6th 7th Weeks - Multimodality

53

Rethinking Literacy Education in New Times: Multimodality, Multiliteracies, & New Literacies

Jennifer Rowsell Brock Unversity

Maureen Walsh Australian Catholic University

Abstract

The article presents a theoretical overview of new fields of research, pedagogy, and practice in literacy education. In a digital, media-driven, globalized world, educators are faced with the challenge of mediating traditional notions of what it means to be literate (e.g., read and writing print-based texts) with new and ever-emerging skills and interests in technology and digital media. Focusing on a pilot study in Oakville, ON and a longitudinal research study in Sydney, Australia, we compel readers to think about literacy in a new light. Without a push to redefine literacy, educators run the risk of teaching and learning language and literacy skills in anachronistic paradigms and frameworks. While research has not been able to fully establish the impact of multimodal communication, it is essential that educators learn to use these different modes of communication to teach literacy.

Keywords: multiliteracies, pedagogy, multimodality, meaning-making, cognition

Jennifer Rowsell is a Canada Research Chair in Multiliteracies and Associate Professor at Brock University. She is involved in three research studies tied to the Centre for Research in Multiliteracies at Brock University. Her research examines epistemological shifts in our use and understanding of literacy education in the 21st century.

Email: [email protected]

Maureen Walsh is Professor of Literacy Education School of Education (NSW) at Australian Catholic University (ACU). She has published widely in areas of second language reading, reading education, visual literacy and childrens literature. For some time her research interests and publications have focused on multimodal literacy.

Email: [email protected]

Brock Education, Volume 21, No. 1, Fall 2011, 53-

Jennifer Rowsell & Maureen Walsh Rethinking Literacy Education

Brock Education, 21(1), 53-62 54

A group of boys sit around an iPad in a grade three classroom in an elementary school in a western suburb outside of Toronto. They are crowded around the iPad playing A Monster Ate my Homework. We ask them why they like the game and one boy claims that it helps his spatial skills (it is also fun). As we move around the room, we encounter two girls playing Whirly Word with an iPad close to them. Maureen and I look over their shoulder as they play and they look up at us shyly. We then realize that they would prefer us not to watch as they choose words from the same sound families. Then we move to yet another group with two boys and a girl and they are struggling to find combinations of words in the allotted time and we work with them to make as many words as possible out of five letters. This classroom is part of a pilot study using iPads in the classroom. The teacher self-describes as non-techie yet she has embraced the iPad project and she has found great success with it over the six week pilot project.

This brief window, an hour to be exact, observing eight year olds using new technologies for word study gave us a window into how quite traditional language skills such as word study and spelling translate into 21st century learning and multimodal forms of learning and thinking. By tapping and sliding and problem-solving, learners struggling with reading and spelling are successfully working through levels in a spelling game. Multimodality as in comprehension and competence with language through a variety of modes such as image, sound, touch, multi-dimensions, is the principle upon which digital environments work. This principle of multimodality needs to be understood for educators to apply and assess new modes of learning as a part of everyday classroom practice. (May 25, 2011)

The vignette that begins our article describes a moment in time in a classroom in Oakville, Ontario. The moment encapsulates the way that children are able to respond quickly and effectively to the digital technologies that permeate their world. While education policy makers and curriculum designers struggle to find ways of incorporating new modes of communication, many researchers and teachers worldwide are finding ways of using new technologies for literacy and learning. It is undeniable that students right now require a repertoire of both print and digital literacy practices for their future workplace and life. Terms such as new literacies (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003), multiliteracies (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000) and multimodality (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001) have been used for some time to conceptualize the way new communication practices are impacting on literacy and learning. The use of terminology such as new or multi in descriptions of changes that have occurred with digital communication are attempts to describe the multiple devices and media texts that are ubiquitous in our world. Multiple modes (e.g., image, sound, gesture, movement and text) are processed during communication and multiple aspects of literacy, or multiliteracies, are needed in our networked, global society. Even more, the multiplicative (Lemke, 1998) effect of the processing of modes for reading and writing, often simultaneously, need to be considered.



In this article, we provide an explanation of the new terms that have developed to theorize changes in literacy and communication in society. We demonstrate the potential of new technologies for classroom literacy learning by discussing the differences between literacy with digital texts compared with print-based texts, and provide some examples of ways in which teachers are using multiple modes in digital texts to enhance literacy learning.

Situating new literacies

The word literacies in new literacies signaled a shift in thinking about the ways that people make meaning with language. Assigning plurality to literacy to privilege literacies opened up what had traditionally been seen as a standardized model of literacy education, to one that acknowledges difference based on situations, subjectivities, and multiple text genres. Making literacy plural signals that there is more than simply one model of literacy, there are many different literacies that shift with contexts, texts, and the identities of people using literacy. Thinking about literacy as a universalized, autonomous entity undermines its diversity and multiple uses and understandings. Yet, what truly differentiated the work of researchers who incorporated such fields as anthropology, sociology, and semiotics in the late 20th Century was the inclusion of the adjective new. New signaled new approaches, new epistemologies, new methods, new theories, new contexts, and new identities for meaning-makers. New studies in the 1980s and 1990s were new because literacy had not been analyzed in the same way and this radical social and semiotic turn offered a new language of description for literacy, viewing literacy as nested within social context (Street, 1994) and redressing an over-emphasis on language and the written word (Halliday, 1984). What such work identified are a series of renewed beliefs about literacy education:

More work in other contexts such as homes and communities (Gonzales, Moll, & Amanti, 2005)

Less emphasis on cognitive development (Gee, 1996) as in what happens in our brains or minds and more emphasis on cultural practices

More research examining the interface between identity and literacy development (Gee, 1996; 1999)

Less of a divide between oral and written cultures (Ong, 1982) An acknowledgement of the screen as our dominant text structure (Cope &

Kalantzis, 2000; Kress, 2003) An expansion of definitions from print logic, reading and writing, to screen

logic, designing, redesigning, remixing (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000)

These epiphanies in research, scholarship, and practice show not only what new studies can demonstrate (though clearly that is there as well), but also, the need for new 21st Century definitions.

