Carlson 2 Academic writing has been around a long time, but while considering the emerging popularity of social media within the past couple decades, I cannot help but wonder how these technologies are influencing students’ abilities to write within academic environments and vice versa. In a recent New York Times article author Tara Parker-Pope frames a similar question: “Today’s teenagers have been raised on cellphones and social media. Should we worry about them or just get out of their way” (“Today’s Teenagers”)? Social apps enable connections among family, friends, acquaintances, or complete strangers, and their topics of conversation vary widely. However, as important as these dialogues are, they differ from academic writing. And that disconnect has prompted worry by some scholars in the field of rhetoric and composition, and it is a concern that has been ongoing for quite some time. For instance, Patricia Bizzell identifies academic discourse as an “extended rational presentation of ideas,” yet TV talk-show hosts are known for their “series of aphorisms” (Bizzell 351). Bizzell worries that this “dearth of… rational presentation of ideas on television” is inhibiting students’ ability to assess and (as a result) create ethos within their own academic prose (Bizzell 351). In short, this widespread reliance on electronic media is causing some first-year writing instructors to feel anxious about students’ ability to create prose that others will take seriously. And, as Aristotle would put it, because ethos is “the projection of a speaker’s character” this segment of the rhetorical triangle is certainly something any writer would want to learn and develop further (qtd. in Wilson 218). Although not the newest scholarship on the block, I turn to Bizzell for a couple reasons. Markedly, we share a mutual concern for and an interest in student writing. She wants first-year writers to succeed in developing strong ethos, and so do I. The other purpose, however, hinges around technology’s advancement or its shaping influence on society’s discussions: Today’s Carlson 3 world of smartphones and computers is far more interactive than the days of TV and radio. In other words, web 2.0 technologies render audiences as active participants, not passive observers. Despite this change in dynamics, I worry that not all academics recognize the level of participation inherent in the current worldwide web and, instead, linger in the tradition that technology continues to be something that only renders dependency, helplessness, or passivity within the minds of students. I think differently and feel an urgency to explain that assuming technology automatically and always ruins kids’ lives limits our possibilities inside and outside institutions of higher learning. In contrast, by expanding academe’s traditional approach to bridge social media and composition, I contend that students will produce better, more ethos-driven prose – inside and outside the classroom. Others have voiced concern about academia sticking to the status quo, as well. For instance, after discussing the rise and fall of four modes of discourse (i.e., narration, description, exposition, and argument) writing scholar Robert Connors reflects that “we need always to be on guard against systems that seem convenient to teachers but that ignore the way writing is actually done” (455). A wise call-to-action but, in relation to technology (and somewhat ironically), by then computers had already been used in the first moon landing roughly twelve years earlier (“NASA’s Computing”); yet a search of Connor’s article finds it devoid of the terms “technology” and “computer.” Additionally, although the internet was invented in 1957 – roughly thirty years prior to the article by Connors – nowhere does the piece mention the world-wide web (“Internet’s Conception”). Even if such technology was not easily accessible at the time, it was clearly on the horizon. Why was it not part of the conversation? I can already hear the next objection: “But wait a minute. Those articles are older. So, they don’t really prove your point. College composition courses are ‘keeping up with the times’ Carlson 4 just fine.” Admittedly the essays have been around a while, but the concern is real and persists in academic settings today. As an example of what I mean, take a look at the following overview from a much more recently published online article. According to this educational source, during the first two composition courses at college students will typically learn: • Essay writing • Editing • Academic writing • English language • Source citing • APA citation • Structure and outlining • Paraphrasing • Revising (“English Composition”) These are important skills, and I want students to learn them. But does this list contain any reference to, say, writing in digital networks? Given that one SEO company estimates global social media users to be nearly 4.5 billion in number, it is high time for an intervention (“Network Statistics”). Somehow, to build a bridge of relevance, English instructors and students must learn to transfer skills of rhetoric to their social media accounts and vice versa. Without making these connections early on, I fear that greater disconnect will ensue between established rhetoricians and the rising generation of writers because each group will find less relevance in one another’s prose. And as the gap of relevance widens, respect and credibility tend to appear more and more distant. Carlson 5 I now take a moment to address my methods of research. To learn more about students’ relationship to social media, I draw primarily from a corpus of ten recently completed student essays. These essays all share a common theme: social media. In addition, each paper approaches the topic of social networks through the lens of ideology and how social media are influencing or changing that lens. Naturally, the articles are authored by first year writers. Aside from the fact that this corpus is written by Weber State University students, other background or demographical information is withheld. This approach was done to render greater focus on the texts themselves. Additionally, my research is composed of a mixed-methods mindset. In other words, I employ qualitative and quantitative practices to make meaning of student prose and available data. Often, the findings of widespread surveys are referenced, to help set the stage of what is going on in social media, the life of the student, etc. The numerical data can then be compared to the arguments and stories of first year writers as demonstrated within their own texts. As for gleaning knowledge from the corpus, I generally approach the prose from a qualitative standpoint by focusing on what stood out or made a strong impression while reading. By studying ethos from both perspectives – data and opinions – I reason that this approach to credibility reflects how persuasion typically operates within academe as well as life outside the classroom. Building on scholarship by Mina P. Shaughnessy, Bizzell proposes a possible solution for writing instructors concerning the lack of credibility or ethos in student essays. Her proposition? She considers a taxonomy of academic discourse to help clarify the major writerly goals of the classroom, suggesting teachers call upon concepts such as cultural knowledge, idioms, specific functions of nouns, and Latinate words (354-55). Ethics and formality also play a part in her Carlson 6 proposed taxonomy (Bizzell 355). Her essay does not explore these concepts at length but, instead, serves more as a point of reference – a demonstration recognizing the value of ethos in academic discourse (Bizzell 355), which is fitting since her aim is to demonstrate how ethos works (Bizzell 355). In sum, as college instructors learn and apply this taxonomy, students will become more believable within academic settings. Bizzell’s taxonomy is informative and prudent, but it fails to give much attention to persuasion in settings outside academia. Despite its usefulness, the classification is in dire need for a 21st Century update, a time in which fast paced and expansive technologies have evolved rhetoric or our understanding of it. Although the term rhetoric, by and large, has come to be affiliated with politics and Grecian history, the discipline is more embracing than many realize, as it centers on the teaching and learning of persuasion For example, in his recent article “Teaching Writing in the (New) Era of Fake News” Ryan Skinnell articulates this notion by observing that “In its complexities, rhetoric helps describe how argument works—both in the world and in academia” (564). Whenever, wherever, and however argumentation is at work, rhetoric is also on the clock. To broaden composition instructors’ scope of rhetoric and how it functions outside the university is to generate a more fruitful and comprehensive definition of ethos, one for which first-year writing teachers need to be informed and responsible. Skinnell states, I’m not convinced that doubling down on “ethical rhetorical practices” is our only, or best, course of action. To be sure, those are useful and valuable practices. But in an era of fake news, well-reasoned, well-researched, textbook models of argument, persuasion, and deliberation are simply not representative of how arguments work in the world, and no Carlson 7 amount of teaching accuracy, fairness, credibility, truthfulness, reliability, authority, and objectivity is going to make it so. (554-55) In other words, Skinnell also appears interested in teaching composition students how rhetoric works in everyday settings, not just while sitting at a desk in some classroom. Although not identified in the passage above, surely some of that interest lies in how students interpret and implement rhetoric within virtual spaces. So, it appears the time is right to broaden our traditional understandings of academic ethos and to build bridges between the locations and strategies employed by students to construct their ethos outside and inside academic spaces. Skinnell is not alone in his efforts to broaden the field’s understanding and use of rhetorical delivery. For instance, in my introductory composition course I implement a digital documentary project, a project in which the student produces and edits her own documentary. The five-minute video serves as an opportunity for the student to learn how persuasion often works in the 21st Century, but it also has a more-traditional, academic element to it in that the student is asked to compose a script, verbatim, of the documentary’s dialogue as well as a written reflection of the rhetorical decisions made during filming and editing. The student is expected to integrate scholarly and other reputable sources to support the video’s argument; and of course, the first-year writer is required to format the written portion according to our class’s selected writing style while appropriately