Media Literacy and Education (ETEC 510)

Globalization / Networked Society, media
Media Literacy and Education
Recommendations / How we can educate

Edit of an Existing Design Wiki Entry
Edited by: Chantal Drolet, January 2009The format of this Word document: Please note that this document is a duplicate of the edit created in the wiki mentioned above. I kept the Arial font, forgone the indentations and used a subtitle format emulating the Wikipedia conventions. The APA style has been respected for quotations and references.

Rationale

With my entry, I chose to offer an example under the heading of “Recommendations / How we can educate”. There is a need to add to the information presented based on the escalating use of digital films on the web, as well as the increasing availability of this type of technology in schools. Digital film literacy can play a valuable role in the nurturing of global awareness and engaged citizenry.

The deconstruction, or analysis, necessary to produce student-made public service announcements and documentaries on racism, environmental issues or religious diversity can have a strong influence on young people’s values and conduct (Kline, Steward, Murphy, 2006).

Learning the techniques employed to create meaning in moviemaking empowers students with the capabilities of reconstructing similar products. The difference is that this time, they control the content and the depiction of the characters.

Kline, S., Stewart, K., & Murphy, D. (2006). Media literacy in the risk society: toward a risk reduction strategy. Canadian Journal of Education, 29(1): 131-153. Retrieved October 8, 2008 from: http://www.csse.ca/CJE/Articles/FullText/CJE29-1/CJE29-1.pdf#page=11

The Validity of Digital Film Communication Literacy

One of the best ways to create awareness concerning the pervasive influence of the media on behaviors and attitudes is to engage students in the production of their own media projects. Digital film making, for example, is an alternative form of media literacy well suited to develop youth’s critical analysis of the mass media.

For instance, one of the important aspects of film making is selecting a theme, researching it and devising an original angle to promote the chosen concept. In order to create a public service announcement on a social issue students must spend a great deal of time finding data and statistics about this issue.

Once a clear mental picture is created around this topic, young cinematographers must use the grammar of film making to invent an innovative and enticing way of communicating their message. Like any professional advertisement campaign, the endeavor is to hook the members of the audience; or in other words, to convey a powerful message and influence the public’s behavior.

A major difference between digital film communication and commercial media, however, is that the educational aspect of film making centers its attention on social contribution, rather than consumption. Furthermore, the intent behind the creation of media shared among adolescents is to promote citizenship and awareness (Greenhow, 2008), not to concoct artificial needs in order to increase financial gains.

This is not to say that mainstream media only produce rubbish messages, detrimental to the public. On the contrary, if chosen with discernment, valuable information can be disseminated among citizens by a number of legitimate agents such as journalists, editors, documentary makers and bloggers. The key issues reside in a clear understanding of the iteration involved in the process of media production (Stables, 1997) as well as the critical assessment needed to decide which documents to access or avoid; believe or distrust. These are the intellectual outcomes of a digital film communication program.

As mentioned earlier on this page, a number of ethnographic studies have recognized that youth is often represented with a negative bias in conventional media. For example, “girls [may be presented] as fashion obsessed and impressionable” and “teen mothers as […] welfare bums”, to give only a few examples (Kelly, 2006). Moreover, no one will refute the fact that women’s and men’s bodies, young and old, are ruthlessly exploited by advertising firms to sell innumerable products; from cars to cigarettes. Magazines, television commercials, and even newspapers disseminate these kinds of images and contribute to the distortion of young people’s self-identity, while also cultivating a passive attitude.

Students involved in digital film communication become more aware of the stratagems that promotional media utilize to influence their self-image, their choices, and by extension, their lives. Equipped with such powerful incentives to act, adolescents easily become enthralled with technological tools enabling them to take action. The creative and critical processes involved when using communication technology can be highly motivating. Analyzing the media and creating their own scripts and stories also provides them with effective strategies to respond to commoditization of youth image in commercial broadcasting (T. Riecken, Conibear, Michel, Lyall, Scott, Tanaka, Stewart, J. Riecken, & Strong-Wilson, 2006).

Film making using digital technologies generates a language of transcendence, which facilitates the articulation of a discourse surpassing the limits set by the mass media’s ordinary hubbub. Digital film communication allows students to develop healthy self-representations, responsible voices (Riecken et al., 2006) and to promote active social contributions among their peers. From this point of view, media literacy and the grammar of film making offer powerful means of combating apathy (Bell, 2005) toward some of the manipulative effects of mainstream communication channels.

