Ruminations on multimodality/The trouble with Mem Fox

The multimodal focus of today's articles was compelling. Should we cater to the "Net Generation"? To do so would - as Takayoshi, Howisher, and Selfe point out - require a "theoretical shift in [our] understanding of literacy" (3). I'm curious what everyone thinks of this. I embrace technology (which is inarguably the main reason for this massive shift towards multimodal texts), both as a teaching tool and focus of research. We absolutely should incorporate more multimodal assignments. But (to echo a "key question") when we start talking about images, sounds, music, video, color, animation, and the like - are we still talking about writing? I'm not saying students shouldn't learn these things, but should they learn them from us? This is a larger question of disciplinarity, I suppose...at what point are we bleeding into the realm of Communication scholars? Perhaps we want to do that...? Maybe this is the missing link between Writing Studies and the long forgotten fourth C.

Takayoshi et. al. provide a convincing argument, that we are, true to our Aristotlean roots, helping our students to "see the available means of persuasion." Writing has typically been the "means" upon which our discipline has focused. I see great potential in expanding this focus, provided that these multimodal texts enhance students' understanding of rhetorical situation (purpose, audience, etc). An even more important caveat is that comp classes continue to teach written composition in some capacity. Other departments may pick up the slack if we don't delve into multimodal texts, but who - other than us- will teach writing?

Takayoshi et. al. also point out that academic writing, as if in defiance of the multimodal revolution taking place outside the classroom, is still primarily just "words on a page" (1). Point taken, and it's a good one, but I have a few issues here.

First, a lot of so-called multimodal writing is still just words on a virtual page. Better writers would probably make better bloggers and better creators of wikis. Obviously, there's a disparity between a paper text and multimodal genre, and certainly, the ability to write an argumentative essay does not necessarily enable one to compose effective e-mails, but if we're teaching flexible strategies (as I think we should), and not rigid "skills," then this should not be a difficult transition. I realize I'm going against the tide, especially in light of the fact that rhetorical genre research has shown that skills acquired in one genre rarely transfer to another. Still...are words on a page really that far removed from multimodal work? If, in fact, "it is the thinking, decision-making, and creative problem-solving involved in creating meaning through any modality (my emphasis) that provide the long lasting and useful lessons students can carry into multiple communicative situations," then wouldn't the meaning created through writing "carry into" some multimodal contexts?

The "words on a page" characterization is perpetuated (though not explicitly) by Shipka. She employs something of a straw man argument in her article, exaggerating the prescriptiveness and rigidity of writing instruction in her push for multimodality in the classroom. The writing prompt (285) she chooses to argue against is extraordinarily limiting, linear, and prescriptive. This makes it easier for her to champion multimodal texts as paragons of flexibility:

I would argue [...] that a multimodal task-based framework - precisely because
it demands that students both think and act more flexibly as they assume
responsibility for determining what needs to be done along with how it might
possibly be achieved - positions them in the thick of things, and in so doing,
foregrounds these complex issues in ways that more prescriptive prompts may not (292).

I won't disagree with her assertion, but what about less prescriptive prompts? Don't good writing prompts encourage precisely this type of flexible action?

Prior talks in terms of dichotomous opposites, as if teaching writing without multimodality categorically involves "assignments that predetermine goals and narrowly limit materials, methodologies, and technologies" (285). My point here is that good writing assignments can accomplish many of the things that multimodal assignments can, and while the latter certainly lend themselves towards more open-ended learning, the former are not synonymous with prescriptivism.

For my own part, I'm something of a minimalist. I like words on a page. I have no aversion to multimodality, but where does this leave people more stubborn than me?
_____________

I found the Fox article a bit overbearing. Don’t get me wrong; I applaud her enthusiasm. She seems like a person who teaches for all the right reasons. I agree wholeheartedly with most of her assertions.

The importance of caring, about not only your students but also your subject area, is difficult to overstate. I’ve had the misfortune of being “taught” by several blithely detached instructors. Their apathy was transparent and contagious – students immediately noticed, and many came to share their indifferent attitude. The only thing that these teachers truly taught was a lethargic lack of engagement. Can we really expect students to be invested in writing if we aren’t ourselves invested in it (or them)? In our inexhaustible explorations of various epistemologies and pedagogies, we must take care not to overlook perhaps the most crucial aspect of teaching – we have to mean it.

So…yes, writing matters, and writing assignments should also matter. And as obvious as it might seem, we as teachers should care not only about our students, but about our writing itself.

That said, Fox’s full-throttle enthusiasm is a bit much. It’s not her ideas I take issue with, but her over-the-top, touchy-feely, self-congratulatory tone. Her unbridled exuberance belies what is, for many of us, a very painful and arduous process. Writing tends to be hard work. The battle analogy is more apt, but still a little heavy-handed. Granted, Fox teaches very young students – and her approach might be perfect for them – but the article is clearly aimed at teachers, and the steady stream of catch phrases, blissful exclamations, and grand proclamations sometimes seems more like a self-help seminar or late night infomercial, fraught with fatuous feelgoodism and “yay us” positivity. This might not be fair to her – that is, bringing her undeniably sincere passion for teaching down to the level of insincere sales pitches – but students have seen those infomercials, too. Student perception is important – what if her personality – her real personality – is seen as a contrived persona? Does anyone really get this excited about writing?

Perhaps. Maybe I’m being a curmudgeonly jerk. I don’t mean to imply that we should not be enthusiastic about writing. I may not “ache” with caring, but I care. I’ll try not to let my distaste for her style obscure what are some very good points.