Multimodal Sources Of Education Transforming Process Of Resemiotization

Multimodal Sources Of Education Transforming Process Of Resemiotization

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. . 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 interact in the classroom production of school sub­ ject knowledge. The School English project highlighted how students and teachers coproduce notions of ability, resistance, and identity in the classroom through their nonverbal interaction . The way in which classroom displays, space, furniture, and arti­ facts were designed to realize versions of English as a school subject was also docu­ mented. This research showed that the work of interpreting school English is beyond language and requires the ability to make sense of a range of modes and the relation­ ships between them. It also highlighted the complex multimodal identity work that students are engaged with in the classroom. A considerable body of work has been undertaken in schools within the diverse cul­ tural and linguistic context of South Africa. Both examples demonstrate how multi­ modality and multiliteracies can be operationalized as pedagogic practice. The Arndale Alphabet Qanks & Comber, 2006), A is for Arndale, A is for Atteridgeville,was set up as a shared, cross-continent primary school project that situ­ ated literacy in the students’ experiences and concerns of their neighborhoods (one in South Africa and one in Australia). The project recruited learners and teachers from Grades 3 to 6. Data involved videotapes, teacher and student interviews, and students’ work with alphabet books. Working with a class of students in each school, an alpha­ bet book was made that drew on the students’ experiences and use of available designs. The students were given overt instruction through the analysis of the repre­ sentational meanings in other alphabet books, analysis of how image and word were organized, and identification of patterned meanings. The students undertook decon­ structive and reconstructive critical analysis and text design. The students engaged in 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 250 Review of Research in Education, 32 critical interpretations of the social and cultural contexts of designs of meanings. The pro­ ject moved beyond literacy as recount to literacy as explanation across differences,involv­ ing the students in the work of imagining the other classin another context as the audience for their book. Such pedagogic projects that involve the development of students’ literacy resources and a range of modes of representation in conscious ways have been developed to provide students with tools for critical analysis and the redesign of meaning. By estab­ lishing a transnational pedagogic context, J anks and Comber (2006) document the impact of new, multimodal pedagogic spaces and practices on social and cultural identities. In the Olifantsvlei fresh stories project, Stein (2003) undertook a literacy project for 6 months with Grades 1 and 2 teachers and students at a Johannesburg primary school that serves children of unemployed and migrant families living in informal set­ tlements. She worked with multimodal literacy practices and pedagogy through a sys­ tematic use of different semiotic modes to develop forms oflearning beyond language. The project explored the relations between creativity, multimodal pedagogy, repre­ sentation, and learning. Student case studies involved observation and interviews, stu­ dents’ use of2-D drawings, writing, 3-D figures, spoken dialogues, multimodal play, and performance to create narratives of identity and culture. The focus was on the representation of doll and child figures and their symbolic meanings. Stein describes the children’s transformation and recontextualization of culturally and historically sit­ uated practices of these representations. Stein argues that multimodal pedagogy enables the assertion of student identity, cultural practices, and communiry to enter the school context in ways that are significant for literacy and teaching. Significant research has been conducted on the technologization of school literacies and pedagogy (e.g., Alvermann et al., 2001; Cope & Kalantis, 2000; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003; Leander, 2007; Marsh, 2005; Unsworth et al., 2005). It explores and theorizes the nature of image and text relations in literacy narratives, relationships between book- and computer-based versions of texts, and the role of online commu­ nities of various kinds in the critique as well as the interpretation and generation of new forms of multimodal and digital narratives and literacies. This work often describes new forms of literacy in an attempt to remap the territory of new literacies and the kinds of practices that help move across it, such as blogging and culture jamming (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003; Sefton-Green & Sinker, 2000). Knobel and Lankshear (2006; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003), for example, discuss the potential of new forms of literacy for learning, including blogging and the use of wikis. Their detailed case describes the out-of-school technoliteracies of young people and the extent to which it is possible or desirable to import these out-of-school cultural practices into the class­ room for school literacies such as extensive writing. They identify the difficulties in bringing out-of-school cultural practices into the classroom, including the compulsory character of schooling, the individualization of student identities, the lack of authentic purposeful activities, and how interests and technoliteracies are socially constituted and regulated through adult control in classroom spaces. They conclude that different con­ ditions and new virtual and institutional spaces will be required to enable their effec­ tive use (Knobel & Lankshear, 2006; Owen, Grant, Sayers, & Facer, 2006). 