if we continue to define literacy in terms of alphabetic practices only, in ways that ignore, exclude, or devalue new-media
texts, we not only abdicate a professional responsibility to describe accurately and robustly the ways in which humans are
now communicating and making meaning but we also run the risk of our curriculum holding declining relevance for students who are communicating in increasingly expansive, networked environments (DeVoss et al qtd. on 167).
As we move away from a sole focus on the alphabetic, our students can become “composers [who] design texts that help readers/consumers/viewers stay alert to how any text – like its composers and readers – doesn’t function independently of how it is made and in what context” (Anne Wysocki qtd. on 165).
Riess and Young lay out the following suggestions for a pedagogy that moves toward multimodality (though, importantly, they do not exclude the alphabetic from this):
- They recommend having “students develop multimodal expressions as one possible alternative to a formal essay. This approach recognizes the pedagogical value of incorporating academic writing as an essential component of multimodal compositions and at the same time recognizes that remediations, appropriations, reflections, and performances often deepen students’ learning and develop a fuller range of their communicative abilities” (167).
- With this, they argue that the alterative possibilities should not be limited to the modes and media in which the teacher feels comfortable composing. “Giving students choices of modes and media often increases their motivation to learn and to communicate and enables them as both composers and audience to make rhetorical as well as creative decisions” (165-6).
- They also recommend that teachers require their students to engage in “reflective practice where [they] not only present and represent their thinking and learning but also are aware of their rhetorical and design choices” (166). These reflective texts are also supposed to help students “transfer and adapt such knowledge in new rhetorical situations” (171).
- In thinking about technical skills, Riess and Young state, “We don’t require expertise in video production or painting from our students; we do require commitment, critical thinking, engagement with content, and thoughtful composing where multiple communicative elements interrelate” (179-80). They suggest assess the work based on the ways in which modes work together (as opposed to assessing modes individually) as well as the student’s reflection.
- They recognize that many teachers are hesitant about multimodal texts because they do not know how to assess them. “But accepting this challenge, without denying its difficulties, is what teachers must do, else we risk denying our students experiences in a robust range of rhetorical and communicative expressions, narrowing their choices to only the ones we teachers know best. Accepting the challenge involves placing trust in students and trust in ourselves as teachers” (179).