Finally, the hands-on experience of movie making brings about an appreciation for the spin involved when publishing media content. It also cultivates a point of reference from which to analyze the validity of information distributed by conventional communication agencies.

Example of Student film

The following link is a TeacherTube public service announcement created by Middle School students. Contrary to the usual negative treatment that “at risk” students receive from conventional media, this production portrays them in a positive light.
http://www.teachertube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=d36b602d3380b92c2476  

Description:

“At Risk” Students is a Public Service announcement that is trying to inspire students to succeed despite the odds. This video was the 2007 Jere Baxter Middle School entry for the Panasonic Kid Witness News (KWN) program in the Public Service Announcement (PSA) Category. This video was awarded the KWN New Vision Award for PSA, the Technical Award for Writing, the Online Voting Award for Best Video, and the KWN New Vision Video of the Year-Best in the United States. Of the 14 awards given this video won four of them.

Jere Baxter is an inner-city school located in Nashville, Tennessee. The group was sponsored by Mr. Sam Frey. For winning the KWN awards, Mr. Frey was able to take three students on an all-expense-paid trip to New York/ New Jersey for the awards show sponsored by Panasonic. Then for winning Video of the Year for this video, Mr. Frey was asked to take three different students along with his wife on an all-expense-paid to Japan, sponsored by Panasonic and Japan Airlines. This video was also entered into the Tennessee eTales contest and won one of the awards given to teachers.

== References for “The Validity of Digital Film Literacy” ==

Greenhow, C. (2008). Connecting informal and formal learning experiences in the age of participatory media: Commentary on Bull et al. (2008). Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(3), 187-194. Retrieved November 8, 2008 from: http://www.citejournal.org/articles/v8i3editorial1.pdf

Kelly, D. M. (2006). Frame work: helping youth counter their misrepresentations in media. Canadian Journal of Education, 29(1): 27-48. Retrieved October 8, 2008 from: http://www.csse.ca/CJE/Articles/FullText/CJE29-1/CJE29-1.pdf#page=11

Riecken, T., Conibear, F., Michel, C., Lyall, J., Scott, T., Tanaka, M., Stewart, S., Riecken, J., & Strong-Wilson, T. (2006). Resistance through re-presenting culture: aboriginal students filmmakers and participatory action research project on health and wellness. Canadian Journal of Education, 29(1): 265-286. Retrieved October 8, 2008 from: http://www.csse.ca/CJE/Articles/FullText/CJE29-1/CJE29-1.pdf#page=11

Stables, K. (1997). Critical issues to consider when introducing technology education in the curriculum of young learners. Journal of Technology Education, vol. 8, No. 2. Retrieved October 8, 2008, from: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v8n2/pdf/stables.pdf

== See Also ==

Poyntz, S. R. (2006). Independent media, youth agency and the promise of media education. Canadian Journal of Education, 29(1): 154-175. Retrieved October 8, 2008 from: http://www.csse.ca/CJE/Articles/FullText/CJE29-1/CJE29-1.pdf#page=11

Welsch, M., personal blog, A vision of students today (& what teachers must do – brave new classroom 2.0), October 21, 2008. Retrieved from: http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2008/10/a-vision-of-students-today-what-teachers-must-do/

TeacherTube: http://www.teachertube.com/

Jenkins & what does learning 2.0 look like (ETEC 510)

What does learning 2.0 look like, and how might we best support its proliferation in classrooms?

In my Spanish classroom, learning 2.0 possibly looks like this:

Students accessing videos in which they learn to cook a Spanish potato omelet. Then, they come to class and create an experience for their peers: either they present their own video that they prepared on how to prepare a tortilla; or they show a PowerPoint presentation in which they have created an interpretation of this cultural experience. Alternatively, they mix their modes of presentation and also bring a tortilla for us to eat!
There is a “convergence” between various technological tools: Youtube, PowerPoint, music software, cameras, etc.

The tools allow for original versions representing students’ views of Spanish culinary art and culture general.
What kinds of designed spaces support collective intelligence and how might these be thought of as properly educational?

One has to design the instructional experience both in a structured way and with a propensity for flexibility. If everything that we will teach is already planned and scripted, there is very little left for students active and original input. On the other hand, without structure, there is a danger of losing sight of educational outcomes.

