Communication Center Journal 112 Volume 3:1, 2017

Preparing for the Change: The Development of a Multiliteracy Studio

Danielle Cordaro Gabriella Pishotti University of Mount Union Miami University

The term “multiliteracy studio” is of English (Comprehensive , 2013), one that encompasses two important the National Communication Association movements happening simultaneously in the (High School Communication Education, writing and speaking center literature. The 2012) and the Association of American first, the multiliteracy movement, is rooted Colleges and Universities (Ehrmann, 2004). in “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: In response, several institutions including Designing Social Futures” (1996). The New Rice University, California State University London Group argued for a reorientation to Chanel Islands, and Eastern Kentucky literacy in all modes of communication, University have designed multiliteracy whereas earlier conceptions of literacy centers that are capable of assisting students focused mostly on reading and writing. The with the linguistic, textual, visual, oral, authors further emphasized the need for aural, audio, spatial, and gestural modes of students to be empowered to understand, communication. criticize, and challenge multimodal The second movement, studio messages delivered by sophisticated and pedagogy, is a natural match for this new powerful agents of fast capitalism. Ben perspective on communication. Studio Agger coined the phrase “fast capitalism” in pedagogy “...provides opportunities for 1989 and updated the concept in his 2004 students to take the lead in designing book, Speeding Up Fast Capitalism: effective products through a collaborative, Cultures, Jobs, Families, Schools, Bodies. In inspirational, and supportive environment this later text, Agger argues that fast and program” (Carpenter, 2013, p. 314). As capitalism indicates a “faster society of directors of writing or speaking centers information, communication, surveillance, know from experience, many clients use and stimulation” (2004, p. 4-5). Such a their services to polish a final draft or work world delivers information so quickly and on delivery. Studio spaces are purposefully through so many channels and mediums that designed to be workspaces that emphasize people’s ability to understand and respond the invention and arrangement phases of critically is severely challenged. Such designing communication, as well as final challenges, coupled with arrival of Web 2.0 polishing. The multiliteracy studio model applications that allow ordinary users to shifts the focus from product to process- generate their own content without coding or based pedagogy with intentionally designed programing knowledge, further emphasized spaces that encourage creativity, the stakes of multimodal, multimedia collaboration, and exploration. In studios, literacy and spurred the advancement of consultants are figured as “co-inventors” multimedia literacy initiatives in education. (Lee, Alfano, & Carpenter 2013, p. 55) Calls for multimodal communication, offering guidance and feedback to students information, and technology literacy have throughout their projects rather than as come from the National Council of Teachers “experts” giving advice. This case study, Communication Center Journal 113 Volume 3:1, 2017 researched and co-written by a multiliteracy Institutional Context studio director, Danielle Cordaro and a former undergraduate consultant, Gabriella The University of Mount Union Pishotti, describes the research and Center for Writing and Oral Communication development of one such center on the (CWOC), founded in fall of 2013, grew out campus of a small, private Midwestern of the Writing Center, which was founded in university, the University of Mount Union. 2004. University of Mount Union is It includes a description of our needs primarily an undergraduate institution and assessment research: specifically, we wanted the CWOC was staffed by 12-16 trained to know what our stakeholders and undergraduate students and one tenure-line constituents thought about working in a faculty director. The metamorphosis of the studio environment and how they might use Writing Center into the CWOC occurred in the studio’s proposed spaces, including an response to a significant revision to the open collaborative zone; enclosed rooms to curriculum. In 2011, the University began practice public speaking and receive the transition from a traditional first-year feedback on writing; and a multimedia composition program and distributive production lab. We found that while our general education model to an ambitious faculty and administrator stakeholders Communication Across the Curriculum understood and supported the proposed (CAC) program administered vertically design and mission of the studio, students through a new integrative general education expressed doubts about the introduction of a program, the Integrative Core (IC). The IC multimedia production lab. includes collaborative learning as an Although the results of our needs outcome in its upper division courses and a assessment research were mixed, we decided high-stakes, mid-career ePortfolio it was better to take a risk and include a assessment of writing and speaking. multimedia production lab in our space Discussions with the Writing and rather than to lose a funding opportunity that Oral Communication Advisory (WOC) might never arise again. Faculty, staff, and Board, composed of the faculty director of administrators in our study indicated that the WOC program and six other faculty students would shortly need more assistance representing a variety of disciplines, led us with the rhetorical design of e-portfolios to believe that we should change our model required by the IC and with other and philosophy to support both writing and multimedia projects that faculty were hoping speaking. In the fall of 2013, we became the to assign if students were provided with CWOC. Following the rhetorically-based appropriate resources. Our research into the writing and speaking pedagogy advanced by multiliteracy movement in education Ryan and Wiant (2015), all staff were confirmed our decision to include the required to take a two-credit practicum in multimedia production lab in the design of