning, but a different kind of meaning" (p. 255). Adoles cents are working in classrooms or in "deregulated spaces of after school media clubs" (Alvermann, 2009) like museum trips (Alvermann & Eakle, 2007) and filmmaking camps (Welsh, et al., 2009). Furthermore, they are participating in social networking, perfo rming what Thomas (2008) called an understanding of culture or the politics and meanings (Bakhtin, 1923/1981) in cybercommunities and the "subjective positioning of the members within them" (Thomas, 2007, p. 671). Thomas also noted, this involves understan ding cultural artifacts or the "multimodal texts" (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001) and "everyday practices" (de Certeau, 1984) that "shape" these communities. My findings in this study move beyond the use of multimodal texts and everyday practices, toward an un derstanding of the style of literacy performances that served to influence the composition of multimodal texts. Learning in and out of school, using literacies in action (Brandt & Clinton, 2002), youth can be influential composers of influential multimedi a texts. These students are using reading, writing, and other digital media literacies to accomplish literacy practices that are relevant to their lives (Alvermann, 2009). As Alvermann (2009) noted, Listening to and observing youth as they communicate the ir familiarity with multiple kinds of texts across space, place, and time can provide valuable insights into how to approach both instruction and research insights that might otherwise

PAGE 290

278 be lost or taken for granted in the rush to categorize literacy practic es as either in school or out of school, adolescents as either struggling or competent, and thereby either worthy of our attention or not. (p. 25). In this study, I learned that students brought multiliteracies from their real lives into the learning spac es. Furthermore, whether or not they entered filmmaking camp with moving image literacies, students were able to learn and apply reel literacies. The space Available Designs provided many opportunities for students to learn and use multiliteracies in ways that influenced the texts. In the current study, I conducted an ethnographic inquiry (Heath & Street, 2008). Therefore, I was able to identify particular cultural patterns that emerged as influential literacy performances. Using ethnographic methods, I id entified tactics and performance keys that appeared to contribute to influential literacies within the evolving attention economy. As I questioned counselors throughout the process, they also began to notice these patterns and alerted me to interesting act ions. In essence, as I used ethnographic methods with the counselors, they began to pay attention, and use close observation to detect cultural patterns. These counselors reflected, as ethnographers, about their practices. One of the key practices was the attention counselors paid to students' interests and ideas. Creating spaces of possibilities requires applying the PAID model to counselors as well as students. By paying attention, attracting attention, and immersing instruction within the attention stru ctures of the students, counselors were able to engage filmmakers in composition. Likewise, in education, only when educators fully capture students' attention, will they be able to design that attention. Whether youth are

PAGE 291

279 discussing "Hitchcock" or "Heming way" or the latest Internet "craze" or popular culture textual toy, educators also need to pay attention in order to create spaces of possibilities (Alvermann, 2006) for students to "design their social futures" (New London Group, 1996).

PAGE 292

280 REFERENCES A gar, M. (1980). The professional stranger: An informal introduction to ethnography New York: Academic Press. Agar, M. (1994). Language shock: Understanding the culture of conversation New York: William Morrow & Co. Albrecht Crane, C., & Slack, J. (2003). Toward a pedagogy of affect. In J. D. Slack (Ed.). Animations of Deleuze and Guattari (pp. 191 216). New York: Peter Lang. Alvermann, D. E. (2001). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents Executive Summary and Paper Commissioned by the National R eading Conference. Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference. Alvermann, D. E. (2006). Struggling adolescent readers: A cultural construction. In A. McKeough, L. M. Phillips, V. Timmons, & J. L. Lupart (Eds ) Understanding literacy development: A global vi ew (pp. 95 111). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Alvermann, D. E. (2009). Sociocultural constructions of adolescence and young people's literacies. In L. Schristenbury, R. Bomer, & P. Smagorinsky. (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent literacy research (pp. 14 28). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates. Alvermann, D. E., & Eakle, A.J. (2007). Dissolving leanring noundaries: The doing, redoing, and undoing of school. In D. Thiessen & A. Cook Sather (Eds.), International handbook of student experience in elementary and se condary school (pp. 143 166). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

