An Introduction and Rationale for the Project

Introduction

Video 1.1 – A brief overview of the webtext

Transcript

(PDF)

1.1 Introduction

Following a familiar path, this project extends and, in many ways, concludes a journey I started nine years ago. What I present continues to track the multimodal composing habits of students at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). More specifically, this project presents data collected during a localized IRB-approved study [IRB-300001030] and demonstrates how I used that data to augment how I teach multimodal assignments in a composition course.

This work, and the IRB-approved study that supports it, is grounded in an attempt to answer one seemingly simple question: Do students understand the rhetorical affordances of the multimodal tools they might use, and how prepared are they to start composing multimodal projects in a second-semester first-year composition course? By sharing some of the results from my study, one of the goals of this project is to offer partial answers to that question.

Although the study specifically and intentionally only targeted UAB students, other researchers and instructors should find both the design and results of my study, as well as what I did with the findings, useful. The study itself is a model of one way to collect localized and context specific data other researchers can use to study the multimodal composition habits of the students where they work.

Before I move too far forward, however, I feel obligated to backtrack just a bit. Included below is some background material to help justify the study.

1.2 Background and a Rationale for the Project

Everything included in this webtext is a direct response to two of my previously published scholarly works (The Physical Mundane as Topos, 2016 and Technological Familiarity & Multimodality, 2017).

In 2016, I argued the physical structures of a college campus can be viewed as university-sponsored products students can analyze and critique (Bacha, 2016, p. 267)1. I also claimed rhetorical theories of usability can be combined with de Certeau’s theory of walking/dwelling and, when blended together, can help students discover how often overlooked, already mundane features of their college campus … impact how they interact with the physical structures that help support their academic endeavors (Bacha, 2016, p. 270)1. I then went on to show why using multimedia tools was pivotal. This is because showing, rather than telling, is often the best and, in some cases, the only way to illustrate issues of usability.

The second article I am responding to included data from an IRB-approved study [IRB-131023008] designed to provide partial answers to the following question: To what degree do students understand the rhetorical affordances of the technologies most of them use every day? (Bacha, 2017)2. Using data collected from 1,123 UAB students, the only answer I could provide was that many first-year students at UAB would need some technological instruction in order to successfully compose the types of multimodal projects I wanted to include in a first-year composition course.

Do students understand the rhetorical affordances of the multimodal tools they might use, and how prepared are they to start composing multimodal projects in a second semester, first-year composition course?

I still believe in the argument I made in the 2016 article and continue to use that approach when planning a first-year composition course. However, I was not entirely satisfied with the conclusions I could draw from my 2017 study. I wanted to know more about the students I work with. Specifically, I wanted to know if the trends I observed would be the same if I collected data from students who had completed at least one semester of college.

1.3 Connection to Pedagogy

In addition to my desire to know more about the students I work with at UAB, I also wanted to address a comment I added at the end of the 2016 article that read, Depending on the classroom structure, the desired pedagogical outcomes of the course, and the course level, a usability-based assignment could last an entire semester (Bacha p. 288)1. This project demonstrates how I accomplished that approach by redeveloping a semester-long, multipart, multimodal assignment for second-semester composition courses.

What I have included is framed around a demonstration of how I have gathered and then converted, or rather used, empirical data to make sure my students are better prepared for the multimodal projects I assign in my second-semester first-year composition classroom (labeled EH 102 at UAB).

Admittedly, developing pedagogical approaches to help students compose multimodal and purely digital compositions is not new. In fact, as exemplified by Moore (1985)3 as well as Dinan, Gagnon, and Taylor (1986)4, composition instructors have been developing theories and pedagogical approaches for digital compositions since affordable computers first made their way into composition classrooms.

Over the years, as digital tools have evolved, many scholars have provided newer theories and pedagogical approaches designed to illustrate how newer digital tools can benefit students in a composition classroom. Some examples include Wysocki, Johnson-Eiola, Selfe, and Sirc’s (2004) Writing New Media5, Selfe’s (2007) edited collection Multimodal Composition6, Bowen and Whithaus’ (2013) edited collection Multimodal Literacies7, as well as Ball, Sheppard, and Arola’s (2018) Writer/Designer8.

What I have included demonstrates how I have used empirical data to make sure my students are better prepared for the multimodal projects I assign a composition classroom.