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 251 Although it is the case that multimodal research and multiliteracies are often strongly associated with the introduction of new technologies, this perspective is rele­ vant for the analysis of traditional classroom technologies. These approaches have been used to examine the ways in which teachers orchestrate a range of modal resources, ges­ ture, gaze, position, posture, action with books and boards, and talk in the classroom. In addition, multimodal research has examined the ways in which language policy, stu­ dent identities, official curriculum, examination, and school knowledge are mediated through multimodal communication in the classroom (Bourne & Jewitt, 2003; Ken­ ner & Kress, 2003; Kress et al., 2001, 2005). Comparative multimodal analysis has examined how these patterns vary across systems and cultural contexts (Bhattacharya et al., 2007). Working across three cities (Delhi, Johannesburg, and London), Bhat­ tacharya and colleagues (in press) undertook in-depth case studies focused on English lessons (with students ages 14 to 15 years), interviewing teachers and students. The multimodal analysis examined and compared how texts were pedagogically activated, circulated, and drawn into practices and processes to be remade and transformed by students. The project identified ways in which language policy, modal conventions and practices, teacher identities, and subject histories were realized through the textual cycle of the classrooms. Here, the multimodal approach engages with the entire classroom event as a kind of text in motion in which multimodal texts are caught up and actual­ ized in the stream of practice. Work within this framework tends to be analytical research that identifies the conditions and processes oflearning, the ways in which stu­ dents draw on practices, the social categories and practices that inform pedagogy, and so on, rather than presenting a theory of pedagogy itself. In light of a general move toward explicitness and transparency in educational approaches to literacy, pedagogic models drawing on multimodaliry and multiple litera­ cies are often accompanied by overt instruction and critical framing. These aim to intro­ duce technical metalanguages for different modes. This has led to efforts to augment the technical language of linguistics (e.g., genre, grammar, and discourse) to describe and explain the semiotic contribution of each mode to multimodal texts (Unsworth, 2001). Substantial theoretical descriptions of the dynamics of interaction between image and language have been offered, for example, by the early work of Kress and van Leeuwen (1996) and Lemke’s (1998) work on science textbooks. Recent work by Kress and Beze­ mer (2007) examines contemporary curriculum materials and investigates the learning gains and losses of different multimodal ensembles. This work draws on a corpus of learning resources for secondary school in science, mathematics, and English from the 1930s, the 1980s, and the first decade of the 21st century as well as digitally represented and online learning resources from the year 2000 onward. It sets out to provide a social semiotic account of the changes to the design of these learning resources (textbooks and websites, etc.) and of their epistemological and social-pedagogic significance. Through investigation of the relationship between image, writing, action, and layout, they show that image and layout are increasingly meshed in the construction of content. Research on the multimodal resources of digital screen-based texts also supports this finding: that in complex multimodal texts, the boundaries between modes blur 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 252 Review of Research in Education, 32 mesh in new configurations. These affect the construction of knowledge and identi­ ties Qewitt, 2006; Leander, 2007; Pelletier, 2005, 2006). This potential remaking of modes in new contexts raises fundamental questions about how best to articulate their relationships (Kress et al., 2001, 2005; Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001; Unsworth, 2006). It also places a crucial reservation on the teaching of a technical metalanguage of multimodal meaning: the risk of a static grammar of modes that cannot account for the power of context and the transformative character of systems of making meaning. In addition, this has the unintended potential to pro­ duce another form of “Big ‘L’ Literacy” (Gee, 1990), a normative resource to regulate meaning and uphold and reproduce dominant cultural practices across all modes. There is the potential, then, for the overt teaching of metalanguages to reproduce the links between available designs (e.g., genres) and their cultural and ideological relations and functions. As parts of the social system of communication, all modes work to real­ ize culture and power. Image is as ideological and as power laden as word. This raises important issues about how image, word, and design of other modes are understood as available resources for meaning making in the classroom. Design Traditional pedagogic models for print literacy are based on the acquisition and mastery of sets of established practices, conventions, and rules. The multiple literacies model holds that limited models of skill and competence are incomplete. Models of critique encourage students to be aware of principles of dominant notions of literacy, to question these and the ideologies they represent, and to explore the production of innovation and change. In contrast to traditional competence-based pedagogic mod­ els, the New London Group (1996) and Kress (2000) identify the notion of design as an active and dynamic process central to communication in contemporary