The document discusses compositionism, which proposes dissolving the dichotomy between STEM and humanities fields. It describes compositionism as having four stages: 1) Identifying core values, such as mathematics proficiency in STEM fields and free inquiry in humanities; 2) Framing values through definitions and perspectives; 3) Placing values before the public through various media; 4) Generating and rebuilding ideas iteratively through public engagement. The four stages can bridge gaps between fields and generations by recognizing diverse values and allowing public discussion of different frames of thinking.

1. 1
What’s to Know? Four Steps toward Humanities-STEM Ebb and Flow
Katherine Watson
Coastline Community College
Abstract
A dichotomy places STEM fields (those of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics)in opposition
against the arts and humanities. Compositionism comprises four stagesof a practice promoting continuous,
constructive interaction among thinkersin all realms of interest. The following four stages of Compositionism will
be discussed and seen to have provoked cross-disciplinary thought in institutions and areas of interest worldwide:
Identifying core values, framing one’s values, placing one’s values before the public, and developing an iterative
process for public engagement. Further,these four steps to the attainment of a productive compositionist ideal
will be placed in the context of worldviews,or thought patterns, that have been seen to typify Millennials,on the
one hand, and baby-boomers, on the other.
Introduction
Compositionism, as presented by Pound and Liu (2015), proposes a dissolution of the dichotomy
that all too often places STEM fields (those of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) in
opposition against those of the arts and humanities. Rather than contrasting these areas of interest
against one another, compositionism uses them as co-composite members of an outlook that has come to
mark a modern, amalgamated worldview. Compositionism calls for continuous and constructive
intellectual interaction to engage humanities/arts-typical and STEM-typical mindsets, simultaneously.
Interestingly, and in a parallel fashion, compositionism can be seen to bridge what is often seen to be a
generation gap splitting the attitudinal outlooks of baby-boomers, born during the last half of the
twentieth century, v. millennials, who have attained consciousness during the twenty-first century.
This paper will comprise three principal parts: First, in the course of introducing compositionism
as theory and as it is typically practiced, “compositionist characterization exercises” will offer various
and varying definitions of terms for thought and debate. Second, the four stages, or tenets, of the
practice that has just been discoursed will be set forth, as they have been implemented in France,
Canada, and the Usa, including: Identifying core values of a domain through self-study; “framing” the
values in effective narratives using metaphors as well as evidence; placing academic values and frames
before the public via old and new media; generating, building, and re-building iteratively so as to embed
public engagement in a digital way. And third--and occasionally inter-digitated with the preceding--the
four tenets of compositionism will be seen as applicable across the board to confront and solve in a
constructive and positive way various college conundrums, from administration through curriculum
design to technology and transportation. As each part of the presentation proceeds, a grid-like lens is
proposed as an overlay, with humanities/arts and STEM on one axis of the compositionist frame of
reference and the chronologically distinct baby-boomers and Millennials on the other.
Compositionism: Characterizing the theory, summarizing its practice
University of California, Santa Barbara, English and Humanities Professor Alan Liu (2014) has
stated that, as thought-provoked human beings, “we want a rich ecology of knowledge,” where this
“ecology” comprises a composition, “putting the engineer in touch with the humanist.” And as
humanities writer Bill Benzon (2011) has written, we live in an era of diversely thought out, composite
“new public knowledge”, exemplified by Wikipedia or the blogosphere, as well as by Twitter feeds and

2. 2
the immediacy of unedited “news” proffered by the hoi polloi. To Benzon, “effective thinking” exploits
the resultant miscellany of knowledge; it has a “compositionist” effect, a result. Effective thinking
composes and constructs; it builds. And according to Benzon, educators and humanists, professional
social scientists and amateur students, all use and take advantage of what he has called a necessary,
“increasingly bidirectional or multidirectional flow” of ideas. The flow in question intertwines
humanities/arts-typical and STEM-typical mindsets alike, dissolving boundaries as it co-engages.
