- Email: [email protected]
Understanding multimodal composing in an L2 writing context
Journal of Second Language Writing xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Second Language Writing journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jslw
Disciplinary Dialogues
Understanding multimodal composing in an L2 writing context Susan Miller-Cochran
⁎
University of Arizona, Department of English, 1423 E. University Blvd., Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA
1. Introduction In my response to Diane Belcher’s “On becoming facilitators of multimodal composing and digital design,” I first explore what multimodal composing is and can be, and then explain why–from my perspective as a writing studies scholar, an L2 writing teacher, and the director of a writing program at a U.S. university–L2 writing instructors need to work with students in multimodal spaces and embrace a variety of communication strategies, knowing that those students will encounter a range of composing spaces and contexts in their personal and professional lives. 2. What is multimodal composing? I first want to take a step back and introduce an expanded definition of multimodal composing. Belcher tends to equate multimodal composing with digital composing in her article, but I would like to encourage a more inclusive definition of what multimodal composing is and what writing studies scholars mean when they talk about multimodal composing. Perhaps the most important premise is that multimodal does not always mean digital. A multimodal composition might be, for example, a research poster that incorporates images and text. As Shipka (2013) describes, “a tendency to equate ‘multimodal’ or ‘multimodality’ with digitized, screen-mediated…texts may severely limit the kinds of texts and communicative strategies or processes students explore in our classes” (p. 74). In other words, multimodal composing can mean more than digital composing. But why is that important? Calls to incorporate multimodal composing into writing classes are generally calls to expand students’ range of communicative options through new genres to new audiences, but simply moving a text to a digital space does not always change the function, purpose, or audience of the writing; therefore, it does not necessarily form a new genre. Tardy (2016) explains in her study of genre innovation that the purpose a text serves is central to its categorization as a genre; she clarifies that genres are texts that “[carry] out a function in a socially preferred way” (p. 7). As Bowen and Whithaus (2013) note, composing in a new genre must mean more than just using a new text-tool or medium for composing. Rather, to draw on Tardy’s definition, a new genre must also serve a new function or purpose. Belcher raises the case of creating a new genre by composing with digital tools when she uses the example of an abstract that is digitized. Video abstracts such as those Belcher references in TESOL Quarterly are clearly distinct genres from printed abstracts, but not all digital abstracts are new genres. When an abstract is moved from a printed page to a web-page in an online scholarly journal that publishes static articles in alphabetic text, for example, it is still serving the same purpose. And if a student uses a word processing program to compose an alphabetic text-based essay in class, the student isn’t necessarily engaging in multimodal composing by using digital technology. Having students work on computers does not, by itself, mean that the writing class is emphasizing the composing of new genres (although it does mean that students are allowed to write with the tools in class that they are most likely to use outside the classroom). Therefore, I argue that a class that has students work on computers is not, in and of itself, multimodal. Rather, a class that facilitates multimodal composing asks students to engage in making meaning with a range of modalities and in new genres. These modalities might include images, sound, movement, video, spoken words, or hypertext. A multimodal classroom might ask students to communicate similar information in new genres by creating infographics, or poster presentations, or websites.
⁎
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected].