Designing flexibility in the curriculum is a solution that values both a sense of educational direction and a way to encourage students to use their authentic voices in the learning process.
What are the main challenges and risks to integration of collective intelligence tools into schools?
Access to unsafe “tortilla making” websites! Beware of the various web searched using: “what’s cooking?” or “what’s hot + Spanish food”

Erroneous cultural understanding due to the lack of knowledge or ethnocentricity: watching videos on YouTube does not necessarily offer a genuine rendition of Hispanic reality, to say the least.

I would love to see my students contact Hispanic students to discuss what food they like, and so on. But the risks involves must be considered. In order to do this, one must make sure that the interactions between the students remain safe and educational.

Selecting the right technology (ETEC 510)

Selecting the right technology

 

Selecting the appropriate technological tools is a very important step on the road to using technology for the sake of  learning rather that focusing the attention on learning how to use technology.

 

If the technology is suited to the educational goals and appropriate for the students’ characteristics (age, gender, etc.), it makes it easier to use the technology as a tool to obtain an objective, rather that as the goal itself.

 

For example, by choosing Mac computers to edit films some benefits and limitations had to be considered (we edited our films on PC for a long time and it was a big decision):

·    Accessibility: our school uses mainly PC technology and so do the students and their parents: accessibility had to be considered

·    The speed and novelty were not a big issue because we update our software regularly anyhow

·    Organization was a small issue because an Apple computer organizes information differently and students as well as teachers would have to learn to use a new platform. On the other hand, being conversant on PC’s and Mac’s seemed beneficial

·    Interactivity: for the purpose of making a film, the Mac offered a better and easier access to the various programs needed

·    Teaching and learning: due the ease of interactivity between various software programs, it was predicted that the didactic aspects would be simplified

·    Costs: comparable to PC (not an issue in this case)

·    Ease of use and reliability: many media teachers as well as my old students told us that Final Cut Pro was easier to use than the PC software. The reliability was not so much an issue.

·    Students: 10 years ago, I might have flinched at the idea of introducing a technology without being myself an expert at it… but nowadays, students are “digital kids” and I knew that after a few days, they would have adapted to the new tools without any major difficulty. Actually, the new experience would probably be seen as a positive and fun challenge.

In the end, we bought the Mac computers, with Final Cut Pro as the editing system and found that it has been a very good decision. Despite the time spend on familiarizing ourselves to the new interface, we found that this choice of technology made it easier to focus on the message rather than the technology itself.

What kinds of technologies have you had to choose for your programs? Did you consider the same types of questions / framework? 

Papert & curriculum limitations (ETEC 510)

Papert & curriculum limitations

When I watched Papert’s keynote address, one comment that caught my attention was along these lines: Learning without curriculum… when teachers think about this, the question they ask is: “What am I going to do on Monday?” I think that this is a valid question.

Papert goes on to explain that he vacillates between the need to “theorize” and the need to be practical. It is probably the fate of educators to have one foot in the world of what would be ideal and the other in what works at this time; in other words, we balance between theoretical abstractions and practical considerations.

Is curriculum a limitation or an opportunity?

In the digital film program, of which I am responsible, I often tell students that our limitations are opportunities to be creative. If I ask students to write a script about whatever, in any genre, it is very difficult for them. Where do you start? How do you frame your ideas?

When I say, the next film is a public service announcement. It must be no more than one minute. You must have a hook, a variety of angles and use an innovative concept.

·         Does this limit my students? Yes.

·         Does it help them? Yes.

·         The trick is to let the students choose their topic, in order to allow them to feel a sense of ownership.

I think that using a curriculum is a positive thing. In my opinion, it allows for a certain structure, which facilitates the “construction” of knowledge. If “constructionism” is “building knowledge structures”, it seems congruent with the use of curricula.

However, the idea is to give enough leeway for students to take responsibility for their learning experience.

In your opinion, is curriculum a limitation or an opportunity?

How about a third dimension? (ETEC 510)

How about a third dimension?

After viewing Engestrom’s digital film, I reflected on the “first, second and third learning” concepts.

1. Learning #1

Conditioning: reinforce / punish

2. Learning #2

Rules of the game: how to become a student (bend the rules, succeed, explore the educational system’s flaws…)

3. Learning #3

Expanding knowledge: Confronted with a contradictory situation, a conflict or finding oneself in a “double bind” forces students (of all ages) to distance themselves from their learning experience and look at the big picture.

At this point Engestrom talks of “liberation” and creating knowledge activities that transcend the individual. It’s knowledge building at the cultural level. In other words, ideas become the centre of knowing, rather than individual potential.