PAGE 293

281 Alvermann, D. E., & Hruby, G. G. (2005). Fictive representation: an alternative method for reporting research. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. Squire & J. Jensen (Eds.), Methods of Research on Te aching the English Language Arts (pp. 273 300). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates. Alvermann, D., Moon, J., & Hagood, M. (1999). Popular culture in the classroom: Teaching and researching critical media literacy. Newark, DE: International Reading A ssociation. Anderson, J. A. (1983). The theoretical lineage of critical viewing curricula. Journal of Communication, 30 (3), 64 70. Anstey, M. & Bull, G. (2006). Teaching and learning multiliteracies: Changing times, changing literacies. Newark, DE: Intern ational Reading Association. Aristotle (350 BCE). Aristotle's Poetics. Retrieved November 15, 2009 from: Athanases, S. Z. (2008). Theatre and t heory partnered through ethnographic study. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts: Volume II (pp. 119 128) New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Austin, J.L. (1962) How to do things with words Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Bailey, B. W. (2007, April). Reel literacies: Digital video production as a multimodal literacy practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Asso ciation, Chicago, IL Bahktin, M. M. (1965). Rabelais and his world (H. Iswolsky, Trans.) Bloomington:

PAGE 294

282 Indiana University Press. (Original work published 1941). Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays (C. Emerson and M. Holquist, Tran s.) Austin and London: University of Texas Press. (Original work published 1923). Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. In C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.) (V. W. McGee, Trans.), Speech genres and other late essays (pp. 60 102). Austin, TX: The University of Texas Press. Banaszewski, T. (2002). Digital storytelling finds its place in the classroom. Multimedia Schools. Retrieved January 20, 2010, from http://www.infotod Banaszewski, (2005). Digital storytelling: Supporting digital literacy in grades 4 12. Retrieved January 20, 2010, from Barton, D. ( 1991). The social nature of writing. In D. Barton & R. Ivanic (Eds.). Writing in the community (pp. 1 13) London: Sage Barton, D. & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies. London: Routledge Barton, D. & Hamilton, M. (2000). Literacy pra ctices. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivanic, (Eds.) Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 7 15). New York: Routledge. Barton, D., Hamilton, M., & Ivanic, R. (1999). Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context New York: Rout ledge. Bauman, R. (1977). Verbal art as performance Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. Bauman, R., & Briggs, C. L. (1990). Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on language and social life. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 59 88.

PAGE 295

283 Bell, E. (2008) Theories of performance Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Benford, R. D., Hunt, S. A. (1992). Dramaturgy and Social Movements: The Social Construction and Communication of Power. Sociological Inquiry 62 36 55. Bigum, C., Lankshear, C., Rowan, L.O & Knobel, M (2003). Literacy Education, ICT and The Economics of Attention: Addressing Curriculum, Pedagogy, and Disadvantage at Yanga Headlands. L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature 3(1 2), 95 122. Bloom, B. (1954). The thought processes of students i n discussion. In S. J. French (Ed.), Accent on teaching: Experiments in general education (pp. 23 46). New York: Harper. Bloom, D., & Egan Robertson, A. (1993). The social construction of intertextuality in classroom reading and writing lessons. Reading Re search Quarterly 28 305 333. Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. (1998). Qualitative research for education. An introduction to theory and methods Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Bordwell, D. & Thompson, K. (2001). Film art: An introduction (6 th ed.). London: Routledge. Bourdieu, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Sciences Information, 16, 645 668 London: Routledge. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. London: Routledge. Brandt, D. (1995). Sponsors of literac y. College Composition and Communication 49 165 185. Brandt, D., & Clinton, K. (2002). Limits of the local: Expanding perspectives on literacy