society. Design refers to how people make use of the resources that are available at a given moment in a specific communicational environment to realize their interests as sign makers. In this way, design has been used to theorize the relationships between modes, pedagogy, and context and to understand the changed dispositions toward information and knowledge. It foregrounds the importance of multimodal resources, the sign maker’s socialpurpose and intentions, context, and audience (Kress,2000, 2003). Furthermore, the New London Group (1996) draws on design to understand the mul­ timodal organization of social relations through the design of communicative resources, including linguistic meaning, visual meaning, audio meaning, and gestural and spatial meaning. Although design incorporates some of the aims inherent in models of com­ petence and critique, it provides a more flexible and dynamic analytical frame that responds to the interests of the sign maker and the demands of the context. As a research tool and way of thinking about literacy as process, design is useful in analyzing how materials in the classroom (e.g., textbooks and the materials displayed on interactive whiteboards [IWB], media images) include image and writing and other modes, in configurations that distribute meanings across the boundaries of modes and multimodal connections. This is but one part of pedagogic design, which can be 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 ]ewitt: Multimodality and Literacy 253 conceptualized as a semiotic chain of meanings across different contexts. From this per­ spective, design can be used to refer both to teachers’ pedagogic designs of learning processes and students’ designed constructions of meaning. This includes student engagement, interaction, and remaking of the available designs. For instance, a printed textbook, website, or other teaching material is designed, accessed by the school or teacher, downloaded, and printed or perhaps scanned and made digital to be displayed on a screen or IWB. These materials may then be manipulated by students, annotated by the teacher, and saved and stored. Later, the remade text may be accessed, reap­ praised, and reworked on an Internet revision site. The emphasis is on the activities and processes of interpretation students engage with, framing how students make sense of (“read”) multimodal signs in the classroom as itself a process of redesign. Moss’s (2003) ethnographic research focuses on U.K. students working with junior-age nonfiction texts as objects of design. Moss’s research draws on a large data set built up from a series of interlinked ethnographic research projects consisting of observations, field notes, interviews, and conversations about reading between boys perusing nonfiction together in informal contexts within the school classroom. Her research shows how the layout structure of factual books affects the ways in which it is read by young boys, specifi­ cally, how they sequence the page, create reading paths, negotiate their roles and iden­ tities in the classroom, and identify opportunities for performing being a reader. In so doing, Moss’s study begins to describe and theorize the broader set of practices of remaking, “mashing,” and “remixing” in the digital, multimodal mediascape. Efforts to retheorize the design of school pedagogy have drawn on notions of design. Kress and Selander (in press) have developed a model, learning design sequences, which is based on the need to move away from designed information and teaching sequences involving prefabricated learning resources, formalized work, and strict timetables, which, they argue, place the teacher as the conduit of knowledge. They argue instead for the need to shift toward learning design sequences that encom­ pass the multiplicity oflearning. Their model attempts to map critical incidents across learning as sign making, moments of transformation, representation, and presenta­ tion. This work, although at an early stage, sets out a model of pedagogy based on the theorization of the redesign (transformation) of knowledge. Literacy Worlds of Students Recent ethnographic studies suggest that conventional print literacy pedagogy pro­ ceeds independently of the everyday multimodal social and communicative worlds of many urban children (e.g., Marsh, 2006). It is axiomatic in NLS that schools construct and shape students’ literacy in particular ways for specific social purposes. It follows that the extent to which school literacies across the curriculum engage, incorporate, or colo­ nize students’ out-of-school literacy practices is a matter of power; it is about what is allowed to count, to whom, and for what purpose. The physical and social boundaries of schools and the curriculum vary in their porosity. Although there are clearly many similarities across schools, it is nonetheless true that in general, primary schools are differentially permeable than secondary schools, London schools are differentially 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 254 Review of Research in Education, 32 positioned in relation to community practice than those in Delhi or Johannesburg, and subject English is differentially permeable than school science. Furthermore, different texts and experiences are allowed into these different schools and legitimated and mobi­ lized for pedagogic purposes in distinct ways. An example of this is shown in the research on the multimodal production of school English introduced earlier. That study demon­ strated how teachers’ multimodal design of the classroom environment conveyed what was to be done and learned in it and the place of students’ life worlds of “English” Oewitt & Jones, 2005; Kress et al., 2005). Across the nine teacher case studies, the design of the room connected with the life worlds of students and teachers in different