Multiliteracies, Multimodalities and New Literacies

A fundamental part of new literacies in literacy education considers not only that literacies are multiple, but also that they demand different modes. Modes are regularized sets of resources for meaning making. A visual, a sound, a word, a movement, animation, spatial dimensions are resources brought together or in isolation to achieve an effect in texts. Such effects are read and composed in different ways compared with linguistic text features. Semiotic resources are things, artifacts, practices used during meaning making that complete the task in a competent, apt way (Kress, 1997). Multimodality is the field that takes account



of how individuals make meaning with different kinds of modes. Multiliteracies is a pedagogy developed by the New London Group and their manifesto developed in the mid-nineties (New London Group, 1996). The New London Group (1996) argue that the notions of design, available designs and redesign are fundamental to how we make meaning with modern texts. Designing on-screen has not only transformed how we make meaning, but also, transformed ways of reconstructing and renegotiating our identities. Multimodality comes first in that it informs how we make meaning and multiliteracies, as a possible pedagogy, gives us tools for doing so. Multiliteracies scholars claim that the screen governs our understanding of the world and curricula needs to reflect this dramatic shift in our ideological and interpretative frame. Situating teaching based on student needs and competencies, teaching students overtly based on the skills that they have when they enter our classrooms, and most importantly and what students do not necessarily possess, are ways of critically framing their learning to think about multiple modes, issues of power, ruling passions, communities of practices, home and community literacy, the role of their race, culture, religion, and social class in their literacy learning. Multiliteracies as a pedagogy simultaneously accounts for linguistic diversity and the use of multimodalities in communication.

Digital Literacies

Digital literacies is yet another field of research and theory that branches off from the new. In 1995, Lanham maintained that digital literacy enables us to match the medium we use to the kind of information that we are presenting and to the audience we are presenting it to (Lanham, 1995: 3). Lankshear and Knobel (2007) complement this perspective with a socio-cultural perspective based on the work of Gee, and in so doing, they help us to broaden our definition of a reified notion of digital literacy to digital literacies, taking account of becoming digitally literate as the mastering of multiple Discourses (Gee 1996; 1999). Talking about socially mediated ways of generating meaningful content through multiple modes of representation, Alvermann (2008) adds to the conversation, pointing to explicit skills that arise from digital texts such as wikis, blogs, and webpages that are mediums for social interaction. Alvermann highlights that digital readers and writers need to make many decisions online and as such, they need to have a critical eye on different genres of texts and a meta-awareness of these texts as promoting or silencing particular views (2008: 16). An example of such a study is Julia Davies research looking at different affinity groups, from Wiccan girls to transnational youth (Davies, 2006) on webpages to show how individuals find solace in online communities and how online communities foster identities and communities.

New Literacies in New Times

There are four characteristics to new literacies research: 1) new technologies offer a way to envision new literacy practices; 2) new literacies are essential to economic, civic and personal participation in a world community; 3) new literacies change, remix, converge as defining technologies change; 4) new literacies are multimodal and multifaceted. Other researchers have spotlighted the role that new literacies play in online conversations, videogaming, and writing fan fiction. Many recent research studies have been designed to understand the ways in which teachers are using blogs and wikis and other interactive, online writing technologies such as threaded discussion groups and ePortfolios in the classroom to show that the time has come when we not only incorporate new literacies into our classrooms, but also that we understand better what happens in digital spaces. Although there is some concern that without an active teacher presence in the dialogue, students' learning is not pushed forward very



effectively, most of the studies found that the increased collaborative learning opportunities helped students to refine their thinking and engage in deeper analysis. Research in the area of adolescents' out-of-school digital literacy practices (Davies, 2006) is examining a wide array of texts such as personal blogs, social networking pages, wikis, fan fictions, etc. which demonstrate an intertextual and hybridized quality of students' personal digital writing. Participants in the research blended print-based knowledge emphasized in school with innovative new forms of multimodal composition to create compelling new texts that reflect the authors' socially situated identities and discourses.

One of the most illustrative studies in this area is an often-cited article by Lewis and Fabos (2005) that explored the ways in which students manipulate and play with vernacular conventions, Standard English grammar, and electronic typography in complicated new ways. They interviewed teenagers about their private instant messaging practices and observed the teens while they were engaged in this practice. The young people we interviewed were conscious of choosing different tones and language styles depending on whom they were IMing (p. 484). Students involved in the research were creative in their word play and demonstrated sophisticated skills during their texting engagement. Lewis and Fabos research offers an example of the ways in which adolescent writers mediate their identities and engage in creative compositional practices, as they note: Andy and his friends experimented with color, font size, and icons such as smiley faces to express their creativity, and Abby tried a variety of combinations of fonts and colors for the same purpose (p. 482). Drawing from this vast knowledge base we share examples of how new literacies can be remixed with the best instructional practice.

