Clayton Benjamin

August 16, 2010

1







McLuhan and the Extension of Ethos: A Pedagogical Approach To Web
2.0 and Composition


Clayton Benjamin
November 29, 2010
1
'You see, Dad, ProIessor McLuhan says the environment that man creates becomes his medium
Ior deIining his role in it. The invention oI type created linear, or sequential, thought, separating
thought Irom action. Now, with TV and Iolk singing, thought and action are closer and social
involvement is greater. We again live in a village. Get it? (McLuhan and Fiore, 157).
Introduct|on 1he Mu|t|moda| G|oba| V|||age
Technological developments have impacted education and have changed how teachers engage
students and how students engage with education. These changes in education are a recent
development within the study oI digital rhetoric. Digital rhetoric is an understanding oI the new
Ilows/communications made possible due to advancement in communication media. Many
composition instructors have begun to introduce technologies, such as blogs and wikis, into the
classroom, including instructors oI Iirst year composition (FYC). However, how should digital
rhetoric shape and inIorm pedagogical practices in the writing classroom? This paper oIIers a
pedagogical argument based upon Marshal McLuhan`s theory oI extension to discover how we
can better understand the inclusion and transIormative powers oI digital rhetoric in FYC.
Writing in 1966 McLuhan exposed his concept oI the media-created global village: a village
connected through 'electric circuitry, (Massage, 140) to the world. His thought was beIore his
time and well beIore Web 2.0 and its creation oI the online world popularized by participatory
social media, such as YouTube, Facebook, chat rooms, and the never ending ranting blogosphere,
all oI which are populated by the general publicespecially students oI the I-generation (those
born aIter 1990), (Wikipedia, 'Generation Z). Students oI the I-generation Irequently use Web
2.0 technologies as communication tools to connect with Iriends, parents and strangers; post
opinions on blogs; research; and participate in many other practices. They don`t just use these
tools intermittently, but access them Irequently and repetitively. Maranto and Barton state that 'a
study by Amanda Lenhart and Mary Madden (2007) Ior the Pew Internet and American LiIe
project Iound that almost halI the teens who use social networking sites visited them one or more
times a day; about a third, one to Iive times a week, (38). Because students access these tools so
Irequently, and because they are a Iorm oI composition Ior a global audience, teachers must
pursue a pedagogical practice that emphasizes the inclusion oI the medium to give students the
tools to become critical citizens oI the global village.
The global village, as deIined by McLuhan, is the re-convergence oI people`s thought and action
through electric technology, which leads to greater social involvement. ThereIore, the global
village can be understood as the interconnected communication processes once enjoyed by a
single village, but are now enjoyed simultaneously by constituents around the world. For
instance, constituents who watch 'American Idol in their homes and those in the 'live studio
audience simultaneously view the same perIormance. However, constituents passively watching
television in their homes do not Iully participate in the event due to the lack oI proximity and
communication with the perIormers and other audience members. According to Paul Levinson,
'there is more to village liIe than being a passive audience, (Digital, 7). For example,

Clayton Benjamin
November 29, 2010
2
constituents in the 'live studio audience are diIIerent Irom constituents in their private homes.
The 'live studio audience have the ability to interact with the singers on stage by cheering or
booing, and to immediately interact with other constituents. ThereIore, the passive constituents
watching American Idol at home aren`t necessarily involved in the same instantaneous
production oI the live event. However, Web 2.0 and other communication technologies such as
mobile phones aIIord the home-viewing constituents to chat instantaneously with one another,
send opinionated emails/text messages to the show`s judges, and to vote Ior their Iavorite
contestants. Through these technologies, there is a re-convergence oI thought and action: the
constituents can make their opinions and then broadcast it to the actual perIormance. ThereIore,
'electric technology Iosters and encourages uniIication and involvement, (McLuhan, 8), which
in turn creates the global village.
The global village, like the studio audience, can also uniIy university students` thoughts and
actions: by which students shape and participate within their worlds. As demonstrated, Web 2.0
and other communication technologies, have the ability to instantaneously/asynchronously
connect students to the global village. However, the communication they participate in is not
simply text based. Uploading photos within an instant Irom camera phones, digitally
manipulating media (such as YouTube remix videos), and web-camming personal acts are now
the new rhetorical processes, and the resulting compositional texts, oI the I-generation. These
processes and texts Ioster the need Ior students to be aware oI certain technological concerns
such as the digital divide, technological determinism, corporate soItware use, copyright,
citizenship, and the rhetorical process in a digital age digital rhetoric.
A digital rhetorical pedagogy is drastically diIIerent Irom current traditional rhetorical pedagogy.
Current traditional rhetorical pedagogy teaches the standardized-composition approach as a
writing tactic to urge pupils to think deeper, think harder, and to gather their thoughts into one
linear cohesive long-Iorm oI written rhetoric (Berlin, 65). The process Ior this Iorm oI writing is
simple; create a thesis, support it with arguments x, y, and z and add a conclusion. However,
rhetoric iI nothing else, is the process oI determining the means to communicate a message most
clearly and eIIectively Ior a given situation/audience. II students are creating texts Ior the global
village outside and inside the classroom, traditional rhetorical pedagogy could be considered an
outdated approach Ior communicating to the global village, because the village relies on
nonlinear chunked inIormation, hyperlinks, and the convergence oI video, still images, and texts
on a single screen. This type oI rhetoric calls Ior an adjustment in rhetorical pedagogy, because,
not only are students creating multi-modal texts, but they also consume those texts in non-linear
Iashions. According to the PBS Frontline documentary 'Digital Nation, MIT Iaculty have
discovered that I-generation pupils Irequently multi-task and are not thinking linearly when
completing assignments. In the same documentary Sherry Turkle states, 'Nobody who has been
teaching Ior twenty-Iive years wouldn`t say our students aren`t diIIerent now than they were
then. Atrocity? Maybe not. II 'the environment that man creates becomes his medium Ior
deIining his role in it, students should not be expected to abandon their village, and divulge

