Multiliteracies Assignment 1
- 1. Tess Jabbour 18200586 Multiliteracies and Additional Needs Assignment 1 Essay 1: What is meant by multiliteracies? What is the literature reporting about this concept? ‘Multiliteracies’ refer to the experience or pedagogy of making meaning in an increasingly globalised and multimodal learning environment. The phrase came into being two decades ago when it was created by The New London Group in response to the restrictions of the term ‘literacy’ in this new learning environment (O’Rourke, 2005). The term ‘multiliteracies’ encompasses two major events: 1. The increasing multitude of communication and education channels; 2. The importance of cultural diversity in the globalised world (Mills, 2009) According to Grabill and Hicks (2005) there is a conceptual separation between literacy and technology whereby Information Communication Technologies (ICT’s) are seen as simply a tool (such as a computer to type an essay) within English education rather than a mechanism to open up spaces for socially and culturally situated learning’s. As the world becomes “increasingly characterised by local diversity and global connectedness” (O’Rourke, 2005, p. 2) there is a need to move beyond old capitalist notions where “school was a universe of straightforward right and wrong answers, authoritative texts and authoritarian teachers” (Cope and Kalantzis 2009, p. 168). Cope and Kalantzis examine the move away from authoritarian state run institutions to a more deregulated system professionally controlled by special interest groups within the community. The origins of multiliteracies are traced back to the neoliberalist (less state control in public affairs) approach to institutions such as schools. The authors observe an increase in the privatisation of schools and a shrinking of state funding as well as a pressure for schools to self-regulate and operate more like a business than a service (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009). In practical terms multiliteracies are seen as an extension on the limitations of traditional views of literacy (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009) (Gee, 2009). Linear teaching processes such as ‘skill-and-drill’ focus on uniformity of results, however, advances in technology mean that students are no longer simply passive receivers and transmitters of generic information. They are now designers of meaning. In addition to experiencing and conceptualising (contrasting and making generalisations)
- 2. Tess Jabbour 18200586 information students are now critically analysing information and applying this knowledge within their own cultural and social contexts (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009). This creates a need for educators to rethink literacy teaching practices. We now exist in a world where students are able to get information from a large variety of sources thanks to the the Internet. The increase in the range of technologies that students are accessing means that “previous conceptions of literacy as ‘writing and speech’ are collapsing” (Mills, 2009). Students are actively creating meaning and designing in a variety of ways over a variety of mediums (creating avatars in video games as opposed to passively watching TV, actively creating iPod playlists as opposed to passively listening to the radio). Multiliteracies put the creation of meaning in the hands of the viewer. For instance, traditionally information sought from a book would be read in a linear fashion with a clear syntax (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009). Consumers of information can now navigate their own path with the click of a web page link or an open interpretation of an image based on cultural and social beliefs and contexts. ICT devices are not simply tools for writing but rather they create processes and contexts for writing (Grabill & Hicks, 2005). As such the pedagogy of multiliteracies should be taught in such a way that it equips students to thrive in the new economy (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009). Differentiation through the use of a variety of technologies engages students and allows teachers to vary complexity of instruction (Stanford, Crowe & Flice 2010). Cope and Kalantzis (2009) give the example of actions traditionally being expressed by verbs in sentences now being shown by vectors in images. Comparisons in language can now be either overtly or subtly expressed by sizing and placement. This provides a number of entry points for creating meaning. For instance, if the words describing a particular concept don’t make sense, the diagram may. This in turn can help shape the meaning of the words for the student. Writing is not a translation of speech (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009), we now communicate and learn linguistically, aurally, spatially, visually, through gesture and in multiple modes. Traditional definitions are not sufficient to convey this (O’Rourke, 2005, p. 1). Essay 2: What difficulties impinge on the successful application of Assistive Technology?
