The relevance of multiliteracies and multimodal approaches to supporting student learning.

Traditionally there was a focus on teaching and assessing students’ learning through plain text literacies. Nowadays students are part of a globalised world surrounded by new contexts, mass media and multimedia (Kellner & Share, 2005). They are experiencing digital gaming and social networking outside of the classroom and communicating semiotic systems which are encased in a structure of strict rules and relationships (Klopfer, Osterweil, Groff & Haas, 2009). Technology allows teachers to deliver concepts in an effective way that students are keen to use and can be incorporated with various instructional methods. As teachers in a technological world, we should be embracing multimodal approaches to match the learning preferences of our students as supported by Antsey and Bull;

 “These symbol systems with their codes of meaning are vehicles for communication and form powerful learning tools with image and text increasingly recognised as essential learning technologies” (Anstey and Bull, 2006).

Debates surround the relevance of multiliteracies and multimodal approaches in the contemporary classroom. Our communication landscape has transformed, leading many educators to recognise the interconnection between multimodal approaches to pedagogy. A multimodal approach is a way of harnessing students’ strengths and multiple intelligences in order to support their learning (Archer, 2006).

Teaching students about multiliteracies and using them in our classroom will assist them in navigating their lives in a technological society (Mills, 2010). As teachers, we must be able to support this process and could do this by having students create their own multimedia product using programs such as digital animations, ebooks, movies, hyperlinks and many others to support their learning. Teachers who have sound technological knowledge and ability that they can integrate with current pedagogical practices are more likely to incorporate this successfully in the classroom (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). This integration is referred to as Technological, Pedagogical, Content Knowledge (TPCK) where teaching skills are no longer isolated.

There are however some issues with incorporating multiliteracies in your lessons. Resources may be insufficient and there may not be access to computers, projectors or software to support your lessons. This is what I found on most of my practicums. You can plan a whole unit based on utilising technology and creating activities that will enhance engagement and participation, but this can be futile if you are unable to execute this type of lesson. Even teachers who embrace technology can lose interest when resources are inadequate to support the process (Courtney, 1996).

Teachers who understand the relevance and benefits of multiliteracies and multimodal approaches to support student learning will effectively implement them into their teaching practices thereby catering to a broader student-learning base (Mills, 2010).

References:

Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2004). The Literacy Labyrinth (2^nd ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.

Archer, A. (2010). A Multimodal Approach to Academic ‘Literacies’: Problematising the Vidual/Verbal Divide. Academia.edu, accessed on 16/10/12 from: http://www.academia.edu/218595/A_multimodal_approach_to_academic_literacies_problematizing_the_visual_verbal_divide

Courtney, C. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60.

Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2005). Toward critical media literacy: Core concepts, debates, organisations, and policy. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 26(3), 369-386.

Mills, K. (2010). The Multiliteracies Classroom. Channel View Publications. Retrieved August 12, 2012, from Ebook Library.

Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A new framework for teaching knowledge. Teachers College Record 108 (6), 1017–1054.