A personal experience with multimodality

I took a drama class in college entitled “Dreamings and Tellings” in which we recorded our dreams and did various performances of them throughout the semester. I originally signed up for the class as a way to get over my fear of public speaking, but it ended up being one of the best classes I took during my entire undergrad career, and I’m sure that one of the reasons it was so memorable and meaningful was the use of multimodality.

For example, one of our assignments was to act out one of our dreams while reciting a piece of literature that was also somehow relevant to the dream (as opposed to saying the actual words or dialogue that occurred in our dream). We also had to choose appropriate background music for our piece. The dream I chose to act out was about a plant growing out of the top of my head, me calling my mom to figure out how to take care of the plant, and then bugs appearing out of nowhere and crawling all over me (interpretation anyone?). During my performance, I recited parts from the book The Rootamom Tree and instructions from the back of a packet of seeds, while Shakira’s “Moscas en la casa” (“Flies in the house”) played in the background. The result – the combination of action, literature, and music – was very dreamlike. Without explicitly telling my classmates what I had dreamt, they were able to figure out what happened in my dream, and moreover, experience it in a way similar to how I had actually originally experienced it.

Multimodality

The assignments in all of these articles on multimodality (Shipka, 2006; Burn & Parker, 2001; Smagorinsky, Zoss, & Reed, 2008) emphasize quality of product and accomplishment of one’s personal goals as opposed to correctness. I can definitely agree that projects such as these have a huge importance in schools. Not only do they help students become aware of the “variety of senses, modes, and materials” (Shipka, 2006, p. 372) to which they have access, but they also teach the lesson that so often there isn’t necessarily a right or a wrong way to do something, but that there may be different levels of quality and a variety of ways to accomplish their goals. Which is more important - teaching students to get a task done, or helping them discover various ways of getting it done and figure out the most effective way possible?

Women's Work

Smagorinsky, Zoss, and Reed (2008) do a great job of describing and validating as challenging and instructive the composing processes involved in interior design. As they say, how ironic that a subject so open-ended, complex, and requiring such a synthesis of knowledge from different areas to come together and produce an actual product is so often marginalized and discredited as “women’s work”! Meanwhile, we continue to judge students by their scores on standardized multiple choice tests which have no real relevance? Hmmm.

Are you smarter than a 9-year-old?

Lankshear and Knobel (2003) discuss a variety of new literacies, such as scenario planning, culture and news jamming (cool!), blogging, and website and user rating systems. They argue the importance of doing research on these new literacies to be able to use them in education to their fullest potential.

My favorite part of the article was the description of the 9-year-olds who offered professional development on technological applications to school principals – this is exactly what I was just talking about in my previous post – making the discrepancy between teacher knowledge of technology and student knowledge of technology into a good thing. Lankshear and Knobel’s acknowledgment of the tendency of schools to try to “schoolify” social practices goes along with the discussions we’ve had in class recently about finding ways to capitalize on students’ literacies from outside of the classroom without remaking them as school assignments. This authentic task of teaching the principals is such a cool way to do that, not to mention demonstrate respect for and confidence in the students and their abilities.

Keeping up with new literacies

Hawisher and Selfe (2004) tell the stories of the computer literacies of two women born one generation apart (in 1964 and 1986). The experiences of these two women support the fact that literacies are situational, depending on historical, social, familial, educational, and material contexts and that they are often developed in places other than the classroom.

I like Hawisher and Selfe’s way of thinking about literacies as having life spans – it is so true. Consider other literacies such as letter writing, cursive, actual physical dictionaries, encyclopedias and maps (as opposed to online ones), phone books… not to mention records, cassette tapes and VCRs – everything is dated! Ever evolving literacies do, however, make it difficult for education to keep up. It’s unfortunate that students are going into classrooms and realizing that they’re more capable than their teachers at what their teachers are trying to teach! Or… does it have to be? It could be a brilliant opportunity for an authentic project – students teaching their peers and teacher pieces of computer literacy (or whatever other new literacy). As the article mentions, literacy expertise flows from youth to adults as well as from adults to youth - as I’ve personally experienced in teaching my mom the wonders of google, uploading photos, etc.!

The beauty of (and accountability that comes with) the backspace key

Thomas (2004) conducted e-interviews with adolescent girls on an online site called The Palace to get an idea of how these girls were “creating” and “writing” their identities through the structure of both their talk and their avatars. It is interesting to think about the idea of cyberspace interactions as a “mirror stage” (p. 360) on which participants can try on different roles and see themselves as different characters. Whereas there are things in real life over which we have little or no control (appearance, color, gender, etc.), cyberspace allows for a “constructed performance of one’s identity” (p. 368). Because of the ability to use the backspace key, a person can be very deliberate and make sure that she is constructing the identity she really wants to be constructing in that moment.

On the one hand, by looking at how a person portrays and identifies herself online, maybe cyberspace allows us to see that girl more truthfully for what she values and who she wants to be. (How cool to think that online identities, by masking immediate physical characteristics, could maybe allow teachers/parents/peers/society to see potential and ability in students they may have – perhaps unintentionally – previously written off due to some characteristic noticed in that student when face-to-face, i.e. physical appearance or shyness….) On the other hand, it is almost impossible to know a person’s real intentions, for instance, when she is playing around and just acting differently so others can’t “recognize” her as opposed to portraying herself as she really desires to be seen.

As I was reading this article I was thinking about the online discussions I’ve been involved in this semester in one of my other classes. While there definitely is a beauty that comes along with the backspace key, I’ve felt that it also brings with it more responsibility. Because of the ability to read over and make changes to my comments before posting (and the fact that the other participants in the conversation know that I have that ability), I feel as though I have less wiggle room to make mistakes or think out loud. A comment posted online is more permanent; it seems to hold more weight and be more intentional and than a comment made in passing during class, and, for me, feels a little more risky to make. (A difference between the online discussions in my class and in this article, however, is that for our class the comments were not anonymous.)

