Kathy Mills Thesis

Multiliteracies: A Critical Ethnography

Pedagogy, power, discourse and access to multiliteracies

Kathy Ann Mills

B Ed (CHC), M Ed (CHC), Grad Dip Christian Studies (ACT)

Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy, undertaken in the Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology, 2006

i

Paragraph of Keywords Multiliteracies, access, critical ethnography, critical sociology, sociocultural theory, multiliteracies pedagogy, structuration theory, pedagogy, power, discourse, diversity, culture, multimodal, monomodal, literacy, linguistics, semiotics, design, digital texts, Learning by Design, overt instruction, situated practice, critical framing, transformed practice, intertextuality, lifeworld, situated learning, marginalisation, domination,

Abstract The multiliteracies pedagogy of the New London Group is a response to the emergence of new literacies and changing forms of meaning-making in contemporary contexts of increased cultural and linguistic diversity. This critical ethnographic research investigates the interactions between pedagogy, power, discourses, and differential access to multiliteracies, among a group of culturally and linguistically diverse learners in a mainstream Australian classroom. The study documents the way in which a teacher enacted the multiliteracies pedagogy through a series of mediabased lessons with her year six (aged 11-12 years) class. The reporting of this research is timely because the multiliteracies pedagogy has become a key feature of Australian educational policy initiatives and syllabus requirements. The methodology of this study was based on Carspecken’s critical ethnography. This method includes five stages: Stage One involved eighteen days of observational data collection over the course of ten weeks in the classroom. The multiliteracies lessons aimed to enable learners to collaboratively design a claymation movie. Stage Two was the initial analysis of data, including verbatim transcribing, coding, and applying analytic tools to the data. Stage Three involved semi-structured, forty-five minute interviews with the principal, teacher, and four culturally and linguistically diverse students. In Stages Four and Five, the results of micro-level data analysis were compared with macro-level phenomena using structuration theory and extant literature about access to multiliteracies. The key finding was that students’ access to multiliteracies differed among the culturally and linguistically diverse group.

Existing degrees of access were

reproduced, based on the learners’ relation to the dominant culture. In the context of the media-based lessons in which students designed claymation movies, students from

ii

Anglo-Australian, middle-class backgrounds had greater access to transformed designing than those who were culturally marginalised. These experiences were mediated by pedagogy, power, and discourses in the classroom, which were in turn influenced by the agency of individuals. The individuals were both enabled and constrained by structures of power within the school and the wider educational and social systems. Recommendations arising from the study were provided for teachers, principals, policy makers and researchers who seek to monitor and facilitate the success of the multiliteracies pedagogy in culturally and linguistically diverse educational contexts.

iii

Table of Contents Paragraph of Keywords Abstract Table of Contents List of Figures List of Tables List of Abbreviations Statement of Original Authorship Acknowledgements

Chapter One – Introduction to the Study

1.0 The Multiliteracies Study in its Global Context 1.1 Defining Multiliteracies 1.2 Aim of the Research 1.3 Local Importance for Multiliteracies Policy 1.4 Local Importance for Multiliteracies Praxis 1.5 Overview of the Thesis

Chapter Two – Review of Literature and Research

2.0 Introduction 2.1 Contextualising Multiliteracies 2.1.1 Autonomous versus Sociocultural Perspectives 2.1.2 Transmissive versus Progressive Approaches 2.1.3 Cultural Heritage versus Critical Literacy 2.1.4 Genre Approach versus Multiliteracies 2.2 Conceptualising Multiliteracies 2.2.1 Multiplicity of Communication Channels and Media 2.2.1.1 Design, multimodality and a new meta-language 2.2.1.2 Hybridisation and intertextuality 2.2.2 Cultural and Linguistic Diversity 2.2.2.1 Lifeworlds 2.2.2.2 Communities of learners 2.3 Summary of Chapter Two

ii iii iv vii viii ix x xi 1 3 4 5 8 9 13 14 15 17 20 23 25 26 29 34 35 37 38 38

Chapter Three – Theoretical Framing of the Study

3.0 Introduction 3.1 Contributions of Critical Theory to Multiliteracies 3.1.1 Contributions of Sociocultural Theory to Multiliteracies 3.1.2 Contributions of Habermas to the Research 3.2 Theoretical Framing of Multiliteracies Lessons 3.2.1 Pedagogy 3.2.2 Power 3.2.3 Discourses 3.3 Theoretical Framing of Systems Analysis 3.3.1 Domination 3.3.2 Signification 3.3.3 Legitimation 3.3.4 System Reproduction 3.4 Summary of Chapter Three

40 42 44 45 47 48 57 60 67 70 71 72 73 73 iv

Chapter Four – Methodology of the Study

4.0 Introduction 4.1 Critical Ethnography 4.2 Research Design 4.3 Site 4.4 Participants 4.4.1 Teacher 4.4.2 Students 4.5 Pilot Study 4.6 Data Collection 4.6.1 Data Set One 4.6.2 Data Set Two 4.7 Data Analysis 4.7.1 Coding 4.7.2 Pragmatic Horizon Analysis 4.8 Interpreting Results 4.9 Validity and Limitations 4.10 Research Ethics 4.11 Summary of Chapter Four

Chapter Five – Multiliteracies Context and Findings of the Study

75 76 77 80 82 82 83 84 86 87 90 106 107 111 115 116 117 118

5.0 Introduction

119

Part I: Multiliteracies Context 5.1 Teacher 5.2 Principal 5.3 Students 5.4 Lessons

119 121 123 124 125

Part II: Multiliteracies Findings and Analysis 5.5 Pedagogy and Access to Multiliteracies 5.5.1 Monomodal Writing 5.5.2 English Grammar 5.5.3 Screen-Based Lessons 5.5.4 Claymation Movie-Making 5.5.4.1 Situated Practice in Claymation Movie-making 5.5.4.2 Overt Instruction in Claymation Movie-making 5.5.4.3 Critical Framing in Claymation Movie-making 5.5.4.4 Transformed Practice in Claymation Movie-making 5.6 Power and Access to Multiliteracies 5.6.1 Coercive Power and Excluded Learners 5.6.2 Coercive Power and Monomodal Literacies 5.7 Discourse and Access to Multiliteracies 5.7.1 Marginalised Discourses 5.7.2 Dominant Discourses 5.8 Summary of Chapter Five

127 131 132 137 140 142 143 150 158 164 171 172 177 181 181 188 192

v

Chapter Six – Intersections of Agency, Structure and Access 6.0 Introduction 6.1 Domination and Access to Multiliteracies 6.1.1 Domination in the School System 6.1.2 Domination in the Classroom 6.1.3 Domination in the State and National Systems 6.1.4 Domination in the Local System 6.2 Signification and Access to Multiliteracies 6.2.1 Signification in the School System 6.2.2 Signification in the Classroom 6.2.3 Signification in the Local System 6.3 Legitimation and Access to Multiliteracies 6.3.1 Legitimation in the School System 6.3.2 Legitimation in the Classroom 6.3.3 Legitimation in the State and National Systems 6.3.4 Legitimation in the Local System 6.4 System Reproduction of Access to Multiliteracies 6.5 Summary of Chapter Six

Chapter Seven – Conclusion, Significance and Recommendations

197 201 201 203 204 205 208 208 209 211 212 212 214 217 218 220 222

7.0 Introduction 7.1 Summary of the Study 7.1.1 Classroom Findings 7.1.2 Systems Relations 7.2 Model of Differential Access to Multiliteracies 7.3 Significance of the Study 7.3.1 Significance for Multiliteracies Policy 7.3.2 Significance for Multiliteracies Praxis 7.4 Limitations 7.5 Recommendations 7.5.1 Classroom Recommendations 7.5.2 System Recommendations 7.6 Concluding Statements

224 225 225 230 235 239 239 240 241 242 243 247 249

References

251

vi

List of Figures Figure 2.2.1.1

Model of Multiliteracies Design Elements

30

Figure 3.0

Themes for Interpreting Access to Multiliteracies

41

Figure 3.1.2

Habermas’ Ontological Categories

46

Figure 3.2.1

Model of the Multiliteracies Pedagogy

48

Figure 3.2.1.1

Model of the Four Knowledge Processes and the

53

Multiliteracies Pedagogy Figure 3.2.2

Model of Power Relations

58

Figure 3.2.3

Taxonomy of Discourses

61

Figure 3.3

Model of Systems Relations to Investigate Access to

68

Multiliteracies generated from Pilot Study Figure 4.6.1.1

Sample of the Primary Record from the Study

88

Figure 4.6.1.2

Sample of Journal Notes from the Pilot Study

89

Figure 4.6.1.3

Reflective Researcher Journal Entry from the Pilot Study

90

Figure 4.6.2.1

Semi-Structured Interview Schedule for Students

92

Figure 4.6.2.2

Semi-Structured Interview Schedule for the Teacher

99

Figure 4.6.2.3

Semi-Structured Interview Schedule for the Principal

102

Figure 4.7

Sample of Observer Comments from the Study

106

Figure 4.7.1.1

Sample of Open Coding from the Study

107

Figure 4.7.1.2

Example of Coding Hierarchy for Two Findings during

108

Situated Practice Figure 5.0

Classroom Seating Arrangement

120

Figure 5.5.1.1

Picture Sequences

133

Figure 5.5.1.2

Student Writing Samples

134

Figure 5.5.1.3

Journal Notes for Screen-Based Lessons

136

Figure 5.5.3

Journal Notes for a Series of Screen-Based Lessons

141

Figure 5.5.4.2

Video Transcript 2: Journal Note Sample

151

Figure 5.6.1

Classroom Poster for Explaining Excluded Groups

175

Figure 6.0

Systems Relations Investigated in the Study

198

Figure 7.2

Model of Differential Access to Multiliteracies

236

vii

List of Tables Table 2.2.1.1

Analysis of Texts Using the Five Modes

32

Table 3.3

Criteria for Systems Analysis

70

Table 4.2

Five Stage Research Design

77

Table 4.4

Participant Roles in the Study

82

Table 4.6.1

Field Note Conventions

88

Table 4.7.1.1

Table of Analytic Themes

110

Table 4.7.1.2

Six Substantive Themes Arising from the Data

111

Table 4.7.2.1

Index of Pragmatic Horizon Analysis

111

Table 4.7.2.2

Pragmatic Horizon Analysis from the Pilot Study

113

Table 5.3

Description of Student Participants

125

Table 5.4.1

Claymation Movie-Making Lesson Schedule

126

Table 5.4.2

Schedule of Writing Lessons

127

Table 5.4.3

Table of Analytic Themes Arising from the Data

128

Table 5.4.4

Six Substantive Themes and Sub themes

128

Table 5.4.5

129

Table 5.5

Inventory of Data to Support Finding III Overt Instruction Table of Codes for Pedagogy

Table 5.6.2

Pragmatic Horizon Analysis of Teacher’s Claims

178

Table 6.0

Systems Relations Affecting Access to Multiliteracies

199

Table 6.1.4

Pragmatic Horizon Analysis for Domination Structures in the Home Pragmatic Horizon Analysis for Signification in the Classroom Pragmatic Horizon Analysis for Legitimation in the School Pragmatic Horizon Analysis for Legitimation in the Classroom Pragmatic Horizon Analysis for Social Reproduction

207

219

Table 7.1.1

Comparison of Rules and Norms for using Multiliteracies at Home Summary of Classroom Findings

Table 7.1.2.1

Systems Relations that Enabled Access to Multiliteracies

231

Table 7.1.2.2

Systems Relations that Constrained Access to Multiliteracies

232

Table 6.2.2 Table 6.3.1 Table 6.3.2.1 Table 6.3.2.2 Table 6.3.4

131

210 213 215 216

225

viii

List of Abbreviations ACT ATSI DEETYA EIP ESL EQ LOTE ICT NLG

PD QSA SAROP STLD

Australian Capital Territory Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Department of Eduction, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs Extensive Innovation Program English as a Second Language Education Queensland Languages Other Than English Information and Communications Technologies New London Group: Joseph Lo Bianco, Courtney Cazden, Bill Cope, Norman Fairclough, James Gee, Mary Kalantzis, Gunther Kress, Allan Luke, Carmen Luke, Sarah Michaels, and Martin Nakata Professional Development Queensland Studies Authority School Annual Report and Operation Plan Support Teacher for Learning Difficulties

ix

Statement of Original Authorship This thesis is an original work, which has not been previously submitted for a degree or diploma at any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference is made.

Signed: __________________________ Date: _______________________

x

Acknowledgements I give my sincere gratitude to my primary supervisor Dr Annah Healy, and secondly, to Associate Professor William Corcoran. It has been a privilege to work with two scholars of their calibre. I have appreciated their wisdom, knowledge and encouragement throughout the intensive process of research. I thank the anonymous teacher participant in this research who opened her classroom to rigorous analysis and critique, and who has afforded a substantial, original, and invaluable data set upon which this ethnography depended. Without her immense professional contribution, this thesis would not have been possible. I also thank the many other research participants – principal, teachers, parents, and students – who participated in the pilot study or research proper. In addition, I am grateful to the support of internationally respected critical ethnographers,

including

Professor

Phil

Carspecken,

whose

professional

correspondence and ethnographic workshops in Australia equipped me with methodological expertise. I also appreciate the active support of his colleagues in the United States, Professors Barbara Korth and Joan Parker Webster, who supported me with scholarly examples of critical ethnographies. I thank my colleagues from the School of Education and the Humanities at Christian Heritage College, who attended my thesis orals throughout my candidature. In particular, I thank Dr. Robert Herschell for his constant encouragement and interest in my research progress. I also acknowledge colleagues from the School of Cultural and Language Studies in Education at the Queensland University of Technology. Their example, encouragement, and interest in my research has been appreciated. I am grateful for my parents who provided me with the prerequisite life experiences to successfully engage in the PhD journey. I sincerely express appreciation to my husband, Dr Ryan Mills, who tirelessly read every draft of the thesis, and who constantly affirmed me. Most importantly, I would like to give all honour to God for his guidance and strength, and for giving me the opportunity to take this journey of discovery.

xi

Multiliteracies: A Critical Ethnography Kathy Mills, 2006

Chapter One – Introduction to the Study 1.0 The Multiliteracies Study in its Global Context Global trends call for new literacy research to investigate the potential of a broadened range of hybrid literacies and new pedagogies. Dramatic changes are occurring in the form of rapidly emerging modes of communication, increased cultural diversity, evolving workplaces cultures, new challenges for equitable education, and the changing identities of students. The proliferation of powerful, multimodal literacies demands research to investigate students’ access to new forms of communication, which are necessary to participate fully in our dynamic and culturally diverse society. This study responds to this global revolution. Previous conceptions of literacy were tightly confined to writing and speech. The boundaries of literacy are collapsing, and have been replaced by a multiplicity of hybrid forms of communication, including audio, visual, gestural, spatial, and linguistic modes (New London Group, 1996)1. Students today will enter universities and a labour market that are fast becoming globalised. Students require competence in a growing range of meaning-making systems, such as internet transactions, website critique and construction, film and media, spreadsheets and databases, and PowerPoint presentations. These examples point to the need for fresh approaches to literacy pedagogy and research (Kalantzis, Cope, & Fehring, 2002) The twenty-first century has been characterised by greater cultural and linguistic diversity in schools and society. The clientele of Australian schools is drawn from an increasingly diverse mélange of ethnic, community, and social class cultures, with a wide range of texts, interests and group identities. For example, the school in which this research was conducted included students from twenty-five different nationalities. Participation in community life now requires that students interact effectively using multiple “Englishes”, marked by accent, dialect, or subcultural differences, and communication patterns that cross international boundaries (Lo Bianco, 2000; New London Group, 2000).

1

See List of Abbreviations for the names of the New London Group’s members. -1-


Workplaces are changing. Cross-cultural communication and the negotiation of difference is now a basis for worker creativity and teamwork. An important role of schools is to prepare students for this new world of work which emphasises change, flexibility, and networking rather than hierarchical command structures (Gee, 1994; Gee, 2000b). The division of labour into deskilled components has been replaced by multi-skilled professionals who have a broad portfolio of skills, and who engage in a dynamic repertoire of integrated practices (Cope & Kalantzis, 1999). These workplace changes provide impetus for this research to investigate pedagogies for a new world of work. Schools have an historical role in the reproduction of social inequity, both allowing and preventing access to literacies and its associated power to gain social mobility, wealth and professional status (Bourdieu, 1977). Literacies have been distributed unequally on the basis of gender, class, ethnicity, geographical isolation, disability, and combinations of these social characteristics (Kress, 1993a). Extant sociocultural research indicates that the values and practices of the dominant culture are reflected in school literacy practices, while those of minority groups are silenced (Lankshear & McLaren, 1993; Luke, Comber, & Grant, 2003). Consequently, there is an urgent need to transform the inequitable distribution of literacies through new pedagogies, supported by research that investigates whether inequities are reproduced, legitimated, or alternatively contested (Cook-Gumperz, 1986, p.7). Students’ identities are in a continual process of transformation, with increased complexity and uncertainty. There is a major cultural shift that has contributed to changing identities, from a culture of literature to popular culture, and from print to visual culture (Green & Bigum, 1993, p.127; Green, Fitzclarence, & Bigum, 1994, p.2). Differences in students’ multilayered identities are influenced by a proliferation of multi-media environments and technologies, and membership in overlapping communities on the basis of multiple roles, affiliations and interests (Cope & Kalantzis, 1997b; New London Group, 2000, p.17). Therefore, literacy pedagogy must engage with unique identities of individuals, recruiting these as a resource for learning to unlock the gate of possibility for improved access (Cope & Kalantzis, 1997b; New London Group, 2000). -2-


Together, these five arguments point to the urgent need for research to investigate students’ access to the broadening range of powerful and multimodal literacies needed to participate in our dynamic society in the new times. 1.1 Defining Multiliteracies The term “multiliteracies” was coined by the New London Group to encompass two powerful propositions in the changing communications environment (1996). The first concerns the multiplicity of communications channels and media tied to the expansion of mass media, multimedia, and the Internet, while the second pertains to the increasing importance of cultural and linguistic diversity as a consequence of migration and globally marketed services (New London Group, 1996). These two propositions are related because the proliferation of texts is partially attributed to the diversity of cultures and subcultures. Preferences in modes of representation, such as linguistic or auditory, differ according to culture and context, and have specific cognitive, social, and relational effects. For example, in Aboriginal cultures the visual mode of representation is much richer and more evocative than linguistics alone (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000b). Likewise, it was observed in this research that gestural modes of communication, represented through dance and holistic expressions of movement, are an integral part of Sudanese culture. Chapter Two (Section 2.2) affords a detailed conceptualisation of multiliteracies. The multiliteracies pedagogy of the New London Group involves four related components: situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing and transformed practice (New London Group, 2000). Situated practice involves building on the lifeworld experiences of students, situating meaning making in real world contexts. Overt instruction guides students to use an explicit metalanguage of design. Critical framing encourages students to interpret the social context and purpose of designs of meaning. Transformed practice occurs when students transform existing meanings to design new meanings

(New London Group, 1996). These components of the

pedagogy do not constitute a linear hierarchy, but may occur simultaneously, randomly or be “related in complex ways…each of them repeatedly revisited at

-3-


different levels” (New London Group, 2000, p.32). A detailed explanation of the multiliteracies pedagogy is presented in Chapter Three of this study (Section 3.2.1). 1.2 Aim of the Research The primary aim of this critical ethnography was to empirically investigate the application of the multiliteracies pedagogy of the New London Group within a culturally and linguistically diverse classroom in terms of the Group’s vision of access for all. The following research question was asked in relation to a teacher’s enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy in a year six classroom in Southeast Queensland, Australia. What specific interactions between pedagogy, power, and discourse affect students’ access to multiliteracies within a culturally and linguistically diverse classroom group? This question stimulated inquiry about the potential of the multiliteracies pedagogy of the New London Group to provide all students with fair and equitable access to multiliteracies or designs for meaning. These designs refer to mature versions of multimodal and culturally and linguistically diverse textual practices that are used in contemporary society, mediated by technological (including writing) tools, such as contributing digitally-mediated articles to the school newsletter (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000c; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003a; Luke, 1994). The research question is oriented by the sociology of critical theory, which begins with the important proposition that certain groups in any society are privileged over others (Carspecken, 1996). The central themes of “pedagogy”, “power”, and “discourse” in the research question are located in the work of the New London Group, critical ethnography, and sociocultural theory respectively (Carspecken, 1996; Cope & Kalantzis, 2000b; Gee, 1996). The teacher in this study had received professional development to enact a pedagogy of multiliteracies through Cope and Kalantzis’ (2005, p.179) Learning by Design project. The present research was conducted in a co-educational state school situated in a low socioeconomic area. Twenty-five nationalities were represented in the school clientele. Student participants in the observed classroom were aged between 11-12 years, and were of Anglo-Australian, Aboriginal, Thai, Sudanese, Tongan, -4-


Torres Strait Islander, and Maori ethnicity, having differing dialects and versions of “Englishes”. The group comprised those who had access to digitally mediated textual practices at home and those who did not. Applying Carspecken’s (1996) critical ethnography, two data sets were utilised: i) observational data from eighteen lessons gathered over ten weeks; and ii) semistructured interview data with the principal, teacher and four students, to triangulate participants’ perspectives with observational data. The interviews also investigated the economic, cultural, and political influences to situate field data within larger structures of power and privilege. Giddens’ (1984) structuration theory was applied to take account of the agency of the research participants and social structures of power, such as resource allocation and policies, that influenced the distribution of access to multiliteracies (Giddens, 1984; Popkewitz & Guba, 1990, p.49). 1.3 Local Importance for Multiliteracies Policy This research has local importance in the light of the growing number of educational policies which instruct Australian teachers to address multimodal and culturally diverse textual practices in their classrooms. Multiliteracies is now significant in educational policies that are concerned with remaking teachers’ understandings of literacy and literacy pedagogy. Educators are urged to reconsider what is most indispensable to literacy curricula, including the “new basics” that are continually changing as society becomes increasingly multicultural. Literacy educators must respond to constantly changing forms of multimedia communications channels and culturally and linguistically diverse texts, and engage with new pedagogy, curriculum, and assessment of multiliteracies (Education Queensland, 1999, 2001, 2002). Most importantly, the teaching of multiliteracies is now a state-mandated requirement throughout Queensland primary schools, where this research was conducted (Queensland Studies Authority, 2005). For example, the Years 1-10 English Syllabus, for open trial in Queensland until 2006, emphasises how language choices are shaped by textual resources from a multimodal range of language systems, including linguistic, visual, gestural, spatial, and audio modes (Queensland Studies Authority, 2005). The English syllabus uses terms such as “multiliteracies”, “multiliterate citizens”, and the need for students to -5-


communicate in “varieties of English” for different communication contexts and for different audiences (Queensland Studies Authority, 2005, p.2). The Queensland Board of Teacher Registration provides literacy standards to inform the development of teacher education pre-service programs (Board of Teacher Registration Queensland, 2001).

Standard 1.0 requires that teacher graduates

respect and value cultural diversity and difference – a key emphasis of multiliteracies.

Furthermore, Standard 2.0 states that all graduate teachers of

English will understand, apply, and critique a representative range of theory related to multiliteracies and pedagogy. Students are also required to develop knowledge and understandings deriving from media and popular culture, including the forms and manifestations of electronically-mediated environments (Board of Teacher Registration Queensland, 2001). Literate Futures Project (Anstey, 2002), authorised by Education Queensland, calls attention to equipping students with multiliteracies necessary to be active and informed citizens in a changing world. Three dimensions of multiliteracies are emphasised: Multimedia and technology, cultural and linguistic diversity, and critical literacy. A strong case is argued for the centrality of multiliteracies in Australian society and literacy education. In a publication entitled “2010 Queensland State Education”, proposals are also made for new communications technologies in Queensland schools (Education Queensland, 1999). This became the catalyst for the New Basics initiative by the Queensland Department of Education, involving thirty-eight schools in a three-year curriculum cycle beginning in 2000 (Education Queensland, 2001). The New Basics curriculum has four clusters of essential practices or curriculum organisers, one of which is multiliteracies and communications media. This future-oriented curriculum emphasises students’ ability to communicate using languages and intercultural understandings by blending traditional and new communications media.

The

curriculum is rich with concerns of culturally inclusive practices and the recognition of student diversity.

-6-


Many pre-service and in-service teachers throughout Queensland are planning and implementing the multiliteracies pedagogy in response to these educational and political initiatives. However, the political importance of multiliteracies extends beyond state borders. All syllabi across the six states and territories in Australia make reference to multimodal texts and the need for students to use texts for a variety of social purposes (See: ACT Department of Education and Training, 2001; Board of Studies New South Wales, 1998; Department of Education and Training Western Australia, 2005; Department of Education Tasmania, 2004; Department of Employment Education and Training Northern Territory, 2005; South Australian Department of Education and Children' s Services, 2004; Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority, 2005). In April 1999, the Ministerial Council for Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) met to formulate a federal policy entitled the Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-first Century (Ministerial Council for Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs, 1999). The two key arguments of multiliteracies are embedded in these goals for Australian school students. For example, statement 3.5 requires that “all students understand and acknowledge the value of cultural and linguistic diversity, and possess the knowledge, skills and understanding to contribute to, and benefit from this diversity in the Australian community and internationally”. In relation to the second argument of multiliteracies, statement 1.6 requires that students “be confident, creative and productive users of new technologies, particularly information and communication technologies, and understand the impact of those technologies on society” (Ministerial Council for Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs, 1999). These are examples of how multiliteracies is increasingly becoming a curricular and professional development issue for Australian teachers, providing political impetus for this research. There is an imperative for research investigating the social consequences of these policy changes, and the equity of the existing provisions for students’ access to multiliteracies (Department of Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs, 1997). Researchers and educators must consider whether these changes will remedy or reproduce the existing social problems in education that are intimately tied to literacy pedagogy (Apple, 1997).

-7-


This research investigates first-hand the complex interactions between the enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy and the degree to which students of varied backgrounds have access to multiliteracies. One objective is to inform policy makers of the effectiveness of these systemic initiatives leading to recommendations for positive, individual and system-wide changes to literacy pedagogy and curriculum. In so doing, the aim is to make a small contribution in the quest for a more just society (Luke et al., 2003). 1.4 Local Importance for Multiliteracies Praxis This research has local significance for multiliteracies praxis because it investigates the New London Group’s ideal that a pedagogy of multiliteracies can potentially “provide access without children having to leave behind or erase their different subjectivities” (New London Group, 2000 p.18). A pedagogy of multiliteracies is posited as “a teaching and learning relationship that potentially builds learning conditions that lead to full and equitable social participation” (New London Group, 1996, p.60). This is achieved by moving from a standard, national or universal culture to foster productive diversity that acknowledges the multilayered lifeworlds of students: The role of pedagogy is to develop an epistemology of pluralism that provides access without people having to erase or leave behind different subjectivities. This has to be the basis of a new norm (New London Group, 2000, p.18). The New London Group implies that the multiliteracies pedagogy will open possibilities for greater access. They acknowledge that in the emergent reality, there are real deficits including a lack of equitable access to social power, wealth and recognition. However, they claim that a genuine epistemology of pluralism, not a tokenistic one, is the only way that the educational system can “possibly be genuinely fair in its distribution of opportunity, as between one group and another” (New London Group, 2000, p.125). From the perspective of critical theory, access to literacy is tied up in the politics and power relations of everyday life in literate cultures (Luke & Freebody, 1997). Throughout the history of education there is evidence that schools have continually failed with minority and marginalised communities in literacy education, serving to reproduce the patterns of social inequity in wider society (Luke et al., 2003). The -8-


selection of textual practices in schools is never accidental, random, natural or idiosyncratic. Rather, it is political, supportive of the stratified interests of the social institution of schooling, and has significant material consequences for learners, communities and institutions (Luke & Freebody, 1997). For example, through the selection of text books, genres, media, and literate tastes, dominant mainstream cultures are conserved and taught as the culture (Luke et al., 2003).

How literacy

is taught is tied to key questions about how schools contribute to social access and equity, ethnic assimilation and discrimination, economic power and social stratification (Luke et al., 2003). Marginalised and minority communities have the most urgent stake in the efficacy of literacy education. This is because they have the greatest distance to travel between their linguistic and lifeworld experiences, and those of the dominant culture of the school (Cope, 2000). In the light of these ethical concerns, the ideals for a pedagogy of multiliteracies require empirical investigation through the collaboration of teachers and researchers. Extant classroom-based research has not empirically examined the New London Group’s pedagogy in terms of its provision for equitable access. Therefore, this research is significant because it investigates a teacher’s enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy in a culturally diverse classroom in terms of its potential to provide “access without children having to erase or leave behind different subjectivities” and to be “genuinely fair in the distribution of opportunity” (New London Group, 2000, p.18). This examination takes into account the complex web of relations between the multiliteracies pedagogy, power and discourses used in the classroom, which operate to prevent or permit access to multiliteracies. 1.5 Overview of the Thesis Chapter One provided a rationale for this research, which is stimulated by the need for new conceptions of literacy pedagogy in the context of five revolutionary, global changes. These include the emergence of powerful communications technologies, increased cultural diversity, evolving workplace cultures, new demands for equitable education, and the changing identities of students. These dramatic changes provide impetus for moving beyond previous conceptions of literacy as monomodal, monolingual, mono-cultural, and rule-governed forms of English, to consider a pedagogy of multiliteracies for the new times. -9-


A case was made for the significance of this research for multiliteracies policy and praxis. It was contended that multiliteracies has become a crucial part of statemandated educational policies and literacy standards throughout Australia. These policies

give heightened momentum for classroom-based research to inform

educators, administrators and policy makers of the potential enabling and constraining factors confronted by teachers in the process of pedagogical change. It was also argued that this study has significant implications for multiliteracies praxis because it examines the New London Group’s ideals for an equitable pedagogy that can provide access without children having to leave behind their different subjectivities (New London Group, 2000 p.18). This research investigates the social consequences of the multiliteracies pedagogy in classrooms, particularly in terms of whether students of varied ethnic, linguistic, and sub-culturally diverse backgrounds gain access to the dynamic semiotic systems needed to participate in society. Chapter Two addresses literature relevant to a pedagogy of multiliteracies. The first section (2.1) affords a chronological review of literacy pedagogy in Australia from 1960 to the present, in order to contextualise multiliteracies within the historical literacy traditions from which it emerged as a new pedagogy. Within this chronological review, four polarised positions that have divided literacy pedagogy are contrasted. These include sociocultural theory versus an autonomous view of literacy, transmissive versus progressive pedagogies, cultural heritage against critical literacy, and the genre approach versus multiliteracies. These debates prepared the ground for the multiliteracies pedagogy in 1996. The second section (2.2) reviews essential theories concerning multiliteracies by key theorists of the New London Group. Chapter Three provides the theoretical framing of the study. The contributions of critical theory, sociocultural literacy theory, Carspecken’s (1996) critical ethnography, and the work of Habermas (1981; 1987; 1992) are discussed in relation to their methodological application to this study. Chapter Three also systematises the

- 10 -


theoretical framing of the multiliteracies lesson observations, and of systems analysis in critical ethnography. Chapter Four describes the methodology, which is principally guided by Carspecken’s (1996) critical ethnography. A rationale for critical ethnography is provided, followed by a description of the research design, site and participants, pilot study, data collection procedures and tools, analytic and interpretative methods, limits to reporting, and the ethical conduct of the research. Chapter Five presents the research results in two parts: I) Multiliteracies Context; and, II) Multiliteracies Findings and Analysis. Part I provides the context of the field work, and describes the school, teacher, principal, students, and lessons. Part II presents the findings and analysis pertaining to the teacher’s enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy, power, and discourses in the classroom in relation to the distribution of access to multiliteracies among the students. Results are compared to extant literature that was introduced in Chapter Two. Chapter Six discusses systems analysis, which strengthens the validity of results in critical ethnography (Carspecken, 1996). Systems analysis involves situating the research problem and its attendant issues within the broader social, cultural, economic, and political context using an internally descriptive language of theorydriven analysis. This requires a sociological model that takes account of both individual agency and structural properties of institutions. Giddens’ (1984) structuration theory is applied, which involves analysing the complex network of relations across micro- and macro-level findings to produce a rigorous explanatory critique, while allowing the empirical data to extend the sociological theory in a recursive way. Chapter Seven summarises the results, which are presented in two sections: a) Classroom Findings, and b) Systems Relations. A “Model of Differential Access to Multiliteracies” arises from this synthesis, presented diagrammatically and discursively. The significance of the research for multiliteracies policy and praxis is demonstrated, and the limitations of the research are discussed. The thesis concludes with recommendations for teachers, principals, policy-makers and researchers who

- 11 -


seek to facilitate the success of the multiliteracies pedagogy in culturally and linguistically diverse educational settings.

- 12 -


Chapter Two – Review of Literature and Research 2.0 Introduction Chapter One has established that the skills required for students to communicate effectively in society are constantly evolving. Conceptions of literacy as a singular, canonical English that exclusively concerns linguistics or alphabetic print are no longer sufficient in an increasingly multimodal and digitally-mediated world of textual design. In particular, cultural differences and a proliferation of communications media provide impetus for a pedagogy of multiliteracies. Logically related to pedagogical change is the need for new research to examine teachers’ implementation of the multiliteracies pedagogy in locally-diverse, educational contexts. There is a paucity of classroom research that evaluates the effectiveness of the pedagogy of the New London Group to provide access to multiliteracies among a culturally diverse group of primary students. Therefore, there is an unarguable need for this study to bridge the gap in extant multiliteracies research. It is hoped that this study marks the beginnings of a trajectory of classroom-based research, that engages in the quest for knowledge about multiliteracies praxis. Chapter Two provides a review of literature by key theorists of multiliteracies relevant to the following restatement of the research question: What specific interactions between pedagogy, power and discourse affect students’ access to multiliteracies within a culturally and linguistically diverse classroom group? This chapter begins by contextualising multiliteracies through a chronological review of literacy pedagogy from 1960 to the present. This review is important because it provides a critical evaluation of the significant historical trends in literacy pedagogy that paved the way for the multiliteracies pedagogy (Section 2.1). Pertinent literature concerning multiliteracies by key theorists of the New London Group is reviewed (Section 2.2). The first proposition of multiliteracies is raised concerning the multiplicity of communications channels and media (Section 2.1). It

- 13 -


is argued that the emergence of a burgeoning variety of text forms and the dynamic nature of language in contemporary life points to the need for a new grammar. The beginnings of this new grammar for multiliteracies is explored, in which the elements of language are seen as dynamic representational resources, flexibly transformed to achieve various cultural purposes. A second facet of multiliteracies is argued concerning the need for a pedagogy of multiliteracies to respond to increasing cultural and linguistic diversity. We are living in a period of intense social and cultural change. This change is allencompassing in its global and local implications, and has resulted in the blurring and redrawing of boundaries between different versions of English. Respect for cultural and linguistic diversity in local contexts, and the responsive negotiation of difference, are given priority in a pedagogy of multiliteracies. 2.1 Contextualising Multiliteracies This section paints an historical backdrop of literacy pedagogy and research since 1960 in order to contextualise the need for a pedagogy of multiliteracies in the local Australian milieu. This is important because the New London Group draws selectively from conventional learning theories and practices to reformulate a new pedagogy for the contemporary communications environment (New London Group, 2000). There have been four polarised positions within literacy education in Australia, New Zealand, USA and the UK throughout the latter half of the twentieth century: a) Autonomous versus Sociocultural perspectives b) Transmissive versus Progressive approaches c) Cultural Heritage versus Critical Literacy d) Genre Approach verses Multiliteracies The following section works to show how each of these approaches have not provided dialectic resolution, that is, a solution brought about through continuous dialogue, to the shifting sands of language and learning (Lather, 1991).

The

assumptions underlying these competing models are described and ‘constructively deconstructed’, and the tensions reframed for understanding the multiliteracies pedagogy, the focus of this investigation.

- 14 -


2.1.1 Autonomous versus Sociocultural Perspectives Historically, there are two opposing views of literacy that have guided literacy pedagogy and research – autonomous and sociocultural perspectives. This debate is significant to this thesis because the autonomous view of literacy stands in antithesis to a multiliteracies approach (See for example: New London Group, 1996; 2000). To the autonomous view, literacy is a canonical set of personal and portable procedures. It describes language and patterns of meaning making as inherently stable systems of elements and rules that simply need transplanting to new environments. Street (1984; 1999; 1993) labels this view the Autonomous Model of literacy because it treats literacy technically, and as an independent variable that can be separated from its social context. Individuals are seen as passive recipients, or at best, agents in the reproduction of conventions. Therefore, this view fails to situate literacy within the society of which the individual is a member. Devoid of personal, historical, social, or cultural considerations, literacy is perceived as psychological, private practice (Hagood, 2000). This view finds its expression in curricula that measure results against the official standard of the national language. It obscures the connections between literacy, power and social identity, privileging certain types of literacies and people (Gee, 1996). The alternative position is the sociocultural view, followed in this thesis and explained fully in Chapter Three. Knowledge and literacies are primarily seen as constructions of particular social groups (See for example: Fairclough, 1989; 1992; Gee, 1992; 1996; Heath, 1983; 1999; Lankshear, Gee, Knobel, & Searle, 1997; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003b; 2003; Luke & Freebody, 1997; Street, 1995; 1999; Vygotsky, 1962; 1978; 1987). This theory has become increasingly visible since the late 1970s with a renewed emphasis on the work of Vygotsky (Cope & Kalantzis, 1993; Vygotsky, 1962). Vygotsky (1962) saw language as influenced and constituted by social relations or socio-genesis, and as a tool for shaping, controlling and interacting with one’s social and physical environment. He theorised about the role of dialogue between an expert teacher and novice learner, as a precursor to inner speech. When an expert language user articulates a new concept, the learner can reflect on the dialogue, using its distinctions and connections to reformulate his or her thoughts. This - 15 -


perspective draws attention to the development of thought and language as a social achievement, rather than an exclusively internal and psychological one (Vygotsky, 1962; 1978; 1987). Street (1984; 1995; 1999; 1993), like Vygotsky, showed how literate practices carry meaning primarily through their embeddedness in specific cultural values and orientations. However, he also observed that as a social practice, literacy is linked ideologically to social power. Street called this the Ideological Model, which underscores the emphasis on social conventions and ideologies within institutions, such as schools, that influence students’ access to literacy. Consequently, literacy is researched, not as an independent variable, but as inseparable from social practices and their effects, always embedded with larger social contexts and power relations (Freebody, 1999). More recently, Wertsch (1985; 1996a; 1996b) has applied Street’s Ideological Model to a critique of Vygotsky’s (1962) “Thought and Language”. Wertsch (1996a; 1996b) argues that a disjunction exists between Vygotsky’s emphasis on the child’s internal, private, psychological world of meanings and the role of school in the child’s understanding of the external, public and social world of conventional and systematic meanings. Similarly, Britton (1987) contends that Vygotsky overemphasises the individual and considers the social only as interaction, while ignoring issues of power and difference. Thus, Street, Wertsch, and Britton have extended Vygotskian perspectives of language development to include factors that are collectively cultural, thereby taking into greater account sociocultural differences of language and culture, and critical perspectives of power in language use (Cazden, 2000). The theoretical shift from the Autonomous model of ‘literacy skills’ toward Ideological or Sociocultural perspectives of ‘literacy as a social practice’ was an essential precursor to the multiliteracies pedagogy (Freebody, 1999). The theory of multiliteracies draws attention to societal, institutional, cultural, technological, economic and political changes on a global scale that have transformed literacy practices in the twenty-first century (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000b). These changes demand a pluralised conception of literacy and literacy pedagogy – one that goes - 16 -


beyond the autonomous view of literacy as a monomodal, monocultural, alphabetic script or set of standard, static skills. The call is for new, multimodal, digitally mediated, culturally diverse, and dynamic multiliteracies for our changing times. 2.1.2 Transmissive versus Progressive Approaches One of the most contentious debates in literacy concerns transmissive pedagogies, of which the basic skills approach is the best known, and progressive pedagogies, such as whole language. This debate is significant to this thesis because two of the components of the multiliteracies pedagogy – overt instruction and situated practice – are a response to this polarisation (New London Group, 2000). The traditional, compartmentalised, skills-based ideology of literacy has persisted since the 1960s. While it historically represents the earliest research into literacy learning, its tenets still dictate educational pedagogy both implicitly and explicitly (Ediger, 2001). Associated with the transmission of basic skills is a false, sharp distinction between the literate who possess these skills and the illiterate who do not. This approach is tied to the autonomous view, because literacy is taught as technical, decontextualised, neutral skills, which remain constant and stable irrespective of use. Reading is described as a combination of visual and perceptual skills, sight vocabulary, word attack skills and comprehension (Stewart-Dore, 2003). These skills are taught and practised as if the social context of the literature is immaterial to the learning of reading and ideologically benign.

Most importantly, transmissive

approaches conceal the way in which literacy is linked to the agendas and power relations of institutions and communities (Gee, 2000a; Luke, 1994; Muspratt, Luke, & Freebody, 1997; Street, 1995; West, 1992). Readers require knowledge that transcends the simple sound-letter relationships that are taught in transmissive approaches. Phonological information alone is not a sufficient resource for readers. A reader must know how to apply this information in relation to multiple spelling choices for varying word contexts, with attention to digraphs, blends, diphthongs, prefixes, suffixes, word roots, and syllabification. The reader must also respond to semantic, syntactic, orthographic, visual, directional, spatial, and redundancy cues embedded in texts (Bull & Anstey, 2003b; Clay, 1993). Interpreting textual meaning includes a comprehensive consideration of the

- 17 -


overarching functional frame or cultural context, and the immediate situational or social context. Furthermore, situated practice is required for students to transfer literacy practice to genuine literacy situations outside the classroom, and this is absent in transmissive approaches. The skills taught often have little relationship with literacy in use, either in community, occupational or subsequent academic experiences (See: Behrman, 2002; Lave, 1996; Macken-Horarik, 1997; Murphy, 1991; Putnam & Borko, 2000). During the 1980s, the pedagogical pendulum moved from skills-based approaches to emphasise the semantics of whole texts. Bartlett (1932), Goodman (1976), Graves (1983), Smith (1978), Pearson and Johnson (1978), Cambourne (1988), and Turbill (1983),

advocated

progressive,

whole

language

approaches

to

reading.

Psycholinguistic reading research, from which these approaches emerged, acknowledged the significance of the reader’s prior knowledge as a factor influencing success in deriving meaning from texts. It was observed that different text types and reading tasks require differing fields of prior knowledge. Whole language and process models emphasised the semantic features of real-world texts, such as generic structure, that skills-based approaches had disregarded (Ediger, 2001). By the 1990s, progressive approaches such as whole language had become a subject of controversy and critique among literacy educators such as Baker and Freebody (1991), Baker(1989), Church (1994), Delpit (1988), Moorman, Blanton & McLaughton (1994), Unsworth (1988), and Gray (1987).

The whole language

approach is based on the view that the written modes of language can be successfully taught by reproducing the conditions in which children acquire oral language (Cambourne, 1988). Critics have contended that this is inadequate because it fails to acknowledge that oral language acquisition and formal literacy learning – reading and writing – are two distinct processes. The rules of interaction and attendant power relations for some speech situations are known intuitively. However, written language is not mastered intuitively because it is a social technology entailing a set of historically evolving techniques for inscription. The lexicogrammatical structures of written language are different from those of speech, and the functions of written text vary greatly across literate cultures and historical - 18 -


epochs (Emmitt & Pollock, 1997; Luke, 1994). Many tribal cultures do not operate with writing systems, and without instruction children will not necessarily develop or invent reading and writing skills spontaneously (Muspratt et al., 1997). Cambourne’s (1988) Conditions of Learning, which reflect progressive ideals, have been criticised because they do not take into account the diversity of textual practices and conditions for early language acquisition across home cultures (Bull & Anstey, 2003b; Muspratt et al., 1997). A landmark ethnographic study by Heath (1983) examined a wide range of family literacy practices within and across social classes.

These studies showed that children’s language learning reflects their

respective histories and the distinct patterns of face-to-face interaction in their communities (Heath, 1983). Heath’s research also showed that children whose home literacy practices most resembled those of the school were the most successful at school. Cambourne’s (1988) assumption that there are universal principles that shape oral language acquisition is not consistent with Heath’s research. A further argument is that the emphasis on acquisition in progressive approaches has led to implicit rather than explicit teaching practices. Delpit (1988) argues that children who are not from the dominant culture benefit from explicit teaching methods and language. Rather than acquiring the dominant discourse of the classroom ‘naturally’, minority students require clearly communicated expectations regarding the rules for culturally-defined forms of behaviour at school (Delpit, 1988). Whole language methods that rely on implicit teaching practices and conditions of learning found in Anglo-Saxon homes advantages the dominant over the minority ethnic groups and social classes (Anstey & Bull, 1996). The teacher and the dominant, middle class, Anglo-Saxon students are the native members, while the marginalised children are immigrants, highlighting the problematic nature of Cambourne’s ‘natural learning’ (See: Bernhard, Freire, Torres, & Nirdosh, 1998; Bourdieu, 1977; Gallas, 1997; Gee, 1996; Heath, 1983; Soler-Gallart, 1998; Soto, 1997; Street, 1984). The polarisation between transmissive approaches, such as basic skills, and progressive approaches, such as whole language, are significant to this thesis because the multiliteracies pedagogy works to reconcile these historical tensions. - 19 -


This debate highlights the need for a new pedagogy that combines the strengths of both approaches – one that combines systematic, explicit instruction with situated literacy practices that are used in a changing society. 2.1.3 Cultural Heritage versus Critical Literacy Another significant polarisation is the cultural heritage versus critical literacy divide. This is important in this study because it foregrounded the critical framing component of the multiliteracies pedagogy (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000c). Historically, cultural heritage advocates have appealed to the unchanging merit and meaning of historically ratified texts, and the implicit affirmations of fictionally encoded values and conservative systems of belief (Hollingdale, 1995). On the other side of the debate, critical literacy educators emphasise the need to develop alternative reading positions and practices for questioning and critiquing texts with their affiliated social formations and culturally specific assumptions (Durrant & Green, 2000; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003a; West, 1992). Reading is seen as critical social practice rather than as cultural transmission. The historically validated purposes of the cultural heritage position are legitimate outcomes of literacy instruction. However, it does not take into account the fact that texts and textual practices work in the construction of subjectivity and production of culture (Anstey & Bull, 1996). Critical literacy advocates challenge these conservative presuppositions on a number of issues. The cultural heritage model seeks the reproduction of dominant cultural values of the past and compliance with the literary tastes of the most powerful. Additionally, arbitrary market decisions play a role in this selective tradition, producing an excessively derivative and homogenised canon of literature (Anstey & Bull, 1996). The establishment of a dominant literary tradition is inequitable, since minority and indigenous communities also have a stake in literate practice in a multicultural society. Arbitrary value should not be given to historically ratified, Anglo-Saxon texts. Rather, judgments about quality and inclusiveness must be equally interrogated in the interests of marginalised groups. Conventionally valued criteria for judging the quality of children’s literature are biased, reflecting the interests and ideologies of the dominant culture.

- 20 -


Furthermore, this debate can be framed in the light of the diverse purposes of literacy in society today. Historically valued texts are not representative of the kaleidoscope of texts and literacies that children encounter in society. For example, the valued literature canon systematically excludes certain text types such as picture books, popular texts, romance and science fiction. Removing these popular fictions from the curriculum disenfranchises many groups and negates valuable opportunities to meet children’s interests. At the same time, the pervasiveness of popular culture leaves a significant number of gendered representations and stereotypes unopposed and unquestioned, and the classroom provides opportunity for this critique (Arthur, 2001; Hollingdale, 1995; Muspratt et al., 1997; Singh, 1997; West, 1992; WyattSmith, 2000). The selection of children’s picture books is a culturally and politically complex act. Through the selection of textbooks, genres, children’s literature, and media, a selective or dominant mainstream culture is “naturalised” as the way things are universally (Knobel & Healy, 1998, p.3). The choice of literature used in schools is ideologically value-laden, and criteria for judging the quality of school texts are shifting in the context of changes in society and culture. School texts are key sites in which mainstream discourses, political ideologies and economic interests can be contested rather than unquestioningly transmitted (Baker & Luke, 1991; MackenHorarik, 1997). Similarly, critical literacy, which takes an opposing stance on this issue, should not be exempt from interrogation and critique. The strength of critical literacy is its attention to the social and cultural nature of literacy in which materially and symbolically unequal relationships of power are often implicated and constructed (Green, 1997b). However, the claims of critical literacy are marked by some key difficulties, because the ability to read and write is no guarantee of either freedom for the individual or economic prosperity for the nation (West, 1992). One of the claims of critical literacy is that literate practices are instrumental to competent social performance, knowledge and power. Critical literacy aims to oppose prevailing structures that limit the access, entitlement and empowerment of - 21 -


those marginalised by racial, class, gender, or occupational status.

However,

mastery of critical literacies does not automatically ensure that the individual transcends social class and power structures (Hollingdale, 1995; West, 1992). Comber warns: “Despite the contemporary claims of critical literacy, we need to ask for the evidence that supports how these literate practices solve poverty and crime, and challenges the existing social structures and class distinctions” (Comber, 1997, p.25). Furthermore, the claims for critical literacy are often embedded in pejorative language that militates against its advancement. For example, the “oppressor” is defined, not on the basis of one’s intention or wish to oppress, but upon one’s location in an oppressive structure. More specifically, the oppressor is usually defined as a middle class, white male holding a senior position in a hierarchical institution. In dialogue with powerful political figures in efforts to reform institutional structures and educational policies, the disparaging nature of the term “oppressor” renders it difficult to employ (West, 1992). Critical literacy advocates should articulate and critique their own values and sociopolitical agendas. Teachers need to reflect continuously on how critical literacy is constructed in their classroom, ensuring that they are not engaging in a form of political manipulation and suppression of multiple points of view. For example, teachers have traditionally had a propensity to claim a high moral ground based on the negative critique of children’s popular culture (Baker & Luke, 1991; Faraclas, 1997; Knobel & Healy, 1998). Teachers may unwittingly communicate that adults do not condone certain popular and pleasurable discourses. Consequently, teachers who offer their critique as a non-oppressive, enlightened, and empowering alternative are not always understood by students in this way, who may experience this pedagogy as authoritarian (Kenway & Bullen, 2001). Thus, despite its many contributions to education, critical literacy does not neutralise literacy practice, since it is driven by its own political agenda for social change (Comber, 1997; Kenway & Bullen, 2001). It is important to take a critical position with regard to both texts and textual practice in schools, subjecting the critical literacy classroom itself to analysis and critique (Knobel & Healy, 1998). Critical - 22 -


literacy alone is not the universal remedy to cure the uneven distribution of knowledge and inequalities of power in contemporary society. 2.1.4 Genre Approach versus Multiliteracies Literacy educators in the late 1980s and early 1990s began to recognise that access to literacies requires access to a growing hierarchy of genres, often systematically related to the structures of power and purposes of language in society. Access to literacies was seen to require versatile and flexible competencies to contend with diverse texts, genres and discourses in various social contexts (Hollingdale, 1995). These genres were seen to have varying degrees of utility and social power. Failure to acknowledge this principle was a key weakness of both the whole language and skills-based approaches to literacy (West, 1992). Halliday (1978; 1991; 1994) developed a functional grammar that could be used to talk about how language was used and to assist in examining how texts were structured. Throughout the 1990’s, Halliday’s functional grammar was applied in Australian schools as the genre-based or functional approach, extended by leading linguists including Martin and Rothery (1980; 1981; 1986), Kress (1993b), Christie (1989), and Cope and Kalantzis (1993). A genre approach to literacy teaching involved being explicit about the way language works to make meaning. This served to counter the implicit teaching methods of progressive pedagogies, that had failed to improve patterns of educational attainment (Cope & Kalantzis, 1993). Four stages of the genre approach – building knowledge of the field, modelling, joint construction, and independent construction of the text – were taught using examples of genres, showing how purpose and context influence the generic structure and linguistic features of texts. The genre approach was successful in gaining the support of Australian educational policy and funding, having a direct contribution to the Years P-10 English Language Arts Syllabus in Queensland in 1994 (Anstey & Bull, 1996; Richardson, 1991; Wyatt-Smith, 2000). Literacy education in Australia was strengthened by the explicit teaching of the purposes and features of discourses and genres (Richardson, 1991; Unsworth, 2002). However, the rigid adherence to ‘pure’ examples of the genre in teachers’ practice limited the benefits of the genre approach (Anstey & Bull, 2004b). The tightly

- 23 -


prescribed generic boundaries presented literacy as a seemingly fixed, immutable world of texts in which the boundaries are clearer and more decisive than they really are in society. Many of these specialised genres and competencies were drawn from teacher reference materials containing highly predictable texts that were not authentic examples of the genres. These texts had minimal transfer to occupational and community life, while certain functional and powerful literacies were absent from primary school programs (Richardson, 1991). As users followed the given structures, a limited range of genres seemingly became authoritative (Green, 1987). The static description of the textual features of genres and text types within various modes does not account for the burgeoning variety of multimodal texts and blurring of genres that students need to negotiate in order to participate in contemporary society. Genres rarely exist in static and pure forms, but are dynamic and always changing in response to the purposes, social contexts, audiences and technologies used to produce them. For example, explanations are often found within procedural genres, or recounts within narratives. Another key criticism of the genre approach is that language was focused on the written mode. Learning to write cannot be reduced to the control of print-based genres, which are only one important part of the process of learning to communicate (Sawyer & Watson, 1987). For example, in the multimedia environment today, a written report is frequently mediated by digital technology using computer software. Research might be conducted via the Internet to access on-line databases and journals. Images and graphs that require the use of a digital camera or graphic software might be necessary to combine visual and spatial meanings. The final report might be distributed orally with a PowerPoint presentation, or electronically via email or a website (Anstey & Bull, 2004b). Thus, the shortcomings of the genre approach have become more apparent as children require access to an increasing proliferation of hybrid literacies associated with multimedia communications channels, and culturally and linguistically diverse

- 24 -


textual practice for the real world. This highlights the need for a new, flexible system of meaning making that is far more dynamic than the genre approach allows. In summary, each new wave of educational practice, designed to improve literacy education, has in turn been replaced by something else (Richardson, 1991). Since the 1960s, each of these perspectives and pedagogies has contributed new understandings of literacy – from skills-based approaches of decoding to progressive models of text meaning, and from cultural conservation to critique. Taken in isolation, none of these extant literacy pedagogies is sufficient for all students to access literacy in a culturally and linguistically diverse society. Thus, there is a need for a new pedagogy that combines the strengths of past approaches. The multiliteracies pedagogy was formed partly in response to the contours of these extant pedagogies, that are becoming increasingly removed from the changing literacies required in the domains of work, citizenship and public life (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000c). 2.2 Conceptualising Multiliteracies The following section (2.2.1) addresses the first proposition of the New London Group (1996) concerning the multiplicity of communication channels and media, and its implications for a pedagogy of multiliteracies. This calls for a new, multimodal

metalanguage to extend static, rule-governed, and monomodal

grammars of the past (Section 2.2.1.1). The hybridisation and intertextuality of contemporary textual designs are addressed in section 2.2.1.2, because they are of fundamental importance to the view of language underlying a pedagogy of multiliteracies (Fairclough, 2000). The second proposition of the New London Group (1996), concerning increasing cultural and linguistic diversity, is emphasised in Section 2.2.2. It is contended that literacy pedagogy should make space for the multilayered and divergent lifeworlds of students through constantly crossing cultural boundaries (Sections 2.2.1). This is exemplified in classrooms described by the New London Group as Communities of Learning (Section 2.2.2.2).

- 25 -


2.2.1 The Multiplicity of Communication Channels & Media The first proposition of multiliteracies is that there is an expanding array of communications channels and multimodal, semiotic systems in society, which requires a new literacy pedagogy (Kalantzis et al., 2002; Lankshear et al., 1997). The New London Group argues that in the twenty-first century, literacy educators face new challenges associated with technological imperatives (New London Group, 1996). Computer-mediated communication is producing different social practices to print-based modes, and these are undoubtedly changing education. Digital technology and the related convergence of the industries of computing, broadcasting and publishing now shape many aspects of our culture. Participation in contemporary life necessitates that students become competent users of electronic literacies. For example, online activity is often the preferred way of negotiating goods and services by major institutions and service providers (See: Cope, 2000; Luke, 2000). The need to integrate electronic environments in literacy pedagogy was foregrounded in debates throughout the nineties, including the work of Bigum (1997; 1993a), Dyrud (1995), Burbules (1996), Foster (1989), Green (1997a), Healy (1999; 2000), Landow (1992; 1991), Lankshear (1998; 1997; 2000), Leu (1996), Reinking (1997), Snyder (1997), Sproull (1991), Strassman (1997), Unsworth (1999), and Willard (1985). These theorists argue that computer-based technologies have decisively changed existing understandings of literacy, curriculum and research. It is not simply that the tools of literacy have changed, but the very nature of texts, language, and literacy are undergoing crucial transformations. The following key differences between screen-based and pencil and paper-based textual practices provide an agenda for multiliteracies and this thesis: 1. A proliferation of new screen-based genres 2. Non-linear reading and navigation skills 3. Increased interactivity between reader and writer 4. Changed production, processing, and transmission of virtual text 5. A need for heightened critical literacy skills

- 26 -


The first issue is the need for literacy curricula to incorporate a widening range of digital text types with their associated boundaries of generic structure that are less visible than time honoured, written forms. New discourses have arisen that are exclusive to the digital landscape, and the related convergence of linguistic and iconic codes has prompted textual theorists to examine these shifts in meaning making (Kalantzis et al., 2002; Lankshear et al., 1997; Mitchell, 1999). Conceptions of literacy must be expanded to include the visual arts and representational literacies in digital formats that make possible a fluid relationship between word, sound and image. The profusion of hypermedia (that is, electronically networked media), has created new purposes and generic features of reconfigured, screen-based genres. New discourses and text types have arisen, including abbreviated, informal, and interactive forms of electronic communication such as emails and on-line discussions of various kinds (Healy, 1999; Reinking, 1997; Williams, 2001). Another corollary of the convergence of technology and literacy is that electronic environments challenge conventional notions of reading (See: Burbules & Callister, 1996; Green & Bigum, 2003; Healy, 1999; Landow & Delany, 1991; LoBianco & Freebody, 1997; Luke, 2000; McKenna, Reinking, Labbo, & Kieffer, 1999; Snyder, 1998). The physical non-linearity of electronic texts involves increasingly sophisticated navigational skills and search capabilities. Author-controlled textual environments, characterised by the arrangement of words in top-down, left-to-right, beginning-to-end tangibility, have changed. Virtual communication uses flexible, reader-controlled, dialogical environments that are open to manipulation. Networked, digital texts do not require the same text mapping skills as those required to read lengthy, linear strings of page-bound print. While the non-linear reading of text appeared long before the Internet was accessible, the Internet makes these intertextual paths more explicit. Navigating hypertext, (that is, electronically networked text), diversifies the direction of meaningful associations to a potentially unlimited degree requiring unlimited semiosis (Burbules & Callister, 1996; Kress, 2000a). The active process of interpreting virtual text is now an open-ended cycle of linkages to make meaning.