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.10.009
1060-3743/ © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Miller-Cochran, S., Journal of Second Language Writing (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.10.009
Journal of Second Language Writing xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
S. Miller-Cochran
Palmeri (2008) argues that multimodal composing is an essential element in a college writing classroom to give students experience with making meaning in a range of ways, but writing studies (not just L2 writing) has often resisted incorporating any kind of composing outside of alphabetic texts into writing classes. Often technology is used as a tool for composing, but it is most effective when students are asked to consider how the modality is part of the rhetorical situation, and what kinds of possibilities other modalities might provide for communication with different audiences. Shipka (2011), for example, pushes the boundaries of what writing studies scholars consider to be multimodal composing with her now-famous example of a student composition written on a pair of ballet slippers. As Belcher addresses the question of the value and place of multimodal writing in L2 writing classrooms, she writes that “The question some number of L2 writing specialists may ask, however, is whether online writing, especially on mobile devices, is really writing” (p. XX). This might be an important question, but it is not the central component of rethinking L2 writing classrooms as multimodal writing classrooms. Rather, I argue that the central question is whether L2 writing specialists are ready to make the leap with the rest of the writing studies community to acknowledge that a range of genres, in a range of modalities, must be the focus of college-level writing classes. We shouldn’t limit our imaginations only to digital composing, nor should a lack of familiarity with technology be a reason not to experiment with other methods of meaning-making in the L2 writing classroom. Introducing students to elements of digital literacies is important, but the essential goal is to introduce students to a wide range of modalities which can be useful for engaging in important explorations of process, invention, and communication. 3. Why is multimodal composing important in an L2 writing context? Once we expand the definition of multimodal composing, it is easy to understand why various modalities deserve attention in L2 writing courses. Johns (1998) demonstrated nearly two decades ago, through her case study of a student using visuals in her writing in a macroeconomics class, that a range of modalities are important in different disciplines and professions. Other scholars writing about L2 contexts also provide evidence to support the importance of multimodal composing in L2 writing classes. Fraiberg (2010), for example, draws a connection between multilingualism and multimodality, making the argument that languages and modalities are both important resources that writers draw upon. Incorporating multiple modalities into an L2 writing classroom can help encourage a focus on process, as various modes of expression can contribute to invention, drafting, and remixing. Fraiberg (2010) argues that study of writing process is “bound up in complex cultural and genre ecologies,” (p. 116), and it is important for writing teachers to understand that process requires focusing not just on language resources but also the modalities with which students compose and make meaning. Using a range of modalities for composing can offer students new sets of tools for developing effective processes for responding to different writing situations. Instructors new to multimodal composing might be concerned, however, about how to introduce new modalities effectively. Shin and Cimasko (2008), in their study of an L2 writing class, provide guidelines for introducing multimodal composing successfully with L2 writers. They argue that multimodal work should be incorporated throughout an L2 writing course (not as an add-on or as a separate unit), and instructors should develop a rich understanding of the ways that multimodal composing can be used in academic and professional contexts. If the emphasis of L2 writing classes, especially those taught as part of U.S. college writing requirements, is to prepare students for the writing situations they will experience in the future, multimodality that includes, but is not limited to, the digital contexts Belcher describes must be a part of that pedagogical framework. Alphabetic text-based communication alone will not prepare students for the range of writing contexts they will encounter. Multimodal composing asks students to consider rich rhetorical contexts and includes medium as part of the context in which students are writing. If our goal is to teach L2 writers to communicate effectively, then we must teach multimodal composing and embrace a broader understanding of available genres for communication. References Bowen, T., & Whithaus, C. (2013). What else is possible: Multimodal composing and genre in the teaching of writing. In T. Bowen, & C. Whithaus (Eds.). Multimodal literacies and emerging genres (pp. 1–12). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Fraiberg, S. (2010). Composition 2. 0: Toward a multilingual and multimodal framework. College Composition and Communication, 1, 100–126. Johns, A. (1998). The visual and the verbal: A case study in macroeconomics. English for Specific Purposes, 17(2), 183–197. Palmeri, J. (2008). Remixing composition: A history of multimodal writing pedagogy. Carbondale, IL: SIU Press. Shin, D., & Cimasko, T. (2008). Multimodal composition in a college ESL class: New tools, traditional norms. Computers and Composition, 4, 376–395. Shipka, J. (2011). Toward a composition made whole. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Shipka (2013). Including, but not limited to, the digital: Composing multimodal texts. In T. Bowen, & C. Whithaus (Eds.). Multimodal literacies and emerging genres (pp. 73–89). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Tardy, C. M. (2016). Beyond convention: Genre innovation in academic writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Susan Miller-Cochran is Professor of English and Director of the Writing Program at the University of Arizona, where her research focuses on the intersections of technology, multilingual writing, and writing program administration. She currently serves as Immediate Past President of the Council of Writing Program Administrators.
