Introduction

Not one aspect of this project remained the same from day one. Aptly,
a theme of this portfolio would be change and growth.The theme of the
portfolio changed from law. The purpose changed, from using this portfolio to
also apply for jobs to singularly using it for a space of meaning-making. The
ideas changed, from an emphasis on theory to an emphasis on practice and
application. The writing changed, from conceptualization of the portfolio to
the execution including the uncountable number of drafts. Composing this
portfolio influenced how I understand revision and academic writing as a
whole while also teaching me to trust my own voice.
As learning is an ever-continuous process and a process of becoming, I
aim to highlight the concepts Ive learned and to acknowledge where I could
improve. To showcase my progress, Ive chosen three major projects: a
revision, an annotated bibliography, and a copyright workshop presentation
and rationale. Throughout this portfolio, I refer to them interchangeably as
projects, papers, and artifacts .
This portfolio operates linearly in order to craft a certain experience,
hopefully recreating my learning process for the reader; this will be detailed
more fully in the final reflection. Each project includes a small reflective
introduction that describes why that particular project is included, what
outcomes it meets, and how it meets them. Following the artifact, there will
be a reflection transitioning into the next project. However, feel free to
browse as you wish and make your own meaning.

Outcomes
Outcome Cluster 1: Re-Visualizing Scholarship
Paper Title: Coauthoring is hard, but teaching it doesnt have to be: An
Argument for Teaching Students How to Coauthor in the First-Year
Composition Classroom
Conceptualize an empirical research project
Revise thoughtfully in a way that considers higher-order concerns
rather than superficial changes
Outcome Cluster 2: Understanding and Participating in Rhetoric and
Composition
Paper Title: Up in Arms: An Intellectual Property, Copyright, and Fair Use
Annotated Bibliography

 Understand current conversations in digital rhetorics and composition

Write clearly, effectively, and with authority
Outcome Cluster 3Constructing a So What: Developing
Implications and Tools
Presentation Title: The Blurred Lines of Copyright and Fair Use in the
Modern FYC Classroom
Think critically
Use collected research in meaningful ways
Outcome Cluster 4: Beyond the Papers
Reflection Title: A Reflective Look at Portfolio as Meaning-Making
Reflect meaningfully on experiences in order to create knowledge

Cluster 1 Introduction
Conceptualize an empirical research project
Revise thoughtfully in a way that considers higher-order concerns
rather than superficial changes
I chose to revise a conference-style paper titled Unveiling the Future
of Composition Studies, originally written for Dr. Fleckensteins Theories of
Composition class. Predictably, the purpose of this assignment was to
consider the future of composition studies pedagogy in the classroom. I focus
on arguing the necessity for First Year Composition (FYC) instructors to teach
students how to brainstorm, plan, and create a single document within a
group. In other words, I attempted to argue that the future of composition
should not exclusively teach single-authored compositions in FYC classrooms,
but rather introduce students to coauthoring texts, specifically facilitated by
digital tools like Google Docs.
I chose this paper to revise for several reasons:

I wanted to appeal to my audience. Dr. Fleckenstein graded the

original paper, and I wanted to show her that I could take her
comments and use them constructively.

The study of composition is a weakness of mine. I think it is just

as important to highlight what youre good at as it is to
acknowledge what needs improvement and attention, especially
when looking at the learning process over time.

The exercise of revising this paper wasnt just for the portfolio
requirement. Revision also served as an opportunity to improve
my own understanding of composition scholarship.

Cluster 1 Reflection
The portfolio proposal outlined several points of revision that I, at the
time, aimed to do. These goals might have been too near-sighted. As I sat
down to revise, I began to think about how this document could be used
instead of simply revised. I wanted to create a document that would
persuade the reader to use coauthoring in their FYC classrooms and provide
how-to guidelines. This reshaped the content and approach. Instead of
looking just as coauthorship, I zoomed out to take a look at the larger
conversation of collaboration in order to situate it. I also wanted to address
the benefits and disadvantages of coauthorship so that I could create a
debate within the work. Writing the original paper introduced me to
scholarship on collaboration and coauthorship; revising it forced me to
realize how much is still out there for me to read.
Because of these changes, the artifact exhibits two marketable abilities
of mine previously outlined in outcome cluster one: 1) To conceptualize an
empirical research project and 2) to revise thoughtfully in a way that
considers higher-order concerns rather than superficial changes. When
planning out my revisions, I had to reconceptualize or re-vision the project.
This led me to consider my own professional experiences with coauthorship
as well as finding research that could set multiple stages, such as
collaboration, coauthorship, and their applications.
This artifact also demonstrates the second outcome in cluster 1, and
the thoughtful revision appears in so many ways. For one, the
reconceptualizing of the project is an act of revision in itself, and I believe
that the new focus is a more productive because it has more purpose, an
intended audience, and a real exigence. Additionally, I spent most of the
time with this piece making higher-order revisions. Every paragraph has
moved to fit a new purpose and improved argument. Revisions strengthened
my argument as I added new supporting evidence, such as Andrea Lunsford
and Lisa Edes coauthoring research. I also integrated a new framework that
provides structure, while improving explanations of concepts conflated in the
original. The strength in revision also comes from what isnt apparent in the
paper. In an effort to fulfill this reconceptualization and tighten up my
writing, I deleted around 40 pages of writing to make this paper the
strongest that I could in the time I had. This embodies, more than anything in
my portfolio, the theme of change.

