Wednesday, May 2, 2007
What is going on here?
The following essay examines the benefits multimodal instruction and composition have on a student’s composing process(es)—namely, the abstraction to generalization progression. Though not an essay intended to provide empirical evidence for adequate modes of implementation or practice, this essay explores the nature of the abstraction-generalization progression and the degree to which incorporating multimodal instruction can foster said progression. As a theoretical venture, this essay constructs a framework outlining the necessity for multimodal instruction and composition in a classroom setting and the impact such incorporation has on a student’s ability to move from abstraction to generalization during her or his composing process. The purpose of such a framework is to increase an instructor’s awareness of this important issue and the need to implement such instruction in the university/college setting.
From Abstraction to Generalization: Exploring the Benefits Multimodal Instruction has on a Student’s Composing Process(es)
There is no one way to teach a student composition. Over the course of the last few decades, much has been done to explore various methods of composition and composition pedagogy. More recently, though, drastic steps have been taken to re-imagine the methods teachers use when approaching composition pedagogy and to re-formulate exactly what constitutes composition. In an effort to keep up with rapidly evolving technology and the advent of multimodal instruction, the long-held notion that composition involves a desk, some paper, and a pen seems to be an antiquated concept. Not only has technology been successfully implemented into university/college composition classrooms and pedagogical theories across the educational spectrum, but the advent of technology in such classrooms opens the door to various practices and possibilities long thought impossible—or at the very least, too difficult to be rewarding. What, then, does all of this have to do with the composing process? It is true that composition pedagogy benefits from the incorporation of technology and multimodal instruction—for all acknowledge the benefit of increased accessibility to texts, writing examples, and writing styles—but how, exactly, can the incorporation of technology and multimodal instruction enhance a student’s composition process(es)? Or can it?
In her essay “Is Teaching Still Possible? Writing, Meaning, and Higher Order Reasoning,” Ann Berthoff examines abstraction and generalization:
"Abstraction is natural, normal: it is the way we make sense of the world in perception, in dreaming, in all expressive acts, in works of art, in all imagining. Abstraction is the work of the active mind; it is what the mind does as it forms. The name for this power used to be imagination. We do not have to teach it: it is the work of our Creator…We do not have to teach abstraction. What we do have to do is to show students how to reclaim their imaginations so that ‘the prime agent of all human perception’ can be for them a living model of what they do when they write." (751)
Though Berthoff notes, “[we as teachers must] show our students how to use what they already do so cleverly in order to learn how to generalize—how to move from abstraction in the non-discursive mode to discursive abstraction to generalization,” her suggestions about how to foster this progression do not include the incorporation of multimodal instruction or composition, nor do they clearly and effectively outline the necessity for such incorporation (751). In essence, as a framework, Berthoff’s examination excels in the recognition of a common composing problem. However, such recognition, while important and pertinent to composition pedagogy, falls short when hoping to reach the final goal of “the paper.” Berthoff’s contention, “If college students find generalizing difficult, it’s because nobody has ever taught them how to go about it, and abstraction which proceeds by means of generalizing—concept formation, as it is often called—must be deliberately learned and should therefore be deliberately taught” is certainly true (754). The problem then lies not in recognition, but in practice. How can instructors of composition deliberately “teach” such a process; and more importantly, how will the implementation of multimodal instruction foster the learning of such a process and ultimately aid in a student’s ability to master the abstraction-generalization progression?
I do not pretend to have the answers to such questions, though. Whether or not such implementation will indeed foster this abstraction-generalization progression can only adequately be measured by empirical observation undertaken in an actual classroom setting. However, I am far more interested in exploring the benefits multimodal instruction and composition can have in a composition classroom setting on a student’s abstraction-generalization progression. There is no question, as aforementioned, that multimodal instruction is beneficial to a composition classroom. However, the benefit of such instruction has not yet been directly applied to a student’s composing process (es)—to the abstraction-generalization progression. Thus, this paper examines the importance of such a correlation and explores the possibilities this correlation unveils.
