This post will consist largely of a close reading/anecdotal response to the Table 2.1 in MC, based largely on my (still growing) experience teaching English 151 at Ohio university. I am a little critical of some of the assumptions made in this table regarding the first-year composition students proficiency to analyze and compose written text.
"Students have considerable experience choosing topics for written essays--although their skills need developing and refining."
I would agree that students are able to select a topics and produce an essay. But what is unique in this program, and thankfully so, is that we value writing as a process of exploration--which my students demonstrate very limited capability in doing so early in the course. I do not focus on choosing a topic and simply supporting/arguing a thesis, I instead focus on delayed thesis techniques to encourage critical engagement, which I feel is the real goal of the essay assignments (audience and purpose and genre of course are considered). To say their skills "need developing and refining" may be too polite in some cases, with some students I am encouraging a complete re-imagining of what an essay is and does.
"Students have basic familiarity with composing ...locating materials...downloading and documenting sources..."
Many of my 151 students are engaging this for the first time, and many view documentation as a way to avoid getting in trouble or cheating (Ashley did a great job pointing this out with her presentation). The re-imagining of what citation is and to critically engage its purpose is more than just memorizing genre and convention, it is engaging what how ideas are able to progress by building upon and revising the writing of others and using documentation to, yes offer credit, but to share what is a constantly changing pool of knowledge within and outside the academy.
"Students generally know how to save, print...share them in digital environments."
I agree. But learning how to submit essays on blackboard seems difficult for some, a point that I think the authors quasi-explore in chapter 3 page 36, "Devote attention to the technical side of production."
"Students have acquired a great deal of semiotic...understanding of English and can put this knowledge to work in writing alphabetic essays."
Perhaps I am the only one, but in my classes are hear the 'It just is' argument a lot. Writing essays and facilitating class discussions allow both instructor and teacher to use both critical theory and schemas to engage semiotic meaning. My students seem to not have a "great deal of semiotic understanding" coming into the classroom, or maybe they are just nervous engaging it. In any case, I agree that multimodal education has the power to look at affordances in order to understand how meaning is constructed and conveyed. But I would caution against assuming our students "have a great deal" of semiotic understanding regarding written texts.
"Students may need a great deal of help operating equipement..."
I probably do as well, and I am probably more familiar than most (I worked in retail AND I am sort of a tech geek). Technology changes so quickly, this will likely be a constant process. Do we have access to technical assistance through university channels? And remember what Dickie says, establish a knowledge base of our own and have a backup plan in case something goes wrong (D. Selfe 20, 22).
I don't know if anyone else shares my opinion, but while the authors of these articles acknowledge the caveats against trivializing stylistic conventions of alpabetic texts, they also seem to exaggerate either the differences between alphabetic meaning and other modes, or they exaggerate a student's familiarity with these conventions. Is there such a need to differentiate the two? How different are they?
In fairness I think the subsequent chapters address this (audio to convey an accent or a tone...etc.), but perhaps until I am able to work with it myself, it remains abstract to me. We eva gonna have a workshop on dis shit?
Many of your concerns seem to be on what we are assuming our students know and don't know, which, I think, might be a problem with implementing multimodal assignments to first-year composition. While we can generalize and say that our students will know X and Y, that might not really be the case. Perhaps these kinds of assignments in a Junior class, or even a Freshman Composition 2 (which we don't have) would work better. I am more hesitant to try this with my freshmen that I might be if they were juniors, but that might just be my own comfort level with implementing such assignments and the hope (perhaps unfounded) that it might be a better teaching experience when the students have already gotten their feet wet.
ReplyDeleteBryan, I definitely agree with you that not only do some of these articles assume a high technology literacy of students, but also their drive to learn and engage with everything they propose. It reminds me of Anne Beaufort's College Writing and Beyond--small sample size, ignoring important details, etc.
ReplyDelete"Perhaps I am the only one, but in my classes are hear the 'It just is' argument a lot."
ReplyDeleteOoooh, I hear MYSELF saying this! Like with crazy MLA style rules! I find the element of our readings I appreciate most is the focus on WHY it's important to compose multimodally and WHAT choices should and can be made. Reason, like Claudia says in her post, is so important for both the students and the teachers!