This article establishes traits of adaptable communicators in the 21st century, explains why adaptability should be a goal of technical communication educators, and shows how multimodal pedagogy supports adaptability. Three examples of scalable, multimodal assignments (infographics, research interviews, and software demonstrations) that evidence this philosophy are discussed in detail. Asking students to communicate multimodally drives them to effectively filter information, remix modes, and remake practices that are core characteristics of adaptable communicators. Beyond teaching students how to teach themselves as an essential part of living in an information society, contending with new and unfamiliar tools also prepares students for their roles as empathic mediators in the workplace.
AndersonD.AtkinsA.BallC.MillarK. H.SelfeC.SelfeR. (2006) Integrating multimodality into composition curricula: Survey methodology and results from a CCCC research grant. Composition Studies34(2): 59–84.
2.
AndersonC.GantzJ. F. (2013) Skills requirements for tomorrow's best jobs helping educators provide students with skills and tools they need, Framingham, MA: IDC, pp. 1–24.
3.
BaeplerP.ReynoldsT. (2014) The digital manifesto: Engaging student writers with digital video assignments. Computers and Composition34: 122–136. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2014.10.002.
4.
BaymN. K. (2010) Personal connections in the digital age, Malden, MA: Polity.
5.
BowenT.WhithausC. (2012) “What else is possible”: Multimodal composing and genre in the teaching of writing. In: BowenT.WhithausC. (eds) Multimodal literacies and emerging genres, Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 1–12.
6.
boydd. (2007) Why youth ♥ social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. In: BuckinghamD. (ed.) The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur foundation series on digital media and learning, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 119–142.
7.
BrumbergerE.LauerC.NorthcutK. (2013) Technological literacy in the visual communication classroom. Programmatic Perspectives5(2): 171–196.
8.
BrumbergerE. R. (2005) Visual rhetoric in the curriculum: Pedagogy for a multimodal workplace. Business Communication Quarterly68(3): 318–333.
9.
BrumbergerE. R. (2007) Making the strange familiar: A pedagogical exploration of visual thinking. Journal of Business and Technical Communication21(4): 376–401.
10.
Burnett, R. E., & Cooper, L. A. (2010). The synergy of modes and media in academic and professional communication. In Georgia Tech Writing and Communication Program (Ed.), Georgia tech woven text (Section 42). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's.
11.
CairoA. (2013) The functional art, Berkeley, CA: New Riders.
12.
CórdovaN. I. (2013) Invention, ethos, and new media in the rhetoric classroom: The storyboard as exemplary genre. In: BowenT.WhithausC. (eds) Multimodal literacies and emerging genres, Pittsburgh, PA: University Pittsburgh, pp. 143–163.
13.
DombrowskiP. M. (1994) Humanistic aspects of technical communication, Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Company.
14.
FordhamT.OakesH. (2012) Rhetoric across modes, rhetoric across campus: Faculty and students building a multimodal curriculum. In: BowenT.WhithausC. (eds) Multimodal literacies and emerging genres, Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 313–335.
15.
FraibergS. (2013) Reassembling technical communication: A framework for studying multilingual and multimodal practices in global contexts. Technical Communication Quarterly22(1): 10–27.
16.
Franklin, J. (2014). Infographic and reflection assignment (Unpublished class reflection, LMC3403 course). Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
17.
Hart-DavidsonW. (2013) What are the work patterns of technical communication? In: Johnson-EilolaJ.SelberS. A. (eds) Solving problems in technical communication, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 50–74.
18.
Johnson-EilolaJ. (1996) Relocating the value of work: Technical communication in a post-industrial age. Technical Communication Quarterly5(3): 245–270.
19.
Johnson-EilolaJ. (2005) Datacloud, Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.
20.
Johnson-EilolaJ.SelberS. (2013) Introduction. In: Johnson-EilolaJ.SelberS. A. (eds) Solving problems in technical communication, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 1–18.
21.
JonesL. A. (2010) Podcasting and performativity: Multimodal invention in an advanced writing class. Composition Studies38(2): 75–91.
22.
Kallon, F. (2014). Software demonstration assignment (Unpublished reflection, LMC3403 course). Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
23.
KarolyL. A.PanisC. (2004) The 21st century at work: Forces shaping the future workforce and workplace in the United States, Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
24.
MaierC. D.KampfC.KastbergP. (2007) Multimodal analysis: An integrative approach for scientific visualizing on the Web. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication37(4): 453–478.
25.
MehlenbacherB. (2013) What is the future of technical communication? In: Johnson-EilolaJ.SelberS. A. (eds) Solving problems in technical communication, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 187–208.
26.
Name Redacted. (2014). Information density essay assignment (Unpublished quiz, LMC3403 course). Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
27.
National Leadership Council (2007) College learning for the new global century, Washington, DC: The Association of American Colleges and Universities.
28.
Palmeri, J. (2012). Remixing composition. Conference on College Composition and Communication of the National Council of Teachers of English, Carbondale, IL.
29.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2008) 21st century skills, education & competitiveness, Tucson, AZ: Partnership for 21st Century Skills.
30.
RaineyK. T.TurnerR. K.DaytonD. (2005) Do curricula correspond to managerial expectations? Core competencies for technical communicators. Technical Communication52(3): 323–352.
31.
RudeC. D. (2009) Mapping the research questions in technical communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication23(2): 174–215.
32.
SankeyM.BirchD.GardinerM. (2010) Engaging students through multimodal learning environments: The journey continues. In: SteelC. H.KeppellM. J.Gerbic,P.HousegoS. (eds) Curriculum, technology & transformation for an unknown future. Proceedings ascilite Sydney 2010, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia: The University of Queensland, pp. 852–863.
33.
SchillingK. (2009) The impact of multimedia course enhancements on student learning outcomes. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science50(4): 214–225.
34.
SpilkaR. (2009) Practitioner research instruction: A neglected curricular area in technical communication undergraduate programs. Journal of Business and Technical Communication23(2): 216–237.
35.
SpinuzziC. (2007) Guest editor's introduction: Technical communication in the age of distributed work. Technical Communication Quarterly16(3): 265–277.
36.
Starke-MeyerringD.DuinA. H.PalvetzianT. (2007) Global partnerships: Positioning technical communication programs in the context of globalization. Technical Communication Quarterly16(2): 139–174.
37.
WilsonR. (2003) Researching “undergraduate research” in the humanities. Modern Language Studies33(1/2): 74–79.