At the foreground of such an argument is the need to define such terms as “multimodal” and “technology.” Contemporary composition pedagogical theory acknowledges the synchronous relationship existing between “multimodal” and “technology.” When indicating a need for multimodal incorporation in the university/college classroom, the current wave of thought that technology and/or computers will play a role in such incorporation is almost second nature. Because technology is perhaps the most efficient and universal method for incorporating multimodal instruction and composition into a classroom, teachers and students alike tend to perceive multimodal learning and practice as a byproduct of technological usage. How easy is it for teachers and students to access any number of pictures of the White House via the internet? How quickly can students and teachers link to The Who’s “Teenage Wasteland” and listen to this song? Unfortunately though, such an “inherent” connection is merely a construct of our technologically-dependent society. While the term “multimodal” and the term “technology” are interrelated terms often used in conjunction with terms such as “composition” and “composition pedagogy,” it is very possible to speak of either term without necessitating a reference to the other. For instance, though the use of technology certainly makes it quite easy to incorporate multimodal instruction and composition into the university/college classroom setting, technology is not the only way to incorporate such learning. According to Carey Jewitt, “Print-based reading and writing are and always have been multimodal. They require the interpretation and design of visual marks, space, colour, font or style, and, increasingly image, and other modes of representation and communication” (315). Multimodal learning does not have to incorporate technology in as much the same was as teachers and students can use technology without engaging in multimodal exercises. However, as it serves this paper and in many ways the trend of educational settings, the interchangeability of “multimodal” and “technology” seems to elude to the absolute most efficient and effective way to approach contemporary composition pedagogy. “The resources of new technologies,” as Jewitt further contends, “emphasize the visual potential of writing in ways that bring forth new configurations of image and writing on screen” (320). The accessibility of visual images, various forms of text, sound clips, images in motion, etc. when using technology simply means that multimodal instruction and composition, at least these days, seems to work best when supplemented with technology.
Quite plainly, a student’s abstraction is not limited to text, but is replete with visual images, text, movement, and perhaps even sound. Thus, a purely textual learning discourse forces students to reconfigure abstraction and can even stifle generalization. The incorporation of multimodal instruction and composition, then, counters this occluded transition—by engaging students in textual, visual, and auditory texts; by giving students the ability to engage in varying manners of composition that are not purely textual and in turn fostering an active mind working in a three-dimensional, multimodal way as opposed to the one-dimensional, textual way; and by making the abstraction-generalization progression more “human.” Essentially, what is meant by “more ‘human’” is that students whose learning is supplemented with multimodal instruction and who can produce texts that likewise incorporate various multimodal aspects do not have to relegate the visual and auditory elements of their abstractions or re-formulate such elements into a purely textual presentation. Thus, a student’s finished product when composed in a multimodal-friendly environment incorporates these varied elements of abstraction and in turn is imbedded with such human elements as visuals and sound clips—for quite simply, one does not think in the 12-point, Times New Roman, double-spaced, five paragraph format. Jewitt echoes these sentiments by stating, “Writing is not always the central meaning making resource in applications for use in school English and science. In some texts writing is dominant, while in others there may be little or no writing” (316). The point that Jewitt makes in her article, and consequently the point in this essay, is not that visual images or sound clips are intended to supplant writing as an important factor in a text, but merely, as Jewitt notes, “image and writing attend to entirely different aspects of meaning in a text” (317). Visual images, sound clips, images in motion, etc. can be used to supplement writing in as much the same way they can be incorporated into classroom instruction to aid in the abstraction-generalization progression: as Jewitt contends “writing is usually one part of a multimodal ensemble of image, music, speech, and moving elements on the screen” (323). “At times,” Jewitt further argues, “the boundaries between word and image appear entirely permeable and unstable. The potential of new technologies blur the boundaries between the visual and the written in ways that ‘recast modes’ and the relationships between them” (321).