PAGE 296

284 as a social practice. Journal of Literacy Research 34 337 356. Brissett, D., & Edgley, C. (1990). The dramatu rgical perspective. In D. Brissett & C. Edgley (Eds.) Life as theatre: A dramaturgical sourcebook (2 nd ed). (pp. 1 50). Chicago: Aldine. Britton, J. (1970). Language and learning Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press. Brown, J. S. (2005). New learn ing environments for the 21 st century. Paper presented at the Forum for the Future of Higher Education's Aspen Symposium. Retrieved December 20, 2009, from ing.pdf Bruce, D. (2008a). Multimedia production as composition. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds.). Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts (Volume II) (pp. 13 18) New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Bruce, D. (2008b). Visualizing literacy: Building bridges with media. Reading & Writing Quarterly 24 264 282. Bruce, D. (2009a). Writing with visual images: examining the video composition processes of high school students. Research in the Teaching of English 43 426 450. Bruce, D. (2009b). Reading and writing video: Media literacy and adolescents. In L. Christenbury, R. Bomer, & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.) Handbook of adolescent literacy research (pp. 287 303). New York: Guildford Press. Buckingham, D. ( 2007). Digital media literacies: Rethinking media education in the age of the Internet. Research in Comparative and International Education, 2 (1), 43 55.

PAGE 297

285 Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature, and method. Berkeley: Unive rsity of California Press. (Original work published 1945). Burke, K. (1969). A grammar of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press. Burn A., & Durran, J. (2006). Digital anatomies: analysis as production in media education, In D. Buckingham and R. Willett (Eds.), Digital generations. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. Burn A., & Durran, J. (2007). Media literacy in schools: practice, production, and progression. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Burn, A., & Leach, J. (2004). ICT and moving image literacy i n English. In R. Andrews (Ed.), The impact of ICT on literacy education (pp. 153 179 ). London: Routledge. Burn A., & Parker, D. (2003). Analyzing media texts. London: Continuum. Callow, J. (2003). Talking about visual texts with students. Reading Online, 6 (8). Retrieved January 27, 2010, from: Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: T he psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: flow and the psychology of discovery and invention New York: Harper Collins Publishers. Chapman, M. (1995). The sociocognitive construction of writing genres in first grade. Research in the Teaching of English 29 164 192. Conquergood, D. (1995). Of caravans, and carnivals: performance studies in motion. TDR: The Drama Review 39, 4: 137 41.

PAGE 298

286 Conquergood, D. (1998). Beyond the text: Toward a p erformative cultural politics. In S. Dailey (Ed.) The future of performance studies: Visions and revisions (pp. 25 36). Annandale, VA: National Communication Association. Corbin, J and Strauss, A. (2003). A grounded theory research. In N. Fielding, N (Ed.) Interviewing (Volume 4). London: Sage Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures New York: Routledge. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five tradition s Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Culhan, R. (2003). 6 + 1 traits of writing: The complete guide: grades 3 and up New York: Scholastic. Daley, E. (2003 March/April). Expanding the concept of literacy. Educause Review 33 40. Danesi, M. (1994). Cool Toronto, C A: University of Toronto Press. Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and education: Inquiries into learning, teaching, and research Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press. de Certeau, M. (1984). The Practice of everyday life Berkeley: University of California Press. Deleuze, G. (1991). Bergsonism (H. Tomlinson & B. Habberjam, Trans.) New York: Zone Books. Deleuze, G. (1995). Negotiations (M. Joughin, Trans.) New Yor k: Columbia University Press.

PAGE 299

287 Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1994). What is philosophy? New York: Columbi a University Press. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods New York: Praeger. Derrida, J. (1978). Writing and difference (A. Bass Trans.) Routledge, London. Diedrich, P.B. (1974). Measuring growth in En glish Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Dimitriatis, G., & Kamberelis, G. (2006). Theory for education New York: Routledge. Durkheim, E. (1982). Rules for the sociological method (W. D. Halls, Trans.) New York: Free Press. (Original work published 1895). Dyson, A. H. (1993). From invention to social action in early childhood literacy: A reconceptualization through dialogue about difference (Tech. Rep. No. 67). Berkeley, CA: University of California, National Center for the Study of Wr iting. Dyson, A. H. (1997). Writing superheroes: Contemporary childhood, popular culture, and classroom literacy New York: Teachers College Press. Dyson, A.H. (2000). Writing and the sea of voices: Oral language in, around, and about writing. In. R. Indri siano & J. Squire. (Eds ) Perspectives on writing: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 45 65). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Dyson, A. H. (2003). The brothers and sisters learn to write. New York: Teachers College Press.