We are talking about the potential of ideas, and communities building new knowledge while cooperatively exploring these ideas.

This is fascinating and complicated from a structural point of view, at least. As long as the “assessment” of this type of knowledge stays in the field of “identifiable innovations” (creating software, a film, etc.), it may possibly come at the forefront of educational practices. However, as long as assessment continues to focus on individual production of knowledge, competition and standard assessments, “learning #3” will probably have to stay #3.

What kind of strategies would you use to position “learning #3” on top of this learning pecking order?

Multiliteracies Curricula: Reflections (ETEC 510)

Designing Multiliteracies Curricula for Various Target Learners:

Final Project

Group Reflections

By: Chantal Drolet, Rhonda Kalyn, Kelly Kerrigan

Limitations and Future Implications

Pedagogy. In establishing a multiliteracies curriculum for learners of all age-levels, the first requirement is a strong pedagogy with multi-step support through modeling and scaffolding for the learners. Secondly, teaching practices as set forth by New London Group (1996), such as situated practice [doing]; overt instruction [reflecting]; critical framing [reflecting]; transformed practice [doing], are useful tools to create successful multiliteracy curricula.

Combining theories. However, although multiliteracies’ advocates tend to label this approach as a stand-alone “theory” the reflections prompted by this paper point toward a discussion regarding the need to combine the general philosophical views of a multiliteracies approach with already existing social constructivist and curriculum design theories.

Teacher training. Limitations inherent to a multiliteracies curriculum also partially reside in the lack of professional development offered to teachers, who require some mastery of communication technologies in order to be successful with a digitally based literacy approach (Johnson & O’Brien, n. d.; Rowsell, 2006, p. 57).  

Further research. A multiliteracies philosophy, offering the prospect of planning curriculum using technology as an inherent part of the design rather than only an add-on to the process, is a commendable goal. However this new participatory curricular reform, seemingly adapted to the 21st century literacy skills, requires more empirical research (Alvermann, 2001).

To see original file, click on: reflections 

Designing Multiliteracies Curricula for Various Target Learners (ETEC 510)

 Designing Multiliteracies Curricula for Various Target Learners

Part Two:

Designing a Multiliteracies Curriculum for High School Learners

Chantal Drolet

Objects presented on educational wiki: http://sites.google.com/site/multiliteraciescurriculum/Home

University of British Columbia

2009

 

Introduction

            In our connected world, it has become indispensable for students to comprehend and represent knowledge in a multitude of formats. Consequently, new educational approaches using digitally based literacy tools such as audio, video, and various digital systems, are increasingly required.

Concepts and Assumptions

Shifting media perception.

Today’s media comprise a kaleidoscope of viewpoints that can be retrieved from numerous sources. The time of exclusive values promulgated by a few powerful media conglomerates has passed. Of course, information providers are still predominantly owned by large corporations, but the content has become so multidimensional that the control of ideas is eroding. Blogs, vlogs, wikis, websites and videos of all kinds and with a variety of ideologies populate the web and offer a wide range of perspectives.

The current vibrant and challenging media communication environment has placed teachers in a position of educational designers (Richards, 2005). In UNESCO’s (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) vision, teacher education is a focal point, with the intent of revising educational processes to include new literacies into their practice and “provide them with appropriate pedagogical methods and curricula”, (UNESCO, 2009, Communication and Information Activities, ¶5).

Terminology

For the sake of concision and clarity, in the following pages:

Communication Technologies Paradigms

Multiliteracies as fundamental rather than accessory. In his book “Literacy in the new age”, Kress (2003) argues that new technologies facilitate the incorporation of visual representations, audio components, and moving images, such as digital film. For him, these modes are directed by a distinctive reasoning. This new way of thinking transforms the organization of concepts, meanings of texts, conceptual formats, as well as knowledge structures.

This interpretation of contemporary literacy validates the need for, not only adding technologies to old processes, but rather redefining and redesigning curricula with the intrinsic support of communication technologies.

Exploring design in academic literature

In search of a multiliteracies framework

Through a social constructivist lens, such as prescribed by Vygotsky (as cited in

Atherton, 2009, n. p.), communication tools may lend themselves to collaborative learning but are still not included as part of the language fundamental to the process. As a proponent of constructivist learning environments (CLEs), Jonassen (cited in Gosse, Gunn & Swinkels, 2002, n. p.) also denies technology the role of a direct mediator of learning. For him, learning is influenced by thinking; while thought is caused by activities; themselves transformed by instructional intercessions, which may comprise some technology.