Nevertheless, this is not to say that “traditional” methods of composition pedagogy are useless and/or wrong, but that a more progressive, multimodal pedagogy encourages students to ponder their abstractions in the manner by which their abstractions come to them and discourages students to re-formulate such abstractions merely to meet the “formatting standards.” If in fact a re-formatting of one’s abstractions is what a student desires, this can be encouraged as well. The goal is not to force students into incorporating multimodal elements into their composition process(es), but to foster the abstraction-generalization progression for the sole purpose of aiding a student in that very progression. Instructors of composition are not meant to prevent students from composing in the manner they ultimately wish. However, encouraging students to engage in multimodal classroom learning allows them the freedom to transition from abstraction to generalization in a more natural way and consequently seems to foster an equally multimodal composition.
A great stumbling block in a student’s composition process is collecting the ideas and translating those ideas into a legible, organized composition. So often will an instructor hear student’s complain of not being able to write what they want to say: “I know what I want to say, and I can even put it into words. But for some reason, I can’t write down what I am thinking, and what I want to say does not come out very clear in my writing.” Frequently, if an instructor is reading through a student’s paper with her or him present and questions the meaning of a certain sentence, the student will be able to lucidly and far more effectively explain what they mean than is written. All too often, the fear and apprehension of writing an essay that is formatted in the concrete manner student’s are taught to utilize can stifle a student’s thinking, once more making the abstraction-generalization progression that much more difficult.
Multimodal instruction and composition, however, is not easy, nor is meant to simplify the abstraction-generalization process. On the contrary, technology can often be very scary. However, because school systems are continuingly becoming more reliant on technology and its use in the classroom, far more students are more comfortable with technology at this day and age than they would have been ten years ago. The purpose of multimodal instruction and its role in the abstraction-generalization process is not to “make the composing process easier,” but to encourage a type of thinking and composing that students may feel is more natural and effective. Not all students’ strengths are writing. In fact, many students will often tell their instructors, “If only I could draw what you want me to write.” Multimodal instruction/composition, then, provides students with more freedom, thus opening up their visual, auditory, and even textual doors to produce a composition that is often better organized and better “written.”
Because composition is a requirement at most universities and colleges for students of every discipline, expanding the instruction and learning process tends to make composition more accessible to a greater number of students. Unfortunately, there will probably still be those students who find it very difficult to master the abstraction-generalization progression even with multimodal instruction. No one way of teaching composition will ever “cure” the problem of the abstraction-generalization progression. Likewise, even the incorporation of multimodal instruction and composition will not lead to a sudden mastery of the progression for most students. The goal, though, is not mastery, but benefit. The abstraction-generalization progression is a process even professional writers and academics can work on and perfect. The purpose of all of this then is to foster confidence and understanding in a student, thus benefiting a student’s progression and setting them down the right path.
While this essay examines the benefits of incorporating multimodal instruction and composition in a university/college classroom setting, successful implementation can only be measured once such instruction is incorporated into an instructor’s pedagogical approach. Though I realize that this essay has not established a framework of exactly how to use multimodal instruction and composition in a classroom to foster the abstraction-generalization progression, the purpose of this essay is to examine the benefits incorporating multimodal instruction and composition would have on a student’s abstraction-generalization progression. Why multimodal classroom instruction and composition is beneficial to a student’s composing process(es) seems far more important at this juncture than exploring the exact methods an instructor can utilize to implement multimodal instruction and composition. Actual implementation, however, is just as important as perceiving the benefits of such instruction; and yet, in keeping with a linear progression of first thought and theorizing and then implementation, at this point in time instructors must first recognize the benefits of this type of instruction in the context of the abstraction-generalization progression. Only after assessing these benefits and the most adequate methods for incorporation can a successful implementation trial commence. With such empirical evidence and observation, then, instructors will be able to effectively gauge teaching methods and approaches utilizing multimodal classroom instruction and composition and find the “best fit” for aiding a student in her or his abstraction-generalization progression.
Berthoff, Ann E. “Is Teaching Still Possible? Writing, Meaning, and Higher Order Reasoning.” College English 46.8 (1984): 743-757.