Further, Canadian philosopher Scott Pound and Liu (2015) have argued together for this ebbing-flowing,
“effective” co-engagement to be given the name compositionism, expanding upon Benzon’s thought
model and upon a notion “manifested” by French philosopher Bruno Latour (2010). As Pound and Liu
have written, compositionism occurs quite without our realizing it; it is a “natural human practice.” It
“constructs from heterogeneous elements,” as Frenchman Latour put it, “searching for universality
without believing that it is already there.” Compositionism in this last sense comprises both aspects of
the French verb découvrir: It simultaneously discovers a universality and uncovers it from beneath the
detritus of specialization that forces academics to learn more about less.
As Chang (2012) has written, STEM-style compositionists in mineralogy and metallurgy would,
characteristically and exemplarily, “focus on extracting materials from ores and separating different
metals from each other, rather than transforming one metallic substance into another.” Chang goes on to
contrast the notion of compositionism as it is exploited in the sciences against what he calls the contrary
custom of scientific “principlism”. As the latter is practiced, Chang states, it shows “a belief” that there
are certain “principles, namely fundamental substances, that impart characteristic properties to other
substances…there is an asymmetry between principles and the other substances that are transformed by
them, principles being active and the others passive.” Principlist thinking, Chang continues, “was
(historically) linked with the laboratory practice of transformation,” in which experimental processes
shape one another, transforming. Compositionist thinking, by contrast, “was linked with laboratory
practices of decomposition and recomposition.”
Chang cites pharmacy and chemistry as alternative exemplary areas of contrast between
compositionist thought and principlism: “So, for instance, compositionist pharmacy concentrated on
extracting the medicinally valuable components from naturally occurring materials.” And in chemistry,
eighteenth century French chemical revolutionary Antoine Lavoisier had “a compositionist
preoccupation with weight and a conception of weight as a conserved quantity.” Lavoisier famously
determined, among other things, that water is made up of an 85:15 proportion of hydrogen to oxygen.
And for their part, rhetoric professors Lynch and Rivers (2015) emphasize, “‘composition’ as a
writing activity and ‘compositionism’ as a human political project (are) different but not separate
practices of putting things together.” Indeed, these writers continue, compositionist activities comprise
what they conceive as a very human-oriented “mode of learning” in all fields that “aligns writing and all
other forms of composing, such as composing a painting, a symphony, a dance, a film, a building.”
No matter the area of interest or the academic perspective, then, compositionism comprises an
ontological practice, a way in which people seek meaning for what they know and about what surrounds
them.
Compositionism: A four-stage practice across domains
Compositionist practice is said to comprise four steps, or stages, of thought, whether the thinker
of that thought be scientist or humanist, STEM-oriented, artistic, or a dabbler in multiple mentalities.
Further, compositionism explains mindsets of the old and the young, whether African, American, Asian,
or European; it is an often unnoticed but natural tendency to find things out.

3. 3
The four intersecting elements of compositionism are: Identifying core values, framing values,
placing values before the public, and generating, building, and re-building.
Identifying core values
Core values define the perspective, the worldview, about what is important, what lies in the
purposeful heart of an evaluation process. Typically, in STEM fields, much value—or significance-- is
placed upon the final letter of the acronym, the M that stands for mathematics, and upon its day-to-day
impact or influence in everyone’s lives. As an Edutopia infographic has shown, the Program for
International Assessment (PISA), published triennially by the France-based Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), shows, American students rank far below those of numerous
other countries, including Korea, Finland, and Switzerland, for example, in their attainment of
mathematical skills. Furthermore, Edutopia points out, even American teachers of math are often
lacking: “I teach remedial high school and night trade school,” an Edutopia commenter has written, “and
85% of our teachers are women with low proficiency in math and numbers theory. That’s just a simple
fact. They are wonderful teachers, but they can only ‘teach to the text’ in math, which is colossally
boring…”.
