Posted by: | 3rd Jan, 2013

Symposium on kinesthetic games, multimodality, and performance in English classrooms

Sarah Wu, Rita Shahi and Corinna Nettleton

How to most effectively incooperate multi-modal activities in order to aid teaching and student learning of complex literary text. Motivating students in the English classroom is a challenge for every teacher, therefore, finding fresh and relevant approaches for engaging students with course content is key.

Sarah Wu: Kinesthetic games and activities for comprehension and engagement

My inquiry project will be focused on how to use kinesthetic games and activities to help students comprehend and engage with content materials, especially in EAL classes. I am interested in how specific aspects of kinesthetic activities aid students’ motivation and learning in the classroom. I designed this inquiry topic because I plan to use many active games in all of my classes during my long practicum. I understand that games can create a high energy and engaging environment for students, but I would like to research on the specific aspects of kinesthetic games that contribute to the overall effectiveness of students’ understanding and learning of content materials. As EAL is my major teachable area, I will focus my research around this area of study. Through this project, I also hope to gather more resources of kinesthetic activities to experiment in my upcoming practicum

Rita Shahi: Multimodality in non-mainstream English classrooms

The focus of my inquiry project is to explore the idea of using multimodal activities, specifically digitally and kinesthetically related, for the purposes of engaging students and developing student interest in learning curriculum content in a non-mainstream English classroom (such as an ESL/EAL or Communications course). The approach I hope to take will look at a variety of research articles pertaining to the topic of multimodal learning, including studies and practical applications of activities in classrooms. What kinds of activities best “hook” students into the text, help develop interest and invite them to interact with it? Some material will consist of resources and activities that can be used in an English classroom and can aid in teaching literature (plays) and engaging students for continuous learning.

Corinna Nettleton: Multimodality for enrichment and effectiveness in teaching Shakespeare

My inquiry will focus on incorporating multi-modalities specifically for the enrichment and effectiveness of teaching Shakespeare to ELL students. Various strategies which are specific to teaching ELL will be explored and implemented in order to aid comprehension of this unique form of English and its use in the English classroom. The issue of whether to use modified text or not will be explored. Transitional ELL learners require skills to aid them in comprehension of such texts which they will interact with once they have entered mainstream English and through incorporating multi-modal techniques Shakespeare may be made more accessible to ELL (visuals, drama, prereading, etc.). In teaching a dramatic text, not only should teachers incorporate dramatic teaching strategies but other modalities which can encourage various kinds of learners to excel in their areas of ability and interest. Unique challenges of teaching specific text of Shakespeare to ELL learners will also be addressed.

Bibliography of articles we wish to consult:

Ajayi, L. (2009). English as a second language learners’ exploration of multimodal texts in a junior high school. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(7), 585-595.

Albers, P. (2006). Imagining the possibilities in multimodal curriculum design. English Education 38(2). 75-101.

[Multimodal inquiry as a framework: english teachers and students must be able to interpret and represent meanings across different modes (film, plays, art, music, photography). These modes encourage students to think alternatively about literature and how it connects to the world around them. If multiple modes are incorporated, it gives students the potential to make different meanings and representations. Each mode also contributes something different to the interpretation and representation of the text and affects its overall message. When students explore multimodal representations, they learn actively, have interest in the topic, and express meaning in different modes of representation. 

Albers suggests that when designing curriculum, important questions to consider are: which essential questions will guide the study, how the text or theme will be introduced, how will you tap into what your students already know and build on previous knowledge, and how will you integrate multiple modes to “maximize student involvement and understanding?.” 

Albers also recommends Focused Study, which involves initiating engagements, demonstrations, text and literature study, invitations to inquiry, opportunities for learning and sharing, and reflective action plans.]

Auster, E. R., & Wylie, K. K. (2006). Creating active learning in the classroom: A systematic approach. Journal of Management Education, 30(2), 333-353.

Benson, S. (2008). A Restart of what language arts is: bringing multimodal assignments into secondary language arts. Journal of Advanced Academics, 29(4), 634-674. DOI: 10.4219/jaa-2008-828

Cruickshank, D. R., & Telfer, R. (1980). Classroom games and simulations.Theory into practice, 19(1), 75-80.

Culham, C. R. (2002). Coping with obstacles in drama-based ESL teaching: A nonverbal approach. Body and language: Intercultural learning through drama, 95-112.