Bettencourt, Patrick J. “Voicing Experience.” In Our Own Voice: Graduate Students Teach Writing. Ed. Leanne B. Warshauer. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2000. 10-18.
Jewitt, Carey. “Multimodality, ‘Reading’, and ‘Writing’ for the 21st Century.” Discourse: Studies
Lauer, Janice M. “Rhetoric and Composition Studies: A Multimodal Discipline.” Teaching Writing: Landmarks and Horizons. Ed. Christian Russell McDonald and Robert L. McDonald. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP, 2002. 121-133.
Lunsford, Andrea A. “Writing, Technologies, and the Fifth Canon.” Computers and Composition
Scott, Tony. “Writing Work, Technology, and Pedagogy in the Era of Late Capitalism.” Computers and Composition 23 (2006): 228-243.
In her essay “Is Teaching Still Possible? Writing, Meaning, and Higher Order Reasoning,” Ann Berthoff examines abstraction and generalization:
"Abstraction is natural, normal: it is the way we make sense of the world in perception, in dreaming, in all expressive acts, in works of art, in all imagining. Abstraction is the work of the active mind; it is what the mind does as it forms. The name for this power used to be imagination. We do not have to teach it: it is the work of our Creator…We do not have to teach abstraction. What we do have to do is to show students how to reclaim their imaginations so that ‘the prime agent of all human perception’ can be for them a living model of what they do when they write." (751)
Though Berthoff notes, “[we as teachers must] show our students how to use what they already do so cleverly in order to learn how to generalize—how to move from abstraction in the non-discursive mode to discursive abstraction to generalization,” her suggestions about how to foster this progression do not include the incorporation of multimodal instruction or composition, nor do they clearly and effectively outline the necessity for such incorporation (751). In essence, as a framework, Berthoff’s examination excels in the recognition of a common composing problem. However, such recognition, while important and pertinent to composition pedagogy, falls short when hoping to reach the final goal of “the paper.” Berthoff’s contention, “If college students find generalizing difficult, it’s because nobody has ever taught them how to go about it, and abstraction which proceeds by means of generalizing—concept formation, as it is often called—must be deliberately learned and should therefore be deliberately taught” is certainly true (754). The problem then lies not in recognition, but in practice. How can instructors of composition deliberately “teach” such a process; and more importantly, how will the implementation of multimodal instruction foster the learning of such a process and ultimately aid in a student’s ability to master the abstraction-generalization progression?
I do not pretend to have the answers to such questions, though. Whether or not such implementation will indeed foster this abstraction-generalization progression can only adequately be measured by empirical observation undertaken in an actual classroom setting. However, I am far more interested in exploring the benefits multimodal instruction and composition can have in a composition classroom setting on a student’s abstraction-generalization progression. There is no question, as aforementioned, that multimodal instruction is beneficial to a composition classroom. However, the benefit of such instruction has not yet been directly applied to a student’s composing process (es)—to the abstraction-generalization progression. Thus, this paper examines the importance of such a correlation and explores the possibilities this correlation unveils.
At the foreground of such an argument is the need to define such terms as “multimodal” and “technology.” Contemporary composition pedagogical theory acknowledges the synchronous relationship existing between “multimodal” and “technology.” When indicating a need for multimodal incorporation in the university/college classroom, the current wave of thought that technology and/or computers will play a role in such incorporation is almost second nature. Because technology is perhaps the most efficient and universal method for incorporating multimodal instruction and composition into a classroom, teachers and students alike tend to perceive multimodal learning and practice as a byproduct of technological usage. How easy is it for teachers and students to access any number of pictures of the White House via the internet? How quickly can students and teachers link to The Who’s “Teenage Wasteland” and listen to this song? Unfortunately though, such an “inherent” connection is merely a construct of our technologically-dependent society. While the term “multimodal” and the term “technology” are interrelated terms often used in conjunction with terms such as “composition” and “composition pedagogy,” it is very possible to speak of either term without necessitating a reference to the other. For instance, though the use of technology certainly makes it quite easy to incorporate multimodal instruction and composition into the university/college classroom setting, technology is not the only way to incorporate such learning. According to Carey Jewitt, “Print-based reading and writing are and always have been multimodal. They require the interpretation and design of visual marks, space, colour, font or style, and, increasingly image, and other modes of representation and communication” (315). Multimodal learning does not have to incorporate technology in as much the same was as teachers and students can use technology without engaging in multimodal exercises. However, as it serves this paper and in many ways the trend of educational settings, the interchangeability of “multimodal” and “technology” seems to elude to the absolute most efficient and effective way to approach contemporary composition pedagogy. “The resources of new technologies,” as Jewitt further contends, “emphasize the visual potential of writing in ways that bring forth new configurations of image and writing on screen” (320). The accessibility of visual images, various forms of text, sound clips, images in motion, etc. when using technology simply means that multimodal instruction and composition, at least these days, seems to work best when supplemented with technology.
