help with this outline (case study outline)

help with this outline (case study outline)

ORDER A PLAGIARISM FREE PAPER NOW

Scaffolding and Multimodality 1 Introduction and Research Question Early childhood is an important time for individuals, as rapid development in physical, emotional, and intellectual growth takes place. As such, early childhood education programs are critical for fostering children during the early years. Such institutions not only provide childcare, but also give their students the chance to work on language, science, and math skills in addition to learning social skills by interacting with a great number of peers. At the Haste Street Child Development Center’s Preschool West, it was striking to see how instructors used those structured activities to impart lessons that would help the students assimilate to the dominant academic and social discourse. One manner of viewing these practices is through concepts found in Vygotsky’s theory of the zone of proximal development and the notion of scaffolding in education. Moreover, these lessons are often taught in a multimodal manner, with some focusing on more traditional modes of transmission, such as writing and speaking, while other practices rely on less common modes, such as through music. This sets the stage for the questions this paper aims to analyze: How do adult instructors in early childhood education scaffold their students into the dominant academic and social discourse? Moreover, how does that kind of learning use different modalities, specifically oratory modes and musical modes, and what difference do they make in the scaffolding process? In order to uncover likely explanations, this paper will draw on observations from student presentations in Show and Tell scenarios as well as singing of academic songs and kinesthetic activities during Circle Time. Theoretical Framework One of the main goals of early childhood education is to prepare the child for interactions in future higher academic settings and dominant culture within society, with other individuals, which consist of both peers and authority figures. These types of teachings try to mold the Scaffolding and Multimodality 2 students into figures that are at home within the dominant academic and social discourse. According to Gee (1989), some discourses are “values and viewpoints in terms of which one must speak and act” (p. 19). These ideals thus form a guideline for how an individual should act within a society or group to be considered literate in that group’s discourse. Moreover, within societies, discourses “are intimately related to the distribution of social power and hierarchical structure in society” (Gee, 1989, p. 19). This represents the idea that within a society, there are some discourses that are valued over others, and individuals who have that discourse derive benefits from the possession of that discourse. These types of discourses are what Gee (1989) called “dominant discourses” (p. 20). In the United States, there are a number of dominant discourses that are prized, and they span across different facets of life. It is one of the goals of early childhood programs to teach their charges these discourses so that they can access the benefits associated with literacy in dominant discourses. The two this paper will focus on are dominant academic discourses and dominant social discourses. In dominant academic discourses, students are expected to have an understanding of certain concepts at a certain age, think critically, engage with the material, make observations, and present what they know or learned in a thoughtful manner. In terms of dominant social discourses, there are rules that govern interpersonal interactions that individuals are supposed to follow, such as not pushing and shoving, saying please and thank you, sharing with others, and not talking when others are talking; there are also rules within the dominant discourse that focus on how the individual carries themselves in shared spaces, such as sitting rather than laying down in venues such as school. Being the result of society’s current expectations, these discourses are not necessarily innate, and as such, young students need guidance from others in order to learn them. This type Scaffolding and Multimodality 3 of guidance works well with the theories of the zone of proximal development and scaffolding. For Vygotsky (1930), the concept of the zone of proximal development relies on first understanding what a student’s actual developmental level is, or what they are capable of doing on their own without the assistance of more capable peers or adult instructors. The zone of proximal development then, is “the distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1930, p. 11). In other words, the zone of proximal development is the difference between what an individual as able to do on their own and what they are able to do with the help of an instructor or able peers. Moreover, as the child internalizes these lessons and gains the experience in completing the task with the help from others, they become more capable of doing it on their own, and eventually, this ability becomes their new actual developmental level. One of the ways instructors can help form zones of proximal development is through the process of scaffolding. In scaffolding, the instructor provides a framework for the individual to work and learn within. When the child’s actual developmental level is not adequate for the assigned task, the instructor provides the necessary tools and support to help them reach the level, creating the scaffold to support the student’s development. As the student progresses, these supports are removed and reassembled to help the student reach the next level of development. As mentioned earlier, scaffolding is extremely beneficial in helping young students learn the dominant discourses valued in our society. For example, in learning to count, children’s initial actual level of development means they do not know how to count. Parents or teachers may form a zone of proximal development by counting out loud and having the child repeat after them. Eventually, the child learns the numbers, and that is their new actual level of development. Scaffolding and Multimodality 4 This very beginning process helps scaffold the child into the dominant academic discourse, which expects individuals to know their numbers and be able to count. The manner in which these discourses are introduced to the students vary in the modes of transmission and practice. Jewitt (2012) describes modes as “organized sets of semiotic resources for meaning making” (p. 246) which then lead to what she called affordances, which reflect on how the mode can be used to express and represent ideas and how society typically responds to such practices (Jewitt, 2012, p. 247). In education, Jewitt (2012) sees multimodality reflects on how meaning is made “through the situated configurations across image, gesture, gaze, body posture, sound, writing, music, speech, and so on” (p. 246). This contrasts with what some may consider more a traditional form of education consisting only of a single oratory mode in which a teacher only lectures towards students. However, with multimodal learning, students learn not only by listening to an instructor speak, but through other added practices that can involve their own speech, body posture, and music. Having these modes shapes both how and what individuals learn, as people “draw on their available modal resources to make meaning in specific concepts” (p. 246). In other words, learning differing modes help diversify the range of what can be learned. Additionally, the concept of modal affordances highlights how social conventions shape the ability of the modes to be used in representing a certain concept or idea (p. 247). This plays back into Gee’s ideas of dominant discourse, as not every mode is widely embraced as a standard form of communication in the current dominant discourse, which can further impact how students then do or do not use the knowledge from those modes. For the students in Preschool West, learning was indeed a multimodal practice. The concepts that they learned through scaffolding were often related to or done through different types of modes. This could include learning about the days of the week through singing along Scaffolding and Multimodality 5 with the teacher, rather than having the teacher merely lecture on the topic. These three readings thus form a framework through which to explore early childhood education, with Vygotsky’s scaffolding provides the necessary education to achieve what Gee would call dominant discourses in academic and social settings. This learning was not just presented in a single mode, and thus, Jewitt’s concept of multimodal education can be used for a more nuanced analysis of the education occurring, specifically in how those modes and their modal affordances interacted with the norms of the dominant discourse. Study Background and Methods This study was conducted at the Haste Street Child Development Center in Berkeley, California. The center services infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. The building itself sits in a neighborhood right next to the UC Berkeley campus, with lots of apartment buildings in the vicinity. The classroom this study was conducted in, Preschool West, had students aged three and a half to four years old whom were the children of UC Berkeley staff, students, or nearby community members. The classroom consists of one area with small tables adjacent to a shared kitchen with Preschool East. On the other side, there is a larger open play area with toys on shelves and a wooden jungle loft. There is also a door that led to an outdoor play yard, with tables full of toys, tricycles, a sand pit, a tire swing, a jungle gym, easels with paper and acrylic paint, and a table with craft supplies. The classroom opens each day at 7:45 AM and closes at 5:45. Breakfast is held at 9:00 AM, and most students arrive around this time or after breakfast, which is around 9:30 AM. This is when most of the structured activities would begin. My data was collected through participant observation within the classroom on Tuesday mornings from 8:00 AM till 11:00 AM for fourteen weeks. My role as a classroom volunteer allowed me to not only observe the children, their interactions, and the learning processes, but Scaffolding and Multimodality 6 also engage with them as well in both play and instruction. My days involved playing games with the children on the playground and in the classroom, reading to them, helping the instructors with teaching an activity, and helping the students with the activities themselves. After eight of the visits, I wrote field notes on what I had observed that day, and these were inductively coded to provide the data for this analysis. As I began to notice what I interpreted to be instances of scaffolding and ZOPD, my observations honed in on any interactions between teacher and students that I felt elucidated my understanding of how such concepts took place in the classroom, along with differing modes that played a role in how that learning took place. The three main categories of codes I used were Scaffolding and ZOPD, Dominant Discourses, and Multimodality. For Scaffolding and ZOPD, I looked for any instance in which a student struggled to complete a task and was later assisted in doing the task by either an adult instructor or a more capable peer. Within Dominant Discourses, there were the subcategories of Dominant Social Discourse and Dominant Academic Discourse. The former was applied when students were instructed on traditional social norms, such as not taking toys from another without asking or sitting upright when a teacher is talking as opposed to lying on the floor. The latter referred to instances where students were taught material considered vital to academic success such as numbers and letters, along with academic practices that are valued in society, such as strong presentation or observation skills. For Multimodality, I coded for both Traditional Modes and Alternative Modes. Traditional Modes focused on activities presented through modes found most often in academic settings like writing or speaking. Alternative