citing his sources. The digital documentary assignment, coupled with Skinnell’s concern, sing a similar tune to that of James E. Porter’s article “Recovering Delivery for Digital Rhetoric” when he asserts that There are considerable rhetorical differences between a wiki, a blog, an email discussion list, and an SNS—and there are considerable ethical, editorial, and political decisions involved in setting up and maintaining any of these types of forums. We need a robust Carlson 8 theory of digital delivery to help us navigate these kinds of rhetorical complexities. Understanding how the range of digital delivery choices influences the production, design, and reception of writing is essential to the rhetorical art of writing in the digital age. (208) Teaching students how to navigate the rhetorical complexities of traditional and tech-savvy spheres will better prepare them for future opportunities – both in and out of college. In what follows, I examine the role of ethos inside and outside the classroom, focusing specifically on students’ employment and uptakes of social media. Leaning on foundational methods – such as concepts laid out in Bizzell’s taxonomy – plays a fundamental role in establishing credibility, especially while at university. But more is needed if we are to understand, appreciate, and utilize the expansive world of rhetoric as it acts in technology-imbued scenarios. To that end, I propose expanding Bizzell’s taxonomy of academic discourse to include writing and ethos as they pertain to both formally academic and casually simulated circles. And to direct that development more effectively, I also contend that threshold concepts of writing (i.e., principles of transfer theory) must play a major role throughout the process. As the course for this discussion, I submit the following agenda. After reviewing how first-year writers actually spend their time, I consider standards of ethos as established within social media. This assessment, in turn, paves the way for a look at ethos as witnessed within a scholarly setting. Upon contemplating these two subfields of rhetoric, the discussion turns to transfer theory and, more specifically, threshold concepts of writing. With this framework in place, I analyze a corpus of first-year writing prose – each essay topically focusing on social media and its encasing ideology – toward the end of addressing how students understand and build ethos within academic and social media realms. After examining some key takeaways, I Carlson 9 discuss how composition students may develop their credibility further by suggesting practical ways to successfully transfer knowledge between these two spheres of ethos. First-Year Writers To kickstart this conversation I address why we are here: the student. College is an exciting and hectic time, and because first-year writing is “the most consistently required course” virtually all students will spend time engaged in academic writing (Rose 587). But aside from time with tutors and teachers, what else do students do with their time? A poll by American Time Use Survey reveals a basic breakdown of how full-time college and university students typically use their time, each day, during the week: Figure 1 Identifying what students value (if correlated with time), the data appear to suggest that – excluding sleep – full-time college students most safeguard their time devoted to leisure and sports and, secondly, their education. While the pie chart provides insight into how university attendees spend their time, it still leaves the reader wondering about what university students (the majority of whom are in their twenties) are doing during the day. Carlson 10 To respond to the implied probe, the American Time Use Survey also reveals that those fifteen and older spend most of their daily leisure and sports time watching television (“Leisure and Sports”). The same subset indicates that socializing and communicating with others reigns second while playing video games lands third (“Leisure and Sports”). To put it another way, two of the top three leisurely activities require a digital device. But even the second-place holder can still call for an electronic apparatus. With the Pew Research Center reporting that 97 percent of Americans use mobile phones, it is no secret that the smartphone has become a significant means of communication and socialization in this country (Kolmar “Smartphones”). Therefore, due to the need to support the link between teachers and students, instructors may find it beneficial to gain a basic understanding of what students actually do during their free time and while on their electronic devices. Such discovery will indicate what people find to be credible or real. Ethos in Social Media After reviewing how college students spend their time, I now consider ethos as demonstrated outside the university setting by emphasizing its application or approach within social media. Although its query is smartphone usage, the following illustration reflects the leading role that social media plays in the lives of young adults: Carlson 11 Figure 2 A lot can be said of the survey’s findings, but perhaps the most pressing observation is this: Young people choose messaging and social networking (i.e. forms of writing) as their go-to methods of communication. Such preference has not always been the case, or even available, as juxtaposed to communication of an earlier era. For instance, In the 1950’s [sic] the telephone connected people through operators, who were mostly women. The radio was the largest form of communication because there was a radio in most of the home [sic] in America. World War I & II was broadcasted through the radio. Lastly, the postman would come from door to door to deliver personal letters to people. (“Communication”) To put it another way, German scholar Friedrich A. Kittler goes as far to declare that “Media determine our situation” (xxxix). At least they determine the parameters and channels of much contemporary human communication. Based on the above historical overview, it could follow that people usually prefer quicker or more convenient methods of communication; and now that messages and posts can be shared at speeds never before imagined, participants regularly opt for Carlson 12 digital writing over speaking – even though verbal conversation would be just as fast, if not faster. Granted, there is something exciting about receiving an individually post-marked letter in the mail, but the process of receiving said message takes far more time than calling or instant messaging. In fact, this older method of delivery is commonly referred to as “snail mail” and is often avoided by not only individuals but also companies that incentivize customers to sign up for autopay or switch to email notifications. It is difficult to determine which form audiences find most credible, but one can observe that rhetors often choose convenience, meaning a method whereby they can quickly and successfully connect with many followers simultaneously and asynchronously. And with these new forms of communication come new forms of ethos-creation. For another take on the seismic wave of digitality, Pew Research Center shares its recent findings concerning the growing percentage of U.S. adults who say they ever use the following platforms: Carlson 13 Figure 3 As the data indicate, the trends of social media usage are slanted upward, not downward. While reviewing the most-used social apps, business writer Shayna Waltower reports “that the average American spends almost seven hours per week on Facebook and more than five hours on YouTube” (“Platform Usage”). That is roughly twelve hours of screen time every seven days. So much time spent reading, watching, editing, and communicating within these digital networks has got to be affecting account owners. Although the rhetorical situation may change, it appears that social media are going to be around for a long time. When it comes to connecting with an audience via a social platform, what are the rules? How does ethos come into play? It depends on the platform, obviously, but Adam Mosseri, a business executive of Meta, blogged the following: Though we're committed to doing everything we can to reduce the spread of false news to as close to zero as possible, we also need to make sure we take steps to address the problem when people do encounter hoaxes. To that end, we're exploring ways to give people more context about stories so they can make more informed decisions about what to read, trust and share and ways to give people access to more perspectives about the topics that they're reading. (“Informed Decisions”) Given that Meta is the parent company of Facebook and Instagram – two platforms that, combined, claim nearly four billion social media users – I find that identifying reliable, trustworthy sources is a worldwide concern (“Facebook Statistics” and “Instagram Statistics”). Said differently, large media corporations are concerned about the ethos or credibility of their platform users. While striving to disrupt the economic incentives that so often incentivize Carlson 14 dissemination of false news, Meta is publicly committed to providing more context surrounding user rhetoric (“Informed Decisions”). The figure below shows what I mean: Figure 4 Although it is not always clear as to how social media companies determine which sources are credible and which ones are not, Meta is not alone in its mission to slow or stop the propagation of false narratives. For instance, Twitter is another widely used platform to openly express contempt against “altered, deceptive or false source-identifying information” in its terms of service (“Using the Services”). Another corporation is YouTube which, as an example, is committed to spotlighting authoritative sources in the field of health: When looking for health information online, it can be difficult to determine the authority or credibility of various sources of information. Context is critical when evaluating information, which is why we provide context alongside videos that have been identified as authoritative sources for health information…. Information panels providing health source context can help you better evaluate if a source is an accredited organization or government health source. (“Health Source Context”) Carlson 15 And I could go on. The point, however, is that many social media platforms publicly align themselves with ethos by seeking to promote credibility while labeling misinformation as such or, in certain scenarios, by removing the content from their networks. There are a variety of ways to accomplish this objective, but providing context is key to achieving the goal. An increase in context places an increase of power in the hands and minds of social media accountholders. In reference to those accountholders, in his article “Algorithmic Dwelling: Ethos as Deformance in Online Spaces” rhetorician Noah Wilson argues that “dwelling in