rhetorical liberation

multimodality and GTA exhaustion

This week’s blogging task is to argue for or against the following claim:

Traditional, linguistically based writing instruction as we teach it in CO 150 (and at most colleges and universities throughout the country) is obsolete and serves no purpose outside of narrowly defined academic (i.e., “school”) writing. In short, the research paper and the argumentative essay are dead, and the field of composition risks extinction unless it evolves and begins teaching multimodal and digitally delivered forms of composing because unless it does so it will cease to serve the needs of the current and future generations of students.

I sit down to respond to this prompt EXHAUSTED from two weeks of packed CO-150 lessons designed to prepare students to write 7-8 page argument papers (combined with a ton of “baby-step” grading—i.e., their annotated bibliographies and stakeholder analysis essays, which will inform their argument papers). So, part of me needs to believe that the argument paper is worth something. It teaches critical thinking! It allows students to practice evidence-based arguments, refuting counterarguments (and, hopefully, learning to be more open-minded about the various sides of an issue), making appeals to logic, character, and emotion, and drawing from scholarly sources (often for the first time).

I don’t want to be defensive about the researched essay just because I have to teach it. Or because I grew up writing them. I want to be open-minded about composition, and learn to think about it visually as well as linguistically. But increasingly, I feel pretty old-fashioned, and want to focus on reading and writing as I experienced reading and writing in college—i.e., books, articles, and papers (with Writing Studio forum posts thrown in to tie into the Internet/social media course theme).

I understand the arguments in favor of multimodality, and can see how an increasingly digital economy would demand digitally- (and visually-) oriented workers. I also understand that there are neurological links between visual and linguistic literacy that have great implications for writing pedagogy. If multimodal texts help foster literacy development, why wouldn’t we use them in a writing classroom?

The New London group makes a compelling case for “redesign” of old forms that aren’t working for today’s students and teachers. Maybe the level of exhaustion I’m feeling right now is unnecessary—and maybe that in and of itself demands a “redesign” of writing pedagogy. Rather than use the exhaustion as a justification for the research paper, maybe the exhaustion should be a red flag that challenges the research paper. Various rhetorics of education justify this exhaustion–teaching is a labor of love–you’ll always be overworked! writing is hard! students hate to write! But is it really necessary for students and teachers to exhaust themselves in the service of the research paper—researching, teaching, writing, evaluating—when there are potentially more efficient and exciting ways of teaching the skills we’re trying to teach?

I’m generally skeptical of the word “efficiency” because I’ve heard both used as a justification for laying people off (in the context of a workplace), or sacrificing depth and originality in favor of standards (in the context of education). In the context of a digital economy, though—and in the context of being a GTA and trying to focus on my own studies in addition to teaching—I can’t help but think that multimodal composition might give everyone a break. Not because it requires any less work than written composition, or because it’s any easier to evaluate, but because I think we’d spend less time trying to drill research-paper principles into students and spend less energy trying to get them to conform. In encouraging artistic freedom and individual “redesign,” the creativity required by multimodal composition might actually generate energy—something both my students and I could use right now.

I might ask my students to draw a visual depiction of their arguments as a “cover letter” to their argument paper, just to see whether they enjoy it and whether it helps them conceptualize their arguments in a different way. If they respond well, maybe I’ll think about giving them the option of doing a multimodal piece for their Rhetorical Reflection essay (the last essay of the semester). I imagine it will help them practice digital skills that they’ll need in the workplace, and help them associate creativity and freedom (and not just conformity) with composition.

I do tend to value written language over other forms of expression, but here, words allow me to hide behind my true feelings about the CO-150 research papers. If I had to draw a picture of my CO-150 classes, there would need to be a depiction of fresh, interesting ideas subordinate to a stale, old form. This blog post isn’t anything close to the coherent argument that I expect my students to write, but that image directly answers this week’s question. That, if anything, tells me that multimodal composition might offer the fresh, dynamic platform that students need to do justice to their ideas.