Quite plainly, a student’s abstraction is not limited to text, but is replete with visual images, text, movement, and perhaps even sound. Thus, a purely textual learning discourse forces students to reconfigure abstraction and can even stifle generalization. The incorporation of multimodal instruction and composition, then, counters this occluded transition—by engaging students in textual, visual, and auditory texts; by giving students the ability to engage in varying manners of composition that are not purely textual and in turn fostering an active mind working in a three-dimensional, multimodal way as opposed to the one-dimensional, textual way; and by making the abstraction-generalization progression more “human.” Essentially, what is meant by “more ‘human’” is that students whose learning is supplemented with multimodal instruction and who can produce texts that likewise incorporate various multimodal aspects do not have to relegate the visual and auditory elements of their abstractions or re-formulate such elements into a purely textual presentation. Thus, a student’s finished product when composed in a multimodal-friendly environment incorporates these varied elements of abstraction and in turn is imbedded with such human elements as visuals and sound clips—for quite simply, one does not think in the 12-point, Times New Roman, double-spaced, five paragraph format. Jewitt echoes these sentiments by stating, “Writing is not always the central meaning making resource in applications for use in school English and science. In some texts writing is dominant, while in others there may be little or no writing” (316). The point that Jewitt makes in her article, and consequently the point in this essay, is not that visual images or sound clips are intended to supplant writing as an important factor in a text, but merely, as Jewitt notes, “image and writing attend to entirely different aspects of meaning in a text” (317). Visual images, sound clips, images in motion, etc. can be used to supplement writing in as much the same way they can be incorporated into classroom instruction to aid in the abstraction-generalization progression: as Jewitt contends “writing is usually one part of a multimodal ensemble of image, music, speech, and moving elements on the screen” (323). “At times,” Jewitt further argues, “the boundaries between word and image appear entirely permeable and unstable. The potential of new technologies blur the boundaries between the visual and the written in ways that ‘recast modes’ and the relationships between them” (321).
Nevertheless, this is not to say that “traditional” methods of composition pedagogy are useless and/or wrong, but that a more progressive, multimodal pedagogy encourages students to ponder their abstractions in the manner by which their abstractions come to them and discourages students to re-formulate such abstractions merely to meet the “formatting standards.” If in fact a re-formatting of one’s abstractions is what a student desires, this can be encouraged as well. The goal is not to force students into incorporating multimodal elements into their composition process(es), but to foster the abstraction-generalization progression for the sole purpose of aiding a student in that very progression. Instructors of composition are not meant to prevent students from composing in the manner they ultimately wish. However, encouraging students to engage in multimodal classroom learning allows them the freedom to transition from abstraction to generalization in a more natural way and consequently seems to foster an equally multimodal composition.
A great stumbling block in a student’s composition process is collecting the ideas and translating those ideas into a legible, organized composition. So often will an instructor hear student’s complain of not being able to write what they want to say: “I know what I want to say, and I can even put it into words. But for some reason, I can’t write down what I am thinking, and what I want to say does not come out very clear in my writing.” Frequently, if an instructor is reading through a student’s paper with her or him present and questions the meaning of a certain sentence, the student will be able to lucidly and far more effectively explain what they mean than is written. All too often, the fear and apprehension of writing an essay that is formatted in the concrete manner student’s are taught to utilize can stifle a student’s thinking, once more making the abstraction-generalization progression that much more difficult.
