Shin and Cimasko equate writing to designing and discuss how “the process of designing...is not only a matter of individual choice but is also a representation of cultural, social, and discursive values and norms” (377). Drawing upon Jewitt’s work, Shin and Cimasko note that “writers synthesize different modes of meaning, and intermingled modes of representation mutually sustain one another and generate new meanings” (378). Shin and Cimasko’s study looks at how ESL students in a freshman composition classroom employ multiple modes of representation in a digital context. In addition, Shin and Cimasko explain that they seek to examine how L2 writers make meaning or build understanding within the academy in terms of a specific assignment like the argument. In the beginning of the semester, students were asked to design a web page, and then for the final project, the instructor “explicitly required that students craft their arguments into fully realized web pages, hypermedia documents that could not be replicated in non-digital print” (Shin and Cimasko 380). The composition instructor “pointed out in one class discussion that successful arguments, such as advertisements featuring photographs and little to no writing, can be made through primarily non-linguistic modes” (Shin and Cimasko 381). Using the New London Group’s model “as a heuristic for understanding the design elements that make up different modes of meaning in multimodal texts, such as web pages,” Shin and Cimasko analyzed the students’ projects using “the five modes of meaning – linguistic design, visual design, audio design, spatial design, and gestural design” (381). Shin and Cimasko found that students tended to give the linguistic mode greater authority and were hesitant to include other modes when designing the text because the linguistic mode is seemingly prevalent in academic discourse.
I would recommend this article to scholars and my peers in the field because Shin and Cimasko’s study reveals the importance of expectations within the various discourse communities. The students in this particular study upheld the conventional writing practices of the academic discourse community and chose to use the linguistic mode more than other modes despite the fact that the project description required (and the instructor encouraged) use of non-linguistic modes. Shin and Cimasko point out that “the students were actively attempting to construct suitable academic identities through their texts and may have found it easier and more beneficial to assimilate to the perceived linear, print-based standards” (390). My research project focuses on L2 writers’ construction of identity in a digital context as well as the rhetorical decisions L2 writers make when developing their Facebook pages. Although Shin and Cimasko’s article focused on L2 writers developing web pages in an academic context, it is extremely relevant to the work I am doing. This study offers wider pedagogical implications in terms of multimodal composition in the classroom and questions the dominance of the linguistic mode in academic discourse. Because Facebook is a social networking site, do L2 writers feel more comfortable employing multiple modes of meaning? If yes, what kinds of rhetorical decisions do L2 writers make, and how can instructors develop and/or alter courses to accommodate multimodal composition?
No comments:
Post a Comment