an Annotated Bibliography essay about the "GUN CONTROL"

22

Annotated Bibliography

Annotated Bibliography on Multimodality

Anderson, Dan, Anthony Atkins, Cheryl Ball, Krista Homicz Millar, Cynthia Selfe, and Richard Selfe. “Integrating Multimodality into Composition Curricula: Survey Methodology and Results from a CCCC Research Grand. Composition Studies. 34.2 (2006). Print.

In an empirical study on multimodality in the contemporary classroom, the authors of this piece discuss the results of their 141-question survey from 2006. In this statistical study, the authors ask questions on what role multimodality plays in their institution, how much access they had to digital tools, and what means were available for faculty to learn technology to name a few of the questions. Though this study does provide concrete statistic, given the fast pace changes in technology, at eight years old this study may already be dated. Additionally, the scope of the survey was quite small, as the participants were mostly acquaintances of the authors, as there few efficient options available to locate multimodal institutions.

Adsanatham, Chanon, Bre Garrett, Aurora Matzke. “Re-Inventing Digital Delivery for Multimodal Composing: A Theory and Heuristic for Composition Pedagogy.” Computers and Composition. 30.4 (2013). 315-331. Print.

Albers, Peggy, and Jennifer Sanders, Eds. Literacy, the Arts, and Multimodality. Urbana Il: NCTE, 2010. Print.

Archer, Arlene. “A Multimodal Approach to Academic "Literacies": Problematising the Visual/Verbal Divide.” Language and Education. 20.6 (2006): 449-462. Print.

Arlene Archer examines how multimodality can expand the voice of student writers in this article. Archer examines how her engineering students use a poster assignment, which augments text with images, to expand their writing voice, and understand how communication can work at a variety of levels; Archer’s engineering students write in a very scientific style, which is typically dry, academic, and impersonal. With the assignment of a poster, her students were given a chance to personalize the assignment a bit more, and add other conventions of writing, notably humor, to this presentation by using images, as with captions to images the constraints of genre are not as tight. Archer raises some interesting points as she notes on how multimodality can be used to lessen the constraints, and allow students to explore many styles of communication within their work.

How do images function in writing? Can they be used to bridge the gap, and allow students to more fully understand how communication works? Another interesting point Archer brings up is the new definition of literacy in the digital world. It is no longer merely enough to be able to read and writer, but in the digital age readers must be cognizant of the many digital mediums, and what is connoted within each mode of communication; authors of texts too must be aware of this. Archer also comments on the societal nature of communication, and how things come to exists based off of their relationship with society, echoing previous discussions in class about how nothing can exist within a vacuum.

Ball, Cheryl E., Dan Anderson, Anthon T. Atkins, Cynthia L. Selfe, and Dickie T. Selfe. “A Survey of Multimodal Composition Practices: Report on a CCCC Research Initiative Grant.” Kairos. 11.2 (2007). Np. Web.

Ball, Cheryl E, Tia Schofield Bowen, and Tyrell Brent Fenn. “Genre and Transfer in a Multimodal Composition Class.” Bowen and Whithaus 15-36.

Cheryl Ball recalls her English 3040 class from the fall of 2006, to discuss its failures, and triumphs in a chapter that reads very colloquial, and impersonal.  The course that Ball documents in this piece is her Perspectives in Writing and Rhetoric, which focused on digital narratives; this course was “purposefully vague because [Ball] did not want students to have to choose from a narrow set of genres…” (17).  In this course, Ball discussed various modes of communication, and how it is not only the written word that can convey meaning.  Ball notes that at “the end of the semester, students indicated their raised awareness of critical and rhetorical (as well as technological) literacies…” (19)  Ball discusses in detail a project she assigned in this class; Ball’s students were to create a documentary, and over the course of this class, students were able to identify the “generic structure and conventions of a five-paragraphs essay…” (27) in the videos produced.  These generic projects were the result of faulty planning, and Ball recalls in detail becoming aware of this, and provides tips on how to remedy these situations.  Overall, this article is more useful to practicing professors as a guide to avoid the pitfalls that befell Ball. Engineering

Bowen, Tracy, and Carl Whithaus, eds. Multimodal Literacies and Emerging Genres. Pittsburg: U of Pittsburgh P, 2013. Print.

