Fulwiler and Middleton

​

              The start of Fulwiler and Middleton’s article began to speak to the notion of convergence, which seemed to suggest that a blending together of multi-modal forms should be taken into consideration alongside both the message that is being conveyed and the audience that the message is attempting to reach. There also seems to be a tendency for video or multi-modal projects in education to tend towards the goal of “story telling,” a mode that applies the goals of alphabetic text to the vastly different process of video production. According to the article, part of the benefit of what teaching with multi-modal projects brings to the table is a “lack of tension between modes,” suggesting that there is a freedom of expression inherent in allowing the mode to best display the message; however, this requires an understanding of how technology alters the “materiality of composing,” or in other words, how technology can be used to change the way that we address—and thus teach—the writing process.

             Looking at the importance of teaching multi-modal projects requires a view of projects as focusing on the technological skills that are gained and not the “college-readiness” of the final piece, or in other words, the “process” and not the “product.” While I do see the importance of teaching these multi-modal products, I continue to find myself caught up on the notion that formulaic analytical skills (such as the five paragraph essay) do in fact provide an important, and even I would argue imperative, ability to the writer to create an idea and then defend that claim analytically. I recognize that if you are to apply this process based ideology and reexamine the “vocabulary” of benefits that it helps the student gain, multi-modal projects can provide understanding on multiple levels that would otherwise be impossible. I still fear though that this will lead to a consideration of what I see as essential writing skills to fall to the wayside in light of more enjoyable, or even process centered, projects.

              I was happy to see that the article spent some time focusing on the projects that did not succeed. I can sympathize with Candice in her acknowledgment that her story did not translate into the visual form. I think that this demonstrates that there are meanings that are gained and portrayed through the visual form that are not present in a written story. If you look at the introduction of multi-modal projects as “creating meaning” as the article suggests, while the written word can do this to an extent, the opportunities to do so with visual production  focus on the process, and in many ways the knowledge gained, of creating a piece.