5. Conclusion
Engaging audio archives of non-normative voices in the process of audio collage can afford iterative listening practices, suggesting a fresh pedagogical approach for how writing instructors and students might more productively engage difficult issues of “difference” together. As with any pedagogical approach, there are risks in asking students to compose with the voices of others, particularly when those voices are housed in archives of sexuality. But, as I have demonstrated, the rewards are an increased potential for listening to non-neutral texts and participating in gendercritical inquiry, a greater sense of creative freedom felt by students, and the occasion to discuss fundamental issues in writing: including the process of coming to invention in a multitude of sources, the responsible appropriation of others’ voices, issues of Fair Use and plagiarism, and the relationship between historical evidence and contemporary claims. These rewards depend upon giving more sustained pedagogical attention to the kinds of engagement our students perform in the process of composing. The texts we assign and ask students to compose contain more than content: they inhabit and channel differentmodes,media, and genres, each ofwhich carry a potentialforthe affordance of engagement. Ultimately, engagement and production remain intimately entwined acts within and outside the classroom and, as much as we should celebrate the affordance of production in multimodal composition, we will do well to remember that our students continue to read, listen, see, and click throughout the composing process.