tutoring writing and speaking that was our studio. Flagship organizations in certified by the National Association of education had been calling for education in Communication Centers in 2013. We moved multimodal, multimedia communication locations from the third floor of the library since at least 2004, and, we reasoned, such to the main floor, closer to the action of the needs, while not immediately on our library’s service area and a newly doorstep, seemed certain to materialize. constructed cafe and social learning space. The CWOC occupied a small, v-shaped room that at first contained a conference Communication Center Journal 114 Volume 3:1, 2017 table and a monitor on which students could different groups of stakeholders screen visual aids for their presentations. share the same goals? Over the next year, we adjusted the space to ● “What are [the center’s] theoretical meet our needs, purchasing a smaller table foundations ... Is collaboration and a wheeled, lockable media storage fundamental? If learning is social in podium where we could store our cameras, nature, how do the spaces provided presentation remotes, and the center’s two create opportunities for such social laptops. interactions?” We had occupied this space for two Specifically, we wanted to know if faculty, years, when circumstances provided us with administrators, and students understood and the opportunity to move to an even more valued support for beyond writing central location and to change our space, and speaking and if they valued philosophy, and image yet again. In the collaborative learning. If so, we needed to spring of 2015, administrators decided to know how they envisioned a support center move forward with plans for a learning in terms of space, furniture, and commons, and we were asked, technologies. unexpectedly, to relocate. The University offered to fund the construction of a new Methods space if we could produce a plan for the rooms, furniture, and technology within six We created a PowerPoint presentation that weeks. This provided an opportunity for us included a slide with a mockup blueprint of to not only expand our space, but offer a the areas and elements the space could multimodal approach to studio pedagogy contain and further slides with photos of that we had been studying for several potential technologies and furniture for the months. studio.

Focus Groups

We knew that to test our ideas about pedagogy, space design, and technology, we would have to get feedback from stakeholders, and we chose to do so through focus groups. Our methodology for studying change was based largely upon questions raised by Littlejohn and Cuny (2013) in their study “Creating a Digital Support Center: Foregrounding Multiliteracy.” They raise a number of questions germane to planning for change that guided our approach to focus groups (p. 88): ● What is the center’s mission? “Is its goal to provide feedback? Figure 1. Simple mockup blueprint used Correction? Dialogue?” during focus groups to demonstrate possible ● What do stakeholders want to elements of the proposed studio. accomplish in such a center? Do

Communication Center Journal 115 Volume 3:1, 2017 During each focus group, we Participants explained our current model. Then we discussed the proposed studio’s philosophy: Fifty-seven stakeholders participated in it would be a place not only to receive our focus groups, including the following: feedback on nearly finished products, but ● 26 undergraduate students also somewhere that students could work a representing a variety of class ranks, variety of multimodal projects with or disciplines, and user status at CWOC without help from consultants. We presented ○ 18 users (those who had used open, enclosed, and semi-enclosed CWOC services at least once in technology-enabled spaces, and we the past year) discussed the types of work that could be ○ 6 non-users (those who had not done in each space. Next, we asked used CWOC services within questions based upon a standard set (see the past year) appendix) that were adjusted to the needs of ○ At least 2 commuters (one each group. group was not asked whether or We felt participants would feel more not they were commuters) comfortable giving feedback to peers, so ● 14 CWOC consultants, the entire Gabriella conducted focus groups with staff students and consultants, and Danielle ● 16 faculty representing a diversity of conducted focus groups with faculty, staff, disciplines, including the fine arts, and administrative stakeholders. Because we humanities, education, social were interested in our stakeholders’ science, and natural science, as well impressions of our ideas, and because we as the WOC and IC directors had to quickly produce findings in the midst ● One administrative staff member, the of a busy semester, we recorded comments director of academic support and asked for hands to be raised when we wanted to know how many participants felt Analysis a particular way about something we were discussing. We met after each session to talk Our analysis was straightforward and about the data and our impressions of the meant to produce data that could group’s opinions and feelings. As we immediately inform the design of our new describe in the limitations section, this is not space. Danielle and Gabriella met to discuss an approach we would have taken had we the general themes that emerged during time to design a more sophisticated, sessions with each focus group. We potentially generalizable study. Although it reviewed handcounts to determine how was a basic approach to needs assessment, many of our participants agreed or disagreed we were able to get information from our with something we proposed. As you will stakeholders that would help us predict see in the findings, we use descriptors like which elements in our proposed design “most” when 75% of participants supported might not be a good fit for our institution, or did not support an idea, “about half” which would probably be immediately when the number was closer to 50% and understood and highly utilized, and which “few” when an opinion was held by 25% or might involve more risk, time, and effort to less of participants. If there was a diversity become successful. of opinions on a particular topic, we tried to represent that as well.

