As a student, I highly value online instructors who provide the instruction strategy outlined on page 198, comprised of using direct language to explain problems in student writing, explaining why it’s a problem, and providing clear guidance on potential next steps to spur the student’s ability to make changes. I’m empathetic, however, to the time commitment such written feedback requires. 

 

Since GCP was published in 2014, I’m hopeful technology advancements may have reduced the time intensiveness of some elements of OWI, in addition to improving the personal connection between students and instructors in an asynchronous modality. Although I thrived on extensive and very direct written feedback from an asynchronous instructor earlier this year, my classmates thought he was a heartless jerk. Using an easy video recording format like Zoom to deliver lessons and feedback may have demonstrated he was human and showcased a more likeable persona to improve immediacy. 

 

Enough can’t be said about student preparedness to learn online. At Arizona State University, the first assignment in every online undergrad course I took was a quiz on the syllabus, including basic stuff like how to contact the instructor, reach tech support, use online library resources, meet discussion post expectations, and proper etiquette. Unfortunately student discipline and motivation aren’t pre-requisites for online courses, and I never encountered accommodations available to make OWI more accessible for diverse learner needs. These are significant considerations to achieve course learning objectives. 

 

Patricia Webb Boyd’s assessment of students constructing knowledge through discussion thread responses was fascinating. Like the students in her research, I still find instructor feedback to be most helpful in learning. “She cautions teachers that their presence, therefore, remains crucial to the teaching and learning process even though students can be included in the construction of their course” (206). I respect professor Cole’s philosophy of not lurking on the discussion board, but I’d be lying if I didn’t admit I wish she’d chime in every now and then to confirm we’re on the right track or prompt us to continue probing. 

While multimodal itself is often a collaboration of literacies and modalities, Collin Gifford Brooke reminds instructors of the reciprocal opportunity to learn from and collaborate with students using technology that may be unfamiliar. “Teachers must abandon the notion that all expertise must flow from the front of the classroom” (182).  I adore this quote, along with the advice from the WIDE Research Center Collective, “if we want to teach writing or help students learn how to write more effectively, then we have to be with them where they write” (188). 

 

Of the principles the author outlines for incorporating new media into learning, a few particularly resonated with me. First, the importance of designing a program in which students are developing and practicing effective communication as opposed to fixating on a final product. While slick productions may be alluring, I think students likely find using multimedia and multiliteracy for the process of invention and development more engaging in and of itself anyhow. 

 

Second, the principle of encouraging students to capitalize on trending topics (“Internet time”) was also noteworthy. (In honor of #BritneyFreed, check out this YouTube gem. How many hours did this student spend analyzing lyrics for rhetoric?) 

 

Third, an assessment strategy that addresses the composition of text, images, and sound must be clearly articulated and understood by students. We’ve see reflection used in assessment previously, however I’m really curious about additional assessment criteria (such as the context, artifact, process management, substance/content, and habits of mind identifies by the National Writing Project). So far I’ve found Digital Writing Assessment and Evaluation edited by McKee and DeVoss (2013) helpful. 

 

It would be difficult for me not to hijack all of her ideal course intentions bulleted on pages 212-213 in a classroom, though I’m particularly fixated on getting students to “attend not simply to what a text says or means, but to what the text does” (213), supported by Briggs. Like the reference to Dunn, I believe encouraging students to investigate the purpose and motives of communication, while considering multimodal contexts, makes students more engaged and informed citizens (212).  

 

Among Briggs, Dunn, and others, Shipka links her pedagogy to Odell and Prell’s “comprehensive view of composing” (212) and Downs and Wardle’s writing about writing. Students examine the functions, contexts and modes of compositions to see composing as a craft that can be learned (as opposed to an ability one is born with) and reinforce an awareness “compositions are built, constructed” and not magical revelations (217). Investigating and answering three key questions helps students acknowledge the components and moves of composition: (1) What is it? (2) What is it comprised of? (3) What work does (or might) it do?

 

Like other pedagogies, reflection is a key component throughout the course, and relied upon for assessment. I especially see value in formalizing reflection in the Statements of Goals and Choices (SOCGs) for the transfer purpose of building student self-awareness of the challenges they encountered and the choices they made to accomplish the task. For instructors leery of grading unfamiliar new technology formats students may elect to use for their compositions, SOCGs assist the instructor with the very practical benefit of “navigating, responding to, and assessing such texts” (228). 