- 3. Tess Jabbour 18200586 Assistive Technology (AT) refers to the technologies that support people in performing tasks that they would otherwise not be able to do, or experience great difficulty doing (Simpson, McBride, Spencer, Lowdermilk & Lynch, 2009). AT’s are frequently used in classrooms to allow students with disabilities to participate and socialise. Educators working with AT’s have reported varying degrees of success (Copley & Zivani, 2004). AT’s improve educational outcomes by facilitating performance, increasing comfort and allowing independence (Hemmingsson, Lidstrom and Nygard, 2009). In addition, studies show that the inclusiveness, participation and expression that AT’s allow for also have positive physiological benefits including improved confidence, self-worth and self-esteem (Simpson et al., 2009). While the benefits are numerous, the devices themselves (especially those considered ‘high-tech’, for instance a wheelchair operated by tongue-touch) come at a cost and many commentators point to the barriers that impinge on their successful application when weighing up the overall value of AT. Major barriers identified include: Selection of appropriate technology: It is important to understand that a ‘one size fits all’ approach is largely inappropriate when looking at AT’s. Simpson et al., state that AT’s used within a classroom must be “aligned with both the instructional arrangements as well as the students’ individual needs.” (2009, p. 174). The implications of this definition are twofold. First, wider instructional arrangements must be considered. • Where in the classroom will the AT device be placed? • Is it easily portable/mobile? • How will it integrate with other devices already in used in the classroom? If these questions are not considered and addressed when selecting an AT device it is likely the device will not be used or used to its fullest potential (Copley & Ziviani, 2004). A student who cannot easily access their device will be less inclined to utilise it. A teacher who cannot sync a software device with the wider classroom programs will be less inclined to utilise it. Secondly, the device must be matched to the student’s individual needs and preferences. In their research Copley and Ziviani (2004) noted that many services providers focused more on simply getting a piece of equipment into the school rather than the student’s individual need. This led to an increased instance of device abandonment. Also of concern was that due to lack of funding one piece of equipment was shared between many students in a school reducing access and the ability to program the device for student’s individual needs (Copley & Ziviani, 2004). Infrequent use:
- 4. Tess Jabbour 18200586 In order to be effective and render measurable, direct improvements in educational outcomes, provided AT devices must be used. Two key issues have been identified as reasons why devices are often underused in classrooms. 1. Lack of training. According to Copley et al., (2009) devices were often prescribed and supplied without the necessary training being given to school staff, students and families, “In a survey of 405 teachers, only 19% believed they had adequate AT training” (Derer et al., 1996 as cited in Copley et al., 2009). This equates to less than 1 in 5 teachers of students with special needs feeling equipped to adequately implement AT devices. Zhou, Smith, Parker and Griffin-Shirly note that a contributing factor is the almost complete lack of training in AT in current teacher training programs for special educators (2011). Inadequate ongoing support and maintenance were also identified as barriers. Many teachers reported that supplied AT devices were broken and that schools had not factored in routines or funds for servicing (Hemmingsson et al., 2009). Teachers who are not familiar with equipment or unaware of ways in which it can be incorporated into the curriculum are also at less likely to ensure its successful implementation, “Observations and interviews confirmed that ATDs that were accessible and integrated into activities were more likely to be used than those that were not…” (Hemmingsson et al., 2009 p. 468). 2. Attitudes of teachers. Pressure to focus instruction on meeting minimum test scores and covering mandated curriculum have see some teachers go through the motions of marking off checklists of skills rather than focusing on the boarder issues of knowledge construction and purposeful learning (Cummins, Brown and Sayers, 2007). There is also evidence that some teachers have been reluctant to use AT as they see devices (e.g. speech synthesizers) as a source of distraction or an interruption making it difficult to manage behaviour (Copley et al., 2009). Attitudes of users: Hemmingsson et al., (2009) look at the direct issues for the students who use of AT’s. Many students reported that AT’s threatened their sense of ‘fitting in’ because devices attracted unwanted attention and visibly marked them as different from their peers. There is the increased possibility that students who feel negatively stigmatised by their AT device will either not use it or will disengage from learning out of resentment or embarrassment. A further issue that Hemmingsson et al., uncovered was importance that students placed on receiving an immediate benefit from their device in relation to their functioning. They note that “for most students, it was difficult to appreciate preventive ATDs or devices provided to increase the student’s performance opportunities later on in life” (2009, p. 467).
