I now feel the need to define everything. Because we are
reading so many texts, I’m almost confused as to what things like
multimodality, new media, and technology are. I find myself being as specific
as possible when I mention things like “computer-related non-alphabetic
multimodal projects.” It’s become annoying to me. But I also understand that
this is good because my notions of these things are expanding and becoming
fuller. The most recent example is Shipka’s reminder that technology does not
mean only the newest technologies. It is so simple, yet was a much needed
intervention of my thoughts.
Because everything is defined or discussed in different
ways, I wonder: how connected is the conversation of multimodality/new
media/technology? Is it productive to have so many scholars defining and using
these terms according to their needs and pedagogies?
My final question relates to how I am not able to see the
readings connect: how can we use some of these theories and notions in a
college writing classroom? This is
something we are always told to be mindful of while reading, but I would love
to have a conversation attempting to link concepts like networks and Brooke’s
reframing of the canons to our daily practices. Is it possible to bring in more
than one of these notions of new media and technology into our classrooms? Or
have these texts been so powerfully framed that we must fully board the ship in
order to set sail?
(That last line was really unnecessary. I blame it on my
sinus infection meds that make everything—including my brain—go kind of hazy.)
No comments:
Post a Comment