A few additional examples of how theorists, researchers, and practitioners have developed or extended how to include newer technologies in a composition classroom include: Duin, Moses, McGrath, and Tham’s (2016)9 discussion of wearable technologies in the composition classroom; Quigley’s (2018)10 work on geographic information systems in the composition classroom; Shepherd’s (2020)11 discussion of discourse communities and Reddit; VanKooten’s (2020)12 book about digital video in the first-year composition classroom; and Shaw’s (2021)13 discussion of participatory composition and Twitch.

What I provide extends the work of those theorists and practitioners. Although some of the technologies and software I talk about were new to some of my study participants, they are not new when it comes to multimodal composition theory and practice. However, what I provide does deviate in one significant direction. The path I follow focuses more on fundamental, foundational, and functional skills that are, sometimes, much more basic than those included in the works I referenced above.

In addition to the works cited above, most of the information I offer aligns very closely to some of the arguments Selber (2004)14 has made. According to Selber:

The bottom line is that functional, critical, and rhetorical literacies […] should all be crucial aspects of any computer literacy program that professes to be both valuable and professionally responsible. Indeed, students will require direct, repeated, and integrated contact with the particulars of all three literacies in order to become well-rounded individuals equipped with a keen and judicious sense of the technological work around them. (pp. 234-235)

I agree with Selber that students need all three literacies. But, my study and this webtext focus on functional literacies that simultaneously acknowledge educational goals, social conventions, specialized discourse, management activities, and technological impasses (Selber, 2004, p. 72).

1.4 Webtext's Structure

The way I have organized the information in this webtext is intentional. Some of the individual pages read like a typical IMRaD structured research article. However, I deviate from that structure when sharing the results of my study. I have done this to make reading the webtext easier and to make navigating through the individual webpages more user friendly. I have also included my references at the bottom of each page rather than on a separately dedicated reference page. Again, this was done to make the website easier to use.

One last note about the website’s organization. Although the main navigation bar, or the drop-down menu when viewed on a mobile device, does provide a suggested route through the website, that does not mean the provided information can only be read in one direction. If a user is more interested in the pedagogical claims I am making, then they can skip to the Pedagogy Section and still understand the pedagogical argument I make there. The same is also true if the user is more interested in my findings regarding Access and Familiarity.

References

  1. Bacha, J. A. (2016). The physical mundane as topos: Walking/Dwelling/Using as rhetorical invention. College Composition and Communication, 68(2), 266-291. https://library.ncte.org/journals/CCC/issues/v68-2.
  2. Bacha, J. A. (2017). Technological familiarity & multimodality: A localized and contextualized model of assessment. Computers and Composition Online, Spring 2017. http://cconlinejournal.org/bacha/.
  3. Moore, W. (1985). Word processing in first-year comp. Computers and Composition, 3(1), 55-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S8755-4615(85)80007-4
  4. Dinan, J. S., Gagnon, R., & Taylor, J. (1986). Integrating computers into the writing classroom: Some guidelines. Computers and Composition, 3(2), 33-39.https://doi.org/10.1016/S8755-4615(86)80015-9
  5. Wysocki, F. A., Johnson-Eilola, J., Selfe, C. L., & Sirc, G. (2004). Writing new media: Theory and applications for expanding the teaching of Composition. Utah State University Press.
  6. Selfe, C. L. (Ed.). (2007). Multimodal Composition: Resources for teachers. Hampton.
  7. Bowen, T. & Whithaus, C. (Eds.). (2013). Multimodal literacies and emerging genres. University of Pittsburgh Press.
  8. Ball, C. E., Sheppard, J., & Arola, K. L. (2018). Writer/Designer: A guide to making multimodal products. (2nd Edition). Bedford/St. Martin's.
  9. Duin, A. H., Moses, J., McGrath, M., & Tham, J. (2016). Wearable computing, wearable composing: New dimensions in composition pedagogy. Computers and Composition Online. http://www.cconlinejournal.org/wearable
  10. Quigley, S. J. (2018). GIS in the composition Classroom. Computers and Composition Online. http://www.cconlinejournal.org/QuigGIS/
  11. Shepherd, R. P. (2020). What Reddit has to teach us about discourse communities. Kairos, 24(2). https://kairos.technorhetoric.net/24.2/praxis/shepherd/index.html
  12. VanKooten, C. (2020). Transfer across media: Using digital video in the teaching of writing. Computers and Composition Digital Press/Utah State University Press. https://ccdigitalpress.org/book/transfer-across-media/index.html
  13. Shaw, Z. (2021). Stream-lining collaboration: Participatory composition and Twitch. Kairos, 25(2). https://kairos.technorhetoric.net/25.2/disputatio/shaw/index.html
  14. Selber, S. A. (2004). Multiliteracies for a digital age. Southern Illinois University Press.