- 5. Tess Jabbour 18200586 This is by no means a comprehensive list. Many other barriers (lack of collaboration between school and home, Lack of programming to integrate the device into the curriculum, high cost of equipment) to adaptation of AT devices within the school system exist. The variety of stakeholders (students, families, school staff, occupational therapists, service providers) suggests that a collaborative team approach is needed to ensure successful implementation of AT within learning environments that promote deep understandings of educational concepts for students who use devices (Cummings, 2007). Essay 3: How is technology being used in the assessment process when working with students with additional needs? Please note: • This essay focuses on students who are deaf or hearing impaired
- 6. Tess Jabbour 18200586 • The term ‘technology’ will refer to any process, invention or method and is not limited to a physical or virtual tool When planning for, teaching and assessing students with additional needs it is important to individually consider their linguistic and academic backgrounds to ensure meaningful participation (Cawthon 2009). Over 80% of deaf students in Australia are placed in regular classes on a full time basis (Hyde & Power, 2004). This means that individual and purposeful planning for the academic needs of deaf students can be difficult. According to Isaacson, deafness can impose massive disadvantage on the writing skills of a student, “Writing is a secondary form of expression dependent on a primary system such as speech or sign language, as a foundation” (1996, p. 184). Students with a hearing impairment face challenges that their non-hearing impaired counterparts do not. Because of these challenges and the need for and importance of individualised learning plans, accommodations need to be made in both the learning and assessment process. Cawthon (2009) notes there are inconsistencies in (American) national policies when it comes to individual students who have additional needs. This suggests a need for a balanced, more calculated approach to ensure that students with disabilities are neither at an advantage or disadvantage when it comes to standardised testing. One balance that must be met is the requirement that the accommodation (or testing modification) increases access to the test content as opposed to actually making the test easier. According to Cawthon (2009), if there is an improvement in the testing scores of a hearing impaired student when using an accommodation but not in the scores of a student without a disability then the accommodation is likely valid. Often the validity of the test depends on the subject of the test, for instance reading aloud may not change the nature of a math test but could alter the skills that students are required to demonstrate on a reading test (Cawthon 2009). It is important to establish a purpose for testing before implementing any modifications (Isaacson 1996). If the purpose of the test is to assess decoding and comprehension skills then accommodations such as reading questions or passages aloud or even the use of an interpreter would not be ideal. Using various technologies to aid students with learning or physical disabilities must begin with a theoretically based instructional outcome or principal in mind (Kennedy & Deshler 2010). Without evidence of the likely success of using a technologically based solution to achieve outcomes and the formation of a clear purpose for testing it is unlikely that assessment will be effective or valid. Some common accommodations to assessments that are used for students with addition needs include: Extra time: This is often seen as desirable because it does not alter the content of the test.
- 7. Tess Jabbour 18200586 Simplified language: Changing the language on a test to make it simpler to interpret which can be particularly useful for deaf and hearing impaired students who are unable to hear when the teacher reads out instructions and explains specifics of test questions. Read-aloud: This involves the assessor reading questions or passages aloud to a student who has trouble decoding the question. This is controversial especially in a literacy text as it means that students are not displaying the same reading abilities and thus changes the nature of the test. Electronic dictionaries and speech synthesizers: These devices can help students with both written and oral expression. Sign language: This may occur through either a DVD or via an interpreter. Many students who are deaf also experience severe reading difficulties, having questions presented to them in a language they understand (sign language) may be an acceptable in a form of assessment where phonetically reading is not the outcome being assessed. Scribe: This is useful for students with disabilities such as cerebral palsy where they may not be able to write with or control a pencil the level of detail (e.g. colouring in small circles in a multiple choice question) demanded by the assessment. The above testing methods have been used with success in a variety of assessment situations (Cawthon 2009). However, new technologies for assessment are continuously being developed, it is therefore critical, according to Kennedy and Deshler (2010) that sustained research in this area be undertaken. This will help to ensure clarity around what actions can be taken and evidence used when accommodating students with disabilities on standardised tests such as NAPLAN. Essay 4: What key issues arise in the implementation of multiliteracies practices when teaching students with additional needs? Implementing a curriculum that incorporates multiliteracies is no longer a novelty, it has become necessity. With students being emerged in a variety of multi-modal communications and information seeking devices it is imperative that teachers keep abreast of developments in new technologies in order to impart knowledge on their students in a fashion that they can understand, engage with and (as designers) apply and develop (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009). In order to do this successfully three
