Adolfo Tanzi Neto Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo (BRAZIL)

1. DESIGN OF VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS AND THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE MULTILITERACIES PEDAGOGY, BAKHTINIAN STUDIES AND REMEDIATION Adolfo Tanzi Neto Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo (BRAZIL)

2. We believe that with the democratization of knowledge, distance learning (DL) has gained more and more space in the world. In the contemporary era, time, mobility and autonomy have been key factors for choosing this mode of learning. In this regard, virtual learning environments (VLEs) have been constantly redesigned to provide different ways for information to interact with people, widening students’ participation on the web. Introduction

3. For Brazil, due to its geographical issues and a pressing need for engaging citizens in the school context, distance education has been rapidly growing, providing the approximation of the population to these learning contexts. Thus, to meet the needs arising from different pedagogical practices in this new context, the VLE has undergone great changes, mainly for being one of the most important tools for distance learning. Introduction

4. However, we should consider how this learning environment is; assuming that the VLE in distance education is the classroom: • how the design of a VLE can offer digital tools and resources that provide (new) multiliteracies needed in contemporary social practices? • how can they collaborate for the inclusion of young people in the modern society, that engenders new ways of living, working, relating, producing and delivering services? Introduction

5. Bakhtin (2003 [1952-53/1979])[1] claims that the use of language is directly linked to the various fields of human activity and that therefore such uses are as diverse as those fields of activity. The language is in the form of statements uttered by members from different fields of activity and each field of language practice draws its relatively stable types of utterances, which we call speech genres. Rojo (2013)[2]suggets the device of a diagram – Fig. 1 below to synthesize the theory of genres presented in Bakhtin (2003 [1952-53/1979])[1]: Bakhtin’s Architectural Form

6. Fig. 1 – Speech GenreDiagram Adaptedfrom: ROJO, 2013, p. 27[2]. Bakhtin’s Architectural Form

7. We can observe that it is by the communication practices/field of human activity that language practices are determined. It also includes the historical time and place and social relations between the participants, that are marked by three characteristics or purposes: thematic content, the style of language and its compositional form. For the thematic content, it holds the meaning of acts in human activity: the objects, meanings and content arising from a discursive sphere that will always be present in a particular genre. Bakhtin’s Architectural Form

8. The style of language is shaped by “the selection of lexical, phraseological and grammatical resources of language" (Bakhtin, 2003 [1952-53/1979], p. 261)[1], which means the way the elements of a particular language organize discourse. Despite their individual character, which is directly connected to the individuality of the speaker, Bakhtin (2003 [1952-53/1979], p. 265)[1] argues that not all genres are equally amenable to such reflection, we have to consider the individuality of the speaker in the language statement and the individual style. However, some genres require more standardized forms, so style is still an integral part of the genre. Bakhtin’s Architectural Form

9. The language styles are nothing but certain styles of genre from determined spheres of human activity and communication. In every field there are employed genres that correspond to specific conditions of each given field; these genres that match certain styles (Bakhtin, 2003 [1952-53/1979], p. 266)[1]. Bakhtin’s Architectural Form

10. The compositional form, on the other hand, is the type of construction from a set of different types of relationship that the speaker has with other participants in a discursive communication - the relationship with the listeners, with the readers, with the partners, with the discourse of the other, etc. (Bakhtin , 2003 [1952-53/1979])[1]. In other words, it depends on the configuration or the organization of the utterance so that it meets specificities of a particular discursive sphere or a field of activity. Bakhtin’s Architectural Form

11. We understand that the compositional form is defined by the architectural form, according to the architectural form of the communication practices, the compositional form, the styles and themes are organized in a genre. As we can see from Fig. 2, the architectural form is in between the communication practices and the speech genre. Bakhtin’s Architectural Form

12. Fig. 2 – Speech GenreDiagramwiththearquitecturalform Adaptedfrom: ROJO, 2013, p. 27[2]. Bakhtin’s Architectural Form

13. For a better understanding, let us imagine for example the classroom with its architectural form, which means, with its ergonomics, that it allows for a specific organization of chairs, structure, space, whiteboard, walls, etc., and it provides a unique way to interact one to many, teacher-centered, etc. This ergonomics or architectural form allows certain genres to fit while others not. This is where we believe that the architectural form defines the compositional form, as both are closely linked to the theme and style in every genre (Bakhtin, 2003 [1952-53/1979])[1]. Bakhtin’s Architectural Form

14. That said, we sharpened our theoretical lenses to understand the architectural whole of two VLEs, in its design (concept, idealization and form), looking at the forms of language in its particular social and historical aspects in what we believe is a new field of human activity, the digital one. To understand all of this, their specific composition or the arquitectural form, we undertook further reflections on the uses of these tools on the digital environment. Bakhtin’s Architectural Form

