Conclusion

Our impetus in designing this project was to unearth and make visible the ways of knowing and doing forming within the nascent subfield of Digital Rhetoric. To that end, we interviewed 25 scholars in Digital Rhetoric, asking them 10 questions each about the way they know, do, and—as it pertains to this text in particular—teach digital rhetoric. Together, the set of responses to the four interview questions keyed to teaching—ones inquiring about outcomes, scholars/readings, assignments, and assessments—shed insight into and reveal the thinking informing the development, implementation, and enactment of a pedagogy in and of digital rhetoric. In what follows, we provide a synthesis of the pedagogical ways of knowing and doing as articulated by those teaching digital rhetoric. In addition, we highlight what isn’t captured within this portrait, and we invite others in the subfield to pursue projects that build upon, dialogue with, and even push against and contest the pedagogical representation of digital rhetoric offered here. But first, we address briefly the challenges of creating this webtext; more specifically, we identify issues in creating digital rhetoric—and in our case, digital rhetoric about digital rhetoric.

This Webtext

Many of the challenges of crafting this webtext are accurately characterized by Cheryl Ball’s division between scholarly projects about new media and projects with and in new media (“Show Not Tell”, 2004). Scholarship about new media, which Ball has lamented in multiple venues, is work that uses print conventions to work through new media questions in online venues. Scholarship with and in new media uses the affordances of new media itself as a way of taking up questions in the field. This approach, according to Ball, requires attention to argument and persuasion (as usual); however, scholarship with and in new media also requires attention to argument and aesthetics as ways of re-training readers (if indeed reading is even the right word). For example, an audio-visual project like this needs to “signal itself as a scholarly text” while simultaneously providing ways for “readers” to infer meaning from non-linear, juxtaposed, multimodal bits of text (405). In creating scholarship with/in new media, these are start-to-finish challenges both technological and logistical: from the time-consuming process of attempting a cross-institutional IRB process, to making captured video and audio available for multiple contributors across geographical and technological spaces.

Another challenge is in navigating genre hybridity—a challenge for some print texts but an even greater one for multimodal texts. In “Low Fidelity in High Definition: Speculations on Rhetorical Editions,” Casey Boyle (2015) laid out the differences between critical editions, which are geared towards authority and fidelity, and rhetorical editions, which are dynamic editions geared towards growth, participation, and invention. These two kinds of editions form a polarity between fidelity and something like blasphemy: critical editions focus on faithfulness to originals and argumentation, and rhetorical editions provide kaleidoscopic, multivocal possibility. So one ongoing tension in this project is striking a balance between fidelity—such that the project might be considered scholarship at all—and blasphemy, in the hopes of pushing against, or at least framing differently, some of our beliefs about what scholarship is and does.

Thinking about circulation was another challenging aspect of this project. At its inception, the project didn’t have a scope that lended itself to traditional publication, at least not if one wanted, say, to make all 14 hours of audio-video interviews available to others while also hoping for meaningful analysis and insightful synthesis. Like many multimodal projects, this project does not fit into the familiar and rigid academic structures: it’s certainly too large and varied to be an article, and this piece on pedagogy doesn’t feel like the complete “book” (if there is indeed such a thing lurking here). In cases like this one, new avenues for circulation seem tempting, though these are fraught with additional challenges like hosting, curation, and sustainability. Our navigation of these challenges attempts to strike a paradoxical balance within the tension Boyle identifies: on one hand, we hope to be faithful to the subfield of Digital Rhetoric and create arguments that are reliably representative of its pedagogical activity; on the other hand, we want to capture its somewhat chaotic multivocality, thereby opening spaces for new voices.

Outcomes

In speaking to how they formulate the outcomes for a course in digital rhetoric, interviewees underscored the importance and influence of local context. In other words, they recognized that teachers don’t develop and determine outcomes in a vacuum; rather, they consider the overarching outcomes of the university, department, and program and the way the course is situated within those larger academic arenas. In addition, interviewees took into account the types of students they were teaching and their needs in relation to digital rhetoric. Despite the diversity among the interviewees’ local contexts, however, a set of shared outcomes did emerge.