The processes of reading and writing on screen

There are three main aspects that need to be considered when contemplating the differences between traditional practices of reading and writing in classrooms and those that are possible with digital communications. These are:

the actual processes of reading and writing on screen; the integrative and interactive nature of reading and writing with new texts; and, changes in patterns of communication as a result of social networking.

The whole nature of digital communications is so integrative that it is difficult to separate each of the above aspects, but these are discussed separately to demonstrate key features that we need to consider for educational implications. Reading and writing are both about making meaning. When we read we have a purpose, such as enjoying a literary text or gaining new knowledge from an information text. We gain meaning as we decode and interact with a text and link our background experiences to new experiences or knowledge. When we write, we have a purpose as we write out our thoughts, communicate information, create a story or present our ideas to a reader or audience.

Meaning making occurs whether we use traditional, paper-based texts or digital, multimodal texts and the level of meaning will vary according to our purpose and the text genre. There are several differences that occur, however, with digital communication and the differences lie in the processing of modes on and from a screen: whether a computer screen, touch pad; game console or a mobile device such as a phone or e-book. As Kress has shown (2003) written language on a page is primarily a linear, sequential process. In contrast, reading and writing with screen-based, digital texts entails the reading and writing of text with images that are usually not presented in a left-to-right, linear format. Other modes that may occur along with written text are image, sound, movement and gesture. Thus the term



multimodal (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001) has been used in recent years to describe the non-linear processing of texts that occur primarily on a screen.

Whatever the medium, there are more modes that need to be responded to when reading so that the distinction between reading and viewing are hard to determine. Reading on screen involves various aspects of online processing that includes responding to animated icons, hypertext, sound effects; and navigating pathways between and within screens. For example, if students are asked in class to research a specific topic such as the scientific phenomenon of light they need to learn how to use a search engine with the best use of key words; how to narrow the search to find specific information about aspects of light; how to choose the best url and not the first one on the list; how to judge the authenticity of specific sites and avoid aspects of advertising and pop-ups that distract. When on a specific site students will need to navigate menus, icons and hyperlinks to find the most relevant information. This processing of information will involve viewing of images, maps and graphics and may often include videos, including a link to YouTube, with sound and movement as the student is looking, reading, listening, choosing and navigating with either a mouse or touch feature. All these aspects need to be taught as part of teaching reading with 21st century texts. For while students may quickly learn the technical skills of touching, scrolling or clicking they need to be shown how to choose the most appropriate information and discriminate between non-relevant information as they are processing information through senses of sight, sound and touch. They also need to be taught about how different modes of image, sound and movement may or may not be influencing how meaning is constructed.

Writing on screen has existed for a long time with word-processing facilities. Writing now very often entails assembling a product that may contain written text as well as quite sophisticated layout, graphics, photographs and images. Similarly a writer can become a producer (Sheridan & Rowsell, 2011) now by designing and producing a text that combines images and graphics with written text as well as sound and movement on screen. For students to produce multimodal texts they need to consider and understand features of design such as layout, composition, use of text and image or graphics including aspects such as colour, size, medium, angles and the way these are appropriate for a specific audience. It is significant that other researchers have been investigating design as integral to literacy pedagogy (e.g. Kalantzis & Cope, 2005; Healy, 2008). A brief example from recent research (Walsh, 2011) illustrates some changes that have occurred.

In a Grade 4 classroom students studying the topic of light, referred to previously, had to report what they had learnt from their research. Instead of writing a report and even talking to the class about it, as may have occurred in previous years, they designed a claymation to present an aspect about light. This involved the use of photography and stop-motion animation that became a video with the clay figures, sound and voice-over dialogue used to demonstrate how light and shadows vary. A script was written at first then a storyboard developed. Not only did students have to understand the content, they had to plan to convey the information succinctly through the design of the clay figures, and the sequencing of events and movement for the audience to understand. Figure 1 shows students engaged in design and planning their final product.



Picture 1. Students developing a claymation on Light (from Walsh, 2011). The whole process involved reading, writing, designing, photographing, filming, editing and producing quite a different approach from writing a scientific report.

The integrative and interactive nature of reading and writing with new texts

As the above example shows and in our scenario at the start of this paper, digital communication technologies along with the facilities of touch pad devices ensure the interrelatedness of reading and writing. With Web 2.0 these often occur along with the viewing and posting of images, the blending of sound and the constant interchange and connecting of messages. Over a decade ago, emails revolutionized communication, taking over from letter writing, particularly for adults in the workplace. Now communication through social networking sites such as Facebook and various versions of blogs, wikis or twitters have taken over from emails for many younger people and are being used more by commercial firms. In such communication we are reading, writing and responding asynchronously, although features of new adaptations of technologies such as with web cams, skype, face time and virtual gaming allow for synchronous communication.

The processes of communicating in these new ways incorporate a merging and synchronising of text, images, sound and movement. Whether using a blog, wiki or Facebook type of communication, the text is produced with appropriate layout for screen and can combine text, images, graphics, photos or video with sound and music. Design is important and the design will be carefully developed to reflect the author/producer and to engage the audience who can respond with text and images.

