Theme: IT S up Here for Thinking

Theme: IT’s up here for thinking! Conference stream: ICT across the curriculum Limit 3500 words including ref, less than 20 refs

Multiliteracies Pedagogy In Action: A Case Study

Anne Scott Australian Catholic University

This paper reports the challenges and achievements of a junior primary student as he worked with multimodal texts. Also examined are two learning tasks in light of a framework proposed by The New London Group (Cazden et al., 1996) for teaching multiliteracies.

The introduction of new communication technologies has revolutionalised the way we create and exchange messages; often texts are multimodal, that is, they contain ‘words with visual images and/or sound and/or movement’ (Noad, 2005, p. 1). Furthermore, a wide variety of texts permeate every aspect of our daily activities. Even young students use them. For example, in a day a student may watch a cartoon program on television, listen to a song on the radio, follow instructions on a hand-held computer game, create a text message on a mobile phone, or perform a search on the internet. These experiences are typical of those from middle-class Western society and have implications for literacy education especially if being literate necessitates learning the social practices of one’s group (Gee, 1989; Luke, 1993) and some children are already working with multimodal texts beyond the classroom. In this context then it is not only important to capitalise on such learning opportunities but also essential to examine the appropriateness of current teaching practices to accommodate them.

For a number of years now educators and researchers have described design elements and processes involved in deconstructing and constructing linear and non linear multimodal texts (Sansom, 2002; Walsh, 2006) and have proposed appropriate pedagogies for working with these new literacies (Cazden et al., 1996; Noad, 2005). Perhaps it is timely to describe the challenges and opportunities a student encounters when he works with multimodal texts with guidance from a teacher using one of the proposed frameworks for teaching them.

In this paper, information about the emergence of the term multiliteracies and its associated pedagogy provides background for the discussion of some current literacy teaching practices and learning tasks used in primary classrooms. In particular, these questions are addressed:  What might multiliteracies teaching and learning look like?  What challenges might a student and teacher face?  What are the learning and teaching opportunities?

Overview of Multiliteracies The New London Group (Cazden et al., 1996), comprising ten prominent literacy educators argued that the changing social environment facing students and teachers necessitated a new understanding of literacy which involved working efficiently with multiliteracies. Ryan and Anstey (2003) defined a multiliterate person as one who can ‘make meaning and communicate in a variety of modes and media, critically analyse texts in all representational forms, and engage in the social responsibilities of interaction associated with texts’ (p. 10). This is the working definition used in this paper.

To include all forms of texts the New London Group (Cazden et al., 1996) argued the discourse of being multiliterate used six meaning-making processes including: ‘Linguistic Meaning, Visual Meaning, Audio Meaning, Gestural Meaning, Spatial Meaning, and Multimodal patterns of meaning’ (p. 65). They also proposed a framework for a multiliteracies pedagogy comprising four components: Situated Practice draws on students’ real-life experiences, Overt Instruction equips them with the required metalanguage and knowledge of differing text-types, Critical Framing helps students to interpret the social context and inherent biases of texts, and Transformed Practices enables them to use the discourse for their own real purposes. Components integrated earlier work of members of the New London Group (Cazden et al., 1996) to such an extent that Ryan and Anstey (2003) stated that the framework for the multiliteracies pedagogy incorporates and extends existing literacy pedagogy rather than replacing them. In other words, the framework presents already known literacy teaching strategies as four interrelated components. Each may be revisited on several occasions during the completion of any one task and in combination present a process for using multimodal texts effectively.

Overview of the study Qualitative in nature the case study describes a student working with multimodal texts at the com- mencement of his second year of primary school.

Anecdotal notes taken by the researcher recorded observations of and discussions with the student throughout the ten-hour data collection period under three headings: prior understandings and established skills, new uses of texts and/or skills, and other. For example, the student told the researcher what he knew about the topic Safety in the home and the researcher wrote these verbatim under prior understandings. Student’ work samples were also examined for evidence of techniques and skills previously used. New uses of texts and/or skills included experiences or skills the student declared as being previously unknown such as animating an image in a file.

In this case study, the student through frequent contact knew the researcher. This familiarity possibly influenced the participant’s intentions and actions and may limit other researchers’ abilities to replicate similar conditions in the future. It is also acknowledged that a case study describing the behaviours and experiences of one student and teacher is limited. Nonetheless, it is envisaged that given sufficient details about the context and the tasks completed readers may gain some insights about learning opportunities and teaching practices associated with similar tasks.

Results and discussion This section describes the participant, two activities, and how he worked with multimodal texts in light of the framework for multiliteracies pedagogy (Cazden et al., 1996).

M is 6-year old male commencing his second year of primary school. Throughout the ten-hour observation period M appeared relaxed, happy, keen to talk with the researcher and was mostly engaged in his work.

