reading response w 9/3

The "Writing with Video" piece by Lovett, et. al. is great. I would love to investigate the possibility of doing something like this in collaboration with the Creative Media Technology program at DACC. (I've already talked to a faculty member in this program -- maybe jumping the gun a bit?) I'm interested in seeking for corporate partnerships, as they suggest -- I'm guessing that would be the only way to fund it. And I'm fairly warned that this sort of project would take a lot of time. I'm also interested in their argument and reasoning that comp. studies must be interdisciplinary and not reside in a single dept., as proposed by Crowley.

The piece titled "Introduction to Multimodality"- by Kress & Van Leeuwen is more problematic in terms of its practical uses to me. But maybe there is something to asking students in a writing class to identify and analyze the discourse, design and production of a common part of life (like Stephanie's bedroom) in an effort to build awareness around multimodal texts. But even as I write this, I wonder if I could pull it off at DACC. What course would it fit into? A developmental writing course or a "G" course? While there is some room for academic freedom, these courses are probably too restrictive for this sort of activity. And I would have to be convinced that it serves the needs of DACC students.

The ideas in the piece "Reading images: Multimodality, representation, and new media"- by Gunther Kress about reading images is also interesting to try to connect to practice -- certainly less problematic than the first I read. The questions he ask on page 116 are questions we could teach our students to ask. A couple of important ones Kress suggests asking are "Which mode most appeals to the audience whom I intend to address?" and "Which medium is preffered by my audience?" They are questions any rhetorician needs to ask to analyze purpose and audience in an attempt to connect with their audience. The questions all have to do with figuring out which mode and medium will help the designer communicate most effectively to a specific audience. But do we, as teachers, design assignments that students can authentically ask these questions in response to? I'm not so sure we do a very good job at this part of it.

At first I didn't know what to do with the Wysocki piece ("awaywithwords: On the Possibilities in Unavailable Designs"), but after finishing it I can see real application in the basic writing class. Many students (not all) in the basic writing classes I teach are not familiar with the conventions of academic writing. In fact they may try to use "unavailable" designs in their writing. So do I let them use their own designs/strategies/application of literacy, or do I teach them the available designs in the academy in an attempt to empower them? I'm certainly not the first to ask this question, nor will I be the last. I don't think I've ever read an argument in response to this question that is really satisfying.

reading response 1

In all three articles the authors examine notions of the mulitimodal ways of making meaning in relationship to multiliteracy pedagogy. In the first article (intro to book), Cope and Kalantzis provide an historical overview of the beginnings of scholarship in the area of multiliteracies. They describe discussions among a group of scholars during which they considered differences in culture and national experiences that inform literacy pedagogy. The outcome of their discussion they bottled into one word -- multiliteracies -- a word which includes linguistic diversity, as well as culture, social and cognitive diversities. They make two overarching arguments: 1) that there are many channels of communication; and 2) that there are many ways of communicating.

The second and third readings continue this discussion by troubling common arguments that literacy pedagogy privileges reading and writing. Both articles make claims that meaning and making meaning is multimodal, and that humans draw on all available designs to inform the production and reproduction of meaning. All of the arguments are founded on the recognition and value of linguistic, cultural and social diversity, and take into account theories of change.

Both article address application of theories of multiliteracy pedagogy, but the New London Group provides interesting definitions of four kinds of pedagogies: situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing and transformed practice. The discussion of these available pedagogical designs is interesting to me as a teacher, especially the last two. I'm pondering which of four is most pronounced in my own teaching. Hmmm.... Obviously the last two have a higher status in the world of academia -- and in my own "lifeworld" (which, as they argue, is not always transparent), but the world I come from (my lifeworld as a child) is more comfortable with the first two. Because these lifeworlds are not always distinguishable, I am given the opportunity to try to make more obvious what my practices as a composition teacher are versus what I would like them to be.

Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London: Routledge.