This section offers what few conclusions I can draw from the data I collected and shared from my IRB-approved study [IRB-300001030]. Visit the Introduction for some background information about the study’s rationale. Visit the Methodology Section for information about the study’s design and participant recruitment. See the Access and Familiarity Section for results pertaining to the participants’ previous levels of access and familiarity with some common digital composition and research technologies. To see how the results of my study have impacted how I teach a semester-long multimodal project, visit the Pedagogy Section.
5.1 Overview
As I claimed in the Introduction, the primary reason I developed the study I have been discussing in this webtext was to gain some additional insight into the multimodal composition habits of the students I work with at University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). The secondary purpose of this research was to gather enough data to make informed decisions when redeveloping a semester-long, multipart, multimodal project for the second-semester first-year composition courses I teach at UAB.
As the data I shared in the Access and Familiarity Section and the Pedagogy Section illustrates, I was able to discover partial answers to my initial question and have used the data from my study to augment my teaching. What follows are some general observations about the study. I then offer some pedagogical advantages of having students walk between modalities in a first-year composition course.
5.2 Localized and Context Specific
In the Methodology Section I mentioned that only collecting data from students at UAB was intentional. The study I designed and used to collect the data included in this webtext follows the model of localized and contextualized
research I advocated for in my previous work (Bacha, 2017)1. As I explained in that webtext, national studies like the ones conducted by the Pew Research Center do offer good information about national trends. However, the only way to see if the findings of those national studies will apply to local contexts is to run a localized research project.
What the data from my study reveals is that 173 of my study participants claimed they use the Internet five or less hours during an average week. The data from my study also reveals that 16 participants claimed they were below average Internet users and 13 participants claimed they were below average smartphone users. More importantly, eight participants claimed they did not own a smartphone while in high school.
One example of the type of study I mentioned above would be Schaeffer (2019)2 who quotes a 2019 Pew Research Center survey in order to claim, 93% of Millennials (ages 23 to 38 in 2019) own smartphones, and nearly 100% say they use the internet.
A different study, also conducted by the Pew Research Center (2019)3, indicated that 99% of the people surveyed between the ages of 18 and 29 owned either a smartphone or cellphone (Mobile Fact Sheet
).
Although the claim made by Schaeffer (2019) and the data from the other study referenced from the Pew Research Center do not necessarily contradict the results of my study, they also do not provide information about how often the study participants are on the Internet or how the participants view their own level of expertise when it comes to using the Internet.
What the data from my study reveal is that 173 of my study participants claimed they use the Internet five hours or less during an average week. The data from my study also reveal that 16 participants claimed they were below average Internet users and 13 participants claimed they were below average smartphone users. More importantly, eight participants claimed they did not own a smartphone while in high school.
Meaning, if I had only used the data the Pew Research Center collected when planning a semester-long, multipart, multimodal assignment, I would have missed the fact that some of my participants were not very comfortable using smartphones when I collected my data. Without that knowledge, I might have included a multimodal requirement in the first assignment those participants would find very challenging.
5.3 Walking Between Modalities
As I discussed throughout the Pedagogy Section, what the data from my study has allowed me to do is avoid creating a situation where the technology-based requirements associated with producing a multimodal text
never overshadowed the rhetorically based learning outcomes of each assignment. Instead, students walk between modalities in the smaller assignments they complete. This, in turn, helps them grow as multimodal text
producers.
The practice the students get during the earlier, low stakes assignments, makes the process of including them in their final project, a much higher stakes assignment, easier. The students also need to develop a way to manage their multimodal assists throughout the semester so they can store them and easily retrieve them when they need them in the final project.
Each of the smaller assignments I detailed in the Pedagogy Section includes opportunities to explore and practice communicating in different modes. I made this choice for three important reasons. The first reason deals with understanding the modes themselves. By exploring how to use a different type of multimodal text
for each audience, the students are provided the opportunity to see for themselves that different audiences require different types of text-based and visual evidence in order to be persuaded.
The second reason I have students explore and practice different modes of communication is because I want the students to start thinking about how to write for public audiences. As Hess (2007)4 has argued:
Multimodal compositions […] because they are rendered in vernacular media and communicate in images and sounds, as well as words, in popular and familiar forms—are much more likely to be circulated by students outside the classroom and shared with audiences other than teachers. (p. 34)
However, to what degree they decide to take their work public is a choice I leave up to the students to make. Given the choice, many of my former students have opened their work to the public, but knowing they have a choice has also helped some of my less prepared students take chances they more than likely would not have taken under different circumstances.