Communication Center Journal 116 Volume 3:1, 2017 Findings help students break the habit of starting a project, particularly a collaborative project, Perceptions of the Proposed Multiliteracy too late to engage in serious revision. One Studio Philosophy science faculty member noted that collaboration is key to students’ success in We explained to all participants that STEM fields, and that a space specifically the main difference between the CWOC and designed for collaborating on the proposed studio was that the new studio communication projects would be especially would offer spaces to complete work with or beneficial. Others said that they felt students without the help of trained consultants, didn’t have “good models” for completing rather than be just a place to receive collaborative assignments, and they thought feedback. We indicated that another goal of the support of knowledgeable peers trained the new studio would be to provide students to help students with collaboration would be with spaces to work collaboratively with useful. They identified collaborative consultants and with each other. assignments required in the capstone IC Student participants’ reaction to the course and major-specific senior idea of support for collaboration was mixed culminating projects as things students were and seemed to be influenced by their likely to want to work on in the proposed experience with prior “group projects.” One studio. student referenced a social learning space added to the library the year before. He said Physical Space, Furnishings, and that he wanted to use the library for quiet Technology study, not collaboration. Others expressed a general annoyance with group projects, Space. In spite of students' general citing the usual problems of group mates not annoyance with “group projects” and some showing up for work dates, and general skepticism about the need for more dislike of “slackers.” Some students, collaborative spaces, most student however, expressed support for workspace participants valued and seemed excited by and human resources for collaboration. the prospect of having both open and CWOC consultant participants enclosed spaces to work within the proposed seemed to understand the need to support studio. Students liked the open space with collaboration. When presented with the new the reception desk shown in Figure 1. One open space, most agreed that having one or first-year student commented that making an two consultants “floating” around the open appointment at the current CWOC was space, ready to assist students working on “intimidating” because the only way to do collaborative projects would help to build a so was through our online appointment better connection with them by breaking application. We had no space for reception down the “appointment barrier” and make in the CWOC; there was no way for clients consultants available to answer questions to walk in and ask a question without either that might not require a 30-minute or hour- interrupting a consultation, or seeming to long session. disturb a consultant. She and several others All faculty, staff, and administrators liked the idea that they could walk up to a were excited by the possibility of a new consultant at the reception desk, ask a center encouraging collaborative learning, question, and return to the proposed and they unanimously supported an collaboration or quiet zones to continue to “invention” or an “idea center” that would work at their own pace. The proposed Communication Center Journal 117 Volume 3:1, 2017 enclosed spaces seemed to satisfy those who believed such broad training requirements had earlier stated a dislike for working in the might discourage students from applying to open. work at the studio. CWOC consultants strongly supported the proposed open area design Technology and furnishings. Most that would allow them to sit among students CWOC consultants agreed that the future of and assist and interact with them in a more composing, both in the workplace and at our casual way. Faculty, staff, and institution would be multimodal and digital. administrators were excited about the CWOC consultants suggested that we possibility of an open area equipped with should gather more information on how white board tables for idea exchange and many faculty members were currently, or collaborative work. were planning to assign multimodal projects. Of all of the new spaces proposed, They had several other suggestions, the idea of a multimedia production lab including the formation of a faculty elicited the most debate. Half of student discussion group around multimodal participants believed that the specialized teaching and learning. programs and technology we said the lab Faculty members, staff, and could provide would be beneficial and allow administrators supported a multimedia them more options for creativity and production lab equipped with “beginner” professional development. The other half, and “advanced” design software. The however, believed that not many students director of the IC noted that curriculum for would actually take the time to learn how to upper division courses would soon require use the resources provided and instead, it the production of a designed