Final Reflection Draft 1
Completing the story telling project in the multimodal writing course exposed us to the variety of media for rhetorical expression that allows us to more effectively communicate to public audiences. Specifically, for the Quest for Refuge Video Project we combined a variety of topics covered in the course along with the elements of creating a multimodal text to share the story of our community partner. The purpose for the Quest for Refuge Project was to learn about the life of our community partner and retell their story using video and audio technologies. Some rhetorical considerations we had to consider when writing for a public audience was being able to connect the story with an audience that have different levels of background knowledge on the topic. We could not assume that everyone watching the video would have an understanding of the Liberian Civil War that our community partner lived through to tell her story. It would not only be confusing for the viewer but it would also take away from some important elements and topics discussed by the community partner.
Another rhetorical consideration we had was being able to relate to an audience that may not be able to hear the audio. To adjust to this we had to input subtitles of the composition so people that are unable to hear the story could still receive the messages our community partner shared. Our audience also had an effect on our style because we wanted to make sure there was a smooth flow and easy transition for each topic so the viewer would not get confused. In an interview, the interviewee can start to go on a separate path from the original question that was asked. This can start to disrupt the flow of the video during the editing process, so in order to prevent any confusion we made sure that each sections was clearly label with the topic that would be discussed. We also had to allow time in the video for viewers to absorb the information that was presented in the section.
Some ethical considerations that we had creating this project was making sure that the community partner's story was retold in a truthful and respectful manner. We had to be careful we did not misrepresent our community partner by creating false emotions about her or for the viewer. (During the video editing process we should not be editing the video to make our community member come off in a way that we felt would make our story better. We did not want to give the audience the feeling that they should only feel one way about Ma Mary because it would shine a false light on the story. In Out on the Wire we learned that is important for the audience derive their feelings and thoughts from different elements in the piece rater than trying to falsely create a specific feeling or emotion)
We had to constantly make sure that the story we were trying to tell was the same as what our community partner wanted share. It felt unethical if we did not focus on any of the point our community partner emphasized and instead we only focused on what we wanted to make the story our own way. A theoretical consideration we had was making sure the academic purpose was maintained throughout the duration of the video. This could have been thrown off for example if we started to only go into a history of the Liberian Civil War instead of keeping the focus on Ma Mary's story
Using affordances such as visual and gestural modes we were able to demonstrate the emotion that our community partner had while sharing her life. We were able to capture hand motions and facial expressions, which enhanced the story because we could see how our community partner reacted while sharing her life story. This provides a stronger connection and a real experience for the audience because they have the ability to see the emotions. This is better than just reading a transcript of an interview, or even an audio interview because they do not allow the same connection between the audience and the interviewee. We were pleased with the video and audio tools because they allowed us to emphasize and signpost points that we deemed important for the audience. This technology allows us to organize topics within our purpose, and have each point flow into the next section. Were able to edit and rearrange clips of the video so that the flow of the story was easy to follow. Combining all the affordances creates such a better experience for the audience because it allowed us to simulate the experience like they were in the room as the interview happened. The audience can see and hear everything that our group heard while conducting the interview, and this is a powerful feeling because no element is left out that could potentially have an impact on the story. Using this technology to produce a multimodal text was very effective for us because we were able to bring out the voice of our community partner so easily. (Our choice of modes were difficult to work with at times because we had to incorporate a translator as well as the community partner into the video. This was difficult because we wanted our community partner's voice to be heard, but we needed to use the translator to simplify the story for the audience. We had trouble deciding when to fade out the community partner and when to start to transition into the translators voice. We also needed to continue the focus of the video on our community partner to capture emotions, but at the same time have the translators voice be heard. So working with multiple voices was a technological struggle, but we were able to get through the process and found the right balance that incorporated every element we wanted to use)
(The writing process for this assignment was similar but also different then typical textual assignments I have done in the past. There were some parts of the preparation process that were similar to creating an outline for an essay. Creating interview questions before the interview is similar to the way that we would prepare and gather information on a topic we would write a paper on. The transcript for our video is similar to creating an outline of for a paper. The transcript created structure for the video and guided how our group would go about adding sections to create a flow for the story. The actual recording of the interview was like the first draft of a paper. The editing process for the video was the same concept as editing and adding sections to clean up a paper.)
The difference between writing strictly a textual piece and a multimodal piece is the length of the process. Developing the overarching purpose and creating the video takes much longer then writing a paper. In What's in a Name? the author references that you have to attend to verbal context as well as the other modes we use to communicate. Since we had to appeal to these other modes of communication we had to think about how we would present our research and provide context to the audience. For example, we used still images of people in Liberia during the civil was to show what life looked like at the time. We also used an image of a map to reference the location for the viewer, and provide text paragraphs at the beginning of the video to give background information on the topic. As a group, we also had to go through all the video clips and decide which ones we should use to create our purpose for the story. This process takes much longer and is different then composing just a textual work because we had to derive our purpose from video clips we collected. Usually for a paper you decide your purpose before you write and then you gather the information and examples you need to support it. In this case we collected all our information from the interview first and then we had to decide what the overarching purpose based on what we learned from our community partner.
I learned that the term multimodal writing is a concept that can be understood more than one way. It is such a difficult topic to discuss because professionals in the writing field still disagree on the exact meaning of multimodal. In the What's in a Name? website we learn that people define the term multimodal based on the work that they do. This is interesting because it leaves the term very open ended, and it allows it to evolve. People believe that multimedia and new media is a relatively recent concept, but it has actually been around for a while. After new technology and social medias like the iPhone, Twitter, and Facebook people started to change what they believed was new media. Now the terms new media, digital technology, and multimodal have evolved and branched out to form new ideas on them. There does not seem to be any consistency on what the terms mean, but not agreeing makes for new arguments on the field. People have the ability to expand on multimodal work because it is so broad, which I learned first hand after completing the Quest for refuge project.
From this process I learned about genre within a multimodal composition. When we talk about genre in a multimodal piece we do not refer to video or audio compositions as a genre of multimodal writing. These are both elements that make up aspects of of multimodal writing, and they have genres within the element. An example of a genre would be creating a video interview piece because it is a type of video piece that can be created with multiple elements.
​
Some considerations I want to remember about multimodal writing for public audiences that is that I cannot try to relate my piece to everyone the same. The public sphere consists of many levels with different types of people communicating in it. Not everyone is going to interpret a multimodal piece the same way because everyone comes from different backgrounds. I learned that it is important to share your purpose of creating a multimodal piece to a public audience, but you cannot assume everyone will receive the message the same. The important part is that creating a multimodal piece for the public audience opens up discussions and new ideas to different groups. People can take what they learned from your piece and expand on and evolve concepts to create even more open discussions.