Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart 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.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Transcript of Multiliteracies
A 21st century appraoch to literacies learning
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000). A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies. In B. Cope., & M. Kalantzis (eds.). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures, (pp. 9-37). London: Taylor & Francis Group
Lyungdahl comments on the extension of technologies that are filling classrooms of the twenty first century. Lyungdahl explains how these increasing number of ICT’s can facilitate the teaching and learning process, but explains the pedagogical implications need to be of paramount concern. These implications include; the digital divide, the equality issues that multimodal forms bring, and the decrease of students writing skills due to technology doing this essential work for them. Nevertheless, Lyungdahl highlights the countless benefits for the use of technology within schools. ICT’s motivate students, help produce greater quality of work and the endless resources the internet provides all contribute to the enhancement of a rich literacies pedagogy. If ICT’s were to be included in teachers literacy pedagogy, students would be introduced to new kinds of learning, participate in higher order thinking, develop their capacity for problem solving, as well as been given the opportunity to learn in new and engaging contexts.
Cope and Kalantzis takes a twenty-first century approach to the multiliteracies pedagogy first created by the New London Group in 1994 (Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. 2009, p.165). They compare the world of 1994 and 2006 and not only the progress of multiliteracies, but the importance of Education within this evolving social world. They also go into detail about how multiliteracies have changed with the ever evolving needs that society has put onto young learners in the workplace, as a citizen and as a person. Cope and Kalantzis examine the ‘why’, ‘how’ and ‘what’ of multiliteracies, describing the active process of meaning making and designing meaning which includes; Available Design, Designing, and The Redesign which help students draw on prior knowledge to help them evolve in their multiliteracies learning. Cope and Kalantzis agree that the core concepts of a multiliteracies pedagogy developed by The New London Group are only becoming more prominent within the 21st century.
Anstey, M. & Bull, G. (2006). Developing Pedagogies for Multiliteracies. In M. Anstey, & G. Bull (eds.) Teaching and learning multiliteracies: changing times changing literacies (pp. 56-81). Newark, DEL: International Reading Association
This text by Henderson (2008) draws on multiliteracy pedagogy theories created by the New London Group and Cope & Kalantzis and transfers them to the aspect of mobile students. Henderson (2008) highlights that in today’s society, due to economic conditions, occupational reasons and personal choice, a lot of families are faced with the life style of mobility. This has a huge effect on the students learning and the teachers ability to effectively teach. By using a multiliteracies approach with situated practice, teachers can tap into students life-world and build on students strengths and look at differences in a productive way helping student-teacher cohesion.
Henderson, R. (2008). Mobilising multiliteracies: pedagogy for mobile students. In A. Healy (Ed.), Multiliteracies and diversity in education: new pedagogies for expanding landscapes (pp. 168-200). South Melbourne, Vic.: Oxford University Press.
Henderson, R. (2004). 'Recognising difference: one of the challenges of using a multiliteracies approach?'. Practically Primary, 9 (2), 11-14. Retrieved from A+ Education database
Henderson (2004) explains the biggest hurdles teachers experience in the classroom with their students is often teacher assumptions. Henderson (2004) uses a lens analogy to explain that teachers often only see students from one perspective and this can have a detrimental effect on the students learning outcomes. He suggests several steps teachers can take in order to overcome this hurdle, including the use of a multiliteracies pedagogy. A multiliteracies pedagogy incorporates critical framing that allows students to experience a range of resources, learning styles and literate practices (Henderson, 2004). This allows students to showcase their skills several ways and allows teachers to fully understand their students learning styles.
Ljundahl, L. (2010). Multilieracies and Technology. In Winch , G., Ross, Johnston, R., March, P., Ljundahl, L., & Holliday, M. (Eds), In Litracy, reading, wrtining & children's literature. (4th ed., pp 399-422). Australia: OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS.
Ryan, M. (2008). Engaging Middle Years Students: Literacy projects That Matter. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(3), 190-201. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.52.3.2
Ryan (2008) discusses the important role multiliteracies plays in a middle years classroom. Middle years students are most engaged by projects that connect them to the world, are intellectually stimulating and draw on diversity and difference. Ryan (2008) draws on The new London Group (1996) and Cope & Kalantzis’ (20002/2005) multiliteracies, designs of meaning and framework and outlines a multiliteracies snapshot that incorporates all of these aspects into three steps; Conceptualizing, unpacking ideas, and strategizing. These three steps access student prior knowledge, use explicit teaching to uncover the skills that need to be taught in order for the unit to be successful and link the curriculum to the task. This snapshot provided by Ryna (2008) allow teachers to create an authentic multiliteracies project.
Tan, J. P., & McWillian, E. (2009) From literacy to multiliteracies: diverse learners and pedagogical practice. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3). 213-225. doi:10.1080/15544800903076119
Tan and McWilliam (2009) discuss the harsh reality schools are facing in the complex change from code-based literacy to the use of a multiliteraces pedagogy. They look at two vastly different schools and how they have tried to implement multiliteracies into their curriculum. One school, a highly elite senior school in Queensland, found that although multiliteracies was engaging, engagement was not their fundamental goal in education. The school and it’s students found the pressure and demands society place on achieving high grades far out ways the engagement value that multiiteracies provide. The second school, a public school in Queensland with the main demographic being EOSL students, found that multiliteracies had, once again, had a huge effect on student engagement but was not necessary in the implementation of early years education and the teaching of basic reading and writing skills. Both schools failed to integrate multillieracies into the pedagogy and simply saw it as a garnish to the curriculum. It is not until multiliteracies are integrated into the everyday curricula that its full potential can be examined.