This citation is only to cross reference the many articles taken from this text.

Bezemer, Jeff, and Gunther Kress. “Writing in Multimodal Texts: A Social Semiotic Account of Designs for Learning.” Written Communication. 25.2 (2008). 166-195. Print.

Bickmore, Lisa, and Ron Christenson. “Who Will Be the Inventors? Why Not Us?" Multimodal Compositions in the Two-Year College Classroom.” Teaching English in the Two Year College. 37.3 (2010): 230-242. Print.

In this article, the authors look at the role of multimodality in a composition classroom. The authors here note on the shortcomings of modern composition classes, which seem to avoid implementing new mediums, at the disservice of their students as instructors seem to fall back on what has worked in the past in lieu of creating a pedagogy for the future. The authors go on to cite two projects from their own classroom experience, and explain in detail that though these assignments may not fit the traditional paradigm of composition, the students here were able to create a meaningful, rhetorical, composition. Additionally, these assignments composed by the students also seemed to be more directly related to themselves, and their community, allowing for a more personal type of voice, and also allowing students’ to see the purpose of composition beyond the myopic perception of mere fact collecting for an instructor. Although these projects may be unconventional, the authors here note that the assignments were still able to show a nuanced understanding of the rhetorical strategies that these composition classes wish to teach students.

Very good article, as it shows how new mediums for composing can open up to students a wider variety of methods for communicating, some of which may allow for a better rhetorical argument to be created. This article shows how students were able to take non-traditional mediums, and still create meaningful pieces of rhetorical arguments. Additionally, Diana George, Gregory Ulmer, and Kathleen Blacke Yancey seem worthy of looking up, as their quotes in this piece seemed to speak to my purpose of exposing students to new mediums to enhance the quality of communication.

Bowen, Tracy, and Carl Whithaus Eds. Multimodal Literacies and Emerging Genres. Pittsburg: U of Pittsburg P, 2012. Print.  

Birdsell, David S, and Leo Groarke. “Toward a Theory of Visual Argument.” Carolyn Handa, ed. 309-320. Print.

The utility of images in relationship to rhetorical study is the primary concern of this piece. The authors here look at how images have been stigmatize as being too abstract and ambiguous, this, however, may not be the case. The authors here argue that images can be used to enhance the meaning of an argument in ways that text alone simply cannot. They go on to discuss the some of the contexts in which images exist under, including: immediate visual context, immediate verbal context, and visual culture; understanding these three situations is imperative to understanding the role of images in a rhetorical context. The authors seem to make a strong argument on the potential for images, however, this particular piece seems to be the introduction to set of two journals dedicated to visual argumentation, and as such, seeking out the entire issue may be a worthy effort.

In this article the authors note on how visual culture can change rapidly. This is an interesting idea, as our culture is no doubt very visual. The authors note in their introduction that “A better understanding of these components is especially important if we want to understand the role of advertising, film, television, video, multi-media, and the World Wide Web in our lives” (309). This quote is key in establishing the need infuse curriculum with a more multi-modal approach. The aforementioned technology is undoubtedly a part of our lives, and because it can change so quickly, students need to be taught the tools to understand this multi-media culture so they may attain a functional multi-media literacy.

Bruce, David L.  “Learning Video Grammar: A Multimodal Approach to Reading and Writing Video Texts.”  Miller & McVee.  32-43.