The third reason I have included the opportunity to explore and practice communicating in different modes during the semester-long project goes back to three of the five parameters Selber (2004) includes in his framework for functional literacy. Specifically, specialized discourse, management activities, and technological impasses
(Selber, 2004 p. 72)5. Having the students reuse the same types of multimodal assets over and over again was an intentional choice intended to help them learn how to overcome any technological impasses
they might face.
The practice
the students get during the earlier, low stakes assignments, makes the process of including them in their final project, a much higher stakes assignment, easier. The students also need to develop a way to manage their multimodal assets throughout the semester so they can store them and easily retrieve them when they need them in the final project. In addition, the tutorials help us develop a shared terminology that we can use throughout the semester when we talk about how to complete the other assignments.
5.4 A Well-Traveled Path
In many ways, other researchers and instructors who might want to add multimodal assignments to their own pedagogical approaches to first-year composition will probably not find the actual data I shared very useful. As I said above, what I have provided is based around a localized and context specific
research methodology.
Before I developed my study, I knew what software was freely available to my students. I knew that I would always be able to run the course in a computer lab because our department has three dedicated computer labs. I also knew that the students in my course would have access to handheld digital video recorders because I had procured ten of them years ago through a faculty development grant.
However, those same researchers and instructors will hopefully see the advantages of running the same type of study I conducted because of how I have used the data to make pedagogical choices. In addition, by retracing my steps through a few different works, newer researchers and instructors might also view this work as an example of how the process of building a context-based approach to multimodal pedagogies can sometimes take a very winding path.
I do caution other instructors, especially instructors with no previous experiences developing multimodal assignments in a composition course, not to view the pedagogical approach I have presented as a fully articulated plug and play
version of how to teach multimodal assignments in a second-semester first-year composition course. Instead, I hope my work is viewed as another step on the well-worn path other composition instructors, researchers, and theorists have previously established.
In other words, what I have offered is only one way to further the argument associated with the pedagogical value of assigning multimodal texts. As Palmeri (2012)6 has already so eloquently argued:
Ultimately, if we wish to create an academy that values the diverse literacies and knowledges of all students, we need to make room in our courses for students to compose with multiple modalities—room for students to construct and share knowledge that cannot adequately be conveyed through print alone. (p. 84)
In addition to Palmeri’s claim, by making room in our courses for multimodal work we can ultimately show our students how to participate in the digitally mediated public spaces they often frequent.
Finally, although I am including this last, nothing I have shared in the Pedagogy Section would have been possible if I had not taken one fundamental step first, which was to complete a site assessment. Before I developed my study, I knew what software was freely available to my students. I knew that I would always be able to run the course in a computer lab because our department has three dedicated computer labs. I also knew that the students in my course would have access to handheld digital video recorders because I had procured ten of them years ago through a faculty development grant.
5.5 Final Thoughts
Overall, what running two localized studies and collecting data of 1,737 first-year composition students at UAB has taught me is there are very few definitive conclusions I can make regarding those students’ level of Access and Familiarity when it comes to the tools and types of work often included in a purely digital multimodal composition process. There is also a lack of ubiquity regarding the types of multimodal tools or multimodal content production activities, at least those tools and activities included in my study, those students are familiar with.
However, as I have illustrated in the Pedagogy Section, the two discoveries I included above have yielded a number of positive pedagogical choices. One of the most important is realizing that developing a pedagogical approach to multimodal text
production that is as accessible as possible at the local level first requires an examination of the students’ levels of access and familiarity with the tools and activities included in such a pedagogical approach. Without that data, all someone would be potentially basing their choices on is data from national studies that might not reflect the local context or, worse, uneducated guesses based on assumptions.
References
- Bacha, J. A. (2017). Technological familiarity & multimodality: A localized and contextualized model of assessment. Computers and Composition Online, Spring 2017. http://cconlinejournal.org/bacha/
- Schaeffer, K. (2019, December 20). U.S. has changed in key ways in the past decade, from tech use to demographics. Pew Research Center. https://pewrsr.ch/35HxY2Y
- Pew Research Center (2019, June 12). Who owns cellphones and smartphones [Infographic]. Pewresearch.org. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/
- Hess, M. (2007). Composing multimodal assignments. In C. L. Selfe (Ed.), Multimodal composition: Resources for teachers (pp. 29-37). Hampton Press.
- Selber, S. A. (2004). Multiliteracies for a digital age. Southern Illinois University Press.
- Palmeri, J. (2012). Remixing composition: A history of multimodal writing pedagogy. Southern Illinois UP.