Multimodal instruction and composition, however, is not easy, nor is meant to simplify the abstraction-generalization process. On the contrary, technology can often be very scary. However, because school systems are continuingly becoming more reliant on technology and its use in the classroom, far more students are more comfortable with technology at this day and age than they would have been ten years ago. The purpose of multimodal instruction and its role in the abstraction-generalization process is not to “make the composing process easier,” but to encourage a type of thinking and composing that students may feel is more natural and effective. Not all students’ strengths are writing. In fact, many students will often tell their instructors, “If only I could draw what you want me to write.” Multimodal instruction/composition, then, provides students with more freedom, thus opening up their visual, auditory, and even textual doors to produce a composition that is often better organized and better “written.”
Because composition is a requirement at most universities and colleges for students of every discipline, expanding the instruction and learning process tends to make composition more accessible to a greater number of students. Unfortunately, there will probably still be those students who find it very difficult to master the abstraction-generalization progression even with multimodal instruction. No one way of teaching composition will ever “cure” the problem of the abstraction-generalization progression. Likewise, even the incorporation of multimodal instruction and composition will not lead to a sudden mastery of the progression for most students. The goal, though, is not mastery, but benefit. The abstraction-generalization progression is a process even professional writers and academics can work on and perfect. The purpose of all of this then is to foster confidence and understanding in a student, thus benefiting a student’s progression and setting them down the right path.
While this essay examines the benefits of incorporating multimodal instruction and composition in a university/college classroom setting, successful implementation can only be measured once such instruction is incorporated into an instructor’s pedagogical approach. Though I realize that this essay has not established a framework of exactly how to use multimodal instruction and composition in a classroom to foster the abstraction-generalization progression, the purpose of this essay is to examine the benefits incorporating multimodal instruction and composition would have on a student’s abstraction-generalization progression. Why multimodal classroom instruction and composition is beneficial to a student’s composing process(es) seems far more important at this juncture than exploring the exact methods an instructor can utilize to implement multimodal instruction and composition. Actual implementation, however, is just as important as perceiving the benefits of such instruction; and yet, in keeping with a linear progression of first thought and theorizing and then implementation, at this point in time instructors must first recognize the benefits of this type of instruction in the context of the abstraction-generalization progression. Only after assessing these benefits and the most adequate methods for incorporation can a successful implementation trial commence. With such empirical evidence and observation, then, instructors will be able to effectively gauge teaching methods and approaches utilizing multimodal classroom instruction and composition and find the “best fit” for aiding a student in her or his abstraction-generalization progression.
Works Consulted
Anderson, Daniel, et al. “Integrating Multimodality into Composition Curricula: Survey Methodology and Results from a CCCC Research Grant.” Composition Studies 34.2 (2006): 59-84.
Berthoff, Ann E. “Is Teaching Still Possible? Writing, Meaning, and Higher Order Reasoning.” College English 46.8 (1984): 743-757.
Bettencourt, Patrick J. “Voicing Experience.” In Our Own Voice: Graduate Students Teach Writing. Ed. Leanne B. Warshauer. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2000. 10-18.
Jewitt, Carey. “Multimodality, ‘Reading’, and ‘Writing’ for the 21st Century.” Discourse: Studies
in the Cultural Politics of Education 26.3 (2005): 315-331.
Lauer, Janice M. “Rhetoric and Composition Studies: A Multimodal Discipline.” Teaching Writing: Landmarks and Horizons. Ed. Christian Russell McDonald and Robert L. McDonald. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP, 2002. 121-133.
Lunsford, Andrea A. “Writing, Technologies, and the Fifth Canon.” Computers and Composition
23 (2006): 169-177.
Scott, Tony. “Writing Work, Technology, and Pedagogy in the Era of Late Capitalism.” Computers and Composition 23 (2006): 228-243.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