CREAT CITATION FOR FULL TEXT

David Bruce reflects on the pedagogical juxtaposition of his English courses, and his Media Studies classes in this article.  Though the two fields are somewhat related, there are still substantial differences between the two, and though the end goal, effective communication, is still the same, the means to that end are substantially different.  Bruce notes specifically on the idea of the grammar of video narrative, and notes that “Once I started providing my media students with the same sort of reading and composing guidance I had provided to my English classes, students responded with quality results” (32); though Bruce felt his students knew much about videos, their work did not express this, as they themselves were not aware of the nuances of a new medium of communication.  Taking the time to teach this was effective as it “provided a common language for them to discuss film is ways that expanded beyond the ‘liked it/didn’t like it’ paradigm that often typified discussion of movies” (32).  Bruce begins his article by contextualizing grammar in terms of Hartwell’s hierarchy, as a higher order of Stylistic Grammar, which he describes as “grammatical terms used in the interest of teaching prose style for use in teaching writing” (33).  Because grammar is thought of in this way, grammar does not fall into the “skill and drill” paradigm, but becomes something directly applicable to students’ work, and thus is able to resonate with true meaning.  Bruce lays down the basic grammar of videography by describing establishing, reaction, and perspective shots; these basic shots provide the foundation for video grammar.  Bruce notes that “Our students most likely will not become Hollywood directors, but the example is clear. If we want our students to use video as a composition tool, they need a language to help them read it as well” (42).  This quote is key, because if instructors wish for students to execute multimodal texts effectively students must have some idea on how they work, and how they can better understand them.

 

Bruce’s article, like seemingly every article from my books, seems more focused on pure pedagogy, as opposed to rhetorical principals, which is where my research desire is.  However, Bruce makes some good points, as rhetorical understanding is not enough for effective multimodal composition as students need to be able to understand different mediums, and how they work before they can expect to use them effectively themselves. 

Brummett, Barry. “Burke’s Representative Anecdote as a Method in Media

Criticism.” Lucaites, Condit, and Caudill. 479-493. Print.

Brummett’s article postulates that Kenneth Burke’s idea of literature as equipment for living, which is described by Brummett as the way “that through types, components, or structures of literature people confront their lived situations, celebrate their triumphs and encompass their tragedies” (479), can be transpose to encompass multiple kinds of mass media, including music. Brummett goes to great lengths in explaining the method Burk uses, which Brummett states finds its roots in drama, which create representative anecdotes that represent a societies problems, and when expressed through other means, literature, music, movies or any number of other forms of mass media, provide an outlet to allow people to better comprehend and face their situation. After thoroughly explaining how Burke’s techniques can easily be used in mass media critique, Brummett shows exactly how it can be done as he finishes his article by using Burke’s equipment for living to show how The Invasion of the Body Snatchers expressed the concerns of American society in the 1950s and 1970s.

In this article, Brummett is able to apply a classical rhetoricians theories to a multimodal concept, movies. This is key when thinking about multimodality and rhetoric in composition courses, as these ideas postulated by Brummett enable multimodality to have legitimacy when trying to teach a rhetoric heavy composition course. Seeing movies, and other pieces of mass media, as acceptable mediums for rhetorical meaning allow students the opportunity to see these theories in practice, and truly understand how specific audiences, be it movie goers, or fans of podcasts, will react differently under different circumstances, and rhetorical situations.

Edward-Groves, Christine Joy. “ The Multimodal Writing Process: Changing Practices in Contemporary Classrooms.” Language and Education. 25.1 (2011). 49-64. Print.

In this article by Edward-Groves, she is interested in the shifting paradigm of pedagogy. Edward-Groves makes specific note on how the writing process has shifted over time, and needs to shift again to account for technology. In addition to discussing the standard shift to a more technological curriculum, Edward-Groves also comments how the writing process should change to become more collaborative, as her study showed her sample students reacting positively, and generating better work, when they work with groups. Edward-Groves’ article hinges on “third-space learning” (50); a concept that students are more technologically in inclined, and are capable of learning much in their time away from the class room. What is the line between how much we can expect students to learn on their own, and how much class time should be spent teaching technology? These are questions that Edward-Groves does not delve deeply into.