- 8. Tess Jabbour 18200586 key issues have been indentified that educators must overcome, especially in relation to students with additional needs. The first is inclusion. Many advocates of multiliteracies believe that one of the most important aspects of a globalised world is the inclusion of multiple voices, especially those who are deemed to be marginalised within society (Heertum & Share, 2006). This filters down to a classroom level where it is believed that the presence and inclusion of ‘subordinate’ voices helps to correct misrepresentations of culture in texts and add varying perspectives to debate (Heertum & Share, 2006). In Australia, a high percentage of students with additional needs are mainstreamed into regular school programs. This presents a challenge in itself. Often these students feel singled out because they are different from most of the other students in their class. According to Hyde the terms ‘mainstream’ and ‘inclusion’ are often used interchangeably however ‘inclusion’, Hyde argues, is an attitude and not a place, “included students are mainstreamed, but not all mainstreamed students may be included” (2004, p. 93). In his research Hyde also noted that during instruction students (his study relates to students with hearing impairment) are often withdrawn from the class for one-to-one attention which potentially adds to the feeling of exclusion from peers. Students have also reported feeling excluded when they are required to use AT that may distinguish them from their peers (Hemmingsson et al., 2009). This presents a challenge for teachers around how best to allow for additional needs students to get the extra support they require while still feeling like a part of the wider group. The second issue centres on the need for teachers to ensure that multiliteracies technology links to set learning principles. Allsopp, McHatton & Farmer note that technologies “assist students in bypassing disability related barriers, allowing them to access whatever kind of instruction is being provided” (2010, p. 275). They suggest that the integration of technology and special education should focus on learning principles such as activation of prior knowledge and development of understanding rather than simply entertaining students. An issue that arises from this is that often technologies are used simply because they are available rather than because they link to and widen the curriculum. This may be due to limited funds, knowledge or resources. It is vital that teachers ensure that any incorporation of multiliteracies into a lesson enhances the students understanding of the content rather than distracts or detracts from it (Allsopp et al., 2010). A third issue that impedes the implementation of multiliteracies is access to technology. A local example of this is the move to bring NAPLAN testing into the online space. Australian Education Minister Christopher Pyne has publically declared that students will be sitting the national exams via the Internet by 2016. However, many schools have said they would not be ready for the roll out (which would dramatically decrease turnaround time between students sitting the exam and getting their results, in turn allowing teachers to use results diagnostically) citing lack
- 9. Tess Jabbour 18200586 of available computers and tablets as well as insufficient Internet access (Smith, 2013). While the literature offers some possible solutions to the issues of inclusion, access, and linking technology directly to the curriculum there appears to be no uniform solutions and while it is clear that more research needs to be carried out it is also evident that students with additional needs have individual requirements of multiliteracies and should be catered for in an inclusive manner as part of an individual and frequently reviewed learning program (Hyde, 2004). Annotated Bibliography • Please note: readings marked with * are not from provided reading list Allsopp, D. H., McHatton, P. A., & Farmer, J. L. (2010). Technology, mathematics PS/RTI, and students with LD: what do e know what have we tried, and what can we do to improve outcomes now and in the future?. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(4), 273-288. In this article the authors note the current dire situation of mathematics education for students with learning disabilities and discuss successful ways that technology has been integrated into the curriculum in an attempt to remedy this. The authors note
- 10. Tess Jabbour 18200586 the dangers of blindly implementing technology into education and propose a framework for its successful integration. Cawthon, S. W. (2009). Making decisions about assessment practices for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Remedial and Special Education, 32(4), 4-19. doi: 10.1177/0741932509355950 This article specifically relates to assessment accommodations that can be made for students who are deaf and hard of hearing. Although it did not closely examine technologies related to assessment, the first section of the article were useful in its explanation of the decision making considerations that go into selecting accommodations for standardised tests. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New Literacies, New Learning. Pedagogies: an international Journal, 4(3), 164-195. doi: 10.1080/15544800903076044 Cope and Kalantzis examine the dichotomy between traditional educational (and organisational) environments and the contemporary, multimodal world. They discuss a shift away from transmitting and receiving information toward a more creative context. Literacy students are no longer passive receivers but rather designers who create new analysis of information and apply them to create new meaning. The authors discuss aspects of deregulation through neoliberalism and its impact including the need for learners to be agents in their own knowledge processes. *Copley, J., & Ziviani, J. (2004). Barriers to the use of assistive technology for children with multiple disabilities. Occupational Therapy International, 11(4), 229-243. doi:10.1002/oti.213 This text outlines the benefits of using Assistive Technology (AT) for disabled students in the classroom. It advocates for a team approach involving teachers, students, families, occupational therapists and others to ensure the effective implementation of AT’s. It also gives a detailed analysis of barriers that prevent students from accessing and benefitting from AT in the assessment, planning, implementation and evaluation phases. Cummins, J., Brown, K., & Sayers, D. (2007). Chapter 4: Technology. In Literacy, technology, and diversity: Teaching for success in changing times (pp. 91-111). Boston, MA: Pearson. Call number 302.2244 99. In this article the authors examine many of the issues surrounding using technology to improve literacy outcomes in students. There is a particular focus on students from disadvantaged or minority backgrounds. The authors examine a range of case studies and propose conditions in which technology can support literacy instruction. Grabill, J., & Hicks, T. (2005). Multiliteracies meet methods: the case for digital writing in English education: English Education, 47(3), 301-311. This article examines the need for English teachers to rethink traditional notions of literacy in light of the social impact of Information Community Technology. Grabill and Hicks discuss the changed ‘digital’ writing environment and the impact this has had on literacy pedagogy. *Heertum, R., & Share, J. (2006). A new direction for multiple literacy education. McGill Journal of Education, 41(3), 249-263.
