Fit for purpose through telecollaboration: a framework for multiliteracy training
23
Fit for purpose through telecollaboration: a framework for multiliteracy training INTENT conference, University of León, 12-14 February 2014 Mirjam Hauck, The Open University, UK Malgorzata Kurek, Jan Dlugosz University, Poland https://blogs.ubc.ca/ etec540sept10/2010/11/14/ commentary-on- multiliteracies/
-
Upload
the-intent-project -
Category
Education
-
view
295 -
download
1
description
The need to prepare learners for meaningful participation in technology-based activities and thus the need for digital competence (DC) has not only surfaced in the scholarly literature related to the learning and teaching of languages (Hubbard, 2004, 2013; Thorne & Reinhardt, 2008; McBride, 2009; Hauck, 2010), DC has also been acknowledged as one of the 8 key competences for Lifelong Learning by the European Union (Official Journal L 394 of 30.12.2006). It is seen as a so called transversal key competence which enables learners acquiring other key competences (e.g. languages, mathematics, learning to learn, and creativity) and required by all citizens to ensure their active participation in society and the economy. The authors will argue that telecollaborative exchanges are an ideal setting for learner preparation to this effect. They will also put forward the idea that training in this key competence should be designed in a way that allows learners to comfortably move along the continuum from informed reception of technology-mediated input, via thoughtful participation in opinion-generating activities through to creative contribution. Particular consideration will be given to the fact that both the input and the output representing the beginning and the end of the described continuum are usually of a multimodal nature, i.e. draw on a variety of semiotic resources (Kress & van Leeuven, 2001) or modes such as “words, spoken or written; image, still and moving; musical […] 3D models […]” (Kress, 2003). Current and future learners who can comfortably alternate in their roles as “semiotic responders” and “semiotic initiators” (Coffin & Donohue, forthcoming) will reflect the success of training programmes which take account of multimodality as a core element of digital communicative literacy skills, also referred to in the literature as new media literacy or multiliteracy. The purpose of this contribution, then, is to look at the concept of multiliteracy from a language instruction perspective. In the first part, the concept of multiliteracy itself will be investigated and will provide the backdrop for our suggested pedagogical approach to meet the need for learner preparation and training. Next, based on the theoretical framework of multimodal meaning making (Kress, 2000), a model for designing instruction grounded in multiliteracy will be proposed. Its main purpose is to help language educators guide learners through the aforementioned stages of multiliteracy skills development. Finally we will give some pointers as to how the model could be applied in a variety of multimodal language learning contexts.
Transcript of Fit for purpose through telecollaboration: a framework for multiliteracy training
Fit for purpose through telecollaboration:a framework for multiliteracy training
INTENT conference, University of León, 12-14 February 2014
Mirjam Hauck, The Open University, UKMalgorzata Kurek, Jan Dlugosz University, Poland
https://blogs.ubc.ca/etec540sept10/2010/11/14/commentary-on-multiliteracies/
overview
• Multiliteracy: why the hype?• What’s already out there?
existing pedagogical frameworks
• What are the challenges?• What’s the role of TC?• A new attempt at a framework:
a model for designing language instruction grounded in multiliteracy
• What next?
the rise of multiliteracy …
• The shift from print to screen• The impact• Widely discussed in the literature
Carr, 2010; Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; Knobel & Lankshear, 2007; Pegrum, 2009; Reinhardt & Thorne, 2011; Selber, 2004
• Pegrum (2009):move from a paradigm of scarcity to one of abundance
opportunities …
… and challenges
multilingual, multicultural, multimodal, multi-genre and multi-user contexts
+rapid proliferation of available resources, channels and modes
countless possibilities for self-expression, = almost unlimited forms of meaning making and communication … and learning
“transparency problem” (Jenkins et al. 2006)
the assumption that users areactively reflecting on their media experiences and can
thus articulate what they learn from their participation
educators need to ensure that [learners have] access to the skills and
experiences needed to […] articulate their understanding of how media shapes perception, and have been socialized into the emerging ethical standards that should shape their practices as media makers and participants in online communities
“participatory cultures” (Jenkins et al. 2006)
membership in formal and informal online communities … in social networking spaces like Facebook and among the communities that grow up around message boards … production of creative forms such as mash-ups, formal and informal teamwork of the sort that occurs in wiki spaces … and online distributions such as podcasting and blogging
social affiliation and content re-circulation, and …?
“social grooming”(McBride 2009)
a lack of critical and evaluative skills
The multitude of voices, opinions and identities that abound on the Web in “multiple fragments, and copies and reinscriptions of themselves” make it difficult for learners to take a critical stance either towards online content or in opinion-generating activities unlessthey have experience in relevantpractices.(Littlejohn , Beetham & McGill 2013)
key developments …
requiring agency and autonomy …
A user who aspires to be an active participant in today’s multiliteracy practices needs to know how to assess and evaluate his/her own multiliteracy experiences in contexts reaching far beyond traditional classroom walls. This is particularly relevant in technology-enhanced language learning and teaching where multiliteracy activities are—by default—mediated twice: by the technology used and by the L2.(Hauck & Kurek, in print)
meeting the challenge: telecollaboration
Technology mediated learning and teaching of languages and cultures
=an ideal context for multiliteracy training?