The biggest questions from this article relate to how much time should professors spend teaching the technology? In this study, the author was dealing with middle school children, and with that, more time with their students. The author also commented on how they would spend entire days working together, where as college educators get maybe three hours a week with their students. The transfer of her principals and ideas are intriguing to a college curriculum, but figuring out the week to week is tricky. Another interesting concept is how she claims her students reacted very positively to working together, and how modern pedagogy should shift to allow for a much more collaborative composition environment. This seems to be in agreement with my previous research on revision, as that showed a positive correlation between group revision, and actual learning.

Ewing, Laura A. “Rhetorically Analyzing Online Composition Spaces.” Pedagogy. 13.3 (2013): 554-561. Print.

Laura Ewing reflects on her experiences teaching an online, multimodal, composition II course.  In this course, Ewing had students examine their “online personas” (556-557), observe the rhetorical goals and strategies of YouTube videos and Yelp! Comments.  Ewing’s pedagogical strategies here are intriguing as a majority of her work seems to shift the focus onto here students as composers, and contributors to online dialogues.  This helps shift from the paradigm of students as mere collectors of facts for their teaching, and helps to abate the idea of writing as having the single purpose to appease their instructor.  Ewing’s class strategy of analyzing internet videos and comments also seems of particular use as it allows students to see classical rhetorical strategies in action, as opposed to mere theory. 

Ewing says, “Working in spaces like Yelp and YouTue required students to consider the rhetorical context of the space while pulling from what had previously been posted” (555).    

Kathleen Yancy’s keynote address at 2004 CCCC, “Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key”.  Might be worth checking out, title’s interesting at least.   The word document as multi-modal?  The roots of composition are aural, as rhetoric was mostly practiced in legal settings from memory as efficient, mass printing machines were still years away. What does the word document, our default idea of what composition is, fit in terms of a new modality?  Ewing noted that she made her students reflect on their ‘online persona’.  This is an interesting idea as the question arises: how much do students think of themselves as writers, as opposed to mere collectors of facts for research papers?  It seems likely that students would be more interested, and understanding of the purpose of composition if they saw themselves as active participants in the activity, and not just drones writing for only their instructor.  Ewing’s blog assignment seems to enable students to think of themselves as actual writers, and composers. 

Fraiberg, Steven. “Composition 2.0: Toward a Multilingual and Multimodal Framwork.” CCC. 62.1 (2010): 100-126. Print.

Fordham, Traci, and Hillory Oakes. “Rhetoric across Modes, Rhetoric across Campus: Faculty and Students Building a Multimodal Curriculum.” Multimodal Literacies and Emerging Genres. Ed. Tracey Bowen and Carl Whithaus. Pittsburg: U of Pittsburg, 2013. 313-335. Print.

Handa, Carolyn ed: Visual Rhetoric in a Digital World: a Critical Sourcebook. Boston:

Bedford/St. Martins, 2004. Print.

Hawisher, Gail E., and Cynthia Selfe. "Globalism And Multimodality In A Digitized World." Pedagogy 10.1 (2010): 55-68. Print.

In this article, Hawisher and Selfe closely examine two young international students as they progress through their education. In this article, the two students, Gorjana and Shafinaz, make specific note of their experience with technology growing up, and how technology has not only affected their studies, but how they keep in touch with relatives. This is important in a rhetorical sense as these young students must make choices based on what medium will allow their communication to resonate with their family and friends. This article also goes on to, subtly, make the point that the advent of technology has broken down barriers to the world, and now rhetors are no longer limited to their immediate audience, but available to the entire world. Because of this, rhetors must pay specific mind to this, and not ignore technology when presenting, as the world is cognizant of technology, and to ignore it would be remiss.

Herrington, Anne, Kevin Hodgson, and Charles Moran Eds. Teaching the New Writing : Technology, Change, and Assessment in the 21st-Century Classroom. New York: Teachers College P, 2009. Print.