We do not know how such processing of messages and texts is affecting the way children learn, or if the processes involved in activities such as texting, blogging, or communicating online are developing different cognitive abilities than those required for reading and writing traditional print-based texts. Gees research (2003) on video gaming suggests that the procedures involved offer cognitive advantages with intricate literacy and learning opportunities. The touch features of recent products rely much more on gestural, spatial and kinaesthetic movements that need further investigation in the way this processing is affecting cognitive processes.

These unknowns are challenges for education. A UK study (Bearne et al 2007) on reading screens showed that while students were able to apply aspects of comprehension to obtain screen-based information it was orchestrating the different modes to make meaning



(p.20) that was seen as a different process that could not be assessed in the same way as the assessment of reading print-based texts. A further study by Bearne & Wolstencroft (2008) demonstrated ways of teachers programming and assessing writing through students multimodal texts. Bearne and Wolstencroft emphasized the interrelationship between reading and writing in producing texts and explained how students need to understand the meaning- making potential of different modes, particularly the relationship between words and images, in reading, writing and producing multimodal texts. For educational purposes, as shown in a recent research study by Walsh and Simpson (2010), we need to distinguish between the technical skills of using digital technologies and the cognitive processes of interpreting and communicating meaning. To offset an over-emphasis on technical skills, educators and researchers need to focus on both using technologies and meta-understanding of technology.

The impact of social networking

While considering the differences in both reading and writing on screen compared with print-based texts, it is not realistic to see reading and writing as occurring separately. Nor is it sensible to separate the technical, functional processes of reading or writing on screen from the social practices that accompany these processes. These social practices of literacy have changed and expanded exponentially with the development of Web 2.0 technology and have many implications for classroom practice. If students are using these outside of school, it follows that these modes of communication could be used inside school to engage students in learning. Many teachers have begun to use blogs, nings, wikis, twitter, features of mobile phones or Facebook applications within classroom programs. These have made learning more participatory. In our Sydney research teachers found that when they applied aspects of social networking students became more collaborative. There was more problem-solving occurring as students investigated a topic and then negotiated the way they would create and construct a product to demonstrate their learning.

Conclusion

In this short article we have provided glimpses into different approaches to literacy practices in new times. These have been enabled by the accessibility of new technological tools, many of which were not available even a decade ago. We are constantly reminded in education that the mastery of the tool itself is not the outcome but how we use it. However the nature of digital communications technology has so permeated the way we communicate, informally and formally, that it has become more than a tool in many ways. While research has not been able to fully establish the impact of multimodal communication, it is essential that educators learn to use these different modes of communication for classroom learning.



References

Bearne, E., Clark, C., Johnson, A., Manford, P., Mottram, M. & Wolstencroft, H. With Anderson, R., Gamble, N. & Overall, L. (2007). Reading on screen. Research undertaken by the United Kingdom Literacy Association with support from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.

Bearne & Wolstonecraft (2008). Visual Approaches to Teaching Writing. London: Peter Lang.

Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (2000). (Eds). Multiliteracies: Designing social futures. London: Routledge.

Davies, J. (2006). Escaping to the Borderlands: An Exploration of the Internet as a Cultural Space for Teenaged Wiccan Girls. In K. Pahl & J. Rowsells Literacy and education: Understanding the new literacy studies in the classroom. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Gee. J. P (1996) Social literacies and linguistics. London : Routledge

Gee, J.P. (1999) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London: Routledge.

Gee, J. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy? New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Healy A.H. (2008). Multiliteracies and diversity in education : new pedagogies for expanding landscapes. Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.

Kress, G. & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse. London: Routledge.

Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.

Kalantzis, M. & Cope, B. (2005). Learning by Design. London: Routledge.

Lanham, R. (1995). The Electronic Word: Demoncracy, Technology and the Arts. New York: Peter Lang Publishers.

Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2003). New Literacies. Changing knowledge and classroom learning. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Lewis, C. and Fabos, B. (2005) Instant messaging, literacies, and social identities. Reading Research Quarterly, 40 (4) 470-501.

Lemke, J. (1998). Metamedia literacy: Transforming meanings and media. In Reinking, D., McKenna, M., Labbo, L, & Keiffer, R. Handbook of literacy and technology (pp.283-301). London. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31, 132141.



New London Group. (1996) A Pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review 66.1: 60-92.

Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. New York: Methuen.

Sheridan, M.P. & Rowsell, J. (2011). Design Literacies: Learning and innovation in the digital age. London: Routledge.

Walsh, M. & Simpson, A. (2010). Research into the teaching of reading with print and digital texts. Research report for the Catholic Education Office Sydney. Sydney, Australia: Australian Catholic University, Strathfield.

Walsh, M. (2011). Multimodal Literacy: Researching Classroom Practice. Sydney: e:lit, Primary Teachers Association of Australia.