ways. For instance, one case study teacher covered her wall with posters of films and music stars brought in by the students, another displayed carefully framed elements drawn from curriculum and examination documents, and yet another displayed posters of poetry and art exhibitions. These different versions of English (and Englishness) placed students in different relationships to the curriculum content of English and in turn attempted to connect or disconnect English in specific ways to the experiences of those students in ways that are significant for the construction of literacy. It is the often the case that connecting with students’ literacy experiences and knowledge translates into teachers’ permitting authorized fragments of students’ lives into the classroom. Multiliteracies, as the earlier discussion of pedagogy illustrates, calls for a reexamination of the relationship between school and out-of-school communica­ tive environments. Stein and Mamabolo (2005) undertook detailed ethnographic research in Johannesburg on the connections between home and school and literacy practices across these sites. Drawing on three case studies, they show in detail how fam­ ilies draw on their own resources to negotiate home-school relationships in distinct and different ways. Their findings suggest that this is a key part of the construction of literate identities of students and how they build and negotiate their educational and literacy pathways through school and community life. Marsh’s (2006) studies investi­ gate young children’s (ages 2.5 to 4 years) mediascapes to identify the complex multi­ modal communicative practices that they are engaged with in the home. Her focus is on understanding the functions that these digital media expressions have in main­ taining the social relations of the family, accessing knowledge, self-expression, and the development ofliteracy skills. She documents how migrant students reappropriate and use media designs in creative play, family life, and home-school transitions. These studies suggest the possibilities for curriculum that connects with students’ out-of­ school multimodal repertoires. The questions of where to draw these boundaries, when, and who gets the power to draw are central to the development of new peda­ gogic approaches to traditional and emergent literacies. Current pedagogies built on multiple literacies encourage teachers to build class­ room work on students’ knowledge, experiences, and interests. This involves integrat­ ing students’ knowledge of narrative characterization and structure developed from visual modes (films, videos, picture books) into the planning and creation of narratives, either print based (e.g., Millard, 2005; Newfield, Andrew, Stein, & Maungedzo, 2005) or multimedia multimodal narratives (e.g., Burn and Parker, 2003; Marsh, 2006; Pahl, 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 255 2003). Multiple literacies projects build stories based on and arising from young peo­ ple’s lives and experiences and cultural forms of representation to engage with and gain access to student agency, cultural memory, and home and school learning within local contexts. Newfield and colleagues (2005) undertook a multimodal pedagogy interven­ tion and research project in a Soweto secondary school to develop the students’ liter­ acy practices. The starting point for this project was the literacy worlds of the students, infused with many different languages, cultures, music, and performance not usually heard or seen in the classroom. These provided the focus for poetry writing, featuring the design and production of an anthology. The use of performance and visual arts opened up the voices of the students identified as reluctant writers. Gee’s (2003) work on video games and learning connects multimodality, multilit­ eracies, and the out-of-school literacy worlds of children and young people. He sees game playing as a new space for learning and what it means to be a learner in the 21st century. His theorization of games and learning is based on his own experiences of game play (including observing his son’s game playing). Through this account, he identifies 36 learning principles present in game designs that he suggests could be useful for rethinking more formal education . Sefton-Green (2006) questions the generalizability of such an approach. He asks if games are a kind ofliteracy, whether it is a kind oflit­ eracy that can “do anything other than support the playing of more games” (p. 291) Across different contexts, the concern of multiple literacies is with the promotion of a pluralized notion of literacy and forms of representation and communication to help students negotiate a broader range of text types and modes of persuasion (Mor­ gan & Ramanathan, 2005) . This makes it increasingly important for schools to attend to the literacy practices of students and diverse ways of making meaning, in particular, the multilingual, the multimodal, and the digital. In short, there is a need for further investigation of literacy practices as an intertextual web of contexts and media rather than isolated sets of skills and competences. Because of the simultaneity of different modes in everyday community and educational contexts, the decontextualized study of particular practices, assuming their universality and transfer, has clear limitations . A multimodal approach to literacy focuses on the representations of students across different sites of learning and raises questions for how curriculum knowledge is organized, classified, represented, and communicated. It asks how different represen­ tations and modes of communication shape knowledge as well as locate and connect knowledge to the world . It queries what and how teachers and students can do with school knowledge. The focus of the following section is on how these shapes of