As international PISA summary reports state, a core value that is apparent in its assessment
across disciplines is “(good) preparation for the challenges of life as young adults.” And since a PISA-
stated “mathematical mindset” necessarily underlies valuable “good problem-solving skills”, entailing
the rendering into digits and percentages, statistics and properly calculated graphs, it is the evaluation of
this mathematical mindset that typically comes first in PISA reports, or others of like kind. In fact,
“when assessing mathematics, PISA examines how well students can understand, use, and reflect on
mathematics for a variety of real-life problems and settings that they may not encounter in the
classroom.” Thus, it is the beyond-the-text utility of math in action that comprises the principal core
value in the field, no matter where it is practiced.
In a publication made available through the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development (ASCD), in the USA, Shumow and Schmidt (2014-2015) suggest that a core value often
shared among instructors of mathematics and the sciences throughout the world is an “excitement” or “a
passion” for the material being taught. By contrast, the students taking math and science courses in the
twenty-first century, particularly those students called “digital natives” or Millennials, seek “current
utility” as a primary, or core, value. Indeed, value to the student may imply remunerative possibility,
money-gaining, currency in two senses (meaning “now” and meaning “medium of (monetary)
exchange”), rather than simply a vague or emotion-based “passion”.
Further, the ASCD points to more imprecisely definable, more inexact, and harder-to-measure
core values that may in fact explain at least a part of what is often considered to be a “generation gap”
dividing baby boomer and older instructors from Millennial or generation Y digital native students. That
is, whereas educators go on about timeless “motivation”, “engagement”, and the like, and science
teachers in particular argue over “methodology”, “problem-solving”, and other similar words or phrases,
many modern students are time-sensitive, urgent, desirous of more than “what we have to memorize for
science” or “why we have to learn to count syllables in poetry.” Applicability and practicality are prime.
Indeed, the seemingly impractical, vague, and inexact might be part of what keeps arts and humanities
core values at once ineffable and frustrating to teachers who would laud them and to students who
would learn them well enough to get those practically applicable good grades. As the University of
Southern California “Visions and Voices Arts and Humanities Initiative” (2006) states, these values
include” “Free inquiry…the search for truth…caring and respect for one another as individuals…

4. 4
prepar(ing) for an uncertain future...and ethical conduct.” The core values in question are said to “define
our community”, but they themselves remain difficult to define in an objective way.
In a report drafted for their national government, self-proclaimed Canadian Millennials Coletto
and Morrison (2012) note that while it may appear to their older teachers that young, Millennial students
around the world are nothing more than an antsy, irritable, now-oriented, what’s-in-it-for-me group,
there are in fact shared, humanistic “motivations that connect this generation globally, (including) the
need for justice, authenticity, connections, and community.” Coletto and Morrison cite “taking action”
as a core value, for instance, and they go on to cite exemplary ways in which this value is realized:
Joining online communities, viewing and recommending videos or news stories, finding and sharing
answers to questions.
Core values, then, would seem to lie within the frame of an area of interest, a discipline, an
expertise for those of older generations, as Coletto and Morrison imply. By contrast, core values to the
Millennial often reach beyond that sort of frame; they have to do with how the information within a
discipline is to be shared, transmitted, communicated for use. Core values for the former group may
have much to do with what and where a frame is set forth; for the latter group, those values may have
more to do with how or why the frame can be exploited.
“Framing” values
Framing comprises a setting of the mind, a process by which people make decisions, a bias that
falls out of the underlying meanings, usually culturally based, that those people have assigned to words
or expressions. In economics, the “framing theory” holds that decisions are made “behaviorally”; they
are quite often “biased” by the terms used by those who would like for a decision to go one way or
another. Thus, in Tversky and Kahneman’s 1981 study, for instance, people decided to spend time,
energy, effort, and money to determine the fate of others in varying ways, depending upon whether that
fate was called survival or death, life-saving or killing. The frames in question, the claim went, had to do
with decision-makers’ definitions of terms and with their perspectives upon those definitions. Actions
would be taken based upon how frames were defined and structured.
