Search

This article examines two multimodal compositions produced with the support of a multiliteracy center. Each case involves multiple people, technologies, and resources. Distribution and emergence —two concepts borrowed from complex systems theory—help us understand the distinctive nature of the composing practices exemplified by these two cases. More specifically, the composing practices described here can be understood as examples of Pea's (1993) “distributed intelligence” and Lindquist, Hart-Davidson, and Grabill's (2010) “distributed invention.” These two examples prompt me to hypothesize about the way multiliteracy centers can maximize their potential to facilitate distributed and emergent composing practices. I suggest that multiliteracy centers should consider adopting policies, structures, and designs that facilitate connections, support long visits, attend to affective dimensions of relationships, and encourage play.

This essay considers the question of transfer in relation to processes of remediation. In particular, we explore the interrelationships between transfer and new media in multiliteracy center contexts. Drawing on a case study of an undergraduate student named Sophie, we offer a multidimensional approach called adaptive remediation that helps composers develop meta-awareness about how they might use and reshape prior composing knowledge and available semiotic resources in ways to suit media affordances and their rhetorical objectives in processes of remediation. Specifically, we propose four dimensions of adaptive remediation, including charting, inventorying, coordinating, and literacy linking. Our hope is that adaptive remediation will prepare multiliteracy center directors and consultants to help students transfer knowledge across media and, in the process, make rhetorically sound decisions about how to adapt and reuse literacies, skills, and ideas in a variety of contexts.

Though much scholarship exists suggesting why multimodal writing should be taught at the college-level and how it might be addressed in writing and multiliteracy centers, no previous studies have tried to document to what degree students are bringing multimodal texts to the writing or multiliteracy center. This article is a first attempt to study writing center users’ texts for multimodality. We find through studying users at a university with required multimodal instruction in two required first-year writing classes and advertised support for multimodal writing that few students bring multimodal texts to the writing center, few know what the term “multimodal” means, and none in the sample bring in texts composed in more than two modes. In the conclusion, we offer suggestions based on these findings for first-year writing instructors, writing center professionals, and for faculty teaching writing across the campus.

Using activity theory as a framework, the authors studied how the design of a digital workspace in a multiliteracy center influenced collaboration between human and non-human actors. The authors identified two types of spaces that facilitated collaborative practices in the digital workspace: interstitial and surrounding. The interstitial space was the space between human actors in a consultation and the surrounding space was the space directly outside of human actors in a consultation. Findings suggested that the placement of particular high- and low-tech tools and technologies within these spaces heavily influenced the work that occurred. Furthermore, the shape and style of the furniture in the space also had an impact, with rounded tables and chairs on wheels fostering mobility in the space which also impacted collaboration. Finally, tutor and tutee perceptions of the space also heavily influenced the work that occurred, as there was a common perception that the space would be conducive to group consultations or consultations using technology despite the space being designed with all potential consultations in mind.

This article addresses ways in which multiliteracy centers can be administratively structured to respond to change by encouraging stakeholder participation. To argue for the approach, the article draws from the computer programming concept of refactoring, which is a process software development teams use to share in the development of a system by cleaning up messy computer code. Used as a lens for thinking about the administration of a system like a multiliteracy center, refactoring provides Writing Center Professionals a method for responding to changing institutional contexts by using participatory methods. Further, to illustrate how refactoring as a concept is useful in multiliteracy centers, the article describes a framework for working with stakeholders to support a shared approach to assessment, particularly when considering ongoing revision of a center's policies, procedures, and tools. Finally, the article makes connections between refactoring and lean management principles such as a focus on outcomes, team discovery, shared understanding, failing successfully, and user-centeredness. Drawing from such principles, the article investigates methods of encouraging stakeholder expertise as a way to navigate change in multiliteracy centers, and to create environments that encourage collective engagement and action.