Critical Thinking

For starters, and perhaps most importantly, interviewees wanted students to think critically. Because this is a common outcome—within the academy generally and the humanities specifically—many interviewees specified what they wanted students to think critically about during and after taking a course in digital rhetoric. According to interviewees, one of their primary goals is to teach students to think critically about the digital rhetoric they create, the digital rhetoric they encounter, and the ramifications of digital rhetoric overall (e.g., personally, professionally, civically, educationally, socially, culturally, politically, economically, ethically). Speaking more specifically to production, interviewees said they want students, in the role of digital rhetor, to think critically about medium, mode, and ethics. Here, students contemplate how the affordances and constraints of the digital are similar to yet different from those of print and other media, how to mix and leverage the multiple modes afforded through and by digital media, and how our participation in digital spaces is imbued with ethical implications.

Production

Given the pedagogical goal of fostering critical thinking about the production of digital rhetoric, it’s perhaps unsurprising that another common teaching outcome was to have students create digital texts. In many ways, an emphasis on production has always been a pedagogical identity marker for the larger field of Rhetoric and Composition. However, in the context of teaching digital rhetoric, production becomes not only a means to differentiate the subfield of Digital Rhetoric from other emerging (sub)fields such as Digital Humanities but also a way to draw critical attention to the importance of medium and mode in the creation and circulation of digital texts. The focus on production in teaching digital rhetoric thus moves beyond heuristics and instead gives critical consideration to issues of materiality and dissemination in addition to common rhetorical considerations of exigence, audience, purpose, and genre. Furthermore, per interviewees, students come to think of rhetorical concepts such as exigence, audience, purpose, and genre differently given the influence of the digital, therein underscoring the impact medium has on the message.

Play

Knowing that producing digital rhetoric with and through digital technologies can generate anxiety amongst all students, though especially among those who are digitally inexperienced, interviewees cited play as both a gateway toward rhetorically informed production and a common learning outcome. In privileging play as an outcome and carving out space for it, interviewees said they want to encourage and promote students’ exploration of the digital. Given the abundance of platforms available online, many of which are open-access, interviewees found it important and instructive for students to experiment with different digital technologies, acclimate to different interfaces, and employ different composing tools. In doing so, interviewees claimed that students begin to approach these opportunities to play with digital technologies as fun low-stakes activities wherein they can practice and refine digital literacies that prepare them to produce rhetorically effective digital texts.

Rhetorical Knowledge

While multiple interviewees grappled with the question of whether digital rhetoric represents a rupture or a continuation in rhetorical theory and practice, many nonetheless turned toward and drew from the substantive work in rhetorical history. In particular, interviewees stated that getting students to think rhetorically was another important pedagogical outcome. To that end, interviewees said they wanted students to consider the Aristotelian notion of “the available means of persuasion” when selecting and composing in digital media. Here, we can see how the dual outcomes of “critical thinking” and “thinking rhetorically” intersect—and for many, thinking critically (specifically about medium, mode, and ethics) can result in thinking rhetorically. In addition, interviewees said they ask students to think with and apply the rhetorical lenses of audience, purpose, and genre in approaching and producing with digital technologies. Although the larger field has conceived and theorized rhetorical concepts in terms of how they manifest and operate within non-digital media, interviewees found that those concepts still have value and can inform the production of rhetoric with and in digital media. However, in having students apply traditional rhetorical concepts and theories to the creation and explication of digital texts, interviewees made sure to underline the influence of the medium in such application. For example, while rhetorical theory for print and speech audiences provides us a helpful lens, students must also recognize the limitations of said lens and, with that, the ways audience functions differently in digital environments. Thus, thinking rhetorically often entails diagnosing the extent to which rhetorical theories and concepts transfer into digital contexts and re-envisioning those theories and concepts given the demands of the digital.

Impacts

Interviewees acknowledged as well the impacts their goals and outcomes (ideally) have on their students. In particular, interviewees claimed that—in prompting students (1) to think critically about digital rhetoric, (2) to produce digital rhetoric, (3) to play with digital technologies, and (4) to apply traditional rhetorical foundations to digital texts—students will see digital rhetoric as epistemic and identity-formative and -consequential. In other words, digital rhetoric should become for students a way of knowing and doing that shapes them and their understanding of and participation in the (digital) world. Moreover, by thinking in terms of impacts, teachers of digital rhetoric can begin to see the way these sets of outcomes dialogue with one another. For instance, having students think critically and rhetorically develops habits of mind that students can use when they play with digital technologies and analyze and create digital rhetoric. In terms of pedagogical scaffolding, then, thinking critically (e.g., about medium, mode, and ethics) and rhetorically (e.g., about exigence, audience, purpose, and genre) offers an approach that can guide the practice of play, which students can ultimately parlay into the production of digital rhetoric—all of which helps students understand what digital rhetoric is, how and why it matters, and how we construct and are constructed by our interactions with and through digital technologies.

