Second Parallel: Emphasizing Process

Portfolio Contents Home The Background Guiding Questions Portfolios, Technologies, and the Composition Classroom EPortfolios Why Portfolios? Outlining Multimodal Composition The Cs Enhanced Writing   Parallel Educational Tools First Parallel Third Parallel Fourth Parallel New Directions: Into Infinity (Expanding Ideas) Tangent Line 1 Tangent Line 2 Tangent Line 3 Final Reflections References

Instructors who bring process-based pedagogies into their classrooms often have a variety of reasons for doing so. One reason is to help students move through the process of learning new composing tasks. For example, Wickliff (1997) claims students in his hypertext writing class “would have a varying range of experiences with computers, and that many would be apprehensive about the writing because of that. […] I told them that they had the entire term to revise, reject, and rewrite the ‘final’ documents that would be showcased in their portfolios” (p. 327). Students may have trouble with using new media technologies the same way they have trouble mastering the argumentative research paper genre as a technology. Teachers must also learn to utilize new technologies, giving weight to contemporary movements towards digital composition (Rice, 2008).     Blair and Takayoshi (1997) lay the foundation for understanding the rhetorical use of technology in the composition classroom as a means of applying process to multimodal composition. They suggest students must learn about multimodal composing “not as learning every facet of individual software programs, a one-time acquisition process, but rather, as an ongoing, continually evolving process” (p. 360). Students learn how to write different types of texts in a similar manner. Not only is there a scaffolding process for moving from inserting pictures into an MSWord document to uploading a video file to YouTube, but there is a scaffolding behind moving from a basic op-ed persuasive text to an argumentative research project. Where scaffolding is important for choosing rhetorical strategies to address a particular composing problem or assignment, portfolios allow for the scaffolding to coalesce in meaningful ways (Selber, 2004; Gold, 1992). Students and teachers can see the scaffolding of the course come together—from prewriting to final drafts, both digital and hardcopy. Although digital drafting is often easier to include in an e-portfolio, students also have the opportunity to print out screen shots of multimodal work to include in traditional print portfolios. Additionally, it is important for instructors and students to recognize that not all multimodal compositions are digital, nor is all multimodal composition begun using digital technology. For instance, a student may have an idea for a piece that she drafts on a napkin in the cafeteria. She might also be physically building a multimodal piece—incorporating wood, metal, yarn, and paint. First drawing a rough sketch or blueprint by hand might precede a more detailed blueprint composed via particular software. Even incorporating print-based pieces or tangible, multimodal pieces into an eportfolio isn’t unheard of: students can scan in images, save files each time they revise, or take photographs of the work in varying stages. By maintaining an understanding of non-linear, multimodal composition processes, even traditional portfolios work well with multimodal projects. The purposes behind a process-based portfolio and the process of multimodal composition compliment each other.