Multiliteracies in Education
Assignment One – annotations EDX3270
This blog was created to showcase 10 annotations with one dominant consensus. Every author agrees that the skills and processes required to become literate in the 21st century are dramatically and fundamentally different to those of previous centuries.
Anstey, M & Bull, G (2006). Teaching and learning multiliteracies: Changing times changing literacies. Retrieved March 8th, 2012 from: http://ereserveweb prod.usq.edu.au/direct/items/d287a887-6bbf-f1aa- 3sec59ed4d7fbd/1/Antsey_2006_56.pdf
In this article Anstey & Bull focus on the importance for teachers to develop flexible, strategic and multiliterate students who are able to use a variety of resources to explore, produce and transform knowledge. It is suggested within the article that in order to obtain this outcome for students, dynamic pedagogy is essential. Within the article Anstey states two frameworks by which dynamic pedagogy is orientated; Productive pedagogies & the four resources model. The article concludes in saying, by using explicit strategies and integrating the mentioned frameworks into lessons, students become multiliterate learners who investigate & develop understandings on social, cultural, political and economic world levels.
Strong, G. (2007). Has txt kild the ritn wd, The Age, (October), 1-2. Retrieved March 8th, 2012 from: https://usqdirect.usq.edu.au/usq/file/a1c3bc7d-1efd-7ee7-b074-45181d6627bf/1/Has_2007_1.pdf
In this article, Strong highlights the topic of mobile phone instant messaging and its impact on the English language. The article states text messages allow for anytime, anywhere communication and in turn students and adults alike prefer this way of communication rather than making a phone call. Another issue highlighted in this article is the abbreviated language that has formed as a result of text messaging. English words have been given new meaning, and coded words are starting to appear in spoken English which Strong concedes is not constrained to this generation. The article’s question in clear: “Has txt kild the ritn ed?”
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). Multiliteracies : New literacies new learning, Pedagogies : An International Journal, 4 (3), 164-195. Retrieved 8th March, 2012 from: https://usqdirect.usq.edu.au/usq/file/868a8bb9-2364-d7cd-e285-d97d505db344/1/Cope_2009_164.pdf
Kalantzis and Cope revisit the New London’s group pedagogy of multiliteracies from 1996. They focus on the four elements (situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing, transformed practice) of multiliteracies pedagogy & communicate the idea that each element does not have to be the only element used. Cope & Kalantzis question the why, what and how with regards to literacy pedagogies and considered what needed to be done for future literacies education. Looking back on what they had concluded in 1996, Cope and Kalantzis found that the basic shape of their original position has stood the test of time
Stewart-Dore, N. (2003). Strategies for practising multiliteracies. In G. Bull, & M. Anstey (Eds.), The literacy lexicon (2nd ed., pp. 161-180). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Prentice Hall
In this chapter, Stewart-Dore discusses the different strategies involved in teaching students to be multiliterate learners. He uses various examples of learning and teaching strategies, emphasising the use of effective reading in content areas (ERICA) Model and the Multiliteracy framework, with suggestions of appropriate strategies and teaching models to support these. Stewart-Dore concludes by emphasising the use a broad range of strategies with ongoing evaluation of those strategies by both teachers and students.
Mills, K.A. (2006). ‘We’ve been wastin a whole million watchin her doin her shoes’. Situated practice within a pedagogy of Multiliteracies. Australian Educational Researcher.
In this article Mills explores the idea that students are assessed rather than taught reading comprehension. Acknowledging that literacy education must employ multiple modes of communication. Mills draws on the new London group (1996) and Kalantzis (2005) in order to illustrate two practical pedagogical tools, the pedagogy of multiliteracies and the learning by design framework. This paper reflects upon the implementation of multiliteracies pedagogy within a classroom, with a particular focus on situated practice. Mills explains teachers need to plan programs that acknowledge both multimodal and pencil to paper based reading comprehension skills.
Jones-Kavalier, B.R & Flannigan, S.L (2006). Connecting the Digital Dots: Literacy of the 21st Century. EQ, Vol 29, 2006. Retrieved 8th March, 2012 from: http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/ConnectingtheDigitalDotsLitera/157395
Barbara & Suzanne’s article stresses the importance of a new literacy one more broadly then the ability to read and write. They state that Literacy today depends on understanding the multiple media that make up our high-tech reality and developing skills to use them effectively. The article compares past and present literacy while highlighting the importance of teacher education in using these new technologies to students who are already digitally savvy. In essence Barbara & Suzanne state that new technologies are simply another way of viewing the world, interacting with one another and opening realms of possibility that were never conceived of before.
The New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational review, 66 (1), 60-92
The new London Group argue the increasing cultural and linguistic diversity in our society needs a broader attitude of literacy and all it represents with traditional language and based language approaches. The group came up with the term ‘Multiliteracies’ to describe the increase in local diversity and global connectedness. They describe 6 design elements for meaning making: Linguistic, visual, audio, gestural, spatial and multimodal meaning. They also describe the four components of pedagogy which will end in the student being able to show new learning by using what they have learnt in one context and being able to apply it to another
Henderson, R. (2004). Recognising difference: One of the challenges of using a Multiliteracies approach? Practically Primary, 9 (2), 11-14.
In this article Henderson states that Multiliteracies encompass more than just computers and information communication technologies. She goes beyond the familiar, demonstrating how diverse social, cultural and literate practices of homes and communities are, themselves, multiliteracies. It is suggested in the article that we consider ‘Multiple Lenses’ to identify students’ strengths and consulting with students’ families and their community. In essence Henderson promotes the idea of teaching profiles and programs that can focus on each student’s individual abilities, interests and capabilities in literacy learning.
Exely, B. (2008). Communities of Learners: Early Years students, New Learning Pedagogy and Transitions. In Healy, A. (ed.), Multiliteracies and diversity in education: new pedagogies for expanding landscapes (pp. 126-143_. South Melbourne, VIC: Oxford University Press.
This chapter highlights the importance of students needing to critically engage with multiliteracies due to the changing social order of education; Exley refers to this as the changing social order of education. In this chapter Exley states as early learners engage with multimodality it allows alternatives and although creating challenges it gives these students the ability to overcome challenges with their own agency. Exley also stresses how a transformative curriculum can broaden students’ horizon of knowledge and capabilities.
Healy A.H, Dooley K.T, (2002) Digital Reading Pedagogy for Novice Readers. AARE Conference Papers p1-10. Retrieved 14th March 2012 from: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/963/1/Dooley_digital.pdf
Healy & Dooley investigate the Early Childhood sector and comment on how digital reading pedagogy is essential and is relevant to the early years. The hub of literacy education relies highly on effective pedagogy that includes the acknowledgment of differing ways digital literacies and multimodal texts are delivered is of high agenda. Healy & Dooley go beyond the predominantly cognitive studies of print-based reading and writing to point out teacher roles and some of the dual affective-cognitive connections between the computer as a social space, and the reader-writer within that space.