Modes refer to teaching that occurred in modes not typical of most academic settings, such as song or dance. By coding my field notes using different colors for each sub-code, I was able to see how different modes formed different examples of scaffolding and the zone of proximal development, which then Scaffolding and Multimodality 7 intersected with lessons in dominant discourses. Analysis and Results Even prior to officially coding the data, it was easy to see the scaffolding taking place in a variety of interactions between teachers and students, and even between students themselves. Likewise, when the instructors use song and body movements to help with instruction there is a stark contrast to the more typical mode of speaking and lecturing. There were two practices that occurred more than once over the course of my visits, show and tell and singing in circle time, which I believed showcased these principles. Showing and Telling How to Do Show and Tell The first time I witnessed Show and Tell was on the tenth of October, and the experience was documented in Field Note 3. The practice occurs in small groups, led by one adult instructor, and on that day, I was with Ms. Haydee and the Green Group. When the first student, Gaby, stood up to present, she introduced herself and the item she brought in to share: a small red toy giraffe. Ms. Haydee asked her to describe five features of the giraffe, but after describing color and material, Gaby stopped speaking and looked at Ms. Haydee. Ms. Haydee then asked her whether the giraffe was tall or short, to which Gaby responded with short. Ms. Haydee reframed her question and asked if giraffes in real life are tall or short; Gaby responded that they are tall. In this interaction, Ms. Haydee’s guiding questions for Gaby once she stopped speaking is an example of scaffolding at work. Rather than telling her what to say, framing the characteristic of height as a question helped Gaby in two ways. First, it provided scaffolding into one facet of the academic discourse by modeling other salient characteristics that she can observe about the object at hand. Gaby was able to, on her own, highlight two characteristics, but by questioning her on a different characteristic, Ms. Haydee worked towards expanding what Gaby Scaffolding and Multimodality 8 might notice about her current item and other items in the future. Rather than focusing solely on the toy, Ms. Haydee connected her line of questioning to help Gaby reflect on the concepts of giraffes as a whole. By having answered both instances of the question – first in reflection of her own giraffe and of giraffes in real life – Gaby gained insight on how such questions can be answered in the future by considering not only the objects directly in front of her, but on a larger, conceptual scale as well. Second, by posing this as a question, Gaby received training in the dominant social discourse of fielding and answering questions. This requires making eye contact with the individual posing the question and providing an answer the receiver can understand. As the other students presented, Ms. Haydee continued to ask them questions when they stopped speaking on their own. For example, she asked the next two students who presented, Jackson and Estevan, what their objects were made out of. For Jackson, she asked if his silver car was made of plastic like Matilda’s giraffe, to which he responded that it was not plastic, but metal. For Estevan, his object was his jacket, and when asked about the material, he said paper. Ms. Haydee asked if anyone else knew what the jacket was made of, and Matilda responded with fabric. When Ms. Haydee affirmed her answer, she went on to explain how most clothes are produced with the material of fabric. It is interesting to note, that when Camden and Matilda, whom came after Jackson and Estevan, presented, they stated the material of their objects without being prompted; instead, they incorporated the answers to those questions straight into their own presentations. Again, Ms. Haydee’s guiding questions helped to extend the students’ knowledge in the academic discourse in terms of what type of information might be useful when making observations. However, the ZOPD Ms. Haydee created for Jackson and Estevan when guiding their presentations extended beyond those two students’ learning. It is possible they set an example for future presenters Camden and Matilda to internalize, and one might think to Scaffolding and Multimodality 9 consider them as more capable peers who created a ZOPD for Camden and Matilda. Moreover, this interaction also displays how social learning can allow the scaffolding that other students received to transmit those discourse patterns to students who were not being directly taught. Another striking example of scaffolding into the dominant social discourse comes from how students are taught to present. In Field Note 3, Jackson started his presentation without first introducing himself or his object, and Zarek does the same in Field Note 8. In both instances, Ms. Haydee stopped them before they could continue and reminded them to state that information before proceeding. By having both students stop and state their name and intent, Ms. Haydee was helping them to internalize dominant social discourse practices found in presenting. In social interactions, it is expected of individuals to clearly convey who they are and what their intended purpose is. On their own, both students did not utilize such practices. However, under Ms. Haydee’s guidance, they were stopped and had to process that stating such information precedes explaining the main content of their message. Multimodality: Singing for Success and Moving to Math While Show and Tell utilizes the more traditional mode of oration as a vehicle for learning, the instructors also utilized music and singing as a mode for instruction. In daily Circle Time, students sit on mats with the first letter of their name placed around their teacher, Ms. Cheryl, learn about the days of the week, the calendar, and sing songs about a variety of topics – some of which are educational and some of which are not. In Field Note 2 and 6, I was presented with observations that illuminated how utilizing singing as a mode can have educational benefits. One of the songs performed each day is the Days of the Week song. Moreover, each day, a different student (picked by alphabetical order) acts as the “teacher”, and is given a baton to point at the name of day on the calendar as the students sing them. In other words, as the students Scaffolding and Multimodality 10 sing Monday, the teacher is supposed to point at Monday. However, this is not always the case, as evidenced in Field Note 2: Jackson was pointing at the days of the week during the days of the week song, but was not pointing to the correct day…However, when I guided him to the correct days throughout the rest of the first verse of the song, he was able to point at the correct days…During the second verse, which is just a repeat of the first, he no longer seemed to need my guidance, as he had found a rhythm to which he moved the baton (FN 2). Scott had a similar experience in Field Note 6: Once he had it in his [Scott] hand, Ms. Cheryl began playing the Days of the week song, and the class began singing. As we began singing, Scott was pointing one day ahead of the day being sung. In other words, when we sang “Tuesday”, he was already pointing at Wednesday. As we sang Thursday and Scott pointed to Friday, Ms. Cheryl moved his hand back, and guided him to the right date. She did this again when we began singing the second verse in Spanish (FN 6). In both instances, the students did not start with connecting the lyrics of the song to the words they were pointing at. For Jackson, I needed to help guide him to match the write day being sung to the one being pointed at, while Ms. Cheryl had to help guide Scott. Eventually, both students were able to point at the right day as they sang. The act of guiding the students to the correct day by both Ms. Cheryl and I is once again an example of scaffolding, as the students’ actual developmental levels had them pointing at incorrect days as they sang. We were able to help form a ZOPD by guiding them to the correct one, but I would argue that the modality of music also played an important role in scaffolding this learning experience. Within the song, the rhythm and cadence of the days served to delineate each day from the next; for example, when singing Monday, the word rises towards the middle and falls at the end, creating a tone that mirrors going up and down a hill. After being repeatedly exposed to this rhythm and connecting it to where the adult instructors guided their hands, the students were able to act correctly autonomously in regards to where they placed the baton. In other words, the beginning scaffolding instruction provided a starting point for the students to Scaffolding and Multimodality 11 then carry on with help from the rhythm of the song. Overall, this process helped contribute to these students’ knowledge of the dominant academic discourse, which values students being able to learn information such as dates. However, singing is not necessarily the mode of transmission used to present such information within the dominant discourse. This reflects back on the notion of modal affordances, with the mode of singing being valued in this educational institution as a method of teaching, but not necessarily affording the same honor in everyday interactions and later educational interactions as well. As students age, they will be expected to know the concept of “days of the week” independent of the mode, showcasing how modes are useful in helping students learn, but are not necessarily the final form in which a concept is internalized as. Music is not the only mode, however, that the instructors use to transmit academic discourses. Another multimodal activity that I encountered was “blasting off”, which I detailed in Field Note 2. This activity occurred after revealing the number date of that day, and it was a practice in both counting and understanding number values. It goes as follows: From there, students were asked to stand up, as it was time to “rocket off” to 26. This process…consists of students starting with touching their toes. As they count upwards, they straighten their backs… and raise their hands as well. At the halfway point, which Ms. Cheryl indicates by standing straight, with her hands around her midsection, there is an emphasis on the idea of a halfway point…and students continue to count upwards. As they approach the number in question, students usually have their arms stretched straight above their heads and are on tippy toes. Once the number is reached, they begin counting downwards, once again ending up touching their toes. When the count reached ten, Ms. Cheryl began speaking in a pilot-type voice. At zero, the students all jumped up and yelled, “Blast off!” and bounced up and down for about half a minute (FN 2). In this activity, which also occurred in Field Note 4 and 6, students were once again moving beyond traditional modes to engage in learning. In this case, body movement played a role in helping them practice counting as well as begin to gain an understanding of the magnitude of values. With bigger numbers, they will realize that it takes longer to reach the middle where their arms are straight in front of them, and they must account for this by moving their arm in smaller Scaffolding and Multimodality 12 increments. This contrasts with doing this activity with lesser numbers; the middle is reached quicker, which helps showcase how those numbers are relatively smaller. By using this practice, students are learning a dominant academic discourse – counting and number values. The kinesthetic aspect of being able to feel a shorter number versus a longer number in the timing and movement of one’s body helps to further illuminate the differences in values and adds a layer of depth to learning numerical literacy. Again, while the concepts transmitted by this mode are valued, the modality itself is not always rewarded within the dominant discourse. As students age, the dominant discourse stresses students being able to sit still and