algorithmically mediated spaces such as Facebook is intrinsically connected to ethos” (216). This claim is taking the idea of a community that builds its own ethos to a whole new level because community is no longer bound by the ambits of space or time, at least not in the traditional sense. Asynchronously or synchronously, social media users can connect across the globe. Wilson also observes, “If ethos is a process, a tool we use… then what Facebook has created is an ethos modeling machine” (226). Platform users determine ethos within their own community, and how one group builds ethos may differ from how another one develops it – all while within that same network. As an example, in Reddit how I construct credibility in the Facepalm subreddit would be different from demonstrating it within the Perfect Timing one. Ethos in Academia Although not comprehensive, a review of ethos as demonstrated within academia is prudent. After all, as Figure 1 reveals, education claims the second greatest amount of time of full-time college and university students – aside from sleep, of course. Therefore, it is necessary to review how credibility functions within this environment. While explaining ethos many in academe focus on audience perception: A speaker or writer presents an idea, and the hearer or reader determines the believability of the message or the one providing it. First impressions Carlson 16 come into play, but the level of ethos may fluctuate throughout the course of the text or speech. And then, there is the realization that sometimes audiences need more time – even after the speech’s conclusion – to determine whether the position is a tenable one. However, this approach to credibility – one that focuses strictly on an audience ability – can raise concern. What might that concern be? This question returns us to examine audience perception. To use the interrogative form: What is the audience’s ability to understand the message or messenger? One’s capacity to comprehend a rhetorical situation – “the context in which speakers or writers create rhetorical discourse” – depends on a number of factors (Bitzer 1). Language and education, certainly, come into play. But even when audience members understand the speaker and recognize her to be reliable, perception involves more than how one looks but also where one looks. In other words, where is the viewer’s focus? Nelson and Guerra, in a study on educators’ understanding of cultural differences, make a similar – although more nuanced – observation by stating that “when personal beliefs and professional knowledge conflict, personal beliefs override professional knowledge” (70). Hence, the renewed importance of interrogating the ways in which students create ethos outside the classroom, on their own terms. Identifying the believable can prove difficult, especially considering that what appeals to one audience might not appeal to another. The same notion applies to different fields within academia (e.g., the math department values numbers more than the humanities’ department does). But as for rhetoric and composition, language scholar Yuru Shen follows the Aristotelian tradition by locating ethos in the rhetor’s expertise, trustworthiness, and goodwill (1511). Like a rope, these three strands function best when intertwined with one another, forming a whole or durable ethos. Much has been (and can be) said about these three strands of ethos, but only short summary will be provided here. Carlson 17 First of all, expertise: What is it? In general terms, expertise denotes one’s ability to apply skills or knowledge in a beneficial and practical manner; additionally, an expert does so in ways that are more effective than the average person. In academic writing a Ph.D. in rhetoric, for example, is regarded as a symbol of high expertise. If obtained from an accredited institution, such standing only comes after years of vigorous study and tremendous writing. Because of his proficiency in writing, the Ph.D. job candidate is more likely to receive a higher-paying offer than contenders with only a master’s or bachelor’s degree. In practical terms, scholars with more expertise are usually those with more education. Secondly, it is important to review trust. While discoursing on scholarly ethos, Edward Shils observes the following: The academic who, in speech or in writing, addresses himself to a larger public in the field of his expertise should regard himself as bound by the trust which his audience is expected to grant him as a scholar or scientist. Even if that audience has no special expectations, he himself should have them…. the ethical postulates of the value of truth and the worthwhileness of striving for it, which are constituents of the academic ethos, are incompatible with a cavalier attitude toward the truth when public discussion is going on. (185) This term, trust, immediately invites the individual to consider ethics. And, according to Shils, even if readers do not hold high philosophical or moral standards, the academic is, nonetheless, bound to an elevated level of those standards. In other words, the scholar should be trustworthy – as she is one who openly acknowledges the limits and capabilities of her knowledge and skills. Thirdly and finally, ethos is constituted by the goodwill of the speaker. Goodwill and trust (often referred to as moral virtue) are more similar in nature, I would say, than either one is Carlson 18 with expertise. However, the two differ in that goodwill “performs the right action for others aligning with their values giving sound advice” and “does not do wrong to others” (Duthie and Budzynska 164). Goodwill might be the most peculiar of the trio, for why would an audience suspect a scholarly author to not have their best interests at heart? Although such disconnect is overtly frowned upon in scholarly circles, it, nonetheless, happens. Discordance between recent vaccination guidelines set forth by Florida’s state surgeon general and established immunization recommendations by the Center for Disease Control is just one example of when two medical, scholarly positions clash (San Felice “What’s happening”). Such disagreement, in turn, leads to questioning which source is actually giving sound advice that will result in improved health. But to complicate goodwill further, it is often the case that distinct or opposing speakers have honorable intentions regarding the welfare of the audience; where they differ is how they go about achieving their similar desired outcomes. Threshold Concepts While studying the nuances of language or composition, students often pose the following question, in one way or another: “How will this knowledge benefit me outside the classroom?” Indeed, some pupils feel as though they are preparing for participation in a trivia game show, for where else might such idiosyncratic knowledge be useful to them? The question, I believe, gets at the heart of transfer theory and why it has become such a prevalent topic among English department faculty. While transfer has, in the field of academic writing, been described in many ways, Moore and Bass state that it “refers to a writer’s ability to repurpose or transform prior knowledge about writing for a new audience, purpose, and context” (“Writing Transfer”). If a person appropriately applies prior knowledge or experience into a new situation then that individual has successfully undergone a moment of transfer. Because many have wondered about Carlson 19 the value of academic writing outside the university – administrators and legislators included – one can see why English instructors would be eager to learn and teach principles of transfer. And what are those principles, exactly? While addressing the theory, Adler-Kassner et al. identify specific threshold concepts, concepts that are “[m]ore than mere concepts” because they “act as portals that… change [writers’] understandings of something” (18). In other words, to the writer a threshold concept is transformative; it is bridge between old and new forms of writing and, subsequently, ethos-construction. Adler-Kassner continue by defining them as “concepts critical for participation in communities of practice” (18). Whether formal or informal, a threshold is a step that the individual must take to enter a writing community. Insofar as the scholarly writing community is concerned, Adler-Kassner et al. locate five thresholds that the writer must embrace, and they are summarized as follows: • Writing is an activity and a subject of study (20-24). • Writing always occurs in context, and no two contexts are exactly alike (24-28). • Reflection is critical for writers’ development (29-32). • Genre awareness contributes to successful transfer (32-37). • Prior knowledge, experience, attitudes, and beliefs set the stage for writing and shape new writing experiences and learning (37-41). I argue that as composition students understand, or successfully pass through, threshold concepts, they will acquire realistic and reliable, more ethos-driven answers to their ever-present question: “How will this knowledge benefit me outside the classroom?” And not only that, but I also suggest that the process will be akin to a two-way street: Not only shall students extend prior knowledge into spheres outside the classroom, but they also will be more capable in transferring knowledge learned outside the classroom back into it. Carlson 20 Analysis of Student Writing To analyze ethos, as demonstrated in these seemingly different spheres, I organize my approach by pitching a few questions – questions that better situate how we are to bridge these two realms. In general, what do first-year writers think of social media? Or, to put it another way, what is their relation to it? The next inquiry to address is that of perception itself. Namely, how are the traits of web 2.0 altering the way students perceive validity of the speaker? Social media have been around long enough to become the norm for many. Observing how this norm shapes the worldview of first-year writers will be necessary if English instructors are to cultivate successful synthesis of academic and social-media ethos. And lastly, how are threshold concepts of writing similar to or different between the two spheres, and what might instructors do to transfer knowledge from both worlds to help students more successfully chart and navigate their own writing? Before proceeding with the analysis, I feel a need to clarify something. Ethos is a broad term that has different meanings to different audiences. Herein I have identified a common academic route of ethos by exploring the perceived goodwill, trust, and expertise of the speaker. Additionally, I have shared textual evidence that demonstrates social networking companies’ commitment to credibility by way of establishing greater context. But could we delve deeper? For instance, how, specifically, is goodwill manifested by individual writers? How exactly does a writer