- 11. Tess Jabbour 18200586 A key focus of this article is using multiliteracies as a foundation to a more global view of education. The authors suggest that a focus on media production and harnessing cultural diversity and social difference will create a more authentic and socially just democracy. *Hemmingsson, H., Lidstrom, H., & Nygard, L. (2009). Use of Assistive Technology devices in mainstream schools: students’ perspective. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 6(3), 463-472. This article investigates some of the barriers of successfully implementing assistive technology from the perspective of students with special needs. The authors note that much of the research conducted focuses solely on the professional experiences and concerns of the facilitator. They argue that there is a need to extend this focus to the attitudes and stigmas experienced by the user. *Hyde, M. (2004). Inclusion of deaf students: An examination of definitions of inclusion in relation to findings of a recent Australian study of deaf students in regular classes. Deafness and Education International, 6(2), 82-95. Hyde’s research paper examines the challenges of ‘mainstreaming’ deaf students into Australian schools. He focuses on the value of inclusion practices and questions whether mainstreamed students really are included. He also analyses teacher attitudes to having hearing impaired students in their classes and looks at the modifications made to accommodate these students. *Mills, K. A. (2009). Multiliteracies: interrogating competing discourses. Language and Education, 23(2), 103-116. doi: 10.1080/09500780802152762 Mills provides a relevant context for the introduction of multiliteracies in light of increased access to technology and in turn a more globalised view of society. She identifies and discusses a range of critiques that have been raised by various authors in relation to the shift in literacy pedagogy. Reference List Allsopp, D. H., McHatton, P. A., & Farmer, J. L. (2010). Technology, mathematics PS/RTI, and students with LD: what do e know what have we tried, and what can we do to improve outcomes now and in the future?. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(4), 273-288. Cawthon, S. W. (2009). Making decisions about assessment practices for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Remedial and Special Education, 32(4), 4- 19. doi:10.1177/0741932509355950 Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New Literacies, New Learning. Pedagogies: an international Journal, 4(3), 164-195. doi:10.1080/15544800903076044
- 12. Tess Jabbour 18200586 Copley, J., & Ziviani, J. (2004). Barriers to the use of assistive technology for children with multiple disabilities. Occupational Therapy International, 11(4), 229-243. doi:10.1002/oti.213 Cummins, J., Brown, K., & Sayers, D. (2007). Chapter 4: Technology. In Literacy, technology, and diversity: Teaching for success in changing times (pp. 91- 111). Boston, MA: Pearson. Call number 302.2244 99 Derer, K., Polsgrove, L., & Reith, I, I. (1996). A survey of assistive technology applications in schools and recommendations for practice. Journal of Special Education Technology, 8(2), 62-80. Gee, J. P. (2009). Reflections on reading Cope and Kalantzis' "'Multiliteracies': New Literacies, New Learning". Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3), 196- 204. doi: 10.1080/15544800903076077 Grabill, J., & Hicks, T. (2005). Multiliteracies meet methods: the case for digital writing in English education: English Education, 47(3), 301-311. Heertum, R., & Share, J. (2006). A new direction for multiple literacy education. McGill Journal of Education, 41(3), 249-263. Hemmingsson, H., Lidstrom, H., & Nygard, L. (2009). Use of Assistive Technology devices in mainstream schools: students’ perspective. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 6(3), 463-472. Hyde, M. (2004). Inclusion of deaf students: An examination of definitions of inclusion in relation to findings of a recent Australian study of deaf students in regular classes. Deafness and Education International, 6(2), 82-95. Isaacson, S. L. (1996). Informal written-language assessment procedures. Simple ways to assess deaf or hard-of-hearing students’ written skills. Volta Review, 98(1), 183-189. Kennedy, M. J., & Deshler, D. D. (2010). Literacy instruction, technology, and students with learning disabilities: Research we have, research we need. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(4), 289-298. Mills, K, A. (2009). Multiliteracies: interrogating competing discourses. Language and Education, 23(2), 103-116. doi: 10.1080/09500780802152762 O'Rourke, M. (2005). Multiliteracies for 21st century schools. ANSN Snapshot (Report No. 2 May 2005), 1-12. Smith, A. (2013, August 2-3).Launch of online NAPLAN tests is unlikely to meed Pyne deadline. The Australian, p. 12. Stanford, P., Crowe, M, W., & Flice, H. (2010). Differentiating with technology. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 6(4), 2-7. Unsworth, L. (2006). Towards a metalanguage for multiliteracies education: Describing the meaning-taking resources of language-image interaction. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 5(1), 55-76. Zhou, L., Smith, D, W., Parker, A, T., Griffin-Shirly, N. (2011). Assistive Technology competencies of teachers of students with visual impairments: a comparison of perceptions. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 105(9), 533-546.