15. The New London Group (NEW LONDON GROUP, 1996)[3] discusses the future of literacy pedagogy, bringing to light a pedagogy that should include the multiplicity of texts and discourses, focusing on two main factors: the first is the cultural and linguistic diversity of globalized societies, facing the multifaceted cultures intertwined inthe plurality of texts that circulate in them. MULTILITERACIES, MULTIMODALITY AND REMEDIATION

16. The second factor refers to a pedagogy that takes into account the rapid growth and variety of texts related to information technologies as well as multimedia formats such as competence to understand different representational forms of information, the image and its relationship with the text or even the format (colour, sound, shape) of something in a multimedia environment. For that, the authors bring the discussion of an education focused on the imminent needs of the twenty-first century, that is to say, an education for the (multi) literacies. MULTILITERACIES, MULTIMODALITY AND REMEDIATION

17. Kalantzisand Cope (2006)[4] basedontheassumptionthat as everydayhumanidentitiesbecome more divergent, the central factoflanguagebecomesthemultiplicityof its meanings. Just as there are manyfacets in ouridentities, there are multiplediscoursesofidentityandmultiplediscoursesofrecognitiontobenegotiated. Wehavetobeproficienttonegotiatetheidentitiesthatexist in eachofusandsomanyotheridentitiesthatwe face in in ourday-by-daylives (KALANTZIS, COPE, 2006)[4]. MULTILITERACIES, MULTIMODALITY AND REMEDIATION

18. The grouphasalsodiscussedtheurgencyofaddressingtheissuesrelatedtocontemporaryor multimodal texts, whichwe are facedconstantlywith, meaning, to look attheregularitiesofstructuresto a typeof "visual grammar" for multimodal use, startingfromtheassumptionthatalltexts, eventheprintedones, are multimodal (Kressand van Leeuwen, 1996)[5], writingismultisemiotic, thealphabeticlanguageisjustoneofthewaystoconstructmeaning in writing. MULTILITERACIES, MULTIMODALITY AND REMEDIATION

19. For that, the Multimodality theory proposed by Kress and Van Leeuwen (1996)[5] among others, takes the written language as just one of the modes of meaning in communicative spheres and inquires to understand just the written mode would not suffice students aprehension of the role power of discursive manifestations of the modern world. MULTILITERACIES, MULTIMODALITY AND REMEDIATION

20. Additionally, Bolter and Grusin (2000)[6] discuss that technological means reuse means from their predecessors, as in the examples of painting in relation to photography, from the novel to a film, the phone call to a conference call, the press to an electronic hypertext. This reuse brings new definitions of the medium, but not that there is necessarily a connection between them, this connection can happen if the reader or viewer knows the two versions. MULTILITERACIES, MULTIMODALITY AND REMEDIATION

21. For example, a book that you read and then you watch the movie (based on this book). In such situation, the viewer can compare the two versions of the same story. Another example is the analysis of the characteristics of a painting presented in a picture: color, depth, brightness that can be compared. Thus, the representation of the other is what the authors call remediation. MULTILITERACIES, MULTIMODALITY AND REMEDIATION

22. The media is always a remediation of a previous media and the same occurs in digital media. Hence, we must look at the acts of remediation of the presence-based school to the digital school, in which new multisemiotic/multimodal arrangements must be addressed to fullfil the contemporary needs. We can observe an intense interactivity in digital media, we have great websites where millions of citizens discuss an issue, change the policy of a country, transform the culture of people, etc. MULTILITERACIES, MULTIMODALITY AND REMEDIATION

23. If we look at education in the technological means in their acts of remediation, we realize that, so far, what has happened is a tendency to transpose the presence-based classroom to the virtual environment with an strong presence of only alphabetic texts. We must rethink the educational remediation acts to the technology-mediated virtual learning environments, which must in their design, provide different transformations in the mode of interaction with learning to establish a renewed sense of the past creating future directions for mediated-technology education, which should approximate the reality experienced by the contemporary citizens and their new modes of meaning-making. MULTILITERACIES, MULTIMODALITY AND REMEDIATION

24. Therefore, in our analysis of the virtual learning environments, we observed the acts of remediation from the classroom environment to the digital one and if the design tools provided canpropitiate or not multisemioticuses for communication. MULTILITERACIES, MULTIMODALITY AND REMEDIATION

25. As wementioned in ourtheoreticalsection, therealizationofanarchitecturalformoccurs in the communication situation, which organizes thecompositionalformsthattakeplace in a genre. In ouranalyzes, welookedatthearchitecturalformofTelEducandEdmodo, weobservedtheirconcept, idealizationandform in the digital environment, thatcancollaborateornotfor certaingenresbeconstituted. TelEduc CONCLUSION EdModo