Early, M. & Marshall, S. (2008). Adolescent ESL Students’ Interpretation and Appreciation of Literary Texts: A Case Study of Multimodality. Canadian modern language review. Volume 64, Issue 3. p. 377-395.

  • [A case study is used to illustrate the effectiveness of using multimodal activities in the ESL classroom in order to foster deeper understanding and appreciation for literature (short story specifically). Students ‘transmediate’ oral to visual within groups by making a visual representation of a short story interpretation. Meaning is shared and negotiated. Use of L1 is permitted to some extent and collaborative group work keeps students motivated and allow them to explore different perspectives and inspires more thoughtful reading (and rereading) of the text. Freedom to create is given with specific guiding criteria for the finished project. Reflections from the students and teacher on the final product were very positive. Corinna]

Folger Shakespeare Library. (n.d.). Shakespeare for ELL and ESL Students. Retrieved from

http://www.folger.edu/Content/Teach-and-Learn/Teaching-Resources/For-English-Language-Learners/

  • [Resources include lesson plans and activities for ELL using Shakespeare plays easily adaptable to whichever play one is working with. Practical advice for the unique challenges faced when teaching ELL and advocation of use of multimodal approach. Corinna]

Gardner, Howard. (1999). Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. Intelligence reframed: multiple intelligences for the 21st century. p. 135-155.

  • [This chapter of Gardner’s book covers some of the difficulties and misunderstanding surrounding how to incorporate MI theory in the classroom. He addresses some misconceptions and also suggests some ways of approaching MI learning in curriculum design. Much of the information on tips for implementation is focused on changing a whole school to MI format, but there are several tips which are applicable within the classroom. Corinna]

Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002).
Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & gaming, 33(4), 441-467.

Godwin-Jones, R. (2005). Emerging technologies: Messaging, gaming, peer-to-peer sharing: Language learning strategies & tools for the millennial generation.Language, Learning & Technology, 9(1), 17-23.

Gaudart, H. (1999). Games as teaching tools for teaching English to speakers of other languages. Simulation & Gaming, 30(3), 283-291.

Haddon, J. (2009). Teaching Reading Shakespeare. Taylor & Francis Group. NY.

  • [Haddon gives in-depth detail on strategies for teaching Shakespeare in high school including how to approach understanding early modern English. Very comprehensive but little focus on incorporating multimodal approach. Mostly focused on practical application. Corinna]

Hill, Jane D., and Kathleen M. Flynn. Classroom Instruction That Works with English Language Learners. Alexandria: ASCD, 2006. Print. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ubc/docDetail.action?docID=10141226

  • List of various effect strategies for teaching EL learners

June Straughan. (Dec., 1996). Romeo and Juliet” and the ESL Classroom. The English Journal. Vol. 85, No. 8 (Dec., 1996), pp. 52-54. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/820042

Moreno, R. & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3). 309-326.

[Questions addressed:

  • what are interactive multimodal learning environments?
  • how do students learn from them?
  • how can they be implemented?
  • directions for further research?

The article describes multimodal learning environments as the use of verbal and non verbal modes of representing content knowledge. The purpose is to enhance student understanding of concepts. Interactive multimodal learning is dependent on the actions of the learner who navigates, searches, converses with, and manipulates the content. Multimodal learning is synonymous with viewing learning as knowledge construction rather than simply information acquisition. Building mental representations involves selecting, organizing, and integrating new information with existing knowledge, and actively making sense of it all. Students learn from verbal and nonverbal modes of representation through cognitive processing. Cognitive processing involves selecting information, processing and organizing it, and then integrating it with existing knowledge. The researchers suggest using various instructional design principles in integrating and incorporating multimodal representations: guided activity, reflection, feedback, and pacing.]

Nuria Carassco. (2002). Teaching Romeo and Juliet to ESL Students in Middle School. Learning Domain. 54-71. Retrieved from

http://www.learningdomain.com/MEdHOME/TESL/Teach.Romeo.ESL.drama.pdf.

Porter, Christina. (2009). Words, Words, Words: Reading Shakespeare with English Language Learners. English Journal. Vol. 99, Iss. 1, 44.