ePortfolio, and would become “just another computer lab on that although “technical support” and campus.” This latter group indicated that “troubleshooting” was available for they would never use any production students, no other campus entity offered software, as there wasn’t a demand for support for visual and digital design of multimedia projects in their current courses; ePortfolios. In terms of hardware, a music one student even said “...my professors want professor specifically asked for portable nothing to do with any of that [technology].” recorders or mics that could, with Most CWOC consultants agreed that appropriate permission, be used to record the multimedia production lab would be an live performances, and an easy-to-use audio asset to the campus community in the long editing program. run, but expressed trepidation about learning to use the technologies in the lab and the Results need to explain them to peers. They debated the question of whether the CWOC should Our findings led us to question hire students based on their expertise with a whether students would immediately particular area of literacy (Grutsch understand both the philosophy of the McKinney 2010) or hire students to be studio—come in at any point in the trained as “super consultants” (Sheridan, communication process and work with or 2010) capable of working with visual and without consultants in the space—and the digital literacy as well as to assist with implied mission—to foster critical thinking writing and speaking. Although half of the about communication while providing staff thought it would be better to train all technologies and support to bring clients’ employees in all areas, the other half visions to life. Students were split on Communication Center Journal 118 Volume 3:1, 2017 whether they would ever use a multimedia The Multimedia Production Lab. production lab with specialized software and The Multimedia Production Lab overlooks hardware. an open, sunny study area, and is Faculty were very excited by the rectangular, with double paned glass on both prospect of a collaborative “idea center” on of the long edges of the room. While the campus, as were consultants, who noted glass produced an attractive and bright during the research that one of the most workspace, it is not ideal for recording and exciting parts of their job is helping students we are considering purchasing foldable come up with ideas and think through acoustic enclosures that will deaden sounds. communication challenges. Faculty and The lab is equipped with a Mac and a PC administrative stakeholders also seemed loaded with “beginner” and “advanced” relieved we would provide hardware, video, photo, and sound editing software. software, space, and support for students Beginner software includes MovieMaker, working on digital compositions. iMovie, PowerPoint, and Audacity; advanced software consists of the full Adobe Design of the DWOC Studio Creative Suite.

As a result of our research, the High quality digital cameras, following spaces were constructed during tripods, mics and field recorders for the summer break. checkout. In addition to the physical spaces listed above, we also offer 15 point-and- The Invention Center. The shoot cameras and mini tripods, two High Invention Center is an open area at the front Definition camcorders with lapel mics and of our space that contains our reception tripods, an iCE microphone for recording desk, a movable glassboard, and three white podcasts or voiceover in the Lab, and four board tables. We decided not to equip these Zoom H4N professional field recorders. tables with computers because the university Students can check out these materials from was beginning to implement a bring-your- the nearby library circulation desk, where own-device initiative. This appears to have they are stored in a locked cabinet. been a good choice, as groups of students often bring their own devices, or prefer to sit Office for the Director. The space with no device at all and read, talk, and includes a comfortable office for the write. Power outlets and charging stations director. The new office includes a glass are available throughout the space. wall, allowing the director to casually monitor activities in the Studio and to The Writing/Speaking Room. This answer questions when needed. area is similar to our old CWOC space, and provides a quiet area for clients to receive Limitations feedback on group or solo writing projects or to practice speaking. The space is There are certainly limitations to the furnished with a table that can accommodate usefulness of our research to those in other up to four people for writing or presentation contexts. We sought and received IRB planning consultations, a monitor and media approval (exempt status) for our focus podium, and a storage cabinet for the groups, not because we thought the research DWOC’s point-and-shoot cameras, tripods, would be generalizable to other contexts, but and other hardware. because we wanted to share our needs Communication Center Journal 119 Volume 3:1, 2017 assessment process, informal as it was, with surveys and focus groups. We would also others who might be considering moving to have employed a grounded theory