- 27 -


Computer mediated communication is also producing radically merged and reshaped social practices and conceptions of textuality and communication (Luke, 2000). For example, electronic environments allow readers and writers who are physically remote to occupy the same cyberspace in “radical interactiveness” (Burbules & Callister, 1996). Two-way communication occurs through electronic networks, with hypertext blurring the distinction between reader and author as both become readers of hypertext pathways. Electronic texts are not static, discrete units, but are dynamic and malleable, open to re-authoring multiple times. There is often an abandonment of the single-minded, authorial voice for scholarly texts, which has been supplanted by a multivocal metadiscourse, that is, writing which reflects upon itself. There is increased dialogue between author and reader, along with a greater need to acknowledge opposing views (Healy, 1999; Leu, 1997; Peters & Lankshear, 1995; Reinking, 1997). Similarly, there is a transformation of the production, processing and transmission of virtual text, changes that have been discussed beyond the New London Group (See: Anderson-Inman, 1998; Hannon, 2000; Lankshear et al., 1997; Snyder, 1999). Electronic environments require multimodal writing strategies involving the transmission and modification of text through digitalised codes. Electronic text is modifiable,

linkable,

searchable,

replicable,

distributable,

programmable,

collaborative and able to be stored and retrieved with ease. Functions such as saving and converting virtual text to print are new components of screen-based writing. Finally, theorists have long emphasised the need for critical reading of texts and of the wider social practices sustained through this interaction, such as literacy pedagogy (See, for example: Bigum & Green, 1993b; Burbules & Callister, 1996; Peters & Lankshear, 1995; Soloway, 2000; Unsworth, 1981). However, there is now a heightened educational concern associated with the Internet (Luke, 2000). Many students have access to a deluge of texts from powerful, unrestrained and potentially harmful sources purporting to offer authentic information. This has alerted educators to the need for critical literacy skills to challenge, critique, and evaluate partial and distorted textual meanings, and to identify who benefits from electronic sites. With the enormous growth in the volume of textual materials, there is also a requirement

- 28 -


for increased abilities associated with critically selecting, reducing, and evaluating reliable information. Therefore, it is now widely agreed that rapid technological change has created divergences between screen-based texts and books, necessitating new pedagogies to replace exclusively monomodal literacy approaches (See: Barnitz & Speaker, 1999; Cope, 2000; Department of Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs, 1997; Department of Education Training and Youth Affairs, 1997b; Healy, 1999; Hollingdale, 1995; Kling, 1983; Unsworth, 2002). Educators cannot simply assume that students are competent in techno-literacy practices because they access video games for pleasure. There is a need for research to investigate the effects of literacy pedagogy on students’ access to a wide range of multiliteracies, including those associated with digital communications environments that are required for meaningful participation in a changing society. 2.2.1.1 Design, multimodality and a new meta-language. Design is paramount to a pedagogy of multiliteracies because it describes the active and dynamic process of meaning making through available resources, rather than simply conforming to a set of static rules. Design and learning are parallel concepts, since learning is the result of designing, involving complex systems of people, environments, technology, beliefs and texts (Buchanan & Margonlin, 1995; Burbules & Callister, 1996; Kress, 2000a). An important implication of design for this study is that the students must be free to engage in the transformation of existing multimedia designs to create new designs, rather than being required to reproduce linguistic conventions. Design involves three elements: Available designs; designing; and the redesigned. Learners draw on available designs that are resources for making meaning, including the grammars of various semiotic systems such as discourses, styles, genres, dialects, voices, and gestures. Designing is the semiotic process of shaping emergent meaning and involves representation or recontextualisation. The product is the redesigned, which is not a simple reproduction, as transmission pedagogy seeks, nor solely personal creativity, to which progressive pedagogy aims. Rather, the redesigned is the product of a process involving both reproduction and creativity.

- 29 -


Sign-makers not only make new meanings, but remake themselves through their engagement with others (Cope, 2000; Kress, 2000a; New London Group, 1996; Trimbur, 2001). For example, by taking on the situated identities of people engaged in real work, such as producers, filmmakers, authors, and scientists, students may see their own and others’ potential for designing with new confidence. Multimodality is also central to a pedagogy of multiliteracies. It expresses the complexity and interrelationship of more than one mode of meaning, combining linguistic, visual, auditory, gestural or spatial modes. The New London Group (2000, p.25-28) also uses the terms “meanings”, “modes of meaning”, “designs”, and “design elements” as synonyms for the five “modes” (See Figure 2.2.1.1).

Figure 2.2.1.1 Model of Multiliteracies Design Elements

Visual meanings or modes include images, page layouts, screen formats, colours, perspectives, vectors, foregrounding and backgrounding. Audio meanings include music and sound effects. Gestural design involves body language, gestures, kinesics, feelings and behaviour. Spatial design includes the meanings of environmental, architectural, and geographical meanings.

Multimodal design differs from

independent modes because it interconnects the other modes in dynamic relationships. It is the most significant because it involves the whole body in the process of learning (Kress, 2000b; Luke, 2000; New London Group, 2000).

- 30 -


Multimodal meaning making involves processes of integration as the reader moves alternately between various modes, which form a network of interlocking resources. Multimodality captures the multifaceted and holistic nature of human expression and perception, while linguistics alone does not embrace the full richness of semiotics. In schools, linguistic meaning is often privileged over non-linguistic modes, and writing over speech. Modes involved in visual arts, movement and music have been relegated outside dominant theories of communication in education (Kress, 2000a, 2000b). Consequently, students are often unprepared for the demanding uses of literacy across multiple modes in society. While not all modes are equally important in all social contexts, they are important aspects of meaning making that require attention (Black & Goebel, 2002; New London Group, 1996). Central to a pedagogy of multiliteracies is the development of a new meta-language that is capable of describing a wider range of communication channels and media in society (New London Group, 2000, p.19). A salient implication of the new metalanguage for this study is that the teacher and student participants should begin to articulate and apply a new grammar for describing multimodal texts. This metalanguage refers to a language for describing the confluence of different words, images, sounds, gestures, and the spatial organisation of texts, in meaning-making interactions. Table 2.2.1.1 provides examples of the beginnings of a multimodal meta-language to support the critical analysis of designs across the five modes (Cope, 2000). The table analyses the meanings of everyday texts by addressing: a) Representational meaning – what the meanings refer to, b) Social meaning – how meanings connect the persons involved in the text, c) Organisational meaning – how the meanings are structured to work together, d) Contextual meaning – how the meanings fit into the larger social context, and, e) Ideological meanings – how the meanings are skewed to serve the interests of certain persons.

- 31 -


Representational What do the meanings refer to?

Social How do the meanings connect the persons involved?

Organisational How do the meanings hang together?

Contextual How do the meanings fit into the larger world of meaning?

Ideological Whose interests are the meanings skewed to serve?

Linguistic

Visual

Spatial

Gestural

Audio

Examples

Examples

Examples

Examples

Examples

The word “she” is understood only in relation to a person previously named in a paragraph. A first-aid manual is written by a medical expert for the novice.

A photo displayed of the Queen of England has political, cultural, and historical meaning.

Hard seating at McDonalds is designed to keep cash flow, food and customers moving. The design of a lecture hall concentrates social interactions on the main speaker.

Facial expressions indicate certain emotions.

An ambulance siren tells other drivers to give way to the emergency vehicle.

Eye contact connects speakers and listeners.

Restaurant music provides a background to other social interactions while a concert orchestra is the focus of the social interaction. Intonation, rhythm, pitch, volume, and prosody of speech work together to convey meaning.

A picture taken from a low angle makes a social figure look powerful in relation to the viewer.

A novel has a different generic structure and linguistic features than a science report.

Images in the centre of a picture are given priority over images in the margins.

SMS2 messages blur the conventions of speaking & writing to convey informality and to limit the duration of interactions. The omission of price in an advertisement is deliberate.

An image located in an art gallery has a different meaning to the same image depicted in the context of an advertisement. Journalists selectively present images to shock or persuade the viewer

Websites are hyperlinked to other web pages and sites to create a nonlinear network of information. Modern architecture makes references to other cultural contexts (e.g. Western design incorporating Japanese motifs).

The postures of a group of actors on a stage (e.g. standing/sitti ng) communicate s certain meanings. The meaning of hand gestures of a policeperson at an intersection differs from other social contexts.

The absence of windows and clocks in casinos manipulates gamblers to forget the passage of time.

Magic tricks deliberately use larger gestures and motions to hide or blur smaller motions.

In the context of a thriller movie, music works with fast images to convey suspense and excitement.

Music in department stores is deliberately designed to make buyers linger.

Table 2.2.1.1 Analysis of Texts Using the Five Modes (Adapted: Cope & Kalantzis, 1999) 2

Short Message Service or cell phone text messaging - 32 -


In developing a multimodal metalanguage, Cope and Kalantzis have drawn upon Halliday’s (1978; 1994) Functional Grammar, extending his exclusively linguistic metalanguage to incorporate visual, spatial, gestural and audio modes (See, for detailed examples of multimodal textual analysis: Cope & Kalantzis, 1999). The metalanguage for multiliteracies has been criticised by some educators at various points in its development (See, for example: Cameron, 2000; Pennycook, 1996; Prain, 1997; Trimbur, 2001). For example, Prain (1997) criticises the New London Group for claiming that static rules do not govern meaning making, because in practice, the group provides elaborate codes and checklists of multimodal elements. He asserts that their analysis, based on Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistic and discourse analysis, presumes that the constituent elements of meaning making remain largely stable, chartable and programmable. Prain (1997) argues that this contradicts their rejection of stable systems of grammar and their appeal to the multifarious, hybrid texts that are proliferating and ever changing. He argues that the reformulation of linguistic grammars to include the five modes of design has opened up an unwieldy number of text types to be addressed in literacy education. This creates a daunting task for formal analysis, requiring tools that the New London Group has not provided. Furthermore, Prain contends that the theoretical and practical boundaries of the design elements are not sufficient for formulating curriculum, and are currently unsuitable for classroom discussion. In other words, a usable map of the real terrain to be negotiated is inadequately developed (Prain, 1997). The content rather than pedagogy of multiliteracies has similarly been appraised by Pennycook’s (1996) generally positive review, who nevertheless reflected that terms such as “design”, “designing” and the “redesigned” remain imprecise and require concretisation. Cope and Kalantzis (1997a; 2000b; 2005) have responded to such critique through the ongoing reformulation of a multimodal meta-language, and have invited scholars and researchers to continue this dialogue. In extending the limits of existing grammars for describing language, they have described a less-bounded system of - 33 -


meaning making than linguists have previously acknowledged. However, this reflects the reality of multiple communication modes and textual practices that emerge in society around us. Multiliteracies are social practices. Therefore, the boundaries of textual design are dependent on the meaning-making resources available to text users, in particular cultural, economic, social, political, institutional, historical, and localised contexts. Systems of meaning are fluid – created, developed and transformed in response to the communicative needs of society (Kress, Jewitt, Ogborn, & Tsatsarelis, 2001). Paradoxically, there are some core elements of meaning making that remain essentially stable. The new meta-language is intended to be sufficiently regular, while flexible enough to recognise similarities and divergences, boundaries and fluidity across time and place. This is because the redesigned always builds on existing resources for meaning making, having a degree of familiarity that enables the formulation of descriptive and analytic categories (Cope & Kalantzis, 1997a). Conversely, flexibility is also important, because the relationship between descriptive and analytical categories and actual events is shifting, provisional, unsure, and relative to the contexts and purposes of analysis (New London Group, 2000, p.24). 2.2.1.2 Hybridisation and intertextuality. Hybridisation is fundamentally important to a pedagogy of multiliteracies, because it draws attention to change, rather than stasis, in textual designs. Hybridisation is the mixing of different discursive practices in a text, which is realised in the heterogeneity and creativity of the design (Fairclough, 2000). For example, the generic limits of picture books have been extended by including puzzles, riddles, spoonerisms, flaps, pockets and fold-out pages which continually engage the reader in both the written and visual text (Bull & Anstey, 2003b). The original picture book can be merged with the hybrid textual features of electronic, networked sites, transforming the linear reading of the book with simulated hyperlinked pages and icons, which invoke a non-linear reading of the text and multiple pathways. Sufficient access to the modes and meanings of the new literacies allows students to create textual designs that are characterised by hybridisation, using original

- 34 -


combinations of existing resources for meaning making (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005; Lo Bianco, 2000, p.92). Similarly, access to designs of meaning requires that students can make intertextual connections between the meanings represented in various texts, including their own transformed designs (Cope, 2000, p.211).

Intertextuality refers to the cross-

referencing of recognisable connections and juxtaposed meanings between texts. For example, television advertising is saturated with cross-references to events, images, quotes, or lyrics in famous movies and songs. In this way, intertextuality draws attention to the potentially complex ways in which meanings constitute relationships to other texts (New London Group, 2000). Intertextuality can be reproductive or hybrid. Reproductive or normative intertextual practices are those that are similar to existing meanings, such as sentences copied from the blackboard. In contrast, hybrid practices are those that are creative transformations of original resources for meaning making, such as an innovative film (Fairclough, 2000). In conclusion, this section has argued that the semiotic landscape is undeniably changing in fundamental ways, and this transformation relates to the burgeoning variety of text forms associated with information and multimedia technologies. The increasing multiplicity of communication channels & media calls for a new literacy pedagogy. However, multiliteracies is equally a response to increased cultural and linguistic diversity in local contexts, and the new demands it places on equitable literacy education (New London Group, 1996). This is the focus of the following discussion. 2.2.2 Cultural & Linguistic Diversity The scale of human movement across nations has made multiculturalism an unprecedented global phenomenon (Lo Bianco, 2000). Local contexts have become heterogeneous collections of diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural groups. These local divergences become more significant via communication and information technologies that interconnect the world. So as society is becoming globally connected through the Internet, travel and telecommunications, diversity within local contexts is also increasing (Fairclough, 2000). Students will have to negotiate

- 35 -


differences every day, in their local communities and in their globally interconnected working and community lives (New London Group, 2000). Because of these changes associated with cultural globalisation, language and literacies are now multicultural and pluralised (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000a). These factors complicate access to literacies, particularly as dominant and marginalised cultures need to work harmoniously in locally diverse environments. Changes in economic, civic and personal spheres of life require changing roles of schools and the extension of existing literacy pedagogies to be inclusive of cultural and linguistic diversity (Lo Bianco, 2000). A profound implication of cultural and linguistic diversity is that there is no national, canonical English that can or should be taught any more. Local diversity and global connectedness invalidates the need for a “standard” language. This is because language is polymorphous, with a multiplicity of purposes. Likewise, the repertoires of linguistic resources available in different cultures vary (Cazden, 1972). A pedagogy of multiliteracies should enable student to negotiate and switch between regional, ethnic or class-based dialects – variations in register that occur according to social contexts and cross-cultural discourses (New London Group, 2000). This research investigates the degree to which a teacher’s enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy creates space for cultural and language differences among the learners, while accommodating for a diversity of modalities in communication (Lo Bianco, 2000). A significant challenge is to find ways to use cultural and linguistic differences to enable students to access multiliteracies. For example, a Thai student who had only recently arrived in Australia could speak little English, but possessed a remarkable ability to communicate through the visual mode. The teacher could draw on the student’s visual designs to create a bridge to simple written and spoken forms of English.

Such practices express genuine recognition

and appreciation of cultural and linguistic diversity among students.

- 36 -


2.2.2.1 Lifeworlds. The concept of lifeworld is central to a pedagogy of multiliteracies because it helps explain the role of transformation in the everyday experiences of students. The lifeworld refers to a student’s purview or ‘world of everyday lived experience’, which is comprised of shared cultural assumptions. It includes established truths acquired by people, which they apply to everyday life (Cope, 2000, p.206). This is a reformulation of Husserl’s concept of lifeworld, which is “everyday practical situational truths” (Husserl, 1970, p.109-133). The multiliteracies conception of the lifeworld differs from Husserl in that individuals possess, not one lifeworld, but infinite overlapping lifeworlds, always unique while referencing established patterns of representation and culture. For example, a Tongan student will bring the shared understandings of their first culture and language to negotiate a very different set of lifeworld experiences in Australia. At the same time, there will always be some elements of experience that are shared cross-culturally. Students’ lifeworlds are composed of constantly changing, divergent meanings and subjective, multilayered truths. These differences are based on an individual’s membership in overlapping communities, including different experiences, texts, media messages, technologies, interests, affiliations and ethnicities. Students must become adept as they negotiate the various lifeworlds each of them adopts and confronts in their everyday lives (Cope, 2000; Cope & Kalantzis, 1997a; New London Group, 2000). The point for a pedagogy of multiliteracies is this: Education engages with the dissimilar lifeworlds of students with differing degrees of inclusion (Cope, 2000). The shift from a child’s lifeworld to formal education causes a complex mediation between the cultures of the home and the school. For example, the language experiences that children bring to the classroom have varying degrees of continuity with school literacies (Bull & Anstey, 2003a). Marginalised students have a greater distance to navigate because of the degree of mismatch between their lifeworld and the commonly shared experiences of the dominant culture (Cope, 2000, p.206; Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b). The challenge for teachers of multiliteracies is to create an environment in which students’ divergent lifeworlds can burgeon collaboratively (New London Group, 2000).

- 37 -


2.2.2.2 Communities of learners. A pedagogy of multiliteracies requires the establishment of the classroom as a ‘community of learners’. The most significant feature of this learning environment is that learning occurs for students within a ‘zone’ of joint activity. Drawing from Vygotsky (1978), the zone of proximal development is the distance between current levels of comprehension and levels that can be accomplished in collaboration with peers, books, people or powerful artefacts such as computers (Brown et al., 1993). The students, technologies, and structured activities perform the role of more capable experts, rather than students having to rely exclusively on the scaffolding provided by the teacher (Gee, 2000b). In this way, learning becomes shared, collaborative and distributed among the students and teacher (Gee, 2000b). For example, students could collaboratively design a PowerPoint presentation to inform the school of a forthcoming event. The students would need opportunities to scaffold one another’s ideas to achieve their purposes. This collaboration should lead to the transformation of meaning making resources, and more importantly, lead to change within the students. 2.3 Summary of Chapter Two Chapter Two has explored relevant literature to contextualise and conceptualise a pedagogy of multiliteracies (Sections 2.1 and 2.2). The first section (2.1) provided an historical context for understanding the multiliteracies pedagogy by challenging four binary oppositions within literacy education in Australian primary schools from the 1960’s to the present. Eight literacy approaches were described, with significant criticism raised by their detractors. pedagogical transformation

to

This review highlighted the need for

address the

constantly

shifting

forms of

communication required in the twenty-first century. It was argued that a pedagogy of multiliteracies draws from the strengths of these extant pedagogies to reframe a new approach for the changing times. The second section (2.2) gave careful attention to the twofold emphasis of multiliteracies; namely, the multiplicity of communications channels, and cultural and linguistic diversity (New London Group, 1996). The salient implications of these two dimensions of multiliteracies were examined for literacy pedagogy. It was contended that a pedagogy of multiliteracies stands in antithesis to monomodal - 38 -


conceptions of literacy, by providing access to multiple modes of meaning as dynamic representational resources. Multiliteracies emphasises an open-ended and flexible grammar which assists learners to describe cultural, subcultural, and regional language differences. A pedagogy of multiliteracies aims to create space for cultural and linguistic differences among the learners. This presents a significant challenge for teachers of multiliteracies who endeavour to build these learning conditions to open possibilities for greater access, without students having to leave behind their different lifeworlds and cultural resources for meaning making.

- 39 -


Chapter Three – Theoretical Framing of the Study 3.0 Introduction This thesis applies critical theory to an investigation of students’ access to multiliteracies – a new space for research in the contemporary communications environment (New London Group, 1996). Earlier chapters have established that it is no longer useful to think about a monomodal literacy that exists in isolation from the vast array of social, technological and economic factors in broader society. The dramatic shift from the age-old dominance of writing to the power of the image, and from the primacy of the book to the seduction of the screen, call for a revolution in literacy pedagogy and research (Kress, 2003).

Together, they raise essential

questions about the social consequences of these changes in terms of students’ equitable access to powerful, multimodal literacies. This chapter presents a unique theoretical framework that draws upon a hybrid combination of perspectives from sociology and literacy theory to afford the best fit with the purposes of this research. It begins with the contributions of critical theory and its expression in Carspecken’s (1996) critical ethnography, which is applied to the research methodology. Logical priority is given to critical theory because the research question is oriented by a concern for social inequity within the institution of education. Sociocultural theory is explored because it provides the link between critical theory and literacy research, called upon by the specific research focus on the distribution of access to multiliteracies among students of varied cultural and linguistic backgrounds. The application of an Habermasian (1981; 1987) epistemology for this thesis is consistent with the use of Carspecken’s (1996) critical ethnography, which applies Habermas’ work to analytic methods. The theories are discussed that contribute firstly, to the interpretation of the multiliteracies lessons, and secondly, to conducting systems analysis in critical ethnography (See Figure 3.0).

- 40 -


Figure 3.0 Themes for Interpreting Access to Multiliteracies

As shown in this diagram, the central theme of pedagogy in this study draws from the New London Group’s (1996) pedagogy of multiliteracies, and Kalantzis and Cope’s (2005) Learning by Design approach. The key concept of power draws upon Carspecken’s (1996) typology of power relations, and McLaren’s (1993) theory of resistance. Gee’s (1996) theory of discourses in social linguistics is the third component applied to the interpretation of students’ access to multiliteracies in this study, and theorised in this chapter.

- 41 -


The theories represented in the lower box of the diagram are situated in Carspecken’s critical ethnography (1996). These include the key themes of Giddens’ (1984) structuration theory – domination, signification, and legitimation – applied to systems analysis in this study. Pragmatic horizon analysis is Carspecken’s (1996) method for analysing objective, subjective, and normative claims, and is applied in this research. This method is grounded in Habermas’ (1981; 1987) Theory of Communicative Action, explained in this chapter. The intention of this chapter is to transform existing theory by blending elements of the old with the new. The aim is to envisage an innovative framework suitable for inquiry into a pedagogy of multiliteracies, in the context of the momentous revolution that is taking place in the globalised communications and cultural environment. 3.1 Contributions of Critical Theory to Multiliteracies This research applies critical theory, following Carspecken’s (1996) synthesis within this diverse school, to interpret the distribution of access to multiliteracies among a group of students of varied ethnic, subcultural, socio-economic and linguistic backgrounds. This study continues in the critical tradition by asking an important ethical question about the historical problem of access, reframing it in the context of a new pedagogy and powerful new literacies. However, critical research is not a tight methodological school, since there are a range of epistemological and sociological propositions that divide theorists. Carspecken’s (1996) critical ethnography affords a theoretically, sociologically and methodologically coherent guide to engage in interpretive inquiry in education from a critical orientation, and has therefore been chosen for this thesis. Critical ethnography begins with the theoretical assumptions of critical theory, which are outlined here, drawing from Carspecken (1996; 2001; 2003; 1992), Kincheloe (1994), Glesne (1999), and Quantz (1992). This is important because all research is informed from its very beginnings by a set of values or a social orientation. No research is value neutral (Quantz, 1992).

- 42 -


1.

Contemporary societies are defective in many ways, having systematic inequities complexly maintained and reproduced by culture. Therefore, critical ethnographic research should support efforts for social change and transformation.

2.

Certain groups of students in schools are privileged over others, and these systematic or structural inequalities are undesirable, unfair, and subtly or overtly oppressive for many people.

3.

Oppression, which characterises contemporary societies, is often reproduced when subordinates accept their social status as natural or inevitable.

4.

Knowledge is both powerful and political, and is involved in the reproduction of inequalities in schools.

5.

The aim of critical ethnography is to describe, analyse, and open to scrutiny otherwise hidden agendas, power centres, and assumptions that constrain actors in institutional sites, such as schools.

6.

While values enter into all research, the values of the researcher should be made explicit, acknowledging that the claims of all research are constituted and regulated through institutional relations of power and existing social conditions.

7.

Unequal power distorts truth claims. Therefore, value orientations of democracy, equality and human empowerment should be fused with the generation of knowledge in critical research to prevent the subordination of the research participants.

Critical theorists share a common concern about structural inequalities, directing research toward social change within institutions through the agency of individuals (Carspecken, 1996, p.x). The productive tension that exists when addressing power in society has served as a catalyst for an extensive tradition of reflexive work investigating inequity in education (For example: Apple, 1995; 1996; 1982; Freire & Macedo, 1987; Giroux, 1983; 1988; 1990; 1999; 1994; McLaren & Leonard, 1993). From a critical perspective, schools require and produce differing kinds and levels of literacy, distributing and acknowledging varying levels of knowledge valued by mainstream society. These differentiations have significant social and economic consequences in terms of the status, wealth, and mobility available to minority - 43 -


groups in a class-stratified society, reproducing existing patterns of power, position and privilege (Carspecken, 1996; Gee, 1996; Luke, 1994). This research applies the key themes of critical theory, such as power, ideology, access, marginalisation, domination, and agency, to an investigation of the multiliteracies pedagogy. The central aim of this critical ethnography is to investigate students’ access to multiliteracies, and embrace a partnership in the struggle for a better social world. It is crucial to note that while this research begins with the critical assumption that certain students will be marginalised in relation to the dominant culture, there is no presumption about how or to whom this might occur in the observed social site, nor the positive or negative outcomes of the multiliteracies pedagogy. Furthermore, critical theory itself is subject to refinement, alteration, and extension when interpreted in relation to new fields of knowledge (Quantz, 1992). 3.1.1 Contributions of Sociocultural Theory to Multiliteracies This thesis inquires about students’ access to multiliteracies, which necessitates the application of critical sociology to literacy research. At the intersection of these theories is sociocultural theory, which upholds that literacy should be researched with a critical dimension that calls into question ideological and social relations. Within this perspective, questions of power and the distributions of power are often foregrounded. It takes into account the social, institutional, cultural, economic, and political relationships that play a powerful role in the literacies that are valued and learned by students (Freebody, 1999). Until the 1970s, educational theory and research was dominated by notions of reading and writing as specific cognitive abilities or sets of skills (Freebody, 1999). A strand of this psychological research has maintained a presence in literacy studies, focused on social cognition (See for example: Lave, 1988; 1991; Rogoff & Lave, 1990; Wertsch, 1991). However, Street’s (1984; 1993) distinction between the ‘autonomous’ and ‘ideological’ models of literacy encapsulates the essence of the major change in literacy research toward sociocultural perspectives (See Section 2.2.1). There are now several decades of sociocultural literacy research, applying a critical orientation to understanding the ideological, cultural and social context of literacy learning (See for example: Fairclough, 1989; 1992; Gee, 1992; 1996; Heath,

- 44 -


1983; 1999; Lankshear et al., 1997; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003b; 2003; Luke & Freebody, 1997; Street, 1995; 1999; Vygotsky, 1962; 1978; 1987). The present study extends the work of these key theorists, in particular, Vygotsky (1962; 1978; 1987), Street (1995; 1999), Heath, (1983; 1999), Luke (1994), and Gee (1996). These theorists have examined literacy uses within homes and communities as a corollary of the view that literacies are primarily seen as constructions of particular social groups. In relation to the theoretical coherence of this research, it is important to note that in the last decade there have been changes within sociocultural studies of literacy. There has a move away from a structuralist paradigm, based on neo-Marxist positions of the Frankfurt School, or alternatively, on the work of Paulo Freire, toward poststructuralist approaches (Freebody, 1999). The present research applies sociocultural theory to a multiliteracies context, which is a relatively new area of literacy research, and draws from neither a structuralist nor a postructuralist paradigm. Rather, this research draws upon Carspecken’s critical ethnography, which is situated in the rigorous critical epistemological tradition of Habermas (1981; 1987), who recruits many pragmatist ideals (Carspecken, 1996, p.56). The most important contribution of sociocultural theory to this research is that students’ access to multiliteracies is researched as inseparable from social practices and their effects, and more importantly, embedded within complex power relations (Cazden, 2000). 3.1.2 Contributions of Habermas to the Research This thesis applies an Habermasian epistemology, which is necessitated by the use of Carspecken’s (1996) critical ethnography. This is because Habermas’s (1981) Theory of Communicative Action has direct implications for the use of pragmatic horizon analysis, applied in this study. This method is explained in Chapter Four, and involves analysing and articulating the overt and implicit meanings of the claims made by participants using three epistemic categories. Habermas sees that people have a pre-interpreted lifeworld – represented by a culturally transmitted and linguistically organised stock of interpretive patterns that

- 45 -


are “always already familiar” (Habermas, 1987, p.125). Therefore, in everyday communication there is no completely unfamiliar situation. When “coming to understanding”, people make shared reference to things in the objective, normative and subjective worlds to arrive at consensus (Habermas, 1981, p.126-127). "Coming to understanding" means that at least two people understand a linguistic expression similarly. Habermas (1981, p. 25) calls this ‘‘the ideal speech situation’’ which he postulates as a regulating “limit case” to measure the degree of success of real communicative acts. In real social situations, an ideal speech situation cannot be reached because there will always be distortions of some kind (See Figure 3.1.2). Objective Claim Normative Claim Subjective Claim Speaker A’s Pre-Interpreted Lifeworld or Stock of Knowledge

Shared

Reference

Speaker B’s Pre-Interpreted Lifeworld or Stock of Knowledge

Figure 3.1.2 Habermas’ Ontological Categories As shown in Figure 3.1.2, Habermas (1981) distinguished between three kinds of ontological categories about the nature of existence – objective, subjective, and normative. The first ontological category is the objective realm, which involves assertions about existing objects and events that are verified through direct observation. The speaker makes a claim about an existing state of affairs or events in the material world as an observer (Habermas, 1981, p.308-309). Disagreements on these claims can be adjudicated through repeated observations and measurement procedures using the senses (Carspecken, 1996). Subjective truth claims concern existing states of mind, emotions, beliefs, desires, intentions and feelings. The speaker takes up a relation to something in the

- 46 -


subjective world, revealing one’s inner self. Only the speaker has direct or privileged access, though the validity of these claims is often supported by the speaker’s bodily expressions (Habermas, 1981, p.307-308). Subjectivity is implicit in all acts, but is never completely transparent to observers, and must be inferred (Carspecken, 1995). Normative claims are statements about the rightness, wrongness, goodness, or appropriateness of human action, articulated as “should claims”. Such claims concern what is right in relation to a normative context so that the speaker and listener recognise the claim as legitimate (Habermas, 1981, p.307-308).

Once

expressed, they take on a rule-like form, and they impose on others by tacitly insisting that the other should conform to a certain convention (Carspecken, 1996; Radigan, 2001). The theoretical categories have direct implication for pragmatic horizon analysis in the methodology of this study. Explicit validity claims must be analysed across all three categories, even though one of the three components is always given linguistic priority by

speakers, and is more apparent in claims made by participants

(Carspecken, 1996). At the same time, the validity of the other two categories of claims are implicitly acknowledged each time speakers reach consensus (Habermas, 1981). It will also be important to take into account the effects of unequal power relations because consensus is only valid if it comes freely, without being influenced by power relations (Carspecken, 2003). 3.2 Theoretical Framing of Multiliteracies Lessons The following theories are discussed in this section to provide a lens for interpreting the multiliteracies lessons observed in this study. a) Pedagogy: New London Group’s (1996) multiliteracies pedagogy and Cope & Kalantzis’ (2005) Learning by Design approach; b) Power: Carspecken’s (1996) typology of power relations, and McLaren’s (1992; 1993) theory of resistance to power; c) Discourses: Gee’s (1996) social linguistic theory of discourse

- 47 -


3.2.1 Pedagogy The focus of this research is the multiliteracies pedagogy, which is implemented by the teacher participant. Therefore, it is imperative to address the essential elements of this theory to provide a point of reference against which to interpret the multiliteracies lessons (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000c; New London Group, 1996). The New London Group have moved beyond past pedagogies, combining and transforming them to reframe innovative and relevant literacy pedagogy for the changing times. These pedagogies include Dewey’s Progressivism (associated with whole language), transmission or direct instruction (associated with basic skills), critical literacy, and finally, strands of cognitive science that emphasise strategies for transferring situational learning from one context to another (New London Group, 2000). Applied in isolation, none of these pedagogies can provide students with sufficient access to the multiliteracies that are required for meaningful participation in society. The multiliteracies pedagogy has four components – situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing and transformed practice. These do not constitute a linear hierarchy. Rather, they may occur simultaneously, randomly or be “related in complex ways…each of them repeatedly revisited at different levels” (New London Group, 2000, p.32). A range of linguistic, visual, auditory, gestural, and spatial modes are utilised when implementing the pedagogy, with the goal of enabling students to design hybrid texts for a diversity of purposes (See Figure 3.2.1).

Figure 3.2.1 Model of the Multiliteracies Pedagogy (Concepts from: New London Group, 2000, p.35)

- 48 -


During the teacher’s enactment of situated practice, learners should be required to recognise and act on patterns of data and experience that vary within different contexts. This requires demonstration rather than explanation alone. This is because requisite patterns are often heavily tied and adjusted to context, too subtle and complex to be usefully explicated (New London Group, 2000). Therefore, situated practice must involve the provision of scaffolding or temporary support structures to enable students to transfer literacy skills independently to situated, real-life contexts. For example, students could design and presented PowerPoint slides to the school about the need for healthy lifestyles. They could design posters using Microsoft Word advertising healthy menu items, displaying these at the school tuckshop. Such activities involve immersion in meaningful literacy practices that are both similar and different in some respects to the lifeworld experiences of students. The literacies taught in situated practice must be congruent with the uses of literacy in the community, workplace and students’ previous experiences (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000c). This is important because situated practice is drawn from research in cognitive science, social cognition, and sociocultural approaches to language and literacy, demonstrating that the human mind is not a processor of decontextualised facts. Rather, knowledge is largely situated in sociocultural settings and heavily contextualised in specific domains and practices (See research in cognitive science, situated learning and situated literacies: Barsalou, 1992; Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993; Cazden, 1988; Eiser, 1994; Gardner, 1991; Gee, 1992; Harre & Gillett, 1994; Heath, 1983; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Margolis, 1993; Nolan, 1994; Rogoff & Lave, 1990; Street, 1984; Swann, 1993; Wertsch, 1985). Cope and Kalantzis (2000b, p.239) also state that: “situated practice sits squarely in the tradition of many ‘progressivisms’, from Dewey (1966) to whole language and process writing”. Situated practice is exemplified in classrooms designed by Brown and Campione (1994), two cognitive scientists in education. The most noteworthy characteristic of Browne and Campione’s classrooms is the emphasis on guided participation or joint construction of learning within a zone (Brown & Campione, 1994). They borrow Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of the ‘zone of proximal development’, introduced earlier in this chapter. This concept denotes the difference in the level of social and cognitive attainments between a child working alone and a child working - 49 -


collaboratively with the guidance of an adult (Vygotsky, 1962). Capable peers or powerful artefacts such as books, technology and other media can also scaffold and extend students’ existing levels of comprehension (Brown et al., 1993). During situated practice, novices internalise the understandings of experts through scaffolded, joint activity with people and technologies that function as structuring guides, rather than relying on the classroom teacher (Gee, 2000b). When combined with reflection and conscious critique of the tacit goals and values operating within these practices, powerful learning can occur. The teacher’s enactment of overt instruction in this research should involve the teaching of underlying meaning structures of textual designs. This practice sits in the tradition of transmissive pedagogy, including traditional grammar and phonics or basic skills approaches (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000c). Overt instruction should emphasise learning – the process of gaining conscious knowledge through explanation and analysis (Gee, 1991, pp.1-11). A focus of analysis is the use of an explicit meta-language, that is, language to describe the multimodal and cultural conventions of English (New London Group, 1996).

This meta-language should

describe the representational resources used to making meanings, the social connections with persons involved, and the organisational meanings that determine how meanings are structured and linked together. A meta-language also needs to describe the processes of meaning making, such as the degree to which texts express personal voice or agency (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b). During overt instruction, students should develop conscious awareness, articulation, and control of the resources for meaning making, rather than simply engaging in practice alone. For example, students could analyse static advertisements for familiar family food products, such as Milo and Nutella. Students could critically consider the visual, spatial and linguistic design elements such as colours, font sizes, logos, and the location of the graphics, and the specific advertising strategies designed to target parents and children. This involves learners in concept formation, generalisations and theory-making processes, and the development of systematic, analytic and conscious understanding of texts and textual practices (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000c).

- 50 -


Critical framing is another complex component of the multiliteracies pedagogy to be enacted by the teacher participant. This practice stems from critical literacy, but is not synonymous with it (For work on critical literacy, see: Knobel & Healy, 1998; Lankshear et al., 1997; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003a; Luke et al., 2003). Critical framing involves interpreting the social, cultural, historical, political, ideological and value-centred relations of particular designs of meaning and textual practices (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b; New London Group, 2000). Students should be guided to analyse designs critically in relation to whose interests are served by the meanings (ideology), and by considering the audience to whom the meanings are directed. Learners consider how these meanings relate to the cultural and social context of designs. Furthermore, students must interpret how the immediate functions, structure, and design elements of the text work within larger social and cultural contexts to communicate the intended meanings of the designer (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b; Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). The way in which the teacher guides learners to interrogate the local and global functions and contexts of designs is important in critical framing. For example, the teacher could guide students to analyse a segment of a TV program providing information about healthy, take-away choices. Students could be asked to identify the intended audience and challenge the bias associated with the sponsoring organisation. The effectiveness of critical framing is measured by the degree to which students can utilise information through questioning and critique of texts and their affiliated social formations, ideologies and value-centred purposes (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b; New London Group, 2000). . Transformed practice is a component of the multiliteracies pedagogy in which the teacher needs to emphasise the transfer of knowledge to new contexts. This practice is based on the research tradition of cognitive psychology (See: Billet, 1992; Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Cognitive theorists suggest that literacy is similar to a set of tools, understood through use and reflection on the cultural context in which it is used. The transfer of knowledge and skills from formal school settings to real world settings and cultural sites is often difficult, and it is common for students to acquire routines and decontextualised knowledge that they

- 51 -


are unable to apply. Consequently, this knowledge becomes inert unless applied to a variety of authentic, natural, or real life functions in a reflective manner. Transformed practices should allow students to transfer knowledge to new, real world, multimodal literacy uses for a multiplicity of cultural purposes (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000c; New London Group, 1996). For example, a group of students chose to combine their new scientific knowledge about the human brain with their knowledge of information reports by designing texts for the school newsletter using Microsoft Word. Creativity demonstrated in the personal transformation of texts is central, as learners reflectively design and apply new literacy practices embedded in their own goals and values. The degree to which the activities model uses of multiliteracies in everyday life influences how successfully students will transfer skills to new contexts. Intertextuality and hybridity are also important in transformed practice, which involves making connections, recognising influences and cross-referencing experiences. Most importantly, if transformed practice has occurred for all learners, there should be changes evident within the designers as the students take on new social roles and engage in new cultural and textual practices. Transformed practice may differ in degrees and types of transformed meanings for different students and for different texts, ranging from close or good reproduction to significant creative change (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b). The successful enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy in this thesis requires the teacher’s translation of this theory to practice, and its outcomes should enable students of varied cultural and linguistic backgrounds to access multiliteracies. Learning Designs Corresponding to the multiliteracies pedagogy are the four knowledge processes, based on Kalantzis and Cope’s (2005) Learning by Design approach. These are included in the research because they provide a taxonomy for analysing the learning that occurs for students when the multiliteracies pedagogy is implemented. The knowledge processes are of major significance when evaluating the students’ access to multiliteracies because successful practice cannot be described in terms of - 52 -


pedagogy alone – what the teacher does. Rather, access to multiliteracies is described principally in terms of the knowledge processes demonstrated by learners. The relationship between the multiliteracies curriculum orientations and the four knowledge processes are represented diagrammatically in Figure 3.2.1.1, following Kalantzis and Cope’s (2005, p.72) explanation: “Each of these four knowledge processes is more or less equivalent to one of the curriculum orientations in the multiliteracies pedagogy.”

Experiencing the New & Known

Applying Creatively & Appropriately

Conceptualising by Naming & Theorising

Analysing Functionally & Critically

Figure 3.2.1.1 Model of the Four Knowledge Processes and the Multiliteracies Pedagogy (Concepts from: Kalantzis & Cope, 2005, p.73)

The core knowledge processes – experiencing, conceptualising, analysing and applying – follow Kolb (1984), and Bernice McCarthy’s (1987) 4MAT model. The original model moved through four distinct phases of the learning cycle using both right and left brain strategies for knowing. It was constructed along two continua; namely, perceiving and processing. Perceiving occurs in an infinite variety of ways that range between experiencing to conceptualising, while processing occurs in ways that extend from analysing to applying. It should be noted that similar models of cognitive processing have been devised by Herrmann (1989), and Atkin (1994). The four ways of knowing have been extended by Kalantizis and Cope (2005) to include eight categories. 1. Experiencing: a) the known, and b) the new 2. Conceptualising: a) naming concepts, and b) theorising 3. Analysing: a) functions, and b) interests

- 53 -


4. Applying: a) appropriately, and b) creatively Experiencing refers to human perception by personal engagement in sensations, emotions, physical memories, involvement of the self, and immersion in the human and natural world (Kolb, 1984; McCarthy, 1987). This experiencing should also be conscious, systematic, explicit, structured and exophoric (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). For example, students might visit a local radio station to experience, first-hand, the production and transmission of audio texts and report their experiences to others. Kalantzis and Cope (2005) have extended this model to distinguish between two distinct ways of experiencing: experiencing the known, and immersion in new experiences. Experiencing the known involves drawing on familiar lifeworld experiences, prior knowledge, community background, personal interests, and cultural resources of learners. Examples include sharing personal narratives, brainstorming what students already know about a topic, or bringing texts from home for use at school (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). Experiencing the new is immersion in unfamiliar, real, or simulated domains of experiences, communities, situations, and texts. For example, when learning about applications of electricity, students design a cyclone shelter to simulate the experience of having no electricity. In order for learners to make intuitive links with prior knowledge, there must be some elements of familiarity in new experiences. Therefore, learning needs to be scaffolded by the teacher, peers, computers, or books so that the new aspects of an experience can extend learners’ existing knowledge (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). Conceptualising is the translation and synthesis of experiences, conceptual forms, language, and symbols into abstract generalisations (Kolb, 1984; McCarthy, 1987). For instance, when learning about digital movie making, the teacher could ask questions to scaffold students’ analysis of the visual, auditory, spatial, linguistic and gestural design elements of a popular, animated movie. Conceptualising involves examining underlying structures, causes, effects, and relationships, which often challenge commonsense assumptions. Kalantzis and Cope (2005) have also divided conceptualising into two subcategories: naming concepts and theorising. - 54 -


Conceptualising by naming involves developing or using abstract, generalising terms, such as labelling the orientation, main characters, protagonist, complications, climax, resolution and coda within a drama. A concept names particulars and then abstracts general categories to group particulars together based on their similarities, despite also having differences (For psycholinguistic theory about naming concepts, see: Vygotsky, 1978). Conceptualising by theorising involves a language of generalisation, such as when students combine their knowledge of narrative elements to construct a complete list of features of narrative text structure. Theorising involves explicit, systematic, analytic and conscious understanding to uncover implicit or underlying knowledge. Meta-languages for talking about the generic structure of linguistic texts in English and content organisers in subject disciplines is based on theorising (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). Analysing is the transformation of knowledge by ordering, reflecting on, and interpreting the underlying rationale for particular designs and representations. For example, students might compare and contrast the features of advertising through different media, such as television, radio, magazines and billboards. This includes identifying the functional purposes of the designs, interpreting the perspectives and intentions of those whose interests are served, and situating these in context. Kalantzis and Cope (2005) distinguish between two forms of analysing – identifying functions and identifying interests. Analysing functionally involves examining the functions of a design or represented meaning, considering its structure, connections, context, and causes and effects. For instance, students might be asked to read a selection of toy catalogues, analysing the designer’s purpose for the spatial arrangement of images on the page, font sizes, fine print, and use of colours to advertise certain products (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). Analysing critically involves cross-examining the intentions of the designer of a text. For example, when analysing toy catalogues, students consider whose interests are served, identify the intended product consumers, and analyse how gender, ethnicity, - 55 -


and age are constructed in relation to marketing toys for subcultural groups. The learner considers the perspective represented by the design, and the social, economic, cultural, or political consequences that arise from its use (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). Applying is the experiential application of internal thought processes to external situations in the world by acting, and learning something new. The learner tests the world and adapts knowledge to multiple, ambiguous situations (McCarthy, 1987). An example of applying is the design of a digital movie to inform younger students of important health and safety issues at home and school. Applying can occur in two ways: applying appropriately and transferring creatively (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). Applying appropriately involves acting upon knowledge learned in a typical way. For example, learners could publish an article about a recent excursion in the school magazine using Microsoft Word, giving appropriate attention to linguistic and spatial elements. When applying appropriately, meanings must be represented in a way that conforms to culturally accepted conventions of representation, such as following the rules for English grammar. Exact replications do not constitute applying appropriately because there is always a degree of transformation – an element which is different to what has gone before (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). Applying creatively takes knowledge from one setting, adapting it to a new setting in a radically different way. For example, students might apply their knowledge of natural disasters to design three-dimensional, interactive science exhibits for the school showing the cause and effects of tsunamis, cyclones, and earthquakes. Transferring creatively entails removing knowledge from one context to work in a new context in a different way, resulting in generative hybridity, divergence, and originality (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). These repertoires or ways of knowing will vary across the lessons in this research depending on cultures, learners, pedagogies, and academic disciplines. For example, learning about the textual features of claymation movies emphasises conceptualising while designing movies emphasises applying. This Learning by Design framework provides specific criteria for identifying who gains access to multiliteracies, and

- 56 -


more importantly, to what degree students are able to demonstrate learning during each component of the multiliteracies pedagogy (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). 3.2.2 Power A vital focus of the lesson observations in this thesis is the use of power, because power is inseparable from access to multiliteracies. The study of power has been applied to multiple aspects of education through critical research (See critical research on power: Anderson & Burns, 1989; Apple & Weis, 1983; Brodkey, 1987; Gitlin, Siegel, & Boru, 1989; Popkewitz & Guba, 1990; Popkewitz & Tabachnick, 1981; Quantz, 1992; Quantz & O' Conner, 1988; Roman, 1992; Sharp, 1981; Weis, 1988; Woods, 1992). A key assumption of critical ethnography is that all action is mediated by power relations. In other words, all acts demonstrate a person’s power to determine one course of action over another, causing a degree of change, either great or small. In this thesis, action is considered as more or less powerful depending on how free are the conditions of action from coercion, and how successfully an act fulfils the purpose of the actor (Giddens, 1979; 1984). Thus, while all action is tied to power, actions vary by degree of power. Carspecken’s (1996; 2003) analytic themes for power – normative, coercive, contractual, and charm – are applied to the lesson data. Additionally, McLaren’s (1992; 1993) theory of resistance to power is taken into account. The purpose of analysing power in the lesson data is to interpret what kind and degree of power participants have to enact or access multiliteracies. Carspecken classifies power into four types of authority – normative, coercive, contractual, and charm (See Figure 3.2.2).

- 57 -


Normative

Coercive

Power Charm

Contractual

Figure 3.2.2 Model of Power Relations (Adapted: Carspecken, 1996, p.130)

1

Normative power: Subordinates consent to the higher social position of a superordinate because of cultural norms.

2

Coercive power: Subordinates act to avoid sanctions imposed by a superordinate.

3

Contractual power: Subordinates act for the return of favours or rewards from a superordinate.

4

Charm: Subordinates act in loyalty to the superordinate because of the latter' s personality.

Carspecken’s (1996) typology is employed in this thesis to analyse power relations in the classroom that have a significant influence on the distribution of access to multiliteracies. Every interaction of power relates to cultural themes drawn upon by actors. Consequently, this typology of power relations must be studied by attending to the cultural milieu (Carspecken, 1996). For example, the norm that "students should follow the directions of the teacher" is understood in the cultural milieu of schools. The school provides the normative framework that legitimates this claim. Normative power associates power with status alone, and without foregrounding other reasons (Carspecken, 1996). An example of normative power is when a teacher asks a student to assist another who cannot navigate a website, and the student quickly helps simply because students must obey teachers.

- 58 -


Charm requires the possession of a certain ability to use culturally understood identity claims and norms to gain the trust and loyalty of others (Carspecken, 1996). For example, charm is employed when a teacher praises a child for their good idea, causing a peer, who has made little contribution to a collaborative task, to start participating enthusiastically and industriously. Contractual power is an agreement specifying reciprocal obligations between parties, with one party having greater power to determine the course of an interaction. Very often, a contract will be negotiated tacitly rather than stated explicitly, and is understood by both parities. An example of this is when a student produces a welledited story using neat handwriting, knowing that the teacher rewards students with stickers when appropriate attention is given to these aspects of presentation (Carspecken, 1996). Coercion is usually employed within normative frameworks of cultural origin that legitimate it, such as when a student follows the rule because the teacher has threatened to withdraw a privilege if they resist. The use of coercion is legitimated by the teacher' s role as an authority figure within the normative institution of schooling (Carspecken, 1996). Carspecken (1996) acknowledges that his typology of interactive power is incomplete. This is because it is primarily concerned with the analysis of authority structures, rather than the agency of students to resist institutional power. Giddens (1984) argues that any analysis of power must account for the power inherent in social structures such as schools, and the power inherent in the research participants who through their actions are able to intervene in the world. In this way, power is inherent in the actions of all participants, rather than the exclusive property of institutions, and can be intentional, unintentional, constraining, and enabling. For example, even a situation involving strong coercion, such as when a student is cautioned of a highly undesirable sanction, does not render inoperative the actor’s power to resist.

- 59 -


Therefore, McLaren’s (1993) resistance theory is chosen to provide two additional categories for power in this thesis, a recommendation of Carspecken (1996). The critical ethnographic research of Willis (1977) and more recently, McLaren (1993) illustrates the power possessed by individuals to resist the structural power of the school. Willis’s (1977) Learning To Labour acknowledged the development of an anti-school culture through the volition of boys who drew upon familiar cultural themes in response to institutional constraints. In this way, the boys were not merely powerless subjects unwittingly dominated by the power of the institution. McLaren (1993) coined the terms “active and passive resistance” which is used in this thesis to account for the agency of individuals to resist structural power. Active resistance includes intentional attempts by subordinates to subvert or sabotage the normative codes of the dominant school order. For example, students may argue in direct confrontation with the teacher.

Contrastingly, passive resistance

unconsciously subverts or sabotages the normative codes. For example, two students may offer to run errands for the teacher because they don’t know how to begin their writing. Another example of passive resistance is when abiding by the rules is temporarily overridden by the momentary stimulation of conversation with a peer (Cazden, 1988). McLaren’s (1993) theme of “resistance” emphasises the agency of students, serving to balance Carspecken’s emphasis on the subordinate position of students within the power structures of the school. 3.2.3 Discourses Discourses are vital in the analysis of multiliteracies lessons in the thesis because discourses are always tied to status or power relations. The conditions or restrictions on students’ primary discourses are central to understanding the distribution of access to multiliteracies. This is because discourses give the material world certain meanings, distribute social goods in a certain way, and if misused, privilege certain symbol systems and ways of knowing over others (Gee, 2003). Consequently, discourses affect the equality or inequality of students’ educational and social futures. Despite the far-reaching implications of discourses in education, they are often the result of non-deliberate, unconscious choices of teachers (Cazden, 1988).

- 60 -


Discourses are theorised in this thesis in accordance with sociocultural theory and the work of Gee (1992; 1996; 1999). They are socially accepted ways of displaying membership in particular social groups through words, actions, values, beliefs, gestures, and other representations of self (Gee, 1992). Discourses are different social languages used in multiple social contexts to present varied social identities (Gee, 1999). For example, to be a good student, one must think, speak, and act like a good student and recognise others who do the same. In such ways, discourses function as “identity kits” or social roles that one adopts to make oneself recognisable to others (Gee, 1996). Fairclough (2000) argues that a theory of discourses is central to multiliteracies, because multiliteracies acknowledges the innumerable discourses in modern society, each composed of a set of related social practices or identities. Literacy is pluralised because of this presence of multiple discourses and their associated identities in society (See earlier work on discourses: Fairclough, 1989; 1992; 1993; 1994; 1995; Gee, 1992; 1996). Figure 3.2.3 synthesises important elements of Gee’s (1992; 1996) work on discourses, which foregrounds later discussions concerning the classroom interactions observed in this study.

Secondary Dominant Primary Marginalised Figure 3.2.3 Taxonomy of Discourses (Ideas from1992; Gee, 1996)

Primary discourses refer to the language patterns and social practices of one’s early socialisation or apprenticeship as a community or group member (Gee, 1992). They are central to this thesis because evidence of primary discourses merging or failing to merge into school discourses influences students’ access to multiliteracies. Understanding primary discourses helps to identify whether some students are more “successful” in mastering dominant discourses than others, and if so, who is more - 61 -


successful and why. Primary discourses aim to create solidarity and co-participation in meaning making, while stressing social and affective involvement. From this initial social identity, a foundation is established upon which individuals acquire or resist other discourses. Students bring to the classroom certain ways of speaking and acting within their homes and communities that differ in varying degrees from one another (Gee, 1999). Primary discourses often merge into school-based discourses. For example, teachers adopt values and ways of behaving found in middle-class, Anglo-Saxon homes, applying them to discourses at school (Cazden, 1988; Gee, 1999; 1983). Similarly, middle-class families incorporate school-based discourses within the home, such as reading bedtime stories. An example is Mehan’s (1979) research of book reading sessions involving parents and young children. 1. Parent gives an attention gaining vocative as, “Look”. 2. Parent initiates a question such as, “What’s that?” 3. Child responds with a label such as, “It’s an X”. 4. Parent evaluates comment affirmatively such as, “Yes, that’s an X” With the exception of the parents’ attention gaining vocative, the remaining parts of the book reading dialogue reproduce the speech pattern of mainstream, teacher directed classroom discourse, referred to as “Initiation-Response-Evaluation” or IRE (Mehan, 1979): 1. Initiation (I) of a sequence by the teacher calling on a child to speak. 2. Response (R) from a nominated child, who answers the question. 3. Evaluative (E) comment from the teacher before calling on the next child. In both examples, questions are asked to which the adult already knows the answers. The “fill-in-the-blank” discourses of both mainstream classrooms and middle-class homes is part of a socialisation process to ensure that children, as members of society, are apprenticed by masters in the “right” experiences and learn the “right” answers. In studies of the antecedents of school success, there is a high correlation between the occurrence of book reading episodes at home and subsequent success in school (Gee, 1996). A picture book reading episode works in collusion with school based literacies in the production of school “success” and so-called “intelligence”. - 62 -


Conversely, students who are not from middle-class, Anglo-Saxon homes are unfamiliar with this four-part sequence. Consequently, they are disadvantaged when they confront the IRE discourse of the classroom. The analysis of secondary discourses is important in this study because these discourses have proven to be a problematic medium in many culturally diverse, mainstream classrooms where children bring their own ways of interacting, speaking, moving, and valuing from their homes and communities. Secondary discourses are language patterns and social practices outside one’s early home and peer group context to which people are socialised to present themselves within various institutions. These contexts outside the home include work, school, peer groups, clubs, and church (Gee, 1992). The following transcript is drawn from the pilot study, described in the methodology chapter (Section 4.5). A secondary discourse was used to socialise year two students to the appropriate ways of speaking and moving in the computer laboratory. Date: August, 29th 2003, Section 3 1. Teacher: [Claps rapidly. Students repeat rhythm]. John! Ben! I know you’re new to this classroom, but we have a rule: clap – you stop, you freeze! Towi, you’re not looking in my direction. Tim, you’re not looking in my direction. If you have a question, are you going to call out like Alicia did a minute ago? No! If you have a question, what should you do? Jake? 2. Jake: Put your hand up. 3. Teacher: That’s a really good answer, Jake. If I’m really busy working with someone else, should you get out of your chair and follow me around? 4. Class: No! [chorus response] 5. Teacher: Should you then call out? 6. Class: No [chorus response] 7. Teacher: No – that’s absolutely right! You’re logging in, getting into [Microsoft] Word, and then you’re typing up. You need to plan… Excuse me! Sit up! You should still be looking at me! [raised voice] Second time, Tim! Michael, sit up with your back straight, thank you! Getting into Word, starting your typing. Any partners that are arguing over seats, I’ll just ask you to come and sit on the carpet. Off you go. A significant portion of time is devoted to “inculcating” appropriate group norms or required ways of “being” in the computer laboratory, particularly for newcomers like Ben (Cazden, 1988). This includes controlling the bodily movements of students, such as John, Towi, and Ben, who failed to converge toward group practices such as “freezing” when the teacher clapped. It also includes providing the right answers in - 63 -


the right way, such as Jake’s response, which is rewarded [Line 2]. Participation in the secondary discourses of this classroom involves a highly complex, co-operative, self-adjusting pattern of interaction among participants. The teacher rewards and sanctions the speech and postures of students to ensure that members do not vary from group norms. The multiple sanctions that apply in this teaching context evidently prove difficult for both students and teacher to attend to (Gee, 1992). Such implicit cultural expectations for speaking and acting are central to understanding the relative “success” of different students to access multiliteracies. Dominant discourses are significant in this thesis because control over certain dominant discourses, such as electronic texts, can lead to the acquisition of social goods such as money, power or status. Discourses are ideological because they are linked to a set of social and political relationships between people (For discourses and power see: Apple, 1986; Freire & Macedo, 1987; Giroux, 1988; Lankshear & Lawler, 1987; Luke, 1988; McLaren, 1989). Dominant discourses are simply defined as norms for participation that identify insiders or outsiders to dominant groups (Gee, 1996). In reality, the distinction between the discourses of insiders or outsiders is not so sharp, since discourses are matters of degree, changing in different contexts. For example, consider this transcript from the pilot study, which was reported in the methodology chapter (Section 4.5). Michael, who is AngloAustralian, is presenting the class weather report to the year two class. 29th August, 2003 1. Michael: [Refers to weather chart] Well, on Monday, it was sunny and hot – really hot! And Tuesday it was the same as Monday. And on Wednesday, it was…hotter than those two. And on Thursday, it was a bit cold, um, it was cold and sunny. And on Friday – well today, it’s a bit cold, and sunny – actually, really sunny! And I think all of you should be wearing, um… 2. Teacher: A jumper? 3. Michael: I think actually, for today, um, I think you should be wearing tracksuit pants. You could wear a jumper instead of tracksuit pants. And yesterday, I hope you were all just wearing a jumper. And um, on Wednesday, I hope you were wearing just the normal, T-shirt for school, and normal shorts, or dresses for girls. And for Tuesday, it was also very hot, so you should have…some shorts um, and a Tshirt – school T-shirt. And on Monday – I think it would be the same as Tuesday. Thank you. 4. Teacher: That was a very comprehensive weather report, wasn’t it? Give Michael a clap, please. Thanks Michael.

- 64 -


5. Class: [Claps] Michael is familiar with the dominant classroom discourse of the “weather report”, including the appropriate ways of speaking. At age seven, Michael is already apprenticed into a dominant school discourse for presentation of self through appropriate dress. His account demonstrates intricate and contextualised knowledge of what counts as “normal” school dress, including appropriate gender distinctions (Line 4). He is confident to transform the discourse, creating a hybrid text that combines the school dress code with the weather conditions. Dominant discourses always build on the uses of language, gestures and values acquired in one’s primary discourse. They empower culturally dominant students because there is minimal conflict with their existing discourses (Gee, 1996). Marginalised discourses are essential in this thesis because students who use discourses that are peripheral, atypical, or anomalous to dominant discourses may not gain equitable access to multiliteracies. This is because all discourses emphasise certain values at the expense of others, unintentionally marginalising attitudes and values central to other discourses (Erickson, 1987; McDermott, 1987; Trueba, 1987, 1989) Students who use marginalised discourses are often excluded from dominant groups (Delpit, 1988; Gee, 1996, 2003).. Discourses have unique symbolic systems including grammatical or lexical patterns, like clauses and sentence, pronoun cases and verb tenses, used to create meaning (Gee, 1999).