Literacy for the 21st Century Lynde Tan Rethinking Literacy Traditionally, the notion of literacy was confined to the ability to read and write (Crystal, 1987) and the emphasis was on the acquisition of a set of discrete skills to be learnt for the reading and writing of printed paper-based texts (Christie, 1990). The advent of information and communication technology (ICT) necessitates a broader conception of literacy so that literacy today is relevant in preparing students for the 21st century learning. Proponents for a broader definition of literacy contend that: (1) Many current literacy approaches focus on behavioural and cognitive psychology of learning that were constituted in an era of stable systems whereby adherence to conventions and rules was of central importance (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; Freebody & Luke, 1990; Kress, 2005; Luke & Freebody, 1999; New London Group, 1996). Such approaches are not capable of developing education that inculcates creativity, innovation, ease with change and other dispositions that are highly valued in the 21st century. (2) ICT has led to the proliferation of multimodal texts where language is no longer the central and major resource for making meaning (Callow & Zammit, 2002; Halliday & Hasan, 1985; Kress, 2003; New London Group, 1996). Such texts incorporate sound, image, video and written texts in various forms. Hence, a new definition of literacy is required to encompass literacies related to multimedia technology.

(3) ICT has offered new modes of representation and communication from print to screen which has implications for reading (Kress, 1997, 2003). Table 1 below summarizes the consequences of multimedia on reading as noted by Kress (1997, 2003). Table 1: Consequences of multimedia on reading (Kress, 1997, 2003) Consequences Printed page

(on a book) Screen

Reading path A fixed order of reading from top left to bottom right as determined by the author and by the conventions which the author and reader adhere to.

Indeterminate path constructed by the reader. The reading path is dependent on the criteria set by the reader based on his/her interest.

Reading goal To acquire truth from the authority of the text who is the source of knowledge.

To construct truth which arises from the readers interest. Knowledge is what the reader produces for himself/herself out of that which he/she has selected as information.

Task of the reader

Follow the lines of the text in sequence.

Construct his/her understanding of the world presented in the text according to his/her interest and form his/her practices of reading.

S1408991HText Box Educational Technology Division,Ministry of Education,Singapore 2006

S1408991HText Box

To further illustrate the point, lets take reading a screen as an example. Figure 1 shows a possible reading path (from A to H) when a reader views the Savanna screen. The screen is taken from the CD-ROM The Animals! 2.0 which contains information on the animals and their habitats from the San Diego Zoo. Replicating the real San Diego Zoo, readers can wander freely among the biome exhibits in any sequence they like. On the Savanna screen, the reader can access information pertaining to savannas through a multimedia experience with various combinations of narration, videos, written texts and photographs.

When the screen first appears on the computer, the reader may be directed to the photograph and the pop-up written text and then back to the navigational palette at the top of the screen to check that he is on the right site (the title bar Savanna informs the reader whether he/she is reading the Savanna screen). From the navigational palette, the reader may return to the written text to read for details and then view the photograph again with an expectation that it provides an illustration for what it is written. The reader may lastly be drawn to the row of media buttons at the bottom of the screen to view more photographs of savannas or find out other information related to the biome.

Figure 1: A possible reading path


Literacy pedagogy should incorporate new reading strategies that teach students how to read texts from electronic multimodal texts. In the case of the example given above, multimodal texts in a factual CD-ROM tend to segment information into visuals with supporting written text as shown in Figure 1 (Callow & Zammit, 2002). Such courseware provides information chunks that can be read in any order by the readers. However, to get the complete picture of what they are trying to find out, they need to interact with the various modes of information provided not only on this screen but also from other sections of the courseware. Teachers cannot assume that their students are able to put these information chunks together and that they know how to read and understand the visual and written information on a multimodal text. (4) Current perception of language views language as a strategic, meaning-making resource among many other modes of meaning in any culture where the meanings are influenced by the social and cultural context in which they are exchanged (Eggins, 1994; Halliday & Hasan, 1985). The constructed nature of texts therefore implies that they are not ideologically free. Hence, literacy should be aptly approached as socially and culturally constructed practices and the knowledge of the different roles and practices of the reader should be emphasized to critique the power relations inherent in the production and interpretation of texts (Graddol, 1994).

(5) Several studies such as The Digital Transformation: A Framework for ICT Literacy1, Learning for the 21st Century 2 and the enGauge 21st Century Skills: Literacy in the Digital Age3 espouse the view that to succeed in the 21st century, students today should acquire a suite of skills that enable them to exploit the advantages of the diverse modes of representation and communication and participate in global learning communities. These skills are founded on several literacies such as basic literacy, computer literacy, information literacy, visual literacy, media literacy and civic literacy just to name a few. One key characteristic from these studies point to the need to have new and multiple literacies that prepare students for citizenship in a technological society. The digital and information-rich society therefore requires them to be multiliterate. Definition of literacy needs to be broadened to encompass burgeoning new forms of literacy. The Pedagogy of Multiliteracies Propositions for a broader definition of literacy have led to the conception of multiliteracies, a plural term defined differently by various sources. Kress (2001) asserts that though the

1 Educational Testing Service. (2002). Digital Transformation: A Framework foro ICT Literacy: A Report of the International ICT Literacy Panel. Retrieved July 15, 2005, from http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/Information_and_Communication_Technology_Literacy/ictreport.pdf 2 The Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2002). Learning for the 21st Century. Retrieved July 15, 2005, from http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/downloads/P21_report.pdf. 3 The North Central Regional Educational Laboratory & Cheryl Lemke, Metiri Group. (2003). enGauges 21st Century Skills: Literacy in the Digital Age. Retrieved July 15, 2005, from http://www.ncrel.org/engauge/skills/skills.htm.


