IntroductionNot 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.

OutcomesOutcome Cluster 1: Re-Visualizing ScholarshipPaper 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 changesOutcome Cluster 2: Understanding and Participating in Rhetoric and CompositionPaper 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 authorityOutcome Cluster 3Constructing a So What: Developing Implications and ToolsPresentation Title: The Blurred Lines of Copyright and Fair Use in the Modern FYC Classroom Think critically Use collected research in meaningful waysOutcome Cluster 4: Beyond the PapersReflection 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 changesI 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 ReflectionThe 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 authorityAs 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 ReflectionBefore 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 waysOriginally, 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 ReflectionThe 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 meaning-making. 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 ObstaclesI 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 ThoughtsThe 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 work-for-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.