Jones, Leigh A. "Podcasting And Performativity: Multimodal Invention In An Advanced Writing Class." Composition Studies 38.2 (2010): 75-91. Academic Search Complete. Print.

This article by Jones looks at the activity of podcasting, and what merits it can have for a composition class. Jones has high praise for podcasting, having used it in classes for three semesters. Jones notes how podcasting leads to an increase in students’ ownership of their material, and they take the assignment more seriously; Jones notes “because the podcasts were played for the class public performance inherent in the assignment encouraged students to take it seriously” (84). The aural nature of podcasting, Jones notes, also forced her students to spend more time thinking about audience, and how their aural performance affected how their performance was; Jones notes “College writing classes often overlook modes and qualities of expression such as theatricality that could lead to critical literacy, including deep rhetorical awareness of audience (Claycomb 5) (81). Jones also makes a note that a performance based activity can lead to an enhanced understanding of ancient rhetoric, as this activity was highly based on vocal performances. “One of the most useful possibilities for a writing class is that podcasts can help us address the rhetorical conventions of research-based learning and expression that we expect from student writers by connecting the writing process to performance” (77).

Katz, Susan M., & Lee Odell.  “Something Old, Something New: Integrating

Presentation Software into the ‘Writing Course’.   Bowen & Whithaus.  90-

110.

CREATE FULL CITATION FOR TEXT

The paradigm shift in F.Y.C. is documented in this piece, as the authors look at what is commonly asked of students in F.Y.C. to make them better writers for their entire academic, and professional, career, and what the next logical step is in their development as writers.  The authors here feel strongly about added emphasis on oral presentations in FYC, as this method has become increasing popular not only in professional realms, but in academia as well; the authors feel that a FYC classroom is better suited for teaching students the rhetorical aspects of composing speeches.  The authors here suggest using a pedagogical strategy called the “given-new contract”.  This contract forces students to think about what their audience knows already, and what is the new information they are supplying the.  This is critical, as the authors lament that a majority of students who engage in multimodal, oral presentations often forget the purpose, and differences pertaining to speaking with a live audience.  The given-new approach allows presenters to focus on “the existing knowledge, assumptions, questions-that [their] audience will bring to [their] presentation and that [they] must build upon in introducing them to new insights on the topic” (95).  This article ends with a thorough examination of a student’s multimodal presentation.  The authors break down how this student has used “three different modes of communication…the words the he is saying (and which he wrote to be spoken aloud), the words he puts on his slides (which he wrote to be read silently), and the visual features of those slides: images, color, layout…and so forth” (105).  The authors broke down how the student used all of these modes of communication in conjunction, rather than conflicting each other, to create a rhetorically sound presentation.   

 

Iowa State has started a plan called W.O.V.E., a program that focuses on written, oral, visual, and electronic media for students in composition courses.  The authors also note that speech presentations are becoming increasingly popular, though these abilities should still be in composition courses as “public speaking courses frequently focus on form and delivery, the ‘presentation’ aspect of the task, with minimal emphasis on the rhetorical principals that form the basis for effective communication” (91).  Overall, this article, like all of the ones I’ve read thus far, have far more pedagogical merit than utility for my current research.  While it was an interesting, and thorough, explanation of how modes of communication work together,  is this really what I’m looking for right now? 

Kenny, Keith. “Building Visual Communication Theory by Borrowing from

Rhetoric.” Finish CITATION

The transition of critical rhetorical from classical mediums to modern images and movies is the primary goal in this article by Kenny. In this article Kenny looks at several examples of various images, ranging from billboards and print advertisements, to iconic photographs, to see what rhetorical weight they hold. Through his examples, Kenny subjects his images to the scrutiny of classic, rhetorical study. Given that all the images Kenny studies seem to have similar end goals to rhetoric, persuasion, dissuasion, etc. As such, it seems plausible that there is indeed some potential overlap for judging images by rhetorical standards.