In linguistics, a field dependent simultaneously upon the science of psychology and the
humanism of culture, framing is said to fall naturally out of semantics, the study of meaning. All
communication entails framing, it is said, and that framing includes: A message, a messenger, an
audience, a medium, images, context, and higher-level morals and concepts. All language “evokes”
frames, as Sudeva R (2009) has written, because it carries messages that are perceived within a context
by an audience. Indeed, as Lakoff (2014) points out, “we think, largely unconsciously, in terms of
conceptual frames—mental structures that organize our thought…(and) every word is mentally defined
in terms of frame structure.” Again, actions occur based upon how people frame the words used to incite
them. These words are abundant in semantic value.
As Chang (2012) has written, for instance, eighteenth-century British thinker Joseph Priestley,
working not only in religion but in science, “reported…air infected with animal respiration or
putrefaction” and “air infected with fumes”. Priestley did not discuss simply combining anything with
air, Chang continues, and the word choice reveals Priestley’s frame, his values-rich perspective.
Framing leads to a design of strategies, tactics, to be exploited in the handling of a problem; it
generates the transmission of values. Indeed, as Buehl (2011) has written, in schools, “Framing…is
instruction that eases students into a mind-set.” It is “pre-thinking”, Buehl claims, and it can “forestall
frustration…by focusing thinking on universal conditions.” Of course, as teachers know, if they are to
impart a discipline-centric frame to their students, they must acquaint those students with the terms, their
definitions, and the values that they signify through those frames. Reading the works of others,

5. 5
researching and even mimicking the practices of experts in a discipline as it has been practiced
throughout time and space, will give learners confidence that they can construct their own frames.
It thus clearly follows that various academic domains imply their own varying values-heavy
frames. As Fahlenbrach et al. (2014) put it, the aforementioned linguistic framing is typically meta-
communicative: “Any message, which either explicitly or implicitly defines a frame, ipso facto gives the
receiver instructions or aids in his attempt to understand the message,” allowing people to categorize
messages, to evaluate them. Frames are “organizing principles, patterns of cognition, interpretation, and
presentation”, as Fahlenbrach states, and they define the values as they typify the practices of people
pursuing various disciplines. The Scientific Method constitutes an obvious frame and set of values for
researchers; rhetorical argumentation offers a frame of values for humanists; harmony, melody, notation,
color, and line are some of the evaluative frames exploited in the arts.
To the compositionist, “society is stronger for having multiple different institutional,
organization, and professional domains,” as Pound and Liu (2015) state. The compositionist recognizes
that scientific frames, values, mindsets are expressed and evaluated in ways different from the ways in
which humanistic and artistic frames are judged. “We want…not a monospecies domain, like .com,”
states Liu (2014). “We have a common stake in the work of knowledge,” he continues, and we have “a
common world to be built from utterly heterogeneous parts.” Our values are diverse, our frames are
divergent, and the twenty-first century, as Coletto and Morrison state in their Millennials Study (2012)
offers previously unheard-of platforms for sharing those values and frames publicly.
Placing values before the public
Values underlie everyone’s thought processes; they are unique to each person, even though parts
of them may be shared in a community, within a discipline, or in a culture. Values are therefore
subjective, but, as the Canadian Millennials Study has reported, they are now ever more often shared
(Coletto and Morrison, 2012). Thus, Coletto and Morrison write, decision-making in the modern day
often occurs after the decision point has been presented “publicly”, so that the values of others may be
used to help influence action.
As Liu (2014) has stated, “The wisdom of the crowd challenges the very notion of an
epistemology, or philosophy, of knowledge” in an era when “the terms ‘digital commons’ and ‘open
knowledge’ represent the resurgence of…crowd knowledge challenging scholars.” Liu goes on to point
out that this sort of resurgence, in which everything is made so public that perspective is hard to find,
“puts in question the knowledge-standards of scholarly inquiry itself.”
In all areas of academe, properly acceptable research proceeds only after a “review of the
literature” has taken place; books, papers, magazines, and specialized journals are consulted and cited in
lists of references. Further, in all of the sciences, a final step of the Scientific Method calls for
researchers to publish, to make public, their findings; replicability of research is esteemed. And in the
humanities-sciences field of linguistics, a theory is not considered worthwhile until it has been
published, argued about, exemplified, and given counter-examples that might hone its hypotheses. In the
arts, criticism makes a work known; critics follow certain practices, and it is often their work that helps
the criticized work to gain public view.