knowledge affect the interpretative and meaning-making demands made on students. Shapes of CurriculumKnowledge As noted at the onset of this review, one of the characteristics of the contemporary communicational landscape is a shifting and remaking of disciplinary boundaries. In the U.K classroom, for instance, this is realized in a general move to build connections across discourses of specialized knowledges and everyday knowledges, an emphasis on context-based learning, and the introduction of new cross-curricular projects. This 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 256 Review of Research in Education, 32 redefining of the boundaries and frames of school knowledge raisesinteresting challenges for literaciesas they are shaped by disciplinary practices and histories. One aspect of this is the reframing and blurring of the boundaries between texts, media, and contexts­ which in turn produces new and unsettled genres (Kress, 2003; Moss, 2003). Increas­ ingly, for example, the concept and shape of the book is remade as it is being fully linked to websites and online resources. Leander (2007) has described how textbooks are orga­ nized by structures in which the visual dominates. He goes on to examine learning resources that introduce new relationships between image and action and bodies through the use of avatars. Such representations make new demands on students in relation to both how knowledge is represented and communicated and how those representations circulate and are mobilized across time and space (Nespor, 1994). In this technological context, the challenge is for the curriculum to engage with epistemologiesthat reflect rad­ icallydifferent knowledge structures and learning processes(Lankshear & Knobel, 2003). Image and other nonlinguistic modes take on specific roles in the construction of school knowledge . Kress et al. (2001) undertook an ethnographic study of London school science classrooms. This involved observation and video recording of nine sci­ ence classes across a half-term topic unit, interviews with students and teachers, and analysis of the texts used and made during the lessons. A key finding of the research was that different modes of representation led to radically different constructions of the scientific and natural world. For example, representation of a cell in the science classroom as an image or through writing, in color or black and white, or as 3-D model or an animated sequence on a CD-ROM or website makes available and fore­ grounds different aspects of the concept of cell. Each of these representational forms makes different demands on the learner. There was also evidence that different modes have differential potential effects for learning, the shaping of learner identi­ ties, and how learners create pathways through texts. The choice of mode, then, is central to the epistemological shaping of knowledge and ideological design. What can be done and thought with image or writing or through action differs in ways that are significant for learning. In this regard, the long-standing focus on language as the principal, if not sole, medium of instruction can at best offer a very partial view of the work of communicating in the classroom. Furthermore to this, the technology of production, dissemination, and communi­ cation that is chosen is also key to the shaping of curriculum knowledge. These cur­ riculum and pedagogic choices and configuration of modes systematically favor specific patterns of interaction and artifact production. Therefore, the teacher’s and students’ interaction with the materiality of modes (an inextricable meshing of the physical materiality of a mode and its social and cultural histories) and the facilities of technologies shape the production of school knowledge . There is, then, an increasing interest in investigating the role that different semiotic modes or sign systems have in classroom communication. Multimodal research has shown, for example, that images feature in significant ways across the curriculum, as sound, animation, and multimodal configurations are increasingly understood as key to how people learn in the science classroom (Kress et al., 2001; Lemke, 1998; Marquez, 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 fewitt: Multimodality and Literacy 257 Izquierdo, & Espinet, 2005; Prain & Waldrip, 2006; Scott & Jewitt, 2003). Even in the subject English classroom, where common sense would have it that language is the dom­ inant communicative means, the meanings of language, speech, and writing are embed­ ded in a multimodal ensemble. There, significant, often contradictory, meanings are realizedvisually or through gesture, proximics, image, and so forth (Kresset al., 2005). Across both print and digital media, the relationship between image and writing in educational materials (e.g., textbooks, websites, etc.) appears to be in historical transi­ tion Oewitt, 2006; Kress & Bezemer, 2007). This change relates both to quantity and, perhaps more importantly, to the quality and function of images in a text Oewitt, 2002). Images are no longer illustrative of writing on the page or screen; rather, a phe­ nomenon may now be introduced and established visually. On-screen resources fre­ quently place image, action, sound, and other modes (including the body) in new intertextual relationships that redefine and foreground space and time (Leander, 2007). The relationship between modes in learning materials raises important ques­ tions for learning, all of which require a better understanding of the gains and losses realized through the representation of curriculum concepts in one mode as compared with another (Kress & Bezemer, 2007). Although these issues are not exclusive to the use of new technologies, the multi­ modal facilities of digital technologies enable image, sound, and movement to enter the classroom