Multimodal designs for learning in contexts of diversity

• Authors: Arlene Archer
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This paper aims to identify multimodal designs for learning in diverse and developing contexts, where access to resources remains vastly unequal. Using case studies from South African education, the paper explores ways of surfacing the range of students’ resources which are often not noticed or valued in formal educational settings. The studies showcased here demonstrate how ethnographic and textually-based approaches can be combined. Opening up the semiotic space of the classroom through multimodal designs for learning is important for finding innovative ways of addressing access, diversity, and past inequalities. This is of relevance not only to South Africa, but a range of global contexts. The paper argues that multimodal designs for learning can involve interrogating the relation between ‘tradition’ and ‘modernity’; harnessing students’ creative practices as resources for pedagogy; developing metalanguages for critical reflection; creating less regulated pedagogical spaces in order to enable useful teaching and learning practices.

Keywords

EN

Multimodal classrooms; design; agency; access; diversity

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Designs for Learning
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 7
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 8-26

Dates

published

2014-12-01

online

2015-06-03

Contributors

author

Arlene Archer

• Cape Town University, South Africa

References

• Archer, A. (2014). Power, social justice and multimodal pedagogies. In C. Jewitt (Ed.) 2nd edition, The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis (pp. 189–197). London: Routledge.
• Archer, A. (2008). Cultural studies meets academic literacies: Exploring students’ resources through symbolic objects. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(4), 383–394.[WoS]
• Archer, A. & Newfield, D. (2014). Challenges and opportunities of multimodal approaches to education in South Africa. In A. Archer and D. Newfield (eds), Multimodal approaches to research and pedagogy: Recognition, resources and access. (pp. 1 – 18). London and New York: Routledge.
• Archer, A., & Richards, R. (2011). Writing centres as alternate pedagogical spaces. In A. Archer & R. Richards (Eds.), Changing spaces: Writing centres and access to Higher Education in South Africa (pp. 5–16). Stellenbosch: Sun Media.
• Bawarshi, A., & Pelkowski, S. (2003). Postcolonialism and the idea of a writing centre. In J. Murphy & S. Sherwood (Eds.), St Martin’s Sourcebook for Writing Tutors. Second Edition. Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s.
• Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2008). Writing in multimodal texts. A social semiotic account of designs for learning. Written Communication, 25(2), 166–195.[Crossref][WoS]
• Harrop-Allin, S. (2014). ‘The pen talks my story’: South African children’s Multimodal Storytelling as artistic practice. In A. Archer & D. Newfield (Eds.), Multimodal approaches to research and pedagogy: Recognition, resources and access (pp. 19–40). London and New York: Routledge.
• Jewitt, C. (2014a). Preface. In A. Archer & D. Newfield (Eds), Multimodal approaches to research and pedagogy: Recognition, resources and access. (pp. xv – xvi). London and New York: Routledge.
• Jewitt, C. (Ed.) (2014b). The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis, 2nd Edition. London: Routledge.
• Kress, G. (2014). Design: The rhetorical work of shaping the semiotic world. In A. Archer & D. Newfield (Eds.), Multimodal approaches to research and pedagogy: Recognition, resources and access (pp. 131–152). London and New York: Routledge.
• Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the New Media Age. London and New York: Routledge.
• Kress, G., & Selander, S. (2012). Multimodal design, learning and cultures of recognition. Internet and Higher Education, 15, 265–268.
• Laugh it off (2015). . Accessed 14 January 2015.
• Lillis, T. & Scott, M. (2007). Defining academic literacies research: Issues of epistemology, ideology and strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 5–32.
• Newfield, D. (2013). Transformation, transduction and the transmodal moment. In C. Jewitt (ed.) 2nd edition. The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. (pp. 100 – 114). London: Routledge.
• New London Group. (2000). A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures. In B. Cope and M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies. Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures. London and New York: Routledge.
• Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved September 2, 2014 from
• Peck, A., & Banda, F. (2014). Observatory’s linguistic landscape: semiotic appropriation and the reinvention of space. Social Semiotics, 24(3), 302–323.[WoS][Crossref]
• Salaam, S. (2014). Jewellery students as designers of meaning: a multimodal approach to semiotic resources. In A. Archer & D. Newfield (Eds.), Multimodal approaches to research and pedagogy: Recognition, resources and access (pp. 192–206). London and New York: Routledge.
• Simpson, Z. (2014). Resources, representation and regulation in Civil Engineering Drawing: An autoethnographic perspective. In A. Archer & D. Newfield (Eds.), Multimodal approaches to research and pedagogy: Recognition, resources and access (pp. 41–56). London and New York: Routledge.
• Stein, P. (2008). Multimodal pedagogies in diverse classrooms, representation, right and resources. London and New York: Routledge.
• Stein, P. (2000). Rethinking Resources: Multimodal Pedagogies in the ESL Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 333–336.[Crossref]
• Stein, P., & Newfield, D. (2006). Multiliteracies and Multimodality in English in Education in Africa: Mapping the Terrain. English Studies in Africa, 49(1), 1–22.
• Thesen, L. (2001). Modes, Literacies and Power: A University Case Study. Language and Education, 14(2, 3), 132–145.
• Thesen, L. (2007). Breaking the frame: lectures, ritual and academic literacies. Journal of Applied Linguistics 4(1), 33–53.
• Vannini, P. (2007). Social semiotics and fieldwork: Method and Analytics. Qualitative Enquiry, 13 (1), 113 – 140.
• Woodward, I. (2007). Understanding material culture. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore: Sage Publications.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/dfl-2014-0061