Challenges in Multimodality

 In thinking about the second half of Bridging the Multimodal Gap: From Theory to Practice, I am going to focus primarily on two chapters:

• "When Multimodality Gets Messy" by Jennifer J. Buckner
• "Multimodal Pedagogy and Multimodal Assessment" by Shane A. Wood

These two chapters speak to pedagogical issues that I have been grappling with throughout the semester: how to embrace multimodality when it feels unnatural and the concept of grading multimodal assignments. Both of these issues are rooted deeply in perhaps the same core issue for me, in that they deal with the ways that multimodality is a departure from traditional pedagogical values. You see, I love writing. I value writing, perhaps because it comes easily to me (most of the time), and it is not that complicated to identify a grade value for a piece of writing. In education, traditional methods and values are comfortable, definable, and, well, safe. What do we do when multimodality makes the methods of teaching and assessment messy? How do we deal with student resistance to the idea of multimodality? How do we flip the assignment status quo on its head, but leave the grading system right side up? These are the questions that plague me.

In her chapter on messy multimodality, Jennifer Buckner brought up some fascinating antidotal information about a digital audio assignment given to her AP English course. Students had to record an audio version of a previous assignment, to which they could add musical elements as well. While the students described the assignment as seeming to be more fun than serious--in contrast to the writing assignment--the students shared some fascinating struggles with hearing their own voices (147). Even though most students actually wrote a script for their audio assignment, practiced it before recording, and edited the audio before submission, several students expressed serious discomfort with hearing their own voices. I found it really interesting that one female student shared that in her writing, she perceived her voice as strong and confident, but hearing her voice on the audio made her sound "soft," "girly," "weak," and "vulnerable" (147). Another student, who fully embraced the assignment and tried to be as authentic as possible, shared that embracing the vulnerability of voice really worked for her. This got me thinking: do I like writing because it gives me something to hide behind, feel confident in, and mask vulnerability? Do I write to "disembody" my experiences and thoughts, so that they don't feel quite so personal? Maybe. I still feel a twinge of pain when my writing is critiqued, but it is much harder to hear my own voice and then be told that it wasn't a great speech. If we really use writing to "put a voice" to our thoughts, learning, and theories, why is it so much harder to hear our voice? I think this is a fascinating way to explore the writing process, the ideas we have around our unique "voices" in writing, and the editing process. I definitely think I want to explore this in a future class by using and audio reflection assignment. In fact, I am going to experience this myself as I write, record, and edit a speech about a research paper I wrote last year for the STARS program. I plan to do a little metacognitive reflection for my own personal use after I finish this project, just to see what comes out of it for me personally. I think this will prepare me for how my students might need to be given time to process their multimodal assignments.

So, then we come to assessment. Shane Wood lobbies for grading contracts in his chapter on how to assess multimodal assignments in a meaningful way. In the first part of the chapter, I was nodding and underlining with lots of "YES" in the margins. This statement rings particularly true to me: "...if our pedagogies emphasize process, yet our assessments are based on traditional frameworks that value product, are we being effective?" (247) I have wondered this as well, since process pedagogy speaks deeply to what I value most in education: this becoming that we go through when we discipline ourselves to academic pursuits and higher learning. But, the grade reflects what we made, not who we became. I am on board, Shane Wood! Sign me up for a grading contract! 

*Reads the rest of the chapter*

Wait. So, if I really just value process, and I let the student decide what they want to learn and how much effort they want to put in, is that kind of like "participation trophies?" All they have to do is complete the agreed upon tasks, and regardless of the product, they get the "badge?" Now I have to face that I have conflicting values. I value process, but when it comes to grading, I am afraid to give up the standard that dictates what the process must produce. Maybe I don't fully understand grading contracts conceptually, so this is something I want to explore a bit more. I have never been graded by a grading contract, so I admit my experience is limited. But the tension between my pedagogical theory and my assessment theory is surfacing, and I need some time to rummage around in it. This whole "process of becoming" thing is tough; I hope I get an "A." :)