in new and significant ways. These new multimodal configurations can affect pedagogic design, text production, and interpretative practices. The visual char­ acter of writing comes to the fore on screen to function as objects of literacy in fun­ damentally different ways than it does on the page (Boulter & Grusin, 1998; Jewitt, 2002, 2005). Jewitt’s (2002) case study on the transformation from printed novel to novel as CD-ROM showed how the visual character of writing on screen combined with the dominance of image alongside action serves to restructure texts and fragment and break up forms of writing. A study of the use of IWBs in London secondary schools (Moss et al., 2007) suggests that this kind of modularization can be seen across the curriculum as information breaks up across the screen. However, similar findings have emerged on the organization of time in nontechnologized classrooms. This breaking up of information into bite-size chunks occurs regardless of media and mode as a pedagogic response to the management of information and attention Qewitt, Moss, & Cardini, 2007). Another potential resource of digital technologies is the mode of hypertext, which embeds writing and image (and other modes) into web­ like patterns and layers of information and genres that make meaning making a process of navigation and choice and create new resources (and demands) on mean­ ing making Oewitt, 2002; Lemke, 2002; C. Luke, 2003; Zammit, 2007). Multimodal approaches to shapes of knowledge raise serious issues about teachers’ access to materials (e.g., websites, CD-ROMs, games and simulations, textbooks and worksheets) and technologies and how these are used in the classroom. Freitas and Castanheira (2006) studied the use of textbook images in 1st-year high school biology classrooms (36 students ages 17 to 30 years old) in Brazil. In these classrooms,only 20% of students were able to afford to purchase the textbook adopted for the class; the effect 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 258 Review of Research in Education, 32 is that the graphic representations are availableonly to the teacher. Their research shows that it is essential to bener understand how teachers’ display and use of the textbook rep­ resentations, their classroom talk, and gesture all interact in the construction of scientific knowledge. Drawing on video recordings of classroom interaction, interviews with the teacher and students, field notes on classroom interaction, and copies of notebooks, text­ books, and tests, they found that teachers’ coordinated use of semiotic modes to supple­ ment each other in the construction of biology concepts was relied on by students to infer conventionalized meanings. At the same time, however, they found that the contradic­ tion between the frames of reference in teachers’ gesture and talkand the visual image in the textbook led to breakdowns in students’ understandings of the concepts taught. The issue of breakdowns and multimodal interpretation across resources is equally salient for students working independentl y with a CD -ROM or watching a teacher model a process on the whiteboard or visualizer. The point is that learners, whatever their age, may engage with some modes and not others or privilege (trust) one mode over another. For example, case study observation of 11- and 12-year-old students using an animation of particles in a science lesson found that students interpreted the visual information independently from the wrinen information provided on the CD­ ROM screen Qewitt, 2006). This appeared to be because of the CD -ROM’s empha­ sis on empirical reality, observation, and visual evidence supponed by the classroom practices within school science. Many students missed imponant cues about the observed sequence. This finding serves to emphasize the need to examine literacies through the “tension between the meaning potential of the text, the meaning poten­ tial of the context in which it will be read and the resources that the reader brings to that exercise” (Moss, 2003, p. 85). When using learning resources that demand the interpretation of movement, image, and color, students are engaged in a complex process of sense making . Multimodal analysis thus offers a way to broaden the lens of educational research and investigate the role of image and other nonlinguistic modes as well as to better understand the role of language as one multimodal resource. The examples here highlight the importance of understanding how knowledge is shaped through the teacher’s choice of one mode over another and the consequent constraints and possibilities those choices introduce . In this way, the representation of curriculum knowledge can be viewed as a process of pedagogic multimodal design, of the matching of target knowledges with particular modal affordances. In this process, meanings are made and remade (designed) when representations are enlivened in the classroom and again when students engage with them for the purposes of making their own meanings in lesson practices. Learning Seeing the communicational landscape of the classroom through a multimodal lens has significant implications for conceptions and processes of learning . Thinking about learning as a process of design and choice of representation gives a renewed focus on the role of the learner. Design, diversity, and multiplicity emphasize the meaning-making practices and interpretative work of students . From this perspective, 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 259 the multimodal texts and artifacts that students make can be viewed as one kind of sign of learning, a material trace of semiosis. These texts can be understood as mate­ rial instantiations of students’ interests, their perception of audience, and their use of modal resources mediated by overlapping…
Purchase answer to see full attachment