demonstrate expertise or create more context? I encourage keeping these supplementary questions in mind because they act as guides by helping clarify or illuminate practical answers to the primary questions of analysis. First-Year Writers and Social Media Carlson 21 The first response – to the query of how college students view their relationship towards social media – might be boiled down to one word: skeptical. Admittedly, this finding surprised me because I had assumed practically all young college students, of this era and culture, were unquestionably supportive of social media. After all, for example, roughly sixty percent of all Instagram users are from eighteen through thirty-four years of age (“Instagram Users”). But the student essays indicate a more dubious approach to the digital platforms, and I now explore this skepticism further by sharing particular passages while analyzing some of their textual patterns. The first passage to review is from a piece entitled “Ideology: Social Media.” Overall, the student does well at presenting opposing sides by citing scholarship that demonstrates both positive and negative effects of online forums. This process of juxtaposing conflicting outcomes, alone, tremendously boosts the credibility of the author. For as Graff and Birkenstein reason, “By admitting that the opposing argument has a point, [the writer] bolsters his credibility, presenting himself as a writer willing to acknowledge facts as they present themselves rather than one determined to cheerlead only for his own side” (67). Despite this fairhandedness, it soon becomes apparent that this student-author has a side – which is, I contend, more persuasive than not having one. After referencing research that correlates social-media usage to increased depression, the author raises the source’s credibility by sharing part of her own story: So, maybe social media is not as good as we are led to believe by advertisements and people’s expectations. From my experience using [sic] social media much of what you see is unrealistic. People only post about the fantastic and amazing things they have done or achieved and give a false image to others. This then leads the youth to believe that is what their lives should reflect when it is an unrealistic goal. (3-4) Carlson 22 The student is cognizant enough to know that much of what is displayed via Facebook or Twitter is not real, or it is unrealistic. Said differently, the product or its outcome is edited or largely exaggerated. And this student seems rightly fixated on the perceived gap between what is promulgated as reality and reality itself, a fundamentally ethotic gap (a credibility gap). Exaggeration and editing have a place in life. Acting out a dramatized theater performance or writing a novel are two examples of when these practices are preferred, if not standard. But a few key differences exist between these demonstrations and, say, logging in to check Facebook. What are those differences? A key divergent is identity. While creating an online profile, many media apps ask for the user’s birthday, name, phone number or email. The following image is a visual of signing up for TikTok: Figure 5 Here is another decision of the rhetorician: How will the user identify? These sites rarely require verification while setting up a profile, so the decision is left in the hands of the accountholder. While entering the world of online profiles, writers may do so under the guise of fabricated Carlson 23 identities. For instance, one source estimates as many as 137 million false or duplicate Facebook accounts exist (“Duplicate Accounts”). To put that number into perspective, it is about equivalent to the population of Mexico (“World Countries”). I address this concern of identity because students write about it. For example, one first-year writer observes that “With the [w]orld of social media, comes a great degree of creative freedom. If you think about it, you can make your profile on social media whatever you want. It is like you are making a different version of yourself” (“Ideology of Social Media and it’s Material Existence” 1). Accurately representing the self can be hard enough; but given the opportunity, social media can open a gateway that makes it all too easy to exaggerate or embellish the self’s image, making it an unreliable or uncredible representation, but however unreliable, such a manipulation is still an orchestration of the ethos-effect. Overplaying respectable qualities while downplaying personal struggles may be why another student references false impressions in his essay: “[S]ocial media could be limiting face-to-face interactions, and may be giving young people a false impression that other people their age are leading happier lives than they are” (“Ideology” 3). It is understandable for a person to want to share good news with family and friends. However, by way of exaggeration and editing a person can carefully (or inadvertently) craft a story or media feed that makes the speaker appear, as Mary Poppins would say, “practically perfect in every way” (“Mary Poppins”). But the abundancy in presenting so-called perfectionism is coming at a cost. For instance, throughout the corpus of ten student essays on social media, the term “depression” (or some truncation of it) is used thirteen times. The term “anxiety” is used ten times. And these are only two search terms; other synonyms could be used as well. Depression and anxiety may explain why these first-year writers are skeptical of what they see on social media. It may or may not be Carlson 24 an accurate or complete reflection of the speaker. For people – especially younger people – who spend lengthy periods of time engaged in social media, this supposed perfection that appears to abound in the lives of others can take its toll and, thereby, create negative emotions within the student towards social media or other members of the digital community. For instance, in one essay entitled “Social Media” the student writes Studies have shown that about half of college students that use social media are victims of depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, body image, sleeping problems, social isolation and emotional difficulties, all of which are mental illnesses. It has shown in impact on academic performance and for many has become and is a distraction. While students try to keep up with others or impress their peers they are only hurting their own self esteem. (4). Attaining perfection is, to say the least, a long and arduous journey. Many claim it to be impossible. But that is beside the point. What the student is arguing is that constantly comparing one’s personal struggles to the successes of others is likely to produce a depressed or anxious self, and social media are notorious for facilitating such comparisons. This first-year writer appears aware of how social media are changing ethos or what is perceived as credible. That change can be for better or worse, depending on the circumstance. Regardless, it is imperative that instructors become aware of these changing rhetorical constructs and instruct student writers accordingly with pertinent tools of transfer. On a lighter note, a moment of hope is depicted when an additional student recounts the Christmas during which she received her first iPhone: I had the world at my fingertips. I could communicate with whoever I wanted, whenever I wanted. I had the ability to search any question, picture, article, anything my younger Carlson 25 self could dream of. I could call my friends, text my mom in-between classes, call my sister when I needed help with homework, I could even see my grandma’s Facebook posts about her newfound retirement. I was always so informed and felt closer to everyone around me just through their posts. (“Ideologies Within the Smart Phone” 1) To keep this passage in context, the writer soon transitions into a more skeptical tone about smartphone technology by sharing some of her concerns about it. But the initial idea remains: Connection to one’s community is powerful, and social media sites enable users to cast a wider net. How wide? Kick Factory, for example, estimates the average Twitter user to have more than seven hundred followers (“Average Twitter User”). In review, a smartphone coupled with social media provided this writer with fast access to information as well as family and friends. This access to real audiences, it seems, further enhances students’ rhetorical sensibilities but remains a mostly untapped resource for first-year writing teachers. Another voice acknowledges the opportunity of social media. I turn to the essay “Ideology: Social Media” in which the author remarks that “It is incredible to think of the things you can do with a little device that fits into your pocket. With a swipe of your finger, you can go from reading news articles, to surfing the web, to watching videos, to communicating through the many social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram” (1). Interestingly, although this author singles-out reading news articles and watching videos, these are activities that often can be accomplished within SNS newsfeeds. Sometimes it is faster to learn something via Facebook or Twitter (especially in the case of news) than to wait for a reporter to write up an article and post it to the company’s website. The opportunity for immediacy prevails in social media, and based on the corpus of student texts, it appears that first-year writers appreciate the Carlson 26 convenient access to audiences, which makes the rhetorical and ethotic urgency of their online work all the more real. Web 2.0 and Perceived Validity of the Speaker Now I shift the discussion by examining the notion that virtuality (operating as a speaker in virtual contexts) is influencing society’s perception of the speaker’s credibility. One concern identified within an essay entitled “Ideology of Social Media and it’s [sic] Material Existence,” appears to be in support of Gibbs et al. by quoting that “There are also many instances in which open knowledge sharing is not desired or desirable—for instance, sharing of sensitive, face-threatening, or confidential information which are often overlooked by literature that emphasizes and celebrates the ‘open’ nature of social media” (qtd on 1). Using personal language, the same student author goes on to remark that “[O]nce we know what level of social-ness we need to bring to the table, we will be better participants of social media and hopefully have a good experience for ourselves and others” (1). This writer’s addressment of ethos acknowledges that sociality works in layers. Certain rhetorical situations call for certain levels or boundaries of socialness, and when those boundaries are crossed without due cause it can leave a bad taste in the mouth of the reader. To expound, that poor taste often results from sharing too much information with the audience. Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor’s social penetration theory, often labeled onion theory, may be of use here and is illustrated as follows: Carlson 27 Figure 6 Whether layers of social intimacy are culturally or personally established is up for debate. For example, what is personal to one might not be personal to another. I suggest, however, that the onion’s formation is a combination of the two. But to harness this idea of how to get to know someone, at least one business writing ebook acknowledges that Trust takes time, and with that comes empathy and understanding. But if you share with your [audience] your personal struggles on day one, it may erode your credibility. According to the… theory, people go from superficial to intimate conversations as trust develops through repeated, positive interactions.… Taking it step by step, and not rushing to self-disclose or asking personal questions too soon, can help develop positive… relationships. (par 5) Social networking services, whether intentionally designed this way or not, are demanding writers to reassess and reconfigure how and when to share personal information with other members of the digital community and hence are reconfiguring ethos along much speedier timelines. Sometimes too much is shared too soon – and with the wrong or an unintended audience. Immediacy, although convenient, comes at a price and is affecting – for better or worse – the perceived credibility of the writer. Carlson 28 When to share sensitive information can be difficult to determine. Timing that decision while in-person is hard enough but deciding when to reveal something in confidence, via an online forum, can be even more tricky. This complexity often results from the fact that body language of audience members is often unknown to the speaker. Even during live or real-time video conferences such as Zoom or Google Meetings it can be difficult to accurately gauge the reaction of the audience. In these scenarios the speaker is considerably dependent on listeners to put forth their opinions – such as by way of emojis, submitting messages via a chat function, or turning on their cameras to, thereby, reveal their faces. Without added input from the audience, it becomes increasingly difficult – if not impossible – for the speaker to assess the reception of her message. One possible reaction to a message is no reaction at all, and a lack of responses is becoming more common practice every day. To illustrate the point, one student-writer addresses this concept by way of isolation and depression and how these concerns relate to writing or communicating within the sphere of social media: Whether it’s a picture, video, or even just inspiring words, it can be said online. With that being said, when depressed individuals that share posts about how they are feeling in effort to gain support from their followers and they don’t end up getting the feedback they crave, it can make depressed individuals that much more depressed and hopeless. Although social media seems like a great way to stay connected and up to date with what is happening in the word [sic], it can make an individual feel more detached and alone than ever before. (“Ideologies Within the Smart Phone” 4). With that passage in mind, and in relation to social media, the friends or followers who stand idly by and say nothing might now be accounted as indifferent acquaintances – perhaps even Carlson 29 traitors – who should have been there to offer the emotional support and encouragement that the lonely writer was so desperately seeking. In a word, where is the social in social media? Sometimes, for the one posting, it can feel like a very lonely place. On the other hand, how might this perceived loneliness be inaccurate? One possibility lies in the fact that not everyone who has a social media account checks it daily or even weekly. Pew Research Center presents findings on this subject, as illustrated in the graphic below: Figure 7 Not each networking site is used as frequently as others. Only thirteen percent of LinkedIn accountholders, as depicted above, claim to check their accounts daily while, conversely, seventy percent of Facebook users acknowledge signing in at least once every twenty-four hours. To better ascertain the goodwill of the network’s community, writers within the realm of social media need to recognize that not all followers check their accounts regularly. Carlson 30 In line with the theme of frequency, another word comes to mind: popularity. Being well-liked by one’s peers or within any social setting can be exciting, but it is important to keep a proper perspective. Popularity is not credibility, yet sometimes the distinction is overlooked or forgotten while dealing with technology, though nonetheless, the relationship between the two demands theorizing. Returning to “Ideologies Within the Smart Phone” the writer admits: “Going back to school after Christmas break with my brand-new iPhone, I was almost treated differently. I was treated as if I had a greater power. My new phone was a symbol of popularity and influence” (1). This young writer’s perception of how technology changes relationships is in line with Fuse’s findings after surveying a thousand teenagers and young adults about what they find to be popular: When it comes to what tech teens love most, it's no surprise that nearly half of the teens we surveyed said they preferred their mobile phones above all other technology. And why wouldn't they? Smartphones can connect teens to everything they care about – from socializing with their friends on messenger and social media apps to consuming all types of content and entertainment like gaming and video streaming. This news is not unexpected, since 95% of teens report that they have a smartphone or access to one. (“Technology and smartphones”) When so many have a smartphone as well as multiple social media accounts, it is easy to feel ostracized or excluded without these things. But in the case of the composition student, he also perceives a sense of belonging – as though he were coming of age – thanks to an iPhone. Although touched on previously, I again address this concern that social media might not be as social as some think. This incongruity is a common theme among the students’ writing and, thereby, worthy of further exploration. In an earlier passage I relate this concept to moments Carlson 31 when the networker is feeling lonely or depressed, but the lack-of-socialness is affecting otherwise healthy people, as well. In fact, it is changing the dynamics of what it means to be mentally and socially healthy or normal. For instance, one student discusses this topic in “Ideology: Social Media” by sharing a personal story in the heart of her essay: Just last week my fiancé and I were at an ice cream shop waiting for our order to be completed. My fiancé made the comment about a few high schoolers sitting at a table not too far away who were not talking to each other. Rather, all of them were looking on their phones. She said, “I can’t believe that kids now a days just look at their phones when they are with their friends. That would annoy me so bad!” So, does social media really make people more social? Or does it have the opposite effect on some? (4) It can feel strange to talk with strangers, but this student details an account of friends struggling to converse with each other while in the same physical environment. In relation to the subject of ethos, this reflection complicates technology by showcasing an instance in which it may become simpler to cast up social barriers, making it more difficult to gain trust within certain groups if not directly communicating within a designated forum. Transferring Knowledge To this point I have addressed questions surrounding student relationships with social media as well as how these media are changing student perceptions. What has yet to be assessed, more directly, is how principles of transfer come into play. The aim here is to build bridges between the two worlds of academia rhetoric and social media rhetoric with the objective of strengthening student ethos. By expanding the traditional taxonomy of discourse via this synthesis, I contend that students will find more meaning within their classroom experiences Carlson 32 because they will better comprehend how to write ethos-driven prose – both in and out of the classroom. To proceed with transfer, I turn again to the scholarship of Adler-Kassner et al. by first considering the threshold that writing is an activity and a subject of study. This notion may be compared to the idea that although chemistry involves, or even requires, mathematics, it is, nonetheless, its own subject. Chemistry is chemistry – not something else. In relation to rhetoric, sometimes students and teachers forget that reality. It is easy to become subsumed by the “idea that writing is an activity – an action in which writers engage for any number of purposes” such as learning, developing project ideas, sharing experiences, etc. while bypassing the wonder that writing “is also a subject of study” (Adler-Kassner 20). So, the bridges between student ethos creation on social media and in the classroom are natural bridges, bridges built into the fact that writing is both an activity and a subject of study. And first-year writing teachers desperately need to tap into the power of that connective tissue if academic writing is to remain vital and conversations about ethos at the fore. So, in this respect, what might be the cost of focusing solely on one side of that coin? Adler-Kassner expounds by arguing that “Evidence of this focus on writing-as-activity (but not as subject of study) is ubiquitous, especially as teachers, parents, and even students reflect on the ways in which high-stakes testing has led teachers to necessarily focus on teaching to the test, especially in secondary English courses” (21). She goes further by sharing a short story from Joan Brunetta, a college student who wrote a guest post for a popular blog: “[B]y high school, [Brunetta] said, [writing] was exclusively about the entirely predictable representation of ideas – the activity, in other words, of performance” (Adler-Kasnner 21). There may be a time and place to emphasize one side of writing over the other – depending on age and ability of the student, for Carlson 33 instance, as well as officially-imposed testing requirements and workforce standards. But students will inevitably be more prepared to enter difficult conversations and navigate arduous rhetorical situations as they learn both aspects of the threshold: Writing is an activity and a subject of study, and the threshold applies to bridging social media and academic writing. Instead of learning how to write within solely one or two situations, composition students would be better prepared for future classes and work opportunities by learning how to reason or persuade (i.e., write) within many settings. Insofar as connecting academia’s