26. Wewereabletoinferthat in thearchitecturalformofTelEduc, theenvironmentofferslittleflexibility for theuser, sincethe tools are basedoncompartimentsandalsoon non-visual icons, onlyalphabeticthumbnails, whichhindercolaborativityamong its participants. Moreover, theenvironment does notpropitiateaninteractionbetweenthestudiedobjectandtheuser. CONCLUSION TelEduc EdModo

27. The tool-tasksfollows a chronologicalorderofpresentationwith no room for theuser’sintervention. The multidirectional communication tools, dueto its design, does notallowinteractionbetweendifferentusers, onceit’snecessaryto click toget in diferrent boxes ofinteraction: fieldsofdiscussions are in isolated boxes ofinteraction. CONCLUSION TelEduc EdModo

28. The tools proposedfollow a predetermineddirectionofparticipation, teacher-studentandstudent-content; even in discussionforums, whereyoucouldhave a student-studentinteraction, dueto its compartmentalized design, theparticipationbecomes artificial withthesimplegoalofaccomplishing a task. Thus, theenvironmenthasthecharacteristicof a repositoryof digital data: it isstatic, withpre-defined paths and roles for its members, whereonlyonemodeoflanguageisestablished, thealphabeticwriting. CONCLUSION TelEduc EdModo

29. Thatsaid, weobservedthatthecompositionalformsthatconstitutethis VLE (tools andgenresallowed/supported) wasoriginatedfromtheschoolcontextofthetwentiethcentury, since its architecturalformhaslittleflexibility for thedemandsofthecontemporary world, its form, design andidealization are basedonanalphabeticmodeoflearningwithonlytextinteractioncontrolledbytheteacher. CONCLUSION TelEduc EdModo

30. The materialsavailable/allowed for this design environmentfollowthecharacteristicsofthebehavioristmodel (Barbera; Rochera, 2010)[7] withpracticalexercises, automatedtutorialswith passive reproductionof material thatrequiresonlyexercisesandmemorization, withtheautomationofbasicskillsandcontent in textual format, fragmentedintosmallunitsanduniqueitineraries in their boxes ofinteraction. Furthermore, the material andthelearning tutor serve as controllers. CONCLUSION EdModo

31. Weconcluded, byobservingthearchitecturalformofTelEducenvironment, its tools andflexibility for differentmodesoflanguage, thatthe VLE representsthe 1.0 school, it means, thementality 1, proposedbyLankshearandKnobel (2006, p. 38)[8], in whichthe world iscenteredandhierarchicalandproductionisbasedoninfrastructureand centers orunits (compartments). The expertise andauthority are "located" in individualsandinstitutions. CONCLUSION TelEduc

32. Weconcludedthatthelittleinteractionbetweentheenvironmentandother web-tools provide for theusers a closedlearningspace for onlyspecificpurposes. Unlike EdModo, whichoffersthepossibilitytoparticipate in differentlearningcommunities for theexchangeofcontent, ideas, activitiesandmultimediamaterialsenablingtheconstructionofcollaborativeanddistributedintelligence. CONCLUSION EdModo

33. In TelEducthe social relationsofthe book era prevails, or a hierarchicalwritingandstable textual orderclosedatthe VLE. In termsofmultiliteracies, the design didnotprovidethe use ofdifferentformatsoftextsassociatedwithinformationandmultimediatechnologies, uses ofdifferentrepresentationalformsofinformationsuch as images, representationalicons, soundsandvideos, which are partofamodern digital environment. CONCLUSION TelEduc

34. In theimmersionofstudents in meaningfulpracticesEdModofosterparticipation in multipleanddifferentsituationsbasedontheirknowledgeandexperience in TelEduc, the big challengeistoliteratethestudent for theenvironment in particular, dueto its design distancefromthetechnological tools students are usingnow, eventhedigitallyliteratedoneswhenusingthe tool canhavedifficulties. CONCLUSION

35. Therefore, tounderstandthearchitecturalwhole as proposedby Bakhtin (2010 [1924])[9] in TelEduc, weobserved a gap between its architecturalformandthecontemporary reality ofusersimmersed in new technologies. Byunderstanding its unique reality (cognitive) in the VLE, weunderstandthat its structureisbasedonthehierarchicalschoolfromthefordism era; ontheexternalcharacteristics, fromthe extra-aestheticwecouldseefromthelimitationsof bandwidth, storageand design flexibilityoftheenvironmentitself, unlesstheteachers/tutors start using, for example, links and hyperlinks sothattheusercouldaccessthemultitudeofpossibilitiesfromthe Web, butthenoutsidethe VLE. CONCLUSION

36. The internaldimensionofthewholearchitecture, weanalyzedthepossibilities for differenttextsarrangement, images, activities, unitsandtasks, whichprevailsthestaticform, withlittleor no userinteraction, content, startingfrom a modeloflectureandteacher/tutor as theownersofknowledgeandpowerofseriation, classification, evaluationandpromotion. CONCLUSION