2
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Second Language Writing journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jslw
Disciplinary Dialogues
Understanding multimodal composing in an L2 writing context Susan Miller-Cochran
⁎
University of Arizona, Department of English, 1423 E. University Blvd., Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA
1. Introduction In my response to Diane Belcher’s “On becoming facilitators of multimodal composing and digital design,” I first explore what multimodal composing is and can be, and then explain why–from my perspective as a writing studies scholar, an L2 writing teacher, and the director of a writing program at a U.S. university–L2 writing instructors need to work with students in multimodal spaces and embrace a variety of communication strategies, knowing that those students will encounter a range of composing spaces and contexts in their personal and professional lives. 2. What is multimodal composing? I first want to take a step back and introduce an expanded definition of multimodal composing. Belcher tends to equate multimodal composing with digital composing in her article, but I would like to encourage a more inclusive definition of what multimodal composing is and what writing studies scholars mean when they talk about multimodal composing. Perhaps the most important premise is that multimodal does not always mean digital. A multimodal composition might be, for example, a research poster that incorporates images and text. As Shipka (2013) describes, “a tendency to equate ‘multimodal’ or ‘multimodality’ with digitized, screen-mediated…texts may severely limit the kinds of texts and communicative strategies or processes students explore in our classes” (p. 74). In other words, multimodal composing can mean more than digital composing. But why is that important? Calls to incorporate multimodal composing into writing classes are generally calls to expand students’ range of communicative options through new genres to new audiences, but simply moving a text to a digital space does not always change the function, purpose, or audience of the writing; therefore, it does not necessarily form a new genre. Tardy (2016) explains in her study of genre innovation that the purpose a text serves is central to its categorization as a genre; she clarifies that genres are texts that “[carry] out a function in a socially preferred way” (p. 7). As Bowen and Whithaus (2013) note, composing in a new genre must mean more than just using a new text-tool or medium for composing. Rather, to draw on Tardy’s definition, a new genre must also serve a new function or purpose. Belcher raises the case of creating a new genre by composing with digital tools when she uses the example of an abstract that is digitized. Video abstracts such as those Belcher references in TESOL Quarterly are clearly distinct genres from printed abstracts, but not all digital abstracts are new genres. When an abstract is moved from a printed page to a web-page in an online scholarly journal that publishes static articles in alphabetic text, for example, it is still serving the same purpose. And if a student uses a word processing program to compose an alphabetic text-based essay in class, the student isn’t necessarily engaging in multimodal composing by using digital technology. Having students work on computers does not, by itself, mean that the writing class is emphasizing the composing of new genres (although it does mean that students are allowed to write with the tools in class that they are most likely to use outside the classroom). Therefore, I argue that a class that has students work on computers is not, in and of itself, multimodal. Rather, a class that facilitates multimodal composing asks students to engage in making meaning with a range of modalities and in new genres. These modalities might include images, sound, movement, video, spoken words, or hypertext. A multimodal classroom might ask students to communicate similar information in new genres by creating infographics, or poster presentations, or websites.
⁎
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected].