Clayton Benjamin
November 29, 2010
3
inIormation in solely a current traditional composition style. Its time to add the multi-modal
structures oI our student`s online praxis to compositional writing and discover the rich cultural
writing created by the village to give students a critical voice in their global village.
Because digital rhetoric is the new Iorm oI composition Ior the I-generation and because Web
2.0 aIIords new Iorms oI composition, researchers (Clark, DuIIelmeyer, Tomaselli and
Shepperson, Porter, Purdy, etc.) have called Ior new Iorms oI digital rhetoric and composition.
Kathleen Blake Yancey writes, 'Writers use digital technologies to write many new kinds oI
texts, such as Web logs, hypertexts, and electronic portIolios. Helping writers develop Iluency
and competence in a variety oI technologies is a key part oI teaching writing in this century,
(38). Additionally, Andrea LundsIord writes, 'We have.to rethink our methods, Irom how we
use collaboration in the classroom, to how we teach research, to how we respond to students and
their writing, (177). Both Yancey and LundsIord are encouraging a new Iorm oI pedagogy Ior
the I-generation, and the call Ior this new pedagogical practice is based upon communicative
technology`s impact on culture. Communicative technologies aIIect the way we socially interact,
how we work, and the tools we use Ior such interaction/composition. To question the interactive
process oI 'writing digitally, some have blurred the delineation oI the human/machine
dichotomy. Mark Gordon, head oI media Ior Siemens, stated 'you don`t Ieel anymore, you push
a button and hope it works, (Tomaselli and Shepperson, 51). This type oI ideological negation
oI Ieeling and disembodiment exempliIies the importance to question cultural acceptations and
myths,` oI what it means to be human and what it means to be machine.
To understand the interconnections between humans and machines (who we are, and our relation
to the technologies we use) we must Iirst understand our identity and ethos and how they
cyclically Iunction. The OxIord English Dictionary deIines identity as 'the condition or Iact that
a person or thing is itselI and not something else; individuality, personality. Furthermore,
identity is built upon the things we identiIy with. For instance, on social networking sites, such
as Facebook and Myspace, students are asked to Iill out Iorms to state their popular culture
preIerences such as which movies they like, their party aIIiliations, and other possible
identiIiers (books, magazines, etc.). Selected preIerences become the students` identity markers.
They are the cultural artiIacts the students identiIy with, thus they create the basis Ior an online
identity. The identity then, works congruously with ethos. Ethos as deIined by Aristotle, is one oI
the three Iorms oI persuasion in the public discourse: 'character is almost, so to speak, the most
authoritative Iorm oI persuasion, (Aristotle: 1.2.3-4). Additionally George A. Kennedy`s
glossary deIinition oI ethos in On Rhetoric is: 'character, the moral character oI the speaker or
someone else. Ethos then, as persuasion, can be understood as the public perIormance oI our
identities (character) our authority to speak based upon who we are and why our opinions
manner. Actions taken online then create the publically perIormed ethos oI identities built
through Web 2.0 in the global village. However, students` online identities and ethos not only
aIIect the global village, but also aIIect how they participate in everyday interactions. 'Media, by
altering the environment, evoke in us unique ratios oI sense perceptions. The extension oI any

Clayton Benjamin
November 29, 2010
4
one sense alters the way we think and act the way we perceive the world. When these ratios
change, men change, (McLuhan, 41). In other words, our participation with technology changes
and shapes how we understand the world, which in turn shapes our ethos and identities.
ThereIore, our identities and ethos are extended through the medium by global-village-identity
Iormation and publicly perIormed actions, which then is reIlected back to us, and change how we
think, Ieel and act in the physical world an extension oI ethos that isn`t separate Irom the body,
but a hybrid oI the selI created through the interaction between digital representations oI the selI
and the embodied identity.
The current body oI research on the aIIects oI the hybrid nature oI technology and humans
Iurther explains students` embeddedness to online communication. Olivia Harvey argues, 'the
relationship between humans and their tools is intimate, intricate and intense; that is, sexy,
seductive, messy, pleasurable and Iundamental to identity Iormation, (341). And Bruno Latour
states:
'[Technology] is not a human thing, nor is it an inhuman thing. It offers, rather, a continuous
passage, a commerce, an interchange between what humans inscribe in it and what it
prescribes to humans. It translates the one into the other. This thing is the nonhuman version
of people, it is the human version of things, twice displaced. What should it be called? Neither
obfect nor subfect. An instituted obfect, quasi obfect, quasi subfect, a thing that possesses body
and soul indissolubly,` (Anderson, 41).
Here, it can be understood that machines are not something separate Irom the body, and when we
accept our bodies and identities as embedded practices in technologies, the reality oI the 'global
village becomes more concrete. No longer do students simply use their technologies, they
become their technologies and their technologies become them. 'Communicative technologies,
like many other technologies, reinIorce, ampliIy, revise, and extend their ideologies. By using
them, you change your environment. By communicating with others through them, you alter
your Irames and assumptions about the world, states Siva Vaidhyanathan (Clark, 29). ThereIore
digital communication is a dynamic reIlexive process; the environment is shaped by the creator
and the environment shapes the creator, who in turn reshapes the environment. ThereIore, as
McLuhan exposed, the media isn`t just the message, it`s the massage.
By changing and shaping our identities and ethos, media then become extensions to identity and
ethos, another part oI who we are. To McLuhan, our daily interconnectivity/interactivity is the
total aIIect oI media. However, how we adapt to the media is the real question. 'We have already
reached a point where remedial control, born out oI knowledge oI media and their total eIIects on
all oI us, must be exerted. How shall the new environment be programmed now that we have
become so involved with each other, now that all oI us have become the unwitting work Iorce Ior
social change? What`s that buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzing?, he asked in 1967
(McLuhan and Fiore, 12).

Clayton Benjamin
November 29, 2010
3
To answer McLuhan`s question, as composition teachers, we should investigate the new buzz oI
digital tools and include them into the 'writing process. No longer is it adequate to simply teach
Iirst year composition students the current-traditional compositional narrative, but instead to
question our students` hybridity with the writing technologies they use everyday. Takayoshi, as
quoted by DuIIelmeyer, states, 'Although computers arguably are a deIining Ieature oI |modern
liIe|. many undergraduate students are not asked to think explicitly, let alone critically, about
the computers they are increasingly being required to use throughout the curriculum.II students
are not encouraged in any oI their coursework to become technology critics, they might easily
assume a hegemonic position in which they simply accept computers as inevitable and natural,
(359). Because, communicative technologies change our environment, our inclusiveness, and our
bodies, this paper aims to investigate and make the case Ior the inclusion oI digital rhetoric as a
necessary component Ior Iirst year compositional students. This argument is supported by an in-
depth analysis oI McLuhan`s theory oI extension in order to outline a deIinition oI an extension
oI ethos; which in turn, allows Ior the examination oI students` participation in the global village
as a site Ior cultural studies: a study which lends itselI to a critical critique oI the medium by the
very Ireshman who are created by, and who create it.
Extending McLuhan: The Extension of Ethos
To Iully accept and understand how media has shaped our human consciousness, interactions,
identities and ethos, it is key to examine and understand McLuhan`s thoughts on, and the
inIluence oI, extension. McLuhan, himselI, does not explicitly explain the media`s impact on
identity and ethos, though he repeatedly states its eIIects on the body and society. He views
media as extensions oI the body, by which he deIines media as any technology man creates. For
example, he discusses the spoken word in relation to radios as extensions oI the voice: 'II the ear
can be compared to a radio`s receiver that is able to decode electromagnetic waves and recode
them as sound, the human voice may be compared to the radio transmitter in being able to
translate sound into electromagnetic waves, (McLuhan, 83). Other examples include: 'The
wheel is an extension oI the Ioot |,| the book an extension oI the eye. clothing an extension oI
the skin. electric circuitry, an extension oI the central nervous system, (McLuhan and Fiore,
30 41). ThereIore, McLuhan is interested in the idea oI media (technologies) as extensions oI
the body. Though, his Iocus is on electronic media, he also includes in his book, Understanding
Media: The Extensions oI Man, twenty-six diIIerent chapters investigating all sorts oI
technologies, Irom speech to money, to motorcars, as extensions. In these chapters he explains
ways in which these technologies have extended man`s participation with the world around him,
and how those technologies manipulate man`s consciousness. ThereIore, he is not only interested
in the transgressive nature oI technologies with bodies, but also its inIluential impacts on society.
His seminal work builds the Iramework Ior what I assert McLuhan didn`t discuss the impact oI
media on the identities and ethos oI its subjects/creators. To understand this impact, it is also
necessary to understand McLuhan`s theories oI selI-amputation and Ieedback.