Unsworth, L, & Chan, E. (2009). Bridging multimodal literacies and national assessment programs in literacy. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, vloume 32, (3). pp.245-257. Retrieved from http://www.alea.edu.au/documents/item/66
Unsworth and Chan (2009) discuss the intimate relationship between literacy and the national testing that happens within Australian schools. This article explores the national NAPLAN testing, the New South Wales Basic Skills Tests (BST) testing, and the very weak link these tests make to multimodal studies. The BST testing was found to only cover two basic types of image-language interactions and NAPALN does not address the ways in which images contribute to the meaning making of texts at all (Unsworth & Chan, 2009, pp. 249). Unsworth and Chan detail the effects this has not only on national standards and scoring but the catastrophic results this has on students future multimodal studies. This paper, like many before it, addresses the struggle that educational systems are having with integrating mullitlieracies into Australian schools and the fine line schools are walking between achieving high score results and keeping students engaged in the everyday curriculum.
Cole, D., Pullen, D. (2010). Multiliteracies in Motion: Current Theory and Practice. (pp. 160-172). New York NY: Routledge.
Cole and Pullen (2010) conducted a study of 16 teachers and their experience with negotiating the power dynamics in a multiliteracies classroom. The introduction of multimodal literacies in schools has created a divide between the “digital native” students and the “digital immigrant” teachers. This results in teachers trying to teach in out dated language to students who’s ICT’s knowledge is vastly greater than the teachers. This results in a change of power. Teachers are reluctant to hand the power to the students, instead engaging in a autonomous literacy model, a refusal to engage in multiliteracies and digital learning’s and staying within their comfort zone of print-based texts. Literacy is a social practice and teachers need to accept and embrace the ideological model, and allow students to become the teachers and embrace this change of power without fear.
Cooper, N., Lockyer, L., & Brown, I. (2013). Developing multiliteracies in a technology-mediated environment. Educational Media International, 50:2, 93-107. doi: 10.1080/09523987.2013.795350
This recently published article explores the huge influx of technology and media facing students on a daily basis and how students have to equip themselves with an array of new skills in order to gain the information needed from these resources. Cooper, Lockyer and Brown (2013) conducted a study with classes from year 7-10 covering a multiliteracies unit with a focus on news media covering ten weeks. The overarching theory behind the unit is that it is simply not enough expose students to multiliteracies but you must emerse them in every stage, allowing them to experiment with the large variety of resources now available to students. The study found that at the commencement of the unit students only had basic multiliteracies skills but after students had the opportunity to undertake a project that emersed them in the creative process of creating a news report they started to develop more critical approaches, and deeper understanding of the multiliteracies pedagogy.
Through the annotation of ten articles an overarching theme appeared, that of literacy being a social practice and the struggle education systems are having with effectively introducing authentic multiliteracy practices into the curriculum. It is undeniable the extensive amount of valuable learning experiences multiliteracies can bring to a classroom, but effectively managing these experiences to coincide with the rest of the daily curriculum and to not simply be a garnish to the school life is the struggle facing education systems. It is only when multiliteracies can become a valued part of a teachers pedagogy that it can effectively and authentically be used.
Students of the twenty-first century live in an ever changing, fast paced world of new technologies and are constantly being exposed to these new technologies at a rapid pace. Because of the influx of new technologies it is imperative that educators encompass a proficient range of digital literacy skills in order to address students learning needs and to not become “digital immigrants” (Cole & Pullen, 2010).
Anstey and Bull (2006) state a multiliterecies pedagogy, “develops a person who is strategic and flexible, has a range of resources available, and can combine them and recombine them for different purposes” (Asntey & Bull, 2006). This is done through the multiliteracies approach of The New London Group, explored by Henderson (2008). This framework explores situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing and transformed practice, all of which allow educators to take account of different learning styles, different learning pathways and diversity of students, all key components of a multiliteracies pedagogy (Henderson, 2008).
The huge influx of multimodal resources breaking there way into twenty-first century classrooms challenges the old logics of literacy as they fall short of students expectations (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009). Student’s demands for engaging, authentic learning tasks, that connect to their real world is an ongoing challenge facing educators (Ryan, 2008). A multiliteracies pedagogy connects students to their real-world, with engaging activities which encourage higher order thinking, use explicit teaching, and takes on board the social, cultural and economical factors of the school and students (Ryan, 2008).
Education systems are struggling with the fast paced, students of the twenty-first century who demand constant engagement (Tan & McWilliam, 2009). It is simply not enough to expose these students to multiliteracies resources. Students need to be completely emerced into the technological environment and allow for a range of explorative activities to cater for diversity and student motivation (Cooper, Lockyer & Brown, 2013).
When used correctly and authentically mutliliteracies can engage and motivate students; cater for a range of diversity, prepair students for future roles as student and citizens and develop a flexible students who is confident using s range of resources and knows how to best use those resources.
Anstey abd Bull’s chapter highlights the effect of Literacies as changing pedagogies and how to help students become multiliterate through careful selection of characteristics of pedagogy and curriculum. Dynamic pedagogy is required to develop multiliterate students through sequenced lesson structures, explicit teaching in classrooms, understanding the diversity and cultural considerations as it applies to literacy practices and the four principals of productive pedagogy. Examples are prominent throughout the article that supports the above areas. Anstey and Bull (2006) suggest that pedagogy needs to evolve alongside ever changing literacy practices