Kenny notes that the work of Kenneth Burke largely hinges on symbols, as he states, “More than other species…we assign meaning to stimuli, and that meaning determines our subsequent behavior” (332). Kenny continues that “with the symbolic perspective, the scope of rhetoric expanded to include all forms of communication, including gestural, visual, musical and dance” (332). With these points in mind, it seems symbols, for Burke, were the ultimate rhetorical vehicle. If that is indeed the case, are rhetors mislead to rely so heavily on verbal and written communications? Since images can encapsulate so much, as Kenny’s work has shown, would it not provide more powerful rhetorical communication to use text and speech to augment images? Kenny discusses a series of images for Benetton clothing, in which there is an anti-racist message. In this six page spread, there does seem to be a rhetorical argument being built, but how many images are necessary to create this argument? Can it be done in a single picture, or are multiple images needed? While discussing Perlmutter, Kenny notes that he, “challenges the idea that iconic pictures have clear meanings. [Perlmutter] believes that people project meanings onto the pictures rather than simply inspecting the pictures for meanings” (340). Thinking back to the Vietnam memorial discussed previously, rhetoric, or any societal construction, cannot exist within a vacuum, and images will always have different connotations to different people. With this in mind, how much control does a visual rhetor really have? How well must they know their argument to truly create an effective piece?

Kittle, Peter.  “Student Engagement and Multimodality.”  Teaching the New Writing: Technology, Change, and Assessment in the 21st Century Classroom.

CREATE CITATION FOR FULL BOOK

In this article, Kittle looks back on a multimodal education course, and looks at how this pedagogy alters the classroom experience.  Kittle notes that he himself had little technological knowledge, but persevered to create a new type of course Kittle’s pedagogy seemed to create a more organic landscape for learning as he notes “Revision and editing took a rather organic form, with students gladly watching each others’ projects as they developed…” (171).  Kittle’s grading itself took a multimodal approach, as Kittle notes, “I decided to add comments to supplement the rubric’s feedback.  These took the form of MP3 audio files I recorded immediately after reading each project” (173).  Kittle ends his article by discussing four students, and their multimodal presentations.  Due to the limited ability of text, however, Kittle is not able to fully reproduce these texts, thus limiting their power in this text.    

 

What role can multimodality play in our own feedback?  Of all that I’ve read the idea of multimodal feedback hasn’t been addressed as of yet.  Can this be a tool to reduce the stigma of teacher comments, and thus improve a student’s ability to retain, and understand knowledge?  Also, how does multimodality affect revision?  Kittle seems to note that his students became very active in the revision process.  Does multimodality invite students to participate in this activity? 

Kress, Gunther. “Multimodality, Multimedia, and Genre”. Visual Rhetoric in a Digital World: A Critical Sourcebook. Carolyn Handa Ed. Bedford St. Martin’s: New York, 2004. 38-54. Print.

Melzer, Dan. “Writing Assignments Across the Curriculum: A National Study of

College Writing.” Writing Across the Curriculum A Critical Sourcebook.

Ed. Terry Myers Zawacki, and Paul M. Rogers. New York: Bedford/St. Martin, 2012. 128-145. Print.

In this exhaustive study conducted by Dan Melzer over two thousand pieces of writing assignments were collected and quantified from one hundred American universities covering four major subject areas (natural and applied sciences, social sciences, business, and the arts and humanities). This study by Melzer, which mimics a study done by James Britton in English high schools, has the primary purpose of showing what types of writing students are expected to do across the curriculum. In his study, Melzer finds the vast majority of assignments to be transactional, and writing with the specific audience of teacher in mind, thus stunting a student’s true ability to grasp the power, and greater concepts of audience, and writing in general.

Miller, Suzanne, and Mary B. McVee Eds. Multimodal Composing in Classrooms : Learning and Teaching for the Digital World. New York: Routledge, 2012. Print.

