Like any good pedagogy in an unfamiliar medium, in the folk tradition I borrowed some of the basics from examples (George from the book, Morgan from class) and put things I’d been chewing up for awhile. The thought behind it is to have the students control the presentation instead of the instructor opening up attachments and then allowing the students to present their design in whatever way they felt most comfortable. By not prompting, such things as the bulleted point text response and robotic verbal tics — “i found this project very satisfying because i tried really hard…” and so forth, students investment into the multimodal project would be reflected in the explanation.

Visual parady (as George notes) is a great way of getting students into the material. Opposed to simply acknowledging great visual parodies in terms used in text-based examples, students would have to interact with the elements of design (materials, concepts, & physical representations electronic or otherwise) for it to be a part of a Multimodal Pedagogy compared to textual analysis.

I think it is very important to distinguish between Multimodal vs. Intertextual to see not only where they overlap but where multimodality has a space carved into the pedagogy. It is the goal of my suggested exercises to address concepts with terms not text-based but from the design elements of the product and production of Visual Rhetoric.

Thanks for interacting with the concepts of the project! The only good pedagogical approach is one open and responsive to criticism and further explanation.