approach a multiliteracy model. (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) to analyzing the In terms of faults in data collection, resulting data. we were not able to get through all the questions we had intended to ask each group Discussion of participants. The student groups and the consultant group were able to meet for a full Once Danielle’s colleague, Gwen hour, and we asked the full set of questions Gray Schwartz, echoing several scholars in and got a lot of useful data from these two the field of rhetoric and composition, groups about their perceptions of the CWOC pointed out that there is a difference and the proposed studio. However, we did between “assigning writing and teaching not get a similarly rich set of data from writing.” In much the same way, there is a faculty. Faculty could only commit to difference between assigning collaborative talking to us for 30 minutes following a projects and providing students with faculty meeting. To make the most of our scaffolded opportunities to learn to engage time with them, Danielle quickly presented in productive collaboration. Likewise, there to the group about the proposed studio’s is a difference between assigning philosophy, with which they readily agreed, multimodal composing and teaching and then moved on to what we most needed essential functional, critical, and rhetorical to know—what faculty might assign that literacy skills (Selber, 2005). students would work on in the proposed The IC’s upper division courses list studio, and what technologies and other collaboration as a major learning outcome. materials they wanted us to make available However, faculty have had little to students. development in how to support collaborative We also decided not to record learning. Although the DWOC Studio offers sessions, but instead took notes, writing support for students engaged in down pithy statements, specific suggestions, collaborative projects, we should not be and recording hands raised in support of, or expected to “carry the ball” for teaching disagreement with specific ideas. We knew collaborative learning in the same way that that we would not have time to transcribe traditional writing or speaking centers recordings and perform a sophisticated should not carry the ball for instruction for qualitative analysis of the data before we faculty who are unwilling or unable to learn would have to use our findings to make how to teach essential writing or speaking decisions about construction, budgeting, and skills in their courses. purchasing. In hindsight, however, we In terms of demands for multimodal recognize that recording the sessions would communication literacy in the curriculum, not have entailed much more work and students must show proficiency in writing would have been helpful as we prepared this and speaking, and must produce ePortfolios article for publication. to satisfy graduation requirements at Mount Conducting informal focus groups Union. Although the ePortfolio is a was an expedient of gathering data from key requirement, students do not really need to stakeholders. If we had had more time to demonstrate visual or digital literacy in prepare this study, we would have followed order to satisfy the current requirements. the example of Lauren (2013), using a Our findings showed that while some faculty mixed methods approach employing both were curious about assigning multimodal Communication Center Journal 120 Volume 3:1, 2017 communication projects and had already a faculty workshop on assigning and thought about what support they and their assessing multimodal projects with students might need to do this kind of work, suggestions for incorporating useful visits to others are clearly technology avoidant. the Studio. While our campus does offer general In addition to addressing faculty technology support to faculty, we do not development, we also updated our training employ a qualified instructional designer as model, altered our hiring practices, and a resource for faculty who would like to added leadership opportunities for learn how to design multimedia consultants with advanced digital design assignments. skills. First, Danielle has significantly During the research process, our own revised the consultant training program. All thinking about what we were becoming, and consultants now receive instruction on should become, shifted. Prior to completing written, oral, digital, and visual rhetoric, and the research, we thought our studio should complete audio, video, and visual design be entirely geared toward students, and the projects as part of the required two-credit current space is certainly designed primarily practicum. Our staff might be what Sheridan with a student audience in mind. But, refers to as “super consultants” (2010) Carpenter et al. point out in “Studio capable of helping students with rhetorical Pedagogy” (2013), a studio should also concerns over multiple communication “initiate transformational change ... by modes and mediums. Second, Danielle hires positioning it[self] as an academic unit that students in part based upon existing digital goes beyond merely supporting the design skills and willingness to learn new institutional mission (the traditional