 

At the time, the survey finding that “the majority of multimodal composition was occurring at the individual level and not necessarily in program-wide efforts” (69) served as a notable contribution to the field, because it demonstrated the need for a myriad of support. Access to technology, training, and instruction materials, in addition to faculty promotional incentives were identified as challenges to be addressed for advancement of the field. 

 

To those in composition studies who were indifferent (or in denial) about multimodality when this article was published, I suspect Anderson et al. intended to get their attention with the inclusion of Kress’s passionate position on the detrimental and exclusive focus on written language in the article’s introduction. Described as “an often repressive and always systematic neglect of human potentials,” Kress makes it incumbent upon the composition profession to look beyond text and recognize the undeniable meaning-making of images sounds, music, and animation. 

 

I was very interested in the instructor’s hypothesis the “process of remixing might help hone students’ skills in rhetorical analysis, since a remixer must necessarily attend closely to the ways in which language is used in her or his source texts” (80). The research findings from student interviews showed the importance of having students write reflectively about the conscious rhetorical choices made in creating their videos, to transfer their rhetorical analysis knowledge in future situations.

 

The video remix assignment showed students how they could compose for and engage an audience outside of the university, which I also found compelling. Among others that we’ve read this semester, Redd used a book review assignment involving Amazon.com (FYC 175) and Adler-Kassner and Estrem (2003) featured research writing at their “Celebration of Student Writing” event to give students the opportunity to compose for real world audiences.

 

Fraiberg argues the codemashing of multilingual and multimodal are shaped by cultural ecologies, “a constellation of historical, economic, social, and ideological factors” (101). In addition to ecologies, the framework for his analysis integrates knotworking, remediation, and actant-network theory. I found the latter concept fascinating, as Fraiberg’s observation of techies communicating with one another while using various tools and engaging with mediums demonstrated how “individuals shape the tools, and in turn the tools shape the individuals” (106-107), creating a third agent, or a space “co-constituted by the participants and deeply bound up in a process of (re)mediation” (107). 

 

His findings suggest the need to re-articulate and remix composition teaching, research, and administration to consider: literacy regimes, convergence culture, co-constructed literacy practices, an approach less bounded by institutional borders, and an expanded definition of writing. 

 So why is this important? To Fraiberg, he believes that understanding how multilingual and multimodal intersections of communication work and are interpreted would be something of great importance in composition pedagogy for the twenty-first century. (101) Nowadays, strict country boundaries are becoming more and more blurred through our growing global economy, our ability to connect with others across the world, and the impact social media, in general, has had on the globe. This, Fraiberg, asserts is how composition can bridge the gap between traditionally restrictive monolingual policy and one that goes toward creating a more heterogeneous student body (Ibid) and destroy the myth of linguistic homogeneity. (102)

 Fraiberg looks at four concepts that are intertwined that create a coherent multilingual compositional perspective. They are 1. Ecology 2. Knotworking 3. Remediation, and 4. Actant-Network Theory. 

 With ecology, one works with trying to better understand languages as circulating in complex ecologies. In other words, how are words of one location or culture used and interpreted elsewhere in the word? With regards to "knotworking," Fraiberg looks at how different locations of intersected language are constantly "tying" (binding a word, modality, or medium) to one locale or "untying" by separating the two apparently disparate differences and then tying them back up under a different context or framework. 

 As with remediation, Fraiberg wants to understand how a language of one country travels and changes over time to be "repackaged" to represent something else. And the fourth concept is called the Actant-Network Theory, which seeks to erase the binary between objects and people. (106-7), a key element that allows for a greater interconnectedness and reinterpretation than ever before. 

 He feels that this could open an entirely new theater of compositional exploration that he calls a "convergence culture." (117) "This analysis suggests a need for a re-articulation, re-assembly, and remixing of teaching, research, and administration" (116).

Although I find value in what Fraibeg has argued, I wonder if it is really practical for first-year students to be exposed to a new concept while they are already busy enough learning the basics of composition. I think this area of concern could and should be a more comprehensive examination of multi modalities and multi linguistics in other, more focused courses.

 Naturally, the writers wanted to take digital multimodalities into the classroom to see how they can be used with students that 1. Have grown up with these technologies and 2 Will, in all likelihood, use these same technologies in the future and develop a digital composition pedagogy to be implemented in composition courses. 