PAGE 300

288 Dyson, A. H. (2 008). Playing with textual toys: Popular culture and childhood writing. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath, & D. Lapp, (Eds.) Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts (Vol. II) (pp. 461 469). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dys on, A. H., & Genishi, C. (2005). On the case: Approaches to language and literacy research New York: Teachers College Press. Dyson, A. & Warshauer Freedman, S. (2003). Writing. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J.M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2 nd ed.) (pp. 967 992). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Eco, U. (1986). Travels in Hyperreality Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Eisenstein, S. (1994). S. M. Eisenstein: Selected works volume II: Toward a theory of montage. London: British Film Institute. Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice New York: Macmillan. Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Flower, L. (1989). Cognition, context, and theory building. College Composition and Communication 40 282 311. Flower, L., & Hayes, J.R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication 32 365 387. Foucault, M. (1974). The archeology of knowledge (A.M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.) London: Tavistock. Foucault, M. (1977). Language, counter memory, practice: Selected essays and

PAGE 301

289 interviews. (D. F. Bouchard & S. Simon, Trans.) Ithica, NY: Cornel l University. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972 1977. Brighton, Sussex: Harvester. Freytag, G. (1894). Freytag's technique of the drama: An exposition of dramatic composition and art Retrieved April 1, 2010 from: Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideologies in Discourses (2nd ed.). London: Taylor & Francis. Gee, J. P. (2000). Teenagers in new times: A new literacy studies perspective Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43, 412 23. Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan Gee, J. P. (2007). Good video games + good learning: Collected essays on video games, learning and literacy New York: Peter Lang. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays New York: Basic Books. Goodman, S. (2003). Teaching y outh media: A critical guide to literacy, video production, and social change. New York: Teachers College Press. Goffman, E. (1959). Presentation of self in everyday life Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the orga nization of experience Boston: Northeastern University Press. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press Goldhaber, M. (1996). M. H. Goldhaber's principles of the new economy Accessed April

PAGE 302

290 4, 2010 at Goldhaber, M. (1997). The attention economy and the net. First Monday. Accessed April 4, 2010 at Goldhaber, M. (1998). The attention economy will change everything. Telepolis. Accessed April 4, 2010 at Gonzˆlez, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (2005). Introduction: Theorizing practices. In N. Gonzˆlez, L. C. Moll, & C. Amanti (Eds.) Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms (pp. 1 28). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Graves, D.H. (1975). An examination of the writing processes of seven year old children. Research in the Teaching of English 9 227 241. Green, J., Dixon, C. & Zaharlick, A. (2005). Ethnography as a logic of inquiry. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. Squire, and J. Jensen (Eds.) Methods of research on teaching the English language arts: The methodology chapters from the handbook of research on teaching the English lan guage arts ( 2 nd Ed) (pp. 145 194). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Hamilton, M. (2000). Expanding the new literacy studies. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivanic, (Eds.) Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 16 34). New York: Routledge. Hare, A.P., & Blumberg, H. H. (1988). Dramaturgical analysis of social interaction New York, NY: Praeger. Harr, R., & Secord, P. (1972). The explanation of social behaviour Oxford: Blackwell,

PAGE 303

291 Harste, J., Woodward, V., & Burke, C. L. (1 984). Language stories and literacy lessons Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Hawk, B. (2007). A counter history of composition: Toward methodologies of complexity Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburg Press. Hayes, J.R. (1996). A new framework for understandi ng cognition and affect in writing. In C.M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp.1 27). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hayes, J. & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of writin g processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3 30). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Heath, S.B. (1982). Protean shapes in literacy events. In D. Tannen (Ed.). Spoken and written language: Exploring oral ity and literacy (pp. 91 117). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heath, S.B., & Street, B. (2008). Ethnography: Approaches to language and literacy research New York: Teachers College Press. Hi llocks, G. Jr. (1986). Research on written composition: New designions for teaching. Urbana, IL: NCTE/ERIC. Hobbs, R. (2006). Multiple visions of multimedia literacy: Emerging areas of synthesis. In M.C. McKenna, L.D. Labbo, R.D. Kieffer, & D. Reinking (Ed s.). International handbook of literacy and technology. (Vol. II) (pp. 15 28). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hobbs, R. (2007). Reading the media: Media literacy in high school English. Newark,