As a whole, the pedagogical outcomes offered here are flexible, and in that way, they reflect the Council on Writing Program Administration (CWPA) Outcomes for First-Year Composition (2014). And similar to those outcomes, the set of outcomes oriented to the teaching of digital rhetoric also emphasizes and values “critical thinking, reading, and composing” as well as “rhetorical knowledge.” While interviewees didn’t explicitly reference the other two WPA Outcomes—“processes” and “knowledge of conventions”—one might argue that play is a part of the “process” that receives isolated attention in digital rhetoric and that thinking critically and rhetorically about the digital will result in a “knowledge of conventions.” Regardless, the difference in teaching outcomes for FYC and digital rhetoric does indicate that the addendum of “digital” matters: while it may not signal a serious rupture in the teaching of rhetoric historically, it does not result in a simple continuation, either. Digital rhetoric is different, it seems, whether in degree or kind, and per the interviewees, understanding that difference is vital in knowing, doing, and teaching digital rhetoric.

Scholars/Readings

When asked what scholars and/or readings they would assign in teaching digital rhetoric, interviewees offered a rich set of pedagogical resources. Overall, seven scholars/readings were noted more than once:

1. Collin Brooke’s Lingua Fracta: Toward a Rhetoric of New Media (2009)
2. Jody Shipka’s Towards a Composition Made Whole (2011)
3. Marshall McLuhan’s work
4. Greg Ulmer’s work
5. Liz Losh’s Virtualpolitik: An Electronic History of Government Media-making in a Time of War, Scandal, Disaster, Miscommunication, and Mistakes (2009)
6. Doug Eyman’s Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice (2015)
7. Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin’s Remediation: Understanding New Media (1999)

These scholars/readings were mentioned for different reasons. Brooke’s Lingua Fracta was commended for its ability to reimagine the rhetorical canons within digital environments, which connects well to the aforementioned outcome of having students think rhetorically—and doing so by pulling from the rhetorical tradition. Shipka’s Towards a Composition Made Whole was referenced on multiple occasions because it accentuates the importance of materiality, reminds us that multimodal compositions aren’t always digital, and offers a framework for assessing multimodal composition. The focus on materiality was also a reason why interviewees suggested the works of McLuhan and Ulmer, though Ulmer’s work on electracy was another reason his scholarship was a common selection amongst interviewees. Losh’s Virtualpolitik as well as Eyman’s Digital Rhetoric received acclaim because both are early attempts to define digital rhetoric and the work of the subfield. In other words, and unlike the other readings in this set, both Virtualpolitik and Digital Rhetoric proceed from a disciplinary understanding that digital rhetoric is a distinct and identifiable area of inquiry and study. Lastly, Remediation was cited because of the versatility of its theoretical lens, which is applicable to the evolution and intersection of media historically and the intertextual nature of the texts those media make possible.

Together, these texts, all of which are print, reveal different approaches to and values in teaching digital rhetoric. For starters, they indicate that, despite the collective goal of having students create digital rhetoric, interviewees still deem print scholarship important, as they assign it regularly—in fact, it seems as if print scholarship is assigned more frequently than digital scholarship. Furthemore, three of the readings enumerated above (i.e., McLuhan, Ulmer, and Bolter and Grusin) were written prior to the 21st Century and are attentive to non-digital media. The inclusion of these “older” 20th-Century scholars/readings illustrate that the pedagogical treatment of the digital rhetoric includes paying attention not only to the digital media used to create digital rhetoric but also to the media that preceded and informed the development of digital media. For many interviewees, familiarizing students with the creation, evolution, and intersections of media historically is important, especially in the way that it can help students in thinking critically and rhetorically about digital rhetoric and media.

In addition to being in and about print, the readings/scholars interviewees privileged weren’t ostensibly about pedagogy. Shipka’s Toward a Composition Made Whole is the only reading of the seven listed above to focus explicitly on teaching—and here, the focus isn’t on teaching digital rhetoric per say but rather on multimodal composition, the materiality of which is non-digital. Thus, while this project argues that there is a discernible pedagogy associated with and emerging from Digital Rhetoric, the scholars/readings assigned in the teaching of digital rhetoric don’t attend to pedagogy. Instead, interviewees prefer to assign scholars/readings that are more technologically and theoretically oriented.