  • [Many practical activities and exercises for teaching ELL students Shakespeare using prereading, drama, visuals and chunking of reading material. Encourages teachers to avoid dumbing-down the language of Shakespeare but if need to using abridged version of play (portions of the play about 30 pages in length, including the most vital aspects of the texts). ELL learners are frequently handed text which has been reworded into more simplistic language which lacks the richness of the original and sells the student short in preparation for interaction with texts which are similar when they enter mainstream English classes. The activities suggested show multi-modal strategies which make the text more accessible to ELL learners and trains them in ways to not only comprehend complex text, but enjoy it! (Corinna)]

Randel, J. M., Morris, B. A., Wetzel, C. D., & Whitehill, B. V. (1992). The effectiveness of games for educational purposes: A review of recent research.Simulation & Gaming, 23(3), 261-276.

Sam, W. Y. (1990). Drama in Teaching English as a Second Language-A Communicative Approach. The English Teacher, 19.

  • [Encourages the use of drama in the classroom as a communicative approach to education. Argues that it is a more authentic activity for practice of language because it includes aspects such as emotion and involves the whole person and not just mental processes, but best for language which has already been learned and not for teaching new forms. Gives a list of advantages and disadvantages, but states that the disadvantages can be resolved through careful planning. Mostly covering the theoretical aspect of drama without practical examples of how to implement drama activities in the classroom. (Corinna)]

Sewell, W.C. & Denton, S. (2011). Multimodal literacies in the secondary english classroom. English Journal 100(5). 61-65.

[The article argues that teachers should shift from traditional literacy practices to incorporating more multimodal instruction to represent a text in a variety of different modes. It is important to incorporate multiple modes of representation because it is a large part of how our students and society in general communicates and it could help students perform better if they could draw on their out-of-school experiences. The reason given for why multi-modality should be integrated in instruction, according to this article, is that not all students are proficient in multi-modality, and therefore need training to be competitive in the work force. The article also discusses the concept of “anchored instruction,” to make learning meaningful and useful to students. Relating the material to media that students use daily helps build background knowledge, helps them draw on previous knowledge, and make connections with new information. The article also makes suggestions on the types of media and programs that can be used in classroom (mostly digital) including Youtube, Power Point, AVC Labs to convert Youtube clips, and Windows Movie Maker/iMovie.]

 

Shakespeare, William. (1901). Romeo and Juliet. The University Society. New York.

Silberstein, S. (1994). Techniques and Resources in Teaching Reading. Oxford University Press. New York: NY.

  • [How a text reflects the kind of activities used in a curriculum. Using a variety of reading techniques encourages independent learning by developing various reading skills needed to become proficient. Gives guiding questions to ask to direct activity choice in relation to text being taught. Corinna]

Somers, Albert B. (1939). Teaching Poetry in High School. Urbana, Ill. : National Council of Teachers of English, 213-218.

Thompson, M. (2008). Multimodal teaching and learning: creating spaces for content teachers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2), 144-153.

Walsh, M. (2010). Multimodal literacy: what does it mean for classroom practice?. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 33(3), 211-239.

 

 

Categories:

«
»

Responses

Hi Rita,

I changed everyone’s roles to administrator, so now you should be able to edit Corinna’s post. This is looking excellent!

Teresa

TMD on January 3rd, 2013
at 9:10 pm

Hi all,

Just remember that you must log in to UBC Blogs before you are able to make or edit posts. You can make comments without logging in, but it is best to log in first.

Best,

Teresa

TMD on January 3rd, 2013
at 11:08 pm

Hi girls,

This is definitely an interesting and useful point of inquiry. I believe that this is especially relevant to me as a foreign language teacher because I too intend to use a variety of kinesthetic and multi-modal activities during my teaching. I often struggle with finding new and effective ways of physically engaging students, especially ones that I feel will actually be useful to their learning and not just as a “fun” activity that has no actual purpose.

For my English class, I know that I will have many EL learners in that class, so I am hoping to find ways of incorporating them into the class without drawing attention to their language skill level. I believe that is an important step in fostering a classroom community!

I am looking forward to hearing your findings!

ctwlee on January 9th, 2013
at 10:36 am

Hello ladies!

I’ll be teaching Japanese and EAL during my extended practicum so I am sure to find some nuggets of information gold in the results of your inquiries.

I’ve also taught English in Japan for a number of years where I was an active participant and leader of lively kinesthetic games.

Since it’s part of my past and future I am eager to see what your inquiry produces.

Gabriel

gabrielnjones on January 9th, 2013
at 10:48 am

Hello all,

You’ve developed quite an extensive list of resources. I like the fact that you’re annotating some of them, Corinna, because an annotated bibliography is most useful to both readers and writers in the long term.