PAGE 304

292 DE: International Reading Association. Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Huizinga, J. (1950). Homo Ludens: A study of the play element in culture. Beacon Press: Boston. Hull, G. A., & Katz, M. (2006). Crafting an agentive self: Case studies of digital storytelling. Research in the Teaching of English, 41 43 81. Hull, G. A., & Nelson, M. E. (2005). Locating the semiotic power of multimodality. Written Communication 22 224 261. Hunt, S. A. & Benford, R. D. (1997). Dramaturgy and methodology. In G. Miller & R. Dingwall (Eds.) Context and method in qualitative research (pp. 106 118) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hymes, D. (1977). Critique. Anthropology and Education Quarterly VIII (2), 91 93. International Re ading Association. (2009). New Literacies and 21 st Century Technologies Position Statement. Retrieved May 14, 2010 A/PositionStatements/21stCenturyLitera cies.aspx Intrator, S.M. & Kunzman, R. (2009). Who are adolescents today? Youth voices and what they tell us. In L. Schristenbury, R. Bomer, & P. Smagorinsky. (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent literacy research (pp. 29 45). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates. Ivanic, R. (2004). Intertextual practices in the construction of multimodal texts in inquiry based learning. In N. Shuart Faris & D. Bloome. (Eds.), Uses of

PAGE 305

293 intertextuality in classroom and educational resea rch (pp. 279 314). Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishing. James, W. (1950). The principles of psychology New York: Dover Publications Inc. Jenkins, H. (2006a). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press. Jenkins, H. (2006b). Fans, bloggers, and gamers: Exploring participatory culture. New York: New York University Press. Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Weigel, M., Clinton, K., & Robison, A. (2009) Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media ed ucation for the 21 st century. Cambridge, M.A.: MIT Press. Jewitt, C., & Kress, G. (Eds.). (2003). Multimodal Literacy New York: Peter Lang. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (2 nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2001). Kids and media @ the new millennium. Retrieved on January 10, 2010 from index.cfm Kaj der, S. B. (2004). Enter here: Personal narrative and digital storytelling. English Journal 93 64 68. Kajder, S. B. (2006). Bringing the outside in: Visual ways to engage reluctant readers. Portland, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers. Kajder, S. & Swenson, J. (2004). Digital images in the language arts classroom. Learning and Leading with Technology. 31 (8), 18 21. Kamberelis, G. (2004). A rhizome and the pack: Liminal literacy formations with political teeth. In K. Leander & M. Sheehy (Eds.), Spatializing liter acy research

PAGE 306

294 and practice (pp. 161 197). New York: Peter Lang. Kearney, M., & Schuck, S. (2006). Spotlight on authentic learning: Student developed digital video projects. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22 (2), 189 208. Available: King, J. R., & O'Brien, D. G. (2002). Adolescents' multiliteracies and their teachers' needs to know: Toward a digital dŽtente. In D. E. Alve rmann (Ed.) Adolescents and literacies in a digital world (pp. 40 50). New York: Peter Lang. Kist, W. (2005). New literacies in action: Teaching and learning in multiple media. New York: Teachers College Press. Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2007). A new lit eracies sampler New York: Peter Lang. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. New York: Routledge. Kress, G. & vanLeeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication London: Arnold. Kress, G. & vanLeeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2 nd ed.). London: Routledge. Kvale, S. (1995). The social construction of validity. Qualitative Inquiry, 1 19 40 Lahr, J. & Price, J. A. (1973). Life show. New York: Penguin Group (USA) Incorporat ed Langer, J. A. (2009). Contexts for adolescent literacy. In L. Schristenbury, R. Bomer, & P. Smagorinsky. (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent literacy research (pp. 49 64). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates. Langer, S. (1953). Feeling and form New Y ork: Charles Scribner's Sons. Lanham, R. (1994). The economics of attention. Accessed April 4, 2010 at