These aforementioned approaches come with assumptions that ICTs are simple additions to a linear educational process.

Multiliteracies curriculum design for a pluralistic society: A change to this paradigm came about with a multiliteracies perspective instigated by the New London Group (1996):

The multiliteracies that have become increasingly important

in our technologically-evolving, globalized economy include

information, communication and media technology, as well as

culturally specific literacies required to function in a culturally

diverse pluralistic society (New London Group, 1996).

Three key aspects of a multiliteracies philosophy were identified: a) pedagogy: a call for educators to become designers of learning, b) diversity: presenting a broader view of literacy than portrayed by traditional language-based approaches, and c) multimodality: a need for a multiplicity of communication channels.

Cope and Kalantzis (2004), who were members of the New London Group, used the

multiliteracies orientations as a basis to create what they call the learning by design framework. In this construct they define pedagogy as “learning by design” or “knowledge processes selected and deployed by the teacher”. Along with Mills (2006), Cope & Kalantzis (2004) describe these knowledge processes as:

•1.      Situated practice – experiencing: (situating meaning in real contexts)

•2.      Overt instruction – conceptualizing (using a metalanguage of design)

•3.      Critical framing – analyzing (interpreting social contexts and purpose of designs)

•4.      Transformed practice – applying (transforming meaning to design new ones)

The following sections will take a look at the implications of this pedagogical design framework for various age groups.

Part One: Designing a Multiliteracies Curriculum for Elementary Learners

(see wiki)

 

Part Two

Designing a Multiliteracies Curriculum for High School Learners 

Students’ access to an array of communication tools is no longer easy to restrict. Some schools have banned Facebook as well as various public forums in an attempt to restrain access to such popular and potentially unsafe interfaces. Yet many educators are now considering the inclusion of these instruments in their curriculum design rather than denying their students the authorization to use the digital age’s ever expanding new tools. Instead of sheltering students from the potential harm of communication technologies, these educators opt for the prevention of undue risk taking by educating young people about the tools.

Many UNESCO affiliated countries officially acknowledge this reality via their educational associations. This endorsement is inspiring some teachers to redesign their curriculum. These educators endeavor to include digitally based literacy as an inherent part of their pedagogical strategies, rather than using technology as an add-on to their practice.

Multiliteracies: Models in Transformation. The European Charter for Media Literacy was initiated by the UK Film Council in 2006 and endorsed by a number of European countries. Some of its objectives are:

  • “to raise the public profile of media literacy and media education

in each European nation, and in Europe as a whole.

  • to encourage the development of a […] network of

media educators in Europe, […] enabled by their

institutional commitment.” (UK Film Council, 2006)

In a high school context, the commitment to design of such a curriculum must respect adolescents’ attributes. Adhering to the California department of education’s definition of teenagers’ characteristics, they are as follows: Physical and hormonal development; sudden & intense emotions; ability to think abstractly; social consciousness; and search for identity. Their needs are described as: need for approval; success; fairness; opportunities for voice; experimentation; making connections with peers; autonomy and belonging. 

Multiliteracies in action: using digital film production to learn Spanish

To explore the steps recommended in a “learning by design” model, the following section examines a film project experience in a grade 11 pre-AP Spanish language class.

            The objective of the activity is to create an awareness of the Hispanic world through a multiliteracies process. A basic assumption is that by using this participatory approach, students immerse themselves in various Hispanic cultures while producing a document attesting their linguistic proficiency. Using Kalantzis & Cope’s parameters, initial guidelines may take this form:

Learning by Design  Spanish Project 
Situated practice – experiencing: (situating meaning in real contexts)   Watching an authentic Spanish movie: Find a Spanish (or Hispanic) film to emulate and select a 10 minute section to reproduce. 
Overt instruction – conceptualizing: (using a metalanguage of design)  Using technology in Spanish: Find the script on the internet or watch the film with subtitles so as to transcribe your part. Film the part of the movie you chose with your own interpretation. 
Critical framing – analyzing: (interpreting social contexts and purpose of designs) Deconstructing and reconstructing: Edit your footage with subtitles in Spanish and use cultural components (Latin music, appropriate costumes, etc.) 
Transformed practice – applying:  (transforming meaning to design new ones)  Screening the new version of the film: Clarifying the theme  Explaining the story of the film (or choice of interpretation) Describing the characters  Elucidating on what was learnt about the Hispanic culture 
Cope & Kalantzis (2004)Mills (2006)  

 

Infusing structure to the flexibility. In addition to the aforementioned selected knowledge processes, other facets of design must be considered. The instructional content, materials, resources, procedures, and assessments should also be adequate (Wright & Darr, 2009).

