1. Inoue focuses in on a serious issue in the practice of traditional composition education, in that the historically favored ideas of quality writing are more favorable to a white dialect than dialects of other people groups. She is very quick to suggest that instructors should "stop grading on so called 'quality' and find other ways to
produce institutionally-demanded grades for students" and although I am sympathetic to her reasoning for suggesting such a route, isn't it equally problematic to suggest we try and do away with any sort of qualitative value system for writing? Is there any way we can maintain a standard for quality that is not exclusive or predominantly favored towards a specific racial dialect?
2. I think Shipka's argument about introducing multi-modal forms of composition in rhetorical education is great, and I think doing so would provide a lot of opportunities for creativity and thinking outside the box that more traditional composition assignments would. However, is it possible that integrating multi-modal composition may further accentuate the racial divide discussed in the Inoue article? Students from less financially established families may find themselves at a disadvantage in terms of the tools available to them when it comes to creating non-traditional compositions. Is there any way to avoid this in a multi-modal educational setting?
In regards to question 2: a very interesting point. That's part of why it's important, if assigning any multimodal project, to keep the requirements broad and materials very open. As an instructor, you may even set the limitation that students not spend any money on their project. Resources can be found in the home or even in recycled materials. This helps to keep access equal. We all remember that one kid whose parents bought him a ceramic studio for the art project while the rest of us had old, crumbly Play Doh to work with.
ReplyDelete