PAGE 307

295 Lanham, R. A. (2006). The economics of attention: Style and substance in the age of information Chicago: University of Chicago Press Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2001). Do we have your attention? New literacies, digital technologies and the education of adolescents. A ccessed May 1, 2010 at Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom learning Buckingham, UK: Open Universit y Press. Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2006). Sampling "the new" in new literacies. In. M. Knobel & C. Lankshear (Eds.) A new literacies sampler (pp. 1 24) New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Lather, P. (1993). Fertile obsession: Validity after poststructu ralism. Sociological Quarterly, 34 673 693. Lauricella, A.M. (2006). Digital video production as a tool for learning: Exploring multiple text documents in an urban social studies classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University at Buffalo (State University of New York). Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Leander, K., & Wells Rowe, D. (2006). Mapping literacy spaces in motion: A rhizomatic analysis of a classroom literacy performance. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 428 460. Lemke, J. (2006). Toward critical multimedia literacy: Technology, Research, and Politics. In M.C. McKenna, L.D. Labbo, R.D. Kieffer, & D. Reinking (Eds.).

PAGE 308

296 International handbook of l iteracy and technology: Volume II (pp. 3 14) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Lenhardt, A., & Madden, M. (2005). Teen content creators and consumers. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project, November 2. Retrieved January 23, 2010, from Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L. & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other infor mation and communication technologies. In R.B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th Ed) (pp. 1570 1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. LŽvi Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind (G. Weidenfeld & Nicols on Ltd. Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1962). Levin, J. (2003). Making history come alive. Learning and Leading with Technology, 31 (3), 22 27. Lewis, C. J., Enciso, P., & Moje, E. B. (2007). Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identity, agency, and power Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action New York: Cambridge University Press. Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Mackey, M. (2007) Literacies across media : Playing the text (2 nd Ed.) London: Routledge. Maier, R. B., & Fisher, M. (2007). Strategies for digital storytelling via tabletop video:

PAGE 309

297 Building decision making skills in middle school students in marginalized communities Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35, 175 192. McKenzie, M. G. (1985). Shared writing: Apprenticeship in writing. Literacy Matters (1 & 2). ENG: Idea Center for Language in Primary Education. Meeks, M. & Illyasova, A. (2003). A review of digital video production in post secondary English classrooms at three universities. Kairos, 8 (2) Available: s/8.2/reviews/meeksilyasova/index.htm Metz, C. (1974). Film language: A semiotics of the cinema (M. Taylor Trans.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Messaris, P. (1994). Visual literacy: Image, mind, and reality Boulder, CO: Westview press. Mi les, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: qualitative data analysis London: Sage Publications. Miller, P., & Goodnow, J.J. (1995). Cultural practices: Toward an integration of culture and development. In J. J. Goodnow, P.G. Miller, & F. K essel (Eds.), Cultural practices as contexts for development, No. 67, New directions in child development (pp. 5 16). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Miller, S. M. (2008). Teacher learning for new times: Repurposing New Multimodal Literacies and digital video composing for schools. In J. Flood, S.B. Heath, D. Lapp (Eds.) Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts (2nd Ed.) (pp. 441 453). New York: International Reading Association/ Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Miller, S., & Borowicz, S. (2007). New literacies with an attitude: Transformative teacher

PAGE 310

298 education through digital video learning tools. In M. Finn,& P. Finn (Eds.). Teacher education with an attitude (pp. 111 126). New York: State University of New York Press. Mil ls, C. W. (1940). Situated actions and vocabularies of motive. American Sociological Review 5 904 913. Monaco, J. (2000). How to read a film. The world of movies, media, and multimedia (3 rd Edition). New York: Oxford University Press. Morgan, W. (1997). Critical literacy in the classroom. London: Routledge. Moje, E. B. (2008). Youth cultures, literacies, and identities in and out of school. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds.). Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts (Volume II) (pp. 207 219) New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Moje, E. B. & Lewis, C. (2007). Examining opportunities to learn literacy: The role of critical sociocultural literacy research. In. C. Lewis, P. Enciso, & E. B. Moje (Eds.) Refr aming sociocultural research on literacy: Identity, agency, and power. (pp. 15 48). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Morse, J. M. (1994) Designing funded qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualit ative inquiry (pp. 236 256). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Neuman, S. (1991). Literacy in the television age: The myth of the TV effect. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66 60 92.