Multiliteracy activities are– by default –mediated twice
→ by the technology used→ by the L2
Existing frameworks …
• Beyond Comparisons: Developing Digital L2 Literacies (Reinhardt and Thorne, 2011)functional, language awareness, and sociocultural approaches including multiliteracies, and bridging activities framework (Thorne & Reinhardt, 2008)
» some are useful to gain a more general understanding of digital media and language use that “can inform the design of pedagogical activities broadly”
» others are “to be implemented in a specific sequence”
from informed reception to creative contribution …
• Informed reception: the quality of input, its structure, meaning potentials , interpretative possibilies. Effecton the audience)
• Thoughtful participation: Preparation for acts of thoughtful opinion giving (a public voice). Oriented towards linguistic competence
• Creative contribution: individual or joint creation of artefacts and their subsequent dissemination. Less linguistically oriented. Purposeful shuttling between modes, genres and tools
Informed reception(cognitive theory of mulitmodal learning (Mayer, Moreno, 2003)
Informed Reception(directing attention towards the quality of the input – its potential for meaning
making, effect on the audience )
cognitive •Raising awareness of context-specific affordances of modes. • Prompting reflection, critical analysis, evaluation, interpretation etc.
discursive •Focus on the use of language. Tasks sharpen students’ senses to different types of linguistic discourse (practices)•Access to discourses representing various genres, cultures. and Intentions.
social •Recognizing and interpreting (online) social relations.•Projecting one’s online presence, becoming sensitive to affiliations., cultural references or strategies.
operational •Technical tools for accessing, storing, organizing and retrieving various forms of input.•Content aggregation and folskonomy
Thoughtful participation in opinion-generating facts(Preparation for public acts of thoughtful opinion giving. Oriented
towards linguistic competence)
cognitive Awareness of patterns and styles in opinion giving acts. Perspective shifting.
discursive Argumentation and negotiation skills, pragmatic competence, netiquette, ICC. The use of formulaic language. Using the awareness in opinion-giving activities in intercultural contexts.
social Adressing collaborators, communities of interest etc. Using language to create a feeling of belonging
operational Dependent on the communication mode (email vs. teleonferencing)
Creative contributionindividual or joint creation of artefacts and their subsequent dissemination. Less
linguistically oriented. Purposeful shuttling between modes, genres and tools
cognitive Output orientation – restructuring, remixing, repurposing. Encoding in a different mode. Focus on the process of creation.
discursive The language of negotiating, analyzing and cooperating. Describing technical problems and solutions..
social Realizing and fulfilling one’s role in a team, providing support and constructive criticism, maintaining task orientation. The promotion of inquiry and reflection.
operational Presenting the learner with a choice of technological solutions. Prompting independent exploration of tool affordances.
Today’s learners:• shortened attention span (Carr, 2010);
• superficial multitasking done at the expense of task engagement (Ophir, Nass, & Wagner, 2009, cited in Hubbard, 2013);
• a preference for visual communication to the effect of truncated language production, especially in its written form (Pegrum, 2009b).
• strong ego orientation (Thorne & Payne, 2005; Selvyn, 2009);
• familiarity with the most conspicuous affordances of technologies (Winke & Goertler, 2008);
• use of inefficient technology solutions with focus on strategies for using specific tools rather than general exploitation ones (Hubbard, 2013).
• Refer to handout 2: Digital biographies, for a sample task sequence.
• Thank you for your attention!
References:• Hauck, M. & Kurek, M. (in print.) Closing the “digital divide” – a framework for
multiliteracy training. In L. Williams and J. Pettes Guikema (Eds.), Digital literacies in foreign language education: Research, perspectives, and best practices. CALICO Monograph Series.
• Littlejohn, A., Beetham, H., & McGill, L. (2013). Digital literacies as situated knowledge practices: academics’ influence on learners’ behaviours. In R. Goodfellow, R & M. Lea (Eds.), Literacy in the Digital University? Critical perspectives on learning, scholarship, and technology (pp. 126-136). London: Routledge.
• McBride, K. (2009). Social Networking sites in foreign language classes: Opportunities for re-creation. In L. Lomicka & G. Lord (Eds) The next-generation: Social networking and online collaboration in foreign language learning (pp. 35-58). CALICO Moograph Series, Vol. 8
• Pegrum, M. (2009b. Communicative Networking and Linguistic Mashups on Web 2.0. In M. Thomas (Ed), Handbook of Research on Web 2.0 and Second Language Learning (pp. 20-41). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
• Reinhardt, J., & Thorne, S. (2011). Beyond Comparisons: Frameworks for Developing L2 Digital Literacies. In N.Arnold & L. Ducate (Eds.), Present and Future Promises of CALL: From Theory and Research to New Directions in Language Teaching (pp. 257-280). San Marcos, TX: CALICO
• Thorne, S. L., & Reinhardt, J. (2008). "Bridging activities," new media literacies and advanced foreign language proficiency. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 558-572.