Clayton Benjamin
November 29, 2010
6
According to McLuhan, selI-amputation is the process in which humans delineate their bodies
Irom the extensive nature oI the machines they employ. To explain selI-amputation, he utilizes
the human myth oI Narcissus; 'the point oI the myth is the Iact that men at once become
Iascinated by any extension oI themselves in any material other than themselves, (51). In this
interpretation, Narcissus was not in love with himselI, but instead was compelled by the
extension oI himselI; which he could not understand as himselI because, '|t|his extension oI
himselI by mirror numbed his perceptions until he became the servomechanism oI his own
extended or repeated image, (51). In this process, numbness occurs to combat over-stimulation
oI the senses that burden consciousness and the body. In other words, it is nearly impossible Ior
humans to understand the extensive and inclusive nature oI technologies to the body, because
technology places the central nervous system into a state oI narcosis. For example:
'The wheel as a counter-irritant to increased burdens, in turn, brings about a new intensity of
action by its amplification of a separate or isolated function (the feet in rotation). Such
amplification is bearable by the nervous system only through numbness or blocking of
perceptions. [s]elf amputation forbids self-recognition,` (52).
ThereIore, the technologies we employ are not commonly understood as extensions oI the selI
because they over-stimulate/burden one or more senses. However, technologies, like Narcissus`s
image, are reIlections and extensions oI the selI. Auditory speech is a reIlection oI thought. The
written word is a reIlection oI speech, the moving image a reIlection oI vision through time, and
the online created persona a reIlection oI the being; however, they are not merely reIlections, but
are also our non-recognized selI-amputated limbs.
To accept tools as extensions, McLuhan deconstructs our commonly understood relationship to
tools; that is, that tools are separate Irom our non-technological bodies. Classical notions oI
technologies are based upon the claim that technologies are separate and Ioreign to the body;
they are tools we pick up, use, and then store away. Likewise, bodies are natural occurrences
simply identiIied as users. However, iI tools are separate Irom the body, a dichotomous
relationship between the user and the tool is created, which hides the inclusive nature oI the
technology. As explained by Olivia Harvey, 'McLuhan`s analysis oI technology in
Understanding the Media: the Extensions oI Man suggests that human subjectivity is the result oI
an intricate interdependence between technology and the human subject, thereby complicating
more traditional conceptions oI the radical diIIerence between humans and the tools that they use,
(332). McLuhan alludes to an intersection between the body and technology that complicates the
'boundaries between humans and the tools they use. |as| unambiguous and straightIorward,
with the ontological and epistemological division between the human subject and technology,
(Harvey, 332). By asserting that technologies are selI-amputated extensions, McLuhan blurs the
boundary between humans and machines.
Furthermore, by blurring this boundary, McLuhan concludes that humans interact in a cyclical
Iashion with machines: 'By continuously embracing technologies, we relate ourselves to them as

Clayton Benjamin
November 29, 2010
7
servomechanisms. Physiologically, man in the normal use oI technology (or his variously
extended body) is perpetually modiIied by it and in turn Iinds ever new ways oI modiIying his
technology, (55). This passage makes it clear that McLuhan believes human interaction with
technology is a cyclical process in which the technology extends the human body, the body then
receives Ieedback, and in turn reIashions the technology. This process then, can be understood as
a Ieedback loop, and it is within this Ieedback loop that the human becomes the servomechanism
to the technologies that extend him/her. In 1947, James, Nichols and Phillips deIined a
servomechanism as a selI-regulating control that monitors inIormation in a closed system. For
example, the servomechanism in a thermostat is the selI-regulated part that automatically adjusts
temperatures based upon inIormation in the closed-inIormation system oI the thermostat. In other
words, humans become the control mechanisms that create, regulate, and extend themselves
through technologies, and which technologies in turn create, regulate and extend them.
Though much oI McLuhan`s rhetoric on the process oI extension Iocuses solely on humans as
individuals, he is also interested in examining a technologie`s (medium`s) extensional inIluence
and impact on society.
'In a culture like ours, long accustomed to splitting and dividing all things as a means of control,
it is sometimes a bit of a shock to be reminded, that in operational and practical fact, the medium
is the message. This is merely to say that the personal and social consequences of any medium
that is, of any extension of ourselvesresult from the new scale that is introduced into our
affairs by each extension of ourselves, or by any new technology,` (McLuhan, 23).
The interest here.then.is the aIIect any particular medium has on society not its content.
According to Paul Levinson, and many others, McLuhan`s main point is that 'the mere use oI a
medium has a greater impact on society than does any particular way in which that medium is
used, (Levinson, Mellenial, 2). Societies change drastically when a new medium is introduced.
For example, online communication has become a center Ior inIormation exchangeincluding
news, entertainment, banking, learning, etc.and has greatly impacted society and its
servomechanics` participation. Because the use oI technology grossly aIIects the population oI
the servomachnics who use it, its content is not what is important, but its importance then is
instead the medium. ThereIore, McLuhan is ultimately interested in the outcomes oI the
technology on the body and society. In this type oI study, the medium itselI then becomes the
message, and the message communicated through medium doesn`t make or create the user`s
consumption. Simply put the content is not what is important to McLuhan but instead the overall
use experience and how it manipulates/changes human communication and interaction is where
the real cultural value oI that tool lies. And in online communication, it is clear that the medium
becomes the mass-age (Tomaselli and Shepperson, 55), the point in time where mass inIormation
is Iree to be accessed by the masses the servomechanisms oI the global village.
In addition, McLuhan`s theory graciously and predicatively lends itselI to online communication.
McLuhan wrote:

Clayton Benjamin
November 29, 2010
8
'For it is now possible to program ratios among the senses that approach the condition of
consciousness.Having extended or translated our central nervous system in the
electromagnetic technology, it is but a further stage to transfer our consciousness to the
computer world as well (McLuhan, 67).`
McLuhan Ioresaw our electric age as the extension oI everything human into the electromagnetic.
However, like all other media, electromagnetic technologies are not separate Irom mankind, but
are human extensions. The recreation oI consciousness into electric light is related to man`s
nervous system and his technological society. Because McLuhan is so interested in the aIIects oI
technology on the population oI its servomechanisms, and because servomechanisms`
consciousness is situated within the extensions they create, an eIIect on ethos and identity can be
deduced through the use oI cultural studies which is closely related and rooted in Iinding the tacit
hegemonic structures that dominate traditional notions oI human/technology relations.
Cultural studies, as deIined by Berlin and Vivion is 'the study oI the ways social Iormations and
practices are involved in the shaping oI consciousness, and this shaping is seen to be mediated by
language and situated in concrete historical conditions. SigniIying practices then intercede in the
relations among material conditions, social arrangements, and the Iormation oI consciousness,
(ix). Cultural studies, then, is a methodology used to investigate legitimated power structures and
questions the implied and tacit knowledge constructions that legitimate them. Many Iirst year
compositional pedagogues, such as DuIIelmeyer, Anderson, and Clark have begun to question
the inherent cyclical nature oI technology outlined by McLuhan. Additionally, Madeleine
Sorapure states, 'writing teachers need to help their students cultivate a critical perspective on
the Web 2.0 applications that they increasingly use. We are less likely to question the authority
oI data or to see the potential biases in how it was gathered, organized, and visualized; thus, it is
particularly important to teach students to analyze the insights and perspectives allowed by or
leIt out, (61). Also, DuIIelmeyer states, 'Because the computer is now a substantive part oI our
culture, including occupying an increasingly central position in FYC pedagogy, and is changing
the environment in which we Iunction as teachers and students, digital technology`s seemingly
commonsense assumptions need to be acknowledged and explored, not unproblematically
accepted or rejected, (358). This type oI study encourages students to critically critique
technology`s role in creating culture by encouraging them to investigate hegemonic structures oI
technological dominance such as technological determinism, the digital divide, and authorship
and copyright.
Though Berlin and Vivion`s deIinition oI cultural studies asks students to critique social
constructions, the deIinition is much too broad Ior understanding ethos as extension and its aIIect
on student`s public perIormance oI identity. For this reason, Donna LeCourte`s deIinition oI
cultural studies oIIers a better deIinition oI cultural studies that relates to an extension oI ethos
by situating the student as the center oI the study.

Clayton Benjamin
November 29, 2010
9
'Constructing forms of agency.relies on individuals abilities to see culture as leaky by
mobili:ing the multiplicity they bring to any cultural production.Rather than a predetermined
discursive or ideological production, the subfect becomes a site of cultural negotiation herself,
individuated in her relationship to ideology,` (Duffelmeyer, 357).
LeCourte`s deIinition then situates the individual as the epicenter oI the social
construction/hegemonic practice in question. Only through understanding an internalized reality
and construction, and the participatory roles oI one`s selI, can a student Iind agency in
deconstructing legitimated power structures. Likewise, technologically speaking, it must then be
necessary Ior the servomechanisms to understand the reIlexive relationship between themselves
and their mechanical extensions (their extended ethos). In other words, students must be
encouraged to understand the way their identities and ethos shape the global village, and how the
global village shapes their identities and ethos.
In this Iashion, once students are positioned as servomechanisms, the cyclical nature oI
technology can become revealed. II we understand Berlin and Vivion`s deIinition as a call to
examine the aIIects/artiIacts oI culture (media), and situate them as LeCourte suggests into the
individual (servomechanism), we can begin to see cultural studies as a study oI identity creation.
Likewise layered with McLuhan, that identity creation is extended through the media. ThereIore,
a cultural studies approach to online media studies the creation oI identity, that identity`s
extension through the media, and then the impact oI that medium on the extended
servomechanism, who in turn reIeeds the medium its altered identity. In this manner,
identity/ethos is a constantly evolving artiIact, an extension, like the wheel, which keeps on
turningan extension that is Iluid, that breaks the construction oI identity, rebuilds it,
redistributes it, and recycles it. However, because oI selI-amputation, humans believe that
identities are Iixed and substantive, this process presents an unrelenting opportunity to
understand the Iluid hybrid nature oI identity and ethos. The extension oI identity and ethos is
thereby an irritant to the nervous system oI the status quo, hence its negation oI recognition.
However, by understanding identity as the extension oI ethos, it becomes clearer that FYC
instructors should ask their students to question the constructions oI their identitiesthe
congruous relationship between their online extensions and their physical selves, in relation to
'our assumptions about technology as something radically external to the ontologically coherent,
natural human subject, (Harvey, 333).
The Extension of Ethos: Extending Existing Web 2.0 Writing Pedagogy
Since ethos is an extension oI the selI, and it is necessary Ior students to understand their
participation in the global village, it is also necessary to critique the current methodologies
employed in the study oI technology and writing studies. Recent authors, who do not ask about
or relate students` consciousness to the selI, oIIer vague statements in relation to students`
writing practices and technology, such as, 'Computer-mediated communication has necessitated
a set oI new rules oI engagement. These changes may begin to radically alter our use oI language,

