Citation:

Gagich, Melanie. “Using Digital Rhetoric in a Multimodal Assignment to Disrupt Traditional Academic Writing: Conventions in a First-Year Writing Classroom /.” The Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy, 11 June 2018, https://jitp.commons.gc.cuny.edu/using-digital-rhetoric-in-a-multimodal-assignment-to-disrupt-traditional-academic-writing-conventions-in-a-first-year-writing-classroom/.

Summary:

Melanie Gagich, proposes a new way of integrating multimodal, digital rhetoric into the first-year writing classroom. Gagich argues that the introduction of this type of assignment disrupts the pervasive and persistent paradigm of current-traditional rhetoric that often still exists within first-year writing assignments and classrooms to this day. Through the return to a previously envisioned and used assignment, Gagich is able to demonstrate a new way in which to scaffold and approach a multimodal assignment that was, in its original conception, a much more prescriptive and hermetic activity. The issues of perceived audience, student agency, and the perpetuation of monomodal voices within the academic writing community are explored alongside the benefits of this newly envisioned assignment that, instead of replicating voice and purpose, focuses on students’ ability to find, write to, and reach a specific, online discourse community. Gagich ends with some words of encouragement for other instructors who have become frustrated with the current-traditional rhetoric formula, and she proposes that they explore this multimodal format when creating assignments for their first-year writing courses.

Quote Bank:

“My assertion is that framing a multimodal assignment using digital rhetoric helps teach students how to recognize the connection between audience, message, and digital environments.”

“Although this may put more pressure on the instructor; it helps shift the assessment of student work from evaluating how well a student demonstrates his or her ability to write academically (privileging commonality) to one that evaluates how well a student uses language and various modes to effectively address his or her community (promoting difference).”

“Even when writing instructors do provide students with a specific audience within a writing assignment, it is probable that this “audience” will likely be conceptualized by the student as his or her teacher. This “writing to the teacher” frame of mind often results in students guessing how to address their audience, which hinders their ability to write academically.”

“I suggest incorporating digital rhetoric as a conceptual framework (Eyman 2015; Zappen 2005) to problematize CTR practices, SLMN requirements, and a continued tradition of teaching students to write for an academic audience. Using digital rhetoric as a framework creates an environment for multimodal composition practices, which provide opportunities for students to engage with “real” audiences.”

Analytical Reflection:

I felt a particular connection to this article in several ways: I think that it encapsulates a lot of the methodology that I have been exposed to in this graduate program, it helps to reframe my perception of students’ thoughts towards assignments in the first-year writing classroom, it focuses in on the way in which those tasks should be disseminated, and it also echoes the aims of Chris Gallagher in his article, “The Trouble with Outcomes: Pragmatic Inquiry and Educational Aims” that I covered prior. As well, it, without a doubt, challenges some of my opinions towards the digital space for learning. On the outset, I was very reluctant to concede the usefulness of digital platforms (as technology has seemed more of a barrier than a help for myself) in the classroom, and, more specifically, the first-year writing course. Through the courses I am currently enrolled in and that have been designed with this attention to online discourse communities and multimodal assignments, I have come to a better understanding of the importance to this type of literacy and its possibilities when teaching writing to graduate and undergraduate students alike.

Continually, the usage of particular language within the classroom in the architecture of assignments and, more overall, in the creation of larger organizations written educational aims, is of the utmost importance. Gagich and Gallagher both argue for language that increases the students’ agency, and, in the words of Gallagher, encourages educational consequences as opposed to monolithic educational aims. I believe, more and more, in the importance of this approach, particularly within the first-year writing classroom. By using language that includes rather than excludes students, Gagich asserts that there is more excitement and buy-in to the assignment at hand. So far, I have seen some evidence of this up close and personal in the first-year writing classrooms that I have taught, and I would like to explore further ways to engage with the language of the educational setting in order to benefit the students more.

These concepts are also particularly relevant to pedagogical research design and the group teaching performance that are coming up in the near future. Although the idea for the teaching performance is not entirely solidified, my group is interested in exploring the function of rules within the classroom. Gallagher and Gagich both, in their own ways, relate their articles back to the basic function of rule creation within education. Whether it is the assignment rubric creation for Gagich or the overall educational aims creation for Gallagher, there is stress placed on the function of the language present and the learning opportunities that arise for students from the given parameters. As I hope to continue into the educational field, I would like to research more on the ways in which the formation of activities ultimately influences the educational richness and learning experiences for students.