term offers the possibility for a unification of diverse fields, it simultaneously obscures essential differences in the representational and communicational modes used in different areas. It is essential to be clear about what each mode does as cultures have developed specific ways of learning to represent the world. Moreover, technology and the way it makes meaning in learning are changing so rapidly that there cannot be one set of standards or skills that constitute the ends of literacy learning. Of the many definitions available in literature, an established pedagogy of multiliteracies is defined by the New London Group (1996). The New London Groups (1996) pedagogy of multiliteracies is intended to augment existing teaching practices rather than displace them. According to the New London Group (1996), the development of a multiliteracy approach incorporates four critical aspects: (1) Situated Practice: Immersion or experience in meaningful and authentic practices within a community of learners. The pedagogical goals are to attain mastery of skills and knowledge in real-life practices through critical engagement of relevant tasks and effect knowledge producing communities. (2) Overt Instruction: Developing a language and understanding on how different modes of meanings work to represent reality in texts. The goal is to enable students to gain conscious awareness of and control over what is being learnt through their engagement with various texts and their interactions with other students and teachers. (3) Critical Framing: Critical interpretation of the social and cultural context of particular

designs of meaning. The goal is to help students frame their growing mastery in practice (from Situated Practice) and conscious control and understanding (from Overt Instruction) in relation to the historical, social, cultural, political, ideological and value-centred relations of particular systems of knowledge and social practice (The New London Group, 1996 as cited in Cope & Kalantzis 2000:34). (4) Transformed Practice: Transfer and re-creation of designs of meaning from one context to another. Students apply what they have learnt and put this understanding to work in reaching their own goals and fulfilling their own values. It is important to note that the four aspects do not necessarily occur in discrete stages in sequence. Table 2 below summarizes how the New London Groups (1996) pedagogy of multiliteracies was implemented at William Ross High School in Townsville, North Queensland. The example was cited by Kalantzis and Cope (2000) for the teaching of English language to Year 9 students. The use of technology resources was rudimentary. The teacher made use of mainly songs from CDs and video clips to explain to the students how multimodality could act on listeners in songs. She then got the students to create their own video clips as representations of their understanding.

S1408991HText Box


Table 2: An example of how the pedagogy of multiliteracies was implemented (Adapted from Kalantzis and Cope, 2000)

Critical aspects of the pedagogy of multiliteracies

Descriptions of the lesson Technology resources

Situated Practice The students played some of their favourite songs, relating the music to their own interests (such as rap and heavy metal) and life experience. The students also filled out a music survey on their personal top five songs, the style of each song, their favourite style of music and what was typical of the lyrics, the music and the video clips of that style. They also went out find reviews of their latest favourite records in music magazines.

CDs of some of their favourite songs.

Overt Instruction

The teacher presented the students with the written lyrics of a Toni Childs song. Her discussion with the class led them to notice and identify the devices and conventions of poetry. She asked them to predict the style of the music. Then she played the song on the CD. She asked what the music added to the lyrics and how it did it, with the students examining beat, timbre of voice and its relation to the lyrics, changing volume and genre or style. She asked the students to predict the kind of imagery that might be in the accompanying video clip. Then she played the video clip. She asked how the imagery of the clip (predominant colours, pace of editing, imagery setting and so on) and the facial expression and gestures of the singer added to the meaning of the song. When the students examined the music reviews they found in magazines regarding their favourite songs, the teacher asked the students to work out how the reviews were organised. This not only included an analysis of the kind of concepts the reviews used to describe how linguistic (lyrics), audio (musical) and visual, spatial and gestural meanings were made (the video clip), but also included an analysis of the linguistic and visual design of the review itself. Students talked about how reviews were laid out on the page and how the various information elements were arranged such as the name of the band, a description of the sound, the reviewers assessment of this particular record and individual tracks and an overall star-score rating.

CD and video clip of Toni Child song

Critical Framing The students brought in their favourite songs. Analysing the music survey, they worked out which students liked which styles of music: What did their preferences say about their identity? What were the main kinds of message in each style? They also compared different types of review in different kinds of magazine such as how the visual design of the page as well as the linguistic design of the text varied between one kind of the magazine and the next.

Transformed Practice

The students wrote a song, performed it and made a video clip. They also wrote their own music reviews and mocked them up into a class music magazine.

Video clip

S1408991HText Box


ICT and Multiliteracies: Implications for Language Learning Studies such as those done by Abu-Arab (2005), Connelly & Bodybott (2005), Parks et al (2003) and Jones (2005) and Shetzer & Warschauer (2000) assert that a multiliteracy approach is more than using multimedia to learn language. It is incumbent on the teachers to engage students in critical literacy and proficient use of ICT for language learning. Critical Pedagogy for Language Learning Cope & Kalantzis (2000) contend that the inception of multimodal texts necessitate literacy pedagogy that extends beyond the mastery of genres that equip students with the language competence to function in a particular context. A critical literacy approach built within a pedagogy of multiliteracies is needed to teach students critical reading of multimodal texts. Luke and Freebodys (1999) Four Resources Model is one such viable literacy framework that can be incorporated. The four-tiered approach to reading instruction describes the practices that readers engage in, mainly: (1) Coding Practices; (2) Text-Meaning Practices; (3) Pragmatic Practices and (4) Critical Practices. Annex A shows an example of the kind of critical literacy questions that teachers may want to ask of most multimodal texts which encourage their students to question beliefs that are imbued in texts.