Clayton Benjamin
November 29, 2010
10
our historical perspective, and issues oI personal identity, (Corso and Williamson, 34).
Statements like this oIIer no practical explanation oI how technologies change humans, their
identities and ethos, and Iurthermore, these authors hedge their arguments with vague language
such as the key term in Corso and Williamson`s quote, 'may. However, it is possible to use
current FYC pedagogical practices as case studies that oIIer insight to the applicability oI
teaching ethos as extension.
Though many authors who advocate teaching Web 2.0 as appropriate writing practice do not
explicitly state identity as an extension oI ethos, they are correct in their assertion that Web 2.0
does call Ior new Iorms oI writing. This new Iorm is what Kathleen Blake Yancey deIines as,
'textured literacythe ability to comIortably use and combine print, visual, and digital processes
in composing a piece oI writing, (38). Yancey`s claim is based on student`s ability to use Web
2.0 in new Iorms oI writing through hypertext and a combination oI visual, spoken, and written
text; however, this call does not explicitly create/deIine a critical pedagogical approach to
teaching technology and writing. As Andrea LunsIord claims:
'|T|raditional and Iamiliar theories oI writing have not Iocused on the material conditions oI
production or accounted Ior the inclusion oI aural and visual elements.at every stage oI the
writing process, much less on eIIective ways to perIorm the knowledge produced during those
stages, (176).
Both Yancey and LundsIord are encouraging a new Iorm oI composition pedagogy that relates
knowledge production and power. ThereIore, they interpret digital rhetoric through cultural
studies (such as Donna LeCourt`s student situated cultural study practice) and traditional
rhetorical analysis to rationalize teaching digital writing, yet have ignored the potential in
McLuhan`s media theory.
However, through these pedagogical practices, many teachers, who have written on their
pedagogical practice, have come to conclude that technologies do aIIect a student`s ethos. For
example, Clark states, 'Students tailor their digital identities Ior multiple audiences, learning
how to introduce themselves to a virtual world. This sense oI the network-situated selI allows
students to see how they Iunction within diIIerent communities. Students connect across courses,
across a college, and across the world, (29). Clark makes the conclusion that identities and ethos
are changed per environment, but does not go into a Iurther in-depth explanation oI how/why,
besides a contextual analysis oI those environments Ior justiIication as to why student`s identities
change. It is less oI a critique oI the technology and its impact on the student, and more or less a
rhetorical approach to audience analysis. ThereIore, though these authors have asserted a
transition in identity, their approaches are heavily mediated through cultural studies and
rhetorical Irameworks. II nothing else, Web 2.0 is a medium, and as such, should include media
theory as a backbone to pedagogical praxismedia as extension. ThereIore, the process oI an
extension oI ethos is necessary and should be included in the aIorementioned approaches.
However, what are the practical implications Ior understanding ethos as extension and how does

Clayton Benjamin
November 29, 2010
11
it Iunction congruously with cultural study and rhetorically based pedagogical practices? To
examine an approach to including media-based theory with cultural studies and rhetoric, it is
possible to examine other`s work in the Iield, to analyze their conclusions and draw upon ways
in which an extension oI ethos can easily be applied.
In the article 'Critical Work in First-Year Composition: Computers, Pedagogy and Research,
Barbara DuIIelmeyer outlined a writing-with-technology teaching methodology. Her process
relied upon LeCourt`s student-centered selI-reIlexive cultural study approach, along with Haas`
similar approach oI 'looking at and 'looking through, (361). DuIIelmeyer states the goal oI her
approach Ior FYC was to ask 'my students to reIlect on their unquestioned assumptions about
technology and on the sources oI those ideas, oI introducing my students to a variety oI
perspectives on technology, and oI constructing assignments that allowed them to experiment
with writing and thinking Irom a critical distance on some oI the cultural myths about
technology, (360). The assignments she constructed included close readings oI texts on
technology, writing personal narratives oI computer use, editing papers on computers, and using
the computer to partake in conversations outside oI class via email. By assigning texts on
technology and asking students to explore issues oI gender and technology, the digital divide,
and technological determinism, DuIIelmeyer was able to achieve critical critiques on technology
by her students. However, these results Iall short oI allowing students to understand their speciIic
role in extending their ethos into technology. For example, at the end oI the semester, one
student wrote:
'Sometimes people talk about 'theylike there`s this group oI people who are developing
technology and watching over it and making sure it gets used wisely and good decisions get
made about it. Someone else is responsible; all we can do is try to keep up. Why do you think we
don`t think oI ourselves as 'they? Why do we not see ourselves as having anything to do with
decision-making, (370).
and another wrote:
'It seems like everything here is wanting |is designed| to produce more and more. So I think
they`re getting away Irom the human part oI it. I mean, what is a job |Ior| anyway? To produce
more and more, (370).
Interestingly, these two students began to think oI technology as Iirst, something they were part
oI and oI which they create, and secondly that humans are removed Irom technological agency.
These two ideas align with a pedagogical approach to an extension oI ethos: 1) relation to the
selI and 2) human interaction with technology. However, these students do not express the
cyclical nature oI servomechanism/technology interaction. These students do not assert that the
technology is the extension oI them selves, and conclude that technology is an acceleration that
positions people as producers/users. These types oI conclusions don`t allow students agency in
the ways in which they personally inIluence the technology. The passages do not highlight the

Clayton Benjamin
November 29, 2010
12
students` interconnectedness to the global village, nor how they are personally responsible Ior
inIluencing it positively or negatively. The students then are perIorming a critical critique, but
without human agency. ThereIore, FYC instructors should provide students the possibility to
think oI their social relationship to technology through an extension oI ethos. By encouraging the
students to personally identiIy their use and the inIluence on the global village, they can begin to
create an understanding oI how their personal perIormances partake and reIeed the mediumhow
the medium becomes an extension oI themselves and how they can deIine the Ieedback to the
medium. By adding and asserting this process, students can understand their own agency in
redeIining the medium and their own identities/ethos.
ThereIore, it must then be imperative that we teach FYC students how to engage in the global
village. A possible avenue to explore their participation and agency could be done by including
into the classroom the tools used to construct their global village. In his article, 'The Low Bridge
to High BeneIits: Entry-Level Multimedia, Literacies and Motivation, Daniel Anderson argues,
'Seeing that literacies emerge through interchanges oI things and people, we can aIIirm a human
agency to counter technical determinism. Concrete technologies and Iunctional skills are put into
motion to implement human goals and desires, (41). For Anderson, the tools that create the
media are the tools that deIine the social roles human`s partake with the media. Additionally, he
argues that entry-level low-bridge tools oIIer teachers and students insights to the motivations oI
creating media with a low learning curve. Furthermore, he relies on Mihaly Csikszentmihaly`s
assertion that people grow while taking on new skills and that ''at the height oI their
involvement with the activity |people| lose a sense oI themselves as separate entities, and Ieel
harmony and even a merging oI identity with the environment, (p. 194), (44). ThereIore, by
having students engage in the tools (blogs, wikis, social media) that create the environment, they
can begin to Iind their identity within that environment, and that identity can become
blurred/extended through the tool.
The practices Anderson engages in with his FYC students include the assembling oI iTunes
playlists, composing digital collages (through digital image editors), and mashing digital slide
shows with sound. These tools allow students to utilize skills they learned beIore entering the
FYC classroom, simply by being citizens oI the global village. According to the New London
Group, in order Ior learning processes to be successIul and engaging, they must borrow Irom
diIIerent 'interests, intentions, commitments, and purposes.students bring to learning, (48).
ThereIore, these types oI assignments engage and motivate students to critique literacy in
Iashions other than current traditional composition practices.
In regards to the playlist activity, students were asked to approach a story or essay and create a
playlist that would emphasize that story. They were then expected to place an iTunes hyperlink
in a narrative they wrote about the story and also justiIy why each speciIic song worked in that
particular part oI the story. This type oI pedagogy emphasizes the merging oI multi-literacies:
interpreting the story and interpreting sound and lyrics, which in turn creates highly motivated
students. About the playlist assignment, one student stated:

Clayton Benjamin
November 29, 2010
13
'I was very excited when I learned that I had to create my own playlist. Music is a huge part oI
my liIe.
Clearly, utilizing students` global-village skills, results in them being highly motivated to
complete an assignment, and to also take an in-depth critique oI particular 'texts.
Likewise, this type oI approach adheres with Marshall McLuhan`s theory on educationthat oI
the teacher as the teach-in and that oI the student as the drop-out.
'The teach-in represents an attempt to shift education from instruction to discovery, from
brainwashing students to brainwashing instructors. It is a big, dramatic reversal.the dropout
represents a refection of nineteenth century technology as manifested in our educational
establishments.the classroom can become a scene in which the audience performs an
enormous amount of work,` (McLuhan and Fiore, 101).
McLuhan highlights the medium`s inIluence on education. Because the medium is accessible by
students, and because most inIormation can be Iound within the medium, the student can
participate as a drop-out. No longer is it necessary to receive the education once taught. But
instead, teachers must embrace the drop-outs` world and Iunction as teach-in. This is a process in
which learning isn`t top down, but on a level oI play where there is enjoyment between teacher
and student. Play then becomes essential in teaching multi-literacies because 'our time presents a
unique opportunity Ior means oI humora perceptive or incisive joke can be more meaningIul
than platitudes lying between two covers, (10). II we allow students to play with the tools oI the
global village we encourage their critical participation within it; as highlighted in a response
Anderson received Irom one oI his students aIter he assigned the composition oI a photo collage:
'The collage was my Iavorite assignment so Iar this year. I had a lot oI Iun playing with the
images and tools in PHOTOPLUS. I Iinished my collages really early because once I started on
each collage I would get addicted to working on them and would not be able to move Irom my
computer Ior hours.I also like conveying the themes and the character analysis through images.
It is a lot harder to use images to express how you analyze a work than to simply write a paper,
(51).
Within this type oI pedagogical approach lies the key. No longer is text solely what we need to
critique critically, but instead the medium, student participation, and the tools used. By meeting
students at their level we can begin to explore their world more Iully and edge in a critical
approach that asks them to question texts in a diIIerent Iorm or thinkingthat oI which is related
to student`s ethos and identities in the multi-modal global village.
Though Anderson was able to engage his students, he did not tie meaning making to their ethos
and identities, nor ask a more in-depth question oI how the technology inIluenced decision and
meaning making. ThereIore, perhaps an extension oI ethos is more likely to take shape in a
classroom that combines critical critiques oI the global village and the tools used within the

Clayton Benjamin
November 29, 2010
14
global village. One such educator`s approach, J. Elizabeth Clark, may adhere more appropriately
to an extension oI ethos. Her pedagogical approach is based upon exploring digital technology
with the student`s daily participation in the contemporary world (the global village) (29). Though,
as critiqued earlier, Clark solely relies on rhetorical process to situate students as creators oI the
global village, she oIIers the most concrete examples oI creating identities online and how that
inIluences the global village. In her approach, she utilized both eportIolios and blogging to
highlight student participation in open Iorum and public publishing practices. By requiring
students to create public eportIolios, she asserts they become aware oI their roles as authors, and
that 'digital identity, and that oI others, becomes a site Ior exploring an expanded notion oI ethos
as students create diIIering online identities to meet the demands oI speciIic situations and come
to understand how their reputations as authors help or hinder the arguments the wish to make,
(29). Her Iramework also relies upon Mary E. Hocks who argues 'II we can teach students to
critique the rhetorical and visual Ieatures oI proIessional hypertextsthe audience, stance,
presentation oI ethos, transparency oI the interIace Ior readers, and the hybridity oI Iorms and
identitieswe can also teach them to design their own technological artiIacts that use these
strategies but are more speculative or activist in nature, (32). In this sense, Clark is teaching an
extension oI ethos by situating students within the global village, arming them with the tools oI
the global village, and encouraging a critical critique oI both their role, and their participation
with the global villagehowever, without accrediting media theory. Simply put, her Iocus is more
on audiences, and how students perIorm Ior those audiences, and less on how the students
inIluence the medium/technology they are using. On the other hand, by situating her study in the
public sphere she engages students in McLuhan`s interest oI the impact oI a medium on culture.
Through the use oI blogging she claims, 'students are immersed in the immediacy oI writing,
their power as authors, and their ability to comment publicly in the sphere oI intellectual
exchange, (34). Because Clark creates a necessity Ior students to question the tools they use
while publishing, and the impact that has on the global village, and how that shapes or extends
ethos, she does apply, without acknowledgement, a Iorm oI the extension oI ethos.
I do not mean to undermine the important work these teachers have contributed Ior the inclusion
oI digital rhetoric into the classroom; however, I instead recommend a more personal
interpretation oI student use with the global village. McLuhan`s theory oI extension is essential
Ior students to question their participation and situatedness in regards to hegemonic structures
created through technology. By examining DuIIelmeyer`s, Anderson`s, and Clark`s approaches
to technology and composition, we can begin to Iurther understand just what a pedagogical
approach to teaching ethos as extension would be. To adhere with the cyclical nature oI an
extension oI ethos, there are Iour movements in which we must guide students. First we must
situate the student as a participant in the global village. Second we must ask students to critically
engage with the hegemonic practices within that global village. Third we must ask students to
use and critique the tools they use to engage in the global village. And, Iinally, we must ask them
to personalize their role in examining how their participation not only shapes the environment,
but how the environment shapes them, and in turn how they redeIine the environment. To Iully