Twenty-first century “public viewing” entails, as Coletto and Morrison (2012) have written,
something beyond books and papers; it gives “the community” free and open access to one’s research
and its results. As a Tech&Net report stated in France’s Le Point magazine in September, 2015, a new
United Nations initiative calls for the Internet and the sharing and community building that it allows to
be made accessible to all the world’s people before the year 2030. Sustainable development of any and
all kinds, the theory goes, needs “plurality”. The aforementioned Canadian researcher Scott Pound and

6. 6
American humanist Alan Liu (2015) note that the twenty-first century has rendered faster and easier
“self-criticism as much as criticism”, in which “learning from other experts and other social sectors” can
happen without fear and with good academic perspective. Ideas, research, data, and results are currently
presented openly, quickly, and publicly to build, to generate productive discussion.
Generating, building, and re-building
As Boyle (2015) states, the process of compositionism leads quite often to an observation that,
often during the presentation of an idea or during its discussion, “things get complex.” Thus, “those
things that we may have relied on in the past to explain certain social phenomena—such as a physical
building or an academic discipline—now become themselves in need of explanation.” Hence, Boyle
continues, “practice” becomes important, where this refers to a process of “familiarizing” the mind to
certain practices, to the execution of the aforementioned values as they are placed in frames. Boyle holds
that Latour’s notion of compositionism lays this out “as a space for exercising the messy relations within
which we find ourselves composed.”
Boyle argues that architecture—and indeed the products produced during the practice of most of
the arts—might exemplify Latour-style compositionism perfectly: That is, in theory, a building is
unfixed; it is in motion, “a particular cluster of action, affectivity, and matter…compos(ing) the
practices of building.” Indeed, as Zorich (2015) has written, architecture just might be an ideal example
of the side-by-side nature of how Liu’s hoped-for organization of STEM and humanities/arts frames can
and do lie best within the most productive human minds. Zorich states that the pyramids of Giza, in
Egypt, for example, in fact demonstrate “a social organization” that “set the stage for centuries of
Egyptian prosperity, alter(ing) the course of later civilizations.” Although the engineering details of the
Giza monuments are so impressive as to have made them part of the world’s patrimony, it is their social
aspects that really are most remarkable. And as Latour (2012) has claimed, this remarkability is
pertinent in part because “simple descriptions often fail to account for the multiplicity of relations that
compose a building.” For instance, each building is the result of “many successive models that had to be
modified so as to absorb the continuous demands of so many conflicting stockholders—users,
communities of neighbors, preservationists, clients, representatives of government and authorities of
various kinds.” Thus, an architectural creation both includes and reveals infrastructure of the artistic
mind, infrastructure of the social mindset, and infrastructure as it is typically conceived; the building is
artistic as may be any sculpture, but it is also to be used by members of society and it is to lie upon a
piece of earth with access routes and the like.
The physicality of the Giza pyramids is, of course, at least as admirable as their social and
artistic nature. And the notion of compositionism implies that there exists “a broad and heterogeneous
knowledge” underlying most areas of human understanding, although we often do not realize it, as
Wharton (2013) writes. A medievalist, Wharton points out that the physical---books, in her case—can
comprise a set of “nodes in a productive scholarly assemblage.” And as “nodes”, books or buildings can
be the bases of discussion, analysis, ideational connection. Wharton observes that educational
institutions in the twenty-first century would do well to open up single-minded disciplinary studies to a
new “discursive potential (of the kind that) Latour unearths in his exploration of compositionism,”
leading to “new-form scholarship that is both ludic and serious, and formally as well as
methodologically innovative.”
Confronting college conundrums constructively through Compositionism

7. 7
Wharton (2013) holds that “subjectivity is in fact the condition of all understanding.” No
observer can escape himself. Thus, it might be concluded, the conundrum of how college curricula
should be designed and the question of how academic departments should be run might be answered
simply: In concert. That is, as Wharton has suggested, library scientists and computer scientists,
historians and literature experts can join from within each of their fields to create a course taking
medievalist practices into modern times: Wharton has engaged her medieval studies students, for
example, in a several-phase project that shows how compositionism can work, training students first in
medieval paleography and codicology and ultimately ending up with a digitized, online edition of a
manuscript written in the style of Geoffrey Chaucer. Wharton invited her school’s librarian and
computer science instructors to join in the conception and execution of a “cross-disciplinary”
compositionist course.
