MMCompose

Defining Multimodal Composition

What is Multimodality?

Many instructors understand the basic concepts of portfolios and multimodal writing, but though multimodal composition has been theorized in composition scholarhsip and utilized in composition classes for decades, multimodality is still a confusing term. Below, I describe some of the theoretical conversations about multimodal composition and offer my own theory-based definition to ground this project.

For the past 30 years, scholars have been articulating a call for a new understanding of composition based on new theories of ideological literacies (Street, 1984) and a variety of newly emerging literacies (New London Group, 1996; Gitelman, 2006; Lankshear & Knobel, 2008). Stemming from theories of new literacies, modes of composition are integral for scholarship and practice in regards to the college composition classroom (Hawisher & Selfe, 2002; Selber, 2004; Yancey, 2004; Lankshear & Knobel, 2008; Selfe, 2009).

Multimodality is inextricably linked with multiliteracies, a term coined by the New London Group (1996) that implies literacy is semiotic and not limited to a print-linguistic mode of social meaning-making. Although some scholars have articulated the power of images over the power of print-linguistics (see early pieces by Kress), it is widely held by literacy and writing scholars that varied modes of writing rely on each other in situ if audiences are to engage in meaning-making (Faigley, 2003; Gee, 2003; Kress, 2003; Cushman, 2004a, 2004b; Yancey, 2004; Shipka, 2005; WIDE, 2005; Hull & Nelson, 2005; McDonagh, Goggin, & Squier, 2005; Lunsford, 2006; Selfe, 2009).

More important than understanding what multimodality means theoretically is what it means practically. What does this mean for student texts? With modern technology influencing current writing practices both in and outside of the writing classroom, it is easy to think of multimodal writing as being done on a digital machine (laptop, tablet, mobile device). However, I want to emphasize that multimodal writing is not the same as digital writing. Multimodal writing can be digital, physical, or a mix of both. This portfolio is a digital portfolio, but such a document is always and inherently multimodal because it incorporates many of these modes of social meaning making.

Take for instance the portfolios Jody Shipka’s (2005) students created. Their portfolios highlight the materiality of multimodal work, and the examples Shipka describes (a portfolio made of a broken mirror, another in the form of a gift bag and pacakages) call attention to the rhetorical use of physical modes, resulting in multimodal portfolios. Shipka's asking students to use multimodality—digital or otherwise—increases their abilities to draw on semiotic resources. Her students produce portfolios that are multimodal yet physical. The electronic portfolio you are currently reading is just another iteration of a portfolio and of multimodal writing; it just so happens to be digital. According to Lauer (2009), digitization allows "all modes [to] be realized through a single binary code" (p. 227). The digital nature of an electronic portfolios means that such a portfolio is inherently multimodal, and in order to produce one, students will have to understand this concept. Having a conversation with students about what we mean when we say "multimodal" or "digital" composition is just as important to having the conversation about "why use portfolios"? Without asking our students to uncover the types of rhetorical work they engage in when working with multimodal or digital writing and portfolio construction, our classrooms cannot be fully actualized: our students may not connect course objectives with multimodal and digital writing or even the use of portfolios on their own. Having a class discussion about such topics, however, can add to the strength of these pedagogical tools, especially multimodal writing.

When I compare multimodality to process throughout this webtext, I do not mean multimodality to be synonymous with digital composition even though I have used a digital, multimodal format to present my argument. Instead, please try to keep in mind that digital composing is just one iteration of multimodality. However, my choice to produce a digital portfolio is meant to strengthen my argument: readers can see how multiple modes (visuals, hyperlink, document/screen design, and print-lingusitic text) come together to produce an argument with a logical progression.

Lauer (2009) suggests, "multimodal has become preferable to multimedia in composition both because it is more theoretically accurate in describing our pedagogies that emphasize process and design of a text and because it has been championed by leading scholars in our field, including Cynthia L. Selfe" (p. 231). As Lauer points out, the emphasis on multimodality in composition studies is on the mode of writing and the process of combining modes to construct cohesive argumentation. Multimodality, then, for the purposes of this piece, is defined as writing that juxtaposes a variety of modes include textual prose, imagery and color, video, document design, and sound. Multimodal writing may be presented physically or digitally. Using such a definition further allows me to highlight the process involved with crafting multimodality compositions, which runs a clear parallel with the process involved in composing portfolios (see Affordances). As you progress through this portfolio, please understand that it is inherently multimodal--that my digital composition brings together modes of writing and meaning making to compose a stronger portfolio and a stronger argument.

Top

Home

Defining Multimodal Composition

Affordances

Constraints

Drafts

Reflections

References