Andrews and Smith mention the "Social Semiotic Theory," which suggests that “all signs and messages are always multimodal” (105). How text is displayed on the page (or screen), what the text itself looks like, where the silences and gaps happen throughout the writing makes it multimodal. (And also critical!) This is something that I have always assumed and enjoyed about writing, but articulating it makes it easier to comprehend- and therefore more teachable. Having my students look at the "affordances" of writing gives them a jumping off point to start answering the question “to what extent are they taking full advantage of the range of mode, media, screen, community in their choices of substance to meet the needs of the audience or the purpose of the piece?” (150). Or..."To what extent are the modalities in my writing articulating what I want to say?"
In this sense, writing is a more developed and polished record of what thought and discussion has already (hopefully) initiated. As Atwell brings up, the "language of writing" is very important. It empowers the students with the "how" not just the "why" of writing.“The dialogic nature of speech offers a model for writers to
follow” as long as they see their writing as “part of a dialogue rather than a
solitary voice in the wilderness” (106). This is increasingly true as digital writing becomes more prevalent in our lives, and as the “process and products are collapsed," and "composing and
publishing become one in the same” (128). I wondered why so many of my friends and peers prefer digital writing as a primary mode of communication. Many of my friends would rather text someone than call them, especially if the topic at hand is something awkward like dating or roommate confrontations. I think this is interesting because text messages have so much potential (exponentially in the Midwest) to be misinterpreted. Language is slippery and tone is virtually impossible to convey in most text messages without emoticons or excessive punctuation. I am always guilty of reading too hard for passive aggression, and therefore overcompensate with smiley faces and exclamation points in my text messages. Thinking about how these modes of communication dominate our worlds today, the rhetorical,
compositional, and multimodal framing of text is more important for our students to understand than which process happened first. I agree with Andrews and Smith that improvising and responding to digital text is a new literacy that begs for new teaching.
This brings me to my final point: that the structural and organizational elements of the five-paragraph theme still influence the way that I compose academic text today. Asking to what extent does the five-paragraph theme inform my writing process bares little fruit, because the FPE is only a format that I use in the context of school. This leads me to believe that despite it's organizational merits, the five-paragraph essay is far from culturally relevant, and so if we are to teach it we should first openly question the power dynamics of it. Who are we appeasing by using it and how is it helping us? Being transparent about this, I think, maintains its usefulness and simultaneously removes its oppressive tendencies.
-Grading multimodal writing is another can of worms to open here are a few ideas for multimodal projects and rubrics for them!
-This is an interesting article about a test that was created to assess digital literacy... "icritical thinking" ...mhmm.
-This is an example of an entire digital literacy and citizenship curriculum, pretty rad.
-This article demonstrates an effective approach towards critical thinking in writing assignments.
-Grading multimodal writing is another can of worms to open here are a few ideas for multimodal projects and rubrics for them!
-This is an interesting article about a test that was created to assess digital literacy... "icritical thinking" ...mhmm.
-This is an example of an entire digital literacy and citizenship curriculum, pretty rad.
-This article demonstrates an effective approach towards critical thinking in writing assignments.
Sara,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your post as you brought up great points about what teachers and students must consider when writing and when composing in a digital format. Teaching students to recognize the dialogic nature of speech and that writing is an extension of a dialogue, rather than an isolated occurrence helps to emphasize context, audience, and purpose. I also found myself in agreement that discussing the affordances of writing with students is useful for reflection and examination of the elements listed above. Your commentary on the FPE was personally reflective and critically thoughtful. Most future English teachers wouldn’t come out and say that the FPE has had an effect on them in some way and that it persists to an extent at the collegiate level. The questions posed about the power structures of this type of essay are helpful for both educators and students to be critically literate in examining the FPE’s purposes. “Who are we appeasing by using it?” is an important discussion to have as it unravels the strengths and weaknesses of writing in this way. As we discussed in Shannon’s class, teaching the FPE and test essays as genres rather than absolute methods allows students a way to decipher the codes that specific audiences seek. Giving students opportunities to reflect on how their compositions will be perceived and why will strengthen their reading of the world, as Freire encourages us to do.
Your discussion of texting is so on point. Do you think teachers should talk about texting as a genre? Especially the pitfalls of unclear communication (passive aggression alert!) You seem wary of some of the conventions of texting (emotocons and excessive punctuation) but are these bad things or just necessary conventions for the genre?
ReplyDelete