Cluster 2 Introduction
Understand current conversations in digital rhetorics and composition
Write clearly, effectively, and with authority
As hinted in the title, this annotated bibliography is a space for
scholarly conversation about intellectual property and some of its constituent
parts, including plagiarism, copyright, and fair use. I look at the
conversations in rhetoric and composition as well as some law. Some
annotations are intertextual, both in how I ask the reader to relate to
different annotations and in the content and concepts themselves. Before
the annotations, I provide an introduction that acts as a short literature
review. I use war as a metaphor for copyright law and its effects, such as
censorship, loss of the freedom of speech, and the discouragement of
student production of digital and visual compositions.
Originally, this annotated bibliography was a bibliographic essay. After
struggling with the genre due to time constraints, I opted for an annotated
bibliography instead. However, I believe this shift in genre better
demonstrates the second outcome in this cluster: to write clearly, effectively,
and with authority. The genre calls for very crisp writing, more so than a
literature review, in my opinion. How I meet this outcome cluster will be
discussed more thoroughly in the reflection at the bottom of this page.
Cluster 2 Reflection
Before the topic of intellectual property, the bibliographic essay
concerned fan fiction and textual ownership. Together, Dr. Neal and I decided
that it would be best if the topic changed, so that this artifact contributed
more to the portfolio's conversation as a whole. The new topic of copyright
connected to the scholarship in the final presentation, which is about
incorporating copyright and fair use discussions in the FYC classroom. The
annotated bibliography would be an easy way to facilitate curiosity for the
presentation and vice versa. People seeing the presentation may also want
to read further about conversations in copyright. This annotated bibliography
creates a powerful ethos, improving the reading and learning experience of
the portfolio as a whole, particularly the presentation. In other words, this
bibliography shows that I've done my research in order to make the
presentation conceptually and theoretically sound.
The scholarship made the reading and writing for this bibliography a
very fun and constructive adventure. I hadn't delved into any one thread of
scholarship to this level before. The bibliography introduction and the sheer
amount of annotationsthe ones present in this final draft, the annotations
I've deleted, the annotations never writtenspeak volumes on my ability to
understand the core issues at hand. The short literature review in the

introduction shows my ability to thread scholarship and pinpoint larger

implications in a meaningful way.
The annotations, as previously mentioned, are intertextual. In places, I
hint to the audience to read certain annotations in a specific order to see
how the material interacts. In other places, I draw comparisons between
sources to improve the experience of reading the annotations. This skill
requires a nuanced understanding of the material and close attention to
detail.
However, I do recognize repetitiveness, both in the scholarship and my
annotations. I've tried to eliminate excessive redundancies in order to
present the writing effectively. By shaving down the repetitive material, I
highlight the pertinent information. Further, by addressing the trends of the
document in the introduction, the repetitive material isn't lost. Another way I
demonstrate this skill is by conforming to the genre conventions of clear and
concise writing.
I believe this kind of writing to be a very marketable quality. Not only can I
begin to research a new area of information and scholarship, but I can also
make sense of it for an audience who is unfamiliar with the topic. This is the
primary task in technical writing, a potential career opportunity for me.
Cluster 3 Introduction
Think critically
Use collected research in meaningful ways
Originally, I began thinking about this presentation as something a lot
broader--simply a paper about intellectual property and copyright. However, I
had no idea of what the conversations were about, so I didnt know what gap
I wanted to fill. I knew that I wanted to use that paper as a sort of badge to
show to a law school, if and when I applied. However, when I let go of the law
school idea, I still wanted to write on intellectual property. Thats what I
promised the committee, and I was still very much interested and engaged in
the topic.
So, I began reading intellectual property scholarship in rhetoric and
composition. The more I read, the more I discovered about the fear, the
severity, and the inattention. Scholars asked their peers to engage, to
develop policies, to discuss, and to fight for the right to (fairly) copy. As a
result, I began to reflect on FSUs program and how little information Id
gotten on copyright during my teacher training. I remember a few general
points like dont copy more than three chapters or so. This is a helpful rule,
no doubt, but this isnt the law. I began to think about what I asked my
students to do in a previous class; did I ask them to infringe? Did I put my
students in danger of some sinister force moving in the shadows of foggy
copyright law?