Further, Katina Rogers (2015), of The City University of New York, notes that uniting business
and administration experts with curriculum designers across disciplines will necessarily lead to
something productive for students; when management works together rather than arguing over domain
ownership, good and useful college courses might be created: “Structuring courses and projects in a way
that emphasizes the acquisition of skills such as project management, collaboration, and communication,
not only contributes to the success of students who seek employment…but also to vibrant research.” In
community colleges, where more than two thirds of students are typically self-directed “non-traditional”
learners with a job-related goal in mind, such curriculum would surely invite increased enrollment.
Moreover, as has been suggested in Wharton and Rogers, among others, the non-traditional can
profit ever better in the twenty-first century from the timeless, unbounded nature of online learning,
particularly among the young and continuously “connected”. The logistical difficulties of signing up for
and transporting oneself to classes in person can be obviated by technology, and administrators who
realize this will be doing their students a service, particularly as those students become ever more
connected. Spending on good digital infrastructure, as well as on the technicians who can keep it up and
running and on the instructors who will exploit it through proper training is becoming ever more
important to busy learners whose lives need a bit of composure, if not compositionism. Over-committed
millennials, as well as older adults, seek something useful to enrich the mind and the pocketbook,
simultaneously. But this spending, running, training, and exploiting must be done, Liu (2012) warns,
without simply “measur(ing) the numbers of patents or the results in the nearest economic
quarter…Society is stronger for having multiple, different institutional, organization, and professional
domains.” Liu continues: Today there are many partners in the process of preparing people for and
employing them in knowledge work, and society gains from having not just business paradigms but
educational paradigms that are strategically different…”. These alternatives, claims Liu, comprise an
active immanence.
Observations, conclusions, and comments: Compositionism across generations and nations
Action and affectivity comprise cross-generational “building blocks”, Coletto and Morrison
report in their study of the millennial mindset in Canada, Europe, and the United States. “When it comes
to a job,” they write, “Millennials value money first and foremost…(they) want to be paid well for the
work they do and be able to lead the kind of life they want outside the workplace. (They) are much more
likely to change jobs, or even industries multiple times through their careers, and so they look to salary
and the team environment as drivers for satisfaction.” Furthermore, as Coletto and Morrison continue,
“what we like is authentic, aspirational, align(ing) with our values, connect(ing) with us online.” As the
compositionist would point out, products and brands that have been able to do this with millennials have
been able to compose a community of shared values; they have been able to frame their public within

8. 8
their product ideals. Teachers who have been used to what Liu calls “the tactical, micropolitical,
bricolage, différence” and who have not grown up as bloggers or Wiki users, social networkers or
community creators, must now face a continuously interacting set of fields, some of which did not exist
when they were learning to teach. And these fields are “always settling and never settled,” as Liu puts it;
they are organic and aggregative. Educators who would attract and retain the millennial mindset have to
embrace the new communities of the twenty-first century. As Rogers (2015) has pointed out,
communication leads to collaboration leads to a stronger joint stakeholding that results from dynamic
interaction.
Modern compositionism comprises a kind of digital stream of interacting ideas, a continuous
cycle of thought integrating the “ways of knowing” typifying the research and writing of experts in the
humanities, as well as in STEM, no matter their national base. Latour (2012) cites newspapers as being
good examples of modest compositionist exercises: “In this simple practice (of reading the newspaper),
one reduces a world into tiny sections: National news. Politics. Life and arts. Business. Sports.” But, he
continues “….(new) activism blends these formal divisions and public engagement.” To be successful,
compositionists must find their core and define it, give it value, place that value out in the open publicly,
and allow it to build upon itself to generate, to create, to make composites that will re-generate.
