How Wide is Wide Enough? Using Multiple Modes of

Communication in Today’s Classrooms.

Terry Loerts

Aug. 22-24, 2011

ABEL Summer Institute

Multimodality • is concerned with communicating using

multiple modes, not just with language (Jewitt & Kress, 2003). Modes refer to the “regularised organised set of resources for meaning-making, including, image, gaze, gesture, movement, music, speech and

sound-effect” (p. 1).

Continued…• Multimodal Theory sees each mode as “equally

significant for meaning and communication” (Jewitt & Kress 2003, p. 2)

• However, “different modes have different potentials”(Jewitt & Kress, 2003, p. 3)

• Multimodality draws upon Halliday’s (1978) social semiotic theory of communication.

-meaning is a SOCIAL practice

-individuals are ACTIVE sign-makers

The Connection to Multiliteracies

Students are

literate in different ways

-As active designers of meaning, context/cultural influences are important

-the world of communication is constantly changing

-students need to acquire skills, strategies, and practices needed for life

-new communication technologies use multiple modes of communication-often used simultaneously

Book: Teaching and Learning Multiliteracies by Anstey & Bull, 2006

Traditional compared to New Literacies (taken from Tierney, Bond, & Bresler, 2006)

Traditional Print-Based Literacy -Text Based

• Predictable• Transmission model of

knowledge• Single authored• Linear connections• Author/teacher

constructed• Can be Individualistic

Multiple Literacies- Multimedia Based/Mixing of Modes

• Inquiry driven• Generates knowledge• Collaborative or team

based• Multilayered • Social practice• Socially empowering and

collaborative

“Reconfigured” Range of Communicational Options to Include Both “Old” and “New” Literacies

• Written language: writing and reading that which has been written, handwriting, printed page, the screen

• Oral language: speech, listening• Visual representation: still or moving images, sculpture,

perspective, • Audio: music, sounds, noises, hearing, listening• Tactile: touch, smell, taste; manipulate objects/artefacts• Gestural: movements of hands, arms; facial expression,

eye movement, gaze, action sequences, timing• Spatial representation: spacing, layout, proximity,

Kalantzis, Cope, & Cloonan (2010)

Examples of Multimodality in Classrooms:

• Walsh, C. (2007). Creativity as capital in the literacy classroom: Youth as multimodal designers

• Multiliteracies with his middle school students for Dust Bowl Unit

• Labbo & Ryan (2010). Traversing the “literacies” landscape: A semiotic perspective on early literacy acquisition and digital literacies instruction

• Research project: “Photographs of Local Knowledge” - photographic essay

• West, K. (2008) Weblogs and literary response• High school English Class use of Weblogs for

response

The Salty Chip: http://www.saltychip.com

• The Salty Chip is a space for teachers and students to share and build upon their work as they develop their use of multiliteracies.

• It seeks to capture cultural and linguistic diversity and to make use of new and emerging communication technologies that consider pedagogy in a participatory culture.

• this site’s goal is to support “ongoing improvement and refinement of our knowledge and use of multiliteracies and their possibilities.”

• (taken directly from the website)

Thank you!

• Terry Loerts• tloerts@uwo.ca

• tloerts@redeemer.ca

References:• Albers, P. (2006). Imagining the possibilities in multimodal

curriculum design. English Education, 38, 75-100. • Anstey, M. & Bull, G. (2006). Teaching and learning multiliteracies:

Changing times, changing literacies. International Reading Association.

• Baker, E., PearsAnstey, M. & Bull, G. (2006). Teaching and learning multiliteracies: Changing times, changing literacies. International Reading Association.

• Gee, J. P. (2007). Good video games and good learning: Collected essays on video games, learning, and literacy. New York: P. Lang.

• Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.

• Jewitt, C., & Kress, G. R. (2003). Multimodal literacy. New York: P. Lang.

References:• Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., & Cloonan, A. (2010) A multiliteracies

perspective on the new literacies. In E. Baker (Ed.), the new literacies: Multiple perspectives on research and practice (pp. 61-87). London: The Guilford Press.

• Labbo, L, & Ryan, T. (2010). Traversing the “literacies” landscape: A semiotic perspective on early literacy acquisition and digital literacies instruction. In E. Baker (Ed.), The new literacies: Multiple perspectives on research and practice (pp. 88-105). London: The Guilford Press.

• Millard, E. (2006). Transformative pedagogy: Teachers creating a literacy of fusion. In K. Pahl, & J. Rowsell (Eds.), Travel notes from the new literacy studies: Instances of practice (pp. 234-253). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

• Mulholland, V. (2010). A reader makes sense of the digital world. English Quarterly, 41 Spring, 46-53.

References:• Ontario Ministry of Education. (2004). Literacy for learning: The

report of the expert panel on literacy in grades 4 to 6 in Ontario. Toronto: Ontario, Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca.proxy1.lib.uwo.ca:2048/ eng/document/reports/literacy/panel/

• Tierney, R., Bond, E., & Bresler, J. (2006). Examining literate lives as students engage with multiple literacies. Theory Into Practice 45(4), 359-367.

• Walsh, C. (2007). Creativity as capital in the literacy classroom: Youth as multimodal designers. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 41, 79-85.

• West, K. (2008). Weblogs and literary response: Socially situated identities and hybrid social languages in English class blogs. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 51(7), 588-598.

• Williams, B. T. (2005). Leading double lives: Literacy and technology in and out of school. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(8), 702-706.