have control over their bodies. Thus, the attributes of this mode are at odds with the impending dominant discourse. However, this does not diminish the work it does in helping students learn valuable knowledge. The characteristics of the modes themselves, with singing having rhythm and “blasting off” implementing a kinesthetic facet to number values add an additional layer and connection to learning those concepts compared to having them merely lectured or spoken about. Findings, Limitations, and Future Research The findings from this research appear to support the veracity of ZOPD and scaffolding as mechanisms of transmitting both dominant social and academic discourses. Students not only learned knowledge of presentation skills, days of the week, and numbers from adult instructors, but seemed to also glean such information through social learning and observing one another. Moreover, the usage of different modes to transmit such teachings showcase how important multimodality in education can be towards helping students learn lessons valuable to the dominant discourse. With music, for example, the mode’s properties of rhythm and cadence added an additional guide for learning the material. However, despite its helpfulness, it is also interesting to reflect on how the modes themselves are not necessarily celebrated within the Scaffolding and Multimodality 13 dominant discourse as the means of transmitting this information to others, only a vehicle for learning them; alas, there is still another step for these students in that they must translate what they have learned through that mode into a mode accepted by the dominant discourse. This research, however, was limited in the observations only taking place for a short period of time while also taking place in only one location. The former makes it impossible to analyze how findings hold out over longer periods of time, while the latter makes the data less generalizable to a larger population. Nonetheless, these findings and this research illustrate how the concepts of scaffolding can be beneficial in supporting early childhood education. Additionally, it provides support for multimodality as being a beneficial tool for teaching concepts to preschool-aged children. By acknowledging the pertinence of such practices, further research can be conducted on how they can become implemented on a broader scale so that all educators and students are able to benefit from the help they provide in learning concepts from dominant social and academic discourses. Scaffolding and Multimodality 14 Appendix #1: References Gee, J.P. (1989). What is literacy? Journal of Education, 171(1), 18-25. Jewitt, C. (2008) Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32, 241-267. Vygotsky, L. (1930). Mind and society. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Scaffolding and Multimodality 15 Appendix #2: Coded Excerpt from Field Note 6 Focused Observations: Extended Circle Time Zone of Proximal Development/Scaffolding Dominant Academic Discourses Dominant Social Discourses Traditional Modes Alternative Modes When we came in from Circle Time, Ms. Cheryl directed me to sit behind Scott, Zarek, and AJ. Once everyone was seated on their mat and letter, Ms. Cheryl began singing the “5 L’s” song. As we sang, “The sun shines down on the five L’s, the five L’s” and then recited “Look, Lips, Listen, Legs, and Laps”, Ms. Cheryl pointed to each body part and made a “Shh” motion with her finger. She asked everyone to sit like the letter ‘L’; Zarek was sitting on his legs rather than on his bottom. I asked him if he could sit on his bottom, but he did not move. Next, Ms. Cheryl brought down her guitar, and we began singing the “Buenos Dias” song. As this was being sung, Zarek would lie down onto his stomach, sit back up, and then lay back down. I asked him if he could please sit quietly, but he continued to move forward and back. Ms. Cheryl then asked if he wanted to come sit motorcycle style in the chair next to her. He said yes and crawled over to the chair. He then sat on it backwards, straddling the seat with the back of the chair acting as the front. Once the singing was finished, Ms. Cheryl looked around the classroom and told the students that there were a lot of new faces in the classroom. She said that we should take some time to make sure everyone knew everyone else, starting with me. She asked “if you guys know my friend Terry”, and that she had a rhyme about me. She led the kids in singing “Hello **, how are you? Hello **, what do you do?” I was caught off guard, and responded with, “I’m a student!” Ms. Cheryl added that I was a student over at Cal, and Zarek yelled, “My mom is a student, too!” Ms. Cheryl agreed, and further said that I was a teacher that volunteered with them on Tuesdays and Thursdays. She then moved onto Anna and used the same rhyme to ask her what she did. She responded that she was also a special kind of teacher who helped also helped kids. After Anna came Jesus, and Jesus responded that he was a student at Cal who also was a teacher here on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. After his introduction, Ms. Cheryl then asked us to tell the students when we leave. Jesus and I said we leave at 11, while Anna said she leaves at 10:30. Ms. Cheryl then said that it was almost 10:30, and while we had to say bye to her soon, it was not that close to 11:00, and that the children could say “hi” to Jesus and I. After these introductions, Ms. Cheryl then asked the students if they knew whose turn it was for calendar. She asked the students who had done the calendar yesterday, and River yelled, “Me!” Ms. Cheryl said “That’s right! We need to find out who will do it today, then!” She began singing the ABCs, and the students sang along. After ‘R’, the class stopped on ‘S’, and Ms. Cheryl asked if there was anyone in the class whose name started with ‘S’. Scott jumped up and said, “Me!” He ran to the calendar and picked up the baton. Once he had it in his hand, Ms. Cheryl began playing the Days of the week song, and the class began singing. As we began singing, Scott was pointing one day ahead of the day being sung. In other words, when we sang “Tuesday”, he was already pointing at Wednesday. As we sang Thursday and Scott pointed to Friday, Ms. Cheryl moved his hand back, and guided him to the right date. She did this again Scaffolding and Multimodality 16 when we began singing the second verse in Spanish. Once we finished singing about the days of the week, Ms. Cheryl said it was time for guesstimation. She said that yesterday was the sixth and asked the students if they had any idea what tomorrow would be. I heard River yell 99, Lesara said seven, and another child yelled six. Ms. Cheryl said, “Let’s count” and Scott started at one and the class counted upwards. Once we reached the spot where seven was, Scott flipped the card over, revealing the seven. Ms. Cheryl then had everyone stand up. We all started bent over, touching our toes, and began counting upwards. Once we reached seven, we were all standing on our tiptoes, and we then began counting down. When we reached zero, everyone yelled, “Blastoff!” and began jumping up and down. Ms. Cheryl then asked everyone to sit back down and we got ready for the next activity, which was looking at seeds. Deconstructing Gender Identity and Norms in the Classroom My case study will be focused on the 21st Century Program at St. Elizabeth in Fruitvale, assortment discourses, especially dominant discourses, around gender that contribute to the act and understanding of gender among schoolchildren. California. Fruitvale, located in East Oakland, encompasses the largest Latinx population in the 1) How do peers and authority figures at St. Elizabeth disrupt or reinforce gender norms in the city. This community has been a historic site of immigration and social justice movements such as the Chicanx movement. St. Elizabeth, serving grades k-8th, consists of mostly Latinx children. 3rd and 4th grade class? (literacy in dominant gender discourse, what is feminine) As described by the site coordinator Utami Setiyadi, most of the children in attendance are classified as coming from low-income households and are English Language Learners, Spanish being their first language. St. Elizabeth, directly across from a Catholic Church, sports a vibrant, colorful mural of diverse children while being surrounded by a closed, tall metal fence. St. Elizabeth is dedicated to preparing students to be “spiritually aware and lifelong learners”. Most students are in class from 7 AM to 6 PM, due to before and afterschool programs. As articulated by Bowles and Gintis (1976), schools are sites of social reproduction. Given the pervasiveness of societal gender norms, discourses among young children, with teachers and educational material contribute to students’ understanding of gender and how they enact their own. The socialization of gender within schools is highly relevant since children begin defining their femininities and masculinities in relation to one another at young ages. Moreover, the persistent and expansive disparities in academic success among young boys and girls, or the gender gap, pervades the educational system. Speaking to this phenomenon, author and educator Myra Sadker (1994) noted that “boys and girls receive very different educations” despite having the same teacher, classroom and textbooks. Research Questions Before introducing the questions that I wish to explore in this case study paper, I hope 2) How are students rewarded or punished for their adherence to conform towards dominant discourses around gender? Theoretical Framework James Paul Gee (1989) introduces the concept of ‘discourses’ as “socially accepted association[s] among ways of using language, of thinking, and of acting” often used “to identify oneself as a member of a socially meaningful group or ‘social network’” (p.3). Expanding upon these notions, Gee (1989) details his concept ‘identity kit’ as “instructions on how to act and talk so as to take on a particular role that others will recognize” (p.8). This theory is especially significant considering my interest in social discourses of gender and how instructors and peers use gender as a sorting mechanism. It is also vital to note that these students take part in various discourses, gender being one that often intersects with others. Additionally, Gee (1989) mentions that individuals often internalize dominant discourse, considering “historically and socially defined discourses speak to each other through individuals” (p.3). Thus, Gee (1989) illustrates that many aspects of children’s social discourses have been acquired. This is especially true of gendered discourses, as representations and enactments of gender have pervaded our Western society for hundreds of years. Acquired languages are “subconsciously” absorbed by young children through “exposure to models and a process of trial and error” in comparison to learning in which “conscious knowledge [is] gained through teaching” (Gee, to clarify the terminology. First, gender, like all social identities, is a social construct. Gender 1989, p.3). Although gender in schools is definitely acquired in subtle ways, authority figures norms arise from our relationships to other people and social interaction, influencing how we understand ourselves in relation to others . Importantly, this socialization may cause girls to be and students themselves often reward and punish others in their fulfillment (or lack thereof) of gender norms, which can be considered a form of learning and teaching. Overall, Gee (1989) conscious that society values them less than boys. This paper speaks to the specific and intentional ways, noted by academics (Chapman, 2015), in which children are categorized and ties discourse to “the distribution of social and hierarchical structure in society”, fostering the idea of ‘dominant discourses’ (p.3). The author notes that language is not neutral, but rather socialized in the schools. Teachers socialize girls towards a feminine ideal in which girls are praised for being neat, quiet, and calm, whereas boys are encouraged to think independently, carries an ideology and ways of seeing the world. Applying this to gender in the classroom, it is critical