460 likes | 701 Views
Multiliteracies, Multimodality & Web 2.0 Technologies: Theory and Practice to Enhance Teaching and Learning a Foreign Language. Dr. Sabrina Priego Faculty of Arts and Human Sciences Department of Languages , Linguistics and Translation. Presentation Plan.
E N D
Multiliteracies, Multimodality & Web 2.0 Technologies: Theory and Practice to Enhance Teaching and Learning a Foreign Language Dr. Sabrina Priego Faculty of Arts and Human Sciences Department of Languages, Linguistics and Translation
Presentation Plan Introduce the concepts of Multiliteraciesand multimodality Introduce 3 multimodal Web 2.0 technologies: VoiceThread Wikis 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 literacypedagogy
Multiliteracies: The New London Group Courtney Cazden James Gee Sarah Michaels Norman Fairclough Gunther Kress Bill Cope Mary Kalantzis Allan Luke Carmen Luke Martin Nakata What constitutes appropriate literacy teaching inthe context of the ever more critical factors of local diversity and global connectedness?
1. Multiplicity of communication channels and media MULTILITERACIES 2. Increasing salience of cultural and linguistic diversity
LiteracyMultiliteracies Centered on language only usually on a singular national form of language. • Focuses on modes of representation much broader than language alone: • Multimodal meaning-making • Multimodal text design • A focus on cultural and linguistic diversity
Multimodality « The combination of differentsemiotic modes in a communicative artefact or event » (Leeuwen, 2005, p. 281)
Spatial Linguistic Multimodal Design of Texts Auditory Gestural New London Group (1996) Visual
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 Expandingliteracies for L2 learning: CRITICALITY METACOGNITION 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 toolisuseful for collaborative social interaction and thus to languagelearning
Affordances The reciprocal relationship between the user of a certain Web 2.0 application and the technologyitself Technological Educational Social
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
Wiki Web 2.0 technologies Voicethread
Spatial Linguistic Auditory Gestural Visual
Technological Affordances of VoiceThread • Variouslevels of access: • Able to watch but not comment • See and comment • Co-editors • Possibility to keep the thread • private, • public or • by invitation • Videodoodling: allows the user to writeor annotate on a video • Comment: • Voice (with a microphone or a telephone) • Text • Video • Upload pictures, documents, a PowerPoint presentation or a film.
Spatial Linguistic Auditory Gestural Visual
Technological Affordances of Wikis • Variouslevels of access: • Able to watch but not edit • See and edit • Possibility to keep the wiki: • private • public or • by invitation • Comment moderation: allows the author the opportunity to seecommentsbeforethey are shownpublicly • Traces of all the changes are archived: • Changes are identified by author and date
Project # 1: Tasks
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
Project # 3: Same tasks, different Web 2.0 technology
Spatial Linguistic Auditory Gestural Visual
Multiliteracies, multimodality & Web 2.0 technologies: Integrating Theory & Practice to Enhance Teaching and Learning a Foreign Language CONCLUSION SELECT TOOLS THAT SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF POWERFUL NEW LITERACIES (THOUGHTFUL AND CRITICAL PARTICIPATION, AND COLLABORATION IN THE CREATION OF NEW UNDERSTANDINGS)
Borsheim, C., Merrit, K, & Reed, D. (2008). Beyondtechnology’ssake: AdvancingMultiliteracies in the twenty-first century. The ClearingHouse: A Journal of EducationalStrategies, 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 multiliteraciesclassroom. UK: MultilingualMatters. • New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Education Review, 66, 60-92. References: Multiliteracies
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: VoiceThread
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. References: Wiki
Thank you for your attention! 謝謝大家 Dr. Sabrina Priego sabrina.priego@lli.ulaval.ca