If schools are meant to prepare children and adolescents to thrive in the larger society and in the workforce, it is essential that they are proficient in adapting to change. The change I am referring to is the shift from largely print-based communication towards digital communications technology. In the world of education, theories of multiple intelligences or learning styles are widely accepted, and most teachers are open to the use of Youtube video clips or film adaptations, for example, to add to the teaching and learning of a print-based text. Yet, what this teaches students is that the most authentic portal of information is the print, while other digital or non-digital representations have less value or legitimacy. Walsh (2010) proposes that “the challenge for literacy educators is to consider to what extent digital technologies can be incorporated within classroom literacy programs without reducing the importance of the rich, imaginative, and cultural knowledge that is derived from books” (p. 211). She goes on to say, “it is essential that we become specific in the way we describe new processes of reading and writing that are occurring with digital communications technology; that we allow for appropriate changes in pedagogy; and that we develop relevant procedures for assessment” (Walsh, 2010, p. 212).
The purpose of this inquiry is to explore the value of using multiple modes of representation in the classroom, with a focus on the digital, for two reasons: firstly, to engage and motivate students for continuous learning of a particular text; secondly, give students an arena to develop skills in viewing, reading, and writing digital-based texts for the purpose of developing multi-literacies. The rationale behind using multi-modalities in the classroom is that meaning occurs through the use of multiple of modes of representation (Albers, 2006, p. 77). Each mode contributes something different, something more, to the interpretation of literature, in the case for English classrooms, for a more holistic understanding of the text. Furthermore, when students are using different modes, digital or otherwise, in their own representations of their learning, the modes enable them to say what they want to say through various different platforms (Albers, 2006, p. 78). Additionally, “rather than performing literary tasks because of teacher requirement, students need to learn to alter literary tasks to communicate their desired meanings” and using multiple modes can allow them to do that (Benson, 2008, p. 667). Multi-modality “has been the basis for the contention that the simultaneous processing of different modes of text, image, sound and gesture in visual, media, or digital texts is a different function from the linear, sequential reading of print-based texts” (Walsh, 2010, p. 213).
In my practicum, I am teaching a Communications 12 course. Communications 11 and 12 is a course designed for students who do not plan on pursing “academic studies” after graduation. It is described by the Ministry of Education in the Integrated Resource Package as having a focus on “the essential language skills students need to function in daily life and the workplace.” Presumably, students taking the Communications 12 course are students who did not do well in their English Language Arts studies or have chosen to take Communications because their career goals do not require they graduate with English 12. Because these students are not required to analyze literature the way a traditional English classroom would, there is sufficient room for interacting with the text, specifically Reginald Rose’s 12 Angry Men, through digital means. However, Communications 12 is provincially examinable, therefore teaching and practicing reading comprehension and composition skills is essential. It would be fair to say that the majority of these students are quite proficient in their skills in viewing, reading and writing with multimodal texts, especially digital-based texts including Tumblr, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, other social networking sites, and with obtaining information quickly. On the contrary, for students who may not be as proficient with multimodal texts, the classroom provides them with an opportunity to receive “training to be competitive in the workforce after high school,” for a practical rationale (Sewell, p. 61). Walsh introduces the idea of comparing the literacy strategies students need in reading, writing and viewing print-based texts with multimodal texts because digital-based texts may actually require more sophisticated viewing, reading and writing skills than print-based texts.
A recent study by the United Kingdom Literacy Association (UKLA), demonstrates what kinds of strategies students use to view online digital-based texts compared to print-based texts. For viewing screen-based texts, students often have to navigate through reading by responding to what they see and interacting with the text all over the place, compared to left-to-right reading of a print-based text (Walsh, 2010, p. 214). Writing on screen, beyond word-processing, is a sophisticated synthesis of “layout, graphics, photographs, and images” (Walsh, 2010, p. 215). In producing text digitally, students are simultaneously producing, viewing and reading multimodal texts, and a web blog is a good example of this process and product because they can “combine text, images, graphics, photos or videos with sound and music” (Walsh, 2010, p. 215). Furthermore, students must also consider how their layouts and the specifications of their blog suit different audiences. In combination with reading and viewing digital-based texts, students must be equipped with critical thinking skills to evaluate the information they are receiving in these various modes, therefore “teachers need to prepare their students for the new literacy practices and discourses that have become embedded in online social interaction” (Walsh, 2010, p. 216).
If I could teach a play, using both print-based and multimodal texts, would the students gain a more holistic understanding of the literature, while simultaneously developing sophisticated literacy strategies, even multiple literacies, to better prepare them to navigate the changes and shifts in communication? I think so. However, a more difficult question to answer is, how? How do I effectively combine the print-based text I am expected to teach with multiple modes, including digital-based texts? Would I be doing a diservice to students because I am not “teaching to the test,” namely, the provincial exam? The answer is not in using Youtube clips to “hook” students. Yes, it is a great way to engage students by drawing on what they already know about the lesson and they can be interesting references to help students make connections (Sewell, p. 62). Nevertheless, I believe the answer lies in embedding multiple modes of representation (digital or otherwise) into the curriculum. We know the benefits of it, but using digital-based texts are only effective if students value them as much as they (pretend to) value Shakespeare’s Folio. This is a great example of how multimodality can be integrated in the curriculum:
Students observed the life cycle of chickens from the embryo in an egg to full growth and listened to explanations of different stages with new vocabulary. Observations were enhanced by use of a light table, magnifying glass and a digital microscope with images transferred onto a computer screen and saved. These photos with other photos from the web cam were saved and used for an online diary in Voice Thread. Visual records with comments were displayed in the classroom. Teachers extended oral language structures of sequencing and explaining and scaffolded these with audio recorded explanations on teacher-made postcards. The teacher modeled reading of related literature with continual attention to word recognition, phonics and sight vocabulary. Students read and viewed information books, class displays of posters, display of pop-up cards, and information in the online journals, internet sites and video. Print and digital displays were used as scaffolds for joint writing of explanations and for the making and photographing of clay figures for a Claymation production. (Walsh, 219).
I plan on integrating film studies into my teaching of Twelve Angry Men comparing the 1957 version to the 1997 version. However, as the film study follows my teaching of the print version of the play, it is presents a challenge to legitimatizing the value of its film representations. As for the challenges in teaching the provincial exam, multimodal learning may encourage students to think critically and navigate through information more efficiently, even if they are producing answers in print. In moving multimodality in the classroom from theory into practice, Benson (2008) has these suggestions. As already mentioned, “multimodal thinking” needs to be integrated in the design of the curriculum, in order for students to understand that print- and digital-based texts, as well as other non-print texts, are equally as important to the overall understanding of a particular text. Secondly, ongoing dialogue with students about “how non-print texts fit into larger communication goals” in combination with the traditional print text to illuminate their value. Furthermore, teachers must be conscious of their own attitudes about the use of non-print, including digital-based texts, in their assessment and evaluation so they do not “unintentionally reinforce print as most important” (Benson, 2008, p. 655).
References
Albers, P. (2006). Imagining the possibilities in multimodal curriculum design. English Education 38(2). 75-101.
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
Sewell, W.C. & Denton, S. (2011). Multimodal literacies in the secondary english classroom. English Journal 100(5). 61-65.
Walsh, M. (2010). Multimodal literacy: what does it mean for classroom practice?. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 33(3), 211-239