PAGE 311

299 Norris, C., Sullivan, T., Poirot, J., & Soloway, E. (2003). No access, no use, no impact: Snapshot surveys of educational technology in K 12. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36 (1), 15 28. O'Neill, C. (1995). Drama worlds: A framework for process drama. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2003). Expanding the framework of internal and external validity in quantitative research. Research in the Schools, 10 71 90. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative res earch and evaluation methods. (3 rd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Phelan, P. (1993). Unmarked: The politics of performance. New York: Routledge. Pink, S. (2002). Doing visual ethnography. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Prior, P. (2006). A sociocultural theory of writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.) Handbook of writing research. (pp. 54 66). New York: Guilford Press. Ranker, J. (2008). Making meaning on the screen: Digital video production about the Dominican Republ ic. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 51 410 422. Reid, M., Parker, D., and Burn, A. (2002) Digital video report, BECTA. Retrieved January 15, 2010, from, http://partners Richardson, L., & St. Pierre, E. (2005). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.) The Sage handbook of qualitative research: Third edition. (pp. 959 978).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context.

PAGE 312

300 New York: Oxford University Press. Rushkoff, D. (2006). Screenagers: Lessons in chaos from digital kids Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press Inc. Rowan, L.O., Knobel, M.J., Bigum, C.J & Lankshear, C.J. (2002). Boys, schooling and literacy: the dangerous territories of gender based literacy reform Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Sarbin, T. R. (1977). Contextualism: A world view for modern psychology. Nebraska Symposium on Motiva tion 24 1 41. Sarbin, T. R. & Allen, V. L. (1968). Role theory. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.) Handbook of social psychology, vol 1 (2 nd Ed. ). (pp. 488 567). Cambridge MA: Addison Wesley. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In E ncyclopedia of education, second edition (pp. 1370 1373). New York: Macmillan Reference, USA. Schechner, R. (1988). Performance theory (Revised ed.) .New York: Routeledge. Schechner, R. (2006). Performance studies: An introduction (2 nd ed.). London: Routl edge. Schuck, S. & Kearney, M. (2004). Students in the Director's Seat: Teaching and Learning with Student generated Video. A Research Report. Sydney: UTS. Schuck, S., & Kearney, M. (2006). Using digital video as a research tool: Ethical issues for researc hers Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 15 447 463. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (2003). Discourses in place: Language in the material world.

PAGE 313

301 New York: Routledge. Semali, L. & Pailliotet, A.W. (1999). Intermediality: The teacher's handbook o f critical media literacy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Shewbridge, W. & Berge, Z. (2004). The role of theory and technology in learning video production: The challenge of change. International Journal on E Learning 3(1), 32 39. Silverblatt, A. (1995). Me dia literacy: Keys to interpreting media messages. London: Praeger. Spivey, N. N. (1997 ). The constructivist metaphor: Reading, writing, and the making of meaning San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Spivey, N. N., & King, J. R. (1994). Readers as writers compo sing from sources. In R. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading: 4th Edition, (pp. 668 694). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice Cambridge, U .K.: Cambridge University Press. Street, B. V. (1993). Cross cultural approaches to literacy Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Street, B. V. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to litearcy in development, ethnography and education L ondon, England: Longman. Street, B. V. (2007). Forward. In C. Lewis, P. Enciso, & E. Moje (Eds.). Reframing sociocultual research on literacy: Identity, agency, and power (pp. vii x). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

PAGE 314

302 St. Pierre, E. (2000a). Nomadic inquiry in the smoo th spaces of the field. In E. A. St. Pierre & W.S. Pillow (Eds.). Working the ruins: Feminist poststructural theory and methods in education. London: Routledge (pp. 258 283). St. Pierre, E. (2000b). Circling the text: Nomadic writing practices. In N. Denzi n & Y. Lincoln (Eds.). The qualitative inquiry reader. (pp. 51 68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Applied Social Research Methods Series (Vol. 46). Thou sand Oaks, CA: Sage. Thomas, A. (2007). Blurring and breaking through the boundaries of narrative, literacy and identity in adolescent fan fiction. In M. Knobel, & C. Lankshear, A new literacies sampler (pp. 137 165). New York: Peter Lang. Thomas, A. (200 8). Community, culture, and citizenship in cyberspace. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. Leu (Eds.) Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 671 697). New York: Erlbaum. Trier, J. (2007). "Cool" engagements with YouTube: Part 1. Journal of Adol escent and Adult Literacy 50, 408 412. Turner, E. (2005). Rites of communitas In F. A. Salamone (Ed.) Encyclopedia of religious rites, rituals, and festivals (pp. 97 101) New York: Routledge. Turner, V. (1974). Dramas, fields, and metaphors: Symbolic action in human society Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press Turner, V. (1982). From ritual to theater: The human seriousness of play New York: PAJ.