The attention these scholars/readings devote to technology, media, and materiality also signals a lack of overt attention toward rhetoric. That’s not to imply that the scholars/readings centered on technology don’t warrant inclusion in digital rhetoric courses—far from it. After all, rhetoric is inextricably linked to technology, and rhetoric itself is a technology. Moreover, and as demonstrated above, having students think critically about media is a common teaching outcome. Rather, the inclusion of scholars/readings geared toward technology in the teaching of digital rhetoric stresses the importance of the digital in “digital rhetoric” by deliberately foregrounding the tools of production. The “digital” nature of digital rhetoric, in other words, is what separates it from other forms of rhetoric, and as a result, interviewees found it imperative that students engage with scholars/readings who emphasize the impact and influence of (digital) technology. It’s also worth noting that rhetoric qua rhetoric isn’t completely absent among this set: Brooke’s Linga Fractua was praised precisely for its attempts to fold classical rhetoric into digital contexts, and both Losh’s and Eyman’s books are keyed toward rhetoric. Nonetheless, in a course on digital rhetoric, one might assume that the noun receives just as much, if not more, attention than the adjective. In some ways, the lack of scholars/texts that qualify as digital rhetoric or that are focused specifically on rhetoric in digital forms is symptomatic of the nascency of the subfield; it also indicates that our primary, or at least initial, means to understand and teach digital rhetoric involves, to invoke McLuhan, a critical inquiry into the implications that the “medium is the message.”

Overall, the scholars/readings interviewees privilege in the teaching of rhetoric—both the ones cited more than once as well as those referenced only once—offer the subfield a robust set of historical resources while it gains its footing pedagogically. Those scholars/readings span multiple decades, grapple with and theorize the ramifications of and connections between technologies old and new, and critically investigate the implications of the digital in regards to rhetoric. While some of these scholars/readings may prove foundational in the teaching of digital rhetoric, the dearth of texts that are distinctly about digital rhetoric—that is, that recognize digital rhetoric as digital rhetoric—coupled with the inchoate state of the subfield, suggest that the group of scholars/text that would be singled out five to ten years from now might be markedly more disciplinarily and reflect greater diversity and focus. In addition, while the attention devoted toward the medium’s impact on the message likely won’t wane, the scholarly exigence is likely to shift away from problems around definition and more towards ones around pedagogy, ethics, embodiment, identity, surveillance and privacy, authority, subjectivity, social habits, and politics.

Assignments

Interviewees exhibited the least amount of consensus, and thus offered the most diversity, in their responses to the question about their favorite projects and activities to teach in digital rhetoric. That said, some overlap did occur, and a few other trends were noticeable in looking across the assignments interviewees shared. In particular, four types of projects were mentioned by more than one interviewee.

Remediation/Remix/Assemblage

The first assignment referenced by more than one interviewee included students creating remediations/remixes/assemblages. While some interviewees did find it important for students to be able to differentiate between and among remediations, remixes, and assemblages, all three of these types of projects are linked by the same digital practice: that is, they involve rhetors creating something new from pre-existing materials and texts. Interviewees prefer to assign these projects in teaching digital rhetoric because they illuminate the inherently epistemic and intertextual nature of all forms of rhetoric and, as a result, complicate notions of originality and creativity. In addition, such projects push students to understand the implications of copyright as well as the affordances and limitations of fair use. Interviewees also valued such assignments because they make students more cognizant of the effects of media and genre on textual production, dissemination, and reception. Although the common refrain that “everything is a remix” implies that these types of texts aren't necessarily unique to digital rhetoric but rather are symptomatic of rhetoric in general, the capabilities of digital technologies not only allows users to remediate, remix, and assemble with modes other than the written word but also makes it easier for rhetors to create and circulate these types of texts than ever before, hence the increased attention to remediations, remixes, and assemblages over the past decade-plus.

Maps

Having students create maps was the second assignment that interviewees recommended more than once. That said, the types and purposes of such maps varied. Some interviewees have students create maps that trace and tease out connections between and among citations and ideas. These types of maps were lauded in particular for their ability to highlight associations in ways that couldn’t be done as effectively or conspicuously with non-digital media. In addition to mapping citations and ideas, students were also asked to create maps in an effort to elucidate a particular phenomenon. Regardless of whether students are asked to think more specifically and scholarly in terms of citations and ideas or generally in terms of various phenomena, the practice of mapping requires students to work with digital technologies in order to draw connections. Maps were also perceived as valuable for the way they forefront the importance and impact of materiality.

