Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Multimodal Literacies for Preservice Teachers with Reading Disabilities

No description
by

Margaret Krause

on 6 July 2015

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Multimodal Literacies for Preservice Teachers with Reading Disabilities


The Impact of Multimodal Literacy Accommodations on Teaching Efficacy for Preservice Teachers with Reading Disabilities

Julia Hagge
Margaret Krause

University of South Florida
Background Information
Purpose
Literature Informing the Inquiry
Multimodal Experiences for Preservice Teachers
Methodologies
Study Participants
Data Collection
Data Analysis
Research Questions:
Findings
Discussion
Implications
References
The primary purpose was to examine the implications of multimodal literacy practices within the context of teacher education for preservice teachers with self-identified reading disabilities.

We explored potential connections between teacher self-efficacy within the the domain of reading and multimodal accommodations provided in our reading methods courses.
The overarching framework for our study resides in the following literature:
Social Semiotic Theory (Halliday & Hasan, 1985)
Multiliteracies (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; 2009)
Multimodal Literacies (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; Jewitt, 2007; Kress & VanLeeuwen, 2001)
Armor, D., Conroy-Osequera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonenell, L., Pascal, A., et al. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in selected Los Angeles minority schools, REPORT NO. R-2007-LAUSD.
Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (2009). "Multiliteracies": New Literacies, New Learning. Pedagogies: An
International Journal, 4, 164-195.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic
perspective. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University.

Haverback, H.R. & Parault, S.J. (2011). High efficacy and the preservice reading teacher: A comparative study.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 703-711.

Jewitt, C. (2007). A multimodal perspective on textuality and contexts. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 15(3), 275-289.

Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. New York: Oxford University Press.

Moustakas, C. (1984). Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Plourde, L. (2002). The influence of student teaching on preservice elementary teachers' science self-efficacy
and outcome expectancy beliefs. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29, 245-254.
Our goal was to infuse numerous multimodal experiences throughout the reading methods course.

Multimodal experiences included:
Interactive course presentations using Glogster, Animoto and Prezi
Collaborative assignments and projects
Micro-blogging through Edmodo
Multimodal assessments
Our participants included six students with self-identified reading disabilities enrolled in our reading methods courses.

4 out of 6 participants were officially identified in the elementary school setting with reading disabilities. All of these students were provided specific accommodations within their learning environments.

2 out of 6 participants were not officially identified, therefore, they did not receive official accommodations within their learning environments.

Disabilities identified by the participants included forms of dyslexia, processing disorders, and general struggles with the reading process.
Quantitative Data:
Reading Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (RTSES)
(Haverback & Parault, 2011)

Qualitative Data:
Phenomenological Case Study
1. Is there a change in the self-efficacies of preservice teachers with
self-identified reading disabilities after participating in a reading
methods course with embedded multimodal experiences?

2. In what ways do preservice teachers with self-identified reading
disabilities perceive multimodal experiences within a reading methods
course as providing affordances for their learning needs?

3. In what ways do preservice teachers with self-identified reading
disabilities perceive their self-efficacies as reading teachers after
participation in a reading methods course with embedded
multimodal experiences?
Quantitative Data:
Pre- and post- Reading Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (RTSES) (Haverback & Parault, 2011).

Qualitative data included:
Pre- and post-interviews (semi-structured)
Weekly conversation calendars (post course reflections)
Weekly Edmodo posts (micro-blogging reflections)
Participant observations
Researcher reflexive journals
Quantitative Data:

The RTSES was divided into two subcategories:
reading motivation
reading assessment
Students scored their responses using Likert scale ratings (1= nothing to 9= a great deal)

Example questions:
How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in reading?

To what extent can you craft good reading questions for your students?

We utilized pre-course and post-course composite scores for reading motivation and reading assessment to conduct quantitative measures of statistical significance between the factors of self-efficacy and accommodations in order to determine if there was a change in the self-efficacies of our participants. We used a repeated measures 2 x 2 ANOVA to test for statistical relevance.
Findings
Findings
1. Is there a change in the self-efficacies of preservice teachers with self-identified reading disabilities after participating in a reading methods course with embedded multimodal experiences?

A repeated measures (pre-course and post-course) 2 x 2 ANOVA was run with self-efficacy as the within-subjects variable and beliefs about reading motivation and reading assessment as covariates.
Analysis of group means showed significant differences between pre-course and post-course of both reading motivation and reading assessment.
The 2 x 2 repeated measures ANOVA yielded an effect on time (F (1,5)= 7.27, p = .0430) and category (F (1,5) = 36.51, p = .0018).
No significant interaction occurred between category and time (F (1,5) = 2.76, p = .01573) .
A category main effect was observed with the preservice teachers being notably higher on both the pretest and posttest for reading assessment.
A time effect showed higher post-course reading motivation and reading assessment.
The non-significant interaction suggests the gains from pre-course to post-course did not differ significantly across categories.
2. In what ways do preservice teachers with self-identified reading disabilities perceive multimodal experiences within a reading methods course as providing affordances for their learning needs?

When responding about course-related multimodal experiences, participants included details about the following:

levels of engagement they experienced within the coursework
compelling nature of visual imagery
use of alternative quiz formats
enhancement of instruction based on the integrated use of technology and other multimodal textual sources.
3. In what ways do preservice teachers with self-identified reading disabilities perceive their self-efficacies as reading teachers after participation in a reading methods course with embedded multimodal experiences?

We noticed shifts in how participants viewed their challenges in teaching reading.
In pre-interviews, students expressed concerns about fluency, decoding, and basic command of language.
During the post-interviews, participants’ conceptualizations of their challenges shifted. Participants revealed how they felt empowered by multimodal experiences.
This is highlighted when one participant stated, “I feel that I really understand everything. I feel like I could go into any classroom and teach kids who do not know how to read. I did not feel that way at all before coming into your class”.
Through the analysis of qualitative data we discovered overarching themes:
Participants felt empowered through
choice
and
control
participants were able to choose the types of texts and applications which afforded optimal individualized learning experiences
participants were able to control their experiences through their perceived abilities to navigate through online resources and select personally meaningful multimodal text
Participants perceived strength in the
semiotic potential
of multimodal learning
participants reported feelings of "connectedness" with content and "deeper" understanding and engagement when immersed in multimodal course experiences
Further exploration is needed of how preservice teachers who have reading disabilities feel empowered through multimodal learning experiences.
Need for inquiry into the ways in which positive experiences with multimodalities transfer into feelings of empowerment through the use of multimodalities in their classroom teaching experiences.
Further exploration

is needed into how preservice teachers with reading disabilities transform their understandings of pedagogy and reading content through multimodal experiences.
Cognizance of how teacher educators approach the learning environment for diverse learners in teacher education is indicated.
As Cope and Kalantzis state, “In a pedagogy of multiliteracies, all forms of representation, including language, should be regarded as a dynamic process of
transformation rather than reproduction
” (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009, p.179).
Margaret Krause:
krause1@usf.edu

Julia Hagge:
jhagge@usf.edu
Limitations
Self-reported data
Researcher subjectivity
Low number of participants
Lack of ability to generalize our data
Qualitative Data:

We used Moustakas' (1994) method of phenomenological reduction to analyze our qualitative data.

Phenomenological Reduction:
Bracketing-research process is rooted solely on topic and questions
Horizontalization- every statement is treated as having equal value
Cluster Horizons into

Themes
Organize Horizons and Themes into Coherent Textural Descriptions of the Phenomen
on
Member checking- All participants review the data and findings in order to ensure accuracy of reported findings
Data Analysis
Full transcript