role of skills. In addition to the regular staff, libraries and writing centers) to enacting the Danielle has also created a specialized institutional mission” (p. 316). We had to Technology Mentor position. The engage the faculty who were assigning the Technology Mentor is not a regular work students were bringing to us. consultant, but assists clients who have As soon as construction on the advanced questions about our hardware and Studio was complete, Danielle promoted the software. Finally, regular consultants who physical spaces, consultants, and technology develop advanced digital design skills have resources to faculty members through the opportunity to become Technology workshops at a yearly all-faculty Leads. The technology leadership team development seminar, as well as through works with Danielle to support all aspects of open houses and tours. Danielle has also digital composing in the Studio. worked with faculty members to develop In terms of concrete results from our units that employ and first full year as a multiliteracy center, we collaboration for first- and second-year can report many successes. First, the overall courses. These units include a required or number of visits we received during 2015-16 extra credit visit to the Studio for a were up 72% from the previous year, and particular purpose, typically to get started at the number of individual visitors were up the invention stage of a project, or to get a 52%. Our cameras were checked out 124 check on arrangement mid-project, times and the iCE mic seven times (we had processes many students skip. More not yet purchased the camcorders nor the recently, Danielle, in collaboration with field recorders). Those numbers have consultants in the Studio and a professor in remained consistent through 2016-2017. the communication department, put together Communication Center Journal 121 Volume 3:1, 2017 More anecdotally, the Invention Conclusions and Recommendations Center is hugely popular with students and is packed with students working on We learned our redesign produced collaborative projects throughout the day, some immediate and positive changes in but particularly during non-peak class times terms of increased use of our space and like early mornings and evenings. Although engagement with our consultants. However, there is a much larger space for ensuring that the technology resources are collaboration just down the hall, students used consistently and appropriately requires appear to prefer working on the whiteboard more of what writing and speaking center tables and clearly enjoy the convenience of directors already engage in—consistent and having a consultant at the reception desk, a clear messaging to stakeholders about what reference librarian across the room, and a resources are available and how to access copy center in the same area. The Invention them. We also educate faculty and staff on Center is always busy with activity ramping how to assign, support, and assess up significantly prior to and during collaborative and multimodal projects. midterms and final exams. Our final thoughts on the subject of Ensuring that the Multimedia how to prepare for change is to anticipate it. Production Lab is used for the purpose for We recommend that those who are which it was designed has been tougher and considering designing a multiliteracy studio is a longer-term project. There has clearly do so with the entire campus community in been less demand at this point for the mind, including the important audience of multimedia production and editing software professors and teaching staff, who are often and equipment available in the lab than for asked to implement pedagogy without other resources we provide. Students often adequate training. Read institutional mission use the lab as a quiet space to compose statements, general education program traditional alphabetic texts, read, or study. documents, and strategic plans to find Occasionally, Danielle is asked to “kick out” support for the specific aims of the studio. students who are using the room to socialize Evaluate the existence of resources, such as and surf the web to make room for those an instructional designer or center for who need the design software. Last year, teaching and learning available on your Danielle assigned the Technology campus. Appropriately resourced Leadership Team to work on promotional multiliteracy studios may be able to address material, including signage for the some of these unmet needs, and, in the Multimedia Production Lab that clearly process, promote best practices in teaching states what resources are available in the collaborative, multimodal communication room and explains the hardware we have skills. Finally, plan your needs assessment available for checkout. We also hope to strategy far in advance so that you have time launch a YouTube channel that will allow us to implement a good research design, as to demonstrate the hardware and explain exemplified by Lauren (2013). how it can be used with our software to create a variety of multimedia projects. Further interventions, such as increased opportunities for faculty development in the studio and campus/community workshops are planned in the coming months.

