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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Like you, I found the Lovett et. al. piece fairly inspiring. While I've long been interested in taking a multimodal approach in writing classes, this article lays out a practical approach and a strong justification. I agree with you that one of the most important values for students in this approach (and similarly to the ideas that Kress lays out) is in getting them to consider their choice of communicative mode and how it can best be used to inform and persuade. This is a strategy/practice that is of value in far more contexts than just a writing classroom. Of course, as you point out, the practicalities of setting up this kind of course is definitely challenging, especially financially, but I think there are an increasing number of ways to work around this (such as video capabilities in students' cell phones, free/open source video editing software, free and public online viewing/distribution sites, etc.). The results might not be as high in quality, but the intentions and communicative possibilities are still there.
Post a Comment