 Some things the writers wanted to examine were: 

Some of the interesting things that came out of their observations were how students gained a deeper and more contextual appreciation for the types of digital mediums used, how they worked and didn't work with other types of media, the difficulty in blending the technologies to create the type of messages they were initially seeking or how their concepts migrated from the initial idea into a different one. Additionally, the students were also faced with the very real issue of intellectual property and fair use. (Ibid)

 The writers felt that first, students entering into a composition course need to be immersed in digital multimodalities because it is simply what is being used now and for the foreseeable future; it's just another tool in their composition toolbox. They also felt that the study showed that students used the digital technologies in much the same manner that they had with other resources; they were forced to think about not just what types of technology to use but how it was being used, its social and cultural relevance, importance and potential consequences, the limitations and bridging capabilities of certain digital applications. Furthermore, students' ability to blend a number of digital multimodalities to create (invent) something new. (Ibid)

 As with most articles discussed in this part of our course, it provided another example of how integral digital media like, blogs, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, Facebook, and a number of other applications are to our digital society. Composition, as we have seen, can't remain a stagnant concept of pencil and paper; it has to be able to evolve and work with the society it is meant to represent. I feel the greatest hurdle for emerging composition pedagogies, technologies, and modalities to be fully embraced and taught in the classroom comes from us. We can't continue to play "catch up" all the time. 

Shipka argues that students in various other disciplines write about their discipline, but in composition the focus seems more on writing about subject "X" and less on the actual art of how one composes the work; students' sole focus in a composition course should be about composition. In [Shipka's] "course [she] has students reading, thinking, and learning about composition as a course, object, and multimodal communicative practice" (214). 

Part of this immersive approach is for students to be aware and have access to their "mediational means" or what Lev Vygotsky calls their "'psychological tool'--language, various systems of counting, mnemonic techniques, algebraic symbol systems, works of art, writing, diagrams, maps, mechanical drawings, etc." (215). Shipka believes that students need to take a conscious inventory of these tools as they compose their work to fully appreciate the dynamism of composition. With this in mind, students can look at composition as actually composing, putting together--with their tool kit available--"the built, constructed, crafted, and material dimensions of compositions and composing practices" (217). 

Part of Shipka's student's responsibility is to be versed in historical, theoretical, conceptual, and practical aspects of composition. Historically, students should know the general historical evolution and tenets of composition. A strong theoretical understanding of the art of composition and of written texts and production of written text is to appreciate different styles of composition. Also, students must fully embrace the multitude of mediums available to implement within their composition, not just as a means of communicating but also to conceptualize different ways in which we can communicate and become more interconnected with others. Lastly, Shipka offers her own list of essential texts to incorporate in her students' tool kit, something that each instructor should personalize depending on their particular institution, ideology, and goals. (219)

   Shipka's assignments are, for the most part, typical assessments like, group presentations, and large research projects, but what she focuses on with these assignments is how the students think when they compose (not write) their work. The subject material is secondary if not superfluous to her. What is important is how they build their work, shape it into something that is layered and thoughtful. 

When she assesses her students, her aim is for her students to take ownership of their work, she wants them "to ensure that students think carefully about the choices they make" (227). In order for her to accomplish this task, she questions not the substance of the work but the process in how her students go there in the end, for example, "What, specifically, is this piece trying to accomplish"? (Ibid) She wants to know their thought process. In doing so, students must truly "think" about not only what they composed, but more importantly, the why. 

 As with any new technology, institutions and instructors struggle to find an appropriate way to use it for instruction. The detractors of OWI argue that the instructor-student relationship needed for effective writing and learning suffers when buffered through various modes of technology; the "human touch" is lost. With our ability to interact through  "virtual" conferencing with applications such as Zoom and Google Meet, instructors can retain a lot of the face-to-face interaction in-class students enjoy. As with any technology, the greatest obstacle for institutions and instructors have for effective OWI is their collective imagination. 

 Hewett asserts that there are several components or "building blocks" (196) of OWI needed to create a functional writing program. They are: "course setting, pedagogical purpose, digital modality, medium, and student audience" (Ibid). 

 An OWI really only has two-course settings; a completely online course where the instructor and student(s) never actually meet in person and a hybrid setting in which a portion of the instruction is in a classroom setting and the instructor and student(s) will meet. (197) Although, some may feel a hybrid setting is better than a completely online class, I feel that it depends on a number of criteria (some of which I'll mention later in greater detail) such as the student or instructor's personal and/or resident condition, socioeconomic and/or geopolitical considerations that may preclude the ability for a traditional (face-to-face) instructional format. 