Videos

The third type of assignment interviewees discussed on multiple occasions was student-created videos. Given the abundance of videos produced with and hosted through digital technologies, one might expect that having students create videos would be a common assignment in digital rhetoric. However, the purpose and value of asking students to create videos differed among interviewees. Some assigned videos because it resulted in students putting theory into practice. Others assigned videos because they emphasized the ubiquity and possibilities of multimodality. And similar to the reasoning behind assigning remediations, remixes, and assemblages, interviewees appreciated that working with video often entailed grappling with the truth-telling and epistemic potential of the medium. Asking students to create videos was also deemed an appropriate assignment for digital rhetoric because of the ways that video production has increased given access to and affordances of digital technologies. In other words, many interviewees believed that students were well suited to create videos given their exposure to and, for many, experience with digital videos.

Wikipedia

The fourth and final assignment to be suggested more than once pertained to Wikipedia. While working with Wikipedia was only mentioned twice, it was nonetheless considered a generative site for student inquiry, as interacting with Wikipedia in multiple ways allows students to understand better genre and epistemology in particular. Per interviewees, asking students to examine Wikipedia is also a means for them to explore voice, style, citation, revision, ethos, and collaboration. In addition, wrestling with Wikipedia allows students to understand how knowledge is constructed digitally and to think critically about research and credibility—and with that, whether Wikipedia is a reliable source.

As demonstrated above, these four assignments—(1) creating remediations/remixes/assemblages, (2) developing maps, (3) producing videos, and (4) working with/in Wikipedia—are not only apropos in how they exemplify the digital rhetoric students encounter regularly but also edifying in how they raise questions about epistemology, media, materiality, genre, and intertextuality. The other assignments interviewees shared reflected many of those themes but generated additional ones as well: for instance, some of the assignments focused in particular on the mode of the visual, which signals its increased presence and significance in digital media and rhetoric. Many of the assignments also sought to foster collaboration—both with fellow students and with the local community.

Although interviewees were not asked to articulate how these assignments work to achieve learning outcomes, there is a discernibly link between the assignments archived here and the outcomes listed above. For example, all four assignments covered above encourage students to think critically about medium in particular. In addition, in creating videos, many students were asked to think with and through, as well as apply, rhetorical concepts; furthermore, one of the assignments tasked students with visually representing a rhetorical concept. And while interviewees didn’t directly link play to or with any of the assignments they offered, making available the space and opportunity to play could preface practically any of the assignments given by interviewees. Lastly, in completing these assignments, students are producing digital rhetoric. In other words, the design of assignments is pedagogically deliberate: as was the case with outcomes, teachers don’t develop assignments in a vacuum; in fact, they do so with consideration of course goals.

Assessments

When answering the question about assessment, interviewees displayed a visible and verbal sense of caution: after all, assessment has always been a point of contention and consternation for teachers of rhetoric. Assigning projects that ask students to think critically and rhetorically about media, modes, ethics, and more only complicates the already arduous pedagogical necessity that is assessment. Despite the amplified anxiety surrounding the evaluation of digital rhetoric, three common approaches surfaced.

Reflections

The first common way in which interviewees assessed their students’ digital rhetoric was by having them create reflections. Here, students were tasked with not only articulating their process but also defending the rhetorical decisions they made during the process. Per interviewees, this reflective text, regardless of the form it took, tends to benefit students: that is, in knowing they need to share their process and justify their rhetorical and/or technological choices, students are likely to be more conscious of both during the act of composing. Moreover, this reflective text provides the teachers with invaluable insight into how the student created their text and what the rhetorical intent was on both micro and macro levels. For many interviewees, the knowledge making and sharing function of the reflection can mitigate or compensate for the technological and stylistic deficiencies among students. In fact, for some, the reflection even obviates the need to evaluate the actual text—the learning that occurs in the process of creating the assignment is made manifest in students’ ability to express it in the form of the reflection. Because many of these reflections tend to be written, there is a concern that this form of assessment privileges too much the mode of the written word, which can be seen as means to remain in the comforts of print rather than to embrace the full potential, as well as the uncertainty and messiness, of the digital. Nonetheless, many interviewees expressed evaluative interest in their students’ ability to explain their process, justify their composing choices, and identify what they learned, as prompting students to think in these ways and perform these practices helps to facilitate critical and rhetorical thinking.