I’ll address each of your entries in a separate comment. Sarah, you note, “I would like to research on the specific aspects of kinesthetic games that contribute to the overall effectiveness of students’ understanding and learning of content materials.” Glancing through the bibliography my sense is that you may wish to add more articles that speak specifically to the reason researchers and educators deem games to be effective (e.g., Becker, 2005). I expect you’ll find much of this research draws on various articulations of learning styles (e.g., Gardner, 1983; 1999). I wrote an article last year that in part addresses the question of diversity and learning styles, and thought perhaps the following extract from my essay might be useful.

EXCERPT
**Diversity among learners may exist along many lines, including ethnicity, language, socio-economic status, religion, gender, sexual orientation, learning style, learning ability, and others. Kahn and Hillwig (2010) observe that, in contemplating the question of diversity in classrooms, people tend to think foremost of differences that may be outwardly discernible such as ethnicity, sex, or language use; and yet, in classroom environments “it is important that when we refer to diverse learners the term broadens to include students’ individual learning and communication styles, abilities, disabilities, proficiencies, and talents” (p. 64). That is to say, even a group of students appearing to share many things in common are likely to be diverse in their learning preferences and abilities.

It’s worth contemplating further the latter types of diversity named by Kahn and Hillwig. Learner “abilities” and “disabilities,” to use their terminology, may include categories such as “gifted” or “learning disordered” (LD). The sorting of learners into such categories tends to occur through measurement against a societal norm. For example, Kronenberger and Dunn (2003) define “learning disorder,” which encompasses a wide range of subtypes, as “significant deficits in learning relative to expectations based on the individual’s age and intellectual ability, which cannot be completely explained by environment or other psychologic symptoms” (p. 941). The phrase “learning styles,” on the other hand, tends to denote individual approaches to learning. There is much literature outlining different taxonomies of learning styles or approaches (e.g., Gregorc, 1982; Kolb, 1984; Fleming & Mills, 1992; Gardner, 1983, 1999; Honey & Mumford, 2006). Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, and Bjork (2008) propose that “most learning-styles taxonomies are ‘type’ theories: That is, they classify people into supposedly distinct groups” (p. 107). For example, Gardner’s theory of “Multiple Intelligences” (Gardner, 1983, 1999), which is popular in North American educational contexts, suggests that learners have different aptitudes: “visual-spatial” learners may be highly aware of their environments, “linguistic” learners may excel on verbal tasks, and so on. Fleming and Mill’s “VARK” theory similarly proposes that learners have different dispositions: visual, auditory, read/write, and kinesthetic (Fleming & Mills, 1992).

While such approaches are helpful in keeping educators mindful of the individual learning preferences of students, it is also important to bear in mind that they have limitations. Gauging a learner’s ability or disability in relation to societal expectations, for in-stance, is questionable insofar as societal norms are never static, but rather are constructed over time by particular groups of people. An individual who fares well in a society that values book learning may not fare as well in a society that values apprenticed, hands-on learning of crafts or trades. As well, grouping learners in particular categories may discourage examination of the diversity within those categories, or recognition of the fact that a learner may fit descriptors for multiple categories (as is the case for “twice-exceptional” students, defined as those who fit the definition of both “gifted” and “LD” due to “high potential or ability concurrent with the experience of learning problems” [Dix & Schafer, p. 153]). As Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, and Bjork (2008) observe, the “assumption that people actually cluster into distinct groups” is one that may be challenged (p. 107).

Ultimately, in trying to account for diversity, it is somewhat ironic that the dominant approach is to classify. Such classification makes it all too easy to fall into the trap of “essentialism”—the view that particular groups of people, whether identified on the basis of learning ability, style, ethnicity, sex, or language, have “essential” characteristics and might therefore be treated similarly (e.g., my students of a particular ethnicity are bound to enjoy this book because the protagonist is of the same ethnicity). Again, such an approach fails to take account of the inevitable diversity within categories. In the end, it seems the best we can do is to accept that no system of classification is infallible because all learners are unique. Perhaps the greatest challenge for teachers in any educational setting, and particularly in educational settings with high instructor-to-student ratios, will be recognizing and meeting the distinct needs of individual learners. (Dobson, T.M., 2012, 19-20)**
END EXCERPT

———–
References

Becker, K. (2005, June). How are games educational? Learning theories embodied in games. In Proceedings of DiGRA 2005 Changing views: Worlds in play International Conference. (Sarah)

Dobson, T.M. (2012). Including Diverse Learners. In K. James, T.M. Dobson, and C. Leggo (Eds.), English in middle and secondary classrooms: Critical and creative advice from Canada’s teacher educators. Toronto, ON: Pearson.

