Kara Poe Alexander argues that revising multimodal texts is not an easy task, but it can be done by conducting “well-structured peer reviews provided in carefully designed studio sessions that focus on rhetorical issues” (137). I find the forms, the sample multimodal assignments, and the advice she provides very helpful; however, I feel that the ghost of the alphabetical text haunts Alexander’s notion of responding to and revising multimodal projects—perhaps this is why revision and peer-review of multimodal texts as presented by Alexander seem like a daunting task. The basic difference between alphabetical texts and multimodal projects relies on the fact that in writing alphabetical texts/essays, synthesizing sources and reaching a conclusion is essential while composers of multimodal texts collect and juxtapose different modalities (words, images, colors, sound, etc.) without necessarily reaching a conclusion (Douglas Hesse makes this distinction). In multimodal projects, the modalities intersect, but I don’t see them interact (they remain separate entities) the way I see the author of an essayistic essay synthesizing her sources and the ideas of others to form an argument. Therefore, I feel that there is a need to redefine the redefinition of responding to students’ multimodal projects as presented by Alexander. I don’t have an alternative framework in mind for now, but it’s an invitation to think of responding to students’ works in a different way.
Since multimodal texts are not only constructed by the audience, but also “recomposed”/"reconstructed" by them, here, I think, revision goes beyond the global level of essayistic prose. For example, one of Alexander’s recommendations for those who are working on scrapbooks or collages is to keep them in a “semi-fluid state until the peer-review is completed” (123). This semi-fluid state declares the death of the author/composer. The audience becomes the composer/the receiver/ the decision maker/ the real agent. I’m all for empowering the audience, but I, as an author/composer, don’t want to reach a point where my text doesn’t belong to me anymore and is not revised/composed and recomposed by me. Sometimes we, as authors, feel the need to affix words/objects on a page and defend our stance. Our thesis statement is the glue that affixes our words/objects in our work. Although Alexander’s notion of multimodal revision is practical, I think it overempowers the audience at the expense of the author/creator/composer.
Another point that has raised questions for me from last week’s readings is Branscum and Toscano’s conclusion:
“Teachers do not need to invent completely new teaching practices to integrate multimodal composition assignments into their classes. Their own comfortable approaches and practices may, however, need to be altered slightly to make room for the kinds of open-ended exploration that multimodal composing can involve” (98).
I have a problem with the word “slightly.” The more I read about composing/ assessing/evaluating /teaching/learning multimodal projects, the more I feel that requiring students to work on multimodal compositions and designing multimodal assignments is A LOT of work. Teachers need to give up “their extensive knowledge of genre, their finely tuned understanding of composing processes, and their familiarity with composing tasks and outcomes,” and partake in, what Church and Powell call “an exciting opportunity to join students as fellow learners” (152). I doubt that all of this can be considered a slight change in the theories and pedagogies that constitute our field.
I wonder if the distinction you see between the interaction of modes and the synthesis of alphabetic sources is based more on our reading practices than in the nature of multimodal texts? I realize that different modes make meaning in different ways; however, the perception of interaction or synthesis may have--at least at times--more to do with the audience than the text. That's not to say that multimodal projects don't exhibit varying levels of effective interaction between modes, but I think that most people would agree that a good film, for example, can effectively use music, montage, and subtitles in tandem to create meaning that the constituent elements on their own could not.
ReplyDeleteLana,
ReplyDeleteI agree, as I noticed last time, that most assessment discussions seem to be applying criteria that align with the affordances of alphabetic texts. Alexander's workshops do sound somewhat like those I participated in for graphic design classes except Alexander seems to see a one to one relationship between "rhetorically effective" alphabetic texts and "rhetorically effective" multimodal texts, which actually ignores the affordances of each. I know visual affordances from my graphic design classes, and we really can't treat the rhetoric of visual design the same as the rhetoric of alphabetic texts, the difference takes us back to Wysocki: alphabetic texts generally ask us to ignore visual design (at least if we ask for MLA or other school designs) and look through it to the language and the ideas; visually designed texts ask us to see even type as image and notice the interactions of text, image, shapes, size, proportions, etc. all of which communicate things and do it in ways alien to how we understand the rhetoric of alphabetic texts.
You mentioned in a comment or post that for multimodal literacies we need to connect with other disciplines. When it comes to visual rhetoric, art departments make us look like chumps.
Hi Lana,
ReplyDeleteI'm interested in your final argument that the changes required of composition teachers in order to teach multimodal composition are anything but "slight." I can sympathize with this viewpoint, much of the material we've read in the last 5 weeks has led me to wonder, among other things, if my own alphabetic literacy skills and training are as valuable in a technology-rich / multimodal curricula. Of course, these kinds of thoughts are somewhat irrational, right? Ultimately, we as teachers will decide how much or how little to change our curricula, and the value to assign to multimodal compositions within the classroom. Just as we'll decide, by our own scholarship, how much energy to devote to this type of literacy in terms of theory and pedagogy work.