Activity 1- Safety in the home The aims of the activity were:  to explore and discuss safety issues in the home; and,  to produce reasonable action plans. The discussion about safety in the home prompted M to identify three potentially dangerous situations: being burned, electrocuted, and cut with sharp objects. Following the discussion M created two slides using Microsoft Powerpoint97(Microsoft Corporation, 1995), one alerting younger children to the dangers of playing with glass objects and another instructing how to telephone for assistance in the case of an emergency.

With reference to the first slide, M took a digital photograph of glass objects commonly found in homes and typed this sentence: Don’t play with glass objects because you might break them and hurt yourself.

With reference to the second slide, the researcher and M enacted the anticipated conversation between a telephone operator and a caller during an emergency situation. Later M inserted a picture of an ambulance from clipart alongside relevant details: In an emergency call 000 and ask for the ambulance. My name is M. My address is .… It seemed that M knew about potential dangers in the home. In cases of an emergency, M suggested gaining assistance from neighbours and he referred to emergency details beside the residential telephone. During the role-play M was unsure of his residential address and correct spelling of his surname. Figure 1 presents the events of Activity 1 within the framework for the multiliteracies pedagogy. Components of Descriptions of events framework Situated practice The discussion about safety in the home drew on M’s experiences and prior knowledge of his family’s safety rules. M used the mouse device efficiently but had limited knowledge of the location of letters on the keyboard. Overt instruction The researcher demonstrated and articulated the steps needed to complete the task using the digital camera and software program for example inserting and editing images. Specific metalanguage was used so that M could talk about the functions accurately. Critical framing On several occasions the researcher challenged M to consider the degree of danger in fictitious situations and asked that he identify the most appropriate type of assistance, for example, alerting a neighbour or dialling 000 given particular circumstances. Transformed M chose to create the slides informing young children of the dangers of practice playing with glass objects and the procedure for calling for an ambulance in an emergency. M alternated between printed text version and files of images. Using the index of the clipart reference book he attached small adhesive notes to mark suitable pages before viewing images on screen.

Figure 1: A description of the events in each of the four components of the framework for multiliteracies pedagogy.

Overall the activity provided opportunities for specific and timely instruction within each of the four components of the framework of the pedagogy and events within the activity flowed logically building on M’s prior knowledge and experiences. During the activity, there were times when the researcher moved back and forth between components of the framework, revising, restating, and building on the child’s knowledge and/or skills. In completing the task M revised his skills as an early writer (Department of Education Victoria, 1997) and developed new metalanguage and knowledge of desktop publishing functions such as inserting an image into a file. Using the index of the 800-page clipart reference book M located suitable pages and deepened his knowledge of and skills in place value, in other words, he located pages more efficiently as he became familiar with the text and turned towards the appropriate sections of the text by noting the sequence of page numbers.

Activity 2 – Creating a narrative with animated images The aims of the activity were:  to develop the child’s knowledge of and skills with composing a narrative text; and,  to animate graphics to enhance the meaning of the text. M interested in dragons, dinosaurs, and story-telling prepared himself to compose a short narrative in the form of a slideshow presentation. First he spent time viewing images of creatures, castles and backgrounds using both the clipart resource book and the files on the CDrom. He noted the file name of his favourites on a notepad. Then he told the researcher his ideas for the plot and setting before beginning his first slide. Using the same process to create each slide he described his intentions for the characters, chose suitable images, edited them, and added the text to complete the slide.

It was obvious that M knew the structure of a narrative: orientation, complication, and resolution (Derewianka, 1990) and he recalled the steps for inserting and editing images into slides from his experience in activity 1. Figure 2 presents the events of Activity 2 within the framework for the multiliteracies pedagogy. Components of Descriptions of events framework Situated practice The process of writing involved prior knowledge of planning, composing and revising narratives. M consolidated his skills in inserting and editing images and text. Overt instruction The researcher demonstrated and articulated the steps for animating images providing M with the necessary metalanguage so that he could talk about the specific functions accurately. Other advice addressed M’s use of spelling strategies. Critical framing The researcher encouraged M to consider the most appropriate action for the animations of characters to enhance the meaning of the text. For example: Which of these two dinosaurs runs faster? What makes you think so? He referred to one of his dinosaurs books to provide evidence. Transformed M was responsible for the choice, position and size of images and sequence practice of animations.

Figure 2: A description of the events in each of the four components of the framework for multiliteracies pedagogy.

Activity 2 provided several teaching and learning opportunities similar to those in Activity 1. In a comparison of M’s writing samples, the slideshow included more elaborated text than other recently handwritten pieces which were all recounts less than three sentences long. An interesting observation noted during this activity was the way unprompted M would predict and act out what the animation might be like before clicking the preview button. Then he commented briefly on the level of accuracy of his prediction by cheering or mimicking the unexpected action. During his experimentation M’s language became more specific and technical and his decisions about the most appropriate animations became more sophisticated. For example M said: I’m going to have the fierce dragon blowing fire spiral in from the right side and land so that the fire touches the brachiosaurus’ tail. See, it looks like he’s swooping down. Clearly, M was using the tools of the program to add to the excitement of the narrative. Throughout activity 2 M used various types of texts: an 800-page clipart reference book, a selection of files among ten CDrom which complemented the book, other non-fiction texts about dinosaurs, and the menu and prompt boxes of the slideshow presentation program.

