Remixing, as it is known in Composition studies, has several different definitions. At the most basic level, Virginia Kuhn defines remixing as “a digital utterance expressed across the registers of the verbal, the aural, and the visual” (Kuhn). Jim Ridolfo and Danielle Nicole DeVoss also give a broad definition, claiming that remixing is “the process of taking old pieces of text, images, sounds, and video and stitching them together to form a new product” (Ridolfo and DeVoss). Nelleke Moser adds that “Remixed artefacts [sic] are often multimedial: they combine manuscript and print, or print and digital texts, and they mix images, texts, audio, video, and other media components” (5). Conversely, DeVoss et al. provides terms that are traits and actions used in remixing instead of providing a traditional definition. These words include “Amplify, Attribute, Circulate, Distribute, Disseminate, Engage, Ethical use, Modify, Participate, Publish, Remix, Repurpose, Re-present, Share, Stimulate, Transform” (101-102). All definitions are carful to include the multiple modes and media in which people may use to remix their work. These texts are often multimedial or multimodal in that they may combine several types of media or modes in order to create a new composition. These scholars also assert that remixed compositions have the potential to have the same or different meaning depending on the purpose, audience, and/or argument for both the original and remixed work (Ridolfo and DeVoss; Kuhn; DeVoss et al.).  

 

            Davis et al., however, claim, “writing today means weaving text, images, sound, and video while working within and across multiple media, often for delivery within and across digital spaces” (12). It is not, then, that remixing requires this multimodal or medial element, but that compositions in general are moving in and around these varying means of communication. The fundamental creation of the text is crucial within the remixing process. In her article “Remix Assignments in the First Year Writing Classroom: What do we Gain… What do we Give up?”, Suzanne Webb asserts, “In remix, the process of gathering, selecting, reassembling and re-presenting existing materials is a creative act in itself” (Webb). Nelleke Moser even goes so far as to state, “in remix, the creative process or performance is more important than the final product” (7). The creation of these remixed texts calls upon the rhetorical strategies that students may potentially learn in their first-year writing classroom. By asking students to choose the media and modes in which they will convey meaning to their audience, students must become metacognitive about their writing and/or creating process. This process contrasts with the traditional essay because students are not cognizant of how the medium of the traditional essay portrays their argument.

 

            Remixed compositions, then, work somewhat against traditional composition. While these compositions continue a rhetorical tradition in writing, the “Rhetorical practices in a digital age are different than traditionally conceived” (Ridolfo and DeVoss). Students' rhetorical moves are coming not only from their writing style and methodology, but also in their “decisions about what to say, what artifacts to use in order to say it, what tools they use to make those artifacts say what they want-they decide. They decide. The students make these (rhetorical) decisions” (Webb). Similarly, Kathleen Yancey reminds teachers that communicators often “consider what the best medium and the best delivery for ... a communication [piece] might be and then create and share those different communication pieces in those different media, to different audiences” (Yancey 75). Students are asked to further develop the delivery of their writing composition as they may have to do for other types of communication compositions.

 

            In sum, Moser concludes that “the mixing of media adds to the meaning of the art of work, helps shape the narrative, and challenges the user to refine his or her literacy skills, all by juxtaposing and reinforcing messages and changing points of view” (5). Therefore, it is not only the content of the piece that creates the meaning, but also the media and modes that are used within the text itself. These modes and media, as Moser and Webb particularly imply, provide larger learning outcomes and ramifications that move outside of the first-year composition classroom.

 

            Several scholars cite students becoming members of the writing public (Kuhn; Webb; Yancey 75) as a major factor as to why remixing holds an important place in the composition classroom. The first-year composition classroom “is meant as a starting point-to give students an introduction to critical thinking, it’s meant to involve them in academic discussions, it’s meant to get them learning about resources” (Webb). While Webb focuses on the first-year writing classroom and academia as a whole as students’ main discourse community, Ridolfo and DeVoss take a more global approach. These scholars claim that remixing is combining culture and knowledge “and then give others the opportunity to re-express that which we have mixed... Remix is how we as humans live and everyone within our society engages in this act of creativity” (Ridolfo and DeVoss). These ideas bring global implications to that of the first-year composition classroom.