to note the ways in which conforming to gender stereotypes disempowers female be active and speak up (Chapman, 2015). This socialization occurs at the school level by students or feminine behavior for the benefit of patriarchy. tolerating different behaviors from boys than from girls (Reay, 2001). In addition to these interpersonal relations, it is vital to note that gender bias is also embedded in authority via textbooks, lessons and structural processes within schools. This paper will look at the Next, Sylvia Scribner relates very well to Gee and their theory of dominant discourse. Scribner (1984) discusses the metaphor of “literacy as power” (p.8). To elaborate, Scribner (1984) “emphasizes a relationship between literacy and group or community advancement” (p.11). This theory illustrates that literacy has historically been used to uphold “the hegemony vernacular (p.73). Bakhtin (1981) explains that language can be influenced by centripetal forces of centripetal, those that pull together, and centrifugal forces, those that pull apart (p.73). of elites and dominant classes” by serving as a gatekeeper to those disenfranchised from power These centrifugal forces create heteroglossia and when applying this thought to Scribner and (Scribner, 1984, p.11). Considering this expansion of Gee’s ideas about ‘dominant discourses’, it seems as if destabilizing dominant discourses of gender by breaking stereotypes and Gee, this paper envisions students’ challenges to dominant discourses and gender as a status quo as an act towards ‘heteroglossia’. expectations would confront this hegemony of power embodied by patriarchy. Moreover, Scribner (1984) also puts Freire in conversation with their own theory saying, literacy allows people to analyze “conditions of social existence and engage in effective action for a just society” and adding “not to be literate is a state of victimization” (p.12). Freire (1968) himself discusses ‘the oppressed’ as existing “inside the structure and then goes on to say that “the solution is not to ‘integrate’ them into the structure of oppression, but to transform that structure so that they can become ‘beings for themselves’” (p. 74). In this paper, I consider literacy to not only include the literacy in dominant discourses of gender, but literacy as critical consciousness in understanding the politicization of gender as a means of sorting people and valuing them differently upon the basis of gender. After all, Scribner (1984) discusses disempowerment as “inseparably intertwined with problems of access to knowledge and levels of literacy skills” (p.12). Students unarmed with the critical consciousness to unpack the social construction of gender may suffer as a result. Building off of the prior reference to Freire, Freire (1968) himself also discusses the “banking” education in which teaching students is merely the act of “receiving, filing, and storing the deposits”, which can be seen with how gender is enforced in classrooms (p.72). Lastly, Bakhtin’s (1981) concept of ‘authoritative discourse’ pairs well with Gee’s Study Background and Methods I served as a participant observer in the classroom, partaking in fieldwork on a weekly basis. I attended the combined 3rd and 4th grade class of about 18 students from 3-6 PM. I also worked closely with and observed Marianna, the main instructor, and Rika, a teacher’s assistant. This was a partially consistent block that a portion of students from St. Elizabeth enrolled in the 21st Century Program would partake in. I was formally engaged in tutoring, homework assistance and supervision at the playground during recess sessions. For instance, I listened to students and engaged in conversations with them while helping them with their homework or playing games with them during recess. I recorded field notes approximately 1-2 hours after leaving my fieldsite. I would reflect on these observations and how they connect to academic theory; this enabled me to engage in some degree of praxis, critically reflecting and accordingly altering my practice and interactions with students. Analysis and Results Although interactions among students and teachers often overlapped, I will focus on the roles of authority and peers in somewhat isolation. First, Marianna and Rika often instructed ‘dominant discourse’. This authoritative discourse is imposed upon us and taken as ‘truth’. Bakhtin notes that a listener must incorporate external words into one’s own language. Bakhtin students on classwork and general classroom norms. Overall, these authority figures formalized and normalized differences in gender among the 3rd and 4th grade class in their speech and (1981) mentions that “every conversation is full of transmissions and interpretations of other actions. When speaking to students, the instructors would refer to students according to people’s words” (p.77). In this sense, Bakhtin’s (1981) concept of “ideological becoming” involves the idea that discourses impart authority over how a language is manifested and gender-specific pronouns. Marianna would also have students line up according to gender: utilized (p.78). Bakhtin (1981) envisions that these discourses could be remade into one’s own language through the process of ideological becoming. To Bakhtin (1981), the use of language illustrates the “very bases of our ideological interrelations with the world, the very basis of our behavior” (p.78). As with gendered discourses, the word choices and speech execution of an individual, demonstrates both their own ideology and perceptions, but also the historical legacy of gender in our society. Consequently, the discourse used often in relation to gender contributes to what Bakhtin (1981) calls the larger “unitary language” (p.73). On other hand, Bakhtin (1981) also describes ‘heteroglossia’ as a multiplicity of languages and diversity in Marianna called out for Doris and Jilady. “Doris, Jilady, Migel! Get in line,” she said. “We a re in line,” Jilady answered. “No. You’re not. You’re in the boys’ line. Get in the girls’ line.” The girls moved to the other line and Marianna said the children could exist the room (field note 6, week 11). With every instance of segregating the seating and lining up of students on the basis of gender, the instructors are affirming the idea that girls and boys should be treated differently. These practices also illustrate Freire’s concept of banking and the exercise of power as discussed by Gee and Scribner. M oreover, like all educators, Marianna and Rika not only react to student behavior, but selectively choose when to react, who to react towards and choose whether to carry out condemnation or praise in response. Through my observations in the classroom, I week 11). Here, a teaching assistant attempted to obstruct the physical dominance of the boys by attempting to ensure the girls were equitably represented in the game. This is considered a noticed that when children engaged in what can be considered as loud and disruptive behavior, disruption, and contributive towards h eteroglossia, because female students often do not play despite the participation by both sexes, Marianna would punatively react to female students and would not react to male students: w ith boys in the same basketball game and are often not associated with sports or competitive physical play, yet are enticed to do both. Ivan pushed Max to the ground until he was able to lay on Max. Jaden ran over, leaned down next to them and counted down. “You’re out, Max!” he announced. While I was witnessing them, I saw Rika watching the boys, laughing (field note 6, week 12). Furthermore, students themselves often enacted and embodied societal expectations of behavior according to their presumed gender, enacting Gee’s concept of ‘identity kits’. Students Here, boys are enabled to engage in disruptive, rowdy behavior on the playground. Juxtaposing this instance of when Isabella was reprimanded for insulting Carmen, it seems that aggressive behavior cannot be tolerated by female students in the same way it was tolerated for this illustrated their fluency in the dominant discourse of gender ideas to me on a frequent basis. Most of the female students partook in an online game, MovieStarPlanet, when they were in the computer room: group of boys (field note 7, week 13). With the approval laughing of Rika, this authority figure “What hairstyle do you want, Jada?” asked Elizabeth. Jada looked at the screen and then moved her mouse to click on a long, curly red wig (field note 2, week 2). normalizes this behavior by male children and even provides positive affirmation for their fulfilment of societal expectations. In another example, Marianna instructed the entire class to In this game, students dressed up a cartoon doll by choosing from dresses, skirts and shorts as create a drawing from the perspective of an insect, making students think about this new framework for proportions and dimensions. Jilady drew a lady bug characterized by Marianna as “disproportionate” and, therefore, “wrong” (field note 4,week 9). She was ordered to alter outfits as well as a series of different hairstyles. Additionally, students spoke about their perceptions of gender as well. “Some girls get boys’ haircuts,” Gaby once said to me (field note 6, week 11). She noted the distinction in gender — some physical appearances are for t his her drawing to the approval of Marianna. Yet, Max spent most of the class aimlessly complaining about the assignment while refusing to complete or even start a drawing: group and some are for the o ther. Moreover, students’ understanding of gender is so ingrained that when I asked Gaby why that perception of haircuts exists, she answered, “Because…” (field Marianna said to him, “You can draw a ladybug”. “No way,” Max said. “I can’t draw a ladybug. Ladybugs are for ladies” (Field note 4, week 9). gracious about joining playground games or asking for help with homework than male students. In many of my experiences and as mentioned previously, boys would enter into a basketball In this example, it is apparent that Max draws a gendered distinction of what is considered an appropriate drawing based on dominant ideas of gender. Yet, by not challenging this statement, Marianna sanctions his ideals of gender. Moreover, by essentially excusing Max from completing this assignment, Max faces no punishment for refusing to participate whereas Jilady is punished for a lack of following the rules even though she, at least, attempted a drawing. W hen different behaviors are tolerated for boys in comparison to girls within the mentality of b oys will be boys, educators are, in effect, perpetuating the oppression of female students. On the other hand, authority figures at St. Elizabeth also attempted to disrupt dominant discourses of gender. For instance, when a few boys took over a previously girls’ game of basketball, “Rika came by and tried to encourage students to pass to each other” (field note 6, note 6, week 11). In another example, I noticed that female students were more cautious and game suddenly and without asking, whereas girls often hesitated more often: Ashley looked to me and said in a low voice, “That’s our volleyball. I want to play.” I answered, “Go ahead and ask if you can have the ball back for recess.” Ashley looked at them and then back towards me. “No! I can’t I’m shy. You ask for me!” she smiled and tugged by hand towards their direction (field note 6, week 11). In this instance, Ashley embodies societal expectations of young girls as docile and polite. This specific example is largely reflective of typical interactions I would witness in my time at St. Elizabeth of most female students in the 3rd and 4th grade class. Yet, beyond these examples of individual actions and internalized beliefs, among their peers, students often policed one another: “Look, they’re playing knockout.” Ashley pointed towards a group of boys from her class at a few courts over. “Wow, why don’t you join them?” I asked the group. “No! We can play with ourselves,” Ashley answered (Field note 6, week 11). Students engaged in segregated games of basketball on a daily basis and often encouraged one another to say separated. Moreover, if a student did not conform to gender expectations, they would be targeted and reprimanded by their peers: “Sometimes they point at my shoes and say ‘What’re those?’ Now I just say, ‘They’re black shoes. What about them?’ (field note 7, week 13). Because Carmen’s shoes were perceived by her peers as old-fashioned, strange-looking shoes, students would constantly ask her about her shoes and foster self-consciousness within her. Perhaps because Carmen is a female student that her physical appearance weighs so heavily in accordance with her social capital at school. Still, students also often challenged one another on dominant discourses of gender, contributing to h eteroglossia. One day, Jaden and Max smacked their hands at one another, flailing around (field note 6, week 12). “Look we’re fighting like girls,” Max said to Jaden. I interpret their actions as degrading, mocking their internalized ideas about female passivity and weakness. However, Gaby engages in the disruption of this enaction of dominant discourse: “Oh my god, not even! That’s not how girls fight,” she said to them. Then, she turned to Miriam, who was also sitting at the table, and said, “You know, girls fight a lot more harder than guys. Sometimes they go like this…” Gaby motioned with her hands a backhand slap. All of the children started laughing (field note 6, week 12). Here, Gaby turns a dominant idea of gender on its head and enacts a counter-vision of females as tough and physically skillful. She seems to even gain affirmation from her peers with their consequential laughs and smiles. In yet another example, students often challenged dominant notions of gender with their actions and body language. In one stance, “Miriam and Miguel continuously made shots one after another, knocking the other one out only to be knocked out by the next shot” (field note 6, week 12). This example shows equal basketball skills by both sexes, disrupting expectations of physical difference based on gender. Finally, there are numerous factors and processes within St. Elizabeth that influence interpersonal relations among students and educators, forcing students to l earn, as termed by Gee, ideas about gender. I would consider these aspects of the school as an aspect of authority, comparable to teachers’ speech and behaviors, since they are regulated formalities and upheld by those in power. To begin, the dress code at St. Elizabeth includes skirts, shirts and sweaters for girls and long pants and shirts for boys. This practice also sanctions differing treatment for students on the basis of gender and normalizes these distinctions by having separate uniforms serving as a subtle, yet daily difference in how students are physically represented towards one another. Separate bathrooms for boys and girls have the same effect in the everyday habits of these children. Findings, Limitations and Future Research All in all, both peers and authority figures at St. Elizabeth embodied ideas of status quo ideas about gender and enacted in ways that upheld different expectations for boys and girls. This establishment of a difference, although not always directly heinous, inherently introduces inequality in the classroom. Most often, female students were weakened and disempowered by this set of expectations. By being confined to personify polite behavior and feminine physical appearances, girls were not able to engage in “rowdy”, loud or assertive behavior in the classroom without receiving backlash. Boys were taunted for fighting like a girl, implying being like a girl is lesser. All students were reprimanded in some way for stepping outside of their gender category. As with all ethnographic research, I acknowledge that there are numerous limitations to this study that will affect the ways in which my research question was posed, how I conducted observations and how I analyzed my data. First, by participating and observing classroom dynamics, I influenced interactions among children with my presence. Moreover, the sample size of about 18 students is too small to make broad, sweeping conclusions and often doesn’t take into account more diverse communities. Also, attendance by each student a part of the program varied weekly. My analysis and data depended greatly on who I talked to, who was comfortable talking to me. This leaves out the numerous voices and potential interactions. Another limitation is the time constraint. I only spent time with these students about 3 hours once a week, which is arguably not enough time to fully understand their relations and interactions holistically. Next, given that I documented my field notes up to two hours after leaving my field site and did not record notes while observing, I may have forgotten events and details. Also, given that I am only one person viewing these events through my specific lens, I have only captured one slice of the events. There are a myriad of occurrences and interpretations that are left out of this case study because they were out of my scope. Clearly, this data and my research process are not “objective”. I also was not able to account for the numerous compounding factors that influence the ways in which these students would interact with one another, with various discourses overlapping. It was difficult at times to tell which aspects of an interaction relate to gender as opposed to race, especially since there are inseparable considering intersectionality. Some recommendations I envision based off of these results include the creation of anti-oppression training for educators and changes in curriculum, school set-up and processes as well as an overall paradigm shift needed to address structural heterosexualism. Future References and Appendices Bakhtin, M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination. Texas: University of Texas. Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in Capitalist America. American Sociological Association, (75)1, 1-18. Chapman, A. (2015). Gender Bias in Education. Retrieved May 8, 2016, from http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/papers/genderbias.html research should include addressing these questions: H ow do gender binaries intersect with race and class? What are meaningful ways educators and authority figures can intervene in Gee, J . (1989). What is Literacy. Journal of Education, 171, 18-25. dominant discourses of gender? Freire, P. (1968). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Writers and Readers Publishing Cooperative. Reay, D. (2001). ‘Spice girls’, ‘Nice Girls’, ‘Girlies’, and ‘Tomboys”; gender discourses. Girls’ cultures and femininities in the primary classroom. G ender and Education, 13(2), 153-167. Sadker, D., Sadker, M. (1994). Failing at Fairness: How Our Schools Cheat Girls. Toronto, ON: Simon & Schuster Inc. Scribner, S. (1984). Literacy in 3 Metaphors. A merican Journal in Education, (93)1, 6-21. Tate 14 Tate 15 Field Note Meta-data Date: April 11, 2016 Time: 3:00-6:00 PM Location: St. Elizabeth (Oakland, CA) Interactions: 3rd and 4th grade students and teacher (Marianna) Activities: tutoring, playground supervision General Observations On this day, Marianna was a bit late to arriving at St. Elizabeth. Another volunteer from another school, Rika, was there. Together, we led the students to the 3rd and 4th grade classroom. We waited in a line until Marianna arrived — students ate their snacks (mini pizzas) and talked amongst themselves. After she opened the door, the children entered the classroom and began to work on their homework. The students were ​called 1 up, one by one ​, by Marianna to sign in for the day. In the middle of this process, Marianna announced that they would have to ​start the signup over again 2​ because the students made a mess of the signup sheet with their pizza-stained hands. Jilady, a 4th grader, said​ saying loudly, “Writing is cursive is hard enough and now you’re making me do it ​again​. For no reason!”3​ Marianna called each student up again, ​one by one4 ​, and they proceeded to sign their names. After, Marianna wrote a series of phrases on the board in cursive and told the 3rd graders to practice. She said she would ​check their papers and if they were not up to her standard, she would make them redo the exercise 5 . The 3rd grade students spent about 10 minutes writing these phrases and checking them with Marianna. Meanwhile, Rika and myself walked around the room to help the 4th graders with their homework. They had one page of grammar homework that dealt with verbs in the past tense and one page of math homework that dealt with fractions. We helped students for approximately 30 minutes and then Marianna announced that those finished with their homework could go outside for recess6​. The children began to line up and talked amongst themselves. Marianna called out for Doris and Jilady. “Doris, Jilady, Migel! ​Get in line 7​,” she said. “​We ​are​ in line,”8 Jilady answered​. “No. You’re ​not​. You’re in the boys’ line. Get in the girls’ line.” The girls moved to the other line and 1 Classroom practices and instruction: foster conformity 2 Instances of defiance punished 3 Practices of defiance 4 ​Classroom practices and instruction: foster conformity 5 ​Classroom practices and instruction: foster conformity 6 Instances of conformity rewarded 7 ​ Instances of defiance punished 8 Practices of defiance Marianna said the children could exist the room9​. I spent the rest of the time playing volleyball and then basketball with a few of the 3rd and fourth graders. Detailed Interaction Once Marianna ​announced the lines were to her satisfaction and let the children leave for reces​s10, I stood at the door and led the children outside. Nicole and Gaby (fourth graders) asked me why I cut my hair. I thought to myself ​I cut my hair at the very beginning of the semester; I wonder why they’re asking me now​. “I just wanted it to be shorter. It’s easier to take showers!” I told them. ​“Some girls get boys’ haircuts​,” Gaby said. She paused for a moment. “Maybe not you, but Rika. ​Her hair was looooooong, but now she has a boy’s haircut11 ​,” Gaby continued as she motioned with her hands down to her knees to illustrate how long Rika’s hair formerly was. “What do you mean a boy’s haircut? Why is short hair a boy’s haircut?” I asked them. “​Because that’s how boys wear their hair,” Gaby giggled12​. She ran off towards the playground. Ashley, a 3rd grader, called my name soon after. She looked at a group of 5th graders sitting in the circle in the shade; they were passing around a pink volleyball. Ashley looked to me and said in a low voice, “That’s our volleyball. I want to play.” I answered, “Go ahead and ask if you can have the ball back for recess.” Ashley looked at them and then back towards me. “​No! I can’t I’m shy.13​ ​You ask for me14 ​!” she smiled and tugged by hand towards their direction. I went up to them. “Hi, are you still using that volleyball or can they play with it during recess?” They rolled the ball towards me, “Yeah, we’re done with it.” I passed the ball to Ashley and Nicole. ​“Let’s play volleyball15 ,​” Ashley said to Nicole loudly with a large smile on her face. I walked towards them and we formed a triangle, serving the volleyball to one another as if there were invisible nets in between us. Soon, Maribel, a 4th grader, ran up to us. She joined our game and we continued to play for about 15 more minutes. Then, Maribel took the volleyball and dribbled it towards the basketball court; the other girls chased her and I followed. ​She shot the volleyball towards the hoop and it bounced off the rim. “Yay! Let’s do basketball16 ,​” a few of them shouted. A few other children, Gaby and Auto, who were standing nearby joined us. We divided up into two teams and began playing basketball. We played for about 10 minutes; the children dribbled the ball and passed to one 9 Practices of conformity rewarded Practices of conformity rewarded 10 ​11 Gender norms reinforced: among peers 12 ​Gender norms reinforced: among peers 13​ Gender norms reinforced: among peers​Gender norms challenged: by authority 14​Gender norms challenged: by peers 15 16​Gender norms challenged: by peers Tate 16 another, but no one had made a shot. Then, Max, Migel and Jaden, fourth graders, joined us. We had an uneven number of students at that point and a few students stated that this was unfair. I said