Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Multiliteracies, Multimodality & Web 2.0 Technologies:
Theory and Practice to Enhance Teaching and Learning a
Foreign Language
Dr. Sabrina PriegoFaculty of Arts and Human SciencesDepartment of Languages, Linguistics and Translation
Presentation Plan
• Introduce the concepts of Multiliteracies and multimodality
• Introduce 3 multimodal Web 2.0 technologies:o VoiceThreado Wikiso Meograph
• Suggest 3 projects that integrate the use of Web 2.0 in the EFL classroom
Multiliteracies: The New London Group
State and future of literacy pedagogy
Multiliteracies: The New London Group
Courtney Cazden James GeeSarah Michaels
Bill CopeMary KalantzisAllan LukeCarmen LukeMartin Nakata
Norman FaircloughGunther Kress
What constitutes appropriate literacy teaching in the context of the ever more
critical factors of local diversity and global connectedness?
MULTILITERACIES
1. Multiplicity of communication channels and media
2. Increasing salience of cultural and linguistic diversity
Pedagogy of Multiliteracies
Literacy Multiliteracies
• Centered on language only
• usually on a singular national form of language.
• Focuses on modes of representation much broader than language alone:o Multimodal
meaning-making
o Multimodal text design
o A focus on cultural and linguistic diversity
Multimodality
« The combination of different semiotic modes in a
communicative artefact or event » (Leeuwen, 2005, p.
281)
New London Group (1996)
MultimodalDesign of
Texts
Visual
Auditory
Linguistic Spatial
Gestural
Multiliteracies and the Web 2.0
NEW COMMUNICATION MEDIA ARE RESHAPING THE
WAY WE USE LANGUAGE
Multiliteracies and the Web 2.0
HIGH DEGREES OF ACTIVITY AND CRITICALITY WITH WEB 2.0 APPLICATIONS
=EMPOWERMENT
(PARTICIPATION, INVENTION, AND KNOWLEDGE BUILDING)
Multiliteracies, Web 2.0 and EFL
Expanding literacies for L2 learning:
CRITICALITYMETACOGNITION
REFLECTION SKILLS FOR CREATING AND
PUBLISHING CONTENT
Web 2.0 and EFL
Affordances of Web 2.0 technologies
If and how the Web 2.0 tool is useful for collaborative social interaction and
thus to language learning
Affordances
Technological Educational Social
The reciprocal relationship between the user of a certain Web 2.0 application and the technology itself
Affordances of Web 2.0
EASE OF TRANSFORMING EXISTING VISUAL, AUDITORY AND TEXTUAL CONTENT INTO NEW
MULTIMODAL CONTENT
OPPORTUNITIES TO REPRESENT IDEAS AND THE SELF TO
NEW AND WIDE AUDIENCES
PROVISION OF OPENLY INTERACTIVE, COLLABORATIVE AND SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENTS
Examples of Projects that Integrate the Use of Multimodal Web 2.0
Technologies in the EFL Classroom
Project #
1
Web 2.0
technologies
Wiki
Voicethread
Web 2.0 application:http://voicethread.com
Visual
Auditory
LinguisticSpatial
Gestural
Technological Affordances of VoiceThread
Various levels of access:Able to watch but
not commentSee and commentCo-editors
Possibility to keep the thread private,public or by invitation
Video doodling: allows the user to write or annotate on a video
Comment: Voice (with a microphone
or a telephone) TextVideo Upload pictures,
documents, a PowerPoint presentation or a film.
Visual
Auditory
LinguisticSpatial
Gestural
Technological Affordances of Wikis
Various levels of access:Able to watch but
not editSee and edit
Possibility to keep the wiki:privatepublic or by invitation
Comment moderation: allows the author the opportunity to see comments before they are shown publicly
Traces of all the changes are archived:Changes are
identified by author and date
Project # 1:
Tasks
Wikihttp://did2926-anl3030h.wikispaces.com/
1. (a) Listen to a podcast that dealt with a particular topic. (b)Choose the three most important ideas and
(c)Write three opinion-type questions to discuss with their partners via the VoiceThreads
Podcasts: http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features.html
2. Create a VoiceThread with at least three pictures (as visual support for each of the topics to be discussed)
3. Post the VoiceThread on their Wiki page
http://did2926-anl3030h.wikispaces.com/Podcast+choice+25
Project
#2:Same Web 2.0
technologies,
different tasks
https://voicethread.com/?#u2464921.b5640560.i28762311
Project # 3:
Same tasks,
different Web
2.0 technology
Visual
Auditory
LinguisticSpatial
Gestural
CONCLUSION
SELECT TOOLS THAT SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF POWERFUL NEW
LITERACIES(THOUGHTFUL AND CRITICAL
PARTICIPATION, AND COLLABORATION IN THE CREATION OF NEW
UNDERSTANDINGS)
Multiliteracies, multimodality & Web 2.0 technologies: Integrating Theory & Practice to
Enhance Teaching and Learning a Foreign Language
References:
Multiliteracies
Borsheim, C., Merrit, K, & Reed, D. (2008). Beyond technology’s sake: Advancing Multiliteracies in the twenty-first century. The ClearingHouse: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 82(2), 87-90.
Cole, D. R. & Pullen, D. L. (2010). Multiliteracies in motion: Current theory and practice. London: Routledge.
Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social features. London: Routledge.
Mills, K. (2010). The multiliteracies classroom. UK: Multilingual Matters.
New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Education Review, 66, 60-92.
References:
VoiceThread
Augustsson, G. (2010). Web 2.0 pedagogical support for reflexive and emotional social interaction among Swedish students. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 197-205.
Brunvand, S. & Byrd, S. (2011). Using VoiceThread to promote learning engagement and success for all students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(4), 28-37.
Chan, M. (2012). An exploratory study on the use of VoiceThread in a business policy course. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 8(3), 1-20.
Lee, S.-Y. (2012). Storytelling supported by technology: An alternative for EFL children with learning difficulties. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(3), 297-307.
Sadux, M. (2013). Hear, there and everywhere? An investigation into the use of digital voice tools to enhance teaching and learning in languages in the UK higher education sector (pp. 4-26). York: The Higher Education Academy.
References:
Wiki
Bradley, L., Lindstrom, B. & Rystedt, H. (2010). Rationalities of collaboration for language learning in a wiki. ReCALL 22(2), 247–265.
Leuf, B. & Cunningham, W. (2001). The wiki way: Quick collaboration on the web. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co.
Lund, A. (2008). Wikis: A collective approach to language production. ReCALL, 20(1), 35–54.
Rasmussen, I., Lund, A., & Smørdal, O. (2012).Visualisation of trajectories of participation in a wiki: A basis for feedback and assessment? Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 7, 20-35.
Zorko, V. (2009). Factors affecting the way students collaborate in a wiki for English language learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(5), 645-665.