Instructional content. This part of the design had to be prepared and expectations established before starting the activity. For example, students were to speak in the target languages during all the various phases of production. In order to do so, at least some necessary vocabulary had to be established in the preliminaries. However, much freedom was given to the students with the choice of film, theme and characters they could select.

Materials. It was taken for granted that the computers, cameras and editing systems were in place to permit such a project to even be conceived.

Resources. The main objective was the second language acquisition, rather than digital film technology itself (Johnson & O’Brien, n. d.). Therefore, the teacher in charge had to possess the necessary technological skills in order to minimize technological hurdles. Students’ access to various films, through the internet, movies on demand or other such resources, was also of great value.

Procedures. It goes without saying that the project length (of maximum 10 minutes) as well as the due date would be determined at the very start. What’s more, the students’ linguistic abilities were sufficient to conduct the experiment in Spanish. Their maturity level allowed them to tackle the demanding time frames and organizational stumbling blocks. A cross-curriculum experience was possible due to some of the students’ knowledge in digital filmmaking.

Assessment. Part of the strength of such a pedagogical design is the wide range of possibilities offered in the evaluation scheme. Diagnostic (thinking of all the films they knew), formative, summative, peer and self assessments can all be part of the plan. The need to engage students in their learning experiences and to contribute to the design of instructional strategies and assessment procedures (Kushman, 1997) is also realized.

Diversity & Multimodality

Diverse cultural and social learning experiences. Designing a film in Spanish, just like producing a claymation film, “is a collaborative and creative venture that draws upon a range of affordances, tools, and semiotic resources to orchestrate meaning across modes” (Mills, 2006). A noteworthy change is required, instead of a precise duplication of an existing design. This project incorporates global connectedness and goes hand in hand with a philosophy of global citizenry (Smith & Woodward, 2007). Students re-express reality in an original manner, showing communication competence and cultural understanding by means of an amalgamation of forms of meaning: linguistic, moving visual, audio, spatial, gestural, and digital (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000).

Scaffolding the multimodalities. The basic devices and operations needed for the creation of a digital film in Spanish are as follows:

  • 1. Web research: Learning to use the Internet as well as other sources in a safe and perceptive manner in order to decide what film to choose as a basis for their cinematic interpretation.
  • 2. Microphones and digital musical instruments: Learning about the link between sound and emotional responses as well as identifying and experiencing the musical artistry of Hispanic cultures.
  • 3. Editing software: Learning about sequencing events, layering meanings as well as manipulating video, audio and subtitles (in Spanish) to achieve desired effects.
  • 4. Screening & distribution (DVD or on the web): Learning to transfer the final product on digital formats as well as to pitch and present it to an audience in the target language.

As mentioned previously, young people go through various stages of development physically, emotionally and intellectually. An approach using multiple kinds of literacies, through the use of technological tools, caters to teenagers’ need for kinesthetic activity. The emotional and social aspects of their growth are accommodated by the engaging attributes of communication technologies (Killen, 2007). Teenagers’ intellectual skills are enhanced by the ability to abstract knowledge and reconfigure it in their own image. This characteristic of a multiliteracies approach also coincides with their search for identity.

An approach using multiple kinds of literacies also agrees with teenagers’ basic needs.  In particular, the communication component of a multiliteracies methodology appeals to young people since it allows them to express their voice and opinions while making connections with peers.

Part Three: Designing a Multiliteracies Curriculum for Adult Learners

(See wiki)

 

General Conclusion

Establishing a multiliteracies curriculum for students of all age-levels requires strong pedagogy, diversity, and multimodality. This pedagogy is described as learning by design (Cope and Kalantzis, 2004) and the processes are: situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing, and transformed practice.

In a high school environment, with or without the help of educational institutions, high school students’ multiliteracies skills are improving outside school (Alvermann, 2001, p. 17). Teenagers, perhaps more than any other group, have embraced new technological tools and are using them. By respecting this propensity towards multiliteracies, educators can develop sound pedagogical practices incorporating developmental teenagers’ characteristics in their curriculum.

In general, a social-constructivist theory, in conjunction with a multiliteracies approach, is conducive to successful curriculum design for learners of different age levels.

 

Please view original format and access references, please click on:

designing-multiliteracies-curricula