For Task 7, I decided to change the mode to an audio mode. Please click on the audio file above and try to guess what the nine objects are!
Reflecting on the New London Group (1996), I looked at Figure 1 on page 25 to determine what mode of meaning I could use to redesign my “What’s in My Bag” task from Task 1. For that first task, I used a linguistic mode mixed with a visual mode because I included a picture. Looking at the other modes: audio, gestural, spatial, visual, and multimodal; I immediately knew which one I did not want to do: gestural. Acting something out or being on camera is not something I’m comfortable with, though I know others might be. So, I decided to go with the aural (audio design) mode, creating sounds for each object. I recorded each sound using the Voice Memos app on my iPhone and then used Audio Joiner to combine the files. I chose not to use my voice because I wanted the sounds to “speak for themselves”, letting the listener focus entirely on the auditory clues rather than on any verbal explanation.
I found that using only an aural mode can be challenging because some sounds are not easily identifiable, though others might be. It also made me think about cultural differences, since some people may not have access to or familiarity with certain objects, so the sounds might not hold the same meaning. This shows how sound-based communication isn’t equally accessible to everyone. A multimodal approach might have made the task more engaging, for example by combining aural elements with visuals or text.
One benefit of changing modes is that it made me think more creatively about meaning-making. Instead of relying on visual or written cues, I had to focus on how sound alone could communicate. This pushed me to listen more carefully to the world around me and to think about how everyday objects have unique “signatures” that tell a story. For students, this type of activity could build observation and listening skills and help them understand that communication isn’t only about writing or speaking; it’s about designing meaning in many forms.
I can see this kind of activity working well with younger learners, especially those who may not yet be confident writers. For instance, students could create a “soundscape” of their desks, backpacks, or classroom routines, and then share them with others to guess the items or actions. It would make learning more interactive and inclusive, giving space for auditory learners to shine. I also feel that students are so imaginative and would probably come up with even more original ideas than I could.
It also made me reflect on how meaning changes when context is removed. If I hadn’t shown the original image, would listeners be able to identify the objects? Some, like a laptop or phone, might be easy, but others could be harder to guess. That again ties back to culture and accessibility; what is familiar to one person may not be to another.
The New London Group (1996) argues that education still reflects an industrial-era mindset, and I think that’s still true today. While I agree that we need to move toward more multimodal learning, it’s challenging when teachers already face limited time and access to technology. This raises the question of how educators can be supported to make these changes.
Reference
The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92.