References
Benzon, B. (2011). Reading Bruno Latour. In New Savanna. Retrieved http://new-
savanna.blogspot.com/2011/10/reading-latour-0-ontology-methodology.html
Boyle, C. (2015). An attempt at a practitioner’s manifesto. In Thinking with Bruno Latour in Rhetoric
and Composition (ed. Lynch and Rivers), Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Buehl, D. (2011). Developing Readers in the Academic Disciplines. Delaware: International Reading
Association.
Chang, H. (2012). Incommensurability. In Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Revisited. (ed.
Kindi and Arabatzis), London: Routledge.
Coletto, D. and Morrison, J. (2012). RU ready 4 us? An introduction to Canadian millennials. Retrieved
http://canadianmillennials.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/R-U-Ready-for-Us-An-Introduction-to-
Canadian-Millennials.pdf
Edutopia. (2012). Infographic: The value of STEM. Retrieved http://www.edutopia.org/stw-college-
career-stem-infographic
Fahlenbrach, K., Sivertsen, E., and Verenskjold, R. (2014). Media and Revolt. New York: Berghahn
Books.
Kersulov, M. (2015). The compositionist manifesto and education. Object-Oriented Rhetoric. Retrieved
http://www.rsbarnett.com/english646/?p=142
Lakoff, G. (2014). Charles Fillmore. Retrieved http://georgelakoff.com/2014/02/18/charles-fillmore-
discoverer-of-frame-semantics-dies-in-sf-at-84-he-figured-out-how-framing-works/
Latour, B. (2010). An attempt at a “compositionist manifesto”. Johns Hopkins University Project Muse.
Retrieved

9. 9
https://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/new_literary_history/v041/41.3.latour
.pdf
Liu, A. (2012). The amoderns. Retrieved http://amodern.net/article/the-amoderns-reengaging-the-
humanities/
Liu, A. (2014). Theses on the epistemology of the digital. Retrieved http://liu.english.ucsb.edu/theses-
on-the-epistemology-of-the-digital-page/
Lynch, P. and Rivers, N. (2015). Thinking with Bruno Latour in Rhetoric and Composition. Carbondale:
Southern Illinois University Press.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2012). PISA 2012 Results—Introduction. Retrieved
https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/pisa2012/pisa2012highlights_2.asp
Nikias, M. (2006). Visions and voices the arts and humanities initiative. University of Southern
California. Retrieved https://www.usc.edu/dept/pubrel/visionsandvoices/coreValues.php
Pound, S. and Liu, A. (2015). Re-engaging the humanities: A feature interview with Alan Liu.
Academia. Retrieved
https://www.academia.edu/15170602/REENGAGING_THE_HUMANITIES_A_Conversation_with_Al
an_Liu
Rogers, K. (2015). Humanities unbound: Supporting careers and scholarship beyond the tenure-track.
Digital Humanities Quarterly, vol. 9, no. 1. Retrieved
http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/9/1/000198/000198.html
Shumow, L. and Schmidt, J. (2014-2015). Teaching the value of science. Educational Leadership, vol.
72, no. 4. Retrieved http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-
leadership/dec14/vol72/num04/Teaching-the-Value-of-Science.aspx
Sudeva R. (2009). Framing theory, framing, and interpreting. Mengenai Saya. Retrieved
http://linguistics1.blogspot.com/2009/01/framing-theory-framing-and-interpreting.html
Tech&Net. (2015). Un accès universel au Net? Mark Zuckerberg et Bill Gates s’y engagent. LePoint.fr.
Retrieved http://www.lepoint.fr/high-tech-internet/un-acces-universel-au-net-mark-zuckerberg-et-bill-
gates-s-y-engagent-26-09-2015-1968365_47.php
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science,
211, pp. 453-458.
Wharton, R. (2013). Analogy, textuality, and materiality in the medieval classroom. Presented at ICMS,
Kalamazoo, MI. Retrieved http://www.robinwharton.com/analogy-textuality-and-materiality/
Zorich, Z. (2015). The pyramid effect. Scientific American, vol. 313, no. 5, pp.33-39.