Dix, J. & Schafer, S. (2005). From paradox to performance: Practical strategies for identifying and teaching gifted/LD students. In K. Johnsen and J. Kendrick (Eds.), Teaching gifted students with disabilities (pp. 153–160). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Fleming, N. D. & Mills, C. (1992). Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. To Im-prove the Academy 11, 137–155. (Sarah)

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

———. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.

Gregorc, A. F. (1982). Gregorc style delineator: Development, technical and administration manu-al. Columbia, CT: Gregorc Associates.

Honey, P. & Mumford, A. (2006). The learning styles questionnaire 80-item version. Maidenhead, UK: Peter Honey Publications.

Kahn, A. & Hillwig, P. (2010). Addressing today’s diverse learners. Journal of Psychological Is-sues in Organizational Culture 1(2), 64–70. (Sarah)

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evi-dence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 9(3), 105–119. (Sarah)

TMD on January 10th, 2013
at 9:50 am

Rita, you articulate your topic as follows, “The approach I hope to take will look at a variety of research articles pertaining to the topic of multimodal learning, including studies and practical applications of activities in classrooms. What kinds of activities best “hook” students into the text, help develop interest and invite them to interact with it?” I hope the readings from the multiliteracies class will benefit you in this worthwhile study. (For individuals who did not take that course and who may be reading this comment, the reading list is here: https://blogs.ubc.ca/lled368/schedule/ .)

As expected, your research is also likely to draw on some of the same material Sarah will consult. You may wish to read the chapter except I included in my comment to Sarah, which discusses, among other things, the potential difficulties with approaches that are based on learner categorization.

I look forward to discussing this more a little later today in our meeting.

Teresa

TMD on January 10th, 2013
at 10:21 am

Corinna, you’ve articulated your topic as follows: “My inquiry will focus on incorporating multi-modalities specifically for the enrichment and effectiveness of teaching Shakespeare to ELL students. Various strategies which are specific to teaching ELL will be explored and implemented in order to aid comprehension of this unique form of English and its use in the English classroom.” Am I correct in recalling that you intend to consult regularly with Gabriel and Christina (https://blogs.ubc.ca/educ451/2013/01/04/anxiety-in-foreign-language-classrooms/ )? Evidently the topics are closely linked — if you haven’t had a chance to consult with that group yet, please do so soon, and please do review my comments on their prospectus as well.

The topic as you’ve framed it focuses on identifying and implementing strategies. The focus of this inquiry project should be not merely on identifying strategies, but on determining why those strategies are successful. What is it about the nature of language learning or language learners that makes some approaches more successful than others? I’ve posted an excerpt from an article in my response to Sarah above — I’d encourage you to review that comment if you have not already done so.

I look forward to our meeting later today, where we can discuss the interesting topic you’ve articulated further.

Teresa

TMD on January 10th, 2013
at 10:32 am

Rita: Great topic. I have come across a couple articles you might be interested in. They mainly look at the uses of narratives in an EAL classroom. I have found narratives to be very useful in my own ESL classroom. Hope you like them!

1. KIRKGÖZ, Y. (2012). INCORPORATING SHORT STORIES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSES. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language),6(2), 110-125.

2. Bhuvaneswari, V., & Jacob, R. (2011). Language Acquisition Through Short Stories for Second Language Learners. Studies in Literature and Language,3(3), 136-138.

blairpruden on January 11th, 2013
at 1:11 am

Ladies,
A lot of great ideas and resources here!

Corinna, I really enjoyed chatting with you during our last group meeting and I found your annotated citations above to be extremely helpful. If possible, it’d be great to touch base again tomorrow to see if we can bounce more ideas off one another without overlapping too much. I’m particularly interested in talking more with your group about the merits and effective execution of multi-modal teaching, emphasizing its value rather than strategies alone. In addition, as I mentioned in class last week, I think an effective multi-modal classroom is an excellent way to think about decentralizing the teacher as a central source of authority. Let’s talk more tomorrow!

irenek13 on January 15th, 2013
at 8:29 pm

Leave a response

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Categories

Spam prevention powered by Akismet