I would leave the team to make it even and the children proceeded to play. The ​new players began making shots repeatedly and did not engage in passing as much as the students had prior to them joining.17 ​ ​“Let’s keep passing the ball so everyone can play,18 ​” I announced a few times during their game. A few of the 3rd graders congregated in the corner of the court and began ​saying that the 4th grade boys were better than them and scoring too much19 ​. Rika came by and tried to encourage the students to pass to each other also, but by then a lot of students began leaving the court one by one. Question How do the students challenge gender norms amongst one another? How do figures of authority disrupt or reinforce these norms? Reflection To begin with, I felt that today’s classroom experience felt as if tensions were high. The children seemed ​very hyper in regards to how loud they were talking in the classroom20 ​. Marianna seemed to be affected by this also as​ she seemed to get fed up 21​with how they signed the signup sheet and also imposed harsher rules than usual on their behavior. The students, to my knowledge, ​have never lined up by gender prior to today22 ​. They usually line up, mixed together, not in a single-file line, but in a more scattered orientation. It seemed as if the children had unconsciously ended up in lines that were mostly gender segregated today and ​Marianna normalized this orientation by calling them the “girls’ line” and the “boys’ line”,23 ​ setting up a standard that had to be met by the students that had not conformed to this. Moreover, I was honestly surprised by how often gender had come up in today’s field experience. Usually, I will notice one or two comments, but it definitely appeared to be a large theme today. It is still difficult for me to push on students to explain or think critically about their statements. I would be interested in how they articulate these ideas, but they often seem to resort to explaining their ideas as ​that’s just the way Tate 17 things are24 ​. This is telling in itself, but I hope to gain a more personal and in-depth answers from students in my next field visits. Lastly, I picked up on how gender is connected to power dynamics (Scribner) today in how the children behaved among one another. For instance, ​Ashley was very shy about asking older girls to use her own classroom’s volleybal​l25 . However, I am wondering if this is more about the fact that the students were older than her rather than the fact that she is socialized to be more passive as a female. This tension has proven to me that there are many layers to gender and it will be difficult to separate it from other aspects. Ashley’s example could be a result of the compounding factors of her being timid around ​older students26 ​ ​and​ because she is trained to be more passive as a young girl in our society. In another instance, it was very interesting to see how much the basketball game had changed after boys joined the game. ​It had become much more aggressive, individualized and active27 ​. Although I want to challenge these power dynamics, because these children are so young, I find it difficult to bring these dynamics to their attention in a meaningful way. On the other hand, ​Jilady began to slap Max and he expressed that he wished to be on the same team as her to avoid being singled out by her28 ​. This instance contradicted the gendered norm set within this class. Yet, this is clearly not a positive contradiction. I tried to mediate the situation by proclaiming that all students should keep their hands to themselves. This made me think about how I can mediate these interactions in the future. Should I have mentioned that the ​boys should pass to the girls more in the basketball game29 ​or should I have said ​all students should be passing to one another30 ​. Clearly there was a ​gendered orientation to how the game was being played31 ​, which is why it seems important to highlight that aspect, but it also seems to reinforce these stereotypes. Image 17 Gender norms reinforced: among peers​18 Gender norms challenged: by authority 24 19 Gender norms reinforced: among peers 25 20 Practices of defiance 26 21 Instances of defiance being punished 27 22 Gender norms reinforced: among peers 28 23 Gender norms reinforced: by authority 29​​​​​30 31​ Gender norms reinforced: among peers​ Gender norms reinforced: among peers Gender norms reinforced by authority (older kids)​​ Gender norms reinforced: among peers Gender norms challenged: by peers​​ Gender norms reinforced: among peers​Gender norms challenged: by authority​ Gender norms reinforced: among peers Tate 18 This image is interesting to me because this illustrates a gender dynamic within a game of tug-of-war in which ​fewer boys take on a greater number of girls32 ​. Not only is this, to begin with, an interesting choice of teams to choose to depict a game of tug-of-war, but the choice of ​clothing33 ​ on each individual according to gender is also very telling. The girls are wearing very feminine clothing items. These images are clearly projected in society and influence how children will engage in sports, as I have noticed at St. Elizabeth’s. Coding Categories CONFORMITY → ​classroom practices and instruction​ instances of conformity rewarded DEFIANCE/CHALLENGE TO POWER STRUCTURES → ​practices of defiance​ instances of defiance punished GENDER NORMS → reinforced among peers by authority societal pressures challenged among peers among authority 32 Gender norms reinforced: societal pressures​33 Gender norms reinforced: societal pressures​. Am r·can ·__Edu a.t~o al ·._Re ea · Multimodality and Literacy in School Classrooms Author(s): Carey Jewitt Reviewed work(s): Source: Review of Research in Education, Vol. 32, What Counts as Knowledge in Educational Settings: Disciplinary Knowledge, Assessment, and Curriculum (2008), pp. 241-267 Published by: American Educational Research Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20185117 . Accessed: 22/11/2012 21:09 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. . American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Review of Research in Education. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.232 on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 21:09:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Chapter 7 Multimodality and Literacy in School Classrooms CAREY}EWITI Instituteof Education,Universityof London T he characteristics of contemporary societies are increasingly theorized as global, fluid (Bauman, 1998), and networked (Castells, 2001). These conditions underpin the emerging knowledge economy as it is shaped by the societal and technological forces oflate capitalism. These shifts and developments have significantly affected the commu­ nicational landscape of the 21st century. A key aspect of this is the reconfiguration of the representational and communicational resources of image, action, sound, and so on in new multimodal ensembles. The terrain of communication is changing in pro­ found ways and extends to schools and ubiquitous elements of everyday life, even if these changes are occurring to different degrees and at uneven rates (A. Luke & Car­ rington, 2002) . It is against this backdrop that this critical review explores school mul­ timodaliry and literacy and asks what these changes mean for being literate in this new landscape of the 21st century. The two key arguments here are that it is not possibleto think about literacy solely as a linguistic accomplishment and that the time for the habitual con­ junction of!anguage, print literacy, and learning is over. As Kress (2003) writes, It is no longer possible to think about literacy in isolation from a vast array of social, technological and eco­ nomic factors. Two distinct yet related factors deserve to be particularly highlighted. These are, on the one hand, the broad move from the now centuries long dominance of writing to the new dominance of the image and, on the other hand , the move from the dominance of the medium of the book to the dominance of the medium of the screen. These two together are producing a revolution in the uses and effects of literacy and of associated means for representing and communicating at every level and in every domain . (p. I) My claim here is that how knowledge is represented, as well as the mode and media chosen, is a crucial aspect of knowledge construction, making the form of representation integral to meaning and learning more generally. That is, the ways in which something is represented shape both whatis to be learned, that is, the curriculum content, and how it is to be learned. It follows, then, that to better understand learning and teaching in the multimodal environment of the contemporary classroom, it is essential to explore the Reviewof Researchin Education February 2008, Vol. 32, pp. 241-267 DOI: 10.3102/0091732X07310586 © 2008 AERA. http:/ /rre .aera.net 241 This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.232 on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 21:09:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 242 Review of Research in Education, 32 ways in which representations in all modes feature in the classroom. The focus here, then , is on multimodality on the representations and the learning potentials of teach­ ing materials and the ways in which teachers and students activate these through their interaction in the classroom. This review, organized in three parts, does not provide an exhaustive overview of multimodal literacies in and beyond classrooms. Instead, it sets out to highlight key def­ initions in an expanded approach to new literacies, then to link these to emergent stud­ ies of schooling and classroom practice. The first part outlines the new conditions for literacy and the ways in which this is conceptualized in the current research literature. In particular, it introduces three perspectives: New Literacies Studies, multiliteracies, and multimodality . Contemporary conceptualizations of literacy in the school class­ room are explored in the second part of the chapter. This discussion is organized around themes that are central to multimodality and multiliteracies. These include multimodal perspectives on pedagogy, design, decisions about connecting with the literacy worlds of students, and the ways in which representations shape curriculum knowledge and learn­ ing. Each of these themes is discussed in turn, drawing on a range of examples of mul­ timodal research. The third and final part of the chapter discusses future directions for multiple literacies, curriculum policy, and schooling. My focus here is primarily on the school classroom as a site of literacy and learning. Discussion of out-of-school literacies, in particular, how technologies are remaking the boundaries between sites such as home and school, is an intensive focus of current work (Lam, 2006; Lankshear, Peters, & Knobel, 2002; Leander, 2001, 2007; Marsh, 2003; Pahl, 1999; Sefton-Green, 2006) . This work demonstrates how learning traverses insti­ tutional boundaries, seeping across and at times collapsing the boundaries between in­ school and out-of-school literacies (Leander, 2001). Indeed, the trajectories of students, teachers, and knowledge across and between these spaces are not only physical, but they are also social, emotional, and cognitive (Nespor, 1994). Sefton-Green’s (2006) Review of Researchin Educationreview of how current media debates frame children’s interac­ tions with media as pedagogic argues that interest in children’s media culture opens wider notions of learning beyond education and school systems. In that same volume, Lam (2006) examines how learning and teaching take place in new digital landscapes and other translocal contexts as a way of understanding the opportunities and challenges of the contemporary era. Both pieces argue that the contemporary conditions of communi­ cation and digital technologies create the movement of images and ideas across geograph­ ical and social spaces in ways that affect how young people learn and interact. I begin by focusing on the new conditions of literacy and how these have affected contemporary conceptualizations of literacy and learning. Key terms and ideas asso­ ciated