Presentation1 literacies

  • 1,215 views
Uploaded on

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,215
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1.  
  • 2.
    • Anstey & Bull investigate pedagogical changes to be reviewed by educators in assisting students to become multiliterate. Research into multiliteracies pedagogy led to examination and identification of classroom pedagogies. Anstey and Bull suggest that pedagogy needs to evolve alongside ever changing literacy practices. Research indicates combining Productive Pedagogies and the Four Resource Model can shape literacy learning by identifying teaching practices and pedagogy, lesson delivery and structure, critical thinking skills and identifying student’s individuality through explicit and authentic teaching. This chapter provides many techniques and strategies for educators to implement for assisting students to become multiliterate through their what, how and when techniques through theory in practice.
  • 3.
    • Henderson’s article addresses prior ‘digital knowledge’ experiences young children bring to their classrooms today. Students are often immersed daily into learning environments which comprise of digital and multiple technologies in middle childhood settings. Student’s prior knowledge must be acknowledged and planning of digital literacy should cater to student’s diversity, by identifying those who are technology savvy and those who aren’t. Henderson, challenges teachers to look past old practices of print and pen to paper assessments in literacy practices and become more cognisant of the skills brought to their middle years classrooms and embrace the digital life of literacy education.
  • 4.
    • Henderson discusses the importance of educators understanding how diverse, social, cultural and literate practices of the home environment can determine learning outcomes. Approaches to multiliteracy must encompass not only technologies or multimodal strategies but linguistic diversity when lesson planning. Henderson indicates some educators are not particularly good at accommodating for diversity in their classrooms; therefore, they need to look through a new lens for teaching literacy, involve peers and families into determining what support is required. Educators need to be more proactive in their approach to know their students and family history to enable them to unmask any difficulties they may experience in becoming multiliterate.
  • 5.
    • Mills article indicates educators literacy pedagogies should respond to the changes in today’s multimedia textual learning environments. Mills highlights division from theorists and scholars debating the use of new literacies opposed to traditional literature, however, reiterate that representation of both have a significant place in multimedia pedagogies. Examples of multimodal textual practices have been mentioned, informing of their value in curriculums, broadening literacy approaches and benefits in society for long term learning. The New London Group give substance to this article informing their approach to multiliteracy application by incorporating four related components: situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing and transformed practice to students of diverse cultural backgrounds. Equitable education demand educators transform multimodal literacy programs into creative environments for students to participate fully in our dynamic and culturally diverse society.
  • 6.
    • This article focuses on the connection between literacy, linguistic design and information texts essential in everyday science teaching. These aspects connect content to inform curriculum planning for science students in the middle years. To reinforce this belief, a research example is available for reading. Mention is made to the Primary Connections project which provides educators with information and examples for linking science with literacy when developing units such as the Marvelous Micro-Organisms discussed in this article. Complexity of the New London Group’s linguistic design structure of vocabulary, choice and modality, provides educators opportunities to reflect on how literacies and can be incorporated in to everyday science texts.
  • 7.
    • Ryan’s article discusses authentic literacy projects which can be incorporated into classrooms to successfully engage young students in the middle years. Literacy projects offer students opportunities to develop specific literacy skills through engaging in cross-curricular activities, varieties of multimodal communications, focus groups, mentoring, focusing on individual needs, cultural backgrounds and diversity of all students. Combining old literacy ‘basics’ with new ‘basics’ of multiliteracies, informs the development of literacy projects and provides foundations of meaningful learning outcomes. Providing practices, including scope and sequence from syllabus, multiliteracies pedagogic framework approaches and the three step planning model, transform curriculums into meaningful literacy experiences for engaging students learning.
  • 8.
    • Schubert’s article details several practical teaching strategies for educators to incorporate into their repertoire to assist pedagogies for teaching reading comprehension to middle year students. Integrated approaches to teaching comprehension will assist students to not just read the words but understand them. Strategies discussed to make meaning are categorised as activating prior knowledge, retrieving information, forming broad understandings and developing interpretation as a way to help organise the ideas presented. Schubert concludes, educators would benefit and find balance in their teaching and learning strategies for reading comprehension from assessing frameworks such as the Queensland State Authority (QSA).
  • 9.
    • Steven’s article discusses the impact of constantly changing new technologies, the complexity of multiliteracies and the need for educators to be informed with new developments. Multiliteracy is stated to be much broader than encompassing print, media or digital acquisition; it is about recognising the importance of interactivity with literacy complexities and being able to implement these same technologies to build constructive learning environments for students. Steven’s emphasises connectivism as a model for learning to educators as being instrumental to successful learning environments. By employing knowledge, skills and tasks through multilieracies within curriculums, learning will evolve for learners to flourish in the digital era of the 21st century.