Meaning is not simply decoding. It requires knowing relevant

language choices, tied to context and culture. For example, classroom discourses often stress variable surface features or co-locutional patterns of language, such as “ing” rather than “in’”, to test whether students are apprenticed in the right, statusgiving discourses (Gee, 1992; Gee, 1996). This marginalises Aboriginal students and those who use bound morphemes, such as “in’” for “ing” (Cazden, 1988). Both forms occur in all dialects of English, and have different meanings (Milroy & Milroy, 1995). The bound morpheme “in’” is signals greater solidarity with, and less deference toward, the listener. The reverse is true of the form “ing”, which is used to honour the listener as one with status or authority.

- 65 -


When the “right” co-locutional patterns are needlessly emphasised, marginalised students are unable to draw from their cultural resources (Cazden, 1988). Discourses, identities and interests of students peripheral to the mainstream culture have been historically disparaged or misjudged. Research has documented the conditions placed upon literacies in various learning environments (See: Barnes, Britton, & Torbe, 1990; Cazden, 1988; Corson, 1993; Dyson, 1993; Fine, 1992; Gallas, 1997; Gallas, Anton-Oldenburg, Ballenger, & Beseler, 1996; Gee, 1992; Gilmore, 1985; Heath, 1983; Lee, 1993; Lemke, 1990; McKay & Wong, 1996; Michaels, 1985; Phillips, 1982; Warren, Rosebery, & Conant, 1994; Wells, 1986; Wertsch, 1991). These studies demonstrate that schools rarely offer full and meaningful apprenticeships to students from marginalised communities. Minority and low socioeconomic groups often have a significant distance to traverse to accommodate and adapt to dominant school discourses (Gee, 1992; Gee, 1996). This section was included to raise consciousness of the degree to which the primary and marginalised discourses of culturally diverse students in this study might be defined in opposition to secondary and dominant discourses in a multiliteracies context. A potential strength of the multiliteracies pedagogy is the aim to widen the repertoire of discourses to include culturally and linguistically diverse discursive practices. In theory, multiliteracies allows for juxtaposing home and school discourses without privileging one over the other.

This multiliteracies research is

needed to examine whether the multiple discourses of students are valued in a supportive cultural community. Teachers who enact the multiliteracies pedagogy need to carefully analyse and consciously reflect upon the secondary discourses used in the classroom rather than allowing discourses to occur by default (Cazden, 1988). Therefore, it is important in this thesis to analyse how scaffolds are used to bridge home and school discourses, and the degree to which students can draw from their own cultural resources for meaning making. In conclusion, this section has systematised relevant theories of pedagogy, power, and discourses to interpret the multiliteracies lessons observed in this research. Together these theories provide signposts to enable a systematic and conceptually sound evaluation of the students’ access to multiliteracies.

- 66 -


3.3 Theoretical Framing of Systems Analysis Systems analysis, an important part of Carspecken’s critical ethnography, makes an undeniable contribution to strengthening the validity of this research because it situates the data within broader structures of power and privilege. Critical studies that fail to do so risk interpreting classroom findings as if they exist unconnected and uninfluenced by factors within the wider social system (Carspecken, 1996). Methodological aspects of systems analysis are discussed in Chapter Four (4.8), findings generated from systems analysis are reported in Chapter Six, and the underlying theory is presently discussed. Giddens’ (1984) structuration theory has been chosen to inform systems analysis in this thesis, for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is preferable to social theories that are mechanistic in form, such as structuralism, which depict society as a single entity and which fail to take into account the agency of individuals. Conversely, structuration theory has an advantage over action theory and symbolic interactionism, which have a tendency to minimise the influences of social structure on individual behaviour. Giddens’ (1984) theory has earned good support within the discipline of sociology. When applied to research, it is successful in the analysis of individual action, without neglecting the importance of institutional examination (Giddens, 1981; Kaspersen, 2000). Finally, Giddens’ epistemology and critical sociology are consistent with that of Carspecken (1996), whose ethnographic method is employed here. A requirement of systems analysis is the investigation of events and routines that take place across several interrelated social sites (Carspecken, 1996, p.201). During the pilot study, reported in Section 4.5, regionalised links between the classroom locale and other social sites were mapped for further investigation as potentially significant explanatory links to students’ access to multiliteracies (See Figure 3.3).

- 67 -


Figure 3.3 Model of Systems Relations to Investigate Access to Multiliteracies generated from the Pilot Study

In Figure 3.3, the concentric circles represent the increasing time-space zoning between the immediate classroom locale and the relevant social systems identified for investigation in the school, community, state, national and global context. Within these systems, the actions of individuals and institutions relevant to the problem of access to multiliteracies can be found at each level. This is because the school is - 68 -


woven into a network of inter-societal systems, such as the home culture of students and teachers, the local community, the Department of Education at district and state levels, universities, and students’ future world of work. Semistructured interviews are used to investigate these systems that are separated in time and space from action within the classroom. For example, during the pilot study, the teacher provided information about her involvement in the school’s Information and Communication Technologies and English Committees, which enabled her to gain more control of allocative (material) and authoritative (people) resources for teaching multiliteracies. Relevant factors identified for investigation at the local community level include regionalised links between students’ actions in the classroom and at home (See Figure 3.3). At local and state levels, links to potentially relevant institutional structures include the state education system, the district division of state schools, curriculum bodies, professional development organisations, and institutions of higher education (See Figure 3.3). At the global level, particular attention is given to discovering cross-national, time-space paths in the home cultures of students who have lived outside Australia (See Figure 3.3). For example, the school has a cohort of students who are Sudanese refugees. These recent immigrants access the languages of their Sudanese culture, separated in time and space from the observed classroom interactions. These systems relations between the classroom and other related social sites may take differing forms of presence-availability of the actors (Giddens, 1984). For example, classrooms have high presence-availability of the actors because the teacher and students have sustained, face-to-face contact. In contrast, regionalised links between the Queensland Department of Education and the classroom have lowpresence availability. Consequently, relevant links to the classroom might be based on the physical movement of people, such as when the teacher attends a professional development course to exchange knowledge about multiliteracies. Contrastingly, connections might be made between people or media that are distant in time or space, requiring no face-to-face interaction. Examples of these less visible connections might include policy documents about multiliteracies, educational theories disseminated by institutions of higher education, state government funding for

- 69 -


multiliteracies, or the teacher’s use of the Internet to gain knowledge or resources (Giddens, 1984; Kaspersen, 2000). Giddens’ (1984) structuration theory provides three criteria for systems analysis – domination, signification, and legitimation – which are applied in this thesis to explain the distribution of access to multiliteracies (See Table 3.3). Domination: Power over persons and materials a. Authoritative Resources – Political control over persons (e.g. positional power) b. Allocative Resources – Economic command of material objects (e.g. money, technology) Signification: Meaning and communication structures (e.g. symbolic structure of English) Legitimation: Rules a. Norms – Constitution of meaning (i.e. conduct appropriate to certain social settings) b. Sanctions – Regulation of social conduct (i.e. codified laws, “If…then…”) Table 3.3 Criteria for Systems Analysis (Adapted from: Kasperson, 2000, Introduction to a Social Theorist)

This taxonomic distinction between elements is purely analytic, since these three categories of structures are inherent in all systems simultaneously (Giddens, 1984). Systems analysis simply aims to explain how the composition and types of these three elements work together at both actor and institutional levels. Applied to this study, these three categories can provide explanatory power concerning how asymmetry of structures that affect the distribution of access to multiliteracies are reproduced or transformed. 3.3.1 Domination In this thesis, domination structures that affect students’ access to multiliteracies are investigated during systems analysis. Domination structures afford transformative power to change the system, and depend on the mobilisation of two distinguishable types of resources – allocative and authoritative resources (Giddens, 1984). Authoritative resources refer to command over personnel, such as the provision of

- 70 -


English as Second Language [ESL] teachers in the school to support culturally diverse students. Allocative resources refer to command over goods or materials, such as the control of funding for multiliteracies (Giddens, 1984, p.33). It is important in this thesis to investigate the way in which significant actors, such as the principal, teacher, and students, draw upon these two kinds of resources to enable or gain access to multiliteracies. In this research, domination structures are examined at each level of systems analysis; that is, within the classroom, the school, the local community, and the wider social system. Domination structures at the school and state system level are investigated through interviews with the principal and teacher. For example, the principal’s allocation of funds to provide technology, books, support personnel, professional development, and specialist support for ESL students, may enable or constrain students’ access to multiliteracies. Additionally, an important inquiry is the way in which the teacher participant is constrained or enabled by these domination structures, such as the adequacy of resources and professional development opportunities to teach multiliteracies. Within the local community, interview data from the teacher and students is used to obtain information about the economic conditions of action in students’ homes and any links to students’ access to multiliteracies at school. At the state level, the way in which the state education system ensures supervisory control of policies and distributes funds for multiliteracies is important. 3.3.2 Signification The second criterion for systems analysis in this thesis is signification structures – the meaning and communication structures or modes of discourse – that are tied to the distribution of access to multiliteracies.

The links between signification

structures and power are important in this analysis of access to multiliteracies. Modes of discourse, such as tacit and explicit requirements of students to think, act, write, move, and so forth, embody assumptions that legitimise existing power relations (Giddens, 1984). For example, the norm-governed practice that students remain silent for sustained periods, while teachers speak freely, is a mode of discourse that assumes the legitimate power of teachers over their students. When

- 71 -


students and teachers choose to follow these practices, these signification structures become a routine part of existence in school life. In this thesis, signification structures investigated at the classroom level include the discourses used by the teacher to order student conduct, specifically those that might differentiate between the students. At the school level, signification structures employed by administration, such as ability grouping in English lessons, are investigated for links to the distribution of access to multiliteracies. Signification investigated at the local community level includes the discourses used by students at home and at school.

For example, even the place of Standard English as the

predominant national language in the Australian public sphere has implications for students access to multiliteracies (Giddens, 1984, p.31; Ritzer, 1992). 3.3.3 Legitimation Legitimation is the third criterion for systems analysis in this thesis, which refers to rules or procedures of action that are applied in the performance and reproduction of social practices. In this thesis, rules that constrain or enable students’ access to multiliteracies are investigated. For example, educational policies that legitimise the teaching of multiliteracies in the school might enable students to access multiliteracies, while a rule that prevents students from using the library before school might constrain access. Legitimation structures can be of two kinds: a) unstated norms for social conduct, such as socially acceptable or unacceptable behaviours; and b) formal sanctions or laws that regulate modes of social conduct (Giddens, 1984, p.18-19; Kaspersen, 2000, p.72). In the classroom, legitimation structures that differentiate between students’ access to multiliteracies are examined, such as formal sanctions prohibiting access to certain literacies, or implicit norms for students’ movements, speech and actions. Within the school site, legitimation structures might include formal rules, such as school-based planning requirements. These structures also include tacit social norms, such as routinely displaying students’ multimodal designs in hallways, which encourages other teachers to do similarly. At the state level, educational policies, professional development initiatives, or research from universities, might legitimise multiliteracies in the school.

- 72 -


The semi-structured interviews for the teacher, principal and students systematically address the domination, signification, and legitimation structures that are tied to the problem of access to multiliteracies in the context of the classroom, school, community and wider society. 3.3.4 System Reproduction To complete systems analysis it is necessary to build up evidence to support the claim that a system has been discovered (Carspecken, 1996). For example, in this research, interview questions probing into the future career plans of students would be necessary to support the claim that a reproductive loop exists between students’ present access to multiliteracies and their future world of work. This is system reproduction; namely, a process in which individuals act consistently in relation to broadly distributed social conditions (Giddens, 1984). In explanations of system reproduction, the power of individuals to change the social conditions is always partially bounded by the consequences of social action. These consequences become the conditions for social reproduction. For example, the differing abilities of students to use multimedia in the classroom might be limited by their differing prior experiences with multimodal designs at home. The unintended consequences of these differences in students’ home experiences are conditions for the social reproduction of differing access to multiliteracies at school. Such relations would indicate system reproduction of broadly distributed conditions (Giddens, 1979; Giddens, 1984; McLaren & Leonard, 1993). 3.4 Summary of Chapter Three Chapter Three is pivotal in systematising the theoretical framework of the research, having direct implications for the methodology and interpretation of the observed multiliteracies lessons and interview data. The aim was not to simply reproduce an existing theoretical framework that is passively compliant with the boundaries of a conventional literacy theory. Rather, the aim was to be reflexively conscious of both the replication of, and divergence from, extant theoretical roots, to offer a conceptual framework for thinking about a field that is in a profound state of transition. This chapter has presented a scaffold to investigate the speech and actions of the research

- 73 -


participants in the observed classroom, while taking into account the structures of power in the school and broader society. Firstly, it was argued that the application of critical theory is necessary because this research enquires about students’ access to multiliteracies, drawing upon assumptions about power and its distribution in society. The distinguishing features of critical ethnography were systematised in relation to the aims of this study. A important case was made for the application of sociocultural theory in this thesis, because sociocultural theory maintains that literacy must be researched with a critical dimension that interrogates ideological and social relations. A justification of an Habermasian epistemology was given, explaining its contribution to the use of pragmatic horizon analysis in this study. Theories that are indispensable to the interpretation of observations and dialogue within the multiliteracies classroom were foregrounded, identifying the following key themes and theorists: a) Pedagogy: The multiliteracies pedagogy of the New London Group (1996), and the Learning by Design approach by Kalantzis and Cope (2005); b) Power: Carspecken’s (1996) typology of power relations, and McLaren’s (1992; 1993) theory of resistance; c) Discourse: Gee’s (1996) social linguistic theory of discourse. A theoretical framework for systems analysis in this study was outlined. It was contended that systems analysis is a strength of Carspecken’s (1996) critical ethnography, employed in this thesis. A rationale was provided highlighting the advantages of Giddens’ (1984) structuration theory over other sociological frameworks for this research. Central themes of systems analysis – domination, signification, legitimation, and system reproduction – were described, providing examples of their specific application to this investigation of access to multiliteracies. Together, these theories form a conceptual map for investigating the research question in the changing social, technological, cultural and communications landscape.

- 74 -


Chapter Four – Methodology of the Study 4.0 Introduction This chapter builds on the theoretical framing of critical ethnography presented in Chapter Three, to describe the methodology applied in the conduct of this research. A justification of the suitability of critical ethnography in this thesis is followed by a description of the research design. This includes the site and participants, data collection procedures and tools, analytic and interpretative methods, limits to reporting, and the ethical conduct of the research. The context of the research was a mainstream, year six classroom in which the multiliteracies pedagogy of the New London Group – situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing, and transformed practice – was enacted by a teacher who had received professional development in multiliteracies (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000b). The classroom was situated in a suburban primary school in Brisbane, within a low socioeconomic area.

The principal encouraged the teaching of

multiliteracies in the school and was supportive of the conduct of this research. A ten-week series of lessons was observed and recorded by the researcher in which the teacher participant employed the multiliteracies pedagogy. This involved eighteen days of ethnographic fieldwork, with most observations extending through several school periods. The researcher also dialogued informally with the teacher and school staff to situate the data beyond the spatial boundaries of the classroom within the school context. The researcher also observed a school event for parents in which the multiliteracies designs, created by the students, were presented. Following the lesson observations, a series of semi-structured interviews were conducted with the teacher, school principal and four students from the class. These students were of Anglo-Australian, Indigenous Australian, Sudanese and Tongan ethnic backgrounds, comprising a culturally and linguistically diverse group.

- 75 -


4.1 Critical Ethnography Carspecken’s (1996) critical ethnography is applied in this research, continuing in the theoretical tradition of Habermas (1981) and Giddens (1984). A rationale for the application of critical ethnography in this thesis was presented in Chapter Three (3.1). It was argued that critical ethnography is consistent with the value orientation of the research question, sociological perspectives, and epistemic assumptions of the investigation. Simply stated, the research question is one that a critical ethnographer would ask: What specific interactions between pedagogy, power and discourse affect students’ access to multiliteracies within a culturally and linguistically diverse classroom group? This question stimulates inquiry aimed to uncover the workings of power in relation to a perplexing historical problem within the institution of schooling; namely, the asymmetrical distribution of literacies among dominant and marginalised groups. However, this historical concern is reformulated in the light of the contemporary communications environment. It is for this reason that the term “multiliteracies” is used to encapsulate the complexity of multimodality, and the cultural and linguistic diversity of textual practices in today’s globalised society. Critical sociology informs the research question by foregrounding the understanding that knowledge and cultural capital are often stratified and differentially distributed along asymmetrical patterns of power and privilege. The features of critical ethnography were described in the theoretical framing of this study (Section 3.1). Critical sociologists perceive that contemporary society is often unfair, inequitable, and both implicitly and clearly oppressive for the marginalised. This research is designed to identify the specific ways in which the key sociological themes of critical theory, such as power, agency, resistance, domination, and marginalisation by race, class and gender, for instance, might be extended to the investigation of access to multiliteracies in a context of cultural and linguistic diversity (Quantz, 1992). Critical ethnography is a research methodology designed to begin with these sociological orientations of critical theory (Carspecken, 1996). Thus, the application of critical ethnography is consistent with the research question, because both are orientated by the sociology of critical theory.

- 76 -


4.2 Research Design Table 4.2 outlines Carspecken’s (1996) five-stage design applied to this research. Five-Stage Model:

Research Steps

Participant

Site Methods

Stage I

Stage V

Describing System Relations

Explaining System Relations

Initial Data Analysis

Triangulate Data Collection

Examining social sites in the wider locale beyond primary research site

Teacher selected from four pilot study teachers & 23 students Year six classroom in Brisbane

Teacher

Teacher

None

Interpreting results by comparing to socialtheoretical models None

Off-site

Off-site

Field notes

Low-level raw codes

Interpret data gathered about microinteractions in classroom with links to macrostructure.

Interpret results to confirm, extend or modify extant social theories.

To discover system relations between social sites

To compare data to existing macrotheories of society

Unspecified

Unspecified

Sept. - Oct. 2004

Nov-Dec 2004

Photographs Cultural Artefacts

Date

Stage IV

Observational Research

Video Recording

Duration

Stage III

Monological Preliminary Dialogical Data Analysis Data Collection Collection & Analysis

Audio-Taping

Purpose

Stage II

Self-reflexive Journal To record social routines as naturalistically as possible, observing directly when and where action takes place 18 days of lesson observations during the implementation of a ten week multiliteracies unit (36 hours)

Feb-March 2004

4 Students Off-site

High-level raw codes Hierarchical Schemes Pragmatic horizon analysis Pragmatic horizon analysis provides a consistency between analytic procedures & the underlying epistemology 250 hours transcribing data (36 hrs. of observation x7+ hours when multiple group interactions recorded simultaneously) March–July 2004

Table 4.2 Five Stage Research Design

Principal Classroom & Principal’s office Semistructured interviews (45 minutes each) Same tools as stage two. Stage two data compared to stage one data. Researcher’s interpretation must be validated and enriched by participants 6 hours of interviewing & member checking 42 hours transcribing & analysing interviews (6 hrs x 7) Aug. 2004

- 77 -


The five-stage research design is briefly explained to provide an overview of the methodology elaborated later in this chapter. Stage One was the collection of monological or observational data in a year six classroom in which a teacher implemented a series of lessons applying the multiliteracies pedagogy, theorised in Chapter Two (New London Group, 1996; 2000).

This data was monological

because there was minimal dialogue with the research participants – teacher, principal, and students – in order to reduce researcher effect on the data. Multiple data collection tools were used to record the interaction between the research participants during the lessons. These included video, tape recorder, journal notes, photographs, and the collection of cultural artefacts, such as student work samples on CD ROM. Eighteen days were spent in the classroom over the period of a tenweek, school term, and the duration of lesson observations was approximately thirty-six hours. The termination of lesson observations was tied to the pedagogic structure of the multiliteracies lessons, which required the complete enactment of the four components of the multiliteracies pedagogy. The four components were to be related in complex ways, taught simultaneously, or repeatedly revisited, leading to the learners’ collaborative designing of claymation movies (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000b). Remaining in the field for at least one complete cycle of events is regarded as crucial for establishing the range and variation of activities in qualitative inquiry (LeCompte & Schensul, 1999a). It was necessary to make decisions in situ regarding the priority given to recording some speech acts over others. This is because classrooms are unique social contexts in which multiple actors speak simultaneously, and three recording devices were not able to capture more than three speech acts concurrently. Decisions to record certain interactions were made on the basis of whether the data was original or becoming redundant, and to give priority to capturing the culturally and linguistically diverse forms of communication (See for decision-making in-situ: Fetterman, 1989, p.20; Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p.103; Strauss & Corbin, 1990. p.188).

- 78 -


Stage Two was the preliminary analysis of monological data obtained in Stage One. Data was replayed multiple times and transcribed by the researcher. Analytic tools were applied to the lesson transcripts including low and high-level coding, and reorganising the coded data into hierarchical schemes. Carspecken’s (1996) pragmatic horizon analysis was applied to segments of the data to support the key themes that emerged from the data (For coding procedures see: Coffey & Atkinson, 1996; Phillips, 1990; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Stage Three involved triangulating data collection and analysis to strengthen the validity of the research, a requirement of Carspecken’s (1996) critical ethnography (See also: Berg, 2004; Creswell, 2003; Heaton, 2004; LeCompte & Preissle, 1993). The aim was to generate a second set of comparative, dialogical data; that is, data based on verbal interaction with participants to gain the participant perspectives of the events (Carspecken, 2001). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the principal, teacher, and a culturally and linguistically diverse group of four students to situate the problem of access in the wider social context (For the need to contextualise data in critical research see: Carspecken, 1996; Kincheloe & McLaren, 1994; Popkewitz & Guba, 1990; Quantz, 1992). Informal dialogue with the teacher and students occurred both during and after the eighteen weeks of field work to obtain participant perspectives of the events, and this data was recorded in the primary record. The researcher’s interpretation of the classroom findings were shared sensitively with the teacher after leaving the field. This encouraged critical reflection through a dialogical process that is required to democratise the research process and to empower actors in social settings (Carspecken, 1996, p.155; Lather, 1986).

The analysis of this dialogical data

required the application of the analytic tools used in Stage Two; namely, two levels of coding and the re-organisation of codes into hierarchical schemes, supported by pragmatic horizon analysis (Carspecken, 1996). In Stage Four, Giddens’ (1981) structuration theory of systems analysis was applied to the data; a discretionary, though unquestionably valuable component of Carspecken’s (1996) critical ethnography. The purpose was to discover relations between the structures of domination, signification, and legitimation that constrain - 79 -


or enable access to multiliteracies in the classroom site and those exhibited in other social sites (Refer to Chapter Three 3.3 for the theoretical framing of structuration theory). Stage Five concluded the research design with an interpretation and explanation of results in the light of a macro-sociological theory. System relationships that influenced the distribution of access to multiliteracies among the students were interpreted in relation to Giddens’ (1984) structuration theory of systems analysis, a macro-theory that is consistent with critical theory. 4.3 Site The selection of the classroom site was based on the criterion of cultural and linguistic heterogeneity. This was necessary to investigate the research question regarding the distribution of access to multiliteracies among culturally and linguistically diverse students. The site of the investigation was a primary classroom in a suburban state school. In 2003, the school had an enrolment in excess of three hundred and twenty-five students. The school had been operating for over a century, and its community was composed of diverse cultures and schooling experiences. One of the key visions of the school, according to a statement in the unpublished School Community Profile 3 (2003), was to “achieve the best possible educational outcomes for all our students…through equity of educational opportunity.” The school was situated in a low socio-economic area, and twenty-five nationalities and twenty-four Brisbane suburbs were represented in the student cohort. The population of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (ATSI) was 8%. This was significantly higher than the nationwide figure from the most recent Census, that is, the Census of population and Housing: Selected Social and Housing Characteristics Australia, and Statistics: Local Areas, Queensland (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2003). According to this census data the Indigenous population in Queensland in 2001 was only 2.2% of the Australian population and 3.1% of the Queensland population. 3

The complete details of this document are not cited to protect the anonymity of the participants. - 80 -


In 2003, the school population of students for whom English was a second language (ESL) was 7%. This data indicates that the school cohort meets the selection criterion of cultural and linguistic diversity. The learning support population of the school was 27.4 %. The boys (56.5%) outnumbered the girls (43.5%) in the school enrolment. The percentage of parents who believed that the school was developing children’s literacy skills was 81%, while 52% were satisfied with their children’s computer skills. Among the students, 86% enjoyed reading, 70% enjoyed writing, 56% were satisfied with their computer skills, and 38% of students were satisfied with the opportunities that they have to use computers at school. Students with access to a computer at home comprised 77% of the school enrolment. The school had no documented reports or statistics regarding culturally and linguistically diverse textual practices in the school. The statistics about parent and student beliefs about multiliteracies during the school year in which fieldwork began are obtained from the School Community Profile (2003). The principal of the school was committed to providing the necessary resources, professional development and support for teachers to become experts in multiliteracies. For example, he stated: I see my role is to encourage teachers to take professional development opportunities in multiliteracies that are presented to them.--- There is no point encouraging them to teach a wider range of literacies if you don’t purchase new technologies, books, or the tools to teach. The principal was informed about current policy developments and professional development opportunities in multiliteracies, which confirmed the suitability of the school site for the fieldwork. He was also supportive of the teacher participant and welcomed this research. The larger geographical areas surrounding the school that were associated with the lives of participants – principal, teacher, and students – were also sites of investigation, a requirement of systems analysis (Giddens, 1984). This data was gathered through interviews rather than through direct observation. For example, questions were asked about multiliteracies at home to identify influences on students’ access to multiliteracies at school (Apple, 1986, p.51; Carspecken, 1996).

- 81 -


4.4 Participants Purposive sampling was used to select the participants – a grade six teacher, twentythree students, and the school principal. The classroom case and its participants were selected for information richness rather than sample size (Patton, 2002). The aim was to produce through sampling, a relevant context to make key comparisons about access to multiliteracies among the culturally and linguistically diverse students (Mason, 2002). Table 4.4 outlines the total participant pool and describes their roles in the research. Participant Principal Teacher

Students (23) Parents (23) Students Interviewed (4)

Description of Participant Roles in Research Read information package and provide written consent for researcher to enter the classroom. Participate in a 45 minute, semi-structured interview. Teach a ten-week sequence of lessons applying the multiliteracies pedagogy. Provide consent for the researcher to observe lessons. Negotiate lesson observation and dialogue with researcher in fieldwork. Participate in a 45 minute, semi-structured interview (audio-taped). Provide researcher with cultural artefacts (e.g. unit plans, work samples). Participate in member checks to validate transcripts and respond to the researcher’s analysis of the data. Read information package and provide passive consent4. Participate in regular classroom activities while the researcher is present. Read information package and provide passive consent for their child to participate. Read information package and provide passive consent. Participate in regular classroom activities with researcher presence. Participate in 45 minute, semi-structured interview.

Table 4.4 Participant Roles in the Study

4.4.1 Teacher Potential teacher participants were identified through professional network sampling; namely, the use of an existing professional body to select research participants (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993). A tertiary educator provided contact details of a professional network of teachers involved in the “Learning by Design” project 4

Passive consent required the return of the written consent form only if the participants did not wish to provide voluntary, informed, and understood consent for their child to participate in the research. This was a requirement for ethical clearance granted by the University Human Research Ethics Committee. - 82 -


reported by Kalantzis and Cope (2005). The local extension of this project began in March 2003, jointly supported by the Department of Education Queensland and a district learning and development centre. Upon application, ten primary and secondary teachers each received a two thousand dollar grant for developing, teaching, and assessing multiliteracies in classrooms. This professional network sampling enabled the identification of four pilot study participants who were scattered throughout a large educational population. Three teachers at two schools participated in the pilot study conducted to identify one or more suitable teacher participants and a school research site. The selected teacher participant had gained eight years of experience in multiple contexts, including distance education in rural Queensland, and teaching in innercity London. She began her employment at the present school in January, 2002. She was a catalyst for extending multiliteracies by sharing her unit plans and ideas within other schools, a Hearing Impaired Unit, and at an educational conference in Canberra. Her educational perspectives were also consistent with critical theory, evident by her accurate use of key concepts such as “empowerment” and “critical literacies”. The teacher’s participation in the research was supported by the school principal who commented: She has special skills in multiliteracies and will often informally share with other teachers through professional dialogue. She conducted a brilliant unit of claymation work with her grade two class. This has now encouraged other teachers in the school to have a go. The teacher was also aware of the need to negotiate cultural and linguistic diversity among the students and their parents. For example, she used a Sudanese translator to regularly conference with the Sudanese parents of her ESL students about their progress. 4.4.2 Students The only criterion for the student cohort was cultural and linguistic heterogeneity, a requirement of this investigation regarding access to multiliteracies among a culturally and linguistically diverse group. Aspects of diversity included ethnicity, socio-economic status, gender, dialects of English, monolingualism, multilingualism, English as a Second Language (ESL), literacy achievement, and home computer

- 83 -


ownership. Richer data providing more points of comparison could be obtained from a diverse student cohort than one comprised exclusively of the dominant culture. A culturally and linguistically diverse group of four, year six students was chosen to participate in the semi-structured interviews. The number of interview participants was determined by the confines of a manageable ethnographic study (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993). The student interview participants were two boys and two girls. Ted was Indigenous Australian, who lived with his single mum and extended family. Joshua was a monolingual, Anglo-Australian student from a low-socioeconomic background, who had learning and behavioural problems. Darles was a multilingual, African-Sudanese refugee who had lived in Australia since the start of her formal schooling. Malee was a multilingual, Tongan student who had immigrated to Australia a year and a half prior to the research. Extensive information was also gathered from the teacher about Pawini, a Thai female, because Pawini did not have sufficient oral English skills to participate in the semi-structured interview. 4.5 Pilot Study The Department of Education Queensland and the principals of two schools provided voluntary, informed, understood and written consent to conduct a pilot study. This consent was necessitated because of the involvement of minors across several state school districts. The ethical consent of one hundred and twenty parents was also required and obtained to gain voluntary, informed, understood, and passive consent to conduct the research. Observational data was collected during the implementation of multiliteracies lessons over several visits to each classroom. Demographic features of the student cohorts were obtained and the social and physical environments were observed to provide baseline data (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993). A year two teacher elected to be involved in the research. Good rapport and a basic sense of trust was established and maintained between the researcher and teacher, which are necessary for the free flow of information (Spradley, 1979). The teacher provided voluntarily, informed, understood and written consent to participate in the research, which was trialled as an intensive pilot study for one month (one hundred hours) in a grade two classroom. The researcher visited every

- 84 -


day from 9:00 am – 3:00 pm, with the exception of Thursdays because of existing professional involvements. Several specialist lessons and school events were not recorded in the data, such as swimming, religious education, LOTE and physical education because they were conducted by teachers who were not involved in the research. The teacher' s speech was audio taped continuously with one tape recorder. The researcher used a second tape recorder to record student dialogue during whole class discussions or when conversing with students during independent work. Due to the limited number of recording devices, only one group could be selected at a time to record the dialogue, though field notes were used to collect continuous data about interactions occurring concurrently. In the third week, it was evident that the audio recordings were insufficient to capture the multimodal forms of data required to answer the research question. Audio recording proved useful only to capture the direct instruction of the teacher and the short responses from students during whole class lessons. Interestingly, this problem is discussed by Cazden (1988) who argued, that at that time, most analyses of classroom discourse were transcripts of teacher-led discussion. She partially attributes this to the technological constraints imposed when recording speech that occurs among multiple participants simultaneously. The teacher provided voluntary, informed, understood and written consent for the continuous video-recording of interactions, which began in the third week of the pilot study. This improved the quality of audio data during multiple group interactions occurring simultaneously, and provided a visual and spatial record of events, such as those involving computers, and where audio-taping had failed to capture multimodal designing. A self-reflexive researcher journal was kept to record the researcher' s influence on the data and reflections about the research process. Samples of the students'designs were collected, including monomodal designs, a CD-ROM of Microsoft PowerPoint presentations and collaborative claymation movies. School policy documents were obtained including the School Community Profile (2003), Information and Communication Technologies for Learning Vision (2003), and the School Annual

- 85 -


Report and Operation Plan – SAROP (2003)5. The interview schedules were trialled a month later with participants from each cohort, including seven students, two parents, the teacher, and the principal (For the importance of pre-testing interview schedules see: Berg, 2004). All methodological tools for data collection were trialled and analytic procedures were sampled. An important outcome of the study was the selection of the teacher participant for the proposed research. The pilot study also informed the methodological tools for data collection, resulting in the decision to purchase a digital camcorder with a wide-angle lens and tripod, to capture the actions of all participants in the room simultaneously. Multiple audio-recording devices were also obtained to capture a greater number of group interactions concurrently. 4.6 Data Collection Data collection was divided into monological and dialogical data sets. Monological or observational data collection methods were used prior to conducting semi-structured interviewing to initially produce a naturalistic record of social routines, observing directly when and where the action took place (For the importance of participant observation see: LeCompte & Schensul, 1999a; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Sarantakos, 2005). Dialogical data collection involved conversing with participants to obtain their perspectives. This is delayed until Stage Three in critical ethnography because dialogue causes some changes in the participants’ perspectives and actions (Carspecken, 1996). However, both forms of data were necessary to compare direct observations of the participants’ actions and their verbally-expressed sentiments about the events. Member checking was conducted to strengthen the trustworthiness of the two data sets. Lesson and interview transcripts were given to the relevant participants (e.g. principal checked the principal interview) to allow participants to challenge any misinterpretations or omissions of significant data by the researcher. A summary of the research results were also carefully discussed with the teacher participant in order to respect her perspectives and feelings about conclusions drawn from the 5

The complete citations details are not included in the list of references to protect the anonymity of the research participants. - 86 -


research. This process was necessary to fortify the interpretive validity or respondent validation of the research (For a rationale of member checking for validity see: Berg, 2004; Ezzy, 2002, 2004; LeCompte & Schensul, 1999b; Maxwell, 2005; Silverman, 2001). 4.6.1 Data Set One Data set one was the construction of the primary record of events in the classroom during the teacher' s enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy over a ten week period (New London Group, 1996). The lessons observed aimed to enable students to design multimodal designs for real world, cultural purposes. The aim was to collaboratively design claymation movies (e.g. Wallace and Gromit) for their preparatory buddies (aged 4½-5). Through direct observation, the researcher attended to the teacher’s application of the multiliteracies pedagogy, the power relations, and the discourses of the participants, that influenced the students’ access to multiliteracies. Multiple data collection tools were used including a digital camcorder, two tape recorders, journal notes, self-reflexive researcher journal, and the collection of cultural artefacts and photographs. The speech and actions of the participants were recorded continuously using the digital camcorder with a wide angle lens. The camera was mounted on a tripod to capture all relations between participants in the room during the teacher' s interactions with the whole class. Two Dictaphones were used to supplement the audio-visual data during collaborative group work to capture the dialogue of three groups simultaneously. These recording devices allowed events to be replayed multiple times for the purpose of accurate analysis (For the strengths of audio data in qualitative research see: Grant, 1999; Sarantakos, 2005; Silverman, 2001). The video recording was necessary to reconstruct the participants' multimodal forms of meaning making, rather than their speech alone. This was particularly important when students were engaged in visual, screen based, or three dimensional designing and kinaesthetic activities (For the possibilities of video data see: Emmison, 2003; Flick, von Kardorff, & Steinke, 2004; Heath, 2004; Marvisti, 2004; Silverman, 2005). The verbatim speech and descriptions of relevant actions of the participants were transcribed to construct the primary record using the conventions outlined in Table 4.6.1. - 87 -


Table of Field Note Conventions Sign Convention … three full stops 1. [ ]

number and full stop square brackets around words

---

short broken line

-------------------

long broken line

Table 4.6.1 Field Note Conventions

Use Indicates pause in verbatim speech Line number Separates observer description, providing contextual information, from verbatim speech. Verbatim speech has been selectively omitted. Partitions time.

A sample of the primary record is provided in Figure 4.6.1.1 to demonstrate the application of field note conventions. CD 7 Date: 17th May, 2004 Time: 12:30pm [Teacher is leading the whole class, who are seated on the carpet, through a set of critical questions about the animated movie "Chicken Run”, which the students have just viewed. They have a print version of the questions in front of them]. 147 Teacher: When the door opened and Mrs. Tweedie was standing there, the light spilled out onto the steps…. Why did they use the lighting in that way? …What effect did it give her that she was in shadow and the bright light coming behind her when it panned up her leg? 148 Jack: Strong 149 Teacher: Yeah, it made her look powerful! 150 Ted: Scary. 151 Teacher: She did look a bit scary. Ok….How did the creators show that Mrs. Tweedie was in power? How did they show that she was the boss, Sean? 152 Sean: The expression. 153 Teacher: The expression on her face. Did you hear the dog yelp? The door opened and the dog went… [Child barks]. Yeah, and did a little yelp. Which means that he was definitely scared. What did you think? 154 Darles: She had her hand on her hip. 155 Teacher: Her hands were on her hip. Her body language showed that she was really very important. 156 Damien: She yelled, “What is this chicken doing here?” 157 Teacher: So, what she said was important. 158 Robyn: You could see her face and her head. 159 Teacher: Think of the angle. Where was she? Where are they [the chickens]? What did the creators do to make her look more powerful, Warren? 160 Warren: Looking up [camera angle]. 161 Teacher: They were looking up at her, and she was looking…? 162 Students: Down. 163 Teacher: Down….which made them look as if they were quite small. Figure 4.6.1.1 Sample of the Primary Record from the Study

- 88 -


Journal notes were used to record informal interactions with participants when audio recording was too obtrusive. These notes were written immediately after the events for trustworthiness (Patton, 2002; Silverman, 1993). This record includes observations and information from participants about relevant events within the school locale and wider community. This is a requirement of critical ethnography because power never works independently of the wider social context (Carspecken, 1996). See Figure 4.6.1.2 for a sample of the pilot study journal notes capturing the researcher' s initial impressions of the research site and participants. Date: 21.07.2003

Time: 3:00-3:15 pm

I met the year two teacher for the first time today. I was informed by office staff of the location of her classroom. As I approached the long, wooden building, she waved to me from the veranda and called out a greeting with a pleasant smile. I identified myself and met her at the top of the stairs. She is a very warm person and I instantly felt at ease and accepted by her. She is of similar ethnicity, age and presentation as me. She continued to smile while producing a long sigh, indicating that she had experienced a hectic, but satisfying day. I prompted her to share her experiences. She narrated some of the highlights of the day, and we sat down. She didn' t stop to ask me any questions about the research until she had told me everything she could think of about her multiliteracies work with the class. With very few verbal prompts, she continued to share for an hour, missing a meeting to spend time with me. She seemed to enjoy having someone to share her ideas with, and I listened to the wide variety of unique experiences she offers her grade two class. Her class is a difficult group to manage, and she has seven children from minority ethnic groups such as Korean, Sudanese, and Indigenous Australian. She expressed that about half of the class were identified as "at risk” in the Year 2 Diagnostic and Remedial Net (Education Queensland, 2001). The teacher is full of creative ideas, and stated that she hopes that her students are "empowered” to determine their futures. The tasks she plans for her students are very situated in real life experiences and social contexts. Listening to her made me feel excited about the prospect of doing research in her classroom.

Figure 4.6.1.2 Sample of Journal Notes from the Pilot Study

Cultural artefacts or archival data were used to triangulate information, including school policy documents, school web pages, teacher planning documents, copies of student work samples (e.g. print and visual texts, CD ROMs), and printed communication to parents (For the strengths of cultural artefacts see: Creswell, 2003; Finch, 1999; Patton, 2002). Photographs were used to provide static, visual and spatial records of the physical environment, such as environmental print in the school.

- 89 -


Finally, a self-reflexive researcher journal was used to record the consequences and critical reflections of the researcher' s participation in the field, including a selfexamination of how the research findings were produced (For the importance of researcher reflexivity see: Heaton, 2004; LeCompte & Schensul, 1999b; Saukko, 2003). See Figure 4.6.1.3 for a sample of a reflective journal entry from the pilot study demonstrating the researcher’s consideration of effective methods of data collection. Date: 9.09.2003 Because this is a multiliteracies unit, I am finding that audio records and field notes are missing important data, such as the students’ interactions with the mouse and computer keyboard. Video data would overcome these problems. I will start building up the visual record by taking some photographs of the classroom and library layout, classroom charts, the school building, and the multiliteracies diagram displayed on the staffroom wall. Figure 4.6.1.3 Reflective Researcher Journal Entry from the Pilot Study

The criterion used to determine when data set one was satisfactorily completed was when the point-of-diminished-return was reached; that is, when the observed patterns of data were repeatedly reaffirmed until no new or relevant data emerged for each coding category. For example, numerous lessons were observed that involved the enactment of overt instruction and situated practice rather than critical framing. Since theoretical saturation was reached in these coding categories, additional lessons were observed to build up a record of the enactment of critical framing. Reaching theoretical saturation across important coding categories strengthened the trustworthiness of this research (LeCompte & Schensul, 1999b). 4.6.2 Data Set Two The second data set involved semi-structured interviews with the year six teacher, the principal, and the four students. The purpose was to triangulate sources of data through multiple actors, comparing interviews with the observational data collected in Stage One (See: Berg, 2004; Flick et al., 2004; Heaton, 2004; LeCompte & Schensul, 1999b; Patton, 2002). The semi-structured interviews also investigated system relations about access to multiliteracies in application of Giddens’ (1984) structuration theory, explained in Chapter Three, and pursuant of Stage Four of Carspecken’s (1996) critical ethnography.

- 90 -


Data set two also included informal dialogue between researcher and participants, recorded as journal notes and supported by audio taping at opportune times. Questions were formulated in situ to gain participant perspectives of significant events that occurred in the multiliteracies classroom (Carspecken & Apple, 1992; Foddy, 1993). For example, the researcher asked questions such as, "What components of the multiliteracies pedagogy were you aiming to implement in the lesson?” There is a normative rationale central to critical research, which provided impetus for the semi-structured interviews and informal dialogue. Firstly, moral respect for persons is honoured when power is shared in the formation of knowledge about others. In purely observational research, knowledge and power are on the side of the researcher rather than the participants. Participants require a voice in the research process for the democratic, co-construction of knowledge. This dialogic approach protects participants from becoming unwitting accessories to knowledge claims that may be false, and from being manipulated in ways they do not understand, and from which they cannot dissent (See also: Carspecken & Apple, 1992; Giddens, 1984; Giroux, 1988; Heron, 1988; Hoy & McCarthy, 1994; Kincheloe & McLaren, 1994; Reason & Rowan, 1988; Schwandt, 2000). A second reason for interviewing in this research is that through such interactions, a double hermeneutic is formed; that is, the intersection of two frames of meaning. On the one hand, there is the meaningful social world as conceived by participants, and on the other, the perspectives and language of the researcher. This process was important in exchanging perspectives about how aspects of the school structure could either be changed or reproduced through individual action ( See also: Banister, Burman, Parker, Taylor, & Tindall, 1995; Carspecken & Apple, 1992; Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Gay & Airasian, 2000; Giddens, 1984; LeCompte, Millroy, & Preissle, 1992; Morgan, 1988). Semi-structured interview topics were specified in draft form, while the precise wording of questions was modified during implementation when applicable. Field notes and audio taping were used to provide a permanent record of semi-structured interviews. The student interviews were conducted verbally at a work table in a - 91 -


small room adjoining the classroom. This location was chosen to minimise noise interference of the audio recording and distractions from other students. The student interviews addressed the following topics regarding access to multiliteracies in order to identify systems relations between home and school (Carspecken, 1996). This list can be compared to Figure 4.6.2.1, the SemiStructured Interview Schedule for Students. 1.

Designing multimodal texts at school

2.

Access to multimodal textual design at school and legitimation structures

3.

Designing multimodal texts at home

4.

Reading picture books and popular texts at home

5.

Writing with pencil and paper at home

6.

Other multimodal texts: TV, movies and media role models

7.

Internet and email at home

8.

Listening to music at home

9.

Reading, writing and multimodality for leisure

10. Perceptions

of

textual

practices:

gender,

age,

monolingualism,

bilingualism, ESL, multiple “Englishes” 11. Personal textual practices: monolingualism, bilingualism, ESL, multiple "Englishes” 12. Parents’ multiliteracies routines 11. Scaffolding multiliteracies 14. Student perceptions of structures of legitimation for multiliteracies in the home 15. Student perceptions of their progress with multiliteracies and ways to improve access Semi Structured Interview Schedule for Students 1. Designing Multimodal text at School a) Do you like designing things which have words, pictures, movement or sound at school? For example, I have seen you use computers at school to make PowerPoint Slides and Claymation films. Do you enjoy doing this? Why? b) What is the best thing that you have made like this at school? c) Are there any difficult things about making these kinds of things at school? d) Have the chances you get to make these kinds of things changed or stayed the same as you have moved to different grade levels and classrooms? If

- 92 -


so, how have they changed? 2. Access to Multimodal textual Design at School & Legitimation Structures a) Do you think that you get enough time on the computers at school for designing things compared to other children and why? b) Are you happy with the help you get when your have trouble designing things with the computer at school? c) Who can you go to for help? d) What do you think about the things you are able to design using the computer at school, and are they better or worse than the ones you have at home? e) What do you think about the number of computers at school, and if your school or classroom could have more computers, how many computers would you like to have? f) Are there any rules you must follow for using computers to design things at school, and if so, can you remember any now? g) Do you follow these rules, and why? h) Do you think these rules are fair, and why? 3. Designing Multimodal Texts at Home a) Do you have a computer at home and if so, how long have you had it? b) Do you design things on the computer at home, and if so, what sort of things? c) Do you enjoy doing these things, and why? d) How often would you spend doing these sorts of things? e) Do you ever need help doing these things, and how do you get help? f) Are there any difficult things about using the computer at home to design things, and if so, what are they? 4. Reading Picture Books and Popular Texts at Home a) Do you read books at home, and if so, which kinds? From what and about what cultures? In what language/s? b) What are some of your favourite books? c) Do you read any other things like magazines or comics, and if so, which ones? From what cultures? In what languages? d) How often do you read these? e) Is there something you like to do more than reading, such as sport, dance, art or playing? 5. Writing with Pencil and Paper at Home a) Do you write things at home using pencil and paper, and if so, what for and in what languages? b) What is your favourite reason for writing? c) How often and how much do you write? d) Are you happy with your writing ability, and why? 6. Other Multimodal Texts: TV, Movies and Idols (Role Models) a) Do you have a TV at home, and if so, what sort of movies and TV programs do you like the most? b) How often do you watch TV, videos or see movies?

- 93 -


c) d) e) f)

Do you have a TV, movie, or book character you really like a lot, and if so, who? Do you have any toys or belongings that show that you like these characters? Have you ever seen people reading books, writing on paper, or using the computer on TV or in magazines, and if so, who? What do you think about those characters who read, write or use the computer?

7. Internet and Email at Home a) Do you have the Internet at home, and if so, how long have you had it? b) Do you surf the Internet for fun, or send emails to friends, and if so, can you tell me about it? c) Which websites do you visit most? d) How often do you do this sort of thing? e) Why do you choose to do or not do these things? 8. Listening to Music at Home (Auditory Mode) a) Do you listen to any music at home, and if so, what sort of music do you like to listen to at home? b) In what languages? From what culture/s? c) Do you have your own music collection or favourite singers, and if so, which ones? d) How often do you spend listening to music at home? 9. Reading, Writing and Multimodality for Leisure a) Do you choose to read with friends just for fun in each other’s homes (e.g. magazines, books, comics)? In what language/s? About what culture/s? b) If so, why do you do these things? c) Do you write on paper with friends just for fun (e.g. diaries, letters, and notes to each other)? In what languages? d) If so, why do you do these things? e) Do you use the computer with friends for fun, and if so, what do you do? (e.g. visiting a friends’ house to play computer games, or make posters). f) How do you feel when you do these things? 10. Perceptions of textual practices: gender, ethnicity, monolingualism, bilingualism, ESL, multiple "Englishes” a) Have you noticed any difference in the way you, your friends, brother or sister use the computer? b) Do you think girl/boys/children from different cultures or children with different or more than one language in Australia like to read the same amount? c) Do you think girls/boys/children from different cultures or children with different or more than one language in Australia like to write the same amount? d) Do you think children from different cultures, but who all go to school in Australia, read, write, communicate or use the computers in the same ways? Why or Why not?

- 94 -


e) f) g)

Do you think children who are younger or older read, write, speak, communicate and use the computer in the same ways? Why or Why not? Would you like things to be different? What could you do change this for yourself?

11. Personal textual practices: Monolingualism, Bilingualism, ESL, multiple "Englishes” a) Can you understand any language other than English? If so, which one/s? Is it your first or second language? b) Do you read, write, or speak, or listen to music in languages other than English? Describe. At school? At home? c) Do you read, write, or talk, or do things about or with other people from other cultures? (e.g. read books, watch movies, or participant in art, dance, music or customs from other cultures, play with best friend from another culture etc.) At school? At home? d) Do you share any special language or ways of talking to close friends or people in groups or clubs that others might not understand (e.g. code words, favourite words and exclamations, shortened words, words to do with your sport etc.)? At school? At home? e) Is it important to do these sorts of things? Why? f) Are you happy with the opportunities you have to do these cultural things at school? At home? Why? g) Is there anything you would like to be different about the way you do these things or the opportunities you have to do them? Why? h) If so, what could you do to change this situation? 12. Observing Parents'Multiliteracies Routines a) Does Mum, Dad or brothers and sisters use the computer much at home? If so, what for? b) Do you think they use the computer anywhere else, like at work? If so, what sort of things do they use the computer for? (e.g. mails, internet, chat rooms, word processing) c) Would you like to do the same kind of jobs at work or home that Mum or Dad do when you grow up, or would you do something different? d) What would you like to do when you become an adult, and why? 13. Scaffolding Multiliteracies a) Do your parent/s, brothers or sisters, friends or anyone else show you to read, and if so, in what language/s or from what culture/s? b) Do your parent/s, brothers or sisters, friends or anyone else show you to write, and if so, and if so, in what language/s or from what culture/s? c) Do your parent/s brothers or sisters, friends or anyone else show you to use the computer, and if so, in what language/s or for what purpose? d) Do your parent/s, brothers or sisters, friends or anyone else do these sorts of things themselves when you are around? (e.g. Newspaper, mails, mail, magazines) 14. Student Perceptions of Legitimation Structures in the Home a) Are there any rules you have to follow at home about using the computer, and if so, what are they?

- 95 -


b) c) d) e) f) g) h)

Are there any rules about how much reading you should do, and if so, what are these rules? Are there any rules about how much writing you should do, and if so, what are these rules? Are there any rules about how much watching TV or videos you can do, and if so, what are these rules? Are there any rules about how much listening to music you can do, and if so, what are these rules? Do you like all of these rules, and why? Do you think these rules are fair, and why? Do you follow these rules, and why?

15. Self Perceptions of Progress with Multiliteracies a) Is it important to know how to use computers for reading and writing things for different purposes, and why? b) Are you happy with how good you are at making things using the computer, and why? c) Are you happy with how good you are at reading books and why? In what languages? d) Are you happy with how good you are at writing, and why? In what languages? e) Are you happy with opportunities you get to use your language, culture and ways of communicating to others at school? f) Would you like anything to be different about the way you do these things? g) Is there anything that you could do either at school or at home to help you get even better, and if so, what could you do?

Figure 4.6.2.1 Semi-Structured Interview Schedule for Students

The multiliteracies addressed in the student interviews included monomodal, multimodal, and culturally and linguistically diverse literacies (New London Group, 1996, 2000). The interview questions attended to the first argument of multiliteracies by investigating students’ use of designs that draw upon the six design elements –

linguistic, visual, audio, gestural, spatial and multimodal. The

interviews investigated the second argument of multiliteracies by attending to issues of cultural and linguistic diversity (Cope & Kalantzis, 1996; Kress, 2000b; New London Group, 1996). The interview questions addressed multiliteracies in both home and school environments to examine possible relationships between the classroom site and the cultures of related social sites. The theoretical impetus for these questions is found in the Stage Four requirements of Carspecken’s (1996) critical ethnography to conduct systems analysis. Accordingly, systems relations or social routines that

- 96 -


occurred in several sites were investigated. Site relationships were sought by considering the physical movement of participants between sites, such as school and home. Relations were also sought between systems media – cultural commodities that are physically absent in time or space. Systems media were examined in interview questions four, and six to nine, particularly in relation to the students’ routine use of magazines, comics, websites, computer games, television shows, and popular music in the home (Apple, 1986; Giddens, 1984). Student perceptions of access to multiliteracies in relation to gender, ethnic, cultural and linguistic diversity were investigated in questions one, two, ten and eleven. These questions applied an important assumption of critical theory to multiliteracies; namely, the principle that not all members of society have access to all meanings, but are distributed, available, and accessible along the overlapping lines of these social categories (For principles of critical theory see: Giroux, 1983; Kincheloe & McLaren, 1994; Luke et al., 2003). Evidence of system reproduction was sought, that is, the way in which people act predictably with respect to broadly distributed conditions in the wider society. Links were observed between learners’ access to multiliteracies in the classroom and corresponding relations in the larger society (Cope & Kalantzis, 1996; Giddens, 1984; McLaren & Leonard, 1993). The scaffolding of students’ multimodal textual practices was examined in questions three, twelve, and thirteen. These questions investigated the influence of experts such as peers, parents, or siblings, to guide students’ designing. Expert guidance is required for learners to reflect upon the modelled uses of multiliteracies and reformulate these practices independently (Gregory, 1994). These questions drew upon Vygotsky’s view that language, and thus, designing, is stimulated and constituted by social relations or socio-genesis. Thus, children’s socialisation into multiliteracies in the home was an important focus of investigation (Bloome, 1994; Vygotsky, 1962; 1978; 1987). Questions two and fourteen inquired about rules or legitimation structures constraining or enabling access to multiliteracies in the home and school. This applies a principle of Giddens’ (1984) structuration theory; namely, that structures of legitimation – tacit norms and formal sanctions – are both constraining and - 97 -


enabling forces, and all social activity requires their prior existence. These two types of legitimation structures influencing students’ access to multiliteracies, were analysed in school and home contexts (Giddens, 1984). Question eleven addressed students’ experiences with culturally and linguistically diverse textual practices, identifying monolingualism, multilingualism, English as a Second Language (ESL), subcultural differences in English use, and diversity in cultural ways of communicating (New London Group, 2000). Students

were

prompted to consider how to improve their own access to multiliteracies. This question acknowledged the critical ethnographic requirement of catalytic validity – the degree to which research empowers and emancipates a research community (For research on catalytic validity and empowerment in critical research see: Altheide & Johnson, 1994; Anderson, 1989; Banister et al., 1995; Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Giroux, 1988; Lather, 1986; Tesch, 1990). The teacher was interviewed in the classroom during recess using a tape recorder, while the principal was interviewed in his office during formal lessons. Field notes rather than tape recording was used to record the principal’s interview at his request, and the details were recorded from memory immediately after the interview. Both the principal and teacher provided voluntary, informed, understood, and written consent to participate in the interviews. The key purpose of the interviews for the teacher and principal was to investigate system links between classroom data and the wider school and social context. The questions were constructed and numbered congruently to triangulate teacher and principal perceptions. This included questions about the wider institutional, economic, cultural, social and political context – a requirement of critical ethnography (Carspecken, 1996; Carspecken & Walford, 2001). The following list of specific issues addressed can be compared to Figure 4.6.2.2, the Semi-Structured Interview Schedule for the Teacher, and Figure 4.6.2.3, the Semi-Structured Interview Schedule for the Principal. 1) 2) 3)

The historical development of multiliteracies in the school Legitimation structures: Norms for providing access to multiliteracies Legitimation structures: Sanctions or formal rules for providing access to multiliteracies

- 98 -


4) 5) 6)

Domination Structures: Resource allocation and authorisation Teacher access to knowledge about multiliteracies Signification or structuring of the classroom social space through the use of the multiliteracies pedagogy 7) Selective information filtering and multiliteracies 8) The provision of networked communication systems in the school 9) Diversity, multiliteracies and system reproduction 10) Cultural diversity, monolingualism, bilingualism, ESL, and subcultural versions of English 11) Role of the teacher and principal in multiliteracies and ways to improve access Semi Structured Interview Schedule for the Teacher 1. Historical development of multiliteracies in the school a) What is your conception of multiliteracies? b) What developments have occurred since the beginning of your tenure in relation to providing opportunities for children to use multiliteracies? By this I mean literacies, that that combine visual, auditory, linguistic, spatial and gestural information such as literacies using computer. I also mean cultural texts of various languages and forms of English. c) What role have you played in these developments? 2. Legitimation structures: Norms for providing access to multiliteracies a) Is the provision of student access to multiliteracies initiated formally (e.g. state-wide policies) or informally (e.g. teachers expertise), or through both? b) Have you observed any patterns of teacher behaviour in the school that demonstrate a school-wide concern for providing children with access to a range of multiliteracies? c) How do you demonstrate your concern for this in the school in informal ways? d) How does the principal demonstrate concern? 3. Legitimation structures: Sanctions or formal rules for providing access to multiliteracies a) Have these practices become formalised over time by the principal, other teachers or yourself (e.g. teachers taking a role in formulating the multiliteracies curriculum)? b) Do you follow certain policies, curriculum, or agendas to ensure than an emphasis on multiliteracies is sustained? c) If so, do other teachers follow them, or are these your initiatives? 4. Domination structures. Resource allocation and authorisation a) What support personnel (e.g. Reading Recovery teachers, information technology support, multiliteracies experts) does the school currently provide for children from different cultural and language backgrounds to engage with a range of multiliteracies? b) Are they adequate or can they be improved? c) What material resources (e.g. texts from different cultures and in different

- 99 -


d) e) f) g) h)

languages or kinds of English, computers, software, reading materials, music, art) does the school currently provide for children to engage in a variety of multiliteracies? Are they adequate or can they be improved? What systems are in place for the maintenance or building up of these resources? Are they adequate or can they be improved? Do political and economic factors outside your control have an effect on the resource allocation in this area, and if so, in what ways? Are you happy with the funding and personnel available to support multiliteracies?

5. Teacher Access to Knowledge about Multiliteracies a) What staff development program or university courses have you been involved with in relation to multiliteracies? How is this viewed by other staff and the principal? b) Does the school have any systems, such as professional development, to encourage teachers to access to new knowledge about multiliteracies? c) Would you like to see any improvement in this area among other teachers? Please describe. d) How do you see the principal’s role in this area? e) How do you see the role of teachers in this area? f) How do you see your role in this area? 6. Signification Structures: Multiliteracies Pedagogy a) What kind of classroom structures, routines, systems or teaching practices do you use for the literacy curriculum (e.g. situated learning, direct instruction, critical literacy, transformed practice or systems for sharing the classroom resources). b) What sorts of practices are encouraged in the school, and do they differ from your ideals? 7. Selective Information Filtering and Multiliteracies a) Do you think that the role of multiliteracies poses any threats to your classroom program? (e.g. to other competing educational agendas or aspects of the existing literacy curriculum). b) Are there other mandated threats to the curriculum that take up time you would rather give to literacy? c) How much time do you allocate for multiliteracies? d) How much time is available for you and your students to access computers for multimodal, digital literacies? e) How much time is available to engage with texts from other cultures and languages? f) Does this vary across the grades or among teachers? If so, how? g) How important are multiliteracies in the school curriculum in comparison with other priorities or subject areas? Why? 8. Networked Communication Systems a) How important is Internet and email access for primary students at school?