Clayton Benjamin
November 29, 2010
13
be conscious oI their participation in the global village, students must be encouraged to interact
with the global village, and to personally investigate the hegemonic structures that inIluence
them daily. As David Silver states, we must engage 'a generation oI content creators, a
generation oI young people who with the help oI Web 2.0 tools know how to create content, how
to share content, and how to converse about content, (2008) in order Ior them to understand the
cyclical nature oI an extension oI ethos.
Extension as Praxis: Low-bridge Blogging
It would be negligent to simply state the Iour movements oI teaching an extension oI ethos,
without oIIering a grounded pedagogical approach. I outline here, an approach that would
require students to understand their participatory nature in creating and interacting with the
global village. The Iirst consideration in creating such an approach would be to identiIy a site
that has the possibility to inIluence both the global village and the students. It would also need to
be a site in which hegemonic practices can easily be critiqued, but also a site that would allow
Ior the discussion oI those critiqued hegemonic practices. Additionally, to capitalize on
Anderson`s conclusion oI student motivation, it would need to be a low-bridge site. For these
reasons, Google`s Blogger (www.blogger.com) could be a great semester-long supplement to
learning Ior such an inquiry. Blogger is a popular web-publishing tool that allows students to
easily create postings, oI which they can embed video, upload photos, and link elsewhere in the
global village. Furthermore, the popularity oI Blogger, its terms and conditions, and the choice to
create public or private postings can become sites oI hegemonic inquiry.
The Iirst objective in the Iour movements oI an extension oI ethos is to situate students into the
global village. Blogger can be used to ask students to participate because in order to post on
Blogger, students would be required, iI they have do not already have one, to create a Google
account. This account not only grants students the ability to post on Blogger, but also the ability
to post/use other social media sites/tools currently controlled by Google, such as YouTube,
Google Docs, and Google Maps, and also allows students to add additional web applications,
such as a Google email account. Interestingly, by creating this one single account, students are
automatically bombarded by several diIIerent social media options, which can be used multi-
modally. This, in itselI opens possibilities Ior hegemonic inquiry such as privacy and anti-trust
issues.

Clayton Benjamin
November 29, 2010
16

igure 1: Blogger Registration Page
Once students have created a Google account, a blog can then be created. However, students
would have yet to answer the ethical questions that can be generated Irom Blogger, and thus I
believe it would be careless to require students to create their own blogs. Instead it would be
more appropriate Ior teachers to create a classroom-wide collaborative blog (Figure 1) which
can be set by an administrator (the teacher) to only allow invited users (students) to post.
Furthermore, this blog could be created collaboratively within the Iirst week oI class, and could
be used as an example to demonstrate just what the intentions oI your pedagogy are. It could also
be used itselI as a site oI inquiry. By simply looking at the screen Ior creating a blog on Blogger,
many ethical questions could be asked, such as: Which email address should be used (academic,
personal, or an entirely separate account)? How strong oI a password do I need? How protected
is the inIormation I create? How does the selection oI a display name create and start to generate
an ethos? Does supplying ethnographic details, such as a birth date, need to be collected Irom me?
What are the terms oI blogger, and why do I need to click on the Terms oI Service link to Iind
the terms oI service? Does the handicap symbol really address accessibility rights, and why are
those rights important? This one single page can then be used as a catalyst Ior the types oI
questions a critical critique oI technology teachers can Iocus on Ior the remainder oI the semester.
By joining the blog, students would then be situated into the small 'global village oI the
classroom online. Next, teachers would need to require students to post on speciIic topics. These
speciIic postings should compliment outside classroom readings on public and private publishing,
as well as possible readings on ethos, technological determinism, accessibility, and other
possible sites oI inquiry about hegemonic practices in relation to technology. These types oI
readings would encourage a debate on online practices, and should help students to reveal the
tacit knowledge oI the global village`s hegemonic practices. These debates/discussions should
not only be encouraged in class, but also on the blog.

Clayton Benjamin
November 29, 2010
17
Once students are situated in the village, and once they begin to act critically about technology it
would be advantageous Ior teachers to encourage students to post critically about Blogger on the
blog. Teachers should also encourage students to play with the multimodal possibilities oI these
posts to enIorce recognition oI new writing Iormats. By requiring FYC students to write about
Blogger, students are encouraged to question the very tool they are using to publicly debate and
create their ethosthe third movement oI an extension oI ethos, critical critiques oI the tool.
The last movement could be a reIlective exercise to demonstrate how students shaped the global
village, and how the global village and blogger shaped them. Because Blogger records the
history oI the postings, each individual student could then be assigned to analyze how their
participation/arguments/contributions aIIected the debate. Additionally, it should also highlight
the constraints and aIIordances oI the Blogger tool. By analyzing both their participation and
how the tool was used to support or hinder their discussions, students should be able to decipher
how they shaped the small 'global village oI their classroom, and also how Blogger shaped
them.
Interestingly, by using Blogger, the Iour movements are not necessarily linear in nature. From
the beginning log-in page, topics oI hegemonic practice are questioned, and by examining
hegemonic critiques and by applying them to Blogger it allows a simultaneous blending oI the
Iirst, second, and third movements. Furthermore, the last movement is a constantly involved
manipulation oI the students and their participation. ThereIore, an extension oI ethos isn`t linear,
but selI-contained in each action a student takes. However, it is only once these actions are
reIlected on can the extension oI ethos be demonstrated to the student.
onc|us|on
brllllanL LheorlsL once pro[ecLed lnLo Lhe fuLure LhaL we would exLend our nervous sysLems lnLo
elecLrlc llghL and become comblned wlLh Lhe lnLeracLlons of Lhe machlnes we used Marshall McLuhan
broke Lhe ground noL only for descrlblng our sLaLe as Lhe global vlllage" buL also on hls call Lo examlne
Lhe soclal lmpllcaLlons of personal lnLeracLlons wlLh Lhe medlum Powever LhaL personal lnLeracLlon
lsn'L someLhlng lsolaLed and slngular buL ls a conLlnuous conversaLlon we parLake wlLh Lhe machlnes we
use We are now ln Lhe crux of brllllanL and exclLlng new forms of communlcaLlon dlssemlnaLlon and
Lechnologlcal advancemenL Powever we cannoL dlspel our humane role wlLhln Lhe creaLlon and
parLlclpaLlon of global vlllage culLure arL of our humane role ls Lo encourage Lhe new generaLlon of
conLenL creaLors Lo be crlLlcal producers and recelvers of Lhe lnformaLlon and Lechnologles Lhey choose
Lo lnLeracL wlLh ln order Lo be enllghLened crlLlcal producers and recelvers sLudenLs should undersLand
Lhelr lnLerconnecLedness wlLh machlnes and how lL affecLs Lhelr ldenLlLy and eLhos
1he l?C classroom offers an exclLlng opporLunlLy for sLudenLs Lo be lnLroduced Lo dlglLal rheLorlc and lLs
LransformaLlve affecLs 1hose affecLs should noL remaln LaclL buL should be lnvesLlgaLed and
acknowledged by Lhe populaLlon LhaL parLlclpaLes wlLh dlglLal Lechnologles our sLudenLs and more
globally clLlzens n exLenslon of eLhos offers Lhe chance for Lhls Lype of lnvesLlgaLlon 8y Leachlng Lhe
cycllcal naLure of an exLenslon of eLhos student are situated as participants in the global village,