Palmeri, Jason. Remixing Composition : a History of Multimodal Writing Pedagogy. Carbondale: Sothern Illinois U P, 2012. Print.

Rice, Jenny Edbauer. “Rhetoric’s Mechanics: Reteaching the Equipment of Writing Production.” CCC. 60.2 (2008): 366-387. Print.

In this article by Rice, she discusses the mechanical side of multimodal rhetoric. Rice sets clear lines of demarcation between how much technology can be used before it no longer becomes rhetorical, and when it becomes mechanical. Rice begins this piece by discussing the history of grammar, and its role as a mere mechanical function of writing, and how the word ‘mechanic’, can have negative connotations for rhetorical scholars. From there, Rice segues into a discussion on multimodality. Here, Rice notes how multimodal tools, such as pro-tools or Imovie, can be viewed as mechanics, insofar as they are a skill that can be applied, just like grammar. However, Rice differentiates the two when she notes that multimodal mechanics provide a rhetor with new potential mediums for their rhetorical situation. It is when these mediums become oversimplified, and are used as mere templates, that they cease to be rhetorical. The tools themselves, Rice argues, are rhetorical as they merely expand the rhetorical situation of modern rhetors.

Rice, Jonah. “A Critical Review of Visual Rhetoric in a Postmodern Age:

Complementing, Extending, and Presenting New Ideas.” Review of

Composition. 4.1. (2004): 63-74. Print.

This article by Rice begins promisingly enough by noting that there is a sizeable difference between the amount of visual stimuli humans that humans encounter, and the tools available for humans to understand the meaning of these visuals. Rice goes on to note that “our culture has…prized the word more than the image”, and that the “goal of this essay is to contribute to the race to understand visual rhetoric” (63). From there, Rice contextualizes his argument in a postmodern setting. Seeing as postmodernism seeks to create a new archetype, it seems a perfect vehicle for this argument given the stigma against visual pieces as a method for communication. However, Rice’s article begins to entrap itself not in a discussion of how images come to mean, and how we can understand them, but instead the majority of this article occupies itself with a discussion on postmodern ideology in a general sense, as opposed to applying these ideas to visual rhetoric.

This article seemed promising, however, it quickly broke down into a prolonged discussion on postmodern theory without directly applying it to visual images. Postmodernism seemed to be a good conceptual framework for discussing images, but the author ultimately failed to deliver, but maybe that was the point?

Rosenquist, Christian. “Visual Form, Ethics, and a Typology of Purpose: Teaching

Effective Information Design.” Business Communication Quartely. 75.1

(2012): 45-60. Print.

In this article, Rosenquist takes a deeper look on visual rhetoric, and what it means to the business world. Rosenquist looks at specific assignments, and discusses how business students use visual images, and how students either use them as effective means to augment their text, or if the images work antithetically to their rhetorical goal. Rosenquist seems to seek for an enhancement in visual literacy for students, and spending more time teaching how images work, and how images can be used in accordance with text, as opposed to just being tools thrown into presentations by happenstance.

Perhaps juxtapose this with the earlier article on the poster activity for engineering students. Both show how rhetorical issues arise in classes that would not typically discuss rhetoric. Would these articles then be good examples on how visual rhetoric can be important across the curriculum?

Sheridan, David M., Jim Ridolfo, Anthony J. Michael. “The Available Means of Persuasion: Mapping a Theory and Pedagogy of Multimodal Public Rhetoric.” Plugged In: Technology, Rhetoric and Culture in a Posthuman Age. Ed. Lynn Worsham and Gary A. Olson. Cresskill NJ: Hampton P, 2008. 61-64. Print.

Selfe, Cynthia L. “The Movement of Air, the Breath of Meaning: Aurality and Multimodal Composing.” CCC. 60.4 (2009): 616-663. Print.

Serafini, Frank. "Expanding Perspectives For Comprehending Visual Images In Multimodal Texts." Journal Of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 54.5 (2011): 342-350. Academic Search Premier. Print.