Rubrics

According to interviewees, the rubric was another common method for evaluating students’ digital rhetoric. The rubric was perceived as helpful because, in addition to functioning as a hermeneutic for teachers, it also serves as a heuristic by isolating specific criteria that students can use to guide the creation of their texts. Those who utilize rubrics shared criteria that were both similar and different: in particular, conceptual and technical were two criteria that were recurring, while other mentioned criteria included rhetorical, stylistic, and storytelling. Interviewees also offered a way to develop additional criteria for rubrics: that is, to do so collaboratively with students. Such an approach works to demystify the assessment process by rendering it both transparent and inclusive. That said, arriving at a consensus can be difficult, and some student voices can dominate and potentially marginalize others’. Furthermore, some students don’t feel qualified to determine assessment criteria, even collaboratively, preferring instead that criteria be determined by the teacher. Although some teachers eschew rubrics, they are a popular choice of assessment because they provide concrete areas that both teachers and students can focus on in evaluation and production, and they can be developed in and applied in different ways.

Rhetorical Analyses

The third recurring way in which interviewees evaluated student texts was by conducting rhetorical analyses. In some instances, interviewees ask students to rhetorically analyze their own texts. Thus, this was an assessment method that could be employed by both teacher and student; as such, many interviewees said they model rhetorical analyses for students in class. Even if students aren’t asked to rhetorically analyze their own work, interviewees nonetheless found it important to practice rhetorical analyses in class; that way, students can still analyze texts rhetorically on their own—whether those texts be their own or others’. Furthermore, students gain a better understanding of how the teacher will assess their work, therein given them another way to conceive of and execute their work. This form of assessment is also a means to achieve the learning outcome of having students think with and apply foundational rhetorical concepts and theories. Like rubrics, rhetorical analyses are also dynamic assessment models: teachers can develop criteria with rubrics and apply different theories and concepts with rhetorical analyses.

To be sure, all three assessments are valuable and effective in isolation; however, all three can also bleed into and inform one another. Teachers can use rubrics or rhetorically analyze student texts and still ask students to create reflections. Students can also refer to a rubric or rhetorically analyze their own work in crafting their reflections, and the theories and concepts used to rhetorically analyze student texts can be massaged into criteria for a rubric. o use ask students to create reflections and still rhetorically analyze student texts. Regardless of whether teachers employ one or a mix of these assessments, interviewees were apt to reiterate that assessments were opportunities for learning. Students can learn what’s (in)effective about their texts and what they learned in the process of creating them, teachers can learn which methods work best for both them and their students, and all of this learning helps us learn more about how to develop best assessment practices in teaching digital rhetoric. What we can learn thus far is that interviewees are inclined to make their assessments reflective, inclusive, transparent, and rhetorical.

Final Thoughts

Overall, this text does more than argue that there is a pedagogy forming within the budding subfield of Digital Rhetoric: it efforts to flesh out that pedagogy through the collective voices of those doing and teaching digital rhetoric. The outcomes, scholars/readings, assignments, and assessments articulated above and throughout this webtext constitute a pedagogical way of knowing and doing in digital rhetoric that others can use in developing, revising, and/or refining their own teaching practices. These outcomes, scholars/readings, assignments, and assessments are diverse and thus adaptable. That said, they also lack diversity.

For instance, the goals and outcomes don’t explicitly attend to how issues of subjectivity impact digital rhetoric (which is to say that they could potentially be addressed in the ways teachers attempt to cultivate critical thinking). In addition, almost all of the scholars interviewees suggested were white, and the content of the texts recommended aren’t about the implications of subjectivity. Absent, in other words, are scholars of color and readings that discuss the intersections of subjectivity and technology (e.g., Selfe, 1996; Banks, 2006; Nakamura, 2007; Nakamura, Chow-White, and Nelson, 2011) or digital rhetorics by and of marginalized groups (e.g. Banks, 2010; Hidalgo). The assignments interviewees shared also don’t specifically ask students to explore or interrogate issues or representations of subjectivity. Digital rhetoric is created by and affects all people, but not all people and voices are present within this pedagogy. In his 1999 CCCC Chair’s Address, Victor Villanueva urged the larger field of Rhetoric and Composition to be more diverse in its profesional population and in its scholarly inquiries. His call remains kairotic—both for the field at large and, as this webtext demonstrates, for the subfield of Digital Rhetoric in particular.