Multimodal texts refer to the use of more than one mode of communication to create meaning. These are texts that “exceed the alphabetic and may include still and moving images, animations, color, words, music and sound” (Takayoshi & Selfe 2007). More specifically, the five different modes of communication include the traditional linguistic mode as well as visual mode or “the use of images and characteristics that readers see”; aural mode or elements like “music, sound effects, ambient noise/sounds, silence, tone of voice in spoken language, volume of sound, emphasis and accent”; spatial mode or “physical arrangement” including “organization” and “proximity between people or objects”; and gestural mode or “the way movement, such as body language, can make meaning” (Arola, Sheppard & Ball, 2014). 

​

Arola, Sheppard & Ball (2014) in Writer/Designer: A Guide to Making Multimodal Projects express that proponents of multimodal composition must repetitively explain the reasons why they pursue multimodal instruction in the first place; “integrating multimodal projects into our teaching can often lead to feeling like we are ‘ambassadors of multimodality’ for our students, programs, and departments’” (p. vi). Indeed, beginning with the advent of multimodal pedagogies, scholars and teachers alike have outlined (and defended) multimodality as the future of writing and composition courses.  The pioneer of multimodal composition, the New London Group argues that “literacy pedagogy must now account for the burgeoning variety of text forms associated with information and multimedia technologies” (New London Group as qtd. in Arola, Sheppard & Ball, 2014, p. vii). Takayoshi and Selfe (2007) also identify the following important benefits: there is a need for students to not only understand how to rhetorically analyze multimodal texts but also how to create their own multimodal compositions in our ever expanding digital world; the field of composition needs to reflect the needs of our evolving literacies; multimodal composition is fun and engaging to students; composing visual and aural texts also involves rhetorical considerations which means more transferable skills for composing with linguistic text; and multimodal composition fosters student-centered learning. Likewise, Melanie Gagich (2020) points out that multimodal composition provides a basis for helping students market themselves to potential employers in the future. In short, multimodal composition allows students with various literacy histories to bring what they know to the table and build upon their knowledge in ways that they feel are most rewarding while learning valuable transferable rhetorical skills in the process. 

​

While some teachers may be hesitant to shift to multimodal composition, Takayoshi and Selfe (2007) address the many concerns a writing teacher might have before making this decision. Importantly, they point out that implementing multimodality will not actually detract from writing instruction. As a way to demonstrate this, Takayoshi and Selfe (2007) discuss how even the creation of a short radio announcement involves the very rhetorical tools teachers try to instill in their students. Preparing for the project, students would have to think about which details and information is the most relevant for the purpose of the announcement, thus ultimately helping them gain a transferable skill since focus is crucial to an effective traditional essay genre. Meanwhile, students would also get the opportunity to think rhetorically about the aural mode and then evaluate “the affordances and constraints of audio with those of alphabetic writing” (p. 9). In turn, Takayoshi and Selfe (2007) argue that this modality comparison would serve as yet another transferable skill that helps students make decisions about the most appropriate modalities for specific rhetorical situations. Takayoshi and Selfe (2007) also attempt to appease the anxiety that all the sudden writing teachers would have to turn into technology experts; in fact, this could not be farther from the truth since implementing multimodality could be done in slow steps, testing the waters for which multimodal assignments work and which do not. They also point out that multimodal assignments could also be optional to begin with. Importantly, as Arola, Sheppard & Ball’s (2014) book Writer/Designer: A Guide to Multimodal Projects shows us, in implementing multimodal projects in their classrooms, teachers become more like guides and coaches to helping students effectively design their projects and communicate their ideas. With the accessibility to widespread technologies, tools, and assets the Internet offers us, it becomes the responsibility of the students to find answers for how to build their projects. Therefore, whether a student chooses to build a website, make a video, or create a podcast, it is the student’s role to figure out how to go about this task. As teachers, we can only guide our students to finding the technologies, tools, and assets they might need and not actually give tutorials on how to use them. 

​

As many rhetoric and composition scholars agree (Arola, Sheppard & Ball, 2014; Mathison Fife, 2010; Takayoshi & Selfe, 2007; Gagich 2020) teaching multimodality is not only beneficial to students but provides students increased interest with their composition assignments; this then also includes the dreaded rhetorical analysis. For instance, Mathison Fife (2010) found that using Facebook to teach rhetorical analysis in her composition course peeked her students’ interest and made concepts like ethos, pathos, and logos more palpable. She argues that despite the claims of it being a “low-brow” method, Facebook is a useful tool in teaching rhetorical analysis to first-year writing students, especially because it is multimodal and likely a social media site that students use on an everyday basis. Thus, Fife proposes that despite the challenges which students typically face with learning rhetorical analysis, using Facebook personally engages students, and in doing so, helps them learn the value of rhetorical analysis as well as makes the material easier to grasp. Fife then describes the ways she implemented Facebook into the classroom and shares what sorts of rhetorical moves students were able to identify on Facebook; notably, Fife’s students focused on similarities between Facebook profiles and were able to identify several recurring rhetorical moves. As an example, in terms of ethos and credibility, students concluded that bios that claimed liking all things made it seem like the person just wanted to be liked and was hiding behind a facade.