Roles of ICT Kern and Warschauer (2000) observed that the shift in perspectives on language teaching and learning from a structural perspective (learning about language) to a socio-cognitive one (learning through language) has transformed the role of computer in language education from that of a tutor to that of a too. The focus is no longer on learners interaction with computers but interaction with other learners through the computer. ICT is flexible. Other than the often cited reason of accessing a vast range of information or resources, a review of the literature recommends that ICT can be harnessed to support a social view of language learning: (1) Build authentic and collaborative learning

environment (Kasper, 2000; The New London Group, 1996; Warshauer, 1999) Creating an online learning community for authentic and collaborative learning provides the context for students to create, apply and critique their own new knowledge, rather than just absorb knowledge created by others. Such collaborative learning communities facilitate literacy development because when students juxtapose their differences, they gain substantatively in metacognitive abilities and in their ability to reflect critically on complex concepts and their interactions.

S1408991HText Box


Table 3: The Four Resources Model (Adapted from Curriculum Standards and Support, School Education Division, Department of Education, Tasmania Literacy, 2004 & the Queensland LOTE Centre, the State of Queensland, Department of Education and the Arts, 2005)

Roles Practices

1

Code Breaker Coding Practices (to develop resources that ask the key question of how do readers crack a text) The practices required to decode systems of written and spoken languages and visual images. This involves making sense of communication codes such as print on a page, illustrations and moving images or gestures. It includes: recognizing letter-sound relationships. spelling accurately. understanding the use of camera angles.

2

Meaning Maker

Text-Meaning Practices (to develop resources that ask the key question of what does a text mean to readers) The practices required to build and construct cultural meaning from texts. This involves comprehending and composing texts. It includes: drawing on prior knowledge and knowing how to use it. comparing own experiences with those in the text. making connections and inferences when comparing texts. knowing how to predict, sequence, generalise and evaluate. identifying the main idea and supporting details in an explanation. predicting meaning by using title, illustrations and text format. inferring word meanings from context. matching graphic information such as symbols or diagrams to textual information.

3

Text User Pragmatic Practices (that develop resources that ask the key question of what do readers do with a text)The practices required to use texts effectively in everyday, face-to-face situations and for different cultural and social functions. This involves understanding the purposes of texts for different social and cultural functions. It includes: recognizing that purposes and audiences shape the tone and structure of texts. matching the language to particular social situations. using appropriate text types for particular purposes both inside and outside school.

4

Text Analyst

Critical Practices (that develop resources that ask the key question of what does a text do to readers) The practices required to analyze, critique and second-guess texts. This involves ways in which texts are used to position readers, viewers and listeners. It includes: recognizing that texts are not neutral. understanding that texts represent particular views and interests. understanding that texts influence peoples ideas.


(2) Provide scaffolds for enhancing learning (The New London Group, 1996; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994) In literacy approaches, scaffolding enables the students to accomplish a language task more complex than they can accomplish on their own. It can be perceived as a type of mediation whereby teacher support is provided through interactional prompts, the use of artefacts such as worksheets and concrete materials and strategies such as joint construction in writing. Technology such as the Knowledge Forum 4 can be used to provide cognitive prompts to engage pupils in critical reading and writing task where opportunities are provided for students to use language to achieve their intended language goals.

(3) Provide the means to create multiple and

multimodal representations of understanding (Graddol, 1994; Jones, 2005; Kress, 2003; Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996; Susan Parks et al, 2003) ICT makes possible fuller multimodal representation than the page or print-based media. Students acquisition of knowledge is facilitated through the deployment of multimodal processing of visual, verbal, audio resources presented in various combinations on the screen. By drawing on the representational resources of various media, students can harness the affordances

4 Knowledge Forum is a kind of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) software that provides a platform for students to engage in collaborative work and discussion with the support of graphical inputs and customizable scaffolds. To view features of the Knowledge Forum, more details are provided at http://eduweb.nie.edu.sg/projects/cscl/kffeatures_files/frame.htm.

of the various modes to express what they have learnt. Multimodal representations are indications of students interests as well as their engagement with the world. They provide the evidence of what they have learnt.

Conclusion The advent of ICT has changed our world and the way information is communicated. These changes have revolutionized the notion of literacy such that literacy practices today take into account the wider social, economic and cultural contexts. The term literacy is pluralized, or otherwise known as multiliteracies, to incorporate new forms of literacies such as visual literacy, media literacy and computer literacy. In the multiliteracy approach, the learning of these literacy skills is interconnected, overlaps and may not happen at disparate stages. Nevertheless, being multiliterate means more than having these skills or using multimedia for learning. Literacy in the 21st century requires students to understand the affordances of the various modes of representation and communication and how meanings are conveyed through the interplay of these modes. It also requires them to interpret these meanings in the wider social, economic and cultural contexts. The new communicational landscape of multimodality calls for a rethinking of our literacy pedagogy to move our students beyond competence in reading and writing towards mastery of multimodal forms of communication.


Annex A Critical Literacy Questions (Extracted from Curriculum Standards and Support, School Education Division, Department of Education, Tasmania Literacy, 2004)

Textual purpose(s) What is this text about? How do we know? Who would be most likely to read and/or view this text and why? Why are we reading and/or viewing this text? What does the composer of the text want us to know?

Textual structures and features What are the structures and features of the text? What sort of genre does the text belong to? What do the images suggest? What do the words suggest? What kind of language is used in the text?