- 100 -


b) c) d)

What grade levels does this become important as part of the core curriculum? How does the school prevent children from accessing controversial or inappropriate websites? Is there a place for critical reading skills, and if so, at what grade levels?

9. Diversity, Multiliteracies & Social Reproduction a) Have you noticed any diversity in the way students access the computer facilities in the primary school or in your classroom? b) Have you noticed any diversity in the way students access culturally and linguistically diverse texts, such as books, music, dances, art forms? c) If so, which student groups seem to benefit most (e.g. cultures, language experiences, gender, etc)? d) To what do you attribute these differences (e.g. student age, gender, culture, ethnicity, ESL, bilingualism, monolingualism, subcultural differences, language experiences, socio-economic status, home computer ownership, personal literacy choices, or other factors, such as the expertise and values of the teacher?) e) Some speculate that patterns of disadvantage in society outside of school are reproduced in the school in relation to accessing multiliteracies. Have you seen any evidence of that in your experience? f) On the other hand, have you seen situations in which children who come from minority cultural backgrounds or diverse backgrounds in other ways, have excelled in multiliteracies? 10. Cultural Diversity, Monolingualism, Bilingualism, ESL, Linguistic experiences, Subcultural Differences and Textual Practice a) What special provision is made for children of marginalised ethnicity, or ESL, bilingual, and linguistically diverse backgrounds in the school? In your classroom? b) Are languages other than English, informal Englishes, or subcultural variations of English part of classroom or school life? (e.g. children using home dialects). Describe. c) Do you use culturally diverse texts and resources for learning? (e.g. Children from non-dominant cultures bring in books about other cultures, study art forms and music from other cultures etc.) d) How do you harness the diverse cultural and linguistic experiences of students to encourage learning? c) Is there anything you would like to change about the existing situation in relation to these issues of diversity? If so, what could you do? 11. Role of the Teacher in Multiliteracies a) What areas would you like to see developed in relation to the range of literacies, traditional, multimodal, and culturally and linguistically diverse texts, in both your classroom and the school in the future? b) What role does the principal play in these developments? c) What role can parents play? d) What role can the children themselves play? e) What role could you play in these changes?

- 101 -


Figure 4.6.2.2 Semi Structured Interview Schedule for the Teacher Semi-Structured Interview Schedule for the Principal 1. Historical Development of Multiliteracies in the School a) What is your conception of multiliteracies? b) What developments have occurred since the beginning of your tenure in relation to providing opportunities for children to use multiliteracies? By this I mean literacies that include reading, writing, speaking and multimodal literacies that combine visual, auditory, linguistic, spatial and gestural information, such as literacies using computers. I also mean cultural texts of various kinds in various languages and forms of English. c) What role have you played in these developments? 2. Legitimation Structures: Norms for Providing Access to Multiliteracies a) Is the provision of student access to multiliteracies initiated formally (e.g. state-wide policies) or informally (e.g. teachers expertise), or both? b) Have you observed any patterns of teacher behaviour that demonstrate a school-wide concern for providing children with access to a range of multiliteracies? c) How do you demonstrate your concern for this in informal ways? 3. Legitimation Structures: Sanctions or Formal Rules for Providing Access to Multiliteracies a) Have these informal practices become formalised over time by yourself or teachers? (e.g. teachers taking a role in formulating the multiliteracies curriculum)? b) Do you follow certain policies, curriculum, or agendas to ensure that an emphasis on multiliteracies is sustained? Can you describe these and are they your initiatives? c) If so, do teachers follow them? 4. Domination Structures: Resource Allocation and Authorisation a) What support personnel (e.g. Reading Recovery teachers, information technology support, multiliteracies experts) does the school currently provide for children from different cultural and language backgrounds to engage with a range of multiliteracies? Are they adequate or can they be improved? b) What material resources (e.g. texts from different cultures and in different languages or kinds of English, computers, software, reading materials, music, art) does the school currently provide for children to engage in a variety of multiliteracies? c) Are they adequate or can they be improved? d) What systems are in place for the maintenance or building up of these resources? e) Are they adequate or can they be improved? f) Do political and economic factors outside your control have an effect on the resource allocation in this area, and if so, in what ways? g) Are you happy with the funding and personnel available to support multiliteracies?

- 102 -


5. Teacher Access to Knowledge about Multiliteracies a) What staff development programs or university courses for teaching multiliteracies has your staff been engaged in? b) Do you have any systems or do you initiate professional development for all staff to access knowledge about multiliteracies? c) Would you like to see any improvement in this area among your staff? Please describe. d) How do you see the role of teachers in this area? e) How do you see your role in this area? 6. Signification Structures: Multiliteracies Pedagogy a) What kind of classroom structures, routines, systems or teaching practices do you encourage teachers to use in the literacy classroom? (e.g. situated learning, direct instruction, critical literacy, transformed practice) b) What sorts of practices do you see used in the school, and do they differ from your ideals? 7. Selective Information Filtering and Multiliteracies a) Do you think that the role of multiliteracies poses any threats to your school curriculum? (e.g. to other competing educational agendas or aspects of the existing literacy curriculum). b) Are there other mandated threats to the curriculum that take up time you would rather teachers give to literacy? c) How much time do you allocate for multiliteracies? d) How much time is available for teachers and their students to access computers for multimodal, digital literacies? e) How much time is available in the program to engage with texts from other cultures and languages? f) Does this vary across the grades or among teachers? If so, how? g) How important are multiliteracies in the school curriculum in comparison with other priorities or subject areas to you? Why? 8. Networked Communication Systems a) How important is Internet and email access for primary students at school? b) What grade levels does this become important as part of the core curriculum? c) How does the school prevent children from accessing controversial or inappropriate websites? d) Is there a place for critical reading skills, and if so, at what grade levels? 9. Diversity, Multiliteracies & Social Reproduction a) Have you noticed any diversity in the way students access the computer facilities in the primary school? b) Have you noticed diversity in the way students access cultural and linguistically diverse texts, such as books, music, dances, art forms? c) If so, which student groups seem to benefit most (e.g. cultures, language experiences, gender, etc)? d) To what do you attribute these differences (e.g. student age, gender, culture, ethnicity, ESL, bilingualism, monolingualism, subcultural

- 103 -


e) f)

differences, language experiences, socio-economic status, home computer ownership, personal literacy choices, or other factors such as the expertise or values of the teacher)? Some speculate that patterns of disadvantage in society outside of school are reproduced in the school in relation to multiliteracies. Have you seen any evidence of that in your experience? On the other hand, have you seen situations in which children who come from marginalised backgrounds excel in multiliteracies?

10. Cultural Diversity, Monolingualism, Bilingualism, ESL, Linguistic experiences, Subcultural differences and Textual Practice a) What special provision is made for children of ESL, Bilingual, Linguistically diverse students in the school? b) Are languages other than English, informal Englishes, or subcultural variations of English part of school life? (e.g. children using home dialects). Describe. c) Do you encourage the use culturally diverse texts and resources for learning? (e.g. encourage children from minority cultures bring in texts from home in their language, read English books about other cultures, include art forms, literature and music from other cultures in the curriculum etc.) d) How do you harness the diverse cultural and linguistic experiences of students to encourage learning? (e.g. cultural days, LOTE, culturally diverse texts in library) e) Is there anything you would like to change about the existing situation in relation to these issues of diversity? If so, what could you do? 11. Role of the Teacher in Multiliteracies: Empowerment. a) What areas would you like to see developed in relation to the range of literacies, print-based, multimodal, and culturally and linguistically diverse, offered in the school in the future? b) What role can teachers play in these developments? c) What role can parents play? d) What role can the children themselves play? e) What role can you play in these changes? Figure 4.6.2.3 Semi Structured Interview Schedule for the Principal

The interviews initially obtained the participants’ conceptions of multiliteracies, and worked to establish a common understanding of multiliteracies between participant and researcher. Question one traced the development of multiliteracies in the school prior to the researcher’s entry to the field, which is important in ethnographic field work (Patton, 2002). It is also important to locate critical ethnographic research within the broader historical and socio-political context (Carspecken, 1996; McLaren, 1993).

- 104 -


In questions two and three, evidence of legitimation structures was sought; that is, norms and sanctions regulating conduct, that constrained or enabled access to multiliteracies in the school. Again, this was an application of Giddens’ structuration theory of systems analysis (Giddens, 1984). Specifically, these questions investigated whether tacit social norms were tied to access to multiliteracies, such as teachers receiving recognition for enacting the multiliteracies pedagogy. These questions also investigated formal rules, such as policy requirements for teaching multiliteracies (Giddens, 1984). Questions four, five and eight applied Giddens’ (1984) structuration theory in relation to domination structures of two kinds. These included resource authorisation, or command over human resources, and resource allocation or command of materials. For example, resource authorisation included the provision of ESL, teachers, library staff, remedial teachers and computer technicians. Resource allocation included the adequate provision of materials such as computers, software, culturally diverse texts, and professional development (Giddens, 1984). Question six engaged with Giddens’ (1984) concept of signification structures. These include two kinds of symbol structures: meaning and communication structures, and modes of discourse. These are norm-governed practices in the classroom and school that directly or indirectly legitimise power relations. For example, there exists a tacit, societal expectation in Australia for people to draw on a knowledge of “Standard” English, and this knowledge is linked to one’s social power. Question six aimed to identify which meaning structures were either enabling or constraining for students to access multiliteracies (Giddens, 1984; Luke et al., 2003). Question seven addressed selective information filtering – the principle that in a vast universe of possible knowledge, only some knowledge is privileged as official (Giddens, 1984; Searle, 1984). Questions were asked to determine how the principal and teacher, as strategically placed actors, regulated the conditions that determined the relative priority given to multiliteracies and other curriculum imperatives (Giddens, 1984; Kaspersen, 2000).

- 105 -


Issues of diversity were addressed in questions nine and ten in response to the multiliteracies argument to account for cultural and linguistic diversity (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000a). Giddens’ principle of system reproduction was explored in question ten. Participants were asked to identify ways in which students of various social groupings (e.g. ethnicity, culture, language, class, gender) were accorded access to multiliteracies, and to reflect on how social conditions outside the school influenced these patterns within the school (Giddens, 1984). The interviews were concluded by prompting critical reflection about praxis. Participants identified ways to change some of the conditions of action in the school to improve access to multiliteracies through their own volition (Anderson, 1989; Giddens, 1984; Lather, 1986). 4.7 Data Analysis Stages two and three of the research design involved the analysis and triangulation of the two data sets to make comparisons. The monological and dialogical data was transcribed by the researcher using a word processor over a period of several months. The video and tape recorded data were replayed multiple times to accurately record the verbatim speech and actions of participants during the lesson observations and the semi-structured interviews. The handwritten journal notes generated in situ were word-processed, along with self-reflexive journal notes. Contextual information was integrated into the primary record during this process of transcription, placed within square brackets to differentiate descriptive comments from verbatim speech. Figure 4.7 provides an example of the use of observer comments to make clear the nonlexical referents accompanying speech. CD17 Date: 15th June Time: 10:00am [The class is working in groups in the computer room with support staff, choosing audio design elements to complement the moving, visual images of their claymation movies. The teacher is working with a group involving a Thai female and two Anglo-Australian males who are rehearsing sound using a microphone attached to the computer. The teacher is saving each digital recording.] 132. Teacher. Yep. Ok. That' s fine. Now, you' re going to say, "Watch out – run!” "Help, Mum, Help!" [demonstrates to show sense of urgency in voice]. You' ve got to get the sound more dramatic, because the more dramatic you sound, the better the movie will be. You [Pawini] need to actually say "Watch Out – run!" [Teacher leaves group to attend to some students for a moment] 133. David: Watch out – Run [dramatic]

- 106 -


134. Pawini: Watch out – Run [less dramatic] 135. Teacher: "Watch out – run!” “Help, Mum, Help!" 138. Sean: Do I do the ambulance second? 139. Teacher: No – remember we' re doing it in sound chunks. This is all we' re doing. You' re next. 140. Pawini: Watch out – run [staccato rhythm]. 141. Teacher: No. Watch out – run! [smooth joins, in desperation] 143. Pawini: Watch out – run [spoken in monotone]. 144. Teacher: Doesn' t sound like you' re yelling. Try it again. "Watch out – run." 145. Pawini: Watch out – run! [some urgency in voice, but pronunciation still unclear]. Figure 4.7 Sample of Observer Comments from the Study

The following section describes the two analytic procedures applied to the data; namely, coding and pragmatic horizon analysis. 4.7.1 Coding Coding procedures were applied to the entire body of data. Open coding was applied initially to identify the themes and meaning reconstructions in the word processed transcripts using comment boxes (See Figure 4.7.1.1). CD 18, June 16th,

Time: 2:15 - 3:00 pm

[The teacher is working with the group of girls to record the audio elements of the "Disappearing Pimples” claymation movie. They have rehearsed for about one hour in a previous lesson. They are seated at the computer with a microphone and script.] Teacher: Ok, so when you' re talking, you have to make sure that you' re really close to this. So I' ll hop out the way. You need to be right up. The closer you are to it, the less background noise we' re going to pick up, because your voice will be stronger. Ok. All right. So, you' re going to have... "Let' s party and dance!" [Teacher demonstrates first line of script with enthusiasm.] And one person – Malee says, "Yes, you' d never guess". Right, you need to get closer in. One, two… [Counting on fingers] All: Let' s party and dance! Malee: Yes – you' d never guess! Teacher: [Replays] You didn' t say that all together. See how you' re supposed to say that all together? All right? So when I press play, I' ll go... [gestures by counting on hand] ,and that means to start talking. Let' s try it again. You need to get closer to the microphone. You' re not loud enough. Tenneile: So we' re doing that? [Points to section of script] Teacher: Yes, we' re doing it again. You need to get closer – Tenneile. [Teacher counts girls in using her fingers and presses record]. Ready. Girls: Let' s party and dance! [Said in unison] Malee: Yes, you' d never guess!

Open Coding

Situated practice for audio design Digitally-mediated textual practice Time-on-task= 35-40 min. Spatial mode – position of speaker to microphone for audio clarity Collaborative competence required Situated practice – redesigning the audio elements until they reach a collaborative level of competence Audio element – volume Teacher as expert guide Teacher controls the digital technology to

- 107 -


Teacher: [replays] Ok [nods] That' s good! [Saves as Sound bite one]. This is our sound ... one. Save. Now, "sound two", remember, is the music. Sound three is Rhonda. So everyone move back so Rhonda can get closer. Figure 4.7.1.1 Sample of Open Coding from the Study

make audio text permanent (saving)

The raw codes were then organised and reordered into tighter hierarchical schemes in separate files with their reference details to make connections between the codes (Carspecken, 1996; Ezzy, 2002). See Figure 4.7.1.2 for an example of raw codes and meaning reconstructions that were compiled to support one of the findings for "situated practice", a subset of pedagogy (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000b). The corresponding segments of raw data were indexed with hyperlinks to assist the researcher in retrieving the relevant data files on the computer.

1) Pedagogy

Example of a Hierarchical Coding Scheme For Two Findings in Situated Practice

a) Situated Practice & Experiencing the Known & the New (v) The absence of situated practice during some stages of multimodal designing constrained the demonstration of knowledge processes – experiencing the known and the new

Introducing Claymation Movie-making •

[CD2 Summary, Notes] The first claymation movie-making lesson consisted exclusively of overt instruction. The absence of situated practice in this early phase of the unit lead to learners’ inability to demonstrate knowledge processes – conceptualising.

Claymation Set Design • [CD9 Summary, L503-541] Learners did not understand the relationship between camera angles and set size because of the paucity of situated practice (Group P). • [CD9 L232-239, 242] Teacher attempted to explain concepts rather than provide situated practice (Group P). • [CD9 L550-578] Learners did not understand three-dimensional elements of claymation movie set design in the absence of situated practice (Group P). • [CD 9 [Sec 3]L276-280, 295-297, 310-314] Teacher provided additional overt instruction and viewing claymation movies rather than providing situated practice to experience the new (Group P). • [CD11, [Sec 2] L104] [CD11,[Sec2] L43] Teacher reflected on learners’ inability to demonstrate knowledge processes – applying appropriately to three dimensional visual & spatial design (Group S) • [CD15, L1-23, L92, L60-70, L162-174] Learners were unable to collaboratively apply knowledge of three-dimensional, visual and spatial design creatively and appropriately in the absence of expert novices (Group C). (vi) There were limitations to the use of situated practice as the sole basis for pedagogy during some aspects of designing. Learners varied quite significantly - 108 -


from each other, and from curricular goals, and some spent extended time designing unproductively.

•

• • • •

•

•

•

•

Claymation Movie Set Design [CD12 L303-308, CD11 Summary CD11[Sec1] L139-144] Reflections L43] Learners spent extended time designing unproductively because pedagogy relied on situated practice alone. Learners did not understand three-dimensional elements of claymation movie set design (Group S) [CD10, L261-274] [CD10, L317-323] Learners were unable to demonstrate knowledge processes: applying appropriately and creatively knowledge of three-dimensional visual/spatial design of set (Group C). [CD11 [Sec2] L1-4] Learners were unable to demonstrate knowledge processes: applying appropriately and creatively knowledge of threedimensional visual/spatial design of set (Group B). [CD15, L363-365, L748-759] Teacher and researcher evaluated threedimensional visual/spatial design concluding that the message of the text was unclear (Group D). [CD13, [Sec1] L384-394] Learners were unable to demonstrate knowledge processes: applying appropriately and creatively knowledge of threedimensional visual/spatial design of set to communicate intended message with clarity (Group C). Claymation Movie Character Design [CD12, L9-14, 23-32, 74-81, 311-312, 326-332, 305-307, 165-189] [CD12, L210-212] Learners spent extended time designing unproductively because pedagogy relied on situated practice alone. Learners did not understand the need for three-dimensional figures for stability (Group S) [CD12, L35-47] [CD13, L361-372, [Sec 2] L75-82] Learners spent extended time designing unproductively because pedagogy relied on situated practice alone. Learners designed two-dimensional paper clothes for three-dimensional figures (Group D) [CD13, [Sec1] L555-567,] Learners were unable to demonstrate knowledge processes: applying appropriately and creatively knowledge of threedimensional visual/spatial design of characters until they received overt instruction from teacher during designing (Group G) [CD13, [Sec1] L742754]. Filming Claymation Movies [Multimodal/Gestural/Visual/Spatial Design] [CD 14, L853-861] Learners were unable to do close-up filming when situated practice was the sole basis for pedagogy(Group S)

Figure 4.7.1.2 Example of Coding Hierarchy for Two Findings during Situated Practice

The level of inferencing of the codes and descriptions could be positioned along a continuum from low to high, or from pure description using non-technical terms to theoretical, abstract terms and meanings (Carspecken, 1996; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). An example of low-level coding in this sample is the category “Introducing

- 109 -


Claymation Movie-Making", which summarises the events observed. The highinference codes are more theory-laden and abstract, such as “Pedagogy”, “Experiencing the Known and the New” and “Situated Practice” (Carspecken, 1996). During data analysis, peer debriefing was used to check the inference level of the codes and challenge the codes chosen. A critical and experienced researcher read samples of the coding and analysis to challenge the degree of bias, clarity, appropriateness and inference levels of the technical vocabulary (Carspecken, 1996). The researcher then responded to this critique to strengthen the validity of the data analysis. After stage three, when the two data sets had been triangulated, the complete list of codes comprised thirty categories. While most data was linked to multiple codes, the themes of greatest importance were give priority for the purposes of analysis, indicated in Table 4.7.1.1. Situated Practice Overt Instruction Critical Framing

Transformed

Practice Design Elements

Experiencing Conceptualising Analysing Applying Monomodal Pedagogies

Coercive Power Normative Power Charismatic Power Contractual Power Discourses

Table 4.7.1.1 Table of Analytic Themes

Assisted Performance Independent Performance Collaborative Performance Intertextuality Roles

Cultural Diversity Linguistic Diversity Gender Teacher Conceptions Marginalisation

System Relations Domination (Resources) Signification (Symbols) Legitimation (Rules) SelfReflexivity

This process of coding was both inductive and deductive. The codes did not emerge from the data uninfluenced by pre-existing theory. Neither were the codes predetermined by the theory, since many of the themes in the literature were found to have limited relevance to the interpretation and explanation of the data. Rather, the process of theory building involved an ongoing dialogue between data and theory. Certain themes from the literature appeared in what was observed, along with new and explicit patterns of events that were able to be explained using the themes. Coding was continued until no new information in each category was being generated by sorting, comparing or contrasting the data, and the analysis produced no new codes or categories; namely, when theoretical saturation was reached. This is a necessary validity requirement of coding in qualitative research (Ezzy, 2002; Hall & Hall, 2004). The outcome of coding was six substantive themes, supported

- 110 -


by the literature, under which the most relevant data could be subsumed (See Table 4.7.1.2. Classroom Data Pedagogy Power Discourse

System Relations in Wider Social Context Domination Signification Legitimation

Table 4.7.1.2 Six Substantive Themes Arising from the Data

The emphasis for the final analysis and reporting of the classroom results focused on three potent themes that had the most significant bearing on the distribution of access to multiliteracies among the students; namely, pedagogy, power and discourse. Before entering the field, the research question had asked: What is the access to multiliteracies among culturally and linguistically diverse learners? During data analysis, the research question was reformulated and refined to give attention to these key themes, helping to focus the analysis on the most valuable data. The analysis of system relations between the classroom locale and the wider social system focused on domination, signification, and legitimation, theorised in Chapter Three (3.3). 4.7.2 Pragmatic Horizon Analysis Pragmatic horizon analysis was used to support high-level coding across each of the major themes listed in Table 4.7.2.1. Selective use of pragmatic horizon analysis to support important high-level inferences is a requirement of critical ethnography (Carspecken, 1996). The following table provides a thematic index of the pragmatic horizon analysis applied to twenty verbatim segments of the data. Index of Pragmatic Horizon Analysis Classroom Data A. Pedagogy

1. Reversion to Extant Pedagogies

A. Transmissive Pedagogy / One Grammar • Teacher: "Here is the rule... " B. Process writing pedagogy/ monomodal drafts • Teacher: "We are simply coming in to type" 2. Multiliteracies Pedagogy

A Isolating Situated Practice and Overt Instruction • Teacher: They still don' t get the, "this has to stand up" - 111 -


•

Teacher: “You were left to independently do this, and you haven' t managed to do it." B. Power

1. Coercive Power • Teacher: groups will be "kicked out of claymation" • Teacher: groups will be "Shut down" and these are the "black and white

rules"

• Teacher: groups will be "out of the race" • Poster: "Groups filming" versus "groups not filming" 2. Literacy as Sanction • Teacher: "You' ve got literacy you need to get back to" • Teacher: “Normal work” • Teacher: "Wasting students lunch time" with print literacy

C. Discourse

1. Marginalised Discourses • • •

Ted: “And I never get to speak” Teacher: “What’s Pawini done today” Pawini: “That’s more big”

2. Dominant Discourses

Tenneile: "Miss Taylor said..."We' ve got a lot of time. We' ve been working really hard." System Relations •

D. Domination • •

Teacher: "You' ve still got teachers that nod and say, “yes”, but then go and do what they' ve been doing for the last twenty years anyway." Teacher: "But we get, things like a “Please explain from head office---”.

E. Signification •

The teacher apologised that the lesson was dominated by direct teaching for the low ability group.

F. Legitimation •

Teacher: "Travelling at will" Ted Doyle

•

Student: "work at McDonalds" to "get more money"

G. System Reproduction

Table 4.7.2.1 Index of Pragmatic Horizon Analysis

Pragmatic horizon analysis, introduced in Chapter Three (3.1.2) is an analytic tool developed by Carspecken (1996) theoretically located in Habermas’ (1981) pragmatic theory of meaning – the Theory of Communicative Action. Simply reexplained here, pragmatic horizon analysis involves the process of articulating validity claims in horizontal (objective, subjective and normative), and vertical (foregrounded, backgrounded and intermediate) arrays to interpret the range of possible meanings of a stretch of speech (Carspecken, 1996, 2001). Table 4.7.2.2 provides an example of pragmatic horizon analysis applied to a segment of verbatim

- 112 -


data recorded during the pilot study. The raw data is presented in the first cell of the table, and the analysis follows in the shaded sections. On the last day of the school quarter the children were grouped by three levels according to a whole school reward system. The teacher gathered the students who had received “red cards” for rule breaking. These students had been placed in the lowest of three levels to complete spelling worksheets in a detention room. The others viewed an animated movie and ate ice blocks. Transcript Segment: Date: 19.09’03 Time: 10:30-10:35 am 14. J: OK…Where are all the Naughties? (Pause)… Not the Naughties… the Level One’s. Possible Objective Claims Quite foregrounded, quite immediate I’ve come to collect the appropriate group of students to do the drill and practice workbooks. Less foregrounded, less immediate I’m taking the group of students identified in our school program as having the most resistant behaviour to the school rules. Possible normative claims Foregrounded, less immediate The students in level one are naughty. Less foregrounded, less immediate The other children are good. (and) Perhaps I shouldn’t have said it that way. I’ll use the correct school language for referring to these students – “Level Ones”. Highly backgrounded, remote, taken-for-granted There is an expectation that students must always obey the school rules and be good. Possible Subjective Claims Quite foregrounded, Quite immediate I want you to know that I’m not happy with your behaviour Less foregrounded, less immediate I’m a bit worried that I just said that. I’d better correct myself. Highly backgrounded, remote, taken-for-granted My actions are right as a teacher in a position of authority (identity claim). Table 4.7.2.2 Pragmatic Horizon Analysis from the Pilot Study

In this example, pragmatic horizon analysis was applied to Line 14 of the primary record. Note the horizontal or pragmatic dimension, which is the three-part

- 113 -


distinction (denoted by separate cells in the table) between objective, subjective, and normative claims of the participants. The objective validity claim in this analysis – a statement about the world that can be observed – was simply that the teacher was assembling a certain group of students to do a certain activity. This truth claim was open to multiple access by others through direct observation using the senses (Carspecken, 1996, 2001). The normative position regarding what "should be” was the tacit assumption that the "naughties" had not fulfilled their moral obligation as good students and therefore, should be differentiated from the others. Also, by self-correcting her statement, there was evidence that the teacher was aware of the professional expectations within the organisation to use the legitimate or normative school discourse. In both respects, there was an assumption about what was right, wrong, good or bad (Carspecken, 1996; Habermas, 1981; Searle, 1984). A subjective validity claim was made when the teacher modified or self-corrected her statement with the possible intent to reinstate her identity as a fair and professional teacher. This claim had the privileged and direct access of the speaker, and can therefore, only be inferred by the researcher and readers of this report. The subjective claim was an assertion about the teacher’s inner world, feeling, intentions, and state of awareness. Social research always involves subjective validity claims because all human action is tied to the subjective references of the actor. The point for the researcher is to take into account the possible tacit meanings of this ontological category at play, rather than to simply ignore it because it is not self evident through the senses (Carspecken, 1996; Popkewitz & Tabachnick, 1981). The vertical or temporal dimension of the teacher’s statement was also analysed in relation to most foregrounded or immediate meanings to most highly backgrounded or remote meanings within the objective, normative and subjective aspects of the speech (Line 14). Within the normative horizon, the most foregrounded assumption was that the students who were labelled the "naughties" were inherently bad. This claim was the most immediate or self evident normative declaration, emphasised and apparent in the linguistic content of the act. Labelling these students also implied a less foregrounded, tacit claim that the students from whom they were - 114 -


distinguished, were intrinsically good. There was also a possible or highly backgrounded appeal to the moral expectations or norms for student behaviour within the institutional context of schooling. This backgrounded claim was a distant meaning, not immediately apparent to an observer in the linguistic content of the speech act (Carspecken, 1996, 2001; Habermas, 1981). 4.8 Interpreting Results Stages Four and Five involved the discovery and explanation of complex systems relations that influenced the distribution of students’ access to multiliteracies. Evidence was sought for system relationships existing between the events observed in the classroom and those in other related sites. For example, routine district division meetings to discuss departmental policies and strategies served as a catalyst for teaching multiliteracies in the school. Giddens’ (1984) structuration theory was applied to analyse relationships between the micro-level factors in the classroom and the macro-level factors in the wider social system that enabled or constrained access to multiliteracies. Accordingly, the degree of economic, symbolic and political power of the teacher, principal and students, emerged as some of the explanatory factors, reported in Chapter Six (Carspecken, 1996). While it is important to build into any social research a theoretical explanation of the broader conditions that affect phenomena, the analysis of systems relations is necessary in critical ethnography. This is because the field data must be situated within larger structures of power and privilege, rather than as existing independently of the social system. The aim is to produce an analysis that is critical of existing social structures, inequalities and cultural ideologies (Apple, 1995; Giddens, 1984). This attention to the complexity of educational phenomena and their establishment within the broader socio-political context, strengthens the validation of claims of this critical ethnographic account (Kincheloe & McLaren, 1994; Popkewitz & Guba, 1990; Quantz, 1992). 4.9 Validity and Limitations The trustworthiness or validity of the data collection and analysis methods was strengthened by reaching theoretical saturation before leaving the field and before completing coding. Transcribing the complete record of verbatim speech and actions

- 115 -


of participants was conducted by the researcher, rather than by external transcribers who cannot clarify ambiguities or contextualise the data. Using of state-of-the-art audio-visual equipment strengthened the validity of the primary record and captured a greater range of pedagogies than achieved in studies that are limited to audio recording of teacher' s direct instruction (Cazden, 1988). A self-reflexive journal was kept to take account of the researcher’s own influence on the data. Member checks were conducted with the participants during and after data transcription to obtain participant perceptions of the raw data. During the drafting of the thesis, the classroom findings were discussed with the teacher to obtain her perspective on the findings. Peer debriefing with a university lecturer was used to check the inference levels of meaning fields and to check the theoretical accuracy of the coding categories (For the need to ensure the validity or trustworthiness of ethnographic accounts see: Berg, 2004; Ezzy, 2002; Heaton, 2004; Maxwell, 2005; Saukko, 2003; Silverman, 2001).

The research results were appropriately grounded in the data because the emphasis of the coding scheme and final report was generated from the data through repeated analysis, rather than being established prior to the final analysis of the primary record (Carspecken, 1996). The report pertained only to the research question regarding the interactions of pedagogy, power and discourse that influenced the distribution of access to multiliteracies. The data was reported in sufficient detail to illuminate the most important findings across each of the major coding themes, without becoming trivial or monotonous, yet not being too sparse or general so as to remove context or meaning (Patton, 2002). Results were supported by relevant transcripts, rich with in vivo terms – the research participants’ own categories and vocabulary. By placing heuristic importance on members’ own categories, the readers can assess for themselves the extent to which the conclusions are warranted (Athanases & Heath, 1995). Finally, the reporting of the research was not completely objective, and a value-free inquiry was not presupposed. Rather, it is acknowledged that the results were unavoidably incomplete and selective in nature. In the tradition of critical - 116 -


ethnography, it is emphasised that all research is situated in relations of power, and this influences the selectivity of the report (Creswell, 2003; Denzin & Lincoln, 1998; Simon & Dippo, 1986). For example, the researcher exercised respect when reporting data about the teacher participant who opened her classroom to critique. Additionally, there is a section of the academic community which has vested interests in the theory of multiliteracies and the sociology of critical theory. These interests hold a degree of influence over the researcher. Further limitations are discussed in the final chapter of the thesis (Section 7.4). 4.10 Research Ethics This investigation was conducted in an ethical manner consistent with the guidelines outlined in the Queensland University of Technology University Human Research Ethics Manual. The project gained expedited ethical clearance from the University Human Research Ethics Committee from the 27th of May, 2003 to the 31st of January, 2006 (Queensland University of Technology, 1999). The participation of minors was ethically justified because the data is used to improve the quality of education. The circumstances in which the research was conducted provided for the physical, emotional and psychological safety of the children as occurring commonly in educational settings. The minors were recruited on educational premises during a period of time when the participants were in an agency’s care. Therefore, written, voluntary, informed and understood consent was obtained from the education authority of the Department of Education Queensland, the principal, and classroom teacher. Passive, voluntary, informed, and understood consent was obtained from the parent or legal guardian. Passive consent was obtained from the students to supplement parental consent through the use of an appropriately worded information sheet. Participants were informed that they were free at any time to withdraw from further involvement in the research. There was no ethical conflict between a student’s freedom to withdraw from the research and their obligation to the school. Participants were assured that the privacy, confidentiality and anonymity of the informants would be maintained, and this anonymity is honoured throughout all stages of the research. Informants are protected against coercion, exploitation, - 117 -


humiliation, undesirable consequences, or any form of harm by the research process (Carspecken, 1996; LeCompte & Preissle, 1993; Queensland University of Technology, 1999). 4.11 Summary of Chapter Four Chapter Four has outlined and justified the five-stage design of this critical ethnography, described the research site and participants, and explained the data collection schedule, tools and analytic procedures. Limits for reporting results have been established, and research ethics have been justified. Chapter Five reports the results of this critical ethnography in the year six classroom in which the multiliteracies pedagogy was enacted. The research site, participants and lesson schedule are briefly described to provide a context for the results, drawing from both observational and interview data. The results of the lesson observations are presented in relation to pedagogy, power and discourse respectively.

- 118 -


Chapter Five – Multiliteracies Context and Findings of the Study 5.0 Introduction Chapter Four described the five-stage methodological design of this critical ethnography, including the selection criteria for the school site, principal, teacher, and student participants, which emerged from the initial analysis of the pilot study data. Analytic tools for the interpretation of the data were also described. The primary purpose of Chapter Five is to present the classroom findings and analysis of data in relation to the specific research question, restated here: What specific interactions between pedagogy, power and discourse affect students’ access to multiliteracies within a culturally and linguistically diverse classroom group? Chapter Five is divided into main two parts: I) Multiliteracies Context, and II) Multiliteracies Findings and Analysis. Part I contextualises the critical ethnography by describing the school, teacher, principal, students, and lessons. Part II presents the findings and analysis of the eighteen weeks of lesson data pertaining to the teacher’s enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy.

Part I: Multiliteracies Context The site of this investigation was a primary classroom in a suburban state school, preschool to year seven, in Brisbane, Australia. A significant number of Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander, and English as a Second Language (ESL) students were integrated into the mainstream English curriculum. The principal spoke of the school’s growing needs in relation to supporting cultural diversity: Our school has particularly high needs for ESL support because we have thirty ESL children enrolled in the school. And it’s not only the high numbers, it’s the level of support needed because twelve of the students have extremely limited English experience. These are Sudanese students who have no English background when they arrive at the school – their first experience of education in Australia. Their families are also non-English speaking. So this means that the complexity is increased in providing English language support for these students. Special provision was made for ESL students in the upper primary grades who received specialist English lessons one day per week as a combined cohort. The full time ESL teacher also provided individual English instruction for students who

- 119 -


required higher levels of support. The school principal and teachers regarded the teacher librarian as a key resource person for ensuring that culturally diverse texts were available for library and classroom use. The classroom teachers had received professional development focusing on strategies for respecting the cultural and language differences that students bring from home to school. Chinese was taught as a formal part of the Languages Other Than English (LOTE) curriculum to widen students’ repertoire of cultural and linguistic textual practices. The corridors between the classrooms were fully enclosed, and multimodal designs were displayed along the walls. The grade six classroom was located on the second floor of a brick administration building. The desks were arranged to facilitate collaborative designing. The seating of the lowest literacy ability group is represented in Figure 5.0. The vacant seats belonged to the eight students who were withdrawn for lessons in another room.

Figure 5.0 Classroom Seating Arrangement The spatial arrangement of desks served to diffuse power among the teacher and students by providing opportunities for students to interact with one another. The space around the groups also allowed the teacher to interact personally in proximity to students rather than as a distant authority figure. However, the desks placed in the front row concentrated the power of the teacher over the boys – Justin, Warren and Wooraba – who frequently resisted the classroom rules. In this way, the differential spatial arrangement of the classroom seating implied differing power relationships between the teacher and the various subjectivities adopted by students, from compliant to resistant (McComiskey, 1998).

- 120 -


Two computers and a printer were positioned at the rear of the classroom, used continually by students on a roster basis. Posters were displayed near the computers outlining the steps for designing hyperlinks and E-Books, that is, books in which the contents are presented in an electronic format. The Reader Resource model by Muspratt, Luke and Freebody (1997) – code breaker, meaning maker, text analyst and text user – was displayed as an educational chart. The multiliteracies pedagogy – situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing, and transformed practice – was also represented diagrammatically on wall charts in the classroom and staffroom (New London Group, 2000). 5.1 Teacher The teacher had received professional development in multiliteracies through the Learning by Design project coordinated by original members of the New London Group – Kalantzis and Cope (2005, p.179). She had specialist knowledge and expertise in new, digitally-mediated textual practices, and had gained many years of experience teaching literacy in culturally and linguistically diverse teaching contexts. The teacher articulated her conception of multiliteracies in the interview. I believe that multiliteracies is using more than just books as a text. It’s using real life texts. For example, video, DVD’s, magazines, newspapers, instructions, cereal boxes – whatever you can get your hands on that has writing. And it’s not just words as text, its visual literacies: looking at icons, pictorial things, angle shots, camera shots, movies. All of that, to me, is multiliteracies. So it’s not just sitting down doing guided reading with books – which certainly has a place. I still do that – directional teaching. But it’s extending it to more [pause] texts. Multiliteracies is defined by the teacher here as textual practices that include and go beyond monomodal literacies. This interpretation emphasises the first proposition of multiliteracies; namely, the multiplicity of communications channels and media, while neglecting to mention the second – the increasing cultural and linguistic diversity of teaching contexts and textual practices (New London Group, 1996, p.6063). However, when prompted, the teacher articulated her cognisance of culturally and linguistically diverse textual practices: When I look for texts and pieces of writing that the children are doing, I’ve always got culture in the back of my mind because of the children that I’ve got, particularly. I have to make sure that texts are not biased towards certain cultures. It could be biased by who’s missing in the story, and who’s not being represented in the piece of writing or visual text that we’re - 121 -


looking at. So it’s just a simple matter of using your critical questions and getting the children to think about it when you’re using that text. So I don’t necessarily discard texts for not catering for different cultures. It’s in the questioning and how you use the text. We do use quite a few different cultural texts, and I get the children to bring in texts from home so that it brings a real life experience for them. The teacher’s enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy was consciously built upon her existing orientations to teaching and learning, such as transmissive or direct instruction, critical literacy, and ‘progressivisms’ such as process writing and whole language. The teacher explained: The multiliteracies pedagogy is the only one I plan now, because it makes such sense. I’ve been using it since term two last year when it was first shown to me at the professional development meetings. I really like it! I’ve been teaching like that for years, but it just formalised it, and made it a bit more structured. And I’ve always done situated practice – had some sort of cultural event or social purpose for their texts, and given children a choice. The teacher mentioned that she had “always” drawn on situated practice, which constitutes immersion in experience and the utilisation of available designs of meaning. This practice is positioned comfortably in the tradition of the many educational ‘progressivisms’ which became popularised in the 1980s in Australia (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b, p.244). The New London Group acknowledges that these orientations to learning are “softened”, “enhanced” and “transformed” when fused together in the multiliteracies pedagogy (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b, p.240). For the teacher, the multiliteracies pedagogy complements and extends, rather than replaces, her existing practices. This is consistent with the intentions of the New London Group (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b, p.239). The teacher also described her use of critical framing, which is a development of the more recent tradition of critical literacy. Critical framing involves interpreting the historical, social, cultural, political, ideological, and value-centered contexts of designs of meaning (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b, p.239-247). It [critical framing] should be done in every genre – constantly. It doesn’t matter what genre you’re teaching. Pull things apart when you’re modelling your work at the beginning of your units. It doesn’t matter what grade you’re in – you should be analysing things. We’re doing Christmas catalogues at the moment. Mother’s Day was interesting. We looked at photos of mothers, and how mothers are perceived, and the students compared them to their own mothers.

- 122 -


These perceptions are consistent with the New London Group’s claim that there is nothing radically novel in the four aspects of the multiliteracies pedagogy. Each represents a tradition in pedagogy, some positioned in opposition to one another. The four aspects of the multiliteracies pedagogy relate back directly to the main traditions in literacy teaching. However, teachers are cautioned that each of these traditions is problematic in their more doctrinaire or isolated forms (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b, p.240). 5.2 Principal The principal clearly expressed his conviction that multiliteracies has an important position in the school curriculum. When asked, “Do you think that the role of multiliteracies poses any threat to your school curriculum, such as other competing educational agendas or aspects of the existing literacy curriculum?” the principal stated: No, definitely not! This comes back to the professionalism of teachers. If the children can’t read and write, they won’t be able to access the New Basics. New literacies require very high standards of English to use them properly. So we still need the basics, which is always a foundation of our curriculum. That’s my opinion, anyway. We need both. The principal gave priority to multiliteracies over other competing educational agendas, and did not perceive this agenda as a binary opposition to monomodal literacies. Rather, the importance of both monomodal and digitally mediated multiliteracies were emphasised, with complex and advanced understandings associated with the latter. However, the principal’s conception of multiliteracies emphasised digital communication technologies over culturally and linguistically diverse textual practices. When asked, “What is your conception of multiliteracies?” the principal responded: Multiliteracies is the use of many forms of language so that people have the opportunity to communicate in a variety of ways. For example, rather than just using traditional forms of literacy with pencil and paper, students need to use the many language forms used in the real world like mobile phones, internet, PowerPoint, robotics. The forms of language used in society need to be tied to the literacy program so that students have access to multiple forms of communication.

- 123 -


The principal defined multiliteracies as multiple forms of language to communicate in society, drawing attention to new communications technologies rather than culturally and linguistically diverse textual practices in his list of examples. This was also implicit in his response to the question, “What developments have occurred since the beginning of your tenure in relation to providing opportunities for children to use multiliteracies?” In the area of resources, we have purchased more computers, software, a digital camera, a data projector, and a retractable screen. When asked about his visions for further provisions for widening the school’s repertoire of resources for cultural and linguistic diversity, the principal commented: One area I would really like to see developed further is provisions for ESL students [English as a Second Language]. --- I believe that it is so important for the younger ones to have this support during the early years. Therefore, while issues of diversity did not explicitly arise from the principal’s view of multiliteracies, strategies for negotiating difference were central to his vision for this globally connected and locally diverse school community (New London Group, 1996). 5.3 Students The observed grade six class was streamed on the basis of results in the standardised Queensland Year Five Test in Aspects of Literacy and Numeracy (Queensland Studies Authority, 2002). The class was comprised of the twenty-three lowest-ability students – eight females and fifteen males. Eight students whose literacy test scores were closer to average were withdrawn for English lessons with another teacher almost every day of the week – Shani, Tenneile, Raleigh, Malee, Jack, Nick, Matthew and Mark7. The claymation movie-making lessons were often scheduled outside of the English period so that the teacher could work with the whole class. During claymation movie-making, the twenty-three students were divided into six small groups. The eight average-literacy ability students were divided into male and 7

All names in this document are pseudonyms to maintain privacy, confidentiality and anonymity. This research received ethical clearance from the Queensland University of Technology University Human Research Ethics Committee (Queensland University of Technology, 1999).

- 124 -


female groups. They were not integrated with the fifteen lowest-ability students because of the timetabling and streaming arrangements. The fifteen lowest-ability students were divided into male or combined gender groups. See Table 5.3 for a description of the twenty-three students, their ethnicity, literacy-ability group, and collaborative movie-making groups. Student Female Shani

Ethnicity

Ability Group

Movie Title

Anglo-Australian

Average

Tenneile

Anglo-Australian

Average

Raleigh

New Zealand / Torres Strait Islander Tongan

Average

Anglo- Australian Thai Anglo- Australian African-Sudanese

Low Low Low Low

Disappearing Pimples Disappearing Pimples Disappearing Pimples Disappearing Pimples

Anglo-Australian Anglo-Australian Anglo-Australian Anglo-Australian Anglo-Australian Anglo-Australian Indigenous Australian Anglo-Australian Maori Anglo-Australian Anglo-Australian Anglo-Australian Anglo-Australian Anglo-Australian Anglo-Australian

Average Average Average Average Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

Malee Rhonda Pawini Julie Darles Male Jack Nick Mark Matthew Sean David Ted Joshua Wooraba Bradley Jed Jim Warren Simon Jared

Average

Table 5.3 Description of Student Participants

Crossing the Road Crossing the Road

Healthy Picnic Healthy Picnic

Slip, Slop, Slap Slip, Slop, Slap Slip, Slop, Slap Slip, Slop, Slap

Crossing the Road Crossing the Road

Healthy Picnic Healthy Picnic Inventing a Car Inventing a Car Inventing a Car Inventing a Car Breaking News Breaking News Breaking News

5.4 Lessons The aim of the claymation lessons was to enable learners to collaboratively design a claymation movie – an animation process in which static clay figurines are manipulated and digitally filmed to produce a sequence of images of lifelike movement. The process occurs by shooting a single frame, moving the object slightly, and then taking another photograph. When the film runs continuously, it

- 125 -


appears that the objects move by themselves. Famous claymation productions include Wallace and Gromit, and Chicken Run. The technique involved planning a storyboard, sculpting plasticine characters, designing miniature, three-dimensional movie sets, filming using a digital camera, and combining music or recorded script. After filming, the students digitally edited the movies with teacher assistance using Clip Movie software. The movies were presented using Quick Time Pro software and a data projector. The students were required to effectively communicate an educational message to their "buddies" in the preparatory year level (age 4 ½-5). The movies were also presented at a school event for the parent community, having real, cultural purposes, and demonstrating the transformation of resources to create original, hybrid texts. See Table 5.4.1 for a schedule of lessons, which were implemented with the whole class rather than during the streamed English period. Claymation Movie-Making

Time

View Claymation Movies Teacher displays movies from other students and discusses the strengths and weaknesses. Critiquing Claymation Movies Teacher guides students to analyse critically and functionally the claymation movie “Chicken Run”. Storyboard Discuss plan for movie plot, scenes, characters. Allocate roles. Record ideas using picture frames and labels. List materials required. Create movie title. Set Design Plan and create three-dimensional dioramas with backdrop, stage, and props using real objects and mixed media. Character Design Create three-dimensional characters by sculpting plasticine on wooden figures or other media. Rehearsing Rehearse movements and determine photo schedule. Set up filming area, match set proportions to camera angles. Filming Take 60-200 digital photos of the sets using a tripod while moving the characters and objects gradually. Control lighting, expressions and gestures. Close ups & long shots.

1 hour

1 hour

2¼ hours 4 hours

2 hours

1½ hours 2-4 hours

Sound Rehearse script, select music files, and record sound digitally using computer and microphone.

2 hours

Digital Editing Use digital software to create special effects, subtitles, title pages, movie credits, backgrounds, and to combine images & sound. Presenting Movies to Community

½ hour per group 3 hours

Table 5.4.1 Claymation Movie-Making Lesson Schedule

- 126 -


Open-ended aspects of designing included the students’ collaborative choice of movie genre (e.g. information reports, narrative), theme, message, scenes, characters, events, media (e.g. fabric, paint, sand), spatial layout, photo composition, visual elements, and duration. Audio elements could involve background music, sound effects, digitally recorded speech or a combination of these resources to accompany the moving images. Title pages, credits, and subtitles could include unlimited spatial layout options, backgrounds, contrasts, fonts, colours, graphics and digital effects. When the teacher evaluated the movies, she acknowledged the extent and value of creativity, the aptness of the movie to the intended audience, and the degree of transformation of existing resources to new contexts. The teacher also invited the researcher to observe monomodal writing lessons for the low-ability English stream which were scheduled in the daily English period. Table 5.4.2 outlines the content of these lessons. Monomodal Writing Lessons

English Grammar

Screen-Based Lessons

Writing narratives to match a given picture sequence Character development in narratives using Big Book: Lester and Clyde.” Character development in narratives using picture book, “Greg.” Using “an or a” appropriately in sentences. Improving sentences through adverbs and adverbial phrases which answer how, when, where, or why. Editing sentences for punctuation and choosing better synonyms for “said.” Typing texts on the computer using hand-written drafts

Table 5.4.2 Schedule of Writing Lessons

Part II: Multiliteracies Findings and Analysis Part II is divided into three sections – pedagogy, power and discourse. The first section, the analysis of pedagogy, primarily draws upon themes from the New London Group’s (1996) multiliteracies pedagogy and Cope & Kalantzis’ (2005) Learning by Design framework. The second section addresses the analytic theme of power applying Carspecken’s (1996) typology of power relations, and Willis’(1977) theory of resistance. The third section deals with discourses, utilising Gee’s (1996) social linguistic theory of discourse. These concepts were theorised in Chapter Three (3.2).

- 127 -


The selection of classroom data gives priority to the recurring themes that contributed to answering the research question. As outlined in Chapter Four (4.7.1), the complete list of codes arising from the comparison of both data sets – classroom observations and interviews – comprised thirty categories (See Table 5.4.3). Situated Practice Overt Instruction Critical Framing Transformed

Applying

Contractual Power

Assisted Performance Independent Performance Collaborativ e Performance Intertextuali ty

Design Elements

Monomodal Pedagogies

Discourses

Roles

Practice

Experiencing Conceptualising Analysing

Coercive Power Normative Power Charismatic Power

Cultural Diversity Linguistic Diversity Gender Teacher Conceptions

Table 5.4.3 Table of Analytic Themes Arising from the Data

Marginalisation

System Relations Domination (Resources) Significatio n (Symbols) Legitimatio n (Rules) SelfReflexivity

This process of theory building involved an ongoing dialogue between data and theory. In order to choose the final emphasis for reporting, the thirty categories were subsumed under six substantive themes (See Table 5.4.4).

Classroom Data 1. Pedagogy Situated Practice Overt Instruction Critical Framing Transformed Practice Experiencing Conceptualising Analysing Applying

Monomodal Pedagogies Design Elements Assisted Performance Independent Performance Collaborative Performance Intertextuality Teacher Conceptions

2. Power

3. Discourses

Coercive Power Normative Power Contractual Power Charm Roles Self-reflexivity (Researcher)

Cultural Diversity Linguistic Diversity Gender Difference Marginalisation

Systems Relations 4. Domination 5. Signification 6. Legitimation

Table 5.4.4 Six Substantive Themes and Sub themes

Findings derived from the first three major themes – pedagogy, power, and discourse – are presented as major sections of this report. The latter three – domination, signification, and legitimation – relate to the systems analysis presented

- 128 -


in Chapter Six. The sub codes that yielded the most significant and repeated findings in relation to students’ access to multiliteracies are underlined in Table 5.4.3, and relate directly to section headings in this report. A significant portion of data pertaining to the remaining sub codes was integrated within the discussion of the underlined themes because the data was related. For example, data concerning students’ demonstration of knowledge processes – experiencing, conceptualising, analysing, applying –

is discussed with the corresponding components of the

multiliteracies pedagogy – situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing, transformed practice – because the knowledge processes describe the learning, while the pedagogy describes the teaching (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005; New London Group, 1996). Sub codes that did not yield consistent findings, or which did not contribute to understanding the distribution of access to multiliteracies, are not addressed in this report. For example, of Carspecken’s (1996) four themes for analysing power – coercive, normative, contractual, charm – only coercive power was found to have a significant and consistent influence on students’ access to multiliteracies. The selection of findings for each major theme was chosen from a sixty page hierarchical inventory of coding categories used to organise the data, described in Chapter Four (4.7.1). Table 5.4.5 provides a sample of this inventory to illustrate one of the findings and its links to the supporting raw data in the lesson transcripts (e.g. CD2 Sec 1, L13-19 refers to Coding Data Lesson 2, Section 1, Lines 13-19). (iii) Overt instruction from experts that focus the learner and allow the learner to gain explicit information was not given at times in which it could most usefully organise and guide practice. Consequently, learners had no conscious awareness and control over what was being learned – over the intra-systematic relations of the domain being practiced. Claymation Movie Storyboard Design [Linguistic, Oral, Visual] • [CD2 [Sec1] L13-19] [CD2] [CD6, [Sec 1] L1-3] Claymation production steps were taught up to eight weeks before designing Compare to:[CD9 [Sec2.] L147-148, L160-178, L202-204] Two of four learners had sufficient scaffolding to apply knowledge creatively and appropriately to visual/linguistic design of their claymation backdrop (Group P) Claymation Movie Set Design • [CD2, L260-285] Overt instruction about combining visual/spatial elements occurred one to two weeks before claymation set design • [CD11, L231] Teacher gave overt instruction to class about visual/spatial design elements required prior to claymation set design

- 129 -


Compare to: • [CD10, L261-274] [CD10, L317-323] Learners were unable to demonstrate knowledge processes: applying appropriately and creatively knowledge of three-dimensional visual/spatial design of set (Group C). • [CD12 L305-307, CD11 Summary CD11[Sec1] L139-144] Reflections L43] Learners were unable to demonstrate knowledge processes: applying appropriately and creatively knowledge of three-dimensional visual/spatial design of set due to timing of overt instruction (Group S). • [CD11 [Sec2] L1-4] Learners were unable to demonstrate knowledge processes: applying appropriately and creatively knowledge of three-dimensional visual/spatial design of set (Group B). • [CD15, L363-365, L748-759] Teacher & researcher evaluated three-dimensional visual/spatial design concluding that the message of the text was unclear (Group D) • [CD13, [Sec1] L384-394] Learners were unable to demonstrate knowledge processes: applying appropriately and creatively knowledge of three- dimensional visual/spatial design of set to communicate intended message with clarity (Group C). Claymation Movie Character Design [CD2, L78-82] Overt instruction occurred three weeks before three-dimensional character design [knowledge was to be applied three weeks later] Compare to: • [CD12, L11-14, 23-32, 74-81, 311-312, 326-332, 303-307, 165-189] [CD12, L210-212] Learners were unable to demonstrate knowledge processes: applying appropriately and creatively knowledge of three-dimensional visual/spatial design of characters (Group S) • [CD12, L35-47] [CD13, L361-372, [Sec 2] L75-82] [CD13, [Sec1] L555-567,] [CD13, [Sec1] L743-754]. Learners were unable to demonstrate knowledge processes: applying appropriately and creatively knowledge of three- dimensional visual/spatial design of characters until they received overt instruction from teacher during designing (Group G). • [CD13, [Sec1] L556-567,] Learners were unable to demonstrate knowledge processes: applying appropriately and creatively knowledge of three- dimensional visual/spatial design of characters until they received overt instruction from teacher during designing (Group D) [CD13, [Sec1] L743-754]. •

• • • • • • • •

• •

Filming Claymation Movies [Multimodal/Gestural/Visual/Spatial Design] [CD2, L204-207] [CD2L249-251] [CD13L288-292] Overt instruction for gestural design occurred up to eight weeks before digital filming [CD13, L55-64, (lighting) 274-276 (angles) [CD13 L988-994] (set and camera proportions)] Overt instruction for lighting, visual, angles spatial and digital elements occurred one to two days before digital filming [CD13, [Sec 2] L332-339, 985, 1037-1043] Overt instruction occurred one to two days before digital filming [CD13, L993-994] [CD8 [Sec2]L294-296] Overt instruction for camera angles occurred one to two days before digital filming [CD2, [Sec2] L226-246] [CD2, [Sec2] L30] Overt instruction for close-up shots occurred eight weeks before digital filming Compare: [CD 14, L853-861 Learners were unable to do close-up filming in the absence of overt instruction during designing (Group S) [CD2, L226-246] Overt instruction for gestural design occurred eight weeks before filming. Compare: [CD15, L1667-1677] Learners were able to recall the necessary overt instruction for gestural design but were unable to apply it at the appropriate stage of designing (Group D) Digital Editing Of Movies [CD13, L 257-267] Teacher discussed editing software weeks before digital editing began. However, the teacher also provided instruction during editing. Compare to: [CD17, L68-84, L99-145] Overt instruction for digital editing and special effects lead to assisted competence (Group P)

- 130 -

Multiliteracies: A Critical Ethnography Kathy Mills, 2006 •

• •

[CD7, 25-42] Teacher discussed editing software incidentally when questioned by student significantly long before knowledge was applied Other Texts [TTPS7&8 [Sec 2] L4-21] Year two learners were unable to demonstrate knowledge processes: applying creatively and appropriately to design an interactive, visual, spatial text [library display] without expert scaffolding [TTPS7&8 [Sec 6] L1-47, 58-157] Compare above transcript to example of same activity with teacher scaffolding provided – applying appropriately and creatively was demonstrated [TTPS3 L26] Digital metalanguage provided before designing

• Table 5.4.5 Inventory of Data to Support Finding III Overt Instruction

In this table, the key finding was that, “Overt instruction from experts that focus the learner and allow the learner to gain explicit information was not given at times in which it could most usefully organise and guide practice”. This finding was supported by over twenty-five consistent occurrences across a range of claymation movie making stages and learning contexts. In this research, there were over one hundred findings derived from the data, each with a minimum of three supporting transcripts. Findings that were the most well-supported by the data were given priority in this report. Additionally, only a select number of the most clear, concise and powerful lesson transcripts are published to illustrate each finding. This is to ensure that the reporting of the data for each finding does not become redundant, and to provide sufficient balance and breadth across the major themes. 5.5 Pedagogy and Access to Multiliteracies This section discusses significant findings concerning the enactment of pedagogy and the students’ access to multiliteracies during the monomodal writing, English grammar, screen-based, and claymation movie-making lessons (See 5.4.2). The findings in this section relate to the codes in Table 5.5. Multiliteracies Pedagogy Situated Practice

Overt Instruction Critical Framing Transformed Practice Teacher Conceptions of the Multiliteracies Pedagogy Monomodal Pedagogies Modes (Visual, spatial, linguistic, gestural, auditory)

Knowledge Processes

Experiencing (known & new) Conceptualising (naming & theorising) Analysing (functionally & critically) Applying (appropriately & creatively) Assisted Performance Level Independent Performance Level Collaborative Performance Level

Table 5.5 Table of Codes for Pedagogy

- 131 -


5.5.1 Monomodal Writing The findings concerning monomodal pedagogies are given significant attention here, because the use of these methods had a strong influence on the distribution of access to multiliteracies among the students. A series of monomodal writing lessons (See Table 5.4.2) were taught to fifteen students who were grouped together based on their below-average scores in the Queensland Year 5 Aspects of Literacy and Numeracy Test (Queensland Studies Authority, 2002). The teacher explained that the writing lessons were designed to balance multimodal designing with basic literacy skills. She explained that many students were not aware of the structure of narratives and experienced difficulty producing a page of writing. Eight learners whose literacy test scores were closer to average were withdrawn to attend another class operating concurrently, which was not observed in the absence of the teacher’s ethical consent. The first example of a monomodal writing lesson was one in which the teacher reviewed a systematic writing process: a) plan, b) write draft, c) read and revise, d) share and edit, e) proofread and make changes, f) publish and present. The teacher used cards as visual aids as she outlined the steps. 12 13 14 15 16

17 18

19 20

Teacher: When you’re writing, what is the first thing that you have to do, before you start writing? Wooraba? [Wooraba, Rhonda and David put hands up]. Wooraba: Plan Teacher: That’s right – you usually have to plan what it is that you’re writing. What do you do after you’ve planned your writing? Ted: Write a draft [Response was not nominated]. Teacher: Write your first draft. After you’ve written your first draft, what might be the thing you do next? [Rhonda, David, Warren, Ted and Jim have hands up]. All these people with their hands up – their brains switched on. Warren? Warren: Read it with a helper Teacher: You can read it with a helper and check your writing [Teacher attaches the coloured cards to blackboard]. What would you usually check it for when you’re reading it though – before, when you’re reading it through? [Ted responds without being nominated] Don’t call out please. Rhonda: Check that your writing makes sense. Teacher: …If your writing doesn’t make sense! Now, the next thing that you usually do is share your writing with other people and edit it. Can you see that in brackets here. It says “repetitively”. You don’t just check it once and go, “Yep – it’s alright”! You have to go back and keep going back several times. - 132 -


21

Teacher: Next step – keep reading it, making changes to your writing. This is the part where a lot of you seem to lose the plot and, ah, you think that writing a rough draft is enough. And the last one – publish your work.