with multiliteracies and multimodality are introduced and outlined to provide a theoretical backdrop and context to the discussion of multiple literacies. NEW CONDITIONS AND CONCEPTUALIZATIONS FOR LITERACY The concept of multiple literacies has emerged in response to the theorizations of the new conditions of contemporary society. This can be broadly characterized by This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.232 on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 21:09:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Jewitt: Multimodality and Literacy 243 a number of factors, including the accelerated transnational flows of people as well as information , ideology, and materials in contexts in which knowledge is highly situated, rapidly changing, and more diverse than ever before (Appadurai, 1990; Kalantzis, Cope , & Harvey, 2003). Alongside this, the representational and communicational environ­ ment is also changing in highly significant ways that can be described as a shift from print as the primary medium of dissemination toward digital media (Boulter, 1999; Kress, 2003). Against this backdrop, writing as the dominant mode is increasingly brought into new textual relationships with, or even exchanged for, visual and multi­ modal forms of representation (Bachmair, 2006). In consequence, new relationships between production and dissemination are made possible across a range of media and technologies, remaking the condit ions and functions of authorship and audience (Adkins, 2005; Lury, 1993). ln scientific endeavor, new digitalized workplaces, and new culture industries, disciplinary boundaries and expertise are increasingly blurred, refor­ mulated , or collapsed in ways that open up new configurations and types of texts. The potential impact of new social and material conditions on communication and education is profound. They allow for new possibilities and constraints for representa­ tion and communication. They also place emergent demands on the communicative repertoires of people to participate in the global economy as well as on the construc­ tion of knowledge and the performativity of self in face-to-face, local, and virtual contexts (Bauman , 1998; Beck, 1992; Butler, 1990; Leander & Wells Rowe, 2006). Hence, multimodal representation and globalization are close companions, providing new foundations for processes of remixing and remaking genres and modal resources in ways that produce new forms of global and commercial processes. These in turn are constantly personalized, appropriated, and remade in local workplaces, communities , and institutions . These multimodal processes and their global scale and impact on local situated lit­ eracies are exemplified by a recent ethnographic study on the ascendancy of the Nike Swoosh as a global cultural icon. Bick and Chiper (2007) examined how the Nike Swoosh performs in the cultural contexts of two cities in Romania and Haiti, cities and countries that sit on the fringes of global capitalism. The Nike global trademark has been appropriated, transformed, and remade locally in Romania and Haiti in ways that express people’s identities across numerous places-from logos on jackets and trucks to inscriptions on tombstones . This process of remaking happens across different scales and sites. Pahl’s (2003) U .K. ethnographic study of three 5- to ?-year-old boys exam­ ines how meanings are constructed in multimodal texts made in the home. She demonstrates how young children consume and appropriate Pokemon and Yugio char­ acters across television, film, and game cards, making and remaking features in their own cards and activities. Buckingham and Sefton-Green ‘s (2004) study of Pokemon shows how theories oflearning and multimodal meaning making can be applied to the relationship between media and user. These studies suggest that the conditions for available resources and designs are dynamic, with distributed tools for transforming and (re)distributing these resources and designs in development and transition (lAander, 2007). Taken together, this work This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.232 on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 21:09:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 244 Review of Research in Education, 32 highlights the changing requirements of communication, literacy, and knowledge econ­ omy of the 21st century. The implications for the educational system differ significantly from those of the nation-bound industrial economies of the recent past, with the indus­ trial-print nexus continuing to dominate literacy policy and practice in schools (Gee, 2004; Gee, Hull, & Lankshear, 1996; A. Luke & Woods, in press). Against this chang­ ing communicational landscape, which can be typified by diversity and plurality, the dominant view of literacy as a universal, autonomous, and monolithic entiry is at best dated and in need of reconsideration. Literacy to Literacies Literacy is increasingly pluralized and multiplied in educational discourses. It is, however, important to note that literacy studies has a long history of attending to the visual character of some scripts and symbol systems. Furthermore, the fields of New Lit­ eracies Studies (hereafrer, NLS), multiliteracies, and multimodality each build on a range of traditions, disciplines, and histories. These include critical literacy and dis­ course studies (Fairclough, 1992; Foucault, 1980; Lankshear & McLaren, 1993; A. Luke, 1996; Street, 1995), genre studies based on systemic functional linguistics (Cope & Kalantzis, 1993; Freedman & Medway, 1994a, 1994b), gender studies (Cranny-Francis, 1993), and critical cultural studies (Hall, 1997). Nonetheless, within this broader picture, NLS has been central in the theorization of the complexity of literacies as historically, socially, and culturally situated practice (Barton, Hamilton, & lvanic, 2000; Street, 1998). Key to this attempt to rethink liter­ acy is the analytical focus of NLS on literacy events and literacy practices with texts in people’s everyday lives and the bid to document emergent literacies across different local contexts. This marks a shift in focus from the idea of literacy as an autonomous neutral set of skills or competencies that people acquire through schooling and can deploy uni­ versally to a view ofliteracies as local and situated. This shift underlines the variable ide­ ological character of school literacy practices, that is, how the official institutional construction of literacy may or may not dovetail with emergent practices in homes and communities. Furthermore, this perspective enables an analysis of how the social prac­ tices of literacy in schools realize social structures through the formation of specific power relations, forms of knowledge, and identities (A. Luke & Carrington, 2002) . Within NLS, there is increasing recognition of the complex interaction between local and global literacies (Brant & Clinton , 2006). For example, Marsh’s (2003, 2005) ethnographic studies on new technologies and the literacy practices of nursery school children (ages 2.5 to 4 years) describe how global discourses of Disney mediate chil­ dren’s everyday literacy practices. Marsh mapped children’s mediascapes and patterns in media use through interviews, literacy diaries during a month period, questionnaires, and home observation with 62 families. She concludes that global media has a funda­ mental role in very young children’s identity formation and construction of them­ selves as literate. This and other studies highlight the need to be sensitive to how children’s literacy practices traverse physical and virtual spaces (Alvermann, Hagood, & Williams, 2001; Leander, 2007; Pahl, 1999). The empirical description of This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.232 on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 21:09:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Jewitt: Multimodality and Literacy 245 children’s and adolescents’ new mediascapes is essential to understanding how they negotiate social identity in relation to the economies and cultures of late modernity. Multiliteracies The term multiliteracieswas introduced to educational researchers by the New London Group (1996). In this key position paper, a team ofleading literacy educa­ tors called for literacy pedagogy to respond to the changing social conditions of global capitalism, in particular, the new demands it places on the workforce. The multiliteracies model highlights two interconnected changes in the communicational landscape that impinge on what it means to be literate. These are the increasing sig­ nificance of cultural and linguistic diversity in a global economy and the complexity of texts with respect to nonlinguistic, multimodal forms of representation and com­ munication, particularly, but not limited to, those affiliated with new technologies. Multiliteracies has evolved into an international pedagogic agenda for the redesign of the educational and social landscape. To this end, multiliteracies sets out to stretch literacy beyond the constraints of official standard forms of written and spoken lan­ guage to connect with the culturally and linguistically diverse landscapes and the multimodal texts that are mobilized and circulate across these landscapes. Therefore, multiliteracies can be seen simultaneously as a response to the remaking of the boundaries of literacy through current conditions of globalization and as a political and social theory for the redesign of the curriculum agenda. It is an educational agenda that calls for the redrawing of the boundaries and relationships between the textual environments toward the ideological purposes of the design of new egalitar­ ian and cosmopolitan social futures (A. Luke & Carrington, 2002). Although sharing many of the assumptions of NLS, multiliteracies has at its center the idea of a social and culturally responsive curriculum. It is informed by political ped­ agogies ofliteracy, including Paulo Freire and Donaldo Macedo’s (1987) construction of literacy as “reading the word and reading the world,” Australian approaches to the teaching of writing as genre (Cope & Kalantzis, 1993), and critical literacy and peda­ gogy models. The transformative agenda of multiple literacies sets out to redesign the social futures of young people across boundaries of difference. With this explicit agenda for social change, the pedagogic aim of multiliteracies is to attend to the multiple and multimodal texts and wide range of literacy practices that students are engaged with. It therefore questions the traditional monologic relationship between teacher and student, setting out to make the classroom walls more porous and to take the students’ experi­ ences, interests, and existing technological and discourse resources as a starting point. From this perspective, the social and political goal of multiliteracies is to situate teach­ ers and students as active participants in social change, the active designers of social futures (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000). Overall, multiliteracies pedagogy can be described as developing models of effectivecritical engagement with student values, identity, power, and design. I return to illustrations of this agenda later in this chapter. Yet even in its plural form, this and other emergent approaches to literacy continue to be strongly focused on competencies and written lettered representation (Kress, This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.232 on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 21:09:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 246 Review of Research in Education, 32 1997; Marsh, 2005). In what follows, I turn to focus on literacies that move beyond the cognitive and analytic processes of written and spoken language. Multimodality Multimodality (Kress, Jewitt, Ogborn, & Tsatsarelis, 2001; Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001), like multiliteracies, has emerged in response to the changing social and semiotic landscape. Key to multimodal perspectives on literacy is the basic assumption that mean­ ings are made (as well as distributed, interpreted, and remade) through many representa­ tional and communicational resources, of which