Clayton Benjamin
November 29, 2010
18
they critically engage with the hegemonic practices within that global village, they use and
critique the tools they use to engage in the global village, and they personalize their role in
examining how their participation not only shapes the environment, but how the environment
shapes them, and in turn how they redeIine the environment. Cnce sLudenLs begln Lo undersLand
Lhelr parLlclpaLlon Lhey can begln Lo develop a beLLer undersLandlng of Lhe world Lhey exLend Lhrough
dlglLal Lechnologles s rofessor !ohn Logle sLaLes 8eLLer lnformed sLudenLs creaLe beLLer clLlzens"

Clayton Benjamin
November 29, 2010
19
Works Cited
nderson uanlel 1he Low 8rldge Lo Plgh 8eneflLs LnLryLevel MulLlmedla LlLeracles and MoLlvaLlon
compotets composltloo 231 (2008) 4060 AcoJemlc 5eotcb ltemlet L8SCC Web 6 !uly
2010

rlsLoLle 1234

8erlln !ames 8heLorlc and 8eallLy WrlLlng lnsLrucLlon ln merlcan Colleges 19001983 unlLed SLaLes
of merlca Conference on College ComposlLlon and CommunlcaLlon 1987

8erlln !ames and Mlchael vlvlon CulLural SLudles ln Lhe Lngllsh Classroom orLsmouLh nP
8oynLon/Cook ubllshers lnc 1992

Clark ! LllzabeLh 1he ulglLal lmperaLlve Maklng Lhe Case for a 21
sL
CenLury edagogy
compotets composltloo 271 (2010) 2733 AcoJemlc 5eotcb ltemlet L8SCC Web 6 !uly
2010

ulglLal_naLlon Llfe on Lhe lronLler ulr 8achel ureLzel CorrespondenL uouglas8ushkoff ubllc
8roadcasLlng SLaLlon 2010

Corso Call S and Sandra C Wllllamson 1he Soclal ConsLrucL of WrlLlng and 1hlnklng Lvldence of Pow
Lhe Lxpanslon of WrlLlng 1echnology ffecLs Consclousness 8olletlo of 5cleoce 1ecbooloqy
5oclety 191 (1999) 32 AcoJemlc 5eotcb ltemlet L8SCC Web 16 ug 2010

uuffelmeyer 8arbara 8 CrlLlcal Work ln llrsL?ear ComposlLlon CompuLers edagogy and 8esearch
leJoqoqy 23 (2002) 337 AcoJemlc 5eotcb ltemlet L8SCC Web 6 !uly 2010

Parvey Cllvla Marshall McLuhan on 1echnology Sub[ecLlvlLy and 'Lhe Sex Crgans of Lhe Machlne
World' cootlooom Iootool of MeJlo coltotol 5toJles 203 (2006) 331344 AcoJemlc 5eotcb
ltemlet L8SCC Web 16 ug 2010

kennedy Ceorge rlsLoLle Cn 8heLorlc 1heory of Clvlc ulscourse n? Cxford unlverslLy ress lnc
2007

Levlnson aul ulglLal McLuhan n? 8ouLledge 1999

Levlnson aul Mlllennlal McLuhan Clues for ueclpherlng Lhe ulglLal ge cbtoolcle of nlqbet
Jocotloo 468 (1999) 810 AcoJemlc 5eotcb ltemlet L8SCC Web 16 ug 2010

Logle !ohn Class LecLure Mashlng CulLure Semlnar unlverslLy of MlnnesoLa Mlnneapolls Mn 22
nov 2010

Clayton Benjamin
November 29, 2010
20

Lunsford ndrea WrlLlng Lechnologles and Lhe flfLh canon compotets composltloo 232 (2006)
169177 AcoJemlc 5eotcb ltemlet L8SCC Web 16 ug 2010

MaranLo Clna and MaLL 8arLon aradox and romlse MySpace lacebook and Lhe SoclopollLlcs of
Soclal neLworklng ln Lhe WrlLlng Classroom compotets composltloo 271 (2010) 3647
AcoJemlc 5eotcb ltemlet L8SCC Web 6 !uly 2010

McLuhan Marshall undersLandlng Medla 1he LxLenslons of Man n? McCrawPlll 8ook Company
1964

McLuhan Marshall and CuenLln llore 1he Medlum ls Lhe Massage n lnvenLory of LffecLs 8erkeley
Clngko ress lnc 2001

Cxford Lngllsh ulcLlonary ldenLlLy"
hLLp//dlcLlonaryoedcomfloydllbumnedu/cgl/enLry/30111220?query_Lypewordquerywor
dldenLlLyflrsL1max_Lo_show10sorL_LypealpharesulL_place1search_ld[f8pf1[sCx
3333hlllLe30111220

orLer !ames L 8ecoverlng uellvery for ulglLal 8heLorlc compotets composltloo 264 (2009) 207
224 AcoJemlc 5eotcb ltemlet L8SCC Web 6 !uly 2010

ubllc 8roadcasLlng SLaLlon ulglLal naLlon" lronLllne leb 2 2010

urdy !ames 1he Changlng Space of 8esearch Web 20 and Lhe lnLegraLlon of 8esearch and WrlLlng
LnvlronmenLs compotets composltloo 271 (2010) 4838 AcoJemlc 5eotcb ltemlet L8SCC
Web 6 !uly 2010

Sorapure Madelelne lnformaLlon vlsuallzaLlon Web 20 and Lhe 1eachlng of WrlLlng compotets
composltloo 271 (2010) 3970 AcoJemlc 5eotcb ltemlet L8SCC Web 6 !uly 2010

Sllver uavld PlsLory Pype Pope n fLerward" llrsL Monday eer8evlewed !ournal Cn Lhe
lnLerneL llrsL Monday volume 13 number 3 3 March 2008
hLLp//wwwulcedu/hLbln/cglwrap/bln/o[s/lndexphp/fm/arLlcle/vlew/2143/1930 Web 18 CcL
2010

1omaselll keyan C and rnold Shepperson ll Lhe worlds a broLhel meLaphyslcs of Lhe LexL and
culLural economy ln Lhe lnformaLlon age ctltlcol Atts A 5ootbNottb Iootool of coltotol
MeJlo 5toJles 241 (2010) 3174 AcoJemlc 5eotcb ltemlet L8SCC Web 6 !uly 20

?ancey kaLhleen 8lake uslng MulLlple 1echnologles Lo 1each WrlLlng LducaLlonal Leadershlp 622
(2004) 3840 cademlc Search remler L8SCC Web 16 ug 2010

Clayton Benjamin
November 29, 2010
21

Wlklpedla CeneraLlon Z" hLLp//enwlklpedlaorg/wlkl/CeneraLlon_Z ugusL 16 2010