After twenty minutes of direct instruction, learners were required to apply the steps by writing a short narrative to accompany a commercially produced picture sequence with a beginning, middle and end. The students could choose from two picture sequences shown in Figure 5.5.1.1.

Figure 5.5.1.1 Picture Sequences (Adapted from Picture Qs Books © Learning Materials Limited, 1993)

Sample texts from two students who chose “A Big Splash” are reproduced in Figure 5.5.1.2. The first was written by Darles, Sudanese, and the next by Rhonda, AngloAustralian.

- 133 -


Figure 5.5.1.2 Student Writing Samples From the perspective of the Learning by Design Framework (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005), learners were required to demonstrate “applying appropriately” through correct application of linguistic design elements including punctuation, grammar,

- 134 -


vocabulary, and spelling. However, the writing task does not constitute transformed practice in the manner intended by the New London Group. Firstly, the writing steps confined designing to exclusively pencil and paper-based drafting and editing rather than multimodal forms of communication. The students’ meaning making was restricted by a writing approach that confined monomodal textual practice to a rigid, linear process. This is significant because the use of word processing in society has made the writing process much more amorphous – less bounded by distinct stages. Using the word processor, writers can switch between paragraphs, easily deleting and modifying the text in a non-linear rather than sequential way. Transformed practice in multiliteracies also requires the original generation of a hybrid text – linguistically heterogenous in the discursive practice drawn upon – with a specific cultural purpose and audience (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000c; Fairclough, 2000). This activity did not allow transformed practice to occur because there was no possibility for commitment of the producer to the message, and no sense of certainty or modality, because the meaning making was predetermined. Ideologically, these low-ability learners were not permitted to indicate their interests because authorship was controlled by the social context, and the purpose for meaning was determined by the teacher (Cope, 2000). Therefore, the writing activity did not allow the learners to contribute something of themselves – to draw from their own lifeworld and experiences. In this respect, learners’ access to designs of meaning was prohibited. The cultural purposes of the required designs were limited to “school work”. There was no real-world audience for their texts. Therefore, the literacies developed did not constitute powerful social practices for societal participation. Furthermore, the semantic elements of the task were restricted so tightly that the learners’ designs lacked a diversity of meaning making and limited the creative transformation of available resources. Kalantzis and Cope (2005) make an important distinction between “applying appropriately”, which is the correct application of knowledge in a specific situation, and “applying creatively”, which is the innovative application of knowledge, or transfer to different situations. Both elements are - 135 -


important in transformed practice. In this lesson, the overall generic organisation properties, and the setting, plot, and characters in the students’ narratives, were duplicates or reproductions of the picture sequence. This monomodal writing pedagogy persisted in similar lessons conducted in the computer room with the whole class. Several lessons were observed in which students who were first to complete their written drafts were given priority use of the twelve computers. This unintentionally, yet selectively privileged the students from middle-class, Anglo-Australian backgrounds. 2 3 4

Teacher: Before you get on the computer, you and your partner will work out how to finish your writing. Teacher: You need to come up with three things. So if you don’t have three things written down, no computer until you’ve got three things written down. Teacher: When you think you’ve finished all your plans, then you may come and get a red “sign on” card [containing password]. Journal Notes (1.09.2003) After the students had begun typing, the teacher realised that many of the students had not completed their first written drafts on their worksheet. All the children had stood up to have a turn at the computers, with some having failed to achieve the prerequisite preparation. The teacher sent the children to the floor who had not written rough drafts, inadvertently excluding the ethnically marginalised students of Tongan, Thai, Sudanese, and Indigenous descent. These children were given worksheets to complete while still waiting for the first computer users to finish. Consequently, the Anglo-Australian students were given more time to access powerful, digitally mediated multiliteracies.

Figure 5.5.1.3 Journal Notes for Screen-Based Lesson

The requirement to complete written drafts before using the computers enabled the teacher to keep all learners on-task despite the limited number of computers. However, the children who were least familiar with written English were the students who were denied access to the computers. Keeping students busy with word-building exercises, such as adding -ed to root words, replaced multimodal designing with repetitive, isolated skills that are not directly transferable to real world social contexts and communities of practice (Gee, 2000b). In contrast, computers were being used to scaffold writing in powerful and motivating ways that parallel uses of literacy in the workplace. The observed restrictions associated with

- 136 -


use of a monomodal writing pedagogy privileged culturally dominant, AngloAustralian learners who received extended time using the computers. During these lessons, the teacher referred to “typing” final versions of hand-written drafts using a computer, serving to sustain remnant pedagogies of the typographic age. New digital tools for designing were being used in the same way as typewriters. Typewriters do not allow the separation of text preparation from its final form, whereas word processors allow the user to exploit this feature to make editing changes. In this respect, textual practices of a bygone era persisted in the screenbased lessons. The teacher used computers to support existing pedagogies rather than allowing word-processing software to transform the writing process. Digital texts are flexible and able to be re-authored multiple times, rather than static, discrete units. The way in which words were always fixed in a top-down, left-right, and beginning-end structure, is no longer the same. Instead, new designs of meaning often use flexible, interacctive environments, open to reshaping. The linearity required for typographic inscription is no longer required in the design of digital texts, and takes for granted the most basic potentials of word processors (Snyder, 1997). Multiliteracies were taught as an addendum to existing literacy pedagogy. More importantly, requiring hand-written drafts unintentionally prohibited learners least familiar with linguistic design elements from engaging in powerful, multimodal designing using the computers. Such pedagogy was subtly selective, favouring those who had the least distance to traverse between their lifeworld of experiences and the discourses of schooling (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000a). What was needed was the transformation of antiquated modes of pedagogy through new social practices associated with the production and processing of digital texts (Lankshear et al., 1997). 5.5.2 English Grammar Several English grammar lessons were taught to the low-ability literacy group using direct instruction. A transcript from one lesson is shown here to illustrate the typical teaching methods observed. In this lesson, the teacher used transmissive pedagogy

- 137 -


for thirty minutes to teach the grammar rule: “use ‘an’ to introduce a word that begins with a vowel”. The instruction was followed by the task of copying sentences from the blackboard and choosing the correct word “a” or “an” in each sentence. Transcript 7 16 Teacher: Now in your writing, if you are writing a sentence and you have a word that starts with a vowel, would I write ‘a’ apple, or ‘an apple’? 17 Children: an [chorus response] 18 Teacher: Would I write ‘a’ elephant, or ‘an’ elephant? “I have ‘a’ elephant” or “I have ‘an’ elephant.” Which would it be? 19 Children: an/ a [both responses called] 20 Ted: Both! [loudly] 21 Teacher: No, not both – ‘an’. This is the rule: when you have a word starting with a vowel you always use ‘an’. If you have a word starting with a consonant you always use ‘a’ in front of it. This lesson exploited a monomodal pedagogy that emphasised the transmission of curriculum content. It positioned the teacher at the centre of a classroom discourse, while learners were located as passive recipients, or at best, agents in the reproduction of linguistic conventions. English was taught as an inherently stable system of autonomous elements and rules that simply needs transplanting to new environments.

In other words, textual practice was treated technically, as a set of

independent variables that can be separated from their social context and purpose (Street, 1999). Furthermore, this practice presented English as a one-size-fits-all curriculum, regardless of student diversity. In contrast, multiliteracies is about creating a pedagogy in which language and other modes of meaning are dynamic representational resources, constantly remade by users as they work to achieve their various cultural purposes (Cope, 2000). Later in this lesson, the teacher drew attention to a student’s subcultural dialect of English, illustrated in this transcript. 22

23 24 25

Teacher: Now in almost all of your writing I have seen you doing things like this: “I had ‘a’ apple for lunch.” Ted – I hope you are watching. You do this: “Can I have ‘a’ apple for lunch?”. It doesn’t even sound right, does it? So you have to try to remember your rule for ‘a’ and ‘an’. What if the word was “dog”? “I have ‘an’ dog for a pet” or “I have ‘a’ dog for a pet?” Children: ‘a’ Teacher: “A dog for a pet”. Why ‘a’? What is it about the word dog that tells me I have to use the word ‘a’? Child: Because it makes sense.

- 138 -


26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Teacher: No. Jed? Jed: There’s a vowel after ‘d’. Teacher: No. David? David: It doesn’t start with a vowel. Teacher: It doesn’t start with a vowel, it starts with? Children: ‘d’ Teacher: Which is? I’m interested in vowels or consonants. I’m going to keep going until everyone gets this.

In the opening line, the teacher draws attention to the way in which Ted, who was Indigenous Australian, did not use the Standard English rule in his dialect. This practice clearly opposes the heart of multiliteracies. Access to multiliteracies must be possible no matter what identity markers, such as language, dialect, and register, a person happens to have (Cazden, 2000). Later in the lesson, Ted was nominated to contribute to the teacher-directed classroom dialogue, but was unable to apply the lexical rule. 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Teacher: Ted Doyle, “May I have ‘a’ ice-cream?” “May I have ‘an’ icecream?” Ted: ‘a ice-cream’ [pause] ‘a’? [pause] ‘an’? Teacher: Which one is it – ‘a ice-cream’ or ‘an ice-cream’? Ted: an ice-cream? [as if asking a question] Teacher: How did you know it was ‘an ice-cream’? What is the special thing about ice-cream that tells me to use the word ‘an’? Ted: [stares blankly] Teacher: Oh, you don’t know? Who can tell Ted what is the special thing about ice-cream that tells me to use the word ‘an’? Simon: It’s got a vowel. Teacher: It starts with a vowel [rhythmical pattern in voice].

This ethnically marginalised learner could not articulate why the lexical rule applied to the given text, so the teacher then deferred the question to other learners. Simon, an Anglo-Australian, provided the correct rule. This traditional literacy pedagogy rewarded speakers of Standard, grammatically-correct forms of a dominant language while failing to cater for social and cultural differences among learners (Cope, 2000). Literacy was centered on a singular, national form of the English language presented as a stable system of elements based on rules such as mastering correct lexical usage. Kalantzis and Cope (2000b) argue that a belief in Standard English typically translates into an authoritarian kind of pedagogy.

Such uses of

transmissive pedagogy work to obscure literacy’s connections to power and social identity, privileging certain types of literacies and people.

- 139 -


In relation to the Learning by Design framework, the writing task again required the application of linguistic knowledge (“applying appropriately”) while prohibiting creative

communication of an intended message for a genuine social purpose

(“applying creatively”) (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). “Applying creatively” is a process that involves imaginative originality, creative divergence, and hybrid juxtapositions that generate innovative meanings in new contexts. The transfer of literacy practice to new, real-world forms of communication was impeded in these grammar lessons. Multiliteracies must have affiliation with the designs of meaning used in social contexts outside of school (New London Group, 1996). Furthermore, importance was attached to the learning of English at the lexicogrammatical level at the expense of the full repertoire of visual, audio, spatial, gestural, and linguistic design elements. The aim of the multiliteracies pedagogy is to develop a metalanguage – language for talking about the function of language – that accounts for multimodal design differences, and for different cultural purposes. At the heart of multiliteracies is the understanding that language is polymorphous, that is, language has a multiplicity of purposes and the repertoires of linguistic resources available to different cultures also varies. In contrast to these ideals of the New London Group, the observed lessons did not create a community of learning where a range of individual experiences could excel, and where cultural differences become a resource to enrich literacy pedagogy (Cazden, 2000; Cope, 2000; Kalantzis & Cope, 1999; New London Group, 2000). 5.5.3 Screen-Based Lessons Students were ability grouped by the teacher whenever the whole class visited the library to use the computers. The teacher inadvertently selected only AngloAustralians who owned computers to participate in the high-ability group, while the low-ability group included the ethnically marginalised students and some AngloAustralians who did not own computers. The high-ability stream always received the first allocated time of thirty minutes using the computers, with one child to each computer. This frequently extended five to ten minutes into the time for the low-ability group, reducing the second allocation

- 140 -


to twenty minutes. While the low-ability group waited for their turn, they completed vocabulary exercises in commercially produced workbooks. When the low-ability students used the computers, they were required to work in pairs with the highability students to assist them. This created a situation in which the competent students controlled the keyboard and mouse, while their marginalised peers watched. The high-ability students often received one hundred percent time-on-task to engage in powerful, multimodal, and digitally-mediated designing, receiving twice as much time-on-task as the remaining students. This was observed across a number of lessons, demonstrated in these journal notes. Journal Notes for a Series of Screen-Based Lessons August 26th, 2003 Time: 10:30 am-11:30 am Some of the children on the floor haven’t had access to a computer. The next class is arriving in the computer room. Most of the class had less than 40 minutes on the computers, while the students who were on the floor had less than 10 minutes. September 1st, 2003 Time: 10:30-11:30 am The teacher sends the children to the floor who have not written the rough drafts. This includes ethnically marginalised students of Maori, African, and Aboriginal ethnicity. The children who are least literate are given the school based “print task” on the worksheet, while the dominant students are given access to the most powerful literacies using the word processor. The workspace for these children is not adequate. They lie on the floor, but cannot correctly form their letters, so they begin to search the library next door for books to lean on. September 10th, 2003 Time: 10:05 am -11:00 am • The teacher says that the children who have just worked on the computer must keep their page open, and insert a new page. “You will help the new person, now that you know what to do”. Those on the computers first (high ability group) got twice as much time on the computers. • An Anglo-Australian girl with a computer at home is permitted to continue on a computer on her own. She will have the computer for the longest. • An Anglo-Australian male was asked to insert new slide for an Indigenous student, who began to watch his more capable peer. • An Anglo Australian girl has a computer to herself again. • A boy and girl work together, but the boy is dominating the mouse and having twice as much time on task. Figure 5.5.3 Journal Notes for a Series of Screen-Based Lessons

Often, the low-ability group did not receive the opportunity to log on using a password, open programs and locate documents because the files had already been opened by the first group. Similarly, they did not save and close the documents, because three Anglo-Australian students were selectively taught the required skill as peer “helpers” who were responsible for this task.

- 141 -


The low-ability group did not gain access to powerful literacies as readily as those from privileged groups. In this way, the pedagogies used to teach screen-based multiliteracies did not provide the competences needed by culturally and linguistically diverse students to succeed. Stratified differences fell along the historical grids of ethnicity and socio-economic status. The ability grouping and its associated routines and practices patently distributed digitally mediated and multimodal textual practices to students who were already the most proficient in these discourses, while disenfranchising those who were not.

5.5.4 Claymation Movie Making This section reports and analyses the teacher’s enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy during the claymation movie-making lessons for the whole class. This section gives attention to the manner in which the curriculum orientations of the multiliteracies pedagogy were taught; that is, situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing, and transformed practice. Additionally, relations between the enactment of pedagogy and learners’ demonstration of the four knowing processes – experiencing, conceptualising, analysing and applying – are analysed by drawing upon the Learning by Design framework (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005, p.72; New London Group, 2000).

Transcript segments that illustrate the findings most

pointedly have been selected, so that the reporting of data is not redundant. Learners were required to engage in designing that was different in many respects to their previous designing. For example, the teacher acknowledged that her students had limited prior experiences of multimodal textual design upon which to link new knowledge: Has any one here done clay animation before? No – so it’s a new process for you. For most of your literacy lessons so far in your education, which means from grade one to grade five, you’ve probably done a lot of work from the blackboard, or writing stories, or doing a bit of research. Not many of you have probably used multimedia – when you’re using different types of media. So we’ll be using computers. We’ll be using digital cameras. We may be using scanners or CD players, and using different types of technology to do our literacy. I love using multimedia!

- 142 -


The teacher discussed how students would be involved in experiencing new knowledge through processes in which the learners would make sense of unfamiliar activities. Students’ meaning making at school had been predominantly centered on monomodal, page-bound literacies. The teacher acknowledged, “The interesting thing about these kids is they have no background in this. So they’ve just got no idea.” The utilisation of available designs of meaning often involves “experiencing the new” (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000c). Students acquire experiences that are both different and similar to their lifeworlds. New forms of designing may not make sense to the students initially. However, the provision of contextual clues enables cultural scaffolds or bridges to be made to other worlds of meaning (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b). One of the challenges in the successful implementation of the multiliteracies pedagogy is to provide situated practice to enable these students to make links to the unknown. 5.5.4.1 Situated practice in claymation movie making. Ted, an Indigenous Australian, Darles, a Sudanese refugee, and Julie, an AngloAustralian, talk as they make clothes for the plasticine characters in their claymation movie. 742 743 744 745

Ted: Darles is still doing the… Julie & Ted [in unison]: shoes! Julie: She’s started a new sandal-type fashion…[smiles] Ted: We’ve been wasting a whole million watchin’ her doin’ her shoes.

When analysing the enactment of situated practice, a focus is the provision of scaffolding or temporary support structures to enable students to transfer literacy skills independently to situated, real-life contexts. Textual designing in situated practice should be congruent with the uses of literacy in the community, workplace, and students’ previous experiences (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000c). A central ideal is to recruit learners’ previous experiences and community discourses in this process. The classroom must be an environment in which all learners are secure in taking risks, and who are able to trust the guidance of others. Teachers must guide a community of learners as masters of practice, supplementing this with the other components of the pedagogy (New London Group, 2000).

- 143 -


In this transcript, a group of girls of Anglo-Australian, Maori and Tongan background were designing clothing for their claymation characters. This required three-dimensional configurations of meaning using visual and spatial modes. The girls modelled the characters according to their personal image, including their unique cultural features such as eye colour, hair colour and style. Transcript 12 35 Shani: I’m trying to make a shirt [cutting a shirt shape as a poncho from green fabric. Emphasises ‘trying’ as if she is unsure that she will achieve her purpose] 36 Raleigh: It’s really hard because you can’t really…because when you put something on there, it’s either too small or too big. 37 Researcher: Who’s the shirt for? 38 Shani: That…that! [Points to the tiny, wooden figure] ----------------------------------------------------------------------42 [Malee is also experimenting with different design solutions. She is attaching plasticine to the wooden character whose torso is a rectangular prism. Malee uses the plasticine to adhere the two-dimensional, T-shirt shaped panels (front and back – no sides) leaving large gaps where the side seams cannot be joined]. ----------------------------------------------------------------------[Days later] 367 Researcher: What happened to the green jumper that you made? [Observing that the claymation character was dressed last week]. 368 Tenneile: Mrs. Fulton said that the clothes didn’t look real because they looked like rags…Things that are just stuck on. These girls experienced difficulty overcoming the spatial design constraints imposed by tailoring garments to fit a small, three-dimensional wooden figure.

They

transferred their ability to draw two-dimensional forms to a new context, which required three-dimensional designing. The girls recognised the inadequacy of their designs to communicate their message effectively, but were unable to devise a solution. Over the course of several days, they engaged in multiple, collaborative transformations of the characters using plasticine, paper, fabric, tape, sewing pins, adhesive gum, string and other materials. Finally, when time became short, they received scaffolding from the teacher to show them how to join the materials together.

These learners spent more time pursing design constraints than

possibilities and this situated learning did not lead to mastery in practice (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000b).

- 144 -


Similarly, a group of boys spent extended time designing and redesigning their plasticine figures because the pedagogy relied on situated practice alone. These learners did not understand the need for three-dimensional figures for stability until they had exhausted many hours of designing. Transcript 12, Section 1 9 Researcher: So which one is your character? 10 Jack: This is the main character [points to a flat, plasticine shape resembling a gingerbread man] 11 Researcher: How are you going to make him stand up? 12 Jack: Like, when we film we’re going to hold…like, string above him. 13 Researcher: He won’t wobble around, will he? 14 Jack: I don’t know – he might. We’ll test him. These boys were unable to realise the design possibilities of the three dimensional materials to make the characters for their claymation movie. They were constrained by their limited experiences of three-dimensional design, reproducing their previous experiences with two-dimensional drawings. Gee (2000a), of the New London Group, makes a useful distinction between acquisition and learning that helps to explain what is occurring here.

He defines ‘acquisition’ as: ‘...a process of

acquiring something subconsciously by exposure to models, a process of trial and error, and practice within social groups, which happens naturally and functionally’. In contrast, he defined learning as ‘...a conscious process gained through teaching and in more formal contexts, requiring reflection and analysis’ (Gee, 2000a, p.113114). In this example, acquisition and learning were separated, contributing to the boys’ difficulty with the new medium. Certain forms of instruction or learning were needed alongside immersion to enable the acquisition of new three-dimensional, visual and spatial designing to communicate their intended message. [Twenty Minutes Later] 165 Researcher: What are you boys doing now? 166 Jack: Tying the string [fishing line] on so that you can hold it up. 167 Mark: Yeah, he’s got to tie it really straight [as if string can become rigid]. 168 [Jack holds the string up and it swings unsteadily. He fiddles for quite some time, unable to make the figure stand] 169 Jack: It’s gonna be hard! These learners were still discovering the cause and effect relationships between various media to achieve their purposes. For example, they were unable to predict the design constraints of suspending characters by string, which is a flexible rather - 145 -


than rigid medium (Lines 166-167). The learners needed guidance to analyse functionally the most suitable materials, and to realise the spatial and visual design possibilities. Later, the teacher commented that, ‘They still don’t get the “this has to stand up - that has to be there.”’ The complexity and subtleties of three-dimensional representation required expert dialogue to enable these learners to reflect on the dialogue and reformulate their designs of meaning (Cochran-Smith, 1991; Vygotsky, 1987, p.4). While most learners spent extended time designing during situated practice, ethnically and socio-economically marginalised learners benefited least. This was most apparent among a group of Anglo-Australian boys from low socioeconomic backgrounds. 103 Teacher: What is the reporter saying? 104 Jared: In Hawaii there is a volcano happening [said softly, as if to himself] 105 Teacher: What do you mean ‘volcano happening’? What’s a better word to use than ‘happening’? 106 Jared: Um, destroying…? 107 Teacher: Volcano erupting today? [The teacher proceeded to spell this word when Jared could not progress beyond ‘er’.] These students lacked sufficient knowledge and prior experiences in relation to many aspects of designing. For example, they had insufficient knowledge of the generic structure of a television news report. They required new semiotic resources for linguistic design, such as technical vocabulary (e.g. erupting) and orthography (e.g. spelling ‘erupting’). 157 Simon: What about ash? [makes whistling sound decreasing in pitch like fireworks] 158 Teacher: Come on – Simon! On task for heaven’s sakes! Your concentration span! Volcano. 159 Teacher: Right. The next picture. You want the volcano shaking and an earthquake. Did you want people in this picture? ---------------------------------------------------------249 Teacher: That would be great. Come on, Simon, move it! Gosh boys, you get off-task quickly! 250 Jared: Two hundred people were injured, and one person was killed [reading back script][squeaking, rubbing sound made by the boys] 251 Teacher: They are just completely off-task! I cannot keep them on-task. It’s just too much effort.

- 146 -


The boys were unable to anticipate the design constraints that would be confronted when representing motion, such as shooting ash, through a sequence of still, digital images. The teacher had grouped these students together on the basis of their difficult learning behaviour so that she could work more closely with them than the remaining groups. This grouping arrangement later became unhelpful because the teacher had to attend to the needs of the other students. This resulted in a lack of peer experts to guide the learners. According to Kalantzis and Cope (2000b), during situated practice, scaffolding should be provided by peers as expert novices to guide learners, serving as mentors and designers of learning in the classroom as a community of practice. These boys required an exceptionally high level of continual scaffolding throughout all stages of the claymation movie-making. They never completed this set design, and did not receive the opportunity to experience the later stages of claymation movie making including filming, digital editing, special effects, and audio designing. Sadly, the movie was never filmed. Situated practice alone did not provide learners with access to powerful designs of meaning that are required for purposeful participation in society. There was a need for a pedagogy that combined doing and analysis, immersion in experience with explicit metalanguage, for these socio-economically marginalised learners (Luke & Freebody, 1997, pp.185-209).

These connections between immersion pedagogy and the limited access to new, multimodal designs of meaning for marginalised learners is supported by Delpit (1988), who observed that children who are not of the dominant, Anglo-Saxon, middle-class culture require explicit teaching methods and language. Rather than acquiring the dominant discourse of the classroom naturally, minority students require clearly communicated expectations regarding the rules for cultural forms of behaviour in the classroom. Pedagogy that relies on implicit teaching practices has been found to advantage dominant cultural groups over minority ethnic groups and social classes (Anstey & Bull, 2004b). The teacher and students of the dominant, middle-class culture are native members, while marginalised students are as immigrants, highlighting the problematic nature of situated practice alone (See research on literacy and the dominant culture: Bernhard et al., 1998; Bourdieu, - 147 -


1977; Gallas, 1997; Gee et al., 1996; Heath, 1983; Soler-Gallart, 1998; Soto, 1997; Street, 1984). The following is a positive example of learning that occurred when situated practice was enacted successfully with other components of the multiliteracies pedagogy. In this interaction, the teacher is guiding a group of mixed gender and ethnicity to digitally record the script to complement the moving visual design elements of their claymation movie. Pawini had limited verbal English skills, having lived in Australia for less than one year, and speaking Thai at home. Teacher: I know English is your second language, so this is hard for you: “Look out for cars”. Maybe you need to say: “Look out for cars, son” [to emphasise the ‘s’ on the end of ‘car’ – a sound which Pawini was omitting]. Try it again. Pawini: “Look out for cars, son!” David: “Ok. Mum” Teacher: All right. That’s all you’re saying, and then I’m stopping the recording-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sean: “Oh – no. I hit a child!” I shouldn’t have been talking on the phone. Pawini: “Oh – my son!” [very dramatic] Teacher: Very good, Pawini! Right Sean. I’m going to let you listen to yourself even though you know it was just a practice run. [Replays recording] Teacher: Ok, let’s do it one more time. See if you can get a little bit better. The teacher provided timely scaffolding of the audio and linguistic text before and after each short rehearsal. This process continued for almost an hour with the pedagogy alternating between instruction and practice. Sometimes the teacher applied critical framing by asking the students to analyse their text functionally when she replayed the recordings. She asked, “Do you think the audience will understand that?” She asked them to evaluate the effectiveness of their text and make critical evaluations about whether competence had been reached and if more situated practice was required. The teacher was able to record over the audio text multiple times until the learners had attained a ‘collaborative level of competence’; that is, producing a joint piece of work effectively with others, including those with different knowledge to their own (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005, p.95). Situated practice and overt instruction were enacted concurrently to enable students to engage in transformed practice. When the digital sound bites were joined together,

- 148 -


the quality of the audio design elements of the claymation movies was very high across all groups. Therefore, when situated practice became linked to other components of the multiliteracies pedagogy through collaboration between teacher and novices, learners were able to accomplish tasks more complex than they could on their own. During film-making, students were part of the shift, from a culture of predominantly linguistic designing in school, to the culture of image-making, gestural and audio designing, characteristic of contemporary popular culture. Students were required to engage in a new form of subjectivity, a new way of being and becoming in a multimedia world (Green, 1993; Green & Bigum, 1993; Green et al., 1994). However, the multiliteracies pedagogy is not simply about exploiting the affordances of different media and modes, but requires equally skilful scaffolding to enable learners to draw upon their cultural resources for meaning-making. In particular, students need to be provided with scaffolding or temporary support structures during situated practice to transfer literacy skills to real-life contexts in which textual designs are produced, received and used. This is confirmed by research in social cognition indicating that meaningful learning only occurs through the learner’s engagement in authentic versions of practice and reflection – in the situation or context in which the knowledge will be applied (See research on situated learning: Cazden, 1988; Gee, 1992; Heath, 1983; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Street, 1984). Conversely, the transfer of knowledge and skills from formal to real-world settings is constrained if students receive decontextualised knowledge that is not applied in a meaningful context. These findings demonstrate how learners experienced differing degrees of success in designing, exhausting valuable time and resources pursuing unproductive paths in the absence of scaffolding from experts, peers, books or other media. Additionally, without some form of overt instruction, learners did not gain conscious control and awareness of their designing, and were unable to articulate the design process to others through a metalanguage or grammar for designing (New London Group, 2000). Most importantly, learners who were not of Anglo-Australian, middle-class culture benefited least from the sole use of situated practice. In contrast, when

- 149 -


scaffolded collaboration in practice was provided, students demonstrated “experiencing the known and the new” by engaging in specialist and hybrid forms of meaning making (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005, p.117). The New London Group states that the multiliteracies pedagogy combines the strengths of past approaches to literacy practice. These include Dewey’s Progressivism (linked to whole language and process-writing), transmissive pedagogy or direct instruction, critical literacy and approaches that emphasise strategies for the transfer of learning from one context to another (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b, p.239; New London Group, 1996, p.31). They explain that the four components of the multiliteracies pedagogy should not be enacted in isolation, but be related in complex ways, though at times, one may predominate (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000c). The need for scaffolding to guide learners during situated practice is supported by Vygotsky (1962; 1978), who maintained that collaboration in practice provides a foundation for learning. He argued that certain forms of instruction are needed to supplement immersion or acquisition if learners are to gain conscious awareness and control of what they acquire. His theory of language learning suggests that the effective learning occurs when practice and instruction occur concurrently (Vygotsky, 1962). The enactment of situated practice needs to occur in the zone of proximal development for all students, requiring explicit guidance of an adult or more capable peers 5.5.4.2 Overt instruction in claymation movie making. In the following transcript, the teacher is discussing the generic features of narratives such as characters, plot, and setting. 99

Teacher: And at this stage of the game, in your career, which is your education, you should start to think about making your plot more interesting, creating tension. Do you know what tension means? What is tension in a story? 100 Child: Build up. 101 Teacher: It’s the build up. It’s the climax of the story. It’s the nail biting part of the story. It could be the music. It could involve words like “suddenly” to create a little bit of tension in your story…

- 150 -


This section reports findings concerning the teacher' s enactment of overt instruction and the learners'ability to “conceptualise by naming” and to “conceptualise by theorising”, again applying the Learning by Design framework. Conceptualising by naming involves the development of abstract, generalising terms. In contrast, conceptualising with theory involves linking concept names into a language of generalising. This theorising involves explicit, overt, systematic analytic and conscious understandings (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005, p.77). Overt instruction primarily introduces these explicit meta-languages to enable learners to describe and interpret different modes and representations of meaning (New London Group, 2000). In the first of the eighteen claymation lessons, the teacher taught a lesson intended to provide overt instruction to prepare students for collaboratively producing a claymation storyboard. Video Transcript 2, Journal Notes In the first lesson, the teacher spent one hour with each ability group showing examples of students'claymation movies using a data projector. In the lesson with the low-ability students, the teacher showed the students the design strengths and weaknesses of claymation movies constructed by other students. The teacher explained to the researcher that the first lesson with the low ability students relied on direct teaching because she had insufficient time to guide these students to discover the answers. Normally, she would be more interactive with the students, and "draw the information from them." Figure 5.5.4.2 Video Transcript 2: Journal Note Sample

Given the constraints of the school timetable, the teacher relied on transmissive pedagogy for the low-ability learners with its one-way, expert-to-novice dispensing of knowledge. In contrast, when she taught this lesson to the average-ability group, she used an interactive pedagogy in which the students dialogued with the teacher. The following week, both groups were required to collaboratively produce a claymation storyboard, scaffolded by a worksheet of blank picture frames, and no additional guidance from the teacher. The limitations of this version

of overt

instruction was demonstrated by a group comprised of a Thai female, an Anglo-Australian female, and two Anglo-Australian males. In this transcript, the students are reading the worksheet with the headings: "Title", "Characters," "Photographer," and "Scene", and have been asked to design a storyboard.

- 151 -


Transcript, Section 3 1 David: Who wants…? 2 Sean: What, what? 3 David: Who wants to be the “photo”… “grapher”? [mispronounced] 4 Rhonda: What’s the “photo”…“grapher”? [mispronounced] 5 Sean: Let Robyn be one. 6 Rhonda: I don’t want to be – pick Paweni. 7 Paweni: No, no! 8 Rhonda: Ok, I will…I will be the photographer. 9 David: What characters? 10 Sean: I’ll be, um… 11 David: Who’s the character? Who’s the character? 12 Rhonda: Um? 13 Sean: What’s the characters? 14 Rhonda: Characters, like um, like… I don’t know! 15 David: Everybody - you need everybody to be the character! 16 Rhonda: Can you just wait – I’ve gotta get my, like… 17 David: Um, I don’t know – everybody. You need everybody to be a character. 18 Rhonda: With the like, characters, you need like, the name, and then … 19 David: No, what are we doing first - what are we doing? 20 Sean: Yeah, what are we doing first? The students were motivated to engage in designing, but were unable to produce a storyboard and script following the overt instruction. The learners were not familiar with the written form of the metalanguage for storyboard design, including the meaning of terms such as "photographer" and "characters". By the end of this interaction, students were still unsure of a suitable starting place for meaning making. The teacher had introduced a new metalanguage for clay animation movie designing in the form of teacher-centred transmission, but the learners were required to transfer this metalanguage to their designing independently. This group of varied gender and ethnicity required a higher level of scaffolding by peer or teacher experts to conceptualise the metalanguage for storyboard planning. The necessary overt instruction was not given during a time when it could most profitably direct and systematise practice – immediately prior to, and during storyboard design. Consequently, learners spent more time than necessary producing their storyboard. The effect of the teacher’s isolated use of overt instruction on learners’ designing was also demonstrated here by three Anglo-Australian boys of low socio-economic backgrounds.

- 152 -


Transcript 8, Section 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Simon: What we should do, what we should do is just write the script first and then go back and draw all the pictures, and… Jared: Yeah, that’s a good idea but, how we gonna – but what happens if the person is too big for the new script – and we don’t know how to draw it. Warren: Well, maybe we could draw it little. Teacher: Come on boys – why has someone not got a pencil, and why are you not actually writing your script! Don’t waste any more time! You already wasted one day when I wasn’t here. Jared: We should um… [pause] we should um…ah your turn, Simon. Simon: We should start writing the script. Jared: Ok. Simon: I’m gonna write first … [softly] I’m gonna write first? [loudly] Warren: Are you? Jared: Ah…hmmm. Anyone got a ruler? I need a ruler. Simon: I’ll get a ruler. Warren: So what are we gonna do first? [No answer from Jared. Long silence as they wait for Simon to return] Simon: Ok. I got the ruler. Warren: What are we gonna do first? Simon: Write the script.

The boys were unable to understand the requirements of script design by the end of this interaction. The use of transmission followed by time for collaborative designing was not sufficient for these boys to begin work performed with available designs in the semiotic process. These difficulties were compounded by the lack of "expert novices" to guide peers during collaborative designing, because the low-ability learners had been grouped together. During the three-dimensional backdrop designing for movie making, some learners experienced difficulty understanding the full potentials and limitations of this new medium. This was because situated practice with the digital camera was not provided to enable learners to recruit experiences required for designing their movie sets. Darles, a Sudanese refugee, is the focus of the following transcript. She had immigrated to Australia as a four-year-old at the start of her formal schooling. In Sudan, she spoke two languages in the home, Sudanese Arabic and a local vernacular, Otto-tana. Darles’ discourses used in the home included a rich variety of multilingual and multimodal textual practice, using three languages interchangeably – English, Arabic and Otto-Tana. - 153 -


In this example, Darles began to draw the second backdrop as a distance scene of a park. She intended this to be photographed behind a life-size sandwich on a tablecloth. She was unable to understand that the distant objects in the background would not match the spatial proportions of the large sandwich in the foreground when viewed through the lens of a camera. Transcript 9 523 Adult: For scene number two, if you’ve got the focus on the sandwich, all you’re going to see behind it is green grass. Because when you’re focussing on something that close, all that will surround you is just green. 524 Darles: So that’s just gonna be, like, all grass? But that’s weird because… 525 Adult: Look like that…[holds object in front of backdrop]. Whereas if you have a scene that’s too far away, you’ll have this giant sandwich next to these little buildings! 526 Darles: Yeah, but then that’s gonna be funny, because grass up there! Isn’t there supposed to be grass underneath the mat? 527 Adult: Yes, but when you look at something in a scene, the scene behind it will only be green grass because your camera is not getting up that high. 528 Darles: It will be up like that? The camera…will take the photo up like that…? 529 Adult: That’s right. 530 Darles: So um, I don’t get it. I get this one – I really do get this one [the first backdrop of the distance shot of the park]. The principles required here to understand designing were too complex to be fully and usefully described or explicated. Backdrop designing required prerequisite spatial and digital knowledge that was primarily situated and heavily contextualised in specific knowledge domains and practices, best acquired through experiences. In the absence of situated practice, Darles was unable to understand, even when explained to her, the concept of close-up angles and its implications for the spatial and visual design of the set. Darles required the situated, concrete experience of viewing a three-dimensional movie set through the lens of a digital camera to make sense of the unknown. She needed to be immersed in authentic versions of digital camera use to view tangible claymation movie sets designed by other experts. In contrast, Julie, an Anglo-Australian, explained to her peers how the claymation set could be constructed in a box with the top and front panels removed, like a diorama. - 154 -


Transcript 9, Section 3 232 Julie: What we could do is we could just have a box – like the back of a box – like that. [Used a plastic box to demonstrate] Like this. We can have the sandwich down there, and the blue sky up here. 233 Darles: I though we were going to have cardboard for backdrops? 234 Julie: That’s what we’re supposed to do. 235 Darles: So we’re going to have a box – instead? [perplexed expression]. 236 Julie: A box! [frustrated] ...like that and like that [pointing to walls of the box]. 237 Darles: So we’re going to have a box? We’re not going to have cardboard as a backdrop? 238 Julie: Yeah, we still use the coloured cardboard. [sighs] We’ll stick them on the back so we actually have colour, and we can like, make the path. 239 Darles: No, wait! So we’re making a box for our backdrop - a box? 240 Julie: A box, like, to keep everything together. Pretend this is like, the box, right. Like, we have it like that, so that we just do it on plain cardboard, and then we can hold it all together with the box. So when we do use the camera, we can see everything. 241 Darles: But that’s gonna be weird like, we’re gonna take a photo of the box? 242 Julie: Yeah, but we won’t be able to see the box! 243 Darles: Yes, we will. Aren’t we gonna, um, aren’t we gonna…? 244 Julie: Yeah, it’s just like this. It’s like, it looks like that! [Places box on side] 245 Darles: Yeah, I know, but that wasn’t a box? 246 Julie: It was a box, box...box! The teacher had provided overt instruction to the whole class by describing and showing completed claymation movies by other students. The claymation movies they had viewed on the data projector were made by taking photographs of threedimensional objects inside a cardboard box or diorama with the front panel removed. Julie was able to recognise the design possibilities of three-dimensional visual and spatial design and could explain this clearly to others without situated practice. The teacher’s enactment of transmissive pedagogy transported Julie into a world that was unfamiliar, but not too perplexing. Julie had a shorter distance in her journey from lifeworld to the "transcendental - the place over and beyond the commonsense assumption of the child' s lifeworld or place of belonging" (Cope, 2000, p.206 210). However, for Darles, learning could not occur because the landscape of movie making was unseeable, unthinkable, and unachievable. Without situated practice, the distance between Darles’ lifeworld, and the new spatial elements of designing, was too great.

- 155 -


During the lesson immediately prior to filming, the teacher provided half an hour of direct instruction to explain to students what would happen if the height and length of the movie backdrop did not match the proportions of the camera lens. However, the instructions were provided after the students had already designed their movie sets with the incorrect length to height ratio. A group of culturally diverse learners were unable to apply this instruction when they began to film. Video Transcript 14 637 [The teacher is still adjusting the camera and tripod to fit the set perfectly in the viewfinder. Sighs loudly.] 638 Teacher: This whole thing is crazy! Ok. I can’t fit your park in [groan] 641 Ted: [Ted adjusts the zoom on the camera, which the teacher has just set up in an unsuccessful attempt to fix the problem]. Mrs. Taylor, You can see that - there and there [Points to visible sides of set.] 673 Teacher: What are you doing? [as if frustrated]…You don’t want the whole set. It’s not all going to fit in. That’s it! You’re not going to fit this part in – you never were! Even when the camera was zoomed in and out, important details of the backdrop were outside the viewfinder, while gaps were visible at the sides of the sets. These constraints were similarly confronted by other groups who were also unable to match the proportions of their set design to the camera angle capabilities. Groups comprised of learners who were not of the dominant, middle-class, Anglo-Australian culture were least able to transform meaning-making resources to create new visual and spatial designs. The teacher needed to provide situated practice for students to view their sets through the lens of the digital camera during construction. Overt instruction was also required to focus the learners and provide explicit information during set design when it could most usefully organise and guide situated practice (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000c). This would have involved collaborative efforts and active interventions on the part of the teacher and other experts throughout movie set design to extend and utilise learners’ existing knowledge and proficiencies (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b). To conclude, a counter example demonstrates how learning occurred when the components of the multiliteracies pedagogy were very successfully combined during the design of audio elements. The teacher worked with each group in the computer

- 156 -


laboratory to record the music and speech for their claymation movies. In this example, the group of girls rehearsed and recorded their script multiple times until transformed practice was reached for each segment of the script. The students had already rehearsed for an hour in a previous lesson with the specialist support of the drama teacher, focusing on the expressive reading of the script without having to simultaneously attend to correct microphone use. Video Transcript 18 1.

2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7.

Teacher: Ok, so when you' re talking, you have to make sure that you' re really close to this. You need to be right up. The closer you are to it, the less background noise we' re going to pick up, because your voice will be stronger. Ok. All right. So, you' re going to say the first line of the script, “Let' s party and dance!” [Teacher demonstrates with enthusiasm.] And Malee says, “Yes, you' d never guess.” Right. You need to get closer in. One, two… Girls: “Let' s party and dance!” Malee: “Yes – you' d never guess!” Teacher: [Replays] You didn' t say that all together. So when I press play, I' ll go... [counts 1,2,3 using fingers] and that means to start talking. Let' s try it again. You need to get closer to the microphone. You' re not loud enough. [Teacher counts using fingers and presses record]. Ready. Girls: “Let' s party and dance!” [unison] Malee: “Yes, you' d never guess!” Teacher: [Replays] Ok. That' s good! [Saves]. This is our sound ... one. Save. Now, ‘sound two’ is the music. ‘Sound three’ is Rhonda’s line. So everyone move back so Rhonda can get closer.

The teacher was able to record and replay the audio text multiple times until the girls had demonstrated a “collaborative level of competence” (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005, p.97). Collaboration in practice became a foundation for learning the new specialist and hybrid forms of semiosis required to design the digitally-mediated, audio elements of the claymation movies. Immersion in audio designing was provided concurrently with instruction, involving both “acquisition” and “learning” (Gee, 2000a, p.113-114). The enactment of overt instruction described in this study did not always provide learners with access to powerful designs of meaning that are required for purposeful participation in society. Again, students who were not of Anglo-Australian, middle-class culture were least served by the separation of overt instruction and situated practice. There was a need for consistent pedagogy that combined doing and

- 157 -


analysis – immersion in experience integrated with an explicit metalanguage, as intended by the New London Group (2000, p.32-35). Transformed practice occurred for all students when the teacher employed a seamless pedagogy that simultaneously integrated both situated practice and overt instruction. 5.5.4.3 Critical framing in claymation movie making. Teacher: This author wrote a lovely book about two fat frogs who had a fight, because he wants you to get the point about not polluting the earth. Do you agree with him? Children: Yes. Teacher: You do agree? You don’t have to. You don’t have to agree with the author. That’s the beauty of books. Do you agree that we should stop polluting? This section analyses the teacher’s enactment of critical framing in relation to learners’ access to designs of meaning. Here, critical framing refers to pedagogy that is centrally concerned with relating meanings to their social contexts and purposes (New London Group, 2000, p.31). Neither immersion in situated practices nor overt instruction specifically gives priority to the critical and cultural understandings addressed in the critical framing component of the multiliteracies pedagogy. Immersion and overt instruction alone become socialising agents that render learners uncritical and unconscious of the cultural location of designs of meaning and social practices (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b). During critical framing, the most important of the four knowledge processes is analysing.

Students should be able, firstly, to analyse the general function or

purpose of a text and to make causal connections, and secondly, to analyse the explicit and implicit motives and agendas and interest behind a text (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005, p.96). Therefore, findings are reported in relation to the degree to which the teacher’s enactment of critical framing enabled learners to analyse designs both critically and functionally, applying both forms of analysis to their own claymation movie designs. Several lessons were taught in which the teacher prompted students to analyse critically the cultural location of designs and practices in relation to the workings of

- 158 -


power, ideology and values (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). This was demonstrated in a lesson in which students viewed the popular claymation movie “Chicken Run”. Video Transcript 7 164 Teacher: When the door opened and Mrs. Tweedie was standing there, the light spilled out onto the steps…. Why did they use the lighting in that way? …What effect did it give her that she was in shadow and the bright light coming behind her when it panned up her leg? 165 Jack: Strong 166 Teacher: Yeah, it made her look powerful…! 167 Ted: Scary. 168 Teacher: She did look a bit scary. Ok….How did the creators show that Mrs. Tweedie was in power? How did they show that she was the boss, Sean? 169 Sean: The expression. 170 Teacher: The expression on her face. Did you hear the dog yelp? The door opened and the dog went…[Child barks] Yeah, and did a little yelp. Which means that he was definitely scared. What did you think? 171 Darles: She had her hand on her hip. 172 Teacher: Her hands were on her hip. Her body language showed that she was really very important. 173 Damien: She yelled, “What is this chicken doing here?” 174 Teacher: So, what she said was important. 175 Robyn: You could see her face and her head. 176 Teacher: Think of the angle. Where was she? Where are they [the chickens]? What did the creators do to make her look more powerful, Warren? 177 Warren: Looking up [camera angle]. 178 Teacher: They were looking up at her, and she was looking…? 179 Students: Down. 180 Teacher: Down….which made them look as if they were quite small. The teacher used a series of critical questions to draw the learners’ attention to the particular multimodal design elements to communicate power. Learners were guided to analyse critically and functionally the representation of power through lighting and shadows (Lines 147-150), facial expression (Lines 151-153, 160) and bodily movements or gestures (Line 156-157). They also analysed functionally the audio design elements (Lines 153-155), speech (Lines 158-159), and spatial elements, such as camera angles, spatial relations between characters, and how the viewer is positioned (Lines 161-165). The following is another powerful example of the teacher’s use of critical framing to guide learners to analyse critically the implicit ideology or values in texts.

- 159 -


Video Transcript 7 109 Teacher: What is the message that the movie creators are trying to get across to you? What does he really want you to think about during this movie, Warren? 110 Warren: Not to stop trying. 111 Teacher: You’re not to stop trying. Don’t give up. Oh! Excellent. What’s the other message do you think? 112 Child: They are prisoners. 113 Teacher: That the chickens are prisoners! What else, Ted? 114 Ted: That the chickens want to get free. 115 Teacher: To free the chickens. Do you think that’s why they made the movie - to try to make you think about chickens that are in captivity? 116 Child: Don’t lock chickens up. 117 Teacher: Don’t lock chickens up. Where do you get your eggs from? 118 Children: Chickens. 119 Children: Chickens in farms. 120 Teacher: Are there chicken farms where chickens are allowed to run free? 121 Child: Yes In this interaction, learners were required to analyse the intentions and interests of the designers of this movie. The learners gained access to designs of meaning by considering whose point of view or perspective was represented, whose interests were served, and what social and environmental consequences followed. The learners were assisted to critically analyse the social and environmental issue of animal captivity and the way viewers were positioned to empathise with the characters of Chicken Run. This was one of many instances in which the teacher stimulated students to analyse representations by making explicit the belief system inscribed in the text. When reading the Big Book “Lester and Clyde” the teacher asked: So why do you think that the author of this story was writing about two frogs living in a beautiful pool, and then one going away and finding a polluted pool? What was the message he was trying to get across to the people who read this book? Within this lesson, the teacher restated the global message of the text, and challenged the assumptions of the author, taking the analysis further by stimulating alternate perspectives. 210 Teacher: That’s right. This author wrote a lovely book about two fat frogs who had a fight, because he wants you to get the point about not polluting the earth. Do you agree with him? 229 Children: Yes.

- 160 -


230 Teacher: You do agree? You don’t have to. You don’t have to agree with the author. That’s the beauty of books. Do you agree that we should stop polluting? Implicit in this pedagogy is the recognition that literacy is a social practice, ideologically linked to social power, and it should be researched with a critical dimension that calls into question ideological and social relations. The teacher’s enactment of critical framing emphasised the social, cultural and ideological work of texts, modelling the critique of texts and their affiliated social formations and cultural assumptions (Luke, 1994, p.144; West, 1992, p.16). Texts were shown to represent particular points of view that silence other voices and are open to critique (Muspratt et al., 1997). In the teacher’s questioning on many occasions, literacy was not regarded as an independent variable, but as inseparable from social practices and their effects, embedded within larger social contexts. Students were guided to see how designs of meaning are culturally specific, serving particular social and political purposes. The second type of critical analysis observed in the lessons involved identifying the immediate function of multimodal designs by analysing the use of particular design elements to effectively communicate meaning (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). For example, in this lesson, the teacher guided learners to analyse functionally the intended audience of the movie “Chicken Run”. Video Transcript 7 122 Teacher: All right. Who was the movie audience, Jed? 123 Jed: Family. 124 Teacher: The family. 125 Bradley: Everybody. 126 Teacher: Everyone in the family. The learners were guided to identify the overall function of the text and its representation of meaning. Again, the teacher guided the whole class to analyse critically functionally the intended audience of the picture book “Lester and Clyde” and the axiological interpretation of the value of text. Video Transcript 3 231 Teacher: Do you think this is a book worth reading to the other children? 232 Children: Yes. 233 Teacher: Who else should read this book? Jared? 234 Jared: Adults. - 161 -


235 Teacher: Adults should read this book? 236 Rhonda: Everyone should. And like that pond – that’s how our earth will end up. The teacher challenged the learners to make a subjective evaluation of the book’s value or worth, encouraging alternative reading positions and practices for questioning and critiquing texts. The learners concluded that the message of the text – not to pollute the earth – is a message also applicable to adults (Line 234-236). Rather than considering texts to have one meaning and unlocking the “correct meaning” of texts, the learners were encouraged to find multiple readings of the text. When alternative reading positions and practices for questioning and critiquing texts and their social assumptions are suppressed, teachers assume a reproductive model of meaning.

Without critical pedagogy of this kind, comprehension becomes

cultural assimilation, bringing readers’ epistemologies into critical alignment with those of a corpus of historically valued knowledge. A related and important finding was that the learners were frequently encouraged to stand back from their own design choices, considering their multimodal texts critically in relation to both forms of critical analysis. For example, the teacher assisted the boys in the “Inventing a Car” group and the girls in the “Disappearing Pimples” group to analyse functionally the visual and audio design elements in relation to the message for the intended audience. Video Transcript 13, Section 1 619 Teacher: Who’s going to be looking at this? 620 Bradley: We’ve got prep buddies! 621 Teacher: So do they know that this is a spoiler and that that’s the exhaust? Do you understand what I’m trying to encourage you to think? Video Transcript 18 124 Teacher: Are you happy with that? 125 Girls: [nod] 126 Teacher: Are you sure? Do you think people would understand what you are saying, ‘cause, remember – this is playing when your photos are coming up slowly at the end. So do need to speak quickly? The teacher encouraged learners to analyse the functional relationship between the duration of audio and moving visual images so that the modes were combined effectively. In this way, critical framing was closely linked to transformed practice, and critical framing became grounded in everyday social purposes (Kalantzis & - 162 -


Cope, 2005, pp.35, 240). Through the enactment of critical framing, learners began to independently analyse their own designs functionally, recognising that the textual features of their own designs were not isolated from social meanings, but carry meaning primarily through their embeddedness in the wider system of meaning making and textual practice (Heath, 1999, p.103; Street, 1984; Wagner, 1987). For example, the boys in the “Slip, Slop, Slap” group analysed the clarity of the visual design elements of their storyboard in the context of the social purpose of their design. Video Transcript 8, Section 3 86 Nick: What’s that coming out of the shore? 87 Mark: Why don’t we make that an illusion - where it’s just a big rock? 88 Nick: What do you think? 89 Jack: I’m thinking…I don’t think the prep kids would understand that. 90 Nick: Oh yeah! 91 Matthew: Good point 92 Mark: Yeah, good point [laughs]. Jack, as an expert novice, focused the group’s attention on analysing how everyday designs of meaning and discourses work to communicate certain interests for certain audiences and cultural purposes. The teacher’s consistent modelling of critical processes had empowered these learners to independently analyse how their own multimodal designs situate readers. Designs of meaning were understood by students to be culturally specific, serving particular social purposes. Critical framing was the pedagogical strength of the teacher’s enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy, and this had important interactions with the learners’ ability to access designs of meaning by relating meanings to their social and cultural contexts and purposes. Firstly, learners were beginning to analyse critically the human intentions and interests, the underlying social, cultural, ideological, political, and value-laden assumptions of designs and the workings of power. They were encouraged to consider multiple readings of texts and alternate points of view rather unlocking or reproducing the “correct meaning”. Secondly, they were able to access the structure, function, connections and contexts of design of meaning by analysing texts functionally. Finally, students were principally able to combine both of forms of analysing – critical and functional – to the cultural purposes and meanings of their own multimodal designs (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005, p.21). Critical framing became

- 163 -


linked to transformed practice, and was grounded in everyday social purposes, as intended by the multiliteracies pedagogy (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005, p.35, pp.240). 5.5.4.4 Transformed practice in claymation movie making Two boys worked collaboratively to design a script to accompany the moving images of their claymation movie. The teacher had prompted them to consider whether music and images alone would effectively communicate their intended message. Subsequently, the boys decided to use voice-over to describe the action more clearly to their audience. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

Brandon: Mrs. Fulton, this is what we’re worked out. We’re going to have a script instead of music. Ok. Brandon: Ah, “Here is our car frame.” James E: “Now we put on the back wheel” Brandon: “Next the front wheel” James: “Now the spoiler.” Brandon: “Then the body kit” James: “What about the exhaust pipe?” Brandon: “Oh yeah, I forgot about that”. James: “Who’s going to drive?” Brandon: “I am.” James: Then we’ve got the music, and then the car crashes.

This section has important implications for evaluating the degree to which students accessed multiliteracies. Transformed practice is the climax of the multiliteracies pedagogy, when students demonstrate their application of knowledge to creative and appropriate designing. Effective transformed practice enables learners to transfer meaning making practice to work in other contexts or cultural sites (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000c, p.35). Rather than focusing on the teacher’s practices, there is a greater emphasis here on evaluating the effectiveness of the learners’ designs. The movies designed by each of the six groups are described in relation to the degree of transformation demonstrated in their collaborative, hybrid, and multimodal texts. The designing of animation movies involved learners in the creation of hybrid texts that entailed significant creative change rather than simply good reproduction. This is very significant because a requirement of transformed practice is that learners transfer meaning-making practice by putting meaning to work in other context or social sites (New London Group, 2000, p.35). The students were given decisionmaking power to collaboratively choose any educational movie theme and any

- 164 -


combination of cultural resources to achieve their unique social purposes. For example, the global coherence relations or generic structure of the movies included narratives, information reports, procedural texts, and combinations of text types. The designs utilised a diversity of messages, modes, media, settings, characters, plots, backdrops, stage props, music, sound effects, scripts, spatial layouts, linguistic features, fonts, colours, graphics, photography techniques, subtitles, and special digital effects. The movies were of varying duration and communicated unique educational messages to their preparatory “buddies” and the parent community. The teacher’s evaluation of the claymation movies acknowledged the extent and value of creativity in the transformation, its aptness to the intended audience, and the transferring of design ideas to other contexts. Four students of mixed ethnicity, and from the low-literacy ability group, designed the movie “The Healthy Picnic”. Group members included Darles, who is Sudanese, Julie and Joshua, who are Anglo-Australians, and Ted, who is Indigenous Australian. The group designed a procedural text entitled “The Healthy Picnic” involving two scenes. The first scene was a distance view of a park filled with insects, people and a picnic. The second scene was a close-up of the picnic tablecloth demonstrating the assembly of a real salad sandwich. The teacher had emphasised to the students that they could determine the message of their movie. This fulfilled the pedagogical intentions of transformed practice to create a space for “applying appropriately” and “applying creatively” (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). However, this ethnically diverse group chose to draw upon one of the teacher’s suggestions to the whole class: So take my healthy sandwich idea. If you’re going to have a healthy sandwich, your first box might be an empty plate. Your next scene might be bread, moving onto the screen to sit on the plate. Then you might have a piece of ham…cheese…lettuce…tomato…then on the top, the other piece of bread. Then you might have a bite taken out the sandwich until the sandwich is completely gone with some crumbs on the plate. The students chose to represent these ideas using a scalloped cookie-cutter between photos to remove bite-shaped pieces until only crumbs remained. The movie climaxed with a plasticine ant consuming the crumbs. This applied another of the teacher’s ideas given to the whole class: “You might want a picnic rug full of food, then ants come along and start eating it”. The audio design involved background - 165 -


music that effectively complemented the moving visual and spatial text. The students stated that the two messages of their text were: a) “To eat healthy food”, and b) “How to make a healthy sandwich”. Designing for this collaborative group involved a significant measure of transformation rather than an exact replication or precise reproduction of an existing design. These learners reinvented or revoiced the world in a way that had never occurred before, expressing effectiveness in communicating cultural meaning though a unique combination of multiple modes of meaning (e.g. linguistic, visual, audio, spatial, gestural, digital). However, it could be argued that the teacher’s enactment of transformed practice limited the students from “applying creatively” because she allowed them to draw upon her examples to the class. Nevertheless, the view of the New London Group is that transformed practice can involve differing degrees and types of transformation of meaning. For these students, designing involved some degree of reproduction, but a much greater degree of significant creative change using a multiplicity of representational resources. For example, the group transformed the teacher’s simple idea expressed verbally, into a complex, digitally animated movie that involved three-dimensional modelling, digital photography, digital music, graphics, and so forth, to communicate their own message. Good reproduction was not the aim or outcome of designing (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b). The extent of creativity is very apparent when contrasted with the monomodal writing and grammar lessons (5.5.15.5.2), when students were simply agents in the unreflective reproduction of linguistics conventions (Cope, 2000). An ethnically diverse group of four males from the low-ability group designed “Inventing a Car”. Group members included Bradley, Jim, and Jed, who are AngloAustralians, and Wooraba, who is Maori.

