Reflection

When considering this task, I quickly realized that changing the mode of communication would affect the meaning. In the original task, some of the response questions are formed in expectation of written (or verbal) responses. They are often abstract or hypothetical, and so I used written text to communicate my responses. To answer the response questions in detail, my first version of the task was primarily linguistic with a little visual design. 

For the redesign, I considered incorporating audio design but felt it would rely too heavily on words. Instead, I tried to focus on visual and gestural design elements to see how much I could communicate about myself and my bag. The gestural element is a self portrait in my usual work clothes because that’s what I normally wear when carrying my bag. That picture did not exist in the original, but I included it to allow the reader to make connections between the bag contents and my self representation. 

Using the original picture of the bag contents, I added colored dots and labels to represent my views on these items. I had to label the colors, as the ideas I decided to associate with them are unique to this task. Even though I was focused on visual and gestural, I could not avoid some linguistic elements. As the London Group (1996) explained, “all meaning-making is multimodal” (p. 81), and my inability to completely avoid text in this task is an example of that.

In the redesign of this task, there were some question responses I simply skipped, like the question about imagining an archeologist. I don’t believe that question would be impossible to answer using only visual design, but it would not be easy. I may need to create an elaborate graphic or drawing to attempt to illustrate the response, which would take a significant amount of time and effort. In fact, writing the original task was easier because I am much more proficient in writing than I am in visual design.

The biggest challenge I see in mode changing is selecting and using the right tools to communicate in that mode. If the communicator is not proficient in that mode’s available tools, the cost of communicating may be too high. Not only that, but poor use of a design tool can result in the reader (or viewer) not understanding the message at all. Since meaning-making requires multiple modes of meaning, an effective communicator needs proficiency in a variety of tools to express that meaning effectively. It also requires consideration of the right tool for a given context, especially when communication needs to be done quickly. 

Reference

The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review 66(1), 60-92.