taxonomy of discourse to the rhetoric of social media, where does this activity-and-subject theory of transfer come into play? One response to the question is another question: “How is ‘good’ writing (and its opposite, ‘bad’ writing) defined in this [networking] community” (Adler-Kassner)? To nuance the idea further, I could pose the same inquiry yet substitute the word “writing” for “ethos.” In my mind this query solidifies the importance of community, and what one community deems credible or reliable may be considered unworthy of another community’s trust or time. Therefore, as writers enter a digital network it is imperative that they learn the customs and expectations of what that community values. By acquiring this knowledge the writer is, in layman’s terms, then enabled to speak the language of the community and is more likely to be seen as one of them. As a result, this perception of similarity or likeness boosts credibility of the writer in the eyes of the audience. In that vein of thought, interestingly the main dilemma of academic ethos for first-year writers is not the subject matter itself; instead, the quandary lies more in speaking the language. As asserted by Bizzell, “For our students, the problem of capitalizing on the pre-eminent power of the ethical appeal is more of a problem in figuring out the conventions of academic discourse” (353). And the same concern is real for students in the realm of social media. Learning the slang Carlson 34 or jargon of a particular group takes time and probably some embarrassment experienced by the newcomer. For instance, the image below is part of a recent conversation between two of my students who engaged in a class-created online forum: Figure 8 As students better understand the conventions of writing in social media and in academia, they will become more aware that those conventions are dictated by the members of the community or network. In addition to obtaining community acceptance, other rules are in place by the networks themselves. For example, Twitter’s maximum character count is 280 per Tweet, and the maximum length of a Snapchat video is sixty seconds. Similarly, the English classroom usually has a few, if not many, rules in motion. For example, an essay’s requirements may call for eight to ten pages; the instructor may expect ninety percent attendance; students are required to treat their classmates with respect. I could go on, but the important takeaway here is, as Adler-Kassner et al. would put it, for rhetors to “[understand] and /or [make] more explicit expectations for writing within specific contexts” (24). Just as Twitter has its max character count set in place, Carlson 35 instructors also have expectations regarding classroom assignments. The length or word count is to be considered within the classroom as well as social media. The second threshold to consider is that “Writing always occurs in context, and no two contexts are exactly alike” (Adler-Kassner et al. 24). The previous concept of transfer overlaps this idea, but herein scholar Liane Robertson explores it further by reasoning that a writer can “also benefit from understanding that writing is situational even within similar contexts” (Adler- Kassner et al. 24). Robertson elaborates by suggesting that “While there are conventions that guide the writing of any proposal [or text], it is the context situating each proposal [or text] that most affects its development and its success as a written product for a specific purpose; that success is based on the writer’s success in employing conventions appropriate for the context” (Adler-Kassner et al. 25). Presuming that Robertson is right, this second threshold is key to the success of first-year writers both in and out of the university because few – and as Robertson argues no – writing contexts are identical. Merriam-Webster defines the noun context as “the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning.” At university, educators such as professors and department learning outcomes provide context or light that illuminates expectations for student writers. Although there is a level of consistency in coursework and at seminar venues, the nuances change. Even from year to year, for instance, the focus of discussion at a conference often shifts, despite the fact that the same organization is hosting. Because of these ever-evolving expectations it is imperative for faculty and students to pay attention, listen intently, and write according to the changing needs of varying rhetorical situations. In like manner, contexts within the world of social media continue to shift. Due to changing dynamics in writing (remember the “yolked out” and “drip” example?), students who Carlson 36 shift from formulaic modes of writing to transformative processes of writing are far more likely to “understand… that writing always occurs in context and that no two contexts are exactly alike” (Adler-Kassner et al. 26). Vocabulary (i.e., slang and jargon) that works in one conversation might not work as well in another – although similar – conversation. Persuasive writers learn who the audience is, how that audience communicates, what that audience values, and then craft a message accordingly while doing so in a way that achieves their objectives as writers. And for greater trust, goodwill, and expertise to abound, the more persuasive writers understand that contexts continue to shift. As students (eventually) let go of scripted or mechanical approaches to academic discourse and, as Robertson puts it, learn “to think about how to write in any situation” they will be far more prepared for whatever writing challenges and opportunities that come their way (Adler-Kassner et al. 27). The student’s prose will be far more credible in the eyes of his readers because he will tailor an intentional message for a specific audience while having decisive purpose – whether in a chatroom or in a classroom. Turning the tide, I shift to the third threshold concept for discussion which is that “Reflection is critical for writers’ development” (Adler-Kassner et al. 29). Although many teachers and students are already familiar with some of the benefits of reflecting on one’s work, too many first-year university writers chiefly imagine the concept solely as what one does at the end of the writing process; and even that final step might only involve a quick spell check or word count. As Graff and Birkenstein would put it, some students view composition as a process of thinking of something to say about a topic and writing it down, then thinking of something else to say about the topic and writing that down, too, and on and on until they’ve filled the assigned number of pages and can hand the paper in. Each Carlson 37 sentence basically starts a new thought rather than growing out of or extending the thought of the previous sentence. (108) I suggest that this lack of connectivity in prose – a deficiency that does not improve perceived expertise – is often the result of little or no reflection on the part of the writer. At the cost of credibility, “‘Never look back’ might be their motto” after all (Graff and Birkenstein 108). But exactly because students’ engagements in social media contexts are recursive and dialogical, they are practicing, unbeknownst to them, types of reflection that could be useful in the classroom, the type of reflection that is, for instance, built into, say, a discussion board assignment. While observing remedial and traditional students of writing, scholar Sharon Pianko observed that pupils of the former group “usually did not rescan their own text for the help they needed” (Pianko 276). Moreover, the few times they did pause, the stops were “quite lengthy” while the students glanced around the room (276). In other words, the pauses lacked focus, nor did the students appear to believe that what they had already written could guide them forward into what they were about to write. Contrastingly, traditional writing pupils “paused, on the average, twice as often as the remedial students… and rescanned their writing three times as often” (Pianko 276). Reflection on what has already been written may suggest a belief that they “could find the answers in their own writing” (Pianko 276). In sum, reflection throughout the writing process in academia is critical if students want to produce clear, concise, and credible prose. Without contemplation, novice writers cannot successfully transition into the arena of experts. Carlson 38 Reflection is necessary to navigate social media, as well. Consider the following excerpt from one student writer’s story within the essay “Ideology of Social Media and it’s Material Existence”: I once was so insecure about how many likes or follows I got on twitter [sic] and instagram [sic]. I treated those things like people’s approval or opinions of me. My philosophy or way of thinking was that the more likes I got on the post, that means I must be important or that people care about me. I looked at those signs as a kind of material tangible thing I could feel. Luckily now my fews [sic] are not that way anymore. I learned that likes and follows don’t determine your happiness or social status. (2) There was a time when this author relied heavily on likes and follows to determine self-worth. And pulling from the corpus, I could find other, yet similar, examples of this widespread trend: The young social media user first or primarily (and perhaps also instinctually) locates personal value in how other members of the digital community treat him; however, for many users a shift eventually transpires in this line of reasoning that results in greater independence of the writer. Significance of the self, in other words, does not depend on what others think as much as what the self thinks. What I am getting at here is that this paradigm shift in thinking usually – if not always – comes about only after the individual (or, in this case, the writer) devotes sufficient time and energy towards reflection. And that reflection results in a valuable increase of confidence. A confident speaker is more appealing to an audience than one who is not. As crucial as reflection is for writers, more transfer principles are necessary in order attain the level of writing that so many readers have come to expect or take for granted. The journey of the writer soon leads to various genres as well as an awareness of them. That idea begs the question, what are genres in the field of writing? In “Genre Pedagogies” scholar Amy J. Carlson 39 Devitt provides one possible explanation: “In simple terms, genres become what they are because writers faced with similar writing tasks (‘recurrent situations’) make similar strategic choices (‘rhetorical actions’)” and “readers come to expect those similarities and come to recognize the rhetorical situation when they see its rhetorical traces (‘typified’)” (146). So, although each writing scenario may be unique, there are, nonetheless, “similar