- 166 -


Transcript 11, Section 3 180 Bradley: We’re just doing the garage…the garage. 181 Jim: It’s like, we’re making a car, [step-by-step] and then someone comes and drives it along and crashed it… 182 Bradley: into a pole… 183 Jim: into a pole. We don’t have to see the crash. We’re just seeing like… 184 Bradley: We’re just going to have a wheel coming back and then…boom! 188 Researcher: And what’s the message of the show? 189 Jim: Don’t drive too fast! The design drew upon the teacher’s proposal, “These are just ideas. You might want to do a car – one about a car being built from nothing to anything. You can have the wheels coming, and the body coming, and then something else, and then making the car, and then the car zooming off with black smoke.” Thus, a degree of reproduction was again demonstrated in the boys’ movie plot. The movie was also limited by twodimensional representation and inadequate attention to detail in character and prop design. The most significant issue, in terms of the Learning by Design approach, is that these students were unable to “apply appropriately” (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). The boys were limited in their ability to communicate effectively in ways that conform to the conventions of movie making. A collaborative group of diverse gender and ethnicity from the low-ability group designed an amateurish movie entitled “Crossing the Road”. David, Sean and Rhonda, Anglo-Australians, and Paweni, who is Thai, were the designers. The plot involved a mother and child crossing a road and climaxed with a car colliding with the child who was rushed to hospital in a tissue box ambulance. Transcript 8 22 Rhonda: Ah, title of the Claymation? [reading from a scaffold sheet] 23 David: Do you want to um, do um, “Look out, look out - there’s children about”? 24 Sean: You mean, “Watch out, watch out - there’s danger about”? 25 David: “Look out, look out - there’s children about”, like… 26 Rhonda: ‘cause that’s really good for our buddies. The teacher had suggested to the whole class: “You might want to choose crossing the road safely – look left, look right, look left again, hold an adult’s hand.” These learners made an intertextual connection between the teacher’s suggestion and a familiar television road wise slogan, “Look out, look out, there are children about”. The aim of the design was consistent with the pedagogic ideal of transformed practice and “applying creatively” because the intended message of this hybrid text

- 167 -


was different in some ways, as well as similar to existing designs, and involved a “genuinely original combination of knowledge and ways of communicating” (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). The students chose a message that was highly appropriate for their preparatory buddies and the parent community. However, the visual, spatial, auditory and gestural design elements did not effectively communicate the intended message, and thus, failed to demonstrate “applying appropriately”. The movie did not demonstrate that these learners had reached what Kalantzis and Cope (2005) term a “collaborative level of competence”; that is, students did not become “masters of a convention or genre to the point where they become fully-fledged members of a new community of practice” (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005, p.96). Warren, Simon and Jared were Anglo-Australian males from low socioeconomic backgrounds. They designed “Breaking News”, building upon one of the teacher’s suggestions: “We’ve done natural disasters last term – a tornado or a cyclone, an earthquake.

One of those might be something you’re interested in”. The boys

required a very high level of explicit scaffolding and instruction to design a storyboard, which followed the generic structure of an information report about three natural disasters. This movie was never completed. The group was unable to reach what Kalantzis and Cope (2005, p.95-96) describe as the lowest level of performance, termed “assisted competence”. This is because they were unable to combine several conventional forms of communication in a meaningful way, even in a structured environment. Jack, Nick, Mark and Matthew were a group of middle class, Anglo-Australian males from the average-ability group. These boys transformed the sun-safe television slogan “Slip, Slop, Slap”, transferring meanings to work in another context.

- 168 -


Transcript 8, Section 3 38 Researcher: So tell me what the story is because I haven’t seen yours yet. 39 Jack: ‘Slip, Slop Slap!’ 40 Nick: Yeah! 41 Jack: A man like, gets like, burned… 42 Nick: Sunburnt… 43 Jack: And he’s like, just got pants on [no shirt “slipped on” for sun protection]. 44 Jack: And he’s, he’s, like, angry. Then he goes into the water, ‘cause he thinks it’s gonna make it better, but it gets worse… 45 Mark: …instead. 46 Jack: And then a sunscreen bottle comes up with some sunscreen.

Transcript 10, Section 2 Movie description: A man on a beach gets sunburned and goes for a swim to cool off. The scene changes to an underwater seascape with relaxing music. The scene returns to the beach were he is still hot after the swim. A sunscreen bottle offers sun protection to the man, squirting him with the liquid. The voiceover warns the viewer to “Slip, Slop, Slap”. Jazz music concludes after the dialogue. This movie was characterised by intertextuality, transferring knowledge and capabilities from one setting, and adapting them to their design with imaginative originality and generative hybridity. The most remarkable feature of the movie was the effective combination of audio elements – speech and music – in a sophisticated way. However, the visual and spatial elements were limited by two- rather than three-dimensional representations. Thus, the collaborative design demonstrated varying levels of “applying appropriately and creatively” across different modes of communication (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). An ethnically diverse group of females from the average ability group included Shani and Tenneile, Anglo-Australians, Raileigh, of Maori descent, and Mele, Tongan. These girls designed “The Case of the Disappearing Pimples” employing intertextuality and hybridity by making connections to an extreme makeover, virtual reality television program “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy”. The girls transferred the theme of “image” from a context of popular media culture and its stereotypes, to the context of their own pre-teen lifeworlds. In this way, a cross-cultural aspect of meaning making was evident in this transformation. The plot was summarised by the teacher to the class, as follows:

- 169 -


Transcript 18 This movie is about girls who are at a party. So you won’t actually hear the party music yet, which is a bit of a disadvantage [Runs movie without sound]. One of them is talking about eating too much junk food. And the next day they are shopping in the shopping centre and one of the girls has developed lots of pimples. So they’ve decided that they are going to buy fresh fruit and vegetables, and buy Clearasil. Two weeks later, they’re having a healthy party with lots of sandwiches. The girls are talking about how her pimples have cleared up, “Isn’t she beautiful!” Now we’ve just recorded the sound and the sound is excellent. The message of the text was communicated implicitly in the plot and explicitly in the final voice-over and complementary linguistic text: “Don’t eat too much junk food”.

This hybrid, multimodal text was characterised by the most significant

degree of transformed meanings and originality, and drew upon the learners’ existing semiotic or cultural resources. The characters in the story were reconstructions of their own identity, so that each member contributed elements of their personal history and culture to the design (Kress, 2000a). The movie demonstrated multiliteracies knowledge processes involving “applying appropriately and creatively” because the pedagogic outcome was more than an exact replication or precise reproduction. The movie design had required taking knowledge and capabilities from one setting, and adapting them to results in imaginative originality and generative hybridity as masters of the convention of movie-making (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). In summary, the teacher’s enactment of transformed practice engaged with the divergent lifeworlds of students with varying degrees of inclusion and transformation, from discernable reproduction to substantial innovation (Cope, 2000). Each group adapted and transferred existing ideas embedded in their own collaborative goals and values by juxtaposing and transferring meaning to work in other cultural site or contexts. Thus, in these respects, the aim of transformed practice was achieved (New London Group, 2000, p.35). multimodal texts provided

The redesigned,

evidence of the ways in which the learners’ active

intervention in the world, that is, designing, had transformed the designers to varying degrees (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b).

- 170 -


However, the transition from learners’ lifeworlds to claymation designing caused a difficult dialogue between the culture of the institution and the subjectively lived experiences of some students. The prior language experiences that the children brought to the classroom did not always assist them when they encountered new, digitally-mediated modes of communication (Bull & Anstey, 2003a). Certain students, such as the “Breaking News” group, had a greater distance to travel because of the degree of mismatch between their worlds of everyday lived experience, and the shared meanings within the classroom (Cope, 2000; Kalantzis & Cope, 2000a). More pointedly, transformation occurred easily for dominant students in an immersion environment in which collaborative designing involved minimal teacher direction (Kress, 2000a). In contrast, the low ability groups relied more closely on the directions of the teacher. These students designed texts that more closely reproduced existing meanings than those of their ethnically dominant counterparts. The degree of transformation was tied to their degree of familiarity with the requirements of multimodal designing, and more importantly, their familiarity with the dominant culture. The demanding challenge which remained beyond the teacher, was to create a community of learning where all students could access transformed designing (New London Group, 2000). 5.6 Power and Access to Multiliteracies 609 Teacher: There will be consequences for your actions today, Simon Bird. You need to prove that you’re working, otherwise – watch out! You won’t be filming! This section describes the most important findings concerning the influence of power on learners’ access to multiliteracies. Following Carspecken’s critical ethnographic research tradition, an assumption of this research is that all action is mediated by power relations. Carspecken’s (1996; 2003) analytic themes – normative, coercive, contractual, and charismatic power – were applied to the lesson data. Additionally, McLaren’s (1992; 1993) theory of resistance to power is used to take into account the agency of students. Data coded under the categories “normative power”, “contractual power” and “charm” did not have a repeated influence on the degree to which students were able to access multiliteracies. In contrast, the teacher’s use of “coercive power” had a significant and consistent

- 171 -


influence on the distribution of multiliteracies, and is therefore, discussed in the following section. 5.6.1 Coercive Power and Excluded Learners Significant events were observed during the latter half of the multiliteracies lessons involving five boys who were excluded from continuing claymation movie making. These interactions had important implications in relation to the working of power and its connections with access to multiliteracies. There was significant conflict among the three boys who were designing a movie entitled “Breaking the News”. These boys – Warren, Simon and Jared – were AngloAustralians from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Warren experienced significant learning difficulties such as an inability to concentrate, had high absenteeism, and frequently refused to engage in both independent and collaborative designing after situations involving conflict with the teacher. The teacher was in the process of referring Warren to a paediatrician. Simon was ascertained through standardised tests as intellectually impaired; that is, having an Intelligence Quotient below seventy and qualifying for government funded learning support. He was often unable to contribute meaningfully to the teacher-directed discussions, even when nominated by the teacher to respond. For example, Simon was unable to articulate the author’s purpose for writing the picture book “Lester and Clyde” (Reece, 1976). 223 224 225 226 227 228 229

Teacher: The author is telling you about the environment. He’s telling us about polluting the pond. So why did he write this book? What did he want children to think, Simon? Simon: Trash, [pause] put…pollution. Teacher: “Trash put pollution”. What do you mean? Simon: [Silence] Teacher: Ok. Start it again. Simon: [Silence]. Teacher: Bradley?

Simon generally followed classroom rules and despite his learning difficulties, would attempt to respond to the teacher’s questioning.

- 172 -


Jared used an informal dialect of English from his home, including bound morphemes such as catchin’, c’mon, ’cept, ’cause, and gonna. He frequently resisted the secondary discourses of the school such as appropriate ways of acting, sitting, moving, and speaking in the classroom. The following transcript is an example of Jared’s typical behaviour during independent work in the computer room. We’ve got about six children who are just lounging around. Look at your body language! [directly to Jared] You’ve got your hands behind your head, and you’re leaning back like you’re in the Bahamas, and you are so far behind in your work. You haven’t got time to scratch yourself! On several occasions, power relations between the three boys – Warren, Simon and Jared – escalated into physical fights and swearing. The teacher intervened to create spatial and physical boundaries to separate the boys during these times. The teacher decided to negotiate a contract with the whole class to determine how much school rule breaking would result in exclusion from claymation movie-making. The following interaction is one of the most significant in the study in relation to power and its attendant relationship to learners’ access to multiliteracies. The teacher addressed the class: We need to decide what the punishment is going to be for people who are kicked out of claymation. There are people in the classroom who are constantly getting their names on the blackboard. We’ve got people with three crosses against their names, and we’ve had groups today that have been swearing at other people, not cooperating - arguing. This group of boys who were working over here got almost nothing done today, and if it wasn’t for me intervening, I’m quite sure there would have been a serious fight. So Simon, and Jared and Warren – your group is this close from being completely shut down and cancelled [shows small gap between fingers]. Because I’m that unimpressed with the work that you’re doing. So what should be the cut-off? Should it be that when you have a certain number of crosses against your name on the blackboard that you don’t get to film? Should it be if your movie set is not finished by the end of next week, you don’t get to film? These sanctions were negotiated as fair, to afford everyone the same opportunity for success conditional upon following the established rules. The negotiable aspect of this interactively established contract was to determine the number and type of rule violations that would invoke the sanctions, such as arguing on two occasions, or swearing once. The students could also decide whether individuals or the group would receive the sanctions if one member did not follow the rules.

- 173 -


The teacher had predetermined that the threat of sanctions was being “kicked out” of claymation movie-making or the group “shut down”. Therefore, the sanction – exclusion from claymation designing – was not negotiable. Furthermore, these negotiations occurred in the context of unequal power relationships that exist between the teacher and students within the school institution.

The following

transcript illustrates the beginning of this negotiation process. Transcript 11, Section 3 23 Teacher: We’re going to vote on this as a class. Anyone else got a suggestion? 24 Jack: Yeah, if your name is on the board and you have a cross as well. 25 Teacher: So your name and a cross as well, and you should be out. Just that person or the whole group? 26 Jack: Just that person 27 Teacher: Just that person. Anyone else have a suggestion? Because I am sick, I am tired and I’m cranky, and there are people in this classroom I guarantee that won’t be filming. ‘Cause quite frankly, I don’t have time for it. It’s pathetic, the behaviour I’m getting. 28 Rhonda: If you swear you can’t film. 29 Teacher: So if you’re a person who swears, you get kicked out instantly? 30 Children: Yeah During this negotiation process, normalising statements were used to control the social setting such as: For you to be allowed to do claymation, you have to be able to work independently. You don’t need to have me there to hold your hand and make sure everyone is feeling nice about themselves and doing the right thing. You’re in year six! This operation of normalising discourse rendered the legitimacy of the new standards and sanctions unquestioned. The outcome was the establishment of three sanctions for violations of the rules. The majority of students voted that the sanctions would be administered when students had three accounts of rule breaking involving any situation at school. Individuals who swore once would receive the sanctions, rather than the whole group. The teacher also established a nonnegotiable sanction: “I tell you right now: the whole group, or any group, who does not have their set, and their props, and their characters finished by next Friday, will not be filming.”

- 174 -


All three sanctions prohibited access to digitally mediated designing. The following week, a new notice was displayed prominently on the back wall of the classroom, differentiating between the students who had received the sanctions (Figure 5.6.1). The public poster served to make the dominant discourse official, and to make the teacher’s ephemeral or temporary speech permanent. This poster served to legitimise the sanctions. It also applied exclusionary techniques to differentiate the children by three behavioural categories as a means of tracing the limits that defined difference and boundary. Groups to Film Slip, Slop, Slap [Jack, Matthew, Mark, Nick], Inventing a Car [Jim, Bradley, Wooraba], Making A Healthy Sandwich [Ted, Darles, Julie], Junk Food Gives You Pimples [Shani, Raleigh, Teneille, Malee], Look for Cars [David, Sean, Paweni, Rhonda]. Not filming as sets not complete on time: Breaking the News (You may display your work completed at book launch but not film). Not filming because of behaviour: Joshua, Jed, Warren, Jared, Simon Figure 5.6.1 Classroom Poster for Explaining Excluded Groups

The “Breaking the News” group – Warren, Jared, and Simon – were listed in both categories of exclusion for having incomplete sets and for rule-breaking behaviour. The fourth learner excluded was Jed, from the “Inventing a Car” group. The teacher would often regulate Jed’s behaviour by punctuating her direct instructions to the whole class with “Jed”. He had one of the highest levels of absenteeism during the observed lessons. The fifth student to receive the sanctions was Joshua, from the “Healthy Sandwich” group. The teacher described Joshua as her “main behaviour problem”. He continually sought attention from both peers and the teacher, moving out of his seat, calling out, and adopting exaggerated gestures and movements. All five boys excluded were Anglo-Australians from low socio-economic backgrounds. The teacher reinforced the enactment of the sanctions by making an announcement to the whole class The only [whole] group that won’t be doing their claymations is the “Breaking the News” group because they are nowhere near finished their set. So they are now out of the race. They had three sets to make. They made one character and half of one set. So they are not anywhere near being able to catch up. So they will not be able to make their claymation movie. You said

- 175 -


that as a group. You voted on it. Joshua and Jed also have more than two crosses, so they don’t get to film as well. So Jed’s group, you still film, but Jed does not. Ok. The enactment of these sanctions functioned to exclude the economically marginalised males from the full repertoire of multiliteracies. In the teacher’s words, they were “now out of the race”. These sanctions operated unfairly to deny those most resistant to the dominant, middle class discourses of schooling, from accessing multiliteracies. Power operated as a form of dissimilation; that is, sorting students according to their social class location, within the classroom (McLaren, 1994). The full implications of the sanctions became apparent during the following weeks when the remainder of the class continued the digital aspects of movie making, while the boys finished their story writing or coloured in drawings. The sanction excluded the boys from two more hours of movie set designing involving threedimensional visual and spatial modes, two hours of digital filming, two hours of audio designing, and one hour of digital editing and special effects using ClipMovie software. Monomodal literacies, that is, literacies using linguistics only, became the sanction for violating the rules. This replaced claymation movie making, which involved digitally mediated, multimodal designing for a real world purpose. Carspecken’s typology of power relations, described in Chapter Two, distinguishes between four types of power – normative, coercive, contractual, and charm (Carspecken, 1996). The use of coercive power selectively prohibited the five boys from gaining access to digitally mediated, multimodal designing. Coercive power is the threatening of sanctions by a superordinate to force obedience from a subordinate. The subordinate is expected to comply, not on the basis of the superordinate’s status, but in order to avoid an unpleasant sanction (Carspecken, 1996). However, the use of coercive power alone did not deny students access to multiliteracies, because learners still possessed agency and could act to avoid the threatened sanctions. Parallels can be drawn between this study and Willis’ (1977) classic qualitative research in which a culture of “resistance” was evident among the working class “lads” in and outside the classroom, implicated by unequal power

- 176 -


relations between students and teachers. Similarly, McLaren’s (1993) theory of resistance explains that the boys’ episodes of resistance to power worked in conjunction with the sanctions to implicate them further in their own domination. This resistance was often demonstrated bodily in the posture of the boys (McLaren, 1993). For example, Warren would pretend that he couldn’t hear the teacher’s instructions even when she was in close proximity. Ted would often slump in his chair and look downwards when he was reprimanded. Learners’ postures showed implosion and constriction when conceding points of defeat in interactions of unequal power (Carspecken, 1996). Resistance was evident holistically in the boys’ bodies as they became sites of struggle. Applying McLaren’s (1993) theory of resistance, the use of the coercive power was not a “powerful” strategy with respect to making students productive and compliant workers. Rather, the use of coercive power was ineffectual against student resistance, helping to secure a loss of meaning making for the boys. This condition was exacerbated by increased absenteeism of the boys following the enactment of the sanctions. Correspondingly, the boy’s resistance to domination ironically weakened the school' s potential to help them rise above oppressive forms of work in society. Relations of power in the classroom were systematically asymmetrical, tied to interactions between coercive power and the boys’ resistance to the dominant discourse (McLaren, 1993). This domination was masked by inviting the students to negotiate the minor details of the sanctions through an interactively established contract, concealing the teacher’s authorisation of the sanctions that ultimately prohibited access to certain form of multiliteracies. 5.6.2 Coercive Power and Monomodal Literacies It is significant that the use of coercive power differentiated the curriculum for students who violated the rules, because monomodal literacies, such as writing stories, replaced multiliteracies. The teacher’s perceptions of monomodal literacies and multimodal literacies are analysed in the following pragmatic horizon analysis.

- 177 -


Actors: Teacher to researcher

Date: 27.05.’04 Time: 3:00 pm

Teacher talks to researcher after the tenth claymation lesson in which some students were not working cooperatively. 342 Teacher: Yeah. Yeah. And I’ve told my kids that if they get their name on the back wall, they’re not allowed to do claymation. They’ll just sit down and do normal work. Because some of the boys’ – their behaviour is starting to get out of control. Those who later received this sanction were given monomodal literacies, such as writing in their exercise books with a pencil and paper, while the others continued with the digital aspects of the claymation movie designing.

Possible Objective Claims

Quite foregrounded, Quite immediate Teacher: I’ve told the students that if they break the classroom rules (i.e. name on the back wall) they will not be permitted to continue claymation movie-making. Instead, they will do monomodal literacies (i.e. normal work) like students in other classes. Highly Backgrounded, Remote, Taken-for-Granted Teacher: Digital multiliteracies (i.e. claymations) do not constitute normal work, while monomodal literacies do. Possible normative-evaluative claims Foregrounded, Immediate Teacher: These students have failed to comply with the normative classroom rules so they should receive sanctions – withdrawal of privileges. Highly Backgrounded, Remote, Taken-for-Granted Teacher: Access to digital multiliteracies should be denied to students who cannot follow the classroom rules because it is a privilege. Print-based literacies are an appropriate sanction for rule breaking because they are mandatory. Possible Subjective Claims Quite foregrounded, Quite immediate Teacher: I am tired of students resisting the classroom rules. They don’t deserve to do special activities that I provide like claymation filming. I’ll give them monomodal literacies instead, as students do in normal classrooms. Table 5.6.2 Pragmatic Horizon Analysis of Teacher’s Claims

Here, the foregrounded and backgrounded meanings of the teacher’s claims underscore the view that claymation movie making does not constitute “normal” literacies. The teacher perceives that these digital, multimodal forms of literacies are not the core of a literacy curriculum, and therefore, this privilege can be withdrawn to maintain social order in the classroom. However, it is important to recognise that monomodal literacies are not equal to the multimodal, digitally mediated textual practices in terms of the social goods that are - 178 -


accorded to these forms of literacy in society (Bull & Anstey, 2003a). All literate practices are not of equivalent power in terms of the socioeconomic gains and cultural knowledge they generate, some having negligible relevance to community and occupational contexts. Therefore, access to more literacy does not equate with access to more social power, because literacies have different statuses, functions, and social relations in different institutional contexts. The perception that monomodal literacies can be used as a sanction for school rule breaking, was observed repeatedly in the wider locale of the school. For example, the principal had established a whole school behaviour management system in which the students received rewards for avoiding the accumulation of “red cards”. The red cards were a form of coercive power to deter students from transgressing school rules. All students began the year as “level ones” and could progress to the next level at the end of each quarter or term. The aim was to reach level five by the end of the year. The receipt of one red card prevented a student from progressing to the next level until the following quarter. At the end of each term, the school cohort were labelled and sorted into rooms. Students in levels two to five received rewards, such as watching a movie, while “level ones” completed monomodal literacy exercises, such as adding suffixes to root words. In this way, monomodal literacies that were decontextualised from uses of literacy in the real world became a form of social control in the school institution, tied to the use of coercive power. During the pilot study, three students of Maori, Indigenous, and African ethnicity, and two economically marginalised, Anglo-Australian students received the level one sanctions, and were labelled by one teacher as the “naughties”.

This

hierarchical system of labelling and exclusion systematically distributed rewards to students of the dominant, middle-class culture, while administering sanctions to those who were not. Thus, this system of formalised domination tied to coercive power served to reproduce or solidify patterns of unequal power and disenfranchisement in a flagrant way. In essence, the school produced differing kinds and levels of literacy, permitting some, while preventing others from accessing multiliteracies.

- 179 -


To conclude, the enactment of coercive power prohibited five boys from being socialised into valued multiliterate practices of contemporary society (See research on literacy as a socialisation process: Baynham, 1995; Gee, 1996; Green, 1994; Heath, 1999; Kress, 1993c; 1997; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003a; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Moll, Saez, & Dworin, 2001; Street, 1984). The complex social, institutional, and cultural relationships in these interactions played an important role in determining what literacies formed part of these boys’ lives. The students’ existing cultural knowledge and social power also played a significant role in who gained access to multiliteracies and who did not. Not all learners had access to all meanings. Rather, meanings were distributed, available, and accessible along the overlapping social characteristics of gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status within the context of the dominant institutional structure of the school and the society. This confirmed the critical ethnographic principle that access to knowledge and cultural capital is discursively situated in relations of power (Carspecken, 1996, p.22). The New London Group’s (2000 p.18) ideal is to “provide access without children having to leave behind or erase their different subjectivities”.

These findings

demonstrate that this goal can be coopted by the enactment of coercive power. Coercive power can implicitly maintain learners’ existing levels of access to multiliteracies as a marginalising practice of social regulation. This can became so habitual or “natural” in the school setting that educators accept marginalising practices as normal, unproblematic, and expected. However, who was included, excluded, valued or denigrated by the enactment of coercive power in this study, was not arbitrary or random, but was tied to the power and status of the learners in the context of the dominant culture (Luke et al., 2003). Carspecken (1996, p.131) states that coercive power is usually employed within normative frameworks that legitimate it.

Classrooms are normative cultural

milieus in which actors are differentiated in terms of who has the most power to determine the course of interactions. There is never equal communicative input from all actors involved. When actors in superordinate positions enact coercive power, the unequal distribution of literacies can be normalised, legitimated or ignored. This is because there is a normative cultural model at work that historically defines what is expected of students and teachers. - 180 -


The successful provision of access to multiliteracies for all students requires that educators draw upon non-coercive forms of power, ensuring that certain learners are not prohibited from participation in culturally and linguistically diverse, multimodal and digitally mediated forms of meaning making. Access to multiliteracies requires that all students are socialised into the existing system of valued cultural meanings and practices. In this way, the enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy can function within the normative cultural milieu of schooling in a manner intended by its proponents – as a system of inclusion rather than exclusion. 5.7 Discourse and Access to Multiliteracies Ted, an Indigenous Australian, smiled at Julie as they filmed their claymation movie and asked, “Have you seen Lord of the Rings?” Overhearing from the other side of the room, the teacher reprimanded, “Ted, that’s got nothing to do with this!” This intertextual reference could have been recruited for an apprenticeship into hybrid, multimodal texts, with its potential for the discussion of creative visual and auditory text combinations. Ted used a different social language to engage in literacy practice – one that communicated solidarity with others. However, what counted was who he was and what he was required to do (Gee et al., 1996). This section describes the most salient findings concerning the interactions between access to multiliteracies and discourses; namely, the socially accepted ways of displaying membership in particular social groups through words, actions, values, beliefs, gestures, and other representations of self (Gee, 1992). Discussed here is the degree to which the ethnically dominant, Anglo-Australians and ethnically marginalised learners were able to draw from their existing cultural resources. These are reported under the categories “marginalised” and “dominant” discourses. 5.7.1 Marginalised Discourses It was observed on multiple occasions that students were not always free to draw from the resources of their primary discourses; that is, the language patterns and social practices of their early socialisation (Gee, 1992). For example, this was evident in the following lesson in which the teacher used a questioning sequence to draw attention to the visual design elements of a Big Book entitled, “Lester

- 181 -


and Clyde” (Reece, 1976). Transcript 3 158 Teacher: What has the illustrator done here to show you that it’s not a very nice pond? Ted? 159 Ted: Um, it looks like the rubbish has been chucked in there. 160 Teacher: But how did the illustrator show that. How did they do it? 161 Ted: Oh, by um, like, just chucking stuff in there. 162 Teacher: What? Did the illustrator throw things in there? 163 Ted: No 164 Teacher: Or did they draw pictures? 165 Ted: Yeah 166 Teacher: Well, then you need to explain it. Can you say, “They drew pictures of rubbish.” 167 Ted: They drew pictures of rubbish. 168 Teacher: Bradley? 169 Bradley: They drew the pond and the leaves and that to make it look rotten. 170 Teacher: It looks a little bit rotten, but what tells you…I can even see that it smells. What has the illustrator done to show you that it smells? The teacher drew attention to the Ted’s “inappropriate” primary discourse – “chucking stuff” – in the context of this whole class interaction. Perhaps Ted had misunderstood the term “illustrator”, not realising that a designer of the book had drawn the rubbish. After the teacher’s initial, incredulous response to Ted, “What?” she challenged Ted’s statement, asked him to clarify it, and elicited the correct response from him by rote. Ted submissively repeated the teacher’s rephrasing of his statement when requested, copying the teacher’s dominant discourse (Gee, 1996). The teacher deferred the original question to Bradley, an Anglo-Australian student who answered “successfully”. The important point is that Ted’s primary discourse was corrected because it was not consistent with the secondary discourses of the classroom – language patterns to which people are socialised within various institutions, outside early home and peer group socialisation (Gee, 1992; Gee et al., 1996). Ted had mastery of oral discourses to gain solidarity with others, both peers and adults. For example, he was the first student to confidently and amiably introduce himself to the researcher. On one occasion, the researcher met Ted by chance in a local suburban shopping centre during evening trading hours. He had almost sold a box of fundraising chocolate bars to idle cashiers at clothing boutiques, because he was successful in the persuasive discourse of marketisation (Fairclough, 2000, - 182 -


p.163). However, Ted differed from the expected classroom norms with respect to his Indigenous Australian primary discourse. His speech was characterised by the use of bound morphemes, evident in phrases such as “Watcha doin’?” or “We’ve been wasting a whole million watchin’ her doin’ her shoes.” The forms “doin’” and “watchin’” mean that the speaker is signaling greater solidarity with, and less deference towards the listener, treating them more as a peer or friend. Speakers unconsciously mix and match various degrees of “in” and “ing” in a stretch of language to achieve just the right level of solidarity and deference (Chambers, 1995; Gee, 1993; Labov, 1972; Milroy & Milroy, 1987). This language had meaning when used in Ted’s community – a culture that has retained substantive ties with an oral cultural tradition. However, it was not part of the dominant discourses in the formal social context of the classroom. Rather than using Ted’s oral language as a bridge to other forms of literacy, his primary discourses were frequently prohibited or misunderstood within the institution of schooling. Ted continually violated the discursive patterns or rules by which discourses were formed and that governed what could be said or remain unsaid, and who could speak with authority or remain silent (McLaren, 1994). For example, Ted was frequently reprimanded for unsolicited replying – calling answers without being nominated by the teacher (Cazden, 1988). This occurred in the context of lessons in which the teacher controlled the topic and applied the three-part sequence of interactions – teacher Initiation, student Response, and teacher Evaluation (IRE) (Mehan, 1979). This common pattern of classroom discourse in Western schooling requires interactions by invitation of the teacher. According to Cazden (1988), unsolicited replying is a common Indigenous Australian discourse pattern. Ted had not adopted the “identity kit” of dominant ways of acting, dressing and becoming a student (Gee, 1996). He would forget to take his hat off indoors and was unable to efficiently carry out tasks for the teacher. The teacher labelled him, “Travelling-at-will Ted Doyle”. He frequently sought legitimate ways to subvert the boundaries of the secondary discourses of the classroom, such as by getting a drink, borrowing stationery, or going to the toilet block during lessons to remain in physical motion. - 183 -


On many other occasions ethnically marginalised learners “failed” because the secondary discourses rendered them unable to draw from their existing cultural, semiotic resources for meaning making. Pawini, is the focus of the following transcript. She had only been in Australia for one year and spoke Thai at home to her mum and English at school.

During storyboard designing – a picture frame

sequence for the movie – Pawini’s group was requested by the teacher to explain their movie plans. Transcript 6, Section 3 237 Sean: “Look right, Look left, look right” [infant voice]. And then the car’s there, and they walk across, but they saw no car there, and the car was there. The car had just turned out and came out [picture provides external referents]. 238 Teacher: Sounds to me like you two [points to Sean and David] are doing a lot of the thinking. What’s Paweni done today? 239 Sean: She’s... 240 David: She’s just… 241 Rhonda: She’s trying to… 242 Teacher: Ok. Paweni, can you tell me what you’re doing today? What’s your job? 243 Paweni: Mum. 244 Teacher: You’re going to be the mum? [character in the movie plot] 245 Children: Yeah. 246 Teacher: And are any of these your ideas today? Have you got any suggestions? Have you thought about what we should use on the set? Are you going to have trees? Are you going to have hills? 247 Sean: That’s what she’s thinking 248 David: Yeah 249 Teacher: Can you make sure that Paweni has some suggestions? The teacher praised Sean and David for their successful contribution to the storyboard, while using this to contrast Paweni’s failure. The children attempt to advocate on Paweni’s behalf, making incomplete defences that appeal to Paweni’s effort (Lines 239-241). In doing so, they identify with her different life-world, cultural and language experiences. The teacher interrogated Paweni with five rapidly spoken, consecutive questions (Line 246), requiring Paweni to give an account of her contribution to the design. It should be noted here that during the lesson observations Pawini had never spoken more than two words in sequence, and these were generally common nouns or verbs. Paweni lacked the linguistic resources to respond to the teacher’s complex - 184 -


questioning and made no reply (Line 246). Sean moved to give an account in Paweni’s defence, appealing to her thought processes – a subjective truth claim that was confirmed by her collaborative contribution to the visual aspects of the design. David also demonstrated cultural inclusiveness by supporting Sean’s defence. Paweni’s fluency with the dominant discourses was tested. The gate was open to fluent users of the dominant discourses, but closed to the non-native – the student who was not born to the dominant discourses, and who could not show some mastery on this occasion of use.

There is a tension between the dominant,

secondary discourses of the classroom and Paweni’s primary discourses, identity and Thai culture with which she was most intimately connected (Gee, 1996). Use of the dominant IRE pattern of discourse also influenced the way in which Paweni was judged in the following whole class interaction (Mehan, 1979). This occurred in the context of the shared reading of the Big Book “Lester and Clyde” (Reece, 1976). Transcripts 3 102 Teacher: Tell me two things about Lester. I’m going to be asking Warren and Paweni this time [Paweni has not raised her hand to answer a question]. Paweni, tell me two things about Lester? 103 Paweni: [no response] 104 Ted: Old [unsolicited response] 105 Teacher: Definitely not old. Clyde’s old. Don’t tell her. What’s two things you can tell me about Lester the frog? [long pause]. I’ll come back to you. Warren – two things? 106 Warren: He’s smaller and cheeky. 107 Teacher: He’s smaller and he’s cheeky, Ok! Paweni, anything else you can tell me about Lester? 108 Paweni: [no response] 109 Teacher: Listen to the sentence. Lester is smaller, and he’s a lot of fun. A naughty, a cheeky, a mischievous one. What can you tell me about Lester? 110 Paweni: [no response] 111 Teacher: Is he a good frog? 112 Paweni: No 113 Teacher: So what tells you that he’s not a good frog? 114 Joshua: Because he’s…[unsolicited response] 115 Teacher: I’m asking Paweni, thank you. Who can tell Paweni what words there tell us about Lester? [no response from Paweni] Ted? 116 Ted: [inaudible response] 117 Teacher: I can’t hear you? Sit up, Ted. 118 Ted: He reckons that he has fun. 119 Teacher: He’s full of fun, but I want to know, “What words there tell that he is not a good frog? Shani? - 185 -


120 121 122 123

Sean: mischievous Teacher: mischievous Joshua: …and naughty Teacher: And naughty – thank you! Did you hear that Paweni – naughty and mischievous? They’re the words that we just read, and that’s describing him.

Paweni was not “successful” at this IRE discourse common in Western schooling, and did not gain access to the required multiliteracies. She did not have sufficient linguistic resources in English to describe attributes of a character in the written narrative. Paweni’s failure at question time was tied to difference – her culturally based social identity was constituted in her Thai language, which she was unable to use. The IRE discourse failed to apprentice Paweni to the sorts of language through which she could gain status in the classroom. Such an apprenticeship should have been based on an engagement with and recruitment of her existing meaning making resources, and the social identity it betokens (Gee, 1996). Yet another example of learners’ unfamiliarity with the dominant discourses and the restrictions placed upon marginalised discourses occurred in the context of digitally recording the script for the audio design of the claymation movies. Transcripts 17, Section 2 102 Paweni: “Look out for cars!” [deepened accent to sound older] 103 David: “Ok. Mum.” [baby voice for child role] 104 Paweni: “Watch out – run!” [staccato rhythm] 105 Teacher: No! Remember - we’re just recording this bit – this snippet. Let’s listen to how clear you were, and if there’s background sound [replays]. Could you hear Paweni? 106 David or Sean: Yes. 107 Teacher: Clearly? No! You need to speak clearly. I know English is a second language, so this is hard for you. “Look out for cars” [“cars”] said with two syllables, high to low intonation]------------------------------------------------------------------139 Paweni: “Watch…out…Run” [staccato rhythm]. 140 Teacher: No! 141 Teacher: “Watchout – Run”! [demonstrating smooth joins] 142 Paweni: “Watch out – Run!”[spoken in monotone] 143 Teacher: Doesn’t sound like you’re yelling. Try it again. “Watch Out – Run!” 144 Paweni: “Watch out – Run”! [drama in voice, but pronunciation still unclear]. 145 --------------------------------------------------------153 Paweni: “Watch out – [short pause to look down at script] Watch out – Run!”

- 186 -


154 Teacher: “You’ve only got three words to remember!” [frustrated voice] “Watch out run.” You don’t need to look at it! [the script] When the teacher asked the boys if they can hear Paweni clearly, Sean and David refused to criticise Paweni’s speech (Line 105-106). The teacher corrected Paweni’s early approximations of the linguistic speech text, later acknowledging overtly that English is a second language for Paweni (Line 107). After multiple unsuccessful rehearsals, the teacher implored that Paweni should be able to remember three words without referring to the script (Line 154). Paweni came to school with a marginalised language and dialect, and this affected the way she performed and was judged (Cook-Gumperz, 1986, p.8). Marginalised learners like Paweni are expected to acquire mainstream discourses extremely late in their education. These students required explicitness or meta-knowledge to make them consciously aware of what they are being called upon to do (Gee, 1996). Extant sociocultural research has drawn attention to the need for literacy pedagogy to make use of students’ existing competencies and familiarity with literacy events as a resource, moving them systematically toward capability with the powerful literate practices that are essential for community life, scholastic achievement and occupational access (Anstey & Bull, 2004a). It was observed on many occasions that students of the dominant, AngloAustralian ethnicity worked to include ethnically marginalised students in collaborative tasks. For example, Paweni’s peers recognised that she had a special ability to design two-dimensional visual elements to communicate meaning effectively. They began to give her a key role in movie backdrop designing to utilise her existing cultural resources for visual designing. The following example, highlights the inclusive way in which ethnically dominant peers were able to recruit Paweni’s use of existing cultural resources during backdrop designing. 275 Paweni: That’s more big. [starts to erase] Here. Here. [Paweni uses a ruler to measure a wider, straighter road.] 276 -------------------------------------------------------277 David: Paweni – that road’s too big. 278 Sean: Very …big. 279 Rhonda: Way, way, way, way, way, too big! 280 --------------------------------------------------------- 187 -


281 282 283 284

Sean: Can we just turn it over? David: No [there is paint on the back]. Sean: Can we turn it over? Paweni: Wait – too big! [Paweni rubs out the lines as others watch].

In this example, Paweni initially confused the comparative form of the adjective “bigger” or “too big” with “more big” (Line 275). Her culturally dominant peers accepted Paweni’s approximation. They understood Paweni’s difficulty with English speech patterns and intentionally demonstrated three alternative comparative forms “too big”, “very big”, and “way too big”, speaking slowly and with repitition to build her repertoire of linguistic resources (Lines 277-279). The peers succeeded in scaffolding her speech to enable her to gain access to the discourse in an inclusive way, demonstrated by Paweni’s response. She chose a suitable comparative form, “too big” (Line 283). Paweni’s language was an invitation to other children to anticipate with her in sense making, to achieve solidarity with her – and they readily accepted this invitation. 5.7.2 Dominant Discourses The following section contrasts the previous examples of marginalised discourses with the successful use of dominant discourses. The support teacher focused the attention of two Anglo-Australian, middle-class girls on the required script for their claymation movie entitled “The Case of the Disappearing Pimples”. Transcript 13 927 Support Teacher: What are you saying? --928 Shani: She’s…she’s going to take the person who has pimples who is [acted by] Nalee… she’s going to take her to the shops to buy all…stuff. 929 Tenneile: Yeah 930 Teacher: Ok. And what are …what are you going to say? “Let’s go to the shops…” 931 Tenneile: “Do you want to put something on to… um, to try this stuff on your face?” 932 Shani: And um… 933 Support Teacher: “Do you want to get some of this stuff on your face?” Is that a nice job for the preppies? [preparatory school audience] Prep school are age five. Are you going to have them listening to you saying, “Are you going to come and get this stuff?” No! 938 Shani: No, you would say, “Would you like… to come to the shops and buy some of the … cosmetics?” 939 Support Teacher: “Some cosmetics!”

- 188 -


The support teacher expected the girls to design a verbatim script for their movie, and began to model the required discourse (Line 930). The teacher initially questioned the “appropriateness” of Tenneile’s informal discourse in terms of its suitability for the instructive purpose of the text (Line 933). The girls demonstrated familiarity with the appropriate classroom discourse by constructing “standard” English speech, which satisfied the support teacher (Lines 938-939). 940 Support Teacher: Good. Ok. And what else is going to be said? 941 Tenneile: And then, “Do you want to buy some fruit?” 942 Support Teacher: At the, at the…at… Oh, I see! [Observes backdrop of a supermarket] 943 Ricki-Lea: We’re also got a party…there’s a big party! 944 Support Teacher: By gee! You’re leaving your work extremely late! 945 Support Teacher: Well, you need to really, really, really…I don’t know… I don’t know how on earth you’re going to …[finish everything] 946 Shani: Miss Taylor said, um… 947 Tenneile: We’ve got a lot of time. We’ve been working really hard. 948 Support Teacher: Oh, Ok. Ok. That’s fine. The tension in this interaction was resolved when the girls used their knowledge of the dominant, secondary discourses of the classroom to appeal to the normative power of the teacher (Line 946). They also made recourse to values of Western schooling: “We’ve got a lot of time”, and “We’re working really hard” (Line 947). The girls were able to access the literacies required through their familiarity with the dominant discourses, and were successful in satisfying the expectations of the support teacher. There is a sense in which the support teacher’s interaction with the girls mirrored conversations between parent and child in Anglo-Australian homes. These interactive “fill-in-the-blank” activities required building toward more descriptive and lexically explicit detail. The girls drew from the practices built in to their homebased culture – practices that resonated with a certain type of schooling. Shani and Tenneile were not overtly aware of the IRE scheme in school-based literacy practice, but they were experts in engaging in the sorts of adult-child verbal scaffolding expectations demonstrated in the above conversation. These culturally and linguistically dominant students were able to organise the required text within the parameters of the secondary discourses of the school. This is

- 189 -


because they have a life-long history of apprenticeship in the social practice of schooling and ways of making sense of experience. This enculturation or apprenticeship has given them certain forms of language, ranging from linguistic resources to familiarity with the process of schooling. These forms of language encapsulate meanings shared and lived by the dominant social group (Bull & Anstey, 2003a; Gee, 1992). Culturally and linguistically dominant students were consistently able to report on their work to satisfy the expectations of the teacher. They were selected to become spokespersons for groups. They gained control of classroom discussions by raising their hands – “Warren, I see your hand up – you’re in control.” Such ways of acting and speaking in the multiliteracies classroom were considered successful by the teacher. Dominant students gained rewards, praise and power in directing whole class discussions because they sat upright with their hands on their heads and assumed other required postures. The teacher made the following statements in varied contexts: “Everybody turn to face him please”, “Wait until everybody is sitting on their bottoms, and actually look like listeners please,” and, “Thanks to those people who are sitting up nicely ready to listen.” Through such mechanisms, dominant students frequently gained greater access to multiliteracies than those who were less familiar with social and cultural expectations within the classroom. Dominant students also reproduced the secondary discourse of the classroom to control interactions among their peers.

For example, Julie used imperative

statements to direct peers such as, “You better move along then.” When asked to give an account of their progress to the teacher, David satisfied the teacher’s expectations with the dominant discourse, “We’re on task”. Language alone was not important, but a combination of being the right kind of person, saying and doing the right kinds of words and actions, as well as gestures, body positions and even grooming. Making sense in this multiliteracies classroom required appropriate listeners and readers, speakers and designers within this institutional context, recruiting meaning value-laden ways (Gee et al., 1996).

- 190 -


In contrast, Paweni, Ted, and their ethnically marginalised peers, did not have mastery of the school-based social practice, with its ways of interacting, talking, thinking, and valuing that the school and mainstream culture rewards (Gee, 1992). They did not yet have time to “pick up” these skills as concomitant to the apprenticeship process, because they had not been socialised into the required ways of being in the classroom that were intimately connected to the social identity of dominant culture. Dominant learners succeeded in this immersion environment because they knew the hidden rules of the game. Outsiders to the cultures of literacy and power did not. In this social and political context, access to the spectrum of multiliteracies was limited. These findings indicate that when the teacher enacted her conception of the multiliteracies pedagogy, not all learners had access to all meanings. Rather, meanings were distributed along overlapping lines of ethnicity, socio-economic status, and degree of familiarity with the dominant discourses (Kress, 1993a). This teacher’s translation of the multiliteracies pedagogy to classroom practice was not exempt from being implicated in the reproduction of class relations,

because

ethnically marginalised students were unable to draw from their existing cultural resources (Fairclough, 1989). In contrast, dominant students who were familiar with the discourses of Western schooling gained greater access to multiliteracies than their marginalised counterparts. This raises important issues for teachers who wish to avoid these pitfalls and who desire to enact the multiliteracies pedagogy as successfully as its proponents intended. The New London Group theorises that equitable access requires the negotiation and respect of diverse cultures and prior experiences of students, and this may require that the dominant group or institution is itself transformed. Education must start with the recognition of lifeworld experience and use that experience as a basis for extending what children know and can do. The multiliteracies pedagogy was intended to “provide access without children having to leave behind or erase their different subjectivities” (New London Group, 2000, p.18). Regarding the conditions of equity, Kalantzis and Cope (2000a, p.122) maintain that an educational system is required that does not favour or reward some life experiences over others.

- 191 -


Therefore, there was a need to give attention to the inclusiveness of classroom discourses, rather than concentrating only upon the pedagogic structure of lessons (situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing, and transformed practice) and the multiliteracies design elements.

The proximity of cultural and linguistic

diversity today necessitates that the language of classrooms must change.

When

enacting the multiliteracies pedagogy, the multiple discourses of students should be valued in classrooms that are characterised by a supportive cultural community. Ultimately, there is a need to reassess selective traditions that are implicit in the discourses that may persist when enacting the multiliteracies pedagogy, transforming them in the interests of marginalised groups. The clientele of schools is increasingly diverse, calling for the system-wide transformation of dominant, secondary discourses to enable the provision of access to multiliteracies for all students. There is a need for the continued, informed revaluation of educational discourses in relation to the ever-changing place and potential of literacies (Cazden, 1988). 5.8 Summary of Chapter Five This chapter has contextualised, reported and analysed findings in relation to the research question concerning the affects of pedagogy, power and discourse on the learners’ access to multiliteracies. A key findings was that the teacher’s existing monomodal pedagogies and their associated discourses prohibited certain learners from gaining access to the multiliteracies. Monomodal writing pedagogies differentiated the curriculum for low-ability learners, failing to provide access to powerful, multimodal and nonlinear textual practices used in society outside of school. The teaching materials predetermined the semantic elements of writing, limiting the diversity of meanings among the learners’ designs. Students were unable to demonstrate the knowledge process “applying creatively” in relation to their use of available resources for meaning making (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). Grammar lessons taught only to low-ability learners did not permit access to culturally and linguistically diverse textual practices, because direct instruction was

- 192 -


used to teach the grammar of “Standard” English. This worked against cultural inclusiveness, marginalising students who were not of the dominant, AngloAustralian, middle-class culture. Again, the transfer of literacy practice to genuine literacy situations outside the classroom was impeded, prohibiting access to realworld forms of meaning making.

During screen-based lessons, the practice of ability grouping and its associated routines worked to distribute digitally mediated textual practices to students who were the most proficient in these discourses, while disenfranchising those who were not. Pedagogies of the typographic age, such as “typing” from handwriting written drafts, confined word processing to a lengthy, linear, and repetitive process of designing, instead of allowing for digitally-mediated, non-linear, multimodal designing reflective of textual practices in workplaces and society (Kress, 2000a). 2.1.2 Transmissive versus Progressive Approaches In these ways, the reversion to existing monomodal pedagogies prohibited access to multiliteracies, particularly for students in the low-ability group who were ethnically and socio-economically marginalised. In relation to the four components of the multiliteracies pedagogy, it was found that situated practice was used for sustained periods during movie set and character designing.

There was a paucity of expert scaffolding from peers, books,

technologies or the teacher during situated practice. Learners invested excessive time pursuing design constraints, and were unable to understand three-dimensional, visual and spatial designs of meaning (“experiencing the new”) (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). Most importantly, ethnically and socioeconomically marginalised learners benefited least from the implicit teaching methods. The isolated use of teacher-centred transmission as overt instruction was not sufficient for learners to transform meaning-making resources to create storyboards. Students’ “conceptualising” and “experiencing” was constrained because complex relations between camera angles and the dimensions of movie sets required the amalgamation of situated practice and overt instruction (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005).

- 193 -


Those who were least able to access new designs of meaning were groups comprised of learners from the low-ability stream who were ethnically and socioeconomically marginalised. During critical framing, learners were successfully guided to analyse the author’s purpose, intended audience, and implicit values of various multimodal texts (“analysing critically”). They were encouraged to challenge rather than reproduce the author’s ideological assumptions. Learners began to analyse camera angles, facial expressions, lighting, music, sound effects, moving images, picture book illustrations and so forth, in relation to their overarching social contexts and purposes (“analysing functionally”) (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). Most importantly, learners were able to combine both forms of analysis – critical and functional – to the cultural purposes and meanings of their own claymation movies (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005, p.21). The teacher’s enactment of transformed practice engaged with the divergent lifeworlds of students with varying degrees of inclusion and transformation, ranging from discernable reproduction (“applying appropriately”), to substantial innovation (“applying creatively”) (Cope, 2000; Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). Certain students had a greater distance to travel because of the degree of mismatch between their worlds of everyday lived experience, and the shared meanings within the dominant culture and the school (Cope, 2000; Kalantzis & Cope, 2000a). In relation to power, it was found that the enactment of coercive power worked as a form of domination, selectively excluding five boys from certain forms of multiliteracies. Monomodal literacies became the sanction for the boys’ resistance to the dominant discourses of the classroom, in the context of unequal power relations between students and teachers (McLaren, 1994; Willis, 1977). The monomodal literacies were not equal to the multimodal, digitally mediated textual practices that the boys were excluded from in terms of the social goods that are accorded to these forms of literacy in society (Bull & Anstey, 2003a). The analysis of classroom discourses demonstrated that Sudanese, Indigenous Australian, Tongan and Thai students were unable to draw from their existing - 194 -


cultural resources because of the restrictions upon the use of their primary discourses (Gee, 1996). Secondary discourses of the classroom were more accessible to children from Anglo-Australian, middle-class backgrounds, because these discourses were congruent with learners’ experiences outside of school (Gee, 2000a). Ethnically marginalised students were unfamiliar with rules for collaborative designing, and required clearly communicated expectations. To conclude, the analysis of the lesson observations demonstrated that not all students were permitted to access multiliteracies that are affiliated with the designs of meaning used in society outside of school (New London Group, 1996). The students who successfully drew upon new designs of meaning were those with existing cultural knowledge, affluence and social power, while ethnically and socioeconomically marginalised groups were disenfranchised. In this respect, the school reproduced existing inequities of class, power and identity. The successful enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy required more than simply adding multimodal and digital forms of meaning making to an existing repertoire of monomodal pedagogies and textual practices. It required more than the enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy – situated practice, overt instruction, situated practice and critical framing – as if it constituted a linear hierarchy or isolated stages (New London Group, 2000, p.32). What was required was the enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy in a way that related the pedagogical components in complex ways, with elements of each occurring simultaneously, repeatedly revisited at different levels of meaning making. More importantly, what was required was a recognition that different designs of meaning available to students were located in different cultural contexts. Ultimately, there was a need for the reflexive use of pedagogies, discourses, and power to allow for the infinite variability of different forms of meaning making. These differences relate to the cultures, subcultures, and identities that the multiliteracies design elements were intended to serve (New London Group, 2000, p.36). In this way, designing can restore human agency and cultural dynamism for all students. It is only then that the interrelated, multilayered, complementary, and

- 195 -


increasingly divergent lifeworlds of students can become ideally creative, and flourish as responsible makers of meaning (New London Group, 2000). Chapter Six presents the discussion and interpretation of findings using systems analysis, a powerful element in the interpretation of results in critical ethnography.

- 196 -


Chapter Six – Intersections of Agency, Structure and Access 6.0 Introduction Chapter Six is the reporting and explanation of complex systems relations that influenced the distribution of the students’ access to multiliteracies. Specific evidence is sought for patterned activity or system relationships existing between the events observed in the classroom and those in other related sites. Giddens’ (1984) structuration theory is applied to examine relationships discovered between the micro-level factors in the classroom, and the macro-level factors in the wider social system that enabled or constrained access to multiliteracies. The analysis of systems relations reinforces the validity of this critical ethnography, because the dominant societal structures which distribute power and privilege are explored. Thus, the classroom is not seen as existing independently of the social system (Carspecken, 1996, p.38). The measure of economic, symbolic and political power of the most significant actors – principal, teacher, and students – were key explanatory factors of the research question, restated here: What specific interactions between pedagogy, power and discourse affect students’ access to multiliteracies within a culturally and linguistically diverse classroom group? This analysis of systems relations emerges from the data obtained from the semistructured interviews with the principal, teacher, and students, supported by lesson transcripts and journal notes where applicable. The semi-structured interview schedules, presented with detailed justification in Chapter Four (4.6.2), systematically inquired about domination, signification, and legitimation structures in the school that potentially affect access to multiliteracies. These analytic themes are located in Giddens’ (1984) structuration theory, theorised in Chapter Three (3.3). During the pilot study, systems relations were identified as possible influences on the distribution of access to multiliteracies in the classroom, and were further investigated during the research (See Figure 6.0).

- 197 -


Figure 6.0 Systems Relations Investigated in the Study

As shown in Figure 6.0, the analysis of systems relations in this study involved investigating the problem of access to multiliteracies within the: a) classroom, b) school, c) local community, and d) state, national, and global systems. These timespace zones guides the systematic selection and reporting in this chapter, of systemic factors relevant to the problem of access. The following table summarises the most significant systems relations discovered concerning the distribution of access to multiliteracies, which are expanded upon in this chapter (See Table 6.0).

- 198 -


Enabling & Constraining Structures Affecting Access School System

Actor: Principal

Principal Interview Classroom Actor: Teacher/s

Teacher Interview

Domination

Signification

Prioritised professional development for teachers in multiliteracies Prioritised human & material resources for teaching multiliteracies Limited structures to ensure that knowledge & material resources for multiliteracies were utilised by all teachers Principal was limited by inadequate state funds for human resources (e.g. ESL teachers) Q. 1 b, c Q. 4a-c, f-g Q.10 a

Principal encouraged students to draw upon their own cultural symbols in events that were embedded in the institutional structure (e.g. Sudanese dances) Principal deferred control of signification structures in classrooms, such as a “pedagogy”, to teachers resulting in uneven access to multiliteracies Q.10 b-d Q.6 a-b

Accessed grant and professional development for teaching multiliteracies Member of school committees to gain greater access to resources for multiliteracies Limited by inadequate funds for ESL students and multimedia technology Initiative to access resources for teaching multiliteracies varied among teachers Q.1, b, c Q.4. a-c, f-g Q. 5.a, c, e

Ability grouping distributed different literacies in a marginalising way – low ability groups received monomodal rather than multimodal literacies, and transmissive pedagogies rather than the multiliteracies pedagogy.

Q. 6a-b Q. 2b Q. 3c Lesson Transcripts Coded for Pedagogy

Table 6.0 Systems Relations Affecting Access to Multiliteracies

Legitimation Principal initiated the teaching of multiliteracies by informal norms (e.g. verbal encouragement) and formally through unit planning requirements Both forms of legitimation structures had a limited degree of power to ensure that students gained access to multiliteracies. Q.2 a-c Q.3 a-b Dialectic of control between formal sanctions and student resistance to rules resulted in exclusion from digital designing for economically marginalised boys

Q.2 a-c Q.3 a-c Lesson Transcripts Coded for Power & Discourses

- 199 -


Domination Local System Actors: Students

Student Interview State & National Systems Actors: Policy Makers Administrators

Principal & Teacher Interview System Reproduction

Interviews

Limited access to allocative resources for multimodal designing in homes (economic conditions of action) resulted in uneven access to multiliteracies at school

Q. 2d Q. 3a Q. 7a State resources to support high numbers of ESL students (e.g. Sudanese refugees) and Aboriginal students constrained access to multiliteracies for culturally diverse students

Signification Language and dialects drawn upon by students at home differed to the school for ethnically marginalised students, resulting in different degrees of agency to access multiliteracies at school. Q. 11 a-c, f Q. 12 a-b Q. 13 a-d National use of English as dominant language constrained ESL students but enabled AngloAustralians

Legitimation Rules and norms for reading, writing, and multimodal designing varied among students, resulting in differing degrees of power to access multiliteracies at school. Q. 3a, 4a, 5a Q. 14 a-h State government initiatives for teaching multiliteracies were formalised over time in the school, increasing access but could not ensure the teaching of multiliteracies across all classrooms because of time-space distance Principal Q.3 a-c Teacher Q. 3.a-c

Principal Q.4 f-g, Q. 11a, Classroom Observation Q.10 e Teacher Q.4 f-g, Q.11 a, Q.10 e Domination: Inadequate state government allocative and authoritative resources for ESL and Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander students contributed to system reproduction of marginalisation Domination: Economic marginalisation in homes constrained access to multiliteracies at school Signification: Students in low-ability groups received transmissive pedagogies and monomodal literacies, while others received interactive pedagogies and multiliteracies. Composition of the groups reflected marginalisation in wider society and will potentially constrain their future employment. Signification: Students with different languages and dialects at home had differing degrees of agency to access multiliteracies at school Legitimation: The dialectic of control between the classroom sanctions and student resistance resulted in exclusion from multiliteracies. Students excluded were of economically marginalised, reproducing patterns in wider society. Differentiated literacies will potentially constrain their future employment. Principal Q. 9, a-f Teacher Q.9, a-f Student Q. 3a, 4a, 5a ,Q.12 a-d, Q. 11a-c, f, Q. 13a-d, Q. 14a-h

Table 6.0 Systems Relations Affecting Access to Multiliteracies

- 200 -


6.1 Domination and Access to Multiliteracies This section reports the most salient system relations discovered between domination structures and the distribution of access to multiliteracies in the classroom, based on repeated themes in the coding of the semi-structured interview data. System links within each section of this report are addressed in order of the principal’s role within the school system, the teacher’s role in the classroom, factors within the state and national systems, and lastly, the students’ lives within their homes in the local community. 6.1.1 Domination in the School System Within the school, the principal was the most strategically placed actor, having power to prioritise economic resources to meet competing sectional interests in the school, such as between the Key Learning Areas (subject disciplines). He determined the proportion of allocative resources for multiliteracies within the confines of the total school budget, which in turn, was allocated by the Queensland Department of Education. In order to advance the teaching of multiliteracies in the school, he reflexively drew upon domination structures, both allocative (material) and authoritative (human) resources (Giddens, 1984). Two important allocative resources provided for the teaching of multiliteracies included professional development for teachers and new technologies to broaden the multiliteracies taught in the school. When asked about his role in the development of teaching multiliteracies in the school (Q. 1c) the principal responded: I see my role is to encourage teachers to take professional development (PD) opportunities in multiliteracies presented to them. Information about a range of PD opportunities comes through the school. I screen them, and then select the ones of greater importance, inviting teachers to attend. Secondly, I encourage teachers to use the resources that are provided to them. There is no point encouraging teachers if you don’t provide the resources to support them. So I encourage teachers to include new literacies by purchasing new technologies or the tools to teach. Since the beginning of the principal’s tenure, the range of multiliteracies made available to students in the school had increased. The principal and teacher, in their respective interviews, reported this partial transformation of the school structure. When asked what developments had occurred since the beginning of his tenure in

- 201 -


relation to providing opportunities for children to use multiliteracies (Q. 1b), the principal responded: In the area of resources, we have purchased more computers, software, a digital camera, a data projector, a retractable screen --- We always review our reading program each year and redevelop it with new resources to complement new programs. Education Queensland gives us certain curriculum imperatives and we have to rewrite our school based program for our SAROP (School Annual Reporting Operational Planning). ---The new literacy curriculum includes such changes as incorporating more multiliteracies. The principal was concerned about providing all students with access to a wider range of multiliteracies in the school. This concern was based on his knowledge of the state educational policies and state government professional development initiatives, such as Literate Futures (Anstey, 2002). This was confirmed by the teacher who reported that the following changes in the school had extended access to multimodal and culturally and linguistically diverse textual practices (Q. 1a): We’ve had a lot of staff in-services on multiliteracies this year, so there’s a huge awareness…and it’s a big push at the moment. So we’ve had a lot of professional development. Mainly this year--- Oh, the new Literate Futures have started, so I in-serviced the whole staff on that… We’ve also had the purchase of a new digital camera, the projector screen --buying of new resources, the computer lab being set up in the library. So we’ve now got fifteen or so computers in the library. We’re getting a laptop, and a second digital camera, because there’s a need for it. We’ve spent a lot of money on books, listening posts---lots of Big Books! The librarian is very aware of Aboriginal children, making sure we have enough books to cater for them, because we have a fairly high Aboriginal population here. And we do have quite a few books and movies and DVD’s that have the subtext in other languages. Our ESL teacher is constantly bringing resources for us to share and use in our classrooms to cater for those differences. Another significant domination structure within the school system was the principal’s allocation of authoritative resources (human) to support access to multiliteracies among the large cohort of students for whom English was a second language (ESL). Many of these were Sudanese refugees whom the teacher described as often “fresh off the boat”. The families of these students were non-English speaking, increasing the complexity of providing access. The principal channelled funds into two areas of support for culturally and linguistically diverse students.

