Multimodal
Learning
Environments
Presentation for Think About It Conference
17 June 2005
Dr Maureen Walsh
Australian Catholic University
m.walsh@mary.acu.edu.au
“The young person who watches digital TV,
downloads MP3 music onto a personal
player, checks e-mail on a personal
organiser and sends symbolised
messages to a mobile phone of a friend
will not be satisfied with a 500-word
revision guide for [HSC] physics.”
Abbot, 2003
Researchers contend…
[e.g.Kress (2003); Bearne (2003); Unsworth (2001); Callow & Zammitt
(2002)]
• Language-based pedagogy is no longer
sufficient for literacy practices needed.
• Students need ‘multiple literacy practices’
or ‘multiliteracies’.
• Theories of reading have been drawn from
the reading of monomodal or print-based
texts.
• Heath (2000) Neurobiological changes are occurring as
a result of new modes of communication.
• “Better theories of learning are embedded in video
games than many children in primary and secondary
schools ever experience in the classroom.” (Gee, 2003)
“ … encourage children to be more critical, constructive
& reflective.”
• “Computer games require concentration, forward
planning, lateral thinking & sustained problem solving”
(Johnson)
Theory of Multimodality …
(Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2001; Kress et al, 2001; Kress,
2003)
• emerged from attempts to conceptualise
changed learning & literacy practices
[visual literacy, technoliteracy, e-literacy,
digital/silicon literacy, multiliteracies.]
• communication occurs through different
but synchronous modes: language, print,
images, graphics, movement, gesture,
texture, music, sound.
Multimodal texts -2 or more modes
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
READING
Picture books and
information texts
Talking books
CDRom narratives and
factual texts
E-books
Web-sites, web search,
web quests, book raps
Games, DVDs
Emails, discussion
boards.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
PRODUCING
Emails, discussion
boards
Slide shows [KidPix/
power point]
Digital photos
Digital videos, i-movies
Video editing
E-books
Web sites / home page
SMS messaging
Multimodal Learning Environments
Incorporate a range of tasks that require a
constant interchange with others and with
texts using the modes of speech, print,
image, movement, gesture and sound.
‘Multimodal Learning and Literacy
Project’ 2004 – ACU, CEO Sydney
& CEO Parramatta
Purpose:
• to examine how students read and interact
with visual and multimodal texts in
different curriculum areas, and
• to examine what types of learning and or
literacy are apparent in students'
interactions with such texts.
14 Teachers developed a range of
tasks with multimodal texts, K-8
• Students [majority ESL] worked in small groups
• Used one or more multimodal text [web site, CD
Rom, picture book, information text, DVD]
• Tasks integrated different curriculum areas
• Sequence of tasks were developed over several
lessons. These frequently resulted in a …
Multimodal
Learning
Environment
1) Year 2 – Picture Book and CD Rom
• Chn listened to the ‘words’ /print of the
story ‘Grandma and Me’
• Drew their own illustrations of the story.
• Read the CD Rom version.
• Played the CD Rom game.
• Discussed with teacher the differences
between the print / CDRom story.
Video clip
2) What were these children learning?
• Prediction, visualisation, decoding, making
meaning - shared talk with teacher –
produced own visual text
• Read & responded to CD Rom – shared
together – auditory/ visual/ gestural /
kinaesthetic responses
• Compared features of book with CD Rom
– metatextual awareness/metacognition
3) Yr 3 – Web Quest & Power Point
• Pairs of Ss completed web quest on
Gallipoli & Anzac Day – questions from T
as guide.
• Collated findings into an information report
then into Power Point.
• Presented to whole class.
• Answered questions/comments from class
members about their learning/process.
Video clip
What were these children learning?
• Understanding the historical and
geographical events of Gallipoli.
• Insights into the culture of Anzac Day.
• Search skills, reading & interpreting
questions, following links, locating &
synthesising information.
• Developing power point – organising
information in own words, technical &
production skills
• Oral presentation skills & responses, peer
support
4) Yrs 3-4 – Visual literacy
• Ts used Gorilla, to develop Ss background
knowledge of visual codes,
• Groups applied to range of picture books
[e.g. An Ordinary Day], Advertisements
from local paper, 1st Harry Potter film.
• Ss used digital cameras to compose
photos applying visual codes.
• Ss participated in Book Raps with other
schools – activities e.g. dramatisation,
photos, p/point, survey, journal responses
What were these children learning?
• Visual codes [angles, framing, colour,
demands/offers/salience etc] – how they
construct meaning. + metalanguage.
• Application & articulation of this knowledge
to other texts/products.
• Peer collaboration, reflective learning,
creative engagement, critical awareness,
critical literacy – deep learning evident.
• Online communication & learning.
5) Yr 4 – Scaffolded Web Quest
• Ss in mixed ability groups research 2 Aust
animals using websites/information books
• Whole class retrieval chart provided as
scaffold – Ss recorded information.
• Ts provided continual scaffolding of
knowledge, skills & language.
• Ss compared & contrasted 2 animals from
chart. Synthesised into concept map.
• Produced information report on
powerpoint.
Video clip
What were these children learning?
• Science content re animals, content
vocabulary & language.
• Technology skills of searching/navigating –
locating, comprehending, synthesising &
recording main facts.
• S talking was to process learning – peer
support.
• Oral – written knowledge: from websites
to retrieval chart to powerpoint developed through T. scaffolding
Other examples
• Year 8 Secondary students evaluated web
quests and developed home pages. [For
further Secondary egs see Beavis 2002]
• Year 6 class – digital videoing, i-movies
and video editing with Secondary boys.
• Year 6 – developed animation in
advertisements
• Year 6 – developed products using
Inspiration software.
Findings – Literacy
• Decoding not an apparent problem – in some
cases Ss read aloud to help each other. [Coding
practice]
• Comprehension developed as Ss were
motivated to find information – collaborated.
[Semantic practice] – Many found recording
information ‘in own words’ the most difficult.
• Only some instances of critical practice.
• Metalanguage of visual grammar / digital codes
assisted Ss literacy & learning.
• Literacy embedded within integrated, purposeful
tasks.
Findings - Learning
• Talking enhanced Ss learning as they
talked through the process of the tasks
and their understanding of the texts and
curriculum content.
• Peer support and collaborative learning
occurred.
• Evidence of problem solving, reflective
thinking, metacognition, deep learning,
creative thinking.
• Ss’ articulation of their learning- revealing.
Implications
Multimodal learning environments can
provide stimulating engagement in
learning and literacy when…
• tasks are carefully planned in a logical,
coherent sequence,
• integrated with curriculum content and
skills, and
• Ss are able to respond to and use different
modes of communication.
“What’s our children’s working environment
going to be like in the future?
Will it look like their gaming life, where
they’re checking 5 emails while having a
conversation, while moving through these
virtual worlds, or is it going to look like
reading a book?
If we’re going to train kids for that future, we
probably need environments that are
going to reflect what it’s really going to be
like”. (Johnson, in SMH 3 June 2005)
Survey of 350 students
• Majority read books, particularly novels – did not find reading difficult
or boring.
• Larger nos of students either watched TV, played digital games than
read ‘in their spare time’.
• Majority enjoyed using the internet in their spare time and ‘never’
found it boring - commented that they did not have trouble
navigating it and did not need help from older people.
• Larger no of students said they found it easier to read on a screen
than printed page.
• Internet use was dependent on access at home.
• Older students used emails more frequently than younger students.