Multiliteracies, Multimodality & Web 2.0 Technologies:

Theory and Practice to Enhance Teaching and Learning a

Foreign Language

Dr. Sabrina PriegoFaculty of Arts and Human SciencesDepartment of Languages, Linguistics and Translation

Presentation Plan

• Introduce the concepts of Multiliteracies and multimodality

• Introduce 3 multimodal Web 2.0 technologies:o VoiceThreado Wikiso Meograph

• Suggest 3 projects that integrate the use of Web 2.0 in the EFL classroom

Multiliteracies: The New London Group

State and future of literacy pedagogy

Multiliteracies: The New London Group

Courtney Cazden James GeeSarah Michaels

Bill CopeMary KalantzisAllan LukeCarmen LukeMartin Nakata

Norman FaircloughGunther Kress

What constitutes appropriate literacy teaching in the context of the ever more

critical factors of local diversity and global connectedness?

MULTILITERACIES

1. Multiplicity of communication channels and media

2. Increasing salience of cultural and linguistic diversity

Pedagogy of Multiliteracies

Literacy Multiliteracies

• Centered on language only

• usually on a singular national form of language.

• Focuses on modes of representation much broader than language alone:o Multimodal

meaning-making

o Multimodal text design

o A focus on cultural and linguistic diversity

Multimodality

« The combination of different semiotic modes in a

communicative artefact or event » (Leeuwen, 2005, p.

281)

New London Group (1996)

MultimodalDesign of

Texts

Visual

Auditory

Linguistic Spatial

Gestural

Multiliteracies and the Web 2.0

NEW COMMUNICATION MEDIA ARE RESHAPING THE

WAY WE USE LANGUAGE

Multiliteracies and the Web 2.0

HIGH DEGREES OF ACTIVITY AND CRITICALITY WITH WEB 2.0 APPLICATIONS

=EMPOWERMENT

(PARTICIPATION, INVENTION, AND KNOWLEDGE BUILDING)

Multiliteracies, Web 2.0 and EFL

Expanding literacies for L2 learning:

CRITICALITYMETACOGNITION

REFLECTION SKILLS FOR CREATING AND

PUBLISHING CONTENT

Web 2.0 and EFL

Affordances of Web 2.0 technologies

If and how the Web 2.0 tool is useful for collaborative social interaction and

thus to language learning

Affordances

Technological Educational Social

The reciprocal relationship between the user of a certain Web 2.0 application and the technology itself

Affordances of Web 2.0

EASE OF TRANSFORMING EXISTING VISUAL, AUDITORY AND TEXTUAL CONTENT INTO NEW

MULTIMODAL CONTENT

OPPORTUNITIES TO REPRESENT IDEAS AND THE SELF TO

NEW AND WIDE AUDIENCES

PROVISION OF OPENLY INTERACTIVE, COLLABORATIVE AND SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENTS

Examples of Projects that Integrate the Use of Multimodal Web 2.0

Technologies in the EFL Classroom

Project #

1

Web 2.0

technologies

Wiki

Voicethread

Web 2.0 application:http://voicethread.com

Visual

Auditory

LinguisticSpatial

Gestural

Technological Affordances of VoiceThread

Various levels of access:Able to watch but

not commentSee and commentCo-editors

Possibility to keep the thread private,public or by invitation

Video doodling: allows the user to write or annotate on a video

Comment: Voice (with a microphone

or a telephone) TextVideo Upload pictures,

documents, a PowerPoint presentation or a film.

Visual

Auditory

LinguisticSpatial

Gestural

Technological Affordances of Wikis

Various levels of access:Able to watch but

not editSee and edit

Possibility to keep the wiki:privatepublic or by invitation

Comment moderation: allows the author the opportunity to see comments before they are shown publicly

Traces of all the changes are archived:Changes are

identified by author and date

Project # 1:

Tasks

Wikihttp://did2926-anl3030h.wikispaces.com/

1. (a) Listen to a podcast that dealt with a particular topic. (b)Choose the three most important ideas and

(c)Write three opinion-type questions to discuss with their partners via the VoiceThreads

Podcasts: http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features.html

2. Create a VoiceThread with at least three pictures (as visual support for each of the topics to be discussed)

3. Post the VoiceThread on their Wiki page

http://did2926-anl3030h.wikispaces.com/Podcast+choice+25

Project

#2:Same Web 2.0

technologies,

different tasks

https://voicethread.com/?#u2464921.b5640560.i28762311

Project # 3:

Same tasks,

different Web

2.0 technology

Web 2.0 application:www.meograph.com

Visual

Auditory

LinguisticSpatial

Gestural

CONCLUSION

SELECT TOOLS THAT SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF POWERFUL NEW

LITERACIES(THOUGHTFUL AND CRITICAL

PARTICIPATION, AND COLLABORATION IN THE CREATION OF NEW

UNDERSTANDINGS)

Multiliteracies, multimodality & Web 2.0 technologies: Integrating Theory & Practice to

Enhance Teaching and Learning a Foreign Language

References:

Multiliteracies

Borsheim, C., Merrit, K, & Reed, D. (2008). Beyond technology’s sake: Advancing Multiliteracies in the twenty-first century. The ClearingHouse: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 82(2), 87-90.

Cole, D. R. & Pullen, D. L. (2010). Multiliteracies in motion: Current theory and practice. London: Routledge.

Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social features. London: Routledge.

Mills, K. (2010). The multiliteracies classroom. UK: Multilingual Matters.

New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Education Review, 66, 60-92.

References:

VoiceThread

Augustsson, G. (2010). Web 2.0 pedagogical support for reflexive and emotional social interaction among Swedish students. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 197-205.

Brunvand, S. & Byrd, S. (2011). Using VoiceThread to promote learning engagement and success for all students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(4), 28-37.

Chan, M. (2012). An exploratory study on the use of VoiceThread in a business policy course. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 8(3), 1-20.

Lee, S.-Y. (2012). Storytelling supported by technology: An alternative for EFL children with learning difficulties. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(3), 297-307.

Sadux, M. (2013). Hear, there and everywhere? An investigation into the use of digital voice tools to enhance teaching and learning in languages in the UK higher education sector (pp. 4-26). York: The Higher Education Academy.

References:

Wiki

Bradley, L., Lindstrom, B. & Rystedt, H. (2010). Rationalities of collaboration for language learning in a wiki. ReCALL 22(2), 247–265.

Leuf, B. & Cunningham, W. (2001). The wiki way: Quick collaboration on the web. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co.

Lund, A. (2008). Wikis: A collective approach to language production. ReCALL, 20(1), 35–54.

Rasmussen, I., Lund, A., & Smørdal, O. (2012).Visualisation of trajectories of participation in a wiki: A basis for feedback and assessment? Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 7, 20-35.

Zorko, V. (2009). Factors affecting the way students collaborate in a wiki for English language learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(5), 645-665.

Thank you for your attention!

謝謝大家

Dr. Sabrina Priegosabrina.priego@lli.ulaval.ca