- 202 -


When asked what special provisions are made for children of ESL, bilingual, and linguistically diverse students in the school, he replied (Q. 10a): There are two main ways. The first is through the ESL teacher and teacher aids who are there to provide special provision for these students. This includes for some students, one-on-one English instruction, and for others, whole group classes for ESL students. The second way is through the classroom teachers. Because ESL and Indigenous students are integrated throughout the school from grades one to seven, there are students with special language needs in every class. The teachers are given professional development and classroom resources to develop their planning and teaching methods to respond to these language needs. We have a Reading Recovery teacher, and STLD’s (Support Teacher for Learning Difficulties). We also have an Extensive Innovative Program (EIP) using teacher aids, mainly in literacies. I include numeracy when I say “literacy”. However, the principal’s agency to draw upon domination structures to extend the teaching of multiliteracies was constrained by the state Department of Education. There was inadequate funding for human resources to support the large cohort of culturally and linguistically diverse students in the school. This will be further addressed in relation to domination structures within the state and national system (6.1.3). 6.1.2 Domination in the Classroom The teacher exercised agency by drawing upon domination structures, such as an educational grant, to attain professional development in multiliteracies. When asked what role she had played to further the teaching of multiliteracies in the school, the teacher responded: Because I had the multiliteracies scholarship [grant], I used it to receive a lot of professional development. ---I created a multiliteracies unit on claymation movies--- that’s been showcased in Canberra. Lots of people have come into my classroom to watch it so… I’ve had quite a bit to do with promoting multiliteracies. Another staff member and I ran an in-service for the staff this year, and with schools in the local district. This use of economic resources transformed her ability to reflect on the routine social practices of classroom life, and more importantly, to change them. This consciousness of multiliteracies caused the teacher to move from the level of routine action to reflexive discursiveness (Giddens, 1984). Accordingly, the teacher changed some aspects of her pedagogical patterns of action in the light of new information.

- 203 -


Her degree of discursive consciousness was linked to the degree of power available to her to incorporate the new pedagogy and broaden the range of multiliteracies taught in her classroom. Furthermore, she became a catalyst for promoting the teaching of multiliteracies across other schools in the system. The teacher also affiliated herself with the school’s English and Information Technology Curriculum Committees, entitling her to greater control of allocative resources for teaching multiliteracies. I’m on the ICT and English committees. I put myself there…I nag them until I get things like the lap top.--- I put out my own survey two weeks ago. I created one asking: What software do you use already? What do you plan to use next year? What’s your wish list? The teacher requested, obtained, and utilised new allocative resources such as software for digital movie making, a digital camera, data projector, and screen to transform existing social practices in the classroom. The teacher accessed domination structures through the exchange of allocative resources and knowledge with multiliteracies experts in other schools. Travelling to meetings or communicating via the internet was a regular occurrence. Such regionalised timespace paths differed among teachers in the school depending on their exercise of agency. The teacher exercised her agency to exceed resource allocations by observing when resources, such as class time on the computers, were not utilised by other teachers in the system. She often indicated that she would like to see other staff take more initiative in teaching multiliteracies. Therefore, while the principal had increased levels of allocative and authoritative resources for multiliteracies, he was unable to regulate their consistent use by teachers within the school. An important by-product of these interactions was the system reproduction of existing levels of students’ access to multiliteracies in some classrooms. 6.1.3 Domination in the State and National Systems While greater levels of state funds were provided for teaching ESL (e.g. Sudanese) and Aboriginal students than culturally dominant students, the principal and teacher both reported system constraints in this area. For example, when asked if political

- 204 -


and economic factors outside of his control have an effect on the resource allocation for culturally and linguistically diverse students, the principal responded (Q. 4g): Principal: Yes – I work within a given budget. Researcher: Is it adequate or can it be improved? Principal: The provisions for culturally and linguistically diverse students could be improved. I’d like to see our grade one ESL students, of which we have four at the moment, have the opportunity for a whole day of ESL – intensive English classes per week. I think it’s important for the younger ones to have this support during the early years at the school, which will benefit them in later years. Triangulation of the principal and teacher interview responses confirmed that domination structures at the state level constrained access to resources to support culturally diverse students. When asked whether political or economic factors beyond the teacher’s control have an effect on the resource allocation for multiliteracies in the school, the teacher replied: Teacher: Yes – We can’t have inspiration beyond our budget! Researcher: Is this from sources beyond the principal? Teacher: Yes – completely! Every year our budget keeps getting smaller and smaller. Even this year, our teacher-aid time has been slashed in half, with less teacher-aid time again. It’s to do with the government overspending and they’re trying to cut back. So they’re cutting back on human resources. Thus, there was inadequate federal and state funding for the large cohort of Sudanese refugees, Aboriginal, and Torres Strait Islanders, who required particularly high levels of support to access multiliteracies. Neither the principal nor teachers in the school had sufficient transformative capacity to ensure that access to multiliteracies was distributed fairly to all students. This was because the scope of power and possibility of utilising domination structures is determined by the kind and amount of allocative and authoritative resources present, and these were inadequate (Kaspersen, 2000, p.70). 6.1.4 Domination in the Local System The analysis of domination structures within the local system, in particular, in students’ homes, was another pertinent area of investigation. Data from the four student interviews provided evidence that economic conditions of action in each of the students’ homes constrained their access to multiliteracies at school. For example, when each of these students were asked to compare opportunities for digital designing at school and at home, all reported that opportunities were better at

- 205 -


school. The Indigenous Australian and Tongan students did not have access to a computer at home, while the Sudanese and Anglo-Australian students both reported that they could “do better things at school” because of the software and the teacher. Furthermore, none of the students interviewed had internet access at home. A consistent classroom observation was that the students who were least able to access multimodal designing at school did not own computers. The teacher observed that students’ home computer ownership contributed to their multimodal designing at school, which supported this finding. Home computer ownership is a huge factor! Most of the children in my class don’t own computers at home. At the beginning of the year, some of them were quite scared that they might blow it up or something. They thought they’d get lost, and were quite unsure about it. Those children who did have computers at home were just so much more confident and faster. Even with things like manipulating the mouse, their confidence was quite high (Q. 9a). Similarly, the principal identified this system link between the uneven distribution of economic resources in homes and its constraint on multimodal designing at school. When the researcher asked: Have you noticed any diversity in the way students access the computer facilities in the primary school? he replied: (Q. 9a) Yes, I think that the children who have computers at home tend to really benefit most from the computers at the school, because they are more aware of the capabilities of the tools. The children from poorer backgrounds, or that do not have computers at home, are less comfortable using computers, and perhaps benefit less. In this way, economic constraints in students’ home contexts had unintended consequences for the reproduction of differential access to multiliteracies in the school context. In some homes, the lack of power over allocative resources extended to basic needs such as food and safety. For example, a year two Sudanese refugee was asked to compare his new life in Australia with his life in Africa. Researcher: Did you like it in Sudan? Tawadi: [shakes head for negative response] Researcher: Do you like it better here? Tawadi: Yeah Researcher: Why? Tawadi: ‘cause they don’t have many, many food …and there…there’s more food [here]. Since arriving in Australia, Tawadi’s power over material resources, such as books and tools for textual production, was relatively limited. Similarly, an Indigenous Australian student was observed stealing a portion of cheese – supplied by peers for

- 206 -


a claymation movie – and pocketing it in his tracksuit for lunch. These students had minimal power to draw from allocative resources in their homes. This economic marginalisation was reproduced in the school where gaining access to material needs was more important to the students than learning. In the following transcript, supported by pragmatic horizon analysis, the teacher commented reflexively about the performance of economically marginalised students in standardised instruments for measuring literacy achievement (See Chapter 4.7.2 for an explanation of pragmatic horizon analysis and Chapter 3.1.2 for its underlying theory). Actors: Teacher to Researcher Date: 23.09.04 Time: 11:40 am Line: 268-273 In the teacher interview, the teacher drew attention to links between the requirements of the Department of Education, the school, and the home contexts of students. Teacher: But we get things like a “Please explain” from head office as to why we catch so many children [Teacher is reference to identifying children in the Year Two Diagnostic NET (2000)]. But they don’t really think about the economic…ah, you know, the families that they come from, and all the other social issues. So there are a lot of other things in these kids’ lives that we need to deal with. Possible Objective Claims

Quite foregrounded, Quite immediate Teacher: The state educational authorities do not take into account issues of social disadvantage when they interpret the state-wide, standardised literacy measures of year two students in this school, which have been questioned by state authorities. Highly Backgrounded, Remote, Taken-for-Granted Teacher: The state educational system is inadequate to deal with the complex social issues underlying literacy failure of students in the school, and the Department is attributing this failure to the performance of teachers and the school. Possible Normative-Evaluative Claims Foregrounded, Immediate Teacher: The school is accountable to state educational authorities in the institutional structure for standardised measures of literacy. The authorities have a moral imperative to take account of the social and economic context of the school clientele when they consider low literacy outcomes. The school should not be left to deal with these needs of students single-handedly, unsupported by the system. Possible Subjective Claims Quite foregrounded, Quite immediate Teacher: As a representative of this school, I feel unsupported and misunderstood in my role to enable my students – who are marginalised economically and socially – to reach the state average literacy levels, and to deal with the deeper social issues underlying this problem. Table 6.1.4 Pragmatic Horizon Analysis for Domination Structures in the Home

- 207 -


Therefore, several sources confirmed that the economic conditions of actions in the students’ homes constrained their access to multiliteracies at school. The unintended consequence was the reproduction in the classroom, of the marginalisation evident in the local community. In these ways, domination structures within the classroom, school, local community and state social systems were linked through a complex network of intentional human actions that served, through unintended consequences, to sustain and reproduce unequal access to multiliteracies. 6.2 Signification and Access to Multiliteracies System links between signification structures, that is, communication structures or modes of discourse, that were found to constrain or enable students’ access to multiliteracies, are reported here. These include factors such as the tacitly-grasped rules for classroom interactions, school routines and pedagogies. These symbolic structures were constantly invoked in the course of day-to-day activities, and structured the texture of school life (Giddens, 1984, p.23). 6.2.1 Signification in the School System Some provision was made for diverse students to draw upon their own symbols in cultural events that were embedded in the institutional structure. For example, the principal described institutionalised links that were made with a local Sudanese community: The school also encourages cultural groups, such as the Sudanese community, to use the school facilities, like the hall for Sudanese dance and other local Sudanese community events. All students are encouraged to be a part of this. It is especially important that Sudanese students and students from other cultures can still have avenues to use their own cultural language forms. However, the principal’s reflexive efforts to transform the symbolic routines of the school were exceptions to the customary structures of signification in the school. For example, while a large proportion of the students were bilingual or multilingual, the teachers were monomodal speakers of English. Consequently, English was the dominant language structure drawn upon by teachers and students.

- 208 -


The principal exercised limited power over the signification structures used in classrooms, such as teaching pedagogy. His response to the question “What kind of classroom structures, routines, systems or teaching practices do you encourage teachers to use to define the way children interact in the literacy classroom?” was circumspect. Principal: Teachers involve a whole range of practices to cater for different needs. This is all very much up to teachers. Researcher: What sorts of teaching practices do you see used in the school, and do they differ in any way from your ideals? Principal: Teachers are the decisive decision-makers. The principal deferred direct power to manage classroom signification structures to the agency of teachers, and this was supported by observing the principal’s infrequent presence in classrooms during formal teaching periods. Consequently, the implementation of the multiliteracies pedagogy was not regulated throughout the school. 6.2.2 Signification in the Classroom In the classroom, the most powerful signification structure influencing students’ access to multiliteracies was the symbolic practice of ability grouping for English lessons.

This institutionalised practice worked as a form of differentiation,

distributing different literacies to different students in a marginalising way (See Chapter 5.5). The following pragmatic horizon analysis highlights an unintended consequence of ability grouping. Actors: Journal Notes

Date: 29.04.04

Time: 2:15 pm

These are journal notes regarding the teacher’s reflections on a lesson with the lowability students. This lesson involved one hour of viewing claymation movies using a data projector. The teacher told the students the strengths and weaknesses of each movie as she showed each one. Students listened. The teacher apologised that the lesson was dominated by direct teaching without questioning sequences. However, she said that this was due to a lack of time because it takes longer to guide these low-ability students to come up with the correct answers. Normally she would be more interactive with the students, and draw the information from them rather than doing all of the analysis herself. She demonstrated use of questioning when she conducted the same lesson last week with the average-ability group. Possible Objective Claims Quite foregrounded, Quite immediate

- 209 -


The low-ability group requires more direct instruction and less guided questioning and interaction than the average-ability group. The low-ability group are more timeconsuming, and time is limited. Highly Backgrounded, Remote, Taken-for-Granted Low-ability students require more authoritarian forms of pedagogy. They should be told what to think rather than be guided to think for themselves, unlike average-ability students. Possible normative-evaluative claims Foregrounded, Immediate Low-ability groups require more direct instruction, and more time should be given to teachers to achieve the same outcomes with low-ability groups. Possible subjective Claims Quite foregrounded, Quite immediate I am trying my best to find the right teaching strategies for these low-ability students who take so long to understand when I use guided questioning. Table 6.2.2 Pragmatic Horizon Analysis for Signification in the Classroom

In this example, the teacher reasoned that the low-ability group should receive transmissive forms of pedagogy while the average-ability group should have guided questioning. This differentiation of the curriculum created the conditions for further marginalisation, because transmissive forms of instruction used to regulate the actions of students in the low-ability group did not equip them with the necessary thinking, decision-making, and communication skills that are required to transcend working class jobs. Most concerning is that the low-ability group in this study was comprised mostly of economically marginalised boys, and those who were ethnically marginalised, while the average-ability group was comprised of middleclass, Anglo-Australians. In other lessons, reported in Chapter Five, the institutionalised practice of ability grouping was used to distribute monomodal literacies such as the direct teaching of “Standard English” grammar rules exclusively to the low-ability group (See 5.5.15.5.2). Additionally, ability grouping during multimodal designing in electronic environments had the unintended consequence of distributing greater time-on-task for high ability students (See 5.5.3). Therefore, the signification structure of ability grouping, with its attendant distribution of exclusively monomodal literacies and transmissive pedagogy, created a non-reflexive feedback cycle or causal loop. The differential distribution of multiliteracies and pedagogies to differing groups served to sustain the social reproduction of disadvantage by reproducing, in the classroom, the patterns of marginalisation in the wider social system (Giddens, 1984).

- 210 -


6.2.3 Signification in the Local System Students’ differing degrees of familiarity with the dominant signification structures of the school was tied to the students’ divergent time-space paths in the local community outside of school. Ethnically marginalised students drew upon different symbolic orders than those employed in the school. For example, the teacher explained how Pawini, who had arrived in Australia the previous year, drew upon the meaning structures of her Thai language and culture at home. Pawini still speaks Thai at home almost full time at home with her mum. Because her mum, apparently, according to Dad who’s Australian [Anglo], says that mum has come to Australia, but wants desperately to go back to Thailand. She will not give up her Thai culture, and will not speak English. She’s not interested in fitting in. But when it comes down to her actually going back and physically living in Thailand, she won’t go because she likes the lifestyle she has now. So when Pawini is at home, she speaks Thai to her mum, and when she’s at school she speaks English. And that’s why I think Pawini is so far behind. Pawini’s lifeworld and home experiences were centred on the meaning or signification structures of her Thai culture, distantly separated from Australian society in time and space. For speakers of the dominant language, drawing upon the signification structures of English enabled them to achieve their intentions and desires. However, for ethnically and socio-economically diverse students, like Pawini, the requirement to use English, expressed by the teacher as “fitting in”, constrained them from expressing their needs at school (See Chapter 5.7.1). The teacher discussed similar cases of students who spoke subcultural dialects of English. If you look at Wooraba, his family are from New Zealand. Their grammar is just all back-to-front, compared to the way that I’m used to. He writes that way, and he speaks that way. Mum writes that way and speaks that way, and so does Grandma. There’s just no way I’m going to get him to break that habit. So when I’m conferencing a piece of work, he cannot pick up something – that it is grammatically incorrect. I try to explain it, but he still doesn’t use it, because he writes the way he speaks. That’s frustrating for me. But there’s not much I can do about it. Therefore, familiarity with the signification structures of the dominant culture played a potent role in either enabling or constraining the students’ possibilities for action in the classroom (Ritzer, 1992). These cases serve to illustrate how the students had widely varied structures of signification to draw upon, and thus, had entirely unequal access to multiliteracies at school.

- 211 -


6.3 Legitimation and Access to Multiliteracies Systems analysis of legitimation structures, that is, formal sanctions and informal norms to regulate social conduct, yielded important findings that both enabled and constrained access to multiliteracies (Giddens, 1984, p.18-19). For example, unit planning requirements were aimed to enable greater access to multiliteracies across the school. In contrast, classroom sanctions for rule-breaking constrained access to multiliteracies for some students. 6.3.1 Legitimation in the School System The semi-structured interviews for the principal and teacher investigated two kinds of legitimation structures – norms and sanctions – for enabling access to multiliteracies in the school (Q.2). The teacher was asked to describe how the principal demonstrated his expectations of teachers regarding the teaching of multiliteracies. He talks about multiliteracies and supports it in staff meetings. And he’s also on the ICT committee. So he’s quite supportive in that regard. He certainly makes a point of encouraging multiliteracies, and talks about it when teachers are doing it well. Unlike formal sanctions, these legitimation structures, which the principal drew upon to encourage the teaching of multiliteracies, were tacit and informal. These norms were reinforced by discursive, formal legitimation structures through unit planning requirements for teaching multiliteracies. The principal explained: I also encourage the incorporation of multiliteracies through the unit planning formats that we use. I have included a section in the unit framework that prompts teachers to address multiliteracies. These unit planning requirements established by the principal were used to bridge the distance between himself and the multiple school classrooms. However, the implementation of the unit plans was not monitored or sanctioned, and many teachers resisted efforts to transform existing curricula. The following pragmatic horizon analysis of an interview response illustrates the degree of effectiveness of these legitimation structures to ensure access to multiliteracies across the school.

- 212 -


Actors: Teacher and Researcher

Date: 5.12.’03

Time: 11:40 pm

The teacher discusses the effectiveness of legitimation structures for teaching multiliteracies in the context of an interview. 73

74 75 76 77

Teacher: But then it comes down to whether the teachers are comfortable using it or, or trialling it. You’ve still got teachers that nod and say “yes”, but then go and do what they’ve been doing for the last twenty years anyway. Researcher: So there’s no sort of controls on whether it actually happens? Teacher: No – there should be! (laughs) Researcher: Ok… all right. (laughs) Teacher: I think so (emphasis on “I”).

Possible Objective Claims Quite foregrounded, Quite immediate Teacher: There are teachers who say that they will teach multiliteracies, but in practice remain fixed in their previous pedagogies. Possible normative-evaluative claims Foregrounded, Immediate Teacher: Teachers should not only verbally affirm new multiliteracies pedagogy but they should seek to change their existing practice. Less Foregrounded, Less immediate Teacher: My colleagues should do more than just create a good impression to school authorities. They should change their pedagogy to meet the new state and school policy requirements for multiliteracies. Possible Subjective Claims Quite foregrounded, Quite immediate Teacher: Teachers who say that they will accept changes regarding multiliteracies pedagogy, but in practice remain fixed in their teaching pedagogies, personally frustrate me. Table 6.3.1 Pragmatic Horizon Analysis for Legitimation in the School

The unit planning and policy requirements for multiliteracies were intended to systematise the teaching of multiliteracies across the school, but the implementation of the curriculum ultimately depended on teacher agency. The unintended consequence of teachers failing to draw upon these legitimation structures, and choosing to continue their existing practices, was the uneven teaching of multiliteracies across the school. When asked how she saw the principal’s role in encouraging teachers who might be less interested in teaching multiliteracies, the teacher responded:

- 213 -


I think he needs to enforce that people are doing things, formalising it a little bit. He also need to continue supporting us by getting the resources that we need and the technology and the professional development. Therefore, a significant system link discovered was that both forms of legitimation structures – norms and sanctions – were established by the principal to regulate the teaching of multiliteracies in classrooms. However, these had a limited degree of power to ensure that students gained access to multiliteracies. 6.3.2 Legitimation in the Classroom It was discovered that classroom legitimation structures, in particular sanctioned modes of conduct, played a powerful role in the uneven distribution of multiliteracies. Chapter Five (5.6.1) described a series of incidents involving the teacher’s efforts to regulate the moral conduct of five rule-breaking boys. To summarise, the existing punitive sanctions in the classroom were unable to effectively regulate the conscious behaviour of the boys during claymation movie making lessons. The boys were increasingly disruptive and deliberately reduced their labour intensity, invoking the teacher to establish new sanctions tied to the use of coercive power (Carspecken, 1996; Giddens, 1984, p.15). The new sanctions limited the students’ choices to two actions. They could maintain productivity and follow the rules to gain access to claymation movie-making. Alternatively, they could choose to resist the rules and receive the sanctions; namely, to be denied access to claymation movie filming, sound production and digital editing. These circumstances of constraint should not be equated with the dissolution of agency. Even though power relations appear to favour the teacher, the students had the opportunity to exert counter-power (Giddens, 1984, p.129). The boys chose to resist the rules and the teacher chose to enact the sanctions. The sanctions are outlined in the words of a classroom poster, supported here by pragmatic horizon analysis to interpret the backgrounded and foregrounded meanings (See Table 6.3.2.1).

- 214 -


Actors: Permanent Text by Teacher Date: 7.06.’04 Time: 12:00 pm Line: 70 The following poster was displayed on the back wall of the classroom to make the enactment of sanctions for five boys – exclusion from claymation – overt and legitimate. Groups to Film Slip, Slop, Slap [Jack, Matthew, Mark, Nick], Inventing a Car [Jim, Bradley, Wooraba], Making A Healthy Sandwich [Ted, Darles, Julie], Junk Food Gives You Pimples [Shani, Raleigh, Tenneile, Malee], Look for Cars [David, Sean, Paweni, Rhonda]. Not filming as sets not complete on time: Breaking the News (You may display your work completed at book launch but not film). Not filming because of behaviour: Joshua, Jed, Warren, Jared, Simon

Possible Objective Claims Quite foregrounded, Quite immediate The students in the first list will film their claymation movie. The students in the second list will not film because they did not complete their work on time. The students in the third list will not film because they resisted the school rules for behaviour. Less foregrounded, Less Immediate The students will receive different privileges based upon their ability to meet norms (productivity) and sanctioned rules (moral behaviour). Possible normative-evaluative claims Less Foregrounded, Less immediate Students are required to follow the school rules for productivity and legitimate ways of behaving in the classroom. The teacher has the authority to withdraw the privilege of claymation movie making from the students who do not follow these boundarymaintaining requirements of the system. Highly Backgrounded, Remote, Taken-for-Granted Students should be differentiated from one another to distribute privileges fairly on the basis of student compliance with expected norms (productivity) and sanctioned rules (moral behaviour). (also) Filming claymation movies is a privilege that can be withdrawn from students who resist school rules. Possible Subjective Claims Quite foregrounded, Quite immediate I am a fair teacher. Table 6.3.2.1 Pragmatic Horizon Analysis for Legitimation in the Classroom

The direct consequence of these legitimation structures was the exclusion of five boys from powerful, multimodal literacies, such as digital photography, audio design, script production, digital editing and special effects (See Chapter 5.6.2).

- 215 -


Instead, the boys were kept occupied with monomodal literacy tasks, which were not situated meaningfully within the wider community (Gee, 2003). Prohibiting access to real world forms of meaning making for these socio-economically marginalised boys impeded the transfer of literacy practice to genuine literacy situations in society. Thus, the reproduction of differential access to multiliteracies was secured, and agency and structure became synergised to reproduce existing inequities of class, power, and identity. A longitudinal study would be required to prove the long-term effects of this marginalisation in the boys’ future working lives. However, there was some early evidence of this in this research. The following is a pragmatic horizon analysis of an interview transcript involving one of the five boys who received the sanctions. Actors: Joshua and Researcher

Date: 9. 09.’04 Time: 10:15 am

This transcript probes Joshua’s plans in the future world of work. Joshua has just explained that when he leaves school, he would like to do the same kind of work that his father does. 439 440 441 442 443 444

Researcher: Um, what does he [Joshua’s Father] do? Joshua: He makes garden hoses….pipes. Researcher: Right. Joshua: You know PPI? [Manufacturer]. Near Geebung. Working for the boss. Researcher: Ok. So is there anything else you might like to do…when you become an adult? Joshua: Work at MacDonald’s---Because they earn more.

Possible Objective Claims Quite foregrounded, Quite immediate I might work at McDonald’s when I become an adult because people who work there earn good money. Possible normative-evaluative claims Foregrounded, Immediate People who work at McDonald’s should be paid good money. Possible Subjective Claims Quite foregrounded, Quite immediate I would probably work at McDonald’s because I will earn money. Highly Backgrounded, Remote, Taken-for-Granted I am looking forward to leaving school and earning money to buy the things I want. Table 6.3.2.2 Pragmatic Horizon Analysis for Social Reproduction

- 216 -


Joshua, whose father worked as a labourer for a hardware manufacturing company, stated his desire to do the same kind of work as his father. When prompted by the researcher to think of alternatives, he stated that he would like to “work at McDonald’s” when he grows up because he imagines that he will “get more money”. In this way, the observed social practices in the school were connected to features of the society in general, and the wider system through which society’s inequitable conditions and structures are eventually realised (Giddens, 1984; Kaspersen, 2000). 6.3.3 Legitimation in the State and National Systems The Queensland Department of Education and professional development associations were also relevant structures of legitimation in this research. These structures made their power felt vis-à-vis multiliteracies via the Years 1-10 English Syllabus (Queensland Studies Authority, 2005), the Literate Futures initiative (Education Queensland, 2002), and the Learning by Design project by Kalantzis and Cope (2005). The teacher identified two forms of legitimation structures, namely, informal norms and formalised rules, that had contributed to the teaching of multiliteracies in the school, expressed in this statement: It’s both. In state-wide policies, such as the new Literate Futures, multiliteracies is a big focus. So it has been introduced formally, and all staff, well, in our district – at least, that I know of – have been in-serviced in it. The teacher continued to describe norms for teaching multiliteracies, such as the expectation to display students’ multimodal designs in hallways, and for teachers to share their curriculum ideas, expertise, and materials for teaching multiliteracies with other staff. The teacher described that legitimation structures authorising the implementation of multiliteracies across the school were in a process of becoming formalised over time. At the moment, a staff member and I are writing a reading policy, but we’re waiting for the new Literate Futures CD ROM to come out. Then it will be for all teachers: “Yes, you will be doing this”. We’ll also be getting a lot more inservice. Nothing is formal yet, but it’s in the pipeline to become formal. I think currently, teachers are just experimenting with what they can do with it [multiliteracies].

- 217 -


The effectiveness of formal legitimation structures was partially constrained by the enclosed nature of the school from outside agencies, such as the Queensland Department of Education. This was incurred by the nature of the school as a disciplinary organisation in which the intensity of surveillance inside the school – necessary to ensure the power of teachers over students – inhibits direct control from the agencies represented by the school (Giddens, 1984, p.139).

Consequently,

teachers were afforded a significant degree of autonomy from direct supervisory control of the state to regulate multiliteracies praxis. Therefore, legitimation structures, such as state-mandated policies, were becoming formalised over time, serving to increase the current levels of access to multiliteracies across the school. However, these formal legitimation structures were unable to completely overcome the absence of face-to-face interaction between the state Department of Education and the school, resulting in the uneven distribution of multiliteracies. 6.3.4 Legitimation in the Local System Differences between structures of legitimation in the students’ homes and those of the school were found to contribute to the differential distribution of access to multiliteracies among the students. For example, Table 6.3.4 compares the responses of four students to interview questions about rules and norms for engaging in multiliteracies at home.

- 218 -


Do you read at home? How often do you read? Do you write at home? Are there any rules about homewor k? Does anyone use the computer at home? What for?

Ted (Aboriginal) Not really

Darles (Sudanese)

Yes – chapter books and magazines

Joshua (Anglo) Sometimes

Yes – novels

[Could not name any reading materials] Na.

Every day

Once a month

Twice a week for 10 minutes

Yes – every day for at least 10 minutes. Homework, notes, letters, drawing 10 minutes of reading, 10 minutes of writing, and only watch our favourite TV shows because too much damages us.

I draw. Phone messages

Yes – stories and a diary after I finish my homework. (1 page or ½ hour). Yes – finish homework before watching TV. Read first

My brother uses it for homework. My Dad usually searches things on Arabic on the computer. My mum just uses it for typing.

My older sister teaches me how to do graphics.

If I have homework and I go to my uncle’s after school, I can’t do it because we don’t get home until midnight. I don’t know what they do. [Ted does not own a computer & lives with his Uncle, single mum and many cousins]

Do what I have to do (what the school says).

Malee (Tongan)

My Dad uses it and showed me how to send emails. Now I live with my Aunt and Uncle who don’t have a computer. My parents live in Tonga. Table 6.3.4 Comparison of Rules and Norms for using Multiliteracies at Home

The student interviews demonstrated that students’ day-to-day routines for reading, writing, and multimodal designing varied significantly, tied to differing family cultures and values. These findings were supported by the teacher’s reflections on the cultural differences of students in her year two class, and its relationship to the way in which digital multiliteracies were accessed in the school context. Culture – race – has a lot to do with it, because I know that Tawadi, who is an African child in my classroom, really struggles with computers. He just never gets exposed to it. And it’s not very important in his culture. Whereas, I’ve got a girl in my class who’s Korean, and her family are quite technology…focused. So she’s really quite good. She knows that it’s something…that’s important to her culture. These system links in the local community underscore the principle that students themselves did not exclusively invent their attitudes and uses of multiliteracies at school. Rather, they drew upon different legitimation structures and funds of experiences built into their lives outside of school, built up historically within their - 219 -


communities. The established norms and rules for multiliteracies in students’ homes and the attendant cultural dimensions of students’ lives were not the same, and thus, students had entirely unequal possibilities for action at school. This explains why students acted differently during multiliteracies lessons, and why rules and resources utilised in their actions were not the same for all (Kaspersen, 2000, p.163). In bringing their differing cultural experiences to bear on the school milieu, they reproduced the structures that maintained inequitable configurations of access to multiliteracies (Giddens, 1984). 6.4 System Reproduction of Access to Multiliteracies The sociological principle of system reproduction is a key factor to explain the differential access to multiliteracies among the culturally and linguistically diverse learners. System reproduction, that is, the repetition of the same actions and structures, worked through domination, signification, and legitimation structures in specific ways, discussed here to theorise the findings reported in this chapter. Firstly, system reproduction of differential access to multiliteracies operated through domination structures, both material and human resources, administered by the Queensland Government. The principal reflexively directed economic resources to purchase technological resources, professional development for teachers, and ESL teachers to extend current levels of access to multiliteracies. However, these economic resources were inadequate, particularly for the Sudanese refugees in the lower and middle primary who lacked the prerequisite language skills to participate fully in the social practices of the classroom. Thus, ESL students could not gain access to the powerful, digitally mediated and multimodal resources for meaning making that are required for their successful participation in society. In this way, domination structures within the state social system created conditions for the unequal distribution of multiliteracies, contributing to the social reproduction of disadvantage. Social reproduction through domination structures was also evident in relation to the unequal allocative resources for multiliteracies in students’ homes, such as new technologies for communication. These patterns of economic marginalisation limited the students’ power to take up multiliteracies in the classroom, reproducing in the

- 220 -


school, the marginalisation of their home contexts. The unintended consequences in the school had became a by-product of the regularised behaviour of the participants in their homes (Giddens, 1984). Secondly, system reproduction of differential access to multiliteracies occurred through structures of signification, in particular the practice of ability grouping. This institutionalised practice was a form of differentiation that distributed different literacies to different students in a marginalising way. The low-ability students received monomodal literacies and transmissive forms of pedagogy, while the average-ability group accessed interactive pedagogies and digitally mediated multiliteracies. System links to patterns of marginalisation in the wider society was apparent because the low-ability group was comprised of the ethnically and socioeconomically marginalised students, while the average-ability group was exclusively comprised of middle-class, Anglo-Australian students. Thus, ability grouping and its attendant distribution of multiliteracies served to sustain the social reproduction of disadvantage. Thirdly, system reproduction of the uneven distribution of multiliteracies worked through legitimation structures in the classroom. Formal sanctions used to regulate appropriate student behaviour militated against the boys from low socioeconomic backgrounds. In particular, the teacher drew upon formal sanctions – exclusion from claymation movie making – that were intended to deter students from classroom rule breaking. However, the sanctions failed to prevent the boys’ acts of resistance. The boys exercised their agency by applying their discursive and practical knowledge of the school environment to oppose the system. For example, the boys actively opposed the authority relations of the school and had a well-developed ability to identify points of weakness in the disciplinary power of the system. They found ways to escape the surveillance of the teacher in legitimate ways during formal lessons in the back regions of the school, such as the toilets. They spent extensive time drawing pictures instead of writing during the enactment of the sanctions. In this way, they applied their power to modify the sanctions for their immediate benefit,

- 221 -


demonstrating a form of oppositional agency often overlooked in the analysis of system reproduction in schools. Thus, there was evidence of a dialectic of control between the teacher and the boys, that is, a complex fusion of determinism (of the structure) and voluntarism (of the actors) (Kaspersen, 2000). These processes ultimately contributed to the system reproduction of marginalisation by distributing exclusively monomodal literacies to the socio-economically disadvantaged boys. Therefore, system reproduction was evident in the differential distribution of multiliteracies in the school, which was an unintended consequence of these specific system relations across the classroom, school, local community and wider society. 6.5 Summary of Chapter Six To conclude, the aim of this chapter has been to produce an explanation of access to multiliteracies observed in this study, which takes into account complex system relations, involving both agency and structure (Kaspersen, 2000). The principal, teacher, and students in this research contributed to the production and reproduction of the differential distribution of multiliteracies in the school through their actions as agents with purpose. The school, and the educational system more generally, were both a means and an outcome of their actions. In other words, actors drew upon institutional structures – resources, meanings, and rules – in a recursive way, shaping the conditions of their own actions (Giddens, 1984, p.2).

Thus, the

individual actions of the teacher and students were not determined by institutional structures. Rather, students had differential access to multiliteracies through a process whereby individual actions in the classroom simultaneously structured and were structured by the system (Kaspersen, 2000). The three interpretive criteria applied here – domination, signification, and legitimation – contributed to an explanation of why regionalised patterns of action in the classroom and wider social system were repeated, along with the unintended consequences that served to reproduce the uneven distribution of multiliteracies (Giddens, 1984, p.81, 84, 251; Kaspersen, 2000). Although the differential distribution of multiliteracies in the wider society was reproduced in school by the

- 222 -


intentional activities of policy makers, the principal, teachers, and students, it was not intended in that direction. Therefore, it is an aim of this research to raise the consciousness of those involved in multiliteracies praxis, to bring the intersections of agency, structure and access under a degree of positive, conscious guidance in the future.

- 223 -


Chapter Seven – Conclusion, Significance and Recommendations 7.0 Introduction This research investigated the question: What specific interactions between pedagogy, power and discourse affect students’ access to multiliteracies within a culturally and linguistically diverse classroom group? The historical problem of the distribution of literacies in the institution of schooling was re-examined in the context of a teacher’s enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy in the contemporary communications environment (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000b). This inquiry uncovered the workings of power in relation to the distribution of multiliteracies among a culturally and linguistically diverse year six classroom. The question was investigated by applying Carspecken’s (1996) critical ethnography, utilising monological and dialogical data obtained during eighteen days in the classroom over ten weeks. Data collection tools used during lesson observations included field notes, journal notes, continuous audio-visual and audio cassette recording, and cultural artefacts such as school-based curriculum documents, students’ work samples, and photographs. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the principal, teacher and four student participants of AngloAustralian, Indigenous, Tongan, and Sudanese ethnicity. Data analytic tools included low and high inference coding. Pragmatic horizon analysis, a critical ethnographic method of analysing verbatim speech, was applied to relevant segments of the data. Finally, systems analysis, which drew upon Giddens’ (1984) structuration theory, was used to situate the classroom data within the enabling and constraining powers of the wider social system. This final chapter of the thesis summarises the results, which are presented in two sections: a) Classroom Findings, and b) Systems Relations. A theoretical model for access to multiliteracies arises from this synthesis, presented diagrammatically and discursively. The significance of the study for multiliteracies policy and praxis is argued.

The chapter concludes with a discussion of the limitations and

recommendations of the research. - 224 -


7.1 Summary of the Study The students’ access to multiliteracies needs to be interpreted in light of the duality between the actions of students and the teacher, and the structures within the school and wider social system that enabled or constrained their action. These structures were economic (domination), cultural (symbolic), and political (legitimation). 7.1.1 Classroom Findings The analytic themes for classroom data – pedagogy, power and discourse – were drawn from the following theorists: a) New London Group’s (1996) multiliteracies pedagogy and Kalantzis and Cope’s (2005) Learning by Design model; b) Carspecken’s (1996) typology of power relations and McLaren’s (1993) theory of resistance; c) Gee’s (1996) social linguistic theory of discourse. Table 7.1.1 summarises the significant findings from the lesson data. The teacher’s existing monomodal pedagogies constrained access Monomodal writing pedagogies were used exclusively with the low-ability group, and did not reflect the powerful, multimodal practices used in society English grammar lessons were used to teach an exclusive language form to low-

Pedagogy

ability groups at the expense of a flexible, multimodal grammar During screen-based design, digitally mediated, multimodal textual practices were distributed to students who were the most proficient Using computers to type from handwritten drafts confined meaning making to a lengthy, linear, and repetitive process instead of non-linear designing. Sustained use of situated practice and need for expert scaffolding constrained access to multiliteracies Ethnically marginalised learners benefited least from implicit teaching

Overt instruction became teacher-centred transmission, which was not sufficient for learners to transform meaning making resources

- 225 -

Pedagogy (continued)


The enactment of critical framing enabled learners to critically analyse the underlying purposes, value and meanings of designs and to analyse functionally the structure, connections and context of design elements Transformed practice engaged with the lifeworlds of students with varying degrees of inclusion, from reproduction to innovation Students least able to access new designs of meaning were learners from ethnically and socio-economically marginalised groups

Power

Use of coercive power excluded five boys from digital, multimodal designing Monomodal literacies became a sanction for rule-breaking to replace digitally mediated, multimodal designing Students who were excluded were from low socio-economic backgrounds Ethnically marginalised learners were unable to draw from their cultural

Discourse

resources Secondary discourses of the classroom were more accessible to AngloAustralians Ethnically marginalised students were unfamiliar with rules for collaborative designing Ethnically marginalised students required clearer expectations

Table 7.1.1 Summary of Classroom Findings Findings concerning pedagogy demonstrated that the teacher frequently drew from existing monomodal practices for low-ability groups, while intending to implement the multiliteracies pedagogy. These monomodal writing pedagogies prohibited students from gaining access to the multimodal and culturally and linguistically diverse forms of meaning making. The exclusive and intensive focus on a set of invariable, linear writing steps neglected the learners’ potentials in other modes that are required to communicate powerfully in society. Furthermore, the students were unable to express their interests and purposes in designing, which was predetermined by the teacher within the broader institutional context of the school (Cope, 2000). English grammar lessons were taught exclusively to the low-ability group, involving direct instruction to teach “Standard English”. Importance was attached to learning English at the lexico-grammatical level at the expense of the full repertoire of visual, audio, spatial, gestural, and linguistic design elements. This transmissive pedagogy did not involve the transfer of literacy practice to genuine literacy situations outside the classroom. The theory of multiliteracies emphasises the necessity of an open- 226 -


ended and flexible functional grammar, which assists language learners to describe language differences. No longer can antiquated pedagogies of a standard, national language be used exclusively (New London Group, 2000, p.6). During screen-based lessons, ability grouping and its associated routines and practices worked to distribute digitally mediated practices to students who were the most proficient, while disenfranchising those who were not, confirming existing research that access to screen-based modes is fundamentally tied to economic privilege (Luke, 2000). Ability grouping is a differentiating practice grounded in a psychological perspective that labels cultural differences and varied experiences as literacy deficits. This practice assumes developmental contingency in literacy learning; that is, when students learn monomodal decoding then comprehension will follow, and later, critical analysis. Advanced, screen-based textual practices should not be distributed exclusively to students who demonstrate the greatest competence based on pedagogical expediency. Schools should not prescribe which categories of students can access advanced forms of digital representation, while excluding marginalised groups from these powerful literacies. Using computers to type handwritten drafts also confined meaning making to a lengthy, linear, and repetitive process of designing. Computers were used to support obsolete textual practices such as “typing” from hand-written drafts, rather than allowing new word-processing software and technologies to transform designing. Screen-based communication challenges typical notions of textual construction with non-linear, flexible, interactive environments, open to continuous manipulation. Electronic texts are able to be changed, reproduced, stored, retrieved, searched, and re-authored continuously, and do not remain as static, independent units. Authorcontrolled writing processes of the past, where texts were always written in a predetermined linear direction, are no longer fixed (Green & Bigum, 2003; Healy, 1999; Landow & Delany, 1991; Snyder, 1998). The sustained use of situated practice during claymation movie set designing constrained learners’ access to multiliteracies. Students were unable to experience successful three-dimensional visual and spatial designing without the provision of scaffolding or temporary support structures provided by expert novices – people - 227 -


who are experts at learning new domains in some depth – such as the teacher or peers or through books and technologies. Most importantly, culturally marginalised learners benefited least from implicit teaching methods. Forms of overt instruction were needed to supplement immersion to enable these learners to gain conscious awareness and control of new representational resources (New London Group, 2000). Overt instruction was enacted as teacher-centred transmission, which was not sufficient for learners to transform meaning making resources. Learners experienced difficulty designing movie storyboards, and failed to understand the relations between camera angles and the dimensions of the movie sets without situated practice. A significant finding was that the collaborative groups least able to access new designs of meaning through transmissive pedagogies were those who were socio economically and ethnically marginalised. There was a need for interventions by the teacher and other experts to scaffold claymation designing, and to provide explicit knowledge when it could most profitably systematise and direct practice. Students were unable to demonstrate conscious awareness and control over the intrasystematic relations of three-dimensional designing and digital filming (New London Group, 2000, p.33). During the successful enactment of critical framing, students were firstly enabled to analyse the general function or purpose of multimodal texts, and to make causal connections between design elements and their social context (“analysing functionally”) (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005, p.96). Secondly, they were guided to analyse the explicit and implicit motives and agendas and interests behind designs, such as the authors’ messages and intended audiences (“analysing critically”) (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005, p.96). Furthermore, students were able to apply both forms of analysis to the purposes of their own claymation movie designs. Transformed practice engaged inclusively with the divergent lifeworlds of students to varying degrees. An analysis of the students’ claymation movies showed that students’ designing ranged from discernable reproduction to substantial innovation (Cope, 2000). For marginalised students, the transition from their lifeworlds to claymation designing required a complex negotiation between the discourses of the classroom and their subjective experiences. The language experiences that the - 228 -


children brought from home assisted them to varying degrees when they encountered digitally mediated and collaborative modes of communication (Bull & Anstey, 2003a). The analysis of power demonstrated how interactions between the teacher’s use of coercive power and students’ resistance to the dominant discourse functioned as a form of domination, excluding five boys of low socioeconomic backgrounds from digitally mediated multiliteracies (Carspecken, 1996; McLaren, 1993). Monomodal literacies, such as story writing, became a sanction for rule breaking. This replaced claymation movie making which involved more powerful, digitally mediated, multimodal designing for a real world purposes. This pattern was observed repeatedly in the wider locale of the school. In relation to discourses, culturally marginalised students were unable to draw from their existing cultural resources. Conditions or restrictions were placed upon the use of their primary discourses in the classroom, despite the teacher’s discursive knowledge of the need for cultural inclusiveness. This opposes the heart of multiliteracies (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000b). The secondary discourses of the classroom were more accessible to children from the dominant, Anglo-Australian culture, because they were congruent with their experiences (Gallas et al., 1996). The Sudanese, Indigenous, Tongan and Thai students were least familiar with the tacit norms and rules for collaborative group work. These students only contributed to collaborative designing when peers or the teacher communicated expectations to them clearly, personally, and directly. These findings demonstrate that students’ access to multiliteracies was affected by the teacher’s enactment of pedagogy, power, and discourses in the classroom. Ultimately, students of the dominant, Anglo-Australian, middle class culture were enabled by these factors, while students who were ethnically and socio-economically marginalised, were constrained. In an era of increasing local diversity and global interconnectedness, access to multiliteracies requires both teacher and students crossing cultural boundaries, switching between one lifeworld context and other (Cope, 2000, p.211). The successful enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy begins with a focus on change and transformation, rather than a focus on stability - 229 -


and regularity. Students must be seen as individuals who have at their disposal a complex range of representational resources, grounded in their cultural experiences and layers of their identities. Students need to be able to draw from the breadth, complexity and richness of the available meaning making resources so that designing is not simply a matter of reproduction, but a matter of transformation (Cope, 2000, p.204). 7.1.2 Systems Relations The study of the individual teacher and her students must be located within the wider structures of power in the school and society. Tables 7.1.2.1 and 7.1.2.2 take into account both enabling and constraining institutional structures, and the agency of individuals who drew upon them to enable students to access multiliteracies. Domination structures – the allocation and authorisation of material and human resources – were analysed at the school, local, state and national levels (Giddens, 1984). An important outcome was that the principal and teacher drew upon available domination structures to provide students with access to multiliteracies, including educational policies, curriculum, and professional development initiatives for multiliteracies in Queensland (See 6.1.1). The principal reflexively gave priority to multiliteracies when selecting professional development opportunities for teachers, and purchased new technologies and material resources to enable teachers to broaden the repertoire of literacies taught. Similarly, the teacher drew upon discretionary economic resources such as grants to attain professional development in multiliteracies. This use of economic resources enabled her to reflect on the routine social practices of classroom life to transform them.

This new consciousness moved her from routine action to reflexive

discursiveness, changing her pedagogical patterns of action in the light of new information (Giddens, 1984). The teacher was enabled to use the school’s existing resources more effectively, and requested, obtained and utilised new allocative resources for teaching multiliteracies. When resource allocations were insufficient to

- 230 -


Enabling Structures Affecting Access to Multiliteracies Domination Agency of Principal

Agency of Teacher/s

Agency of Students

State & National Systems

Prioritised professional development for teachers in multiliteracies Prioritised funds to obtain human & material resources for teaching multiliteracies Provided ESL teachers & support for teachers with ESL students Accessed professional development from multiple sources Accessed grant for teaching multiliteracies Access to resources and personnel for multiliteracies exceeded regular allocations Became member of school committees to gain greater power to control resources Students’ interest in accessing multiliteracies at school varied, depending on levels of economic resources to support multiliteracies at home

Higher levels of state funds were provided to support ESL students (e.g. Sudanese refugees) than culturally dominant students

Signification

Legitimation

Principal encouraged students to draw upon their own cultural symbols in events embedded in the institutional structure (e.g. Sudanese dance)

Principal initiated the teaching of multiliteracies by informal norms (e.g. verbal encouragement) and formal requirements (e.g. unit planning)

Modes of discourse used in the classroom enabled culturally dominant students to access multiliteracies

Reflexively changed pedagogy in response to policy initiatives Became a catalyst for change to encourage other teachers to use multiliteracies Informal professional networks increased teacher knowledge and enthusiasm to implement the multiliteracies pedagogy Students who chose to follow school rules gained privileged access to multiliteracies Culturally dominant students drew upon their existing knowledge of school discourses to access multiliteracies Formalised state-wide educational initiatives, such as Literate Futures (Anstey, 2002), increased teacher knowledge of multiliteracies Queensland syllabus increased teachers’ awareness of multimodal forms of communication and need to respond to cultural diversity

Students who were familiar with the structure of English were enabled to access literacy in the school context Students who were familiar with digital multiliteracies were enabled to access digital literacies Australian society requires schools to draw upon multiple symbolic structures to prepare students for participation in contemporary private, work, and public life.

Table 7.1.2.1 Systems Relations that Enabled Access to Multiliteracies

- 231 -


Constraining Structures Affecting Access to Multiliteracies Domination

Agency of Principal

Agency of Teacher/s

Agency of Students

State & National Systems

Signification

Legitimation

Limited by inadequate state funds for human resources (e.g. ESL teachers) Limited structures to ensure that knowledge & material resources for multiliteracies were utilised by all teachers

Deferred the control of pedagogy to teachers, resulting in the uneven teaching of multiliteracies across the school

Legitimation structures for multiliteracies (e.g. unit planning and verbal encouragement), had a limited degree of power to ensure the teaching of multiliteracies across the school

Initiative to access resources for teaching multiliteracies varied among teachers Limited by inadequate human resources for ESL students and multimedia technologies Limited access to allocative resources for multimodal designing in homes (economic conditions of action) resulted in uneven access to multiliteracies at school State provision of human resources were inadequate for ESL & and Indigenous Australian students

Ability grouping distributed different literacies in a marginalising way – low ability groups received monomodal rather than multimodal literacies, and transmissive pedagogies rather than the multiliteracies pedagogy. Students possessed varied symbolic resources, resulting in different degrees of agency to access multiliteracies at school.

Dialectic of control between formal sanctions and student resistance to rules resulted in exclusion from designing for economically marginalised boys

National use of English as dominant language constrained ESL students and those with subcultural dialects of English, but enabled AngloAustralians

Rules and norms for reading, writing, and multimodal designing varied among students, resulting in differing degrees of power to access multiliteracies at school State policies did not ensure the teaching of multiliteracies across all classrooms due to time/space distance between political departments and the school

Table 7.1.2.2 Systems Relations that Constrained Access to Multiliteracies

- 232 -


achieve her pedagogical aims, she located underutilised resources from other departments. She also gained membership in curriculum committees and professional development networks to gain greater control of resources for teaching multiliteracies. However, other teachers in the school resisted efforts to implement the multiliteracies pedagogy. As discussed in Chapter 6.1, this contributed to the reproduction of existing pedagogies and levels of student access to multiliteracies. The principal did not establish systems to ensure that allocative and authoritative resources for multiliteracies were drawn upon by all teachers. Furthermore, because of the time-space distance between the school and authorities, there was limited supervisory control of the enactment of multiliteracies from outside agencies such as the Queensland Department of Education (Giddens, 1984). A pertinent discovery regarding domination structures at the state level was the inadequate allocative and authoritative resources from the Queensland Department of Education for the large cohort of Sudanese refugees and Aboriginal students who required particularly high levels of literacy support.

Neither the principal nor

teachers had sufficient transformative capacity to ensure that access to multiliteracies was provided to these students (See 6.1.3). With regard to domination in the local system, a significant finding was that economic constraints in students’ homes reproduced differential access to multiliteracies in the school. Access to digital, multimodal designing was greater at school than at home for Indigenous, Sudanese, Thai, Tongan, and Anglo-Saxon students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds.

There was no scaffolding or

modelling of digital designing for the Indigenous and Tongan learners at home. The lack of economic resources was so marked in some homes of these students that basic needs of food and safety took priority over access to multiliteracies. Therefore, domination structures and their associated network of intentional human actions ultimately served to sustain and reproduce unequal access to multiliteracies (See 6.1.4).

- 233 -


Signification structures also mediated the distribution of access to multiliteracies (6.2). In particular, the principal and teacher acted reflexively to transform the symbolic routines of the school. For example, the principal made institutionalised links with the local Sudanese community to host Sudanese dances in the school hall. However, such events were exceptions to the reified structures of signification in the school that were tied to the dominant culture. Another important finding was that the principal exercised limited control of classroom signification structures, such as the use of the multiliteracies pedagogy, deferring these decisions to the agency of teachers. This contributed to the asymmetrical distribution of access to multiliteracies across the school, which was dependent upon the agency of interested teachers. In the classroom, the symbolic practice of ability grouping for English was found to be a constraining form of differentiation, distributing different literacies to students in a marginalising way. The low-ability group received monomodal literacies and transmissive forms of pedagogy, which created the conditions for further marginalisation. Transmissive pedagogy used to regulate the behaviour of the lowability literacy group did not foster decision-making, communication, creative and technological skills that are required to transcend working-class jobs. Furthermore, the low-ability groups were comprised of the culturally, linguistically, and socioeconomically marginalised students. Thus, the signification structure of ability grouping for English, and its attendant distribution of monomodal literacies unintentionally contributed to a non-reflexive causal loop that sustained the unequal distribution of multiliteracies (Giddens, 1984). Legitimation structures drawn upon by the principal for multiliteracies included unit planning requirements (formal rules) and verbal encouragement of teachers (norms). However, there was not an effective system to ensure that these legitimation structures for teaching multiliteracies were drawn upon by all teachers, who remained fixed in their existing teaching practices. Thus, these tacit norms and formal rules had a limited degree of power to ensure the teaching of multiliteracies across the school.

- 234 -


In the classroom, the most important factor influencing students’ access to multiliteracies through legitimation structures, was the dialectic of control between formal sanctions and student resistance to rules. This unintentionally prohibited five economically marginalised boys from accessing digital multiliteracies. Furthermore, the sanctions involved the substitution of monomodal literacies for the powerful, digital aspects of movie-making. A by-product of these interactions was the unequal distribution of access to multiliteracies that will potentially limit their employment opportunities (Giddens, 1984). At the state and national level, it was found that political structures of legitimation, such as the Years 1-10 English Syllabus (Queensland Studies Authority, 2005), stimulated the principal and teacher to begin the process of formalising the teaching of multiliteracies in the school. However, state policies did not have the power to regulate the teaching of multiliteracies across all classrooms because of the timespace distance between the Department of Education and the school. Structures of legitimation in the students’ homes differed in varying degrees to those of the school. Rules and norms for reading, writing, and multimodal designing varied among students, resulting in differing degrees of power to access multiliteracies at school. Consequently, students had markedly unequal possibilities for action during the multiliteracies lessons (Kaspersen, 2000). In bringing their differing cultural experiences to school, they reproduced the structures that maintained inequitable configurations of access to multiliteracies (Giddens, 1984). 7.2 Model of Differential Access to Multiliteracies This thesis aimed to explain the distribution of access to multiliteracies through the lens of Giddens’ (1984) structuration theory. Differential access to multiliteracies resulted from unintended consequences of complex interactions between intentional individual activities and social structures. The three interpretive criteria of Giddens’ structuration theory – domination (allocative and authoritative resources), signification (meaning), and legitimation (norms and sanctions) – help to explain how patterns of action in the classroom and wider social system were repeated, serving to reproduce the asymmetrical distribution of multiliteracies (Giddens, 1984;

- 235 -


Kaspersen, 2000). This analysis of classroom interactions and system relations is represented diagrammatically in Figure 7.2.

Figure 7.2 Model of Differential Access to Multiliteracies The following thesis statement provides an explanation of Figure 7.2: Students’ access to multiliteracies among a culturally and linguistically diverse group was differential. Their experiences varied on a continuum from reproduction of existing degrees of access, to transformed designing. These experiences were mediated by pedagogy, power, and discourses in the classroom, which were in turn influenced by the agency of individuals. The individuals were both enabled and constrained by domination, signification and legitimation structures within the school and wider social system. This thesis has confirmed a perspective of critical sociology, which is that despite the intentions and efforts of educators, the school system is not providing equitable access to powerful literacies (Gee, 1996; Luke, 1994). Historically, schools in the West have evolved as institutional sites for the reproduction of stratified sociocultural inequality (Apple, 1995; Freire & Macedo, 1987; Luke et al., 2003; McLaren, 1989; Popkewitz & Guba, 1990; Wexler, 1987). At the same time, many educators are striving to transform literacy curricula through the multiliteracies pedagogy, with the goal of increasing students’ powerful participation in a multiliterate culture. Multiliteracies represents the beginning of a reflexive move towards a culturally and linguistically diverse, and multimodal English curriculum.

- 236 -


This has not yet been realised in the manner intended by its proponents (New London Group, 1996). This research has demonstrated that access to multiliteracies remains linked to the distribution of knowledge and power in contemporary society. This issue is significant, not only for individual students’ lives and economic destinies, but for the overall distribution of competence and knowledge, wealth and power. The findings of this research were consistent with historical patterns of cultural, linguistic and socio-economic marginalisation, tied to a self-reproductive function of schooling. Despite the enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy initiated by system level change and the agency of individuals throughout the system, the school continued to parcel out different literacies for diverse groups of students, based on uneven configurations of social power. In turn, varying kinds and levels of cultural capital will limit or broaden students’ entry into different life trajectories in their future world of work, citizenship and personal relationships (Luke, 1994). Inequitable practices such as ability grouping attributed stratified levels of reading and writing to “individual differences”, which unintentionally fell along the historical grids of social class, ethnicity and gender. For example, there were a higher percentage of boys allocated to low-ability groups (Anyon, 1981; Luke, 1994). Hence, the school both permitted and prevented access to multiple languages and discourses, and was a system of both inclusion and exclusion. The teacher’s enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy was not sufficient to overcome these inequitable school practices that worked against the ideals of the multiliteracies pedagogy. A multiliteracies approach is tied to a sociocultural rather than psychological model that recognises and capitalises on the varied and hybrid cultural resources that children bring to classrooms (Luke, 1994). Students from low socioeconomic, culturally marginalised, and culturally dominant backgrounds have an equal right to multiliteracies. Although the differential distribution of multiliteracies was reproduced by the intentional activities of individuals, the actors did not intend this outcome. The distribution of multiliteracies eluded the concerted effort of policy makers, the - 237 -


principal and teacher to transform the system (Giddens, 1984). Here, Giddens’ principle of system reproduction is a key explanation for the uneven access to multiliteracies among the culturally and linguistically diverse learners.

