Multiliteracies in ELA Classrooms

1 response so far ↓

• TMD // Jul 18th 2014 at 10:16 am

  Dear B___,

  Thanks for your creative contribution and for your thoughtful discussion of your process in the companion piece. In your title you pick up on the concept I introduced in class of the merit of the “failed prototype.” I think you may find the following article on design of prototypical reading environments of interest:

  Galey, A., & Ruecker, S. (2010). How a prototype argues. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 25(4), 405-424. Available: http://www.academia.edu/3155105/How_a_prototype_argues

  Section 4, “The arguments of objects and processes,” is the section most relevant to your line of thinking in the rationale. Galey and Ruecker muse about how the worth of a prototype might be assessed. They argue that perhaps we could apply Booth’s criteria for assessing the merit of a thesis topic: a good thesis, he argues, should be contestable, defensible, and substantive. You’ll find the discussion on page 412.

  You note, “I ultimately failed in my endeavor for a number of reasons. On the one hand, I found myself unable to break away from a representational model as my selected images merely responded and reacted to the text instead of relating to and with it.” As I’ve intimated before, in my oral response, the product may fail in your estimation, but the process appears to have been valuable. And, as Galey and Ruecker observe, “It makes a difference whether we think in terms of processes or of products.”

  Your comment also reminded me of Shaun Tan’s remarks about how he engaged the process of illustrating the text Marsden sent him for The Rabbits: “When I received John Marsden’s text for this book, via my publisher, I experienced a sensation that usually accompanies the beginning of a new project: not knowing what to do! By itself, the half-page fax of text generated no ideas visually – none that were appropriately interesting at least (the image of Beatrix Potter bunnies with redcoats, muskets and British flags was not going to work – that’s one thing I did know). I eventually realised that what I had to do was extend the metaphorical logic of the text even further, and introduce more unexpected ideas to build a parallel story of my own. Not an illustration of the text, but something to react with it symbiotically (Tan, S. [2001]. On Originality and Creativity. Available: http://www.shauntan.net/essay2.html ). Perhaps this notion of extending the metaphorical logic of the text further is what you were aiming for?

  Although you intimate you wouldn’t wish to value product over process or vice versa in assessment, I do think in some instances — especially when students are taking risks with new media — we may in fact benefit from valuing process over product.

  Thanks again for your submission and for your thoughtful engagement with the educational merits of the exercise.

  Best regards,

  Teresa

You must log in to post a comment.