Then I began to think more outwardly; what if there are other teachers
like me? Hadnt I always been taught that other people probably had the
same questions I did? Suddenly it became clear: I should alert teachers and
give them the knowledge and resources they need to make good copying
decisions. A presentation seemed like the most logical way to do that. My
presentation is an extension of the research that I completed for the
annotated bibliography. Some of that material is included.
Cluster 3 Reflection
The name of this cluster is Constructing a So What: Developing
Implications and Tools, and I believe that this presentation does the best job
of showing my ability to think critically and use research in meaningful ways.
For one, this presentation showcases my ability to determine and target the
intended audience and as well as consider the best place for this kind of
message. Where will this message have the most impact? Who will be the
recipients of the message in that particular place? How can I speak them?
What do they already know? What reservations am I working against? In
what context of use will this presentation be given and by whom? In essence,
I had to conduct an audience analysis that shaped my entire presentation.
That approach led me to make choices such as using a student example from
an ENC 1101 class that would mimic some work that teachers might pursue
with their students.
This presentation highlights my ability to integrate research into an
accessible presentation. Drawing from my annotated bibliography, I needed
to select, trim, and direct the information towards the audience. This requires
an understanding of the scholarship as well as the rhetorical situation.
The Blurred Lines of Copyright and Fair Use in the Modern FYC
Classroom is intended for incoming TAs going through summer training. This
would be an ideal because it would, after time, create an entire department
that, in essence, grew up in this pro-user-rights model that rhetoric and
composition scholars call for. The nature of the program could change over
time because of a common understanding and discussion of copyright (thus,
fair use) in the classroom. New ideas for implementation can arise from this
kind of semi-crowdsourcing.

Cluster 4
Reflect meaningfully on experiences in order to create knowledge
This last reflection will serve as an additional space for meaningmaking. In my original proposal, I had drafted eight outcomes; since then,

Ive eliminated one redundant outcome. Each artifact meets more than three
outcomes, but I limit the reflection and discussion to two outcomes per
artifact. This way, I better highlight my growth. These condensed reflections
have allowed me to reflect more meaningfully and within a limited amount of
space.
In this final reflection, I will look at how I've created meaning both in
the order I experienced the artifacts and how I wanted to recreate that for
the reader. Then, I will address the struggles I've encountered while drafting
and revising. Finally, I will talk about the larger implications of the work and
the portfolio.
Fitting the Pieces Together
I chose to have two navigations for the portfolio, finding it important
that my audience experience the portfolio as I did. The meaning that I made
through the portfolio was dependent on the order in which I experienced
each artifact and obstacle. In my process, I started the revision first, and
after struggling with that for a while, I began juggling both research for the
revision and for the annotated bibliography. In doing so, I began to make
connections between the research. I came to discover that coauthoring and
copyright overlapped in some interesting ways. Both topics have a few
critical questions: Who is the author? What is an author? Does this author
own the texts they produce?
Moving to the next pair of artifacts, I determined the topic of the
presentation because I saw a gap that the annotated bibliography research
kept referring to: a lack of knowledge, apathy, and facilitating discussions
with students. Scholars said that discussing fair use with students is
becoming a necessity; I wanted to address that. Had I began pursuing the
presentation without doing that broad intellectual property research first, I
wouldn't have known what, if any, gaps to fill with the vague idea that I had
before. The research from the annotated bibliography also informed my
presentation in other ways, such as the theoretical basis for fair use
discussions. I see the annotated bibliography as intimately tied to the
presentation, not because the it leans very heavily on the bibliography, but
rather because I was able to read the research holistically in a way that
produced something new.
Overcoming Obstacles
I overcame a number of struggles while writing this portfolio. As
previously mentioned, I found it difficult to write in the literature review
genre. Yet, I wrote a small but effective literature review in the introduction
to my annotated bibliography. After conducting so much research, writing