  • 10.
    • Stewart-Dore propose for learners to be successful in applying their knowledge they must co construct and integrate these four strategies, declarative (what), procedural (how), contextual (when) and conditional learning (why) to guide their current and future learning. Educators should consider strategies for practicing multiliteracies through a variety of frameworks such as Before, During and After Reading, Erica, Strategic Practices Model and The Four Phase Pedagogical Model. Reinforcement of these frameworks, pedagogical benefits, how these models relate to cognitive and metacognitive development, commitment to implementing and understanding theory is discussed by the author. A synopsis of each model has been included for informing further knowledge and use of multiliteracies.
  • 11.
    • Early childhood settings are questioning the availability, necessity and value of contemporary literacy resources, the bridging of old and new literacies and use of technologies in context. Reference is made to young users of technologies as ‘Early adopters”, examples are provided showing children’s ability to explore and navigate multimodal semiotic practices through supporting new literacies. Avenues for bridging technology and literacy acquisition between home and school environments include play, popular culture, mobile phones, student’s skills and knowledge with various media. Wohlwend analyses pathways for implementing and transforming practices through these experiences to strengthen and further develop curriculums, resulting in higher student participation in literacy learning.
  • 12.
    • " To be multiliterate is to be socially and cognitively literate with all modes of communication" (Anstey & Bull, 2006).
    • Multiliteracies addresses textual 'multiplicity through communication channels, mass media, cultural and linguistic diversity.' (Cope & Kalanstzis, 2000)
    • As technology changes, so do the literary forms and practices.
    • With technologies continuing to advance, the concept of multiliteracies is spreading quickly globally.
    • The New London Group (1996) suggests that the fundamental purpose of education is to "ensure that all students benefit from learning in ways that allow them to participate fully in public, community and economic life."
    Final Thoughts from Researchers of Multilieracies........
  • 13.
    • Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2006). Teaching and learning multiliteracies: changing times changing literacies
    • (pp. 56-81). Newark, DEL: International Reading Association.
    • Henderson, R. (2004). Recognising difference: One of the challenges of using a multiliteracies approach?
    • Practically Primary, 9((2), 11-14. Retrieved March 12, 2011, from A+ Education database.
    • Henderson, R. (2008). It’s a Digital Life! Digital literacy’s, multiliteracies and multimodality. Literacy Learning: the Middle Years, 16(2), 11-15. Retrieved March 12, 2011 from
    • http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/Literacy-Learning-Middle-Years/195013288.html
    • Mills, Kathy A. (2009). Multiliteracies : interrogating competing discourses. Language and Education:
    • An International Journal, (Vol, 23, No. 2). pp. 103116. Retrieved March 11, 2011 from
    • http://eprints.qut.edu.au/14973/1/c14973.pdf
    • Minchenton, D., & Exley, B. (2009). Curriculum literacies:linguistic design in everyday science texts,
    • Literacy Learning: the Middle Years, [Electronic version ]. (Feburary). Retrieved March 12, 2011
    • from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?hid=13&sid=8eb21e07-2c45- 4627-8062-41939d34ae35%40sessionmgr13&vid=2
  • 14.
    • Ryan, M. (2008). Engaging middle years students: literacy projects that matter [Electronic version]. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy: A Journal from the International Reading Association, 52(3), 190-201. Retrieved March 12, 2011 from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?hid=13&sid=8eb21e07-2c
    • 45-4627-8062- 41939d34ae35%40sessionmgr13&vid=2
    • Schubert, M. (2009). Comprehension activities for the middle years of schooling : teaching and learning
    • to comprehend texts across the curriculum, Literacy Learning : the Middle Years, 17 (1), i-viii.
    • Stevens, V. (2005). Multiliteracies for collaborative learning environments. TESL-EJ Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 9(3), 1-4. Retrieved March 7, 2011, from http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/ past-issues/volume9/ej34/ej34int/
    • Stewart-Dore, N. (2003). Strategies for practising multiliteracies. In G. Bull, & M. Anstey (Eds.),
    • The literacy lexicon (2nd ed., pp. 161-180). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Prentice Hall.
    • Wohlwend, K. (2009). Early adopters: Playing new literacies and pretending new technologies in
    • print-centric classrooms. [Electronic version] Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 2009 (9:117) Retrieved March 10, 2011 from http://ecl.sagepub.com.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/content/9/2/117.full.pdf+html