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.10.009
1060-3743/ © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Miller-Cochran, S., Journal of Second Language Writing (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.10.009
Journal of Second Language Writing xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
S. Miller-Cochran
Palmeri (2008) argues that multimodal composing is an essential element in a college writing classroom to give students experience with making meaning in a range of ways, but writing studies (not just L2 writing) has often resisted incorporating any kind of composing outside of alphabetic texts into writing classes. Often technology is used as a tool for composing, but it is most effective when students are asked to consider how the modality is part of the rhetorical situation, and what kinds of possibilities other modalities might provide for communication with different audiences. Shipka (2011), for example, pushes the boundaries of what writing studies scholars consider to be multimodal composing with her now-famous example of a student composition written on a pair of ballet slippers. As Belcher addresses the question of the value and place of multimodal writing in L2 writing classrooms, she writes that “The question some number of L2 writing specialists may ask, however, is whether online writing, especially on mobile devices, is really writing” (p. XX). This might be an important question, but it is not the central component of rethinking L2 writing classrooms as multimodal writing classrooms. Rather, I argue that the central question is whether L2 writing specialists are ready to make the leap with the rest of the writing studies community to acknowledge that a range of genres, in a range of modalities, must be the focus of college-level writing classes. We shouldn’t limit our imaginations only to digital composing, nor should a lack of familiarity with technology be a reason not to experiment with other methods of meaning-making in the L2 writing classroom. Introducing students to elements of digital literacies is important, but the essential goal is to introduce students to a wide range of modalities which can be useful for engaging in important explorations of process, invention, and communication. 3. Why is multimodal composing important in an L2 writing context? Once we expand the definition of multimodal composing, it is easy to understand why various modalities deserve attention in L2 writing courses. Johns (1998) demonstrated nearly two decades ago, through her case study of a student using visuals in her writing in a macroeconomics class, that a range of modalities are important in different disciplines and professions. Other scholars writing about L2 contexts also provide evidence to support the importance of multimodal composing in L2 writing classes. Fraiberg (2010), for example, draws a connection between multilingualism and multimodality, making the argument that languages and modalities are both important resources that writers draw upon. Incorporating multiple modalities into an L2 writing classroom can help encourage a focus on process, as various modes of expression can contribute to invention, drafting, and remixing. Fraiberg (2010) argues that study of writing process is “bound up in complex cultural and genre ecologies,” (p. 116), and it is important for writing teachers to understand that process requires focusing not just on language resources but also the modalities with which students compose and make meaning. Using a range of modalities for composing can offer students new sets of tools for developing effective processes for responding to different writing situations. Instructors new to multimodal composing might be concerned, however, about how to introduce new modalities effectively. Shin and Cimasko (2008), in their study of an L2 writing class, provide guidelines for introducing multimodal composing successfully with L2 writers. They argue that multimodal work should be incorporated throughout an L2 writing course (not as an add-on or as a separate unit), and instructors should develop a rich understanding of the ways that multimodal composing can be used in academic and professional contexts. If the emphasis of L2 writing classes, especially those taught as part of U.S. college writing requirements, is to prepare students for the writing situations they will experience in the future, multimodality that includes, but is not limited to, the digital contexts Belcher describes must be a part of that pedagogical framework. Alphabetic text-based communication alone will not prepare students for the range of writing contexts they will encounter. Multimodal composing asks students to consider rich rhetorical contexts and includes medium as part of the context in which students are writing. If our goal is to teach L2 writers to communicate effectively, then we must teach multimodal composing and embrace a broader understanding of available genres for communication. References Bowen, T., & Whithaus, C. (2013). What else is possible: Multimodal composing and genre in the teaching of writing. In T. Bowen, & C. Whithaus (Eds.). Multimodal literacies and emerging genres (pp. 1–12). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Fraiberg, S. (2010). Composition 2. 0: Toward a multilingual and multimodal framework. College Composition and Communication, 1, 100–126. Johns, A. (1998). The visual and the verbal: A case study in macroeconomics. English for Specific Purposes, 17(2), 183–197. Palmeri, J. (2008). Remixing composition: A history of multimodal writing pedagogy. Carbondale, IL: SIU Press. Shin, D., & Cimasko, T. (2008). Multimodal composition in a college ESL class: New tools, traditional norms. Computers and Composition, 4, 376–395. Shipka, J. (2011). Toward a composition made whole. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Shipka (2013). Including, but not limited to, the digital: Composing multimodal texts. In T. Bowen, & C. Whithaus (Eds.). Multimodal literacies and emerging genres (pp. 73–89). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Tardy, C. M. (2016). Beyond convention: Genre innovation in academic writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Susan Miller-Cochran is Professor of English and Director of the Writing Program at the University of Arizona, where her research focuses on the intersections of technology, multilingual writing, and writing program administration. She currently serves as Immediate Past President of the Council of Writing Program Administrators.
2