System

reproduction connotes the repetition of the same actions and structures, rather than their inherent invariability. Conversely, there was some evidence of system change. This occurred when individuals, through intentioned action, raised consciousness of multiliteracies. This brought the disparity between marginalised and dominant students under some degree of conscious, positive direction. For example, the teacher’s initiative to apply for a multiliteracies grant resulted in a positive feedback loop, whereby the professional development transformed her ability to reflect on the routine social practices of classroom life and, more importantly, to change them. The principal, teacher and students are knowledgeable and purposive agents, able to be reflexive in the reordering of social practices to improve access to multiliteracies. Students were able, by varying degrees, to gain or resist access to multiliteracies, while the principal and teacher drew upon the available structures to recursively transform existing pedagogies to provide this access. This is important because access to multiliteracies was not pre-determined or entirely constrained by the existing institutional structures, but was mediated by the reflexive agency of the research participants.

For example, the principal initiated whole school unit

planning that included some attention to multiliteracies, while the teacher widened the students’ collaborative designing to include multiple modes (Giddens, 1984). Access to multiliteracies, like certain self-reproducing items in nature, was found to be recursive. That is to say, access to multiliteracies was not brought into being by the agency of the principal, teacher and students, but was continually recreated by them via the structures or means available. Through their activities, they reproduced the conditions that made or constrained access to multiliteracies (Giddens, 1984). For example, students’ designing of effective and hybrid claymation movies for their younger peers was not exclusively the result of their own actions in the classroom. Rather, these students reproduced existing conditions, such as their cultural and linguistic resources from home and school, securing their continued degree of access to multiliteracies.

- 238 -


This explanation of differential access to multiliteracies has given attention to the micro-level action of individuals in the classroom, and macro-level or system factors in the wider social context. Furthermore, it has taken account of the enabling and constraining forces which were at times mediated by social structures, and at other times, by individuals who utililised these structures in positive or negative ways. 7.3 Significance of the Study In Chapter One the potential of the study was outlined in relation to its local importance for multiliteracies policy and praxis (See 1.3-1.4). In this section, the outcomes of the research are synthesised with respect to these issues. 7.3.1 Significance for Multiliteracies Policy The findings of the study are relevant to educational policies authorising the teaching of multiliteracies. Chapter One reviewed current state policies and standards in Queensland addressing the need for technological, multimodal and culturally diverse textual practice. These included the Queensland Years 1-10 English Syllabus (Queensland Studies Authority, 2005), the Queensland Board of Teacher Registration literacy standards for teacher education pre-service programs (Board of Teacher Registration Queensland, 2001), and Literature Futures (Anstey, 2002). Issues of multimodality, digital literacies and culturally diverse textual practice have existed since before the turn of the century. These include policies and initiatives such as New Basics (Education Queensland, 2001), 2010 Queensland State Education (Education Queensland, 1999), and the Queensland Years 1-10 English Language Arts Syllabus (Education Queensland, 1994). Syllabi in all Australian states and territories emphasise the need for students to use multimodal and digital texts for a variety of cultural purposes (ACT Department of Education and Training, 2001; Board of Studies New South Wales, 1998; Department of Education and Training Western Australia, 2005; Department of Education Tasmania, 2004; Department of Employment Education and Training Northern Territory, 2005; South Australian Department of Education and Children' s Services, 2004; Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority, 2005). Thus, the outcomes of this research have value in a political context in which the teaching of multimodal and culturally diverse forms of communication is now a requirement.

- 239 -


Despite the global importance of multiliteracies and these state educational initiatives, there is a paucity of research investigating the outcomes of these policies for enabling access to multiliteracies in primary schools (Department of Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs, 1997). This investigation demonstrated how these policy initiatives provided impetus for the teacher to enact the multiliteracies pedagogy. The teacher sought to induct students into versatile and flexible multiliterate competences to contend with diverse texts in various media for varying cultural purposes. However, not all students gained access to the powerful, digital forms of communication for different cultural purposes. Certain students were prohibited by the persistence of past pedagogies, the use of coercive power, and the secondary discourses of the classroom (Gee, 1996). To facilitate constructive

engagement

with

these

findings,

educational

theorists

and

policymakers need to provide clearer guidelines regarding the specific discourses, pedagogies and power relations that are necessary for the successful enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy. 7.3.2 Significance for Multiliteracies Praxis The significance of the research for multiliteracies praxis concerns the investigation of the claim of the New London Group to provide “meaningful access to all students”. The research demonstrated the ways in which power in the classroom, school and wider social systems, operated to prevent or permit certain students from accessing multiliteracies. In a diverse classroom, which included students from Anglo-Australian, Indigenous, Maori, Tongan, Sudanese, Thai, and Torres Strait Islander descent, it was found that the multiliteracies pedagogy did not necessarily “enable education to be genuinely fair in the distribution of opportunity” (New London Group, 2000). The observed enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy did not “provide access without children having to leave behind or erase their different subjectivities” (New London Group, 2000). This research does not challenge the validity of the multiliteracies theory and its aim to be “fair” and its rules “even-handed” (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000b).

Rather, the

problem concerns the translation of the multiliteracies theory to classroom practice, in which a wide gap was observed (See Chapter Five, Part II). Practical steps are necessary to enable teachers to negotiate the difficult dialogue between varied

- 240 -


lifeworld experiences of students to provide equitable access for all. There is a need to temper the current overconfidence that has been placed in multiliteracies as a pedagogical panacea for the equity problem in education. Greater attention needs to be given to providing effective support structures for teachers to realise the New London Group’s theory in practice. Another contribution to multiliteracies praxis resulted from the application of Carspecken’s (1996) critical ethnography. The research fulfilled the aim of critical ethnography to find a clear match between the empirical findings and an existing macro-sociological theory; in this case, Giddens’ (1984) structuration theory. The application of structuration theory enabled the discovery of systems relations across the school and its surrounding sites. This lead to the generation of the Model of Differential Access to Multiliteracies (Figure 7.2), used to interpret findings in a way that accounted for the agency of the research participants and system level factors. The study extended the critical perspective that schools have historically served to reproduce social inequity, demonstrating the specific outworking of this principle and its effects in a multiliteracies context (Gee, 1992; Gee et al., 1996). Therefore, the application of critical ethnography to the investigation of multiliteracies praxis yielded significant results. 7.4 Limitations This research was limited to one site in South East Queensland during a specific period of time. Caution should be exercised when making generalisations from this investigation to other settings. This is because similarities and differences between research contexts should be taken into account (For the generalisability of results in qualitative research see: Berg, 2004; LeCompte et al., 1992). For example, the results were mediated by the teacher’s personal conceptualisation and enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy, the individual actions of students in her culturally and linguistically diverse class, and the system relations between classroom structures and institutional structures in the social milieu. The second limitation concerns the requirement of critical research to strive to maintain equal power relations between the researcher and the research participants. A genuinely interdependent relationship was sought between researcher and teacher,

- 241 -


from the first meeting to the recursive dialogue about the findings during the drafting of the thesis. However, although the ideal of democratic research was upheld throughout the conduct of this research, one cannot claim that the truly equal generation of knowledge was fully attained. For example, the researcher made recommendations sensitively to the teacher regarding her use of coercive power. The teacher stated that few teachers would agree with her decision to prohibit the boys from the digital aspects of designing, yet she had witnessed an improvement in the boys’ behaviour during subsequent multimodal projects. Thus, there can be no “absolute parity of influence” between the researcher and his or her co-opted participants (Heron & Reason, 2001, p.185). Lather stresses the importance of selfreflexivity to examine our own contribution “to dominance in spite of our liberatory intentions” (Lather, 1991, p.150). Given that no research can claim to maintain precisely equal power relations between researcher and participants, an important role of the researcher is to articulate how any residual power differential was directed to the benefit of the participants. Through the semi-structured interviews, the teacher, principal and students in this research were able to identify ways to exercise agency to improve access to multiliteracies within the enabling and constraining institutional structures (4.6.2). For example, the principal identified possibilities for extending human and material resources for the Sudanese refugee students who enter Year One. In a debriefing interview held one year after the field work was conducted, the teacher reflected that her pedagogies had been transformed by her involvement in this research and her concurrent involvement in the “Learning by Design” project initiated by Cope and Kalantzis (2005). She expressed that her understanding and implementation of the multiliteracies pedagogy had continued to develop after the researcher had left the field. Therefore, the unequal power relations between the researcher and the researched enabled the participants to consider “life beyond the horizons of current experience” (Lather, 1990, p.332). 7.5 Recommendations Recommendations arising from this research apply to teachers seeking to apply the multiliteracies pedagogy in the classroom, and to school principals, policy makers, and system administrators.

- 242 -


7.5.1 Classroom Recommendations Although the teacher articulated her belief in the value of multiliteracies, her deeply seated perceptions of literacy found their expression in pedagogies that focused on grammar and form, and which measured and differentiated between students based on the official "standard" of the national language. There was a privileging of linguistic meanings, and particularly, written meanings, at the expense of other modes (Cope, 2000, p.214). These anachronistic practices reduced learners’ expressive possibilities, rather than utilising the full range and technical integration of multimodal communication (Cope, 2000, p.217). Multimodality and synaesthesia, that is, the transduction of meaning from one semiotic mode to another, is part of human nature, because our senses never operate independently of each other (Kress, 2000a, p.159). Providing learners with opportunity for synaesthesia and exploring the multimodality of new, globalised communications media should transform literacy pedagogy rather than become an addendum to monomodal practices (Cope, 2000, p.223). What is required is a radical ideological shift from perceiving language as an intrinsically fixed system of elements and rules focused on stability and regularity, to emphasise change and transformation of meaning making and culture. Students can avail themselves of complex representation resources, never exclusively of one culture, but of multiple cultures in their repertoire of experiences tied to the many dimensions of their identity. The breadth, complexity and richness of the available meaning making resources renders multiliteracies more than a matter of reproduction. Rather, it must involve reconstructing meaning in a way that leads to transformation (Cope, 2000, p.204). Agency is a critical factor in this transformation, because students must have voice in the act of designing, and in so doing, remake the world (Cope, 2000, p.205). The successful enactment of multiliteracies must begin with a very different set of assumptions about meaning making and culture. Instead of focusing on stability and regularity, there is a need to see meaning and culture as a matter of dynamic, hybrid design and change, forever open and undergoing transformation. Students need opportunities to recombine the many layers of their identities, experiences, and discourses through designing in ways that are always unique and hybrid.

- 243 -


The metalanguage of multiliteracies is not a narrow, univocal, authoritarian grammar that claims to describe one grammar for all social contexts. Rather, multiliteracies involves a new grammar that contrasts and accounts for different usages, not only between languages, but within English (Cope, 2000, p.234). Such a grammar provides a range of choices for designing communication for specific ends, including a greater recruitment of non-linguistic forms. All students need access to versatile competences to contend with diverse modes for various social, community and cultural purposes, including those that cross national boundaries (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000c; New London Group, 1996). Teachers also need to understand the distinction between overt instruction and transmissive pedagogy. Overt instruction does not imply direct transmission, drills and rote learning. Rather, it provides learners with explicit information during “times when it can usefully organise practice” (New London Group, 1996, p.86). Transmissive pedagogy restricts literacy to formalised, monolingual, monocultural and rule-governed forms of language, impeding the transfer of literacy practice to genuine literacy practices used in society. Furthermore, transmissive pedagogy aims for simple reproduction, rather than new meanings through which designers remake themselves. In contrast, the aim of multiliteracies is designing that is never a “reproduction” of one available design, but a “transformation” of existing designing (New London Group, 1996, p.76). Overt instruction should involve the development of a meta-language to assist students to articulate how their cultural position is related to textual practices. This metalanguage can be used to describe the way in which textual practices differ from texts of one’s own community. With this understanding, ethnically marginalised students can position themselves in relation to the duality between those who construct and what they construct, seeing themselves independently of any misrepresentations or omissions of their cultural position (Nakata, 2000, p.119). The development of a metalanguage appropriate for multicultural classrooms is crucial, for there is a much greater challenge for students who must code switch between several languages, than for monolingual, Australian students (Nakata, 2000, p.119).

- 244 -


During the enactment of situated practice, it is imperative that designing is sufficiently scaffolded by expert peers or adults. Teachers need to reject the myth that situated practice exclusively consists of implicit teaching methods. Students should not be expected to drift in the direction of a standard form of the language through immersion in practices of communicative significance (Cope, 2000, p.204). Rather, teachers should provide explicit instruction during situated practice, with higher levels of scaffolding to support ethnically marginalised learners. Situated practice should allow for the inclusion of the experiences of ethnically and socioeconomically marginalised lifeworlds (Nakata, 2000, p.119). This is because an aim of situated practice is to provide implicit and explicit knowledge of how written language works in varied cultural contexts (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b). The successful enactment of critical framing in this study serves as an example of how to enable students to interpret the social and cultural contexts of particular designs (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b). An outcome of critical framing should be the ability to analyse the general function or purpose of a text, making causal connections between its design elements (“analysing functionally”)(Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). Of equal importance is the ability to analyse the explicit and implicit motives, agendas and actions behind a piece of knowledge (“analysing critically”)(Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). The strength of the effective enactment of critical framing in this study was the linking of critical framing to the other three components of pedagogy – overt instruction, situated practice and transformed practice. For example, students were able to stand back from the design process to analyse both functionally and critically the purposes, context and connections of their own transformed designs (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005, p.21). Transformed practice goes beyond the simple reproduction of standard, written, linguistic design elements according to appropriate conventions (“applying appropriately”) (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). Western schooling has tended to privilege the reproduction of written conventions over the rich resources for human semiosis in the new landscape of multimodal and culturally diverse communication (Kress, 2000b). “Transformed practice” too often involves mastering linguistic conventions that conform to textual genres at the expense of creating hybrid, multimodal texts

- 245 -


characterised by intertextuality. It should involve a genuinely original combination of knowledge, actions and ways of communicating (“applying creatively”)(Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). Transformed practice must result in transferred meanings to work in other, real-world contexts. It must involve making connections and recognising influences and cross-references of culture and experience, leading to some degree of creative change. In turn, this process of designing should transform the designers themselves by enabling them to accomplish new things (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b, p.248). The use of coercive power – as opposed to normative, charismatic and contractual forms of power – should not be used to order the social space because it may prohibit certain students from accessing multiliteracies (Carspecken, 1996). This may result in the differential distribution of literacies because marginalised groups, whose values have the greatest conflict with school norms and rules, may have a culture of resistance to sanctions (McLaren, 1993; Willis, 1977). Distributing monomodal literacies to students who resist the school rules is not arbitrary or inconsequential. Rather, it is essentially a form of regulation in the interests of dominant groups, mirroring the distribution of power in the wider society (Luke et al., 2003). Educators need to evaluate the inclusiveness of dominant, secondary discourses when enacting the multiliteracies pedagogy (Gee, 1996). The proximity of cultural and linguistic diversity today necessitates that the language of classrooms must change (New London Group, 1996). This requires a realisation that the lifeworlds of students are inherently diverse and multilayered, and that learners are capable of communicating though multiple senses and combinations of modes. Each student possesses, not one lifeworld, but a multiplicity of overlapping lifeworlds, always distinctive, yet always referenced in other ways to established patterns of representation and culture (New London Group, 2000, p.207). For students of the dominant culture, their induction into specialist domains has been built via rich bridges to their lifeworlds in attenuated forms, such as bed time stories as a bridge to classroom interactions (Gee, 1996). However, these bridges must be constructed in schools for minority groups, who have mastered the codes and conventions of their own communities’ language systems (New London Group, 1996). - 246 -


The effective implementation of the multiliteracies pedagogy requires that teachers reflect on and critique the discourses of their own culture. The use of discourses is often unconscious, unreflective and uncritical. Discourses safeguard their users by performances that appear to be “normal”, “natural” or “right”. When teachers unconsciously and uncritically act within their discourses, they become compliant with a set of values that may unwittingly marginalise certain students. Thus, teachers who seek to enact the multiliteracies pedagogy successfully have an obligation to gain meta-knowledge about discourses in order to resist unreflexive, routine practices that limit the potentials of students. Students also need space to juxtapose diverse discourses and to understand them at a meta-level through a language of reflection. Through such an approach to multiliteracies, students can transform and vary their discourses, create new ones, and experience better, socially just ways of being in the world (Gee, 1996, p.190-191). 7.5.2 System Recommendations Recommendations for domination structures concern the fair distribution of material and human resources by political and economic institutions to enable students to access multiliteracies. Principals are strategic agents in directing the use of these allocations, and should prioritise the provision of professional development, human & material resources, and ESL support for teaching multiliteracies. Current levels of state funding to support ESL students, such as Sudanese refugees, are insufficient to ensure these students have access to multiliteracies. The allocation of these resources should provide greater support for socio-economically and culturally marginalised groups than dominant groups, taking into account the differing economic conditions of action in students’ homes (New London Group, 1996). Principals also need to establish domination structures to ensure that knowledge & material resources for teaching multiliteracies are utilised systematically by teachers. Research grants authorised by independent organisations and educational institutions may serve as incentives to increase teacher knowledge about multiliteracies. Additionally, the continued international dissemination of research and literature about multiliteracies is also necessary to stimulate pedagogical change in schools.

- 247 -


Principals and teachers should establish signification structures in the school that enable students to draw upon their own cultural symbols, such as community dances, art events, and the freedom to use multiple languages and dialects in the school. This recommendation contrasts the historical, assimilatory goal of schooling that sought to create homogeneity out of differences in order to discipline and skill students for regimented industrial workplaces (New London Group, 1996). The enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy needs to recruit, rather than ignore or erase, the different subjectivities, interests, and commitments of students. Symbolic orders of discourse should not be used to persuade, regulate, and control differences in language use (Luke & Freebody, 1997). Rather, culturally inclusive modes of discourse are required that mirror the primary discourses found in students’ homes and communities.

Curriculum and pedagogy need to include students’ different

subjectivities with their attendant languages, discourses, and registers. Culturally inclusive modes of discourse are needed in Australian schools because effective citizenship and productive work require an ability to interact effectively using multiple languages, multiple Englishes, and communication patterns that cross community, cultural, and national boundaries (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000b). Recommendations for legitimation structures are also significant because access to multiliteracies is a political enterprise contingent upon social and economic power relations. Normative legitimation structures, including federal, state and school policies, currently provide a degree of impetus for the teaching of multiliteracies in schools across Australia. However, there is a need for such policies to provide more specific structures to enable teachers to address cross-cultural communication and negotiated forms of discourse required in increasingly diverse local contexts (New London Group, 1996). Furthermore, normative sanctions, such as state-mandated policies, express structural asymmetries of domination, and the relations of those nominally subject to the sanctions may not express commitment to those norms. Informal legitimation systems, such as professional networks, grants, opportunities for teachers to disseminate their work, and personal encouragement from school administrators can help members of the school system to internalise their own commitment to teaching multiliteracies. Normative elements of social systems, such as policy claims upon - 248 -


which the teaching of multiliteracies is partially contingent, must ultimately be mobilised effectively by the agency of teachers in real classroom encounters. Teachers are knowledgeable agents who reflexively monitor the flow of interaction with one another. They are not easily programmed or determined by a normatively co-ordinated legitimate order (Giddens, 1984). 7.6 Concluding Statements This research investigated a teacher’s enactment of pedagogy, power and discourse, and students’ access to multiliteracies among a culturally and linguistically diverse group. Learners’ experiences varied on a continuum from the reproduction of existing degrees of access to transformed access. Their experiences were mediated by pedagogy, power, and discourses in the classroom, which were in turn influenced by the agency of individuals – students, teachers and the principal. The research participants were both enabled and constrained by structures within the school and wider social system. An unintended consequence of these factors was differential access to multiliteracies. This reflected the inequitable configurations of knowledge and power in the wider society. Access to multiliteracies requires more than the extension of monomodal literacies to include multimodal combinations of design elements. Furthermore, access to multiliteracies necessitates more than a veneer of the multiliteracies pedagogy – situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing and transformed practice – over the anachronistic structures of existing practices.

A pedagogy of access also

demands a reassessment of selective traditions that are often implicit in the discourses, pedagogies and power relationships of the classroom, reflexively transforming them in the interests of marginalised groups. The clientele of Australian schools is increasingly characterised by local diversity and global connectedness. Cultural and linguistic diversity must be seen as a powerful classroom resource for access to multiliteracies, not only for marginalised groups, but for the benefit of all. Classrooms must be places for the negotiation of regional, ethnic or class-based dialects, hybrid cross-cultural discourses, and variations in register that occur according to social context. Likewise, classroom discourses need to create spaces for code switching, different registers, and multiple

- 249 -


modes of meanings. When learners juxtapose different languages, discourses, and forms of communication, they gain substantively in meta-cognitive and metalinguistic abilities, and in their ability to reflect critically on complex system and their interactions (New London Group, 1996, p.69). These culturally inclusive practices transcend tokenistic tributes to diversity in multicultural classrooms, such as celebrating ethnic traditions, which can mask real conflicts of power and interests between dominant and marginalised groups (New London Group, 1996, p.69). Only then can education open the possibilities for greater access, and in turn, provide access to symbolic capital and real answers to the needs of learners in our changing times (New London Group, 1996, p.69).

- 250 -


References ACT Department of Education and Training. (2001). English Language Curriculum Framework. Retrieved 2 November, 2005, from http://www.decs.act.gov.au Altheide, D., & Johnson, J. (1994). Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 485-499). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Anderson, G. (1989). Critical ethnography in education: Its origins, current status and new directions. Review of Educational Research, 59(3), 249-270. Anderson, L., & Burns, R. (1989). Research in classrooms: The study of teachers, teaching and instruction. Sydney: Pergamon Press. Anderson-Inman, L. (1998). Electronic text: Literacy medium of the future. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 41(8), 678. Anstey, M. (2002). Literate futures: Reading. Coorparoo DC, QLD: Access Ed. Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (1996). The literacy labyrinth. Sydney: Prentice Hall. Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2004a). Literacy as social practice. In The literacy labyrinth (pp. 56-74). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson. Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2004b). The literacy labyrinth (2nd ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson. Anyon, J. (1981). Elementary schooling and the distinctions of social class. Interchange, 12, 118-132. Apple, M. (1986). Teachers and texts: A political economy of class and gender relations in education. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Apple, M. (1995). Education, culture, and class power: Basil Bernstein and the NeoMarxist sociology of education. In A. R. Sadovnik (Ed.), Knowledge and pedagogy: The sociology of Basil Bernstein (pp. 45-66). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex. Apple, M. (1996). Cultural politics and education. New York: Teachers College Press. Apple, M. (1997). The new technology: Is it part of the solution or part of the problem in education? In G. E. Hawisher & C. L. Selfe (Eds.), Literacy, technology and society: Confronting the issues (pp. 160-178). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Apple, M., & Weis, L. (Eds.). (1983). Ideology and practice in schooling. PA: Temple University Press. Apple, M. W. (1982). Cultural and economic reproduction in education. London, Boston and Henley: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Arthur, L. (2001). Young children as critical consumers. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 24(3), 182-194. Athanases, S., & Heath, S. (1995). Ethnography in the study of the teaching and learning of English. Research in the Teaching of English, 29(3), 263-287. Atkin, J. (1994). Thinking: Critical for learning. In J. Edwards (Ed.), Thinking: International interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 201-215). Highett, VIC: Hawker Brownlow Education. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2003). Census of population and housing: Selected social and housing characteristics Australia and statistics local areas, Queensland. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Baker, C., & Freebody, P. (1989). Children' s first school books. London: Blackwell.

- 251 -


Baker, C., & Luke, A. (1991). Towards a critical sociology of reading pedagogy: Paper of the XII World Congress on Reading (Vol. 28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Banister, P., Burman, E., Parker, I., Taylor, M., & Tindall, C. (1995). Qualitative methods in psychology: A research guide. Buckingham, PA: Open University Press. Barnes, D., Britton, J., & Torbe, M. (1990). Language, the learner and the school. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Barnitz, J., & Speaker, R. (1999). Electronic and linguistic connections in one diverse 21st-century classroom. The Reading Teacher, 52(8), 874. Barsalou, L. (1992). Cognitive psychology: An overview for cognitive scientists. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bartlett, F. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baynham, M. (1995). Literacy practices: Investigating literacy in social contexts. London: Longman. Behrman, E. (2002). Community-based literacy learning. Reading Literacy and Language, 36(1), 1-28. Bereiter, B., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry in the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago: Open Court. Berg, B. (2004). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (5th ed.). Sydney: Pearson. Bernhard, J., Freire, M., Torres, F., & Nirdosh, S. (1998). Latin Americans in a Canadian primary school: Perspectives of parents, teachers, and children on cultural identity and academic achievement. Journal of Regional Studies, 19(3), 217-236. Bigum, C. (1997). Teachers and computers: In control or being controlled? Australian Journal of Education, 41(3), 247-261. Bigum, C., & Green, B. (1993a). Changing classrooms, computing and curriculum: Critical perspective and cautionary notes. Australian Educational Computing, 8(1), 1993. Bigum, C., & Green, B. (1993b). New kids on the chopping block? Media culture and educational practice in new times. The Professional Reading Guide, 15(1), 1-4. Billet, S. (1992). Towards a theory of workplace learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 14(2), 143-155. Black, P., & Goebel, Z. (2002). Multiliteracies in the teaching of Indonesian. Babel, 37(1), 22-26. Bloome, D. (1994). Reading as a social process in a middle school classroom. In D. Graddol, J. Maybin & B. Stierer (Eds.), Researching language and literacy in social context (pp. 100-130). Adelaide, S.A: Open University Press. Board of Studies New South Wales. (1998). K-6 English Syllabus. Retrieved 2nd November, 2005, from http://k6.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/english/english_index.html Board of Teacher Registration Queensland. (2001). Literacy in teacher education: Standards for preservice programs. Brisbane: Board of Teacher Registration Queensland. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni Press. Britton, J. (1987). Vygotsky' s contribution to pedagogical theory. English in Education, 22(6).

- 252 -


Brodkey, L. (1987). Writing critical ethnographic narratives. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 18, 67-76. Brown, A., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 188-228). New York: Cambridge University Press. Brown, A., & Campione, J. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom Lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229-270). Cambridge: MIT Press. Brown, A., Collins, J., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. Buchanan, R., & Margonlin, V. (1995). Discovering design - explorations in design studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bull, G., & Anstey, M. (2003a). Critical literacies and cultural studies. In The literacy lexicon (pp. 15-36). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia. Bull, G., & Anstey, M. (Eds.). (2003b). Literacy lexicon. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia. Burbules, N., & Callister, T. (1996). Knowledge at the cross-roads: Some alternative futures of hypertext learning environments. Educational Theory, 46(1), 23-50. Cambourne, B. (1988). The whole story: Natural learning and the acquisition of literacy in the classroom. Sydney: Ashton Scholastic. Cameron, D. (2000). Situated literacies/multiliteracies/global literacies and the World Wide Web - Book review. Changing English: Studies in Reading and Culture, 7(2), 203-207. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. Lewes: The Falmer Press. Carspecken, P. (1995). Pragmatic binary oppositions and intersubjectivity in an illegally occupied school. In P. McLaren & J. Giarelli (Eds.), Critical theory and educational research (pp. 185-202). Albany: State University of New York Press. Carspecken, P. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide. New York: Routledge. Carspecken, P. (2001). Critical ethnographies from Houston: Distinctive features and directions. In P. Carspecken & G. Walford (Eds.), Critical ethnography and education (Vol. 5, pp. 1-26). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Carspecken, P. (2003). Ocularcentrism, phonocentrism and the counter enlightenment problematic: Clarifying contested terrain in our schools of education. Teachers College Record, 105(6), 978-1048. Carspecken, P., & Apple, M. (1992). Critical qualitative research: Theory, methodology, and practice. In M. LeCompte, W. Millroy & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 507-553). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Carspecken, P., & Walford, G. (Eds.). (2001). Critical ethnography and education (Vol. 5). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Cazden, C. (1972). Functions of language in the classroom. In C. Cazden, V. John & D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom (pp. xi-lvi). London: Teachers College Press. Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

- 253 -


Cazden, C. (2000). Taking cultural differences into account. In B. Cope & C. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 249-266). South Yarra: Macmillan. Chambers, J. (1995). Sociolinguistic theory: Linguistic variation and its social significance. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Christie, F. (1989). Writing in schools: B Ed course reader. Geelong: Deakin University Press. Church, S. (1994). Is whole language really warm and fuzzy? The Reading Teacher, 47(5), 362-371. Clay, M. (1993). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Heinemann: Auckland. Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Word processing and writing in elementary classrooms: A critical review of related literature. Review of Educational Research, 61(1), 107. Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE. Comber, B. (1997). Literacy, poverty and schooling. English in Australia, 119(20), 22-34. Cook-Gumperz, J. (Ed.). (1986). The social construction of literacy: Studies in interactional socio-linguistics (Vol. 3). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cope, B. (2000). Designs for social futures. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 203234). South Yarra: Macmillan. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (1993). The power of literacy and the literacy of power. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing (pp. 63-89). London: Falmer Press. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (1996). Putting multiliteracies to the test. Retrieved 9th of June, 2003, from http://www.edoz.com.au/educationaustralia/archive/features/mult1.html Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (1997a). Multiliteracies, Education and the New Communications Environment: A response to Vaughan Prain. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 18(3), 469-478. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (1997b). Productive diversity: A new Australian model for work and management. Annandale, NSW: Pluto Press. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (1999). Teaching and learning in the new world of literacy: A professional development program and classroom research project: Participants'Resource Book. Melbourne: RMIT University: Faculty of Education, Language and Community Services. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000a). Introduction: Multiliteracies: The beginnings of an idea. In M. Kalantzis (Ed.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 3-8). South Yarra, VIC: MacMillan. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000b). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. South Yarra: Macmillan. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000c). A pedagogy of multiliteracies. In M. Kalantzis (Ed.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 9-37). South Yarra, VIC: MacMillan. Corson, D. (1993). Minority social groups and non-standard discourse: Towards a just language policy. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 271-295.

- 254 -


Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people' s children. Harvard Educational Review, 5(3), 280-298. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: UK: SAGE. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 1-34). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Department of Education and Training Western Australia. (2005). Outcomes and Standards Framework: English. Retrieved 2nd November, 2005, from http://www.eddept.wa.edu.au/curriculum/CIP2/docs/English%20OSF.pdf Department of Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs. (1997). Digital rhetorics: Literacies and technologies in education: Current practices and future directions. Brisbane: QLD: Queensland University of Technology. Department of Education Tasmania. (2004). English Learning Area: Statement and Profile. Retrieved 2nd November, 2005, from http://www.education.tas.gov.au/english/stateprof.htm Department of Education Training and Youth Affairs. (1997b). Digital rhetorics: Executive summary. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology. Department of Employment Education and Training Northern Territory. (2005). Northern Territory Curriculum Framework: English Learning Area. Retrieved 2nd November, 2005, from http://www.deet.nt.gov.au/education/ntcf/docs/learning_areas_english.pdf Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press. Durrant, C., & Green, B. (2000). Literacy and the new technologies in school education: Meeting the L(IT)teracy Challenge? Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 23(2), 89-108. Dyrud, D. (1995). Book Review - Literacy and computers: The complications of teaching and learning with technology edited by Cynthia L. Selfe and Susan Hilligoss. Technical Communication, 42(3), 510. Dyson, A. (1993). Social worlds of children learning to write. New York: Teachers College Press. Ediger, M. (2001). Issues in reading instruction. Reading Improvement, 38(1), 22-26. Education Queensland. (1994). Years 1-10 English Language Arts Syllabus. Brisbane: Government Printery. Education Queensland. (1999). 2010 Queensland State Education. Brisbane: Education Queensland. Education Queensland. (2001). New basics: The why, what, how and when of rich tasks: Rich tasks booklet. Retrieved March 1st, 2003, from http://education.qld.gov.au/corporate/newbasics/html/news/news.html Education Queensland. (2002). Literate Futures Project, from http://education.qld.gov.au/currciulum/learning/literate-futures/ Eiser, J. (1994). Attitudes, chaos, and the connectionist mind. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Emmison, M. (2003). The conceptualisation and analysis of visual data. In Qualitative analysis: Practice and innovation. Crown Nest, NSW: Allyn and Unwin.

- 255 -


Emmitt, M., & Pollock, J. (1997). Language and learning: An introduction for teaching, (2nd Edition ed.). Oxford University Press: Melbourne. Erickson, F. (1987). Transformation and school success: The politics and culture of educational achievement. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 18, 335356. Ezzy, D. (2002). Qualitative analysis: Practice and innovation. Crows Nest, NSW: Allyn and Unwin. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman. Fairclough, N. (1992). Critical language awareness. London: London. Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketisation of public discourse: The universities. Discourse and Society, 4(2), 133-168. Fairclough, N. (1994). Conversationalisation of discourse and the authority of the consumer. In R. Keat, N. Whitley & N. Abercrombie (Eds.), The authority of the consumer. London: Routledge. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. London: Longmans. Fairclough, N. (2000). Multiliteracies and language: Orders of discourse and intertextuality. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 162-181). South Yarra: Macmillan. Faraclas, N. (1997). Critical literacy and control in the New World Order. In S. Muspratt, P. Luke & P. Freebody (Eds.), Constructing critical literacies: Teaching and learning textual practice. Allen & Unwin: Melbourne. Fetterman, D. M. (1989). Ethnography: Step by step. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Finch, J. (1999). It' s great to have someone to talk to: The ethics and politics of interviewing women. In A. Bryman & R. Burgess (Eds.), Methods of Qualitative Research (Vol. 2, pp. 68-80). London: SAGE. Fine, M. (1992). Silencing and nurturing voice in an improbable context: Urban adolescents in public school. In M. Fine (Ed.), Disruptive voices: The possibilities of feminist research (pp. 115-138). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Flick, U., von Kardorff, E., & Steinke, I. (2004). A companion to qualitative research. London: Sage. Foddy, W. (1993). Constructing questions for interviews and questionnaires: Theory and practice in social research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Foster, E., Thomas, I., & Fraser, L. (1989). Appendix B: Computer access for English classes. In C. Selfe, D. Rodrigues & W. Oates (Eds.), Computers in English and the language arts : The challenge of teacher education (pp. 287289). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teacher of English. Freebody, P. (1999). Literacy education in New Zealand and Australia. In D. Wagner, R. Venezky & B. Street (Eds.), Literacy: An international handbook (pp. 440-443). Boulder, California: Westview Press. Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey. Gallas, K. (1997). Bad boys and silent girls: What children know about language and power. Women and Language, 20(1), 63. Gallas, K., Anton-Oldenburg, M., Ballenger, C., & Beseler, C. (1996). Focus on research: Talking the talk and walking the walk: Researching oral language in the classroom. Language Arts, 73(8), 608. Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New York: Basic Books.

- 256 -


Gay, L., & Airasian, P. (2000). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Gee, J. (1991). What is literacy? In C. Mitchell & K. Weiler (Eds.), Rewriting literacy (Vol. pp.1-11). New York: Bergin and Garvey. Gee, J. (1992). The social mind: Language, ideology, and social practice. New York: Bergin and Garvey. Gee, J. (1993). An introduction to human language: Fundamental concepts. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Gee, J. (1994). New alignments and old literacies: From fast capitalism to the canon. Paper presented at the 1994 Australian Reading Association Twentieth National Conference. Gee, J. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge and Falmer. Gee, J. (1999). An Introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London: Routledge. Gee, J. (2000a). Discourse and sociocultural studies in reading. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthai, P. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 195-208). Mahwah, NJ.: Erlbaum. Gee, J. (2000b). New people in new worlds: Networks, the new capitalism and schools. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 43-68). South Yarra: Macmillan. Gee, J. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave, Macmillan. Gee, J., Hull, G., & Lankshear, C. (1996). The new work order: Behind the language of the new capitalism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. London: Macmillan. Giddens, A. (1981). Agency, institution, and time-space analysis. In K. Knorr-Cetina & A. Cicourel (Eds.), Advances in social theory and methodology: Toward an integration of micro and macro sociology (pp. 161-174). Boston, MA: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Gilmore, P. (1985). Gimme room: School resistance, attitude and access to literacy. Journal of Anthropology and Education, 167(1), 111-128. Giroux, H. (1983). Theories of reproduction and resistance in the new sociology of education. Harvard Educational Review, 53(3), 257-293. Giroux, H. (1988). Schooling and the struggle for public life: Critical pedagogy in the modern age. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Giroux, H. A. (1990). Critical theory and the politics of culture and voice: Rethinking the discourse of educational research. In R. R. Sherman & R. B. Webb (Eds.), Qualitative research in education: Focus and methods (pp. 190210). East Sussex: The Falmer Press. Giroux, H. A. (1999). Foreword: Critical pedagogy and the project of exemplary prophecy. In P. Leistyna (Ed.), Presence of mind (pp. vii-xv). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Gitlin, A., Siegel, M., & Boru, K. (1989). The politics of method: From leftist ethnography to educative research. International Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 2, 237-253. Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.

- 257 -


Goodman, K. (1976). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of Reading Specialist, 4, 126-135. Grant, C. A. (1999). Multicultural research: A reflective engagement with race, class, gender and sexual orientation. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press. Graves, D. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. New Hampshire: Heinemann. Gray, B. (1987). How natural is natural learning theory? Employing holistic methodology in the classroom. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 12(4), 3-20. Green, B. (1987). Gender, genre and writing pedagogy. In I. Reid (Ed.), The place of genre in learning: Current debates (pp. 83-90). Geelong: Deakin University Press. Green, B. (1993). Curriculum, technology and textual practice. Geelong, VIC: Deakin University Centre for Education and Change. Green, B. (1994). Post-curriculum possibilities: English teaching, cultural politics, and the postmodern turn.Unpublished manuscript, Geelong, VIC. Green, B. (1997a). Literacy, information and the learning society. Paper presented at the Joint Conference of the Australian Association of the Teaching of English, the Australian Literacy Educators'Association and the Australian School Library Association, Darwin High School, Darwin, NT. Green, B. (1997b). Reading with an attitude; or deconstructing "critical literacies". In S. Muspratt, A. Luke & P. Freebody (Eds.), Constructing critical literacies: Teaching and learning textual practice (pp. 227-242). St. Leonards, NSW: Allen and Unwin. Green, B., & Bigum, C. (1993). Aliens in the classroom. Australian Journal of Education, 37(2), 119-141. Green, B., & Bigum, C. (2003). Literacy education and the new technologies: Hypermedia or media hype. In G. Bull & M. Anstey (Eds.), The literacy lexicon (2nd ed., pp. 209-224). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia. Green, B., Fitzclarence, & Bigum, C. (1994). Schooling and what future? Student welfare and learning in a time of change. Principal Matters, 6(1), 40-41. Gregory, E. (1994). Negotiation as a criterial factor in learning to read in a second language. In D. Graddol, J. Maybin & B. Stierer (Eds.), Researching language and literacy in social context (pp. 49-61). Adelaide, S.A.: Open University. Habermas, J. (1981). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalisation of society (Vol. 1). Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason (Vol. 2). Boston: Beacon Press. Habermas, J. (1992). The philosophical discourse of modernity: Twelve lectures (F. G. Lawrence, Trans. Sixth ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Hagood, M. (2000). New times, new millennium, new literacies. Reading Research and Instruction, 39(4), 311-328. Hall, I., & Hall, D. (2004). Evaluation and social research: Introduction to smallscale practice. New York: Palgrave: Macmillan. Halliday, M. (1978). Language as social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. (1991). Linguistic perspectives on literacy: A systemic-functional approach. Paper presented at the Inaugural Systemic Functional Linguistic Conference, Deakin University, Darwin, NT.

- 258 -


Halliday, M. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Hannon, P. (2000). Reflecting on literacy in education. London: Routledge and Falmer. Harre, R., & Gillett, G. (1994). The discursive mind. Beverly Hills: Sage. Healy, A. (1999). Learning literacy in a post-typographic age. Unpublished PhD Thesis, QUT, Brisbane: QLD. Healy, A. (2000). Teaching reading and writing in a multiliteracies context: Classroom practice. Flaxton, QLD: Post Pressed. Heath, C. (2004). Analysing face-to-face interaction: Video, the visual and material. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (3rd ed., pp. 166-282). London: Sage. Heath, S. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Heath, S. (1999). Literacy and social practice. In D. Wagner, R. Venezky & B. Street (Eds.), Literacy: An international handbook (pp. 102-106). Boulder, California: Westview Press. Heaton, J. (2004). Reworking qualitative data. London: Sage. Hermann, N. (1989). The creative brain. North Carolina: Brain Books. Heron, J. (1988). Philosophical basis for a new paradigm. In P. Reason & J. Rowen (Eds.), Human inquiry: A sourcebook for new paradigm research (pp. 19-35). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Heron, J., & Reason, P. (2001). The practice of co-operative inquiry: Research ' with' rather than ' on'people. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative Inquiry and practice (pp. 179-188). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Hill, M. (1996). Learning resources for you and your children. Link - Up, 13(4), 37. Hollingdale, P. (1995). Children' s literature in an age of multiple literacies. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 18(4), 248-258. Hoy, D., & McCarthy, T. (1994). Critical theory. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. Husserl, E. (1970). The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology. Evanston: North-western University Press. Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (1999). Multicultural education: Transforming the mainstream. In S. May (Ed.), Critical multiculturalism: Rethinking multicultural and antiracist education (pp. 245-274). Taylor and Francis: Falmer Press. Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2000a). Changing the role of schools. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. p.121-148). South Yarra: Macmillan. Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2000b). A multiliteracies pedagogy: A pedagogical supplement. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 239-248). South Yarra: Macmillan. Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (Eds.). (2005). Learning by design. Melbourne, VIC: Victorian Schools Innovation Commission and Common Ground. Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., & Fehring, H. (2002). Multiliteracies: Teaching and learning in the new communications environment. Primary English Notes, 133, 1-8. Kaspersen, L. B. (2000). Anthony Giddens: An introduction to a social theorist (S. Sampson, Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

- 259 -


Kenway, J., & Bullen, E. (2001). Consuming children: Education-entertainmentadvertising. Buckingham: Open University Press. Kincheloe, J., & McLaren, P. (1994). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 138-157). New York: SAGE. Kling, R. (1983). Value conflicts in computing developments: Developed and developing countries. Telecommunications Policy, 7(1), 12. Knobel, M., & Healy, A. (1998). Critical Literacies: An Introduction. In M. Knobel, & Healy, A. (Ed.), Critical literacies in the primary classroom (pp. 1-12). Arizona, USA: Zephyr Press. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kress, G. (1993a). Communication and culture: An introduction. In G. Kress (Ed.), Communication and culture (pp. 3-19). Kensington, NSW: New South Wales University Press. Kress, G. (1993b). Genre as social process. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing (pp. 1-21). London: Falmer Press. Kress, G. (1993c). Language as social practice. In G. Kress (Ed.), Communication and culture (pp. 71-130). Kensington, NSW: New South Wales University Press. Kress, G. (1997). Before writing: Rethinking the paths to literacy. London: Routledge. Kress, G. (2000a). Design and transformation: New theories of meaning. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 153-161). South Yarra. Kress, G. (2000b). Multimodality. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 182-202). South Yarra: Macmillan. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the media age. London: Routledge. Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum. Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Landow, G. (1992). Hypertext: The convergence of contemporary critical theory and technology. Baltimore, USA: Jones Hopkins University Press. Landow, G., & Delany, P. (1991). Hypertext, hypermedia and literary studies: The state of the art. In P. Delany & G. Landow (Eds.), Hypermedia and literary studies (pp. 3-50). London, England: MIT Press. Lankshear, C. (1998). Meanings of literacy in contemporary educational reform proposals. Educational Theory, 48(3), 351 - 372. Lankshear, C., Gee, J., Knobel, M., & Searle, C. (1997). Changing literacies. Philadephia: PA: Open University Press. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003a). Literacy, culture and technology. In G. Bull & M. Anstey (Eds.), Literacy lexicon (pp. 67-79). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003b). New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom learning. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Lankshear, C., & Lawler, M. (1987). Literacy, schooling and revolution. London: Falmer Press.

- 260 -


Lankshear, C., & McLaren, P. (1993). Introduction. In C. Lankshear, P. Mclaren & M. Greene (Eds.), Critical literacy: Politics, praxis, and the postmodern (pp. 1-56). New York: State University of New York Press. Lankshear, C., Snyder, I., & Green, B. (2000). Teachers and techno-literacy: Managing literacy, technology and learning in schools. St Leonards: NSW: Allen & Unwin. Lather, P. (1986). Research as praxis. Harvard Educational Review, 56(3), 257-277. Lather, P. (1990). Reinscribing otherwise: The play of values in the practice of human science. In E. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 315-355). Newbury Park: Sage. Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy within the postmodern. New York: Routledge. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lave, J. (1996). Teaching as learning in practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3, 149-164. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Learning Materials Limited. (1993). Picture Q' s books. Sydney: Learning Materials Limited. LeCompte, M., Millroy, W., & Preissle, J. (1992). The handbook of qualitative research in education. San Diego: Academic Press. LeCompte, M., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. San Diego: CA: Academic Press. LeCompte, M., & Schensul, J. (1999a). Designing and conducting ethnographic research. Walnut Creek, California: Alta Mira Press. LeCompte, M., & Schensul, J. (Eds.). (1999b). Analysing and interpreting ethnographic data. Walnut Creek, California: Alta Mira Press. Lee, C. (1993). Signifying as a scaffold for literacy interpretation: The pedagogical implications of an African American discourse genre. Urbana, IL: National council of Teachers of English. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Leu, D. (1996). Sarah' s secret: Social aspects of literacy and learning in a digital information age. The Reading Teacher, 50(2), 162. Leu, D. (1997). Caity' s question: Literacy as deixis on the Internet. The Reading Teacher, 51(1), 62. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic enquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE. Lo Bianco, J. (2000). Multiliteracies and multilingualism. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 92-105). South Yarra: Macmillan. LoBianco, J., & Freebody, P. (1997). Australian literacies: Informing National policy on literacy education. Belconnen, ACT: Language Australia. Luke, A. (1988). Literacy, textbooks and ideology. London: Falmer Press. Luke, A. (1994). The social construction of literacy in the primary school. Melbourne: Macmillan Education Australia. Luke, A., Comber, B., & Grant, H. (2003). Critical literacies and cultural studies. In 2003 (Ed.), The literacy lexicon (2nd ed., pp. 15-35). Frenchs Forest: NSW.

- 261 -


Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (1997). Shaping the social practices of reading. In S. Muspratt, A. Luke & P. Freebody (Eds.), Constructing critical literacies: Teaching and learning textual practice (pp. 185-225). Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Luke, C. (2000). Cyber-schooling and technological change. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 69-91). South Yarra: Macmillan. Macken-Horarik, M. (1997). Relativism in the politics of discourse: Response to James Paul Gee. In S. Muspratt, A. Luke & P. Freebody (Eds.), Constructing critical literacies: Teaching and learning textual practice (pp. 303-314). Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Margolis, H. (1993). Paradigms and Barriers: How habits of mind govern scientific beliefs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Martin, J., & Rothery, J. (1980). Writing project report number 1: Working papers in linguistics. Sydney: University of Sydney. Martin, J., & Rothery, J. (1981). Writing project report number 2: Working papers in linguistics. Sydney: University of Sydney. Martin, J., & Rothery, J. (1986). Writing project report number 4: Working papers in linguistics. Sydney: University of Sydney. Marvisti, A. (2004). Qualitative research in sociology. London: SAGE. Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative research in sociology. London: SAGE. Maxwell, J. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. McCarthy, B. (1987). The 4 MAT system: Teaching to learning styles with right and left mode techniques. Barrington, IL: Excel. McComiskey, B. (1998). Postmodern cultural studies and the politics of writing instruction: Teaching English in the two year college. Urbana, 26(2), 144154. McDermott, R. (1987). The explanation of minority school failure - again. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 18, 361-364. McKay, S. L., & Wong, S. C. (1996). Multiple discourses, multiple identities: investment and agency in second-language learning among Chinese adolescent immigrant students. Research in the Teaching of English, 32(126160). McKenna, M., Reinking, D., Labbo, L., & Kieffer, R. (1999). The electronic transformation of literacy and its implications for the struggling reader. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15(111-126). McLaren, P. (1989). Life in Schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education. New York: Longman. McLaren, P. (1992). Collisions with otherness. Qualitative Studies in Education, 5(1), 77-92. McLaren, P. (1993). Schooling as ritual performance: Towards a political economy of educational symbols and gestures (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. McLaren, P. (1994). Life in Schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman. McLaren, P., & Leonard, P. (Eds.). (1993). Paulo Freire: A critical encounter (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Michaels, S. (1985). Hearing the connections in children' s oral and written discourse. Journal of Education, 167, 36-56.

- 262 -


Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: SAGE. Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (1995). Authority in language: Investigating language prescription and standardisation. London: Routledge. Milroy, L., & Milroy, J. (1987). Whose language? Milton, Keynes: Open University Press. Ministerial Council for Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs. (1999, 28th July). The Adelaide Declaration on the National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First Century. Retrieved 2nd November, 2005, from http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/policy_initiatives_reviews/ key_issues/literacy_numeracy/national_literacy_and_numeracy_benchmarks. htm Mitchell, R. (1999). Catching literature in the ' net' . Primary English Teaching Association(117), 1-8. Moll, L., Saez, R., & Dworin, J. (2001). Exploring biliteracy: Two student case examples of writing as a social practice. The Elementary School Journal, 101(4), 435. Moorman, G., Blanton, W., & McLaughton, T. (1994). Rhetoric and community in whole language: A response to Cambourne, Willinsky and Goodman. Reading Research Quarterly, 29(4), 348-351. Morgan, D. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Murphy, W. (1991). Understanding language: A thumbnail sketch. English in Australia, 97, 25-35. Muspratt, S., Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (1997). Constructing critical literacies: Teaching and learning textual practice. Allen & Unwin: Melbourne. Nakata, M. (2000). History, cultural diversity and English language teaching. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 106-120). Chapel Street, South Yarra: Macmillan. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92. New London Group. (2000). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 9-38). South Yarra: Macmillan. Nolan, R. (1994). Cognitive practices: Human language and human knowledge. Oxford: Blackwell. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation method. London: Sage. Pearson, P., & Johnson, D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York: Holt Rinehart Winston. Pennycook, A. (1996). TESOL and critical literacies: Modern, post or neo? TESOL Quarterly, 30(1), pp.163-171. Peters, M., & Lankshear, C. (1995). Critical literacy and digital texts. Educational Theory, 45(4), 51-70. Phillips, D. (1990). Subjectivity and objectivity: An objective inquiry. In E. Eisner & A. Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate (pp. 19-37). New York: Teachers College Press. Phillips, S. (1982). The invisible culture: Communication in classroom and community on the Warm Springs Reservation. New York: Longman. Popkewitz, T., & Guba, E. (1990). Whose future? Whose past? Notes on critical theory and methodology. Newbury Park: SAGE. Popkewitz, T., & Tabachnick, B. (1981). The study of schooling: Field based methodologies in educational research and evaluation. New York: Praeger.

- 263 -


Prain, V. (1997). Multi(national)literacies and globalising discourses. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 18(3), 453-467. Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15. Quantz, R. (1992). On critical ethnography (with some postmodern considerations). In M. LeCompte, W. Millroy & W. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 447-505). SanDiego: Academic Press. Quantz, R., & O' Conner, T. (1988). Writing critical ethnography: Dialogue, multivoicedness, and carnival in cultural texts. Educational Theory, 38, 95109. Queensland Studies Authority. (2002). Queensland Year 5 Test in Aspects of Literacy and Numeracy. Brisbane: Queensland Government. Queensland Studies Authority. (2005). Years 1-10 English Syllabus for Open Trial. Retrieved 2 November, 2005, from http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/yrs1to10/kla/english/syllabus.html Queensland University of Technology. (1999). Human research ethics. Retrieved May 9th, 2003, from http://www.qut.edu.au/draa/or/ethics/human/index.html Radigan, J. (2001). The class clown and negotiated epistemology in a classroom. In P. Carspecken & G. Walford (Eds.), Critical Ethnography and Education (Vol. 5, pp. 61-88). 2001: Elsevier Science. Reason, P., & Rowan, J. (1988). Foreword. In P. Reason & J. Rowan (Eds.), Human inquiry: A sourcebook of new paradigm research (pp. xi-xxiv). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Reece, J. (1976). Lester and Clyde. Sydney, NSW: Scholastic. Reinking, D. (1997). Me and my hypertext: A multiple digression analysis of technology and literacy. The Reading Teacher, 50(8), 626. Richardson, P. (1991). Language as personal resource and as social construct: Competent views of literacy pedagogy in Australia. Educational Review, 43(2), 171-190. Ritzer, G. (1992). Metatheorizing: Key issues in sociological theory. London: SAGE. Rogoff, B., & Lave, J. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Roman, L. (1992). The political significance of other ways of narrating ethnography: A feminist materialist approach. In M. LeCompte, W. Millroy & P. J. (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 555-594). San Diego: Academic Press. Sarantakos, S. (2005). Social research (3rd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Saukko, P. (2003). Doing research in cultural studies: An introduction to classical and new methodological approaches. London: Sage. Sawyer, W., & Watson, K. (1987). Questions of genre. In I. Reid (Ed.), The place of genre in learning: Current debates (pp. 46-57). Geelong: Deakin University Press. Schwandt, T. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics and social constructionism. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189-213). London: UK: SAGE. Searle, J. (1984). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sharp, R. (1981). Marxism, the concept of ideology, and its implications for fieldwork. In R. Popkewitz & B. Tabachnick (Eds.), The study of schooling:

- 264 -


Field based methodologies in educational research and evaluation (pp. 112154). New York: Praeger. Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction. London: SAGE. Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Silverman, D. (2005). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook (2nd ed.). London: Thousand Oaks. Simon, R., & Dippo, D. (1986). On critical ethnographic work. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 17(4), 195-202. Singh, P. (1997). Reading the silences within critical feminist theory: Response to Pam Gilbert. In S. Muspratt, A. Luke & P. Freebody (Eds.), Constructing critical literacies: Teaching and learning textual practice (pp. 77-94). Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Smith, F. (1978). Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Snyder, I. (1997). Page to screen: Taking literacy into the electronic era. London: Routledge. Snyder, I. (1998). Beyond the hype: Reassessing hypertext. In I. Snyder (Ed.), Page to screen: Taking literacy into the electronic era (pp. 125-141). London: Routledge. Snyder, I. (1999). Using information technology in language and literacy education: An introduction. In J. Hancock (Ed.), Teaching literacy using information technology (pp. 1-10). Carlton South, VIC: Australian Literacy Education Association. Soler-Gallart, M. (1998). The misteaching of academic discourses: The politics of language in the classroom. Harvard Educational Review, 68(4), 588. Soloway, E. (2000). Teachers and technology: Easing the way. Association for Computing Machinery. Communications of the ACM, 43(6), 23. Soto, L. (1997). Language, culture and power: Bilingual families and the struggle for quality education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. South Australian Department of Education and Children' s Services. (2004, 10th December 2004). South Australian Curriculum Standards and Accountability Framework. Retrieved 2nd November, 2005, from http://www.sacsa.sa.edu.au/splash.asp Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Bergin and Gargey. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organisation. Cambridge: MA: MIT Press. Stewart-Dore, N. (2003). Strategies for practicing multiliteracies. In G. Bull & M. Anstey (Eds.), The literacy lexicon (2nd ed., pp. 161-180). Frenchs Forest: NSW: Pearson Education Australia. Strassman, P. (1997). Information systems and literacy. In G. Hawisher & C. Selfe (Eds.), Literacy, technology and society: Confronting the issues (pp. 134141). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. London, UK: SAGE. Street, B. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Street, B. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnography and education. London: Longman.

- 265 -


Street, B. (1999). The meaning of literacy. In D. Wagner, R. Venezky & B. Street (Eds.), Literacy: An international handbook (pp. 34-40). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Street, B. (Ed.). (1993). Cross cultural approaches to literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swann, J. (1993). Observing and recording talk in educational settings. In D. Graddol, J. Maybin & B. Stierer (Eds.), Researching language and literacy in context (pp. 26-48). Adelaide, SA: Open University. Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types & software tools. Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press. Trimbur, J. (2001). Review: Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. College Composition and Communication, 52(4), 659. Trueba, H. (1987). Success or failure? Learning and the language minority student. New York: Newbury House. Trueba, H. (1989). Raising silent voices: Educating the linguistic minorities for the 21st century. New York: Newbury House. Turbill, J. (1983). Now we want to write. Rozelle: PETA. Unsworth, L. (1981). Tests, assessment and evaluation in reading. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the second Milperra AAE Reading Centre Symposium, Sydney: Milperra College of Advanced Education. Unsworth, L. (1988). Whole language or procedural display? The social context of popular whole language activities. Australian Journal of Reading, 11(2), 127137. Unsworth, L. (1999). Developing critical understanding of the specialised language of school science and history texts: A functional grammatical perspective. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42(7), 508-521. Unsworth, L. (2002). Changing dimensions of school literacies. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 25(1), 62 -77. Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2005). Victorian Essential Learning Standards: English. Retrieved 2nd November, from http://vels.vcaa.vic.edu.au/essential/discipline/english/index.html Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. London: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. (1987). Problems of general psychology: Including the volume thinking and speech (Vol. 1). New York: State University of New York. Wagner, D. A. (1987). The future of literacy in a changing world. Oxford: Pergamom Press. Warren, B., Rosebery, A., & Conant, F. (1994). Discourse and social practice: Learning science in bilingual classrooms. In D. Spencer (Ed.), Adult biliteracy in the United States (pp. 191-210). Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Weis, L. (1988). Class, race and gender in American education. Albany: NY: State University of New York Press. Wells, G. (1986). The meaning makers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Wertsch, J. (1985). Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

- 266 -


Wertsch, J. (1996a). Vygotsky: The ambivalent Enlightenment rationalist. In M. Cole & J. Wertsch (Eds.), Contemporary implications of Vygotsky and Luria (pp. 39-62). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press. Wertsch, J. (1996b). Vygotsky' s two minds on the nature of meaning. Chicago: Research Assembly of the National Council of Teachers of English. West, A. (1992). Reading against the text: Developing critical literacy. Paper presented at the Domains of Literary Conference, England. Wexler, P. (1987). Social analysis of education: After the new sociology. Routledge: 1987. Willard, T., & Lawler, A. (1985). Megachoices: Options for tomorrow' s world. The Futurist, 19(4), 13. Williams, M. (2001). Digital guests in your classroom. Primary English Teaching Association, 129. Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labour: How working class kids get working class jobs. Hampshire, England: Gower Publishing Company. Woods, P. (1992). Primitive education in the history of education. Harvard Educational Review, 16(235-254). Wyatt-Smith, C. (2000). The English literacy interface in senior school: Debates in Queensland. English in Australia, 127-128, 71-79.

- 267 -