Construction of characters How are children, teenagers or young adults constructed in this text? How are adults constructed in this text? Why has the composer of the text represented the characters in a particular way?

Gaps and silences Are there gaps and silences in the text? Who is missing from the text? What has been left out of the text? What questions about itself does the text not raise?

Power and interest In whose interest is the text? Who benefits from the text? Is the text fair? What knowledge does the reader/viewer need to bring to this text in order to understand it? Which positions, voices and interests are at play in the text? How is the reader or viewer positioned in relation to the composer of the text? How does the text depict age, gender and/or cultural groups? Whose views are excluded or privileged in the text? Who is allowed to speak? Who is quoted? Why is the text written the way it is?

Whose view: whose reality? What view of the world is the text presenting? What kinds of social realities does the text portray? How does the text construct a version of reality?


What is real in the text? How would the text be different if it were told in another time, place or culture?

Interrogating the composer What kind of person, and with what interests and values, composed the text? What view of the world and values does the composer of the text assume that the reader/viewer holds? How do we know?

Multiple meanings What different interpretations of the text are possible? How do contextual factors influence how the text is interpreted? How does the text mean? How else could the text have been written? How does the text rely on inter-textuality to create its meaning?


References Abu-Arab, A. (2005). Redesigning pedagogy in the ESL classroom: A case study. Proceedings of the

Redesigning Pedagogy: Research, Policy, Practice Conference. National Institute of Education, Singapore.

Callow, J. & Zammit, K. (2002). Visual literacy: From picture books to electronic books. In M. Monteith (Ed.), Teaching primary literacy with ICT (pp.188-201). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Christie, F. (1990). Literacy for a changing world. Melbourne: ACER. Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures.

London: Routledge. Connelly, J. & Bodycott, P. (2005). Multiliteracies: Learning how to critically read the visual.

Proceedings of the Redesigning Pedagogy: Research, Policy, Practice Conference. National Institute of Education, Singapore.

Crystal, D. (1987). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Curriculum Standards and Support, School Education Division, Department of Education, Tasmania.

(2004). Unlocking literacy: Keys to success. Retrieved July 21, 2005, from http://www.ltag.education.tas.gov.au/focus/beingliterate/1_Introduction.pdf.

Educational Testing Service. (2002). Digital transformation: A framework for ICT literacy: A report of the international ICT literacy panel. Retrieved July 15, 2005, from http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/Information_and_Communication_Technology_Literacy/ ictreport.pdf.

Eggins, S. (1994). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Pinter. Freebody, P. & Luke, A. (1990). Literacies programs: Debates and demands in cultural context. Prospect,

5 (3), 7 -16. Graddol, D. (1994). The visual accompaniment of factuality. In D. Graddol, & O. B. Barrett (Eds.),

Media texts: Authors and readers (pp. 136-160). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Halliday, M.A.K. & Ruqaiya, H. (1985). Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social

semiotic perspective. Victoria: Deakin University Press. Jones, A.J. (2005). ICT, language, media: Essential literacies for today. Proceedings of the Redesigning

Pedagogy: Research, Policy, Practice Conference. National Institute of Education, Singapore. Kasper, L.F. (2000). New technologies, new literacies: Focus discipline research and ESL learning

communities. Retrieved June 1, 2004, from http://lit.msu.edu/vol4num2/kasper/default.html. Kern, R. & Warschauer, M. (2000). Theory and practice of network-based language teaching. In M.

Warshauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 1- 19). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Kress, G. (1997). Visual and verbal modes of representation in electronically mediated communication: The potentials of new forms of text. In I. Snyder (Ed.), Page to screen: Taking literacy into the electronic age (pp. 53 79). London: Routledge.

Kress, G. (2001). Youve just got to learn how to see: Curriculum subjects, young people and schooled engagement with the world. Linguistics and Education, 11 (4), 401- 415.

Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. New York: Routledge.


Kress, G. (2005). Thinking about meaning and learning in a world of instability and multiplicity. Paper presented at the Redesigning Pedagogy: Research, Policy, Practice Conference. National Institute of Education, Singapore.

Kress, G. & Theo van Leeuwen. (1996). Reading images. London: Routledge. Queensland LOTE Centre. (2005). Literacy and the Four Resources Model. Retrieved 21July, 2005 from

http://education.qld.gov.au/curriculum/area/lote/docs/literacy.doc. Luke, A. & Freebody, P. (1999). Further notes on the Four Resources Model. Retrieved July 21, 2005, from

http://www.readingonline.org/research/lukefreebody.htm. Parks, S. et al (2003). Crossing boundaries: Multimedia technology and pedagogical innovation in a high

school class. Language Learning and Technology, 7 (1), 28 45. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The

Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283. Shetzer, H. & Warschauer, M. (2000). An electronic literacy approach to network-based language

teaching. In M. Warshauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 171 185). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66 (1), 60- 92.

The North Central Regional Educational Laboratory & Cheryl Lemke, Metiri Group. (2003). enGauges 21stccentury skills: Literacy in the digital age. Retrieved July 15, 2005, from http://www.ncrel.org/engauge/skills/skills.htm.

The Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2002). Learning for the 21st century. Retrieved July 15, 2005, from http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/downloads/P21_report.pdf.

Warshauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies: Language, culture and power in online education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.


Documents

6th 7th Weeks - Multimodality