strategic choices” that are often implemented by writers to achieve ethos within “similar writing tasks” (Devitt 146). While in school students face many opportunities to write in a variety of genres. Undergraduates in my first-year composition course, for example, write in five different genres: journaling, documentary review, newspaper editorial, literature review, and the creation of the student’s own digital documentary. While introducing a new unit or genre I review examples of writing within that genre. Reviewing the specific context of each assignment analyzing its rubric and project instructions is beneficial and necessary, but students tend to grasp the concept better when they see real-life examples. So, for instance, although the classroom requirements may differ from what we see in a New York Times editorial, reading the New York Times op-ed helps students visualize or imagine how they might build their own editorials. Contexts are different, but, thanks to genre, similarities are also present. Students who learn how to accurately identify and appropriately implement the conventions of a variety of genres can be of great benefit to them, whether inside or outside an academic setting. But what about genres of social media? In other words, what are the strategic, recognizable writing strategies that many readers have come to expect while, say, reading a blog or looking up their friend’s latest post? Admittedly, this question is difficult to answer because it depends on several factors. And, somewhat surprisingly, the matter of genre awareness is not a Carlson 40 big topic of conversation throughout the analyzed student corpus. However, aside from learning by doing, a good starting point that I found is from the government-published articled entitled “CDC Guide to Writing for Social Media” in which the department outlines four principles pertaining to successful writing within the sphere of social media: • Understand the audience they are trying to reach. • Apply… literacy principles. • Follow plain language best practices. • Use social marketing concepts to improve communications. (“Before You Start”) Understandably, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention article cited above focuses on communicating within the field of health. Despite this emphasis, I find the principles to be straightforward and broadly applicable to virtually any discipline, forum, genre, or topic. As digital writers become familiar with the “similar writing tasks” and “similar strategic choices” of audiences (i.e., genre awareness), writers will become more talented at conveying messages to them in ways that are meaningful and expected – thereby boosting credibility in the eyes of those who read their prose (Devitt 146). The fifth and final threshold concept to discuss is, as put forth by scholar Kathleen Blake Yancey, that “Prior knowledge, experience, attitudes, and beliefs set the stage for writing and shape new writing experiences and learning” (Adler-Kassner et al. 37). Although it does not take a genius to recognize that the prior does affect the present, this transfer principle is, nonetheless, too often overlooked or forgotten by teachers and students within first-year writing programs. One example of neglecting this reality, as Yancey points out, is that “some international students whose knowledge of citation practices – in their cases using unacknowledged borrowed material in ways acceptable, even expected in their home countries – puts them in danger of being Carlson 41 accused of plagiarism in the United States” (Adler-Kassner et al. 38). Indeed, it must be strange – if not downright difficult – for the student who grew up with notably different expectations of citation to then be required to adhere to the linguistic formalities of, say, the American Psychological Association or the Modern Language Association. However, in the case of such students, their credibility often is lower in the eyes of others even though they are doing what was expected of them back home. As a result, to enhance student credibility it is vital that English instructors explain the culture or institution’s citation expectations clearly and patiently. And building these bridges means creating opportunities for students to articulate and reflect upon the rhetorical moves and gestures they’ve already enacted in the world of social media. Only then can they begin to consider how such moves could be adapted for success in the first-year writing classroom. Another concept to review, in relation to prior knowledge and its usage throughout transfer, is the writer’s preconceived credibility. When an audience is unfamiliar with a rhetor it is possible that readers or listeners allot the author a blank slate – meaning, the audience has no predetermined or already biased opinion for or against the one making the argument. In such moments the speaker must build or break her credibility, depending on the message and its delivery. This assumption – that a speaker develops ethos on a text or topic strictly by way of conveying it – is similar to the ideal often expressed by and among readers: “Don’t judge a book by its cover.” While this motto may be honorable in theory, I imagine it is not as widely practiced as professed. As one Huff Post article notes: “…there’s a clear connection between great covers and great sales” and then cites another author by observing that “In addition to promising what a book will deliver, the [cover] image also promises (or fails to promise) that the author is a professional, and that the book will honor the reader's time.” (“Judging Books”). Carlson 42 Although a writer may choose to focus solely on producing thought-provoking copy, the truth is that covers are also part of the picture. The very ethos of the writer – for better or worse – can be affected by the text’s cover. And this initial judgement is often cast before reading a single page of the book. But what about social media? More specifically, do they have covers? Yes, but it plays out a bit differently than what one might anticipate while strolling the halls of a library. In this realm the term “brand” is frequently used. While a lot can go into this concept, one encyclopedia defines personal branding as the conscious and intentional effort to create and influence public perception of an individual by positioning them as an authority in their industry, elevating their credibility, and differentiating themselves from the competition, to ultimately advance their career, increase their circle of influence, and have a larger impact. The process of personal branding involves finding your uniqueness, building a reputation on the things you want to be known for, and then allowing yourself to be known for them. (“Personal branding”) In addition to posts that one shares via social networks, many of these media invite users to participate in submitting biographical information. As one first-year writer puts it: “Social media platforms have a section on your account called your ‘Bio’; a short biography about yourself. Usually, social media users link their other socials to obtain more followers” (“Myth Today 3). The purpose may be that as networkers fill out and update their written biographies the algorithms will be more equipped to connect them to others with similar circumstances, backgrounds, and interests. For visual reference, one example of a bio section as seen on Facebook is displayed below: Carlson 43 Figure 9 Although a short bio can reinforce an audience’s positive perception of an account owner (i.e., the speaker), this section can also be used against the user. For instance, the student author of “Myth Today” warns that “Through social media, stalkers have found it easier to obtain information from their victims by online stalking” (3). Therefore, just as scholars may spend an extraordinary amount of time determining what title to give a book or what personal information to include in their bios, social media users would also be prudent to take great care about what biographical info they share in these digital networks. Sharing too many details may not only break down the writer’s credibility but also result in an extremely unsafe situation. Conclusion In summary, I have analyzed some of the primary ways that first-year writers spend their time. Based on pursued activities in relation to time, full-time college students firstly prioritize their leisure and, secondly, their studies. This observation led to discussion on credibility and how social media companies as well as academia tend to approach it. Social networks proclaim a need to increase context, and Wilson refers to social networks as modeling machines of ethos – Carlson 44 communities and companies that are constantly reimaging credibility (226). More can and should be explored here, but as a brief example, if I am a member of a social media group that focuses on basketball then I had better be posting about the game I saw last weekend, not about something that is unrelated to the sport because it would be deemed irrelevant and, thereby, not credible to the audience. In spheres of academia, credibility usually focuses on expertise, trust, and goodwill. I then summarized five threshold concepts of transfer theory; the purpose here is to answer the question: How will this knowledge benefit me outside this context or classroom? Simply said, if a person appropriately applies prior knowledge or experience into a different setting then that individual has successfully encountered transfer. After establishing this theoretical framework, I moved into my analysis of student writing. Specifically, I drew from observations and writing passages authored by ten first-year writers who address social media in their essays. In this part I addressed students’ relation to social media and some ways that the worldwide web is altering perceived credibility of writers. To deliberate the implied but decisive “So what?” and “Who cares?” research questions, I also identified specific opportunities or bridges via which knowledge between the two spheres of ethos is comparable or transferrable. In conclusion, I also admit the limitations of this work. Broadly speaking, it is not all encompassing and could be continued. For instance, this essay does not analyze the demographics of student writers. Even instances in which I assign a student author a gender, those identities are fabricated and may or may not be true. Learning more about the backgrounds and identities of first-year writers is an important part of the conversation that, hopefully, will be pursued further at another time. For this chapter on ethos, however, the investigation focuses more on the texts. And there are other areas which I have missed or would like to investigate further. But despite these research parameters, I invite writers to join me in identifying and Carlson 45 implementing meaningful and appropriate ways to build or transfer credibility between the traditional taxonomy of discourse and the world of social media. As instructors and students turn to both spheres of rhetoric, a greater sense of ethos will ensue. Carlson 46 Works Cited Adler-Kassner, Linda, et al. “Assembling Knowledge: The Role of Threshold Concepts in Facilitating Transfer.” (Re)Considering What We Know. Pp. 17-47. Average Twitter User. “The Average Twitter User Now has 707 Followers.” Retrieved from https://kickfactory.com/blog/average-twitter-followers-updated-2016/. Accessed 28 March 2022. Before You Start. “CDC Guide to Writing for Social Media.” Social Media at CDC. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/socialmedia/tools/guidelines/guideforwriting.html. Accessed 1 April 2022. Bitzer, Lloyd F. “The Rhetorical Situation.” Philosophy and Rhetoric. Business Writing. “Social Penetration Theory.” Lumen Learning. Retrieved from https://courses.lumenlearning.com/buswriting/chapter/social-penetration-theory/. Accessed 23 March 2022. Communication in 1950’s, 1980’s, and 2010. Courtney’s Blog. Retrieved fromhttps://courtney-m- monroe.blogspot.com/2012/04/communication-in-1950s-1980s-and- 2010.html#:~:text=In%20the%201950%E2%80%99s%20the%20telephone%20connecte d%20people%20through,to%20door%20to%20deliver%20personal%20letters%20to%20 people. Accessed 9 March 2022. Connors, Robert J. "The Rise and Fall of the Modes of Discourse." College Composition and Communication, vol. 32, no. 4, 1981, pp. 444-455. “Context, N (1).” Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/context. Accessed 30 March 2022. Carlson 47 Devitt, Amy. “Genre Pedagogies.” A Guide to Composition Pedagogies. Oxford University Press, 2014. Duplicate Accounts. “16% of All Facebook Accounts Are Fake or Duplicates.”Statista. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/chart/20685/duplicate-and-false-facebook-accounts/. Accessed 28 March 2022. Duthie, Rory and Katarzyna Budzynska. “Classifying Types of Ethos Support and Attack.” Centre for Argument Technology. Pp. 161-168. Published 2018. English Composition. “What Is English Composition?” Learn.org. Retrieved from https://learn.org/articles/What_is_English_Composition.html#:~:text=College%20Englis h%20composition%20teaches%20reading%20and%20writing%20skills,English%20com position%20class.%20View%20Schools%20English%20Composition%20Definition. Accessed 9 April 2022. Facebook Statistics. “63 Facebook Statistics You Need to Know in 2022.” Omnicore. Retrieved from https://www.omnicoreagency.com/Facebook-statistics/#:~: text=Facebook%20statistics%20%28Editor%E2%80%99s%20Choice%29 %201%20How%20many%20people,Facebook%20users%20than%20females.%20...%20 More%20items...%20. Accessed 9 March 2022. Figure 1. “Time use on an average weekday for full-time university and college students.” American Time Use Survey. https://www.bls.gov/tus/charts/students.htm. Accessed 9 February 2022. Figure 2. “What Exactly Are Young People Doing On Their Phones?” YPulse. https://www.ypulse.com/article/2015/05/05/we-know-exactly-what-millennials-teens-are-doing- on-their-phones/. Accessed 8 February 2022. Carlson 48 Figure 3. Auxier, Brooke and Monica Anderson. “Social Media Use in 2021.” Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/04/07/social-media-use- in-2021/. Accessed 11 April 2022. Figure 4. Stokes, Natasha. “How to Spot Fake News.” techlicious. Retrieved from https://www.techlicious.com/tip/how-to-spot-fake-news/. Accessed 9 March 2022. Figure 5. TikTok. Sign up page. Image digitally copied from https://www.tiktok.com/foryou?is_copy_url=1&is_from_webapp=v1. Retrieved 26 March 2022. Figure 6. “Social Penetration Theory.” Theories Used in IS Research Wiki. Retrieved from https://is.theorizeit.org/wiki/Social_Penetration_Theory. Accessed 23 March 2022. Figure 7. “Frequency of Social Media Use.” Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/01/09/frequency-of-social-media-use-2/. Accessed 26 March 2022. Figure 8. “Classroom Online Forum.” Canvas, 24 February 2022, https://weber.instructure.com/courses/544277/discussion_topics/2704013 Figure 9. “About” selection list. Facebook, 4 April 2022. Graff, Gerald and Cathy Birkenstein. They Say/I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2021. Health Source Context. “Authoritative health information.” YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/howyoutubeworks/product-features/health-information/# providing-health-source-context. Accessed 9 March 2022. “Ideologies Within the Smart Phone.” English 2010 essay, 1 October 2020. “Ideology.” English 2010 essay, 13 October 2020. “Ideology of Social Media and it’s Material Existence.” English 2010 essay, 15 October 2020. Carlson 49 “Ideology: Social Media.” English 2010 essay, 14 March 2021. Instagram Statistics. “How Many Users Does Instagram Have? and Other Instagram Statistics.” Kommando Tech. Retrieved from https://kommandotech.com/statistics/how-many-users-does- instagram-have/. Accessed 9 March 2022. Instagram Users. “Distribution of Instagram users worldwide as of January 2022, by age group.” Statista. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/325587/instagram-global-age-group/#:~: text=Distribution%20of%20Instagram%20users%20worldwide%20as%20of% 20January,%2016.1%20%25%20%203%20more%20rows%20. Accessed 19 March 2022. Internet’s Conception. “When Was The Internet Invented?” Questions and Answers by letusfindout.com. Retrieved from https://www.letusfindout.com/when-was-the-internet-invented/#:~: text=Internet%20was%20not%20invented%20by%20a%20single%20perso n,%28the%20first%20satellite%29%20was%20launched%20by%20Soviet%20Union. Accessed 9 April 2022. Judging Books. “Yes, We Really Do Judge Books by Their Covers.” Huff Post. Retrieved from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/book-cover-design-indies_ n_3354504#:~:text=According%20to%20Coker%2C%20there%E2%80%99s%20 a%20clear%20connection%20between,that%20the%20book%20will%20honor%20the% 20reader%27s%20time.%E2%80%9D. Accessed 4 April 2022. Kolmar, Chris. “U.S. Smartphone Industry Statistics [2022]: Facts, Growth, Trends, and Forecasts U.S.” Zippia. Retrieved from https://www.zippia.com/advice/us-smartphone-industry-statistics/#:~: text=According%20to%20Pew%20Research%20Center%2C%2097%25%2 Carlson 50 0of%20Americans,their%20smartphones%2C%20according%20to%20a%20USA%20to day%20study. Accessed 13 April 2022. Kittler, Friedrich. Gramophone, Film, Typewriter. Translated by Geoffrey Winthrop-Young and Michael Wutz. Stanford University Press, 1999. “Leisure time on an average day.” American Time Use Survey. https://www.bls.gov/tus/charts/leisure.htm. Accessed 9 February 2022. Mary Poppins. “The Most Memorable Quotes From Mary Poppins.” Screen Rant. Retrieved from https://screenrant.com/most-memorable-quotes-from-mary-poppins/#:~: text=1%20%E2%80%9CPractically%20Perfect%20In%20Every%20Way.% E2%80%9D%20- %20Mary,do%20the%20job%3A%20%E2%80%9CPractically%20perfect%20in%20eve ry%20way.%E2%80%9D. Accessed 26 March 2022. Moore, Jessie L. and Randy Bass, editors. Understanding Writing Transfer. Retrieved from http://www.understandingwritingtransfer.org/chapter-resources/chapter- 1/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CBriefly%2C%20writing%20transfer%20refers%20to%20a%20 writer%E2%80%99s%20ability,a%20new%20audience%2C%20purpose%2C%20and%2 0context%E2%80%9D%20%28p.%202%29. Accessed 7 March 2022. Mosseri, Adam. “Best Practices: Working to Stop Misinformation and False News.” Meta for Media. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/formedia/blog/working-to-stop-misinformation- and-false-news. Accessed 9 March 2022. “Myth Today.” English 2010 essay, 1 October 2020. NASA’s Computing. “Smartphones: More powerful than all of NASA’s combined computing in 1969.” British Gas. Retrieved from Carlson 51 https://www.britishgas.co.uk/business/blog/smartphones-more-powerful-than-all-of-nasas- combined-computing-in- 1969/#:~:text=Numerous%20IBM%20System%2F%20360%20Model,capacity%20in%2 0the%20megabyte%20range. Accessed 9 April 2022. Nelson, Sarah W., and Patricia L. Guerra. "Educator Beliefs and Cultural Knowledge: Implications for School Improvement Efforts." Educational Administration Quarterly, vol. 50, no. 1, 2014, pp. 67-95. Network Statistics. “Social Network Usage & Growth Statistics: How Many People Use Social Media in 2022?” Backlinko, Brian Dean. Retrieved from https://backlinko.com/social-media- users. Accessed 9 April 2022. Parker-Pope, Tara. “Are Today’s Teenagers Smarter and Better Than We Think?” New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/30/well/family/teenagers-generation- stoneman-douglas-parkland-.html. Accessed 13 April 2022. “Personal branding.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_branding. Accessed 4 April 2022. Pianko, Sharon. "Reflection: A Critical Component of the Composing Process." College Composition and Communication, vol. 30, no. 3, 1979, pp. 275-278. Porter, James E. "Recovering Delivery for Digital Rhetoric." Computers and Composition, vol. 26, no. 4, 2009, pp. 207-224. Rose, Mike. "The Language of Exclusion: Writing Instruction at the University." College English, vol. 47, no. 4, 1985, pp. 341-359. Carlson 52 San Felice, Selene. “Florida surgeon general advises against kids' COVID vaccine.” Axios. Retrieved from https://www.axios.com/local/tampa-bay/2022/03/07/ladapo-advises-against- kids-covid-vaccine Accessed 7 March 2022. Shen, Yuru. "On Establishing the Writer's Credibility in Persuasive Writing." Theory and Practice in Language Studies, vol. 4, no. 7, 2014, pp. 1511. Shils, Edward. "The Academic Ethos." The American Scholar, vol. 47, no. 2, 1978, pp. 165-190. Skinnell, Ryan. “Teaching Writing in the (New) Era of Fake News.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 72, no. 4, June 2021, pp. 546-569. “Social Media.” First-year writer composition essay, 15 October 2020. Technology and smartphones. “The 10 Most Popular Things for Teens in 2019.” Fuse. Retrieved from https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-10-most-popular-things-for-teens-in- 2019- 300783768.html#:~:text=%20The%2010%20Most%20Popular%20Things%20for%20Te ens,vloggers%20create%20highly%20entertaining%20content.%20The...%20More%20. Accessed 28 March 2022. Using the Service. “Twitter Terms of Service.” Twitter. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/en/tos. Accessed 9 March 2022. Waltower, Shayna. “How Much Time Do Americans Spend Online and Texting?” Business News Daily. Retrieved from https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/4718-weekly-online-social- media-time. html#:~:text=A%20study%20from%20Uswitch%20found,media%20platforms%20 with%20varying%20frequency. Accessed 11 April 2022. Carlson 53 Wilson, Noah. "Algorithmic Dwelling: Ethos as Deformance in Online Spaces." Rhetoric Review, vol. 39, no. 2, 2020, pp. 216-229. World Countries. “Countries in the world by population (2022).” Worldometer. Retrieved from https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/. Accessed 28 March 2022.