"Surprising Epiphanies"

"When composers use multiple modes as tools for thinking rather than just to visually illustrate a completed script, they actually generate new meaning" (Fulwiler & Middleton, 44).

After reading this article, this is the piece that sticks with me the most. This is what makes sense with my teaching philosophy. This is what I try to accomplish in my classroom.

Multimodality should not only take shape when producing work; it should be present all throughout a lesson, a classroom. As teachers, we must practice what we preach. How will students believe that all literacies are important if we don't show them we believe it is important. When we only promote multimodality in the final process of learning--the projection of our composed thoughts--we risk appearing, as my kids would say, fake.

Here's where I'm going to be Mads and pick at their argument, but I'm doing so because I see a danger in what they're proposing. Fulwiler & Middleton say that the narrative itself needs to remain open, but I think a bigger part of it is that our planning needs to remain open. WE need to remain open. If we reserve ourselves to what we know until the last minute, we cut off the circulation of the narrative before it has a chance to breathe. Then, writing is still prescriptive. At least, that's what I think they're trying to say. It remains linear.

I like the idea of "cognitive wrestling," or being able to play with different modes of production throughout the process. Figuring out what makes the most sense. What I think is downplayed in this article is how cognitive wrestling can happen even within a chosen mode. For example, I believe I have done a whole lot of cognitive wrestling in terms of my Oral History to Solo Performance piece. The mode is oral performance, and that was decided from the get-go. But even within that framework, I have grappled with my piece; I was fought long and hard about how I want to present my information within a mode. So, part of me definitely help back when they discussed digital storytelling as being definitely linear. Nothing, really, is completely linear, even if it might seem that way on a page.

What it really comes down to is us: the teachers. ANY project could become linear; even after some initial cognitive wrestling, who is to say the writer doesn't settle for a mode that isn't right for the message of the piece and move on linearly from there? We need to stress compositing no matter the mode. Because, to me, the idea that several modes become invisible in one cohesive piece is amazing, and realistically, that can happen with every piece our students produce. Even alphabetic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the BL students in Creative Writing in the Landscape had to go outside and draw part of nature. Then they came back in and wrote about it. Their drawing was part of the alphabetic text, though it became invisible with the words of the poetry if manipulated correctly. Drawing. Text. Multimodality under one mode of presentation.

Its difficult to move from Shipka to this, being so gung-ho about Shipka and questioning Fulwiler and Middleton when really, their ideas are similar: don't be prescriptive. Accept a chaotic, open, non-linear process and the results will reflect great intention and ingenuity. Shipka wrote off prescriptive language, though, while Fulwiler and Middleton are writing off prescriptive assignments. To me, no assignment is prescriptive if the process and language are open and inviting, which is where I see the flaw.

"Surprising Epiphanies"

"When composers use multiple modes as tools for thinking rather than just to visually illustrate a completed script, they actually generate new meaning" (Fulwiler & Middleton, 44).

After reading this article, this is the piece that sticks with me the most. This is what makes sense with my teaching philosophy. This is what I try to accomplish in my classroom.

Multimodality should not only take shape when producing work; it should be present all throughout a lesson, a classroom. As teachers, we must practice what we preach. How will students believe that all literacies are important if we don't show them we believe it is important. When we only promote multimodality in the final process of learning--the projection of our composed thoughts--we risk appearing, as my kids would say, fake.

Here's where I'm going to be Mads and pick at their argument, but I'm doing so because I see a danger in what they're proposing. Fulwiler & Middleton say that the narrative itself needs to remain open, but I think a bigger part of it is that our planning needs to remain open. WE need to remain open. If we reserve ourselves to what we know until the last minute, we cut off the circulation of the narrative before it has a chance to breathe. Then, writing is still prescriptive. At least, that's what I think they're trying to say. It remains linear.

I like the idea of "cognitive wrestling," or being able to play with different modes of production throughout the process. Figuring out what makes the most sense. What I think is downplayed in this article is how cognitive wrestling can happen even within a chosen mode. For example, I believe I have done a whole lot of cognitive wrestling in terms of my Oral History to Solo Performance piece. The mode is oral performance, and that was decided from the get-go. But even within that framework, I have grappled with my piece; I was fought long and hard about how I want to present my information within a mode. So, part of me definitely help back when they discussed digital storytelling as being definitely linear. Nothing, really, is completely linear, even if it might seem that way on a page.

What it really comes down to is us: the teachers. ANY project could become linear; even after some initial cognitive wrestling, who is to say the writer doesn't settle for a mode that isn't right for the message of the piece and move on linearly from there? We need to stress compositing no matter the mode. Because, to me, the idea that several modes become invisible in one cohesive piece is amazing, and realistically, that can happen with every piece our students produce. Even alphabetic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the BL students in Creative Writing in the Landscape had to go outside and draw part of nature. Then they came back in and wrote about it. Their drawing was part of the alphabetic text, though it became invisible with the words of the poetry if manipulated correctly. Drawing. Text. Multimodality under one mode of presentation.

Its difficult to move from Shipka to this, being so gung-ho about Shipka and questioning Fulwiler and Middleton when really, their ideas are similar: don't be prescriptive. Accept a chaotic, open, non-linear process and the results will reflect great intention and ingenuity. Shipka wrote off prescriptive language, though, while Fulwiler and Middleton are writing off prescriptive assignments. To me, no assignment is prescriptive if the process and language are open and inviting, which is where I see the flaw.