language is but one (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001). This and other aspects of multimodal theory are outlined by Kress and Multimodality attends to meaning as it is van Leeuwen’s (2001) MultimodalDiscourse. made through the situated configurations across image, gesture, gaze,body posture, sound, writing, music, speech, and so on. From a multimodal perspective, image, action, and so fotth are referred to as modes,as organized sets of semiotic resources for meaning making. To some extent, multimodality can be described as an eclectic approach, although it is primarily informed by linguistic theories, in particular, the work of Halliday’ s ( 1978) social semiotic theory of communication and developments of that theory (Hodge & Kress, 1988). Multimodality has developed in different ways in the decade since its inception around 1996. Although a linguistic model was seen as wholly adequate for some to investigate all modes, others set out to expand and reevaluate this realm of ref­ erence, drawing on other approaches (e.g., film theory, musicology, game theory). Mul­ timodality thus extends past the traditional psychological and linguistic foundations of print literacy to draw from anthropological, sociological, and discourse theory (specifi­ cally, the work ofBarthes, 1993; Bateson, 1977; Foucault, 1991; Goffman, 1979; and Malinowski, 2006; among others). In addition, the influence of cognitive and sociocul­ tural research on multimodality is also present, particularly, Arnheim’s (1969) models of visual communication and perception. From decades of classroom language research, much is known about the semiotic resources of language; however, considerably less is understood about the semiotic potentials of gesture, sound, image, movement, and other forms of representation. A number of detailed studies on specific modes have helped begin to describe these semi­ otic resources, their material affordances, organizing principles, and cultural referents. Alongside Kress and van Leeuwen’ s ( 1996) work on images, other key works that con­ tribute to an evolving “inventory” of semiotic modal resources include van Leeuwen’s (1999) work on the materiality of the resources of sound (e.g., pitch, volume, breath­ ing, rhythm, and so on). Martinec’s (2000) work focuses on movement and gesture. With a focus on writing as a multisemiotic resource, Kenner’ s (2004) ethnographic case studies show how young bilingual learners (Spanish, Chinese, and Arabic) use directionality, spatiality, and graphic marks to realize meaning and express identities. From this work, we know that people draw on their available modal resources to make meaning in specific contexts. Furthermore, the resources come to display reg­ ularities through everyday patterns of use. The more a set of resources has been used in the social life of a particular communiry, the more fully and finely articulated its This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.232 on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 21:09:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Jewitt: Multimodality and Literacy 247 regularities and patterns become. Consequently, any given mode is contingent on fluid and dynamic resources of meaning, rather than static skill replication and use. These modes are constantly transformed by their users in response to the communicative needs of communities, institutions, and societies: New modes are created, and existing modes are transformed. Flewitt’s (2006) multimodal study of preschool classroom interaction demonstrates the strong link between the communicative demands of a context and the modes in use. Flewitt’s research draws on data from ethnographic video case studies of young children communicating at home and in a preschool play­ group. By focusing on all modes of communication (talk, gesture, movement, gaze, and so on), she is able to scrutinize young children’s multifi.mctional uses of different modalities in meaning making. Hewitt’s “analysis of children’s uses of different semi­ otic modes as intentional, socially organized activity in the construction of meaning” argues against “pathologizing the absence of talk” (p. 47) . This work, then, offers a dif­ ferent account of classroom language by locating the analysis of classroom talk in the broader context of children’s total multimodal resources. refers to what it is possible to express and repre­ The concept of modalajfordance sent easily. How a mode has been used, what it has been repeatedly used to mean and do, and the social conventions that inform its use in context shape its affordance. Where a mode “comes from” in its history of cultural work becomes its provenance, shaping available designs and uses (Kress, 2003) . Furthermore, the affordance of a mode is material, physical, and environmental. For instance, an image in the form of graphic marks on a two-dimensional surface offers different potentials for the expres­ sion and representation of meaning than the affordances of speech in the form of sounds. Physical, material, and social affordances affiliated with each mode generate a specific logic and provide different communicational and representational potentials. For instance, the sounds of speech occur in time, and this temporal context and loca­ tion shape what can subsequently be done with (speech) sounds. This makes the logic of sequence in time unavoidable for speech: One sound has to be uttered after another, one word after another, one syntactic and textual element after another. This sequence therefore constitutes an affordance, producing the possibility and constraint for putting things first or last or somewhere else in a sequence. It can be said, therefore, that the mode of speech is governed by a temporal logic. By contrast, the affordances of (still) images can be understood as being governed by the logic of space and simultaneity. In sum, multimodality approaches affordance as a complex concept connected to the material and the cultural, social, historical use of a mode. Alongside the assumption that all modes in a communicative event or text con­ tribute to meaning, models of multimodality assert that all modes are partial. That is, all modes, including the linguistic modes of writing and speech, contribute to the construction of meaning in different ways. Therefore , no one mode stands alone in the process of making meaning; rather, each plays a discrete role in the whole. This has significant implications in terms of epistemology and research methodology: Mul­ timodal understandings of literacy require the investigation of the full multimodal ensemble used in any communicative event. The imperative, then, is to incorporate This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.232 on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 21:09:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 248 Review of Research in Education, 32 the nonlinguistic representation into understandings of literacy in the contemporary classroom. It also has implications for contemporary theorizations ofliteracy pedagogy, curriculum, and learning in the school classroom. MULTIPLELITERACIESIN THE SCHOOL The question of how theories of literacy are understood and used by educational policymakers and educators directly affects classroom teaching and learning. In the processes of”doing” literacy, students learn “what counts as literacy” (Unsworth, 2001). The classroom construction of literacy occurs through the legitimation and valuing of different kinds of texts and interactions. Multiple literacies challenges the current organization of traditional schooling. It gives rise to questions of the relevance of dominant models of literacy as it is currently taught in the majority of schools around the world in relation to the communicative and technological requirements of contemporary , digitalized society. Generally speak­ ing, school literacy is criticized where it continues to focus on restrictive print- and lan­ guage-based notions ofliteracy (Gee, 2004; Lam, 2006; Leander, 2007; Sefton-Green, 2006). In this context, what is positioned as new literacy practices in the school may be new to schoolbut are often already well established among many young people (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003) . Increasingly, the communicational landscapes occupied by young people originate outside of the school. This has entailed changes in family life, the traditional access point for children’s texts, enabling new ways for children to be the producers and disseminators of information (Carrington, 2005). Five key themes that draw on multiple and multimodal literacies are discussed in the next section of the chapter: pedagogy, design, the new literacy worlds of students , shapes of knowledge, and shapes oflearning. Given emergent local foci of multimodal practices, research in this area is small scale, ethnographic, and case based-with lim­ ited analysis on the impact on teaching and learning . Much of this work is descrip­ tive and offers detailed inventories of the resources used by students and teachers, how these are designed into multimodal ensembles, and the implications for the construc­ tion of school knowledge, pedagogic relations, and learner positions. Pedagogy The theoretical frameworks of multiple literacies have been taken up, adapted, and extended to explore literacy development in a variety of contexts. This has led to the articulation of multiliteracies theory into pedagogic models and practices. Five factors are identified as key to these pedagogic models (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; New London Group, 1996). Although the following pedagogic sequences are not necessarily linear, the model begins with immersion in an acquisition-rich environment. The starting point is that of the students and a focus on situatedpracticebased on the learners’ expe­ riences. Situated practice involves the immersion in students’ experience and the designs available to them in their life worlds. Overt imtruction is the key pedagogic strategy through which students are taught metalanguages of design, that is, the systematic and explicit teaching of an analytical vocabulary for understanding the design processes and This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.232 on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 21:09:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Jewitt: Multimodality and Literacy 249 decisions entailed in systems and structures of meaning. Criticalframing is key to this pedagogical model, explicitly connecting meanings to their social contexts and purposes to interpret and interrogate the social and cultural context of designs. Transformed prac­ ticeis the fourth pedagogic factor, which relates to the ways in which students recreate and recontextualize meaning across contexts (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000). This model has evolved and been developed by others; for example, Unsworth (2001) offers a pedagogic learning development cycle model that combines systemic functional grammar with the four stages of multiliteracies pedagogy. The model is designed to make the multimodal design of texts explicit to children as one way to explore the construction of stories in both conventional print and digital formations (Unsworth, 2001; Unsworth, Thomas, Simpson, & Asha, 2005). Some examples of research on multimodality and multilitera­ cies and learning are discussed below to show multiple literacies in action. Significant pedagogic work is realized through a range of modes. Ethnographic studies of multimodal practices of science and English classrooms in the United King­ dom show that this holds true even in a curriculum context such as English where talk and writing dominate the classroom (Kress et al., 2005). The Multimodal Production of School English project (Kress et al., 2005) involved detailed video recording and observation of 9 English teachers in three inner London schools, interviews with teach­ ers and students, and the collation of texts made and used in the classroom. The pro­ ject shows the complex ways in which image, gesture, gaze,interaction with objects, body posture, writing, and speech inte…
Purchase answer to see full attachment