History
- “In the first half of the [ninetieth] century,…collegiate education in America was fundamentally shaped by Western classical traditions and was oral in its focus…The goal of [education] was to build students’ general skill in public speaks…[Men’s] lives were imbricated with oral communication practices – speeches, debates, sermons – and such individuals has to be able to speak, as gentleman, in contexts of power. Universities were charges with preparing these future leaders to assume their roles and responsibilities” (620).
- In the second half of the century, “departments of English focused on preparing professionals whose work, after graduation, would increasingly rely on writing, as Russell explains – articles, reports, memoranda and communications, ‘texts as objects to be silently studied, critiqued, compared, appreciated and evaluated’” (621). This shift was motivated by science: “In a world attuned to the systemic methodologies of science, the recorded word, the visual trace of evidence, provided truth, and observations rendered in the visual medium of print revealed truth” (622).
Persistence of Aurality
- Selfe demonstrates, however, that aurality has also remained for a very of reasons. First, the written education in the nineteenth century was provided mostly for white males. Minorities continued to rely heavily on oral modes. (Selfe points out that this does not mean that they did not write, though; it merely means that they valued aurality more than the educational system did). Second, “academic writing often made its case for superiority by referring backwards to characteristics of aurality” (626). Using aurality to position writing as superior meant that the language of aurality never disappear. Likewise, this language of aurality was used to describe metaphorically aspects of writing (voice, rhythm, tone) (627). Third, “teachers continued to recognize [aurality’s] importance in the lived experiences of young people” (631). Yet, “though it was permissible to lure students into English classes with the promise of focusing on popular culture or music, most composition teachers agreed it was best to approach such texts as objects of study analysis, interpretation, and, perhaps mot importantly, critique. Finally, aurality has been valued in some ways in pedagogy. For instance, teachers have given audio-recorded feedback on papers and graduate students give oral defenses of their written exams and dissertations (634).
- Selfe states that aurality has come back into our focus because digital technologies have made it so more people compose with a variety of modes and so audio and video recording is easier (637). However, many teachers, she argues, do not use more modes in their classrooms because (a) they still value writing over other modes and/or (b) they do not have the necessary resources (639-41).
Concluding Arguments
Selfe ends with the following claims:
- “teachers of composition need to pay attention to, and come to value, the multiple ways in which students compose and communicate meaning, the exciting hybrid, multimodal texts they create – in both nondigital and digital environment – to meet their own needs in a changing world” (642)
- “it is [crucial] to acknowledge, value and draw on a range of composing modalities…which are in the process of becoming increasingly important to communicators” (642)
- “Composition classrooms can provide a context not only for talking about different literacies, but also for practicing different literacies, learning to create texts that combine a range of modalities as communicative resources: exploring their affordances, the special capabilities they offer to authors; identifying what audiences expect of texts that deploy different modalities and how they respond to such texts” (643)
Finally, she shows that multimodality is in the purview of Rhetoric and Composition classrooms: “I would argue that the primary work of any classroom is to help students use semiotic resources to think critically, to explore, and to solve problems. In compositions classes, this means help students through communicative problems – analyzing a range of rhetorical tasks and contexts…; deploying a range of assets…effectively and responsibility; and making meaning for a range of purposes, audiences, and information sets” (644)