Communication Center Journal 122 Volume 3:1, 2017 Appendix becomes the central place on campus to do work on communication Standard Focus Group Questions projects, not just to get feedback and • Tell us about your experiences using leave. the CWOC or your impressions of • A place to talk through your ideas the service—what is most helpful? and “make stuff”— presentations, e- What do you wish were different? portfolios, papers, websites, • Tell us about your experiences using podcasts, posters, design projects etc. technology in the CWOC. • You don’t need an appointment to • How well does the technology work use the collaboration space--grab a for writing appointments? For coffee, meet up with your speaking appointments? groupmates, and use the space. • What technology do you wish we Consultants are on hand to help you could offer at the CWOC? think through your work if you • Tell us how you feel about working choose, and to help you learn new in the CWOC. Is it enough space? technologies What do you wish we had available • The Communication Studio staff in the CWOC that we don’t currently continues to do its current job of offer? What would you change if you providing feedback on finished could change one thing? projects, but are refigured as creative • Tell us how you feel about working guides and collaborators in the open areas nearby the CWOC. • Communication Studio staff can Do you enjoy working in the open mentor students as they learn new space or enclosed spaces? What do software necessary for presentation, you wish we had available in the collaboration, eportfolios, and visual open and enclosed spaces? What and digital design. would you change if you could o What do you think of the change one thing about these spaces? studio philosophy? Do you think you would come to Now I’m going to explain the major work in such a space? Why changes we’re considering for the new or why not? space, what we’re calling the o What types of projects could “Communication Studio.” you see yourself working on • Philosophy of the current CWOC: in this space? What is your favorite part of o Assist students with writing o and speaking projects that are the proposed design? What is typically already “finished” your least favorite part? What do you think of the o Students make an o appointment, get feedback technologies we’ve and leave suggested? Which do you think you would want to use o Consultants are positioned as experts giving advice the most? Least? Are there other technologies that you Now I’ll talk about the proposed think might be useful in such Communication Studio: a space? • Proposed communication studio Communication Center Journal 123 Volume 3:1, 2017

o Which spaces within the (Ed.), Cases on higher education overall design are most spaces (pp. 41-63). Hershey, PA: IGI appealing to you and why? Global. Which are least appealing Lee, S., Alafano, C., & Carpenter, R. G. and why? (2013). Invention in two parts: o What do you hope that Multimodal communication and consultants in the new space design in the writing center. In communication studio space R. G. Carpenter (Ed.), Cases on will be able help you with higher education spaces (pp. 41-63). and why? Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Littlejohn, S., Cuny, K. M., (2013). Creating References a digital support center: Foregrounding multiliteracy. In R. Agger, B. (2016). Speeding up fast G. Carpenter (Ed.), Cases on higher capitalism: Cultures, jobs, families, education spaces (pp. 41-63). schools, bodies. New York: Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Routledge National Communication Association. Carpenter, R. G., Valley, L., Napier, T., & (2012). High school education Apostel, S. (2013). Studio pedagogy: (communication and A model for collaboration, as a graduation requirement. innovation, and space design. In R. Retrieved from G. Carpenter (Ed.), Cases on higher https://www.natcom.org/sites/default education spaces (pp. 41-63). /files/pages/2012_Public_Statements Hershey, PA: IGI Global. _Resolution_on_NCAs_Support_for Ehrmann, S. (2004). Implications of _High_School_Communication_Edu technology for the content of a cation_as_a_Graduation_Requireme college education. Liberal nt_November.pdf Education: American Association of National Council of Teachers of English. Colleges and Universities, 90(4). (2013). Comprehensive literacy. Retrieved from Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/publications- http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFil research/periodicals/implications- es/Resources/Journals/CC/0223- technology-content-college- mar2013/CC0223PolicyBrief.pdf education The New London Group. (1996). A Grutsch McKinney, J. (2010). The new pedagogy of multiliteracies: media (R)evolution: multiple models Designing social futures. Harvard for multiliteracies. In D. M. Sheridan Educational Review, 66, 60-93. & J.A. Inman (Eds.), Multiliteracy Ryan, D. & Wiant, F. (2015). The centers: Writing center work, new speaking/writing connection: A media and multimodal rhetoric (pp. rhetoric. Southlake, TX: 207-223). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Fountainhead Press. Press. Lauren, B. (2013). Designing small spaces: A case study of the Florida International University Digital Writing Studio. In R. G. Carpenter Communication Center Journal 124 Volume 3:1, 2017 Selber, S. (2004) Multiliteracies for a Digital Age. United States of America: The Conference on College Composition and Communication of the National Council of Teachers of English. Sheridan, D. M., (2010). All things to all people: Multiliteracy consulting and the materiality of rhetoric. In D. M. Sheridan & J. A. Inman (Eds.), Multiliteracy centers: Writing center work, new media and multimodal rhetoric (pp. 75-107). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.