For Patricia Dunn (2001, p. 1), the point is to "use whatever intellectual pathways we can to help writers generate, organize, reconceptualize, and revise thoughts and texts," or in Selfe's words, to "exploit multimodality as a way into the literacies that students already have" (personal communication, July 5, 2007). In either case, the issue of learning in equity may be adequately addressed by not just cutting-edge but also trailing-edge means. The key is to begin multimodal writing instruction where students ( and their teachers ) are most comfortable. With those points noted, multimodal composition in the high school English classroom might very well consist of a combination of "print, spoken, visual, and [or] digital processes" (Yancey, 2007). To put it simply, from poster board, newsprint, construction paper, a CD player, and personal drawings to web pages with audio, podcasts, and external links--multimodality does not have to mean digital modality. However, multimodality does inherently challenge assumptions of what a written text is and does.   

From a practical standpoint, multimodal composition instruction affords students the occasion to parlay any number of means of communication into their writing assignments. And a happy residual effect is that such an approach to the composing process appeals to a variety of student-learning styles. Specifically, when sound, image, color, and text (still or moving) inhabit the page, students' visual, aural, kinesthetic, linguistic, spatial, and musical intelligences are tapped. To apply the words of Dunn (2001, p. 1): "All writers would benefit from multiple intellectual pathways to generate knowledge, and the world in general would benefit from the intellectual contributions of people traditionally excluded from print-loving pedagogies." 

The idea here is to tap into students' existing strengths and offer additional avenues, beyond the traditional print-bound constraints, in which to communicate ideas or join their voices "to the conversation."   Takayoshi, Hawisher, and Selfe (2007, p. 3) contend that "The more channels students (and writers generally) have to select from when composing and exchanging meaning, the more resources they have at their disposal for being successful communicators." And such an argument makes good sense, especially in a world where communication, now more than ever, is packaged with color, sound, and image. If students are consumers of these "packages" then ethics argues that they should be creators and analyzers of these packages, too.

With that said, a fostering of students' knowledge of as well as a cognizance of rhetorical strategies--their own and those they encounter on a daily basis--lies at the heart of multimodal writing instruction.   Dunn (2001, p. 7) states that if a student can "recognize [rhetorical strategies] in other people's writing, they will be less at the mercy of other's rhetorical power." Conversely, ownership in a host of rhetorical strategies (visual, aural, print--cutting edge/trailing edge) will empower students as both writers and global citizens. Selfe (forthcoming, p. 2) argues: "When we insist on print as the primary, and most formally acceptable, modality for composing knowledge, we usurp these rights and responsibilities on several important intellectual and social dimensions, and, unwittingly, limit students' sense of rhetorical agency . . ."

Thus, to encourage, even teach, multimodal forms of composition, then, serves to equip students not only with the ability to "read" or "consume texts employing multiple modalities" but also to "compose" texts "for a variety of purposes and audiences" (Takayoshi, Hawisher, & Selfe, 2007, p. 3). As a result, students well versed in multimodal composition techniques may, in most likelihood, enjoy a fuller, more fruitful presence in daily, academic, vocational, and global communities.