About a week following the observation period, M showed the researcher that he had started a new narrative about a red sports car. It seemed that he had navigated his way through the menus independently to successfully create a new presentation, insert and edit images, add an opening sentence in a text box, and save the file as presentation 3. While he located and opened the file M described the steps he had taken accurately using the metalanguage he had acquired the previous week. Despite his achievements, M was disappointed that he had forgotten how to insert a new slide. Following a brief reminder from the researcher M asked for some notation of the steps for future reference. Figure 3 summarises M’s prior skills and knowledge as observed during Activities 1 and 2.

Prior understandings Previously established New uses of texts and/or skills of topics and skills experiences 11 points about safety  Used a digital camera to take photographs of in the home recorded glass objects on separate sheets  Role-played calling for an ambulance  Stated name and address, phone details  Learnt how to spell surname (9 characters in length) Had observed the creation of slides in and use of Powerpoint97 program (Microsoft Corporation, 1995) Knew how to use the  Became faster at finding page nos. in the cli- index section of a book part book e.g., went directly to the back of the book for p. 735 Knew how to turn on  Opened program and chose appropriate files and shut down the  Inserted image computer  Created text box  Moved and edited images by cropping and resizing  Created speech bubbles  Changed fill-in colours  Read pop-up boxes and cancelled them  Used delete and backspace buttons appropri- ately  Saved file by clicking button on menu bar  Customised animations  Predicted the effect of animations and selec- ted most appropriate effect to suit text  Added slide transitions Used mouse  Increased familiarity with the keyboard Limited keyboard skills  Learnt to use shift key to create capitals letters  Inserted space by moving cursor to correct position Aware of the text- Evidence of having Completed two narratives each more than 15 type’s components written only recounts sentences long less than three sentences long earlier Figure 3: A summary of M’s prior knowledge and skills observed during Activities 1 and 2.

These data suggest that M gained about 20 skills as a result of completing these two activities. Most of these were associated with using the program and gave the student different experiences in which he was able to think creatively.

Conclusion The issue of whether the pedagogy of multiliteracies is a new approach or an extension of existing literacy practices is irrelevant. Of greater importance is that the four components of the framework are present in these activities which are typical of those used in primary classrooms and with timely inter- vention from the researcher using the framework there were noticeable gains in this child’s ability to work with multimodal texts. Being mindful of the components of the framework made the researcher’s input well-balanced as the advice addressed many aspects of working with multimodal texts. The creation of a narrative slideshow facilitated the opportunity for the development of knowledge of the functions of the program and its associated metalanguage in a form of story telling which could not have been achieved by pen and paper alone. Further, M remained purposefully engaged on the task for an extended period and initiated a new text in his leisure time independently. It seemed that the use of technology made a positive impact on this student’s motivation and provided opportunities for thinking creatively.

Overall given this context the researcher and student faced few challenges. It is anticipated that in classroom settings teachers and students would encounter more challenges given a wider range of abilities and demands on time. Teachers may need to consider ways of providing the overt instruction to small groups of students and establishing peer support systems to reduce the demands placed on the teacher for assistance using the software program.

In sum, perhaps there is something to be gained by teachers auditing their teaching practices and choices of activities for evidence of the four components: situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing, and transformed practice; and, by addressing each component deliberately.

References Cazden, C., Cope, B., Fairclough, N., Gee, J., Kalantzis, M., Kress, G., et al. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60 - 92. Department of Education Victoria. (1997). Teaching Writers in the Early Years. Keys to life: Early literacy program. South Melbourne: Longman. Derewianka, B. (1990). Exploring how texts work. Newtown: Primary English Teaching Association. Gee, J. (1989). Literacy, discourse and linguistics: Introduction. Journal of Education, 171(1), 5-17. Luke, A. (1993). The social construction of literacy in the primary school. In L. Unsworth (Ed.), Literacy Learning and Teaching: Language as Social Practice in the Primary School (pp. 1-53). Melbourne: Macmillan Education. Microsoft Corporation. (1995). Microsoft Office PowerPoint97. USA: Microsoft Corporation. Noad, B. (2005). Reading multimodal texts. (PEN 149), 1-8. Ryan, M., & Anstey, M. (2003). Identity and text: Developing self-conscious readers. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 26(1), 9 - 22. Sansom, L. (2002). New technologies, new literacies, new learning. Paper presented at the Conference Proceedings, 17th Australian Council for Computers in Education: Linking learners, Hobart. Walsh, M. (2006). The 'textual shift": Examining the reading process with print, visual and multimodal texts. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 29(1), 24-37.