The pedagogical purpose shouldn't be impacted by the type of instruction or the ideology of the instructor. I do believe though that a course that has some "virtual" facetime (Zoom, Google Meet, etc), as opposed to one that has none, feels more connected. The pedagogical focus should remain the same regardless of the instructor's approach to instruction.  The one potential detriment through OWI could be how an instructor provides feedback to their students. (Ibid) Again, I haven't experienced any noticeable depreciation in how instructors provide meaningful and thoughtful feedback to my writing assignments. 

Whether instruction is asynchronous or synchronous, the material is the same. Yes, with asynchronous modality, the immediacy of interacting with one's instructor is not present, but as with all elements of OWI, both the instructor and student must be mindful of this reality and modify their expectations. As an online student and English teacher, I encounter both modalities on a daily basis. For either party, a common-sense understanding and patience with instruction and learning are elements one needs in order to be successful. 

The primary methods in which to deliver OWI are by voice recordings, audio, and video. Which medium of delivery is utilized is dependent upon the institution. In the late 90s, I received instruction through a series of voicemails that I would call once or twice a week. I could listen to the voicemail as many times as I needed. I felt that they were too impersonal, but I still managed to gain instruction, learn, and complete the course. Today, students of OWI have the benefit of interacting more closely through visual means such as Zoom meetings or Google Meets. Additionally, institutions have created entire departments dedicated to online learning, allowing students the flexibility to attend college courses from across the country with minimal differences in content material and instruction. Essentially the only difference for some is the location.  

 I think the greatest element to successful OWI learning is the students themselves. A lot of factors have to be considered before learning in an OWI setting. As with anything, a student must want to learn in this manner or at least be willing to try to learn in OWI. Students must be self-motivated and unencumbered from external distractions, which is why using online instruction for secondary students in less-than-ideal home environments can be fraught with obstacles to their learning. As with any OWI program, a well-structured course will provide a number of ways for the student to be successful. Although, even the best-laid plans can fall apart if a student isn't technically and mentally prepared for the rigors of OWI; the onus for success, especially in a post-secondary setting, is squarely placed on the student.

For many traditionalists, change is an uncomfortable but needed element in education. We simply can't ignore the impact technology has had on the world and the need to evolve with it. For some teachers, using new media feels as if they are abandoning conventional written text and by doing so, students lose the value of composition. I would argue these very teachers had some instructors that viewed using computer programs like Word (back in the 90s) to write papers as being equally unnecessary. The fact is, as with all things, everything, even composition, changes (evolves) over time. 

 Brooke argues that "new media" isn't merely the various mediums in which to use to teach but an entirely new approach to teaching, a multimodal pedagogy. (178) A multimodal pedagogy addresses the various and innovative ways to approach teaching but also the "multiliteracies" created using multimodalities in composition. (Ibid) For example, Prezis were used to create annotated bibliographies instead of the traditional text-based written end product, the Prezis allowed students to develop different processes in organizing their information and by doing so create them in a way that allowed students to draw connections between the annotated bibliographies that they otherwise wouldn't have done the other way, this created different layers of literacies within the same assignment. 

 With technology, students can implement visual mediums to communicate, such as infographics (181) that allow students to be more innovative and experimental in how they communicate. Additionally, instructors need to understand that most, if not all of their students have lived with the internet all of their lives and think and operate in a less linear fashion. Students are more comfortable composing shorter passages in social media formats like Twitter, Snapchat, and Instagram. Instead of demonizing the new media students use to communicate, instructors need to incorporate these new forms in their instruction. 

 Like all things, there are challenges and considerations for fully embracing "new media" in the classroom. I think the most critical challenge is to challenge conventional norms of composition; people hate to change. Some very real challenges deal more with socioeconomic differences; not every institution has the financial means to integrate their departments in a meaningful way with new media opportunities for their students. Additionally, access to high-speed internet and wifi are very real obstacles in parts of the country. Lastly, how do instructors adequately assess "new media"? If students are offered multimodalities to use for composition, are there multi-assessment criteria to provide equity in grading?

Brooke doesn't definitively detail how instructors should implement a multimodal pedagogy for composition, only that it needs to be done. Brooke argues that instructors' resistance to modernizing their instructive approach isn't helping anyone. Students, for the most part, are already way more "computer savvy" than most of their instructors and the technological divide is only going to get bigger. Just as the chalkboard gave way to the whiteboard and the smartboard, so too must instructors and instruction meet the challenges and student expectations of integrating technology with composition.