PAGE 315

303 Turner, V. (1988). The anthropology of performance New York: PAJ. Turner, V. (2004). Liminality and com munitas In H. Bial (Ed.) The performance studies reader (pp. 79 87) New York: Routledge. Tyner, K. (1998). Literacy in a digital world: Teaching and learning in the age of information. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Urciuoli, B. (1995). The indexical structure of visibility. In B. Farnell (Ed.), Human action signs in cultural context: the visible and the invisible in movement and dance (pp. 189 215). Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press. van Gennep, A. (1960). The rites of passage (M. B. Vizedom & G. L. Caffee, Trans .). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1909). Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1935). Ware, P. D. (2006). From sharing time to showtime! Valuing discourse ve nues for storytelling in technology rich classrooms. Language Arts, 84 45 62. Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Boston: MIT Press. Welsh, J.L., Kozdras, D., King, J., & Schneider, J. (2009). Media liter acy summer camp: What works and why. In J. C. Richards & C. A. Lassonde (Eds.), Literacy tutoring that works: A look at successful in school, after school, and summer programs (pp. 182 195). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Wertsch, J. (1998) Mind as action New York: Oxford University Press. Wertsch, J., Del R“o, P., & Alverez, A. (1995). Sociocultural studies of mind New York: Cambridge University Press.

PAGE 316

304 Yildiz, M. N. (2003). Teaching media literacy through video production. Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications 2003 (pp. 1648 1651). Norfolk, VA: AACE. Winters, K., Rogers, T. & Schofield, A. (2006). The Antigone project: Using drama and multiple literacies to support print literacy among youth. In J. J. Schneider, T. P. Crumpler, & T. Rogers (Eds.) Process drama and multiple literacies. (pp. 35 51). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Films Cited in Study Myrick, D. & S‡nchez E. (Directors). (19 99). The Blair Witch Project U.S.A.: Haxan Films. Reeves, M. (Director). (2008). Cloverfield U.S.A.: Bad Robot. Stiller, B (Director). (2008). Tropic Thunder U.S.A.: Dreamworks. Lynn, J. (Director). (1985). Clue. U.S.A.: Paramount Pictures.

PAGE 317


PAGE 318

306 Appendix I: Shots and Angles

PAGE 319


PAGE 320

308 Appendix II: Lighting

PAGE 321


PAGE 322

310 Appendix III: Planning Sheet

PAGE 323

311 Appendix IV: Sample Script Using Celtx

PAGE 324

312 Appendix V: Storyboarding Form

PAGE 325

ABOUT THE AUTHOR After teaching elementary school for 11 years in Ontario Canada, Deborah Kozdras enrolled as a doctoral student at the University of South Florida, where she worked as a graduate assistant, teaching courses in reading and language arts. Throughout her doctoral studies, she has searched for new ideas to inspire creativity and innovation in education, particularly in relation to new media literacies and technology. While working toward her Ph.D. she taught workshops and published lesson plans dealing with the infusion of technology into education. Debor ah's research interests include new media literacies, multimedia composition, creative collaboration, the use of virtual worlds and to simulate financial literacies, and the use of real world literacies in work and simulated work environments. Deborah has presented her research at numerous regional, national, and international conferences. In addition, she has published articles in referreed books and journals. In 2008, she received a two year Adolescent Literacy Predoctoral Fellowship from the Carnegie Cor poration and the National Academy of Education. Upon completion of her dissertation, Deborah accepted a position as Chief Creative Officer with The Gus A. Stavros Center for Free Enterprise and Economic Education at the University of South Florida.