came easily. I felt comfortable enough with the material to be able to pull out
threads and attribute them to various authors.
I also had an incredibly hard time trusting my own voice. This lack of
confidence came from a good place: I wanted to please all of my reviewers.
After giving up what I thought were major concepts in my writing that other
research in the same field included, I began to reflection on the purpose of
the portfolio itself. What is it really for other than the defense? It's a space
for me to get my ideas out. It's a space for me to make meaning. It's the
race, the finish line, and the medal. After that, I took control of my writing
and began to make stronger assertions about what my writing should look
like and what it should be or not be about. It was a powerful moment for me.
In particular, I struggled with the revision piece. The introduction and
reflection for the revision show this to some extent, but I am most proud of
this artifact. I've spent more time with this writing than any other project. I
don't make that statement lightly; I invest a lot of time in my papers
conceptualizing, writing, and revising. Although, more time doesn't
necessarily equate a better paper, and this became clear during my writing
process.
Towards the end of my composing process, I was alerted that I needed
core ethos-building concepts to build up to coauthoring. Fair point! But where
should I start? I began to throw words on a page, just to get something down.
I'd already written and cut more pages than the length of the draft, so
everything I said felt like I was repeating myself. After finishing the revision, I
took a breath and told myself that what I had on the page was good material.
I honestly believed it. (I know now that definitely was not the case.) Then I
got back an overwhelming number of supportive yet frustrated comments on
my writing. I was getting further and further away from finishing; my writing
literally didn't even make sense anymore. Dr. Neal suggested doing
something different with my process, but now, completing the work seemed
impossible. It was 3 weeks away from submission, and I'd yet to start the
final artifact. I allowed myself one day of mourning, then the next morning, I
forced myself to address the large problems and holes I'd created in my
newest and most problematic revision.
I've always known that my composing process is best when it is
external--when it becomes a social act. To try to make my process more
social, I turned to my peer copyeditor and asked her to identify confusing or
unclear sentences. While my copyeditor worked at this task, I asked a friend
to help me develop the design of my website; we brainstormed a working
model. This meeting led her to becoming my developmental editor. We
worked at her house, in coffee shops, at my house, apart, together, with her
pointing out the logical jumps between my writing. She would ask me to
explain my ideas aloud, and somehow the information that I'd been trying to
write came flowing out of me. This has always been my best composing

practice--to talk out my ideas aloud. Discussing my thoughts with someone

facilitated my writing process, helping me focus on problematic areas and
stay productive. I wrote until I hit a roadblock, where I would turn to talk
about what I was trying to say or about what problem I had.
Since I come from a technical writing background, most of my previous
writing had been completed in groups. As a group, we conceptualized the
piece together. We wrote individual sections but revised freely over each
other's writing. My experience coauthoring this way inspired the original
paper topic. My experiences coauthoring also changed my writing process as
a whole, and I think this is one way that I wasn't as prepared for my Master's.
It's not that I can't write alone because I can and have throughout graduate
school. It's that what I produce is so much more fulfilling, meaningful, and-well--better when work with others. Unlike the respondents in Lunsford and
Ede's survey, I feel more proud having collaborated heavily or coauthored.
Being able to collaborate to the extent that I did says something about my
ability to work well with colleagues in the future.
My resolve to believe that writing is a social act strengthened greatly.
Without the help and excited support of my editors and friends, there would
be no portfolio. It took a lot of self-reflection, input from my editors, and an
insane amount of coffee to turn around the next revision, which Dr. Neal and,
more importantly, I was pleased with.
Final Thoughts
The large implication of my work becomes this: Teaching coauthoring
to students can change copyright law in the future. Lunsford and Ede argued
that a change in the notions of authorship are needed in order to fully accept
and work with coauthoring as a composing practice. Lunsford and Ede also
described a sense of loss of ownership over texts; this is because those
(co)authors still saw their writing as their own, not belonging to a greater
entity or team. If educators work with students to shift their ideas about what
constitutes authorship, then teachers may begin to relieve the need for
absolute control over the writing. Students can see their contribution as
something belonging to a team. (This is a similar kind of writing to a workfor-hire situation where an individual or team writes and the name of the
company is on the text.) If we educators slowly change what the author looks
like (from one person to a team of people), then we develop a notion of
shared ownership over a text, not something that belongs to one person.
Putting this newer, freer culture in conversation with copyright, this
increasingly, textually-liberal population might give birth to an iteration of
copyright that has a looser grip of ownership over their texts. At the very
least, copyrights might be held by multiple people or companies, not just
one, or even better: This culture can promote an ethic of sharing, thinking of
texts as belonging to a greater good.

This ePortfolio not only contains products of my education and what

Ive learned, but also is an enactment of the lessons Ill take away from this
program: Important concepts include looking at versus through, visual
rhetoric, writing in digital spaces, writing process(es), revision, ethos, and
much, much more. This portfolio is a culminating piece because it is a
collection of who and what Ive become because of the time Ive spent at
FSU.