 

            Students’ participation in remixing their own works and sharing their new works with others helps them to “develop a role in a larger community” and to “each have a voice” within both their local and global community (Webb). Ridolfo and DeVoss continue this idea by stating,  “Remixing is how individual writers and communities build common values; it is how composers achieve persuasive, creative, and parodic effects” (Ridolfo and DeVoss). Kuhn discusses digital writing specifically, claiming, “remix is a form of digital argument that is crucial to the functioning of a vital public sphere” (Kuhn). Still, there are important aspects that instructors must be carful to teach when giving a remix project in any classroom, especially within the first-year writing classroom.

 

            One of these aspects is instructing students on copyright and fair use. Webb, Kuhn, and DeVoss et. al emphasize copyright and ethical usage of students’ and others work when discussing remixing. Webb stresses, “If we build remix assignments into our courses, the first consideration we need to take… is teaching how to use the existing images, sounds, and words appropriately. – Legally”  (Webb). Moreover, Kuhn argues, “viewing remix as digital argument can intervene in issues of copyright and fair use, particularly if we posit its use of source material as citation—a form of evidence necessary to make one's point” (Kuhn). Finally, DeVoss et al. uses the term “Ethical Use” (101) as one of their terms to define remix culture. Teaching students how fair use and ethics are important, not only in remixing, but in any communication piece, would potentially take out time that may be used on other projects, but it is time well spent (Webb). The understanding of copyright and ethical use is vital to students’ success with a remixing project. 

 

            For this project, I will be operating mostly from the Ridolfo and DeVoss definition. Although the others allude to the same type of work, I feel Ridolfo and DeVoss are the most concise in their definition: simply taking old work and making something new. However, the other authors’ inclusion of modes and media is important to consider when teaching and completing a remix assignment. Students need to learn how to operate as composers for the modern world: which means being able to rework their work into several different media using several different types of modes. With these scholars’ theories and claims in mind, I will create a unit revolving around students’ remixing their own work. As other scholars have pointed out, aspects such as copyright, ethical use, audience awareness, rhetorical strategies, and cultural implications need to be taught either previously or simultaneously with the project. By asking students to participate in a remixing project, they will become more metacognitive authors and more flexible composers within the hypermedial world in which they find themselves existing.

 

 

 

                                                                                                                 Works Cited

Davis, Andrea, et al. “Remix, Play, and Remediation:  Undertheorized Composing Practices.” Writing and the Digital Generation:  Essays on New Media Rhetoric. Ed. Heather Urbanski. Jefferson: McFarland & Co., 2010. 186-97. Print.

 

DeVoss, Dànielle Nicole., et al. Because Digital Writing Matters: Improving Student Writing in Online and Multimedia Environments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010. Print.

 

Kuhn, Virginia. “The Rhetoric of Remix.” Transformative Works and Culture 9 (2007): n. pag. Web. 30 Oct. 2015.

 

Moser, Nelleke. “Introducion: Remix in Retrospect” Authorship 2.2 (2013): 1-11. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.

 

Ridolfo, Jim, and Danielle Nicole DeVoss. “Composing for Recomposition: Rhetorical Velocity and Delievery.” Kiaros: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy 13:2 (2009): n. pag. Web. 30 Oct. 2015.

 

Webb, Suzanne. “Remix Assignments in the First Year Writing Classroom: What do we Gain… What do we Give up?” Academia.edu. Academia. n.d. Web. 2 Nov. 2015.

 

Yancey, Kathleen Blake. “Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key.” Multimodal Composition. Ed. Claire Lutkewitte Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2014. 62-88. Print.