In this article Serafini argues that with the technological changes that have occurred, classrooms should, as well. In the modern world, students are bombarded by multimodal communication in their daily lives, so educators should redesign their pedagogy to conform to the multimodal world. Serafini states that teachers should acclimate themselves to the jargon, and theories of the multimodal world. As Serafini states, “To successfully demonstrate effective strategies for making sense of multimodal texts, teachers must familiarize themselves with the theories that go beyond traditional composition strategies” (348-349).

Shipka, Jody. “Including, but Not Limited to, the Digital: Composing Multimodal Texts.” Bowen & Whithaus 73-89.

Shipka, in this article, is displeased with the notion of multimodality becoming exclusively associated with computer based, digital texts. Shipka feels this results in only trading in “on bundle of texts and techniques for another: pro-verbal becomes pro-digital” (74), and because of this “students in our courses learn to produce a specific kind of text (i.e., whether linear print-based texts, digital texts, object- or performance-based texts, or some combination thereof)…” in stead of learning “a more nuanced awareness of the various choices they make throughout the process of accomplishing that work and the effect those choices may have on others” (76). Shipka’s solution to this is instilling activity-based multimodal framework for composing (77), as this method does not force students to produce texts in predetermined way by the instructor, but to think for themselves what mediums and media will best work with their goals. Shipka’s strategy “require[s] students to consider how the texts are received and responded to” (78). Shipka has her students “compose a statement of goals and choices (SOGC)…” (79), so that students are forced to think about their composition goals, and what strategies will help them reach their goals. Shipka goes on to end her article by discussing several of her students’ attempts at producing a multimodal “history” assignment. In this section, Shipka discusses how her students came to realize what worked, and what didn’t work while creating these assignments; this section showed how actual learning occurred exponentially when students were allowed to think for themselves what modes worked, and which ones did not for their composition goals.

Shipka is upset that paradigms are being changed, but that’s it. Shipka feels that the written texts, which composition teacher for so long have clung to, are being replaced by digital texts, but students do not fully understand why this is, only that they must produce a new kind of text; the sound rhetorical reasons and strategies for producing theses texts are not being taught, digital texts are just being forced on students for the sake of change. Much like Ball’s article, this seems more useful for crafting a teaching pedagogy in the further, rather than my current research needs.

Taboada, Maite, and Christopher Habel. “Rhetorical Relations in Multimodal

Documents.” Discourse Studies. 15.1 (2013): 65-89. Print.

The authors here focus on how multimodal elements function rhetorically within a piece. The authors ground their research, which looks at newspaper, scientific, and linguistic articles, in Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST), which is “a property of texts whereby all parts of a text have a reason to be in the text and, furthermore, there is no sense that there are parts that are somehow missing…” (66). As such, the authors believe that all parts of a text, specifically the multimodal pieces, function in conjunction with the text to enhance, or to create new meaning. Though the authors realize the limitations in using RST, as RST assumes a single author and linear style of text, there seems to be enough in their own research to suggest rhetorical importance of multimodal features in text. Though most instances seemed to be of elaborative nature to the authors, it is clear that multimodal approaches function to work with the text to enhance meaning at different levels.

Interesting enough, the authors also state that “students learn better when they learn from words and pictures than when they learn from words alone” (66). Other things worth looking up: terms of interest: Rhetorical Structure Theory; Systematic Functional Linguistics; J. Bateman mentioned several times, cited six times. Mayer RE’s text Multimedia Learning may be worth checking out.

Walker, Joyce R. “Constructing a BIG Text Developing a Multimodal Master Plan for Composition Instruction.” Kairos. 11.3 (2007): Np. Web.

Worsham, Lynn, and Gary A. Olson ed. Plugged in : Technology, Rhetoric, and Culture in a Posthuman Age. Cresskill NJ: Hampton Press, 2008. Print.