“One no-thank-you helping of make-believe genre, please.”

Another finding of Kamler's (1994) article was that although writing at school was considered free writing in which the students were told that they could write about whatever they wished and in whatever genre they wished, Zoe and Peter (the girl and boy in the study) tended to stick to writing about their personal experiences (Observation genre). The teachers allowed freedom, but because they did not necessarily provide exposure to options, they actually didn't allow the freedom they thought they were allowing. This made me think about making a new recipe or dish of food – if I have never heard of or tasted a banana/granola/honey quesadilla before, how or why would I even think of preparing this? If I never try a “no-thank-you” helping of olives, how do I know that I do not like them? Perhaps before free writing is done, no-thank-you assignments of the different genres available to the kids should be served.

Active men, passive women

While Kamler (1994) found the stereotype of men as active and women as passive in the writing of a young boy and girl, Martino (2001) found this same stereotype evident in tenth grade boys’ attitudes towards reading. Many of these boys thought of reading as uncool, boring, and a waste of time when they could be doing something active. I wonder how many of these boys actually felt this way, or if some just didn’t want to admit that they liked reading because they didn’t want to be perceived by their peers as “girly” or uncool. I also wonder how much of the rejection of reading as uncool is due to its identity as a school activity (as opposed to watching TV or playing outside). Not only do these boys not want to be seen as “girly,” but they don’t want to be seen as “dorks.”

The power of words and word choice

Blackburn's (2003) paper discusses the power of words and what our word choice reveals about us. For instance, in her discussion about developing a glossary of various sexual and gender identity terms with one of the members of the Loft, she brings up how the inclusion of heterosexual as one of the terms in the glossary placed heterosexuality on the same level as transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality and disrupted the idea that heterosexuality is "normal" and thus a term that does not require definition.

Similarly, Kamler (1994) looks at the revelation of gender stereotypes through word choice. She looks at the texts produced by a boy and a girl during kindergarten, first, and second grade. Her analysis of their texts suggests that social and cultural contexts led the boy to produce texts in which he portrays himself as the active participant with control over his experiences and environment (and usually in a self-centered way), while the girl produces texts full of description in which she rarely portrays herself as an actor in control. It is crazy for me to think about how the stereotype of men as active participants and women as passive observers is already visible in the writing of children this young!

Power dynamics

Blackburn (2003) worked with queer youth at the Loft, a center for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth. Although the youth at the center were trying to escape marginalization from the society outside of the center (especially at school and at home), marginalization of certain groups (in particular the transgender members of the Loft) occurred within the center, as well. I found the discussion of power dynamics in this article really thought-provoking. Is it ever possible (in an organization, in society, in a school/classroom) to NOT have power differences and still get things accomplished? Is it a question of being aware of power differences? Even though certain individuals may have more power to act than others, mutual respect still exists? And those without the power to actually act have the power to influence those who have the power to act? I’ve had plenty of conversations with students about how a speaker has no role unless there are listeners and a leader has no role unless there are people to follow her – thus the listeners and followers in a group play vital roles in a group, but they are often overlooked. The issue is not that one role is more important or better than another, but that they are just different…

African-American English

One common theme of the papers by Smitherman (1992 & 1994), Cooks and Ball (2008), and Godley, Carpenter, and Werner (2007) is the need to find some way to use the bidialectalism of African American students as a tool in the acquisition of Standard American English rather than think of it as a negative that needs to be overcome. Learning a second dialect could be considered like learning a second language. Learning a second language does not need to harm the knowledge or use of the first language; rather, knowledge gained regarding one language can actually contribute to achievement in both. Both languages, however, need to be seen as “correct,” just different ways of expression, perhaps suitable for attaining different goals or for use in different contexts. In the same way, the dialect of African American students could contribute to their understanding of Standard American English without either dialect being seen as “correct.”

Godley, Carpenter, and Werner, however, clearly identify the language ideologies reflected in current school standards, tests, curriculum, and classroom discourse positing Standard English as “correct,” more grammatical and educated, and more legitimate. Cooks and Ball also address the undertones of racism in assessment, curriculum, and instructional methods which assume that achievement and privilege are associated with Standard English as opposed to African American Vernacular English. Awareness of these existing language ideologies is an important first step in challenging them.

Smitherman’s findings indicate that African American students used less Black English Vernacular when using a familiar form of writing such as the imaginative narrative. This suggests that if the writing form is familiar, more effort can be focused instead on using a less familiar dialect. Similarly, when African American students wrote using familiar African American discourse styles (field dependency), they received higher scores on assessments. Using what these students know and are familiar with (personal narrative form) in order to take them to a higher level of ability at using what they are not familiar with makes sense as a teaching strategy.

In addition, Godley, Carpenter, and Werner’s findings support a more dialogic approach to teaching grammar. Communication and explanation are emphasized, as well as collaboration among students and the opportunity for students to position themselves as knowledgeable contributors to the learning process. This reminds me of a suggestion Paolo Freire (1998) to have students and teacher alike observe the behaviors and language of each other in order to analyze, understand, and respect differences. Giving the students the space to be experts demonstrates a respect for the literacy that they practice outside of school, it helps them to see how they can build upon their familiar literacy practices in order to reach greater understanding and ability of the unfamiliar, and it dispels the suggestion that somehow they are inferior because of their primary dialect.

The readings for this week fit in so well with the Freire reading I had to do for another class last week that I can’t help but tie them all together with a quote by Freire: “only as learners recognize themselves democratically and see that their right to say ‘I be’ is respected will they become able to learn the dominant grammatical reasons why they should say ‘I am’” (1998, p. 49).