37. Webelievethateducationalspacessupportedby new technologiesshouldgenerateandestablish new formsof communication andlearning. Weunderstandthattheremediationofourlives, cultureandsocietyby new technologieshaveprovided new signifiersandmaterialsofexpression for students in thecontemporary world. CONCLUSION

38. Onthataccount, theactsofremediationfrompresence-basedschooltodistanceeducationcontext must takeintoaccountthechangesofthemodern world. However, theactsofremediation, whenconsideringthe design ofTelEduc, wasbasedonthepresence-basedclassroom, or in therelationsof time andspace (andpower) school 1.0, generatinganarchitecturalformcharacterizedbythetraditionalschoolliteraciesofthetwenthcentury. CONCLUSION

39. Meanwhile, whenweanalyzedthearchitecturalformof EdModo in its architecturalwhole, weobserved a constructivist design model (Barbera; Rochera, 2010)[7], whichproposesdifferentformatsofinformation - textual, graphic, audio, imageswithdynamicandeasy communication/interactionwithothertechnologicalmeans; which, duetoTelEduclimitations for storageandstructure, it becomesmuch more complicated. For EdModo, thereis still flexibleadaptationofcontentpresentationandnavigation, interaction as well as connection tothestudyobjectives. CONCLUSION

40. The conceptionoflanguageisseen as a complexprocessofreconstructionofcontentwiththe mental activitythatthestudentgetsinvolved in differentcognitiveabilities, prior toknowledge, strategiesandlearningstyles, motivations, goalsandinterests. Thus, webelievethatthecompositionalformspresented in thisenvironmentdueto its architecturalembodimentmaybegenresthataddressthesituational communication ofthecontemporary era. CONCLUSION

41. Wecansay, then, thatEdmodoisbasedon a 2.0 school, whichmeans, themindset 2, proposedbyLankshearandKnobel (2006, p. 38)[8], whichthelogicofthe world iscentered, focusedoncontinuedparticipationandauthorities are distributedandcollaborative in a more open, fluidspace. EdModo offersdifferentpossibilitiesand uses oftechnology, in whichstudentsandteachers/tutorscansupportmanyaspectsoflearning, research, content management andproductionofallparticipantswith a broadcommunityandresearchpartnerstowhomtheycansharetheirresourcesandachievements. CONCLUSION

42. In termsofmultiliteraciesof its userswiththeimmersionofstudents in meaningfulpracticeswithinthe digital community, in theenvironmettheycanparticipate in multipleanddifferentsituationsbasedontheirknowledgeandexperienceofthecontemporary world, it is in thissensethatthe VLE canprovide a contextualizedpractice, criticaland experimental teaching - essentialattributes for the (new) multiliteracies. CONCLUSION

43. Giventhe original reality (cognitive) basedonthereflectionsof Bakhtin (2010 [1924])[9]onarchitecturalform, its structureisbasedonthemodelof social networks, proposing a more interactivelearningprocess, dialogic, which builds collaborativeanddistributedintelligencetodifferentcommunitiesacrossthe world. The externaldimensionofthis VLE, weobservedthat its flexibilitytalks/interacswithother tools available in thecyberspace. These tools are partoftheday-by-daycontemporarystudent, whichnowcanbemultiliteratedin thefieldofcollaborativelearning. CONCLUSION

44. Weconcludedthat EdModo in its architecturalformandeducationalremediation, takesintoconsiderationthetemporalityandspaceorcyberspace in whichwe are living in. This VLE provides a renewalofthesensesofthepastschoolandcreates new meanings for theschoolofthe future, whichisnowup for new open contemporarytransformationsarisingfromthespaceand time onthe Web. CONCLUSION

45. It is, no doubt, already a firststep for the future modern VLE, usingthree-dimensional technology, visual representationsofknowledgeofcognitivemultiagentdistributedcollaboration, semantic networks andimmersive systems - featuresalreadypresent in social practicesemergingfromthemodern man. CONCLUSION

46. BAKHTIN, M. [1952-53/1979] Os Gêneros do Discurso. In: Estética da criação verbal. Trad. Paulo Bezerra. 4. ed. São Paulo: MARTINS FONTES, 2003, p. 261-306. • ROJO, R. H. GênerosDiscursivos do Círculo de Bakhtin e Multiletramentos. In: EscolaConectada: os multiletramentos e as TICs. São Paulo: PARÁBOLA EDITORIAL, 2013, p. 13-36. • NEW LONDON GROUP. A pedagogy of multiliteracies: designing social futures. Londres: HARVARD EDUCATIONAL REVIEW, 1996, p. 60-92. • Kalantzis, M.; Cope, B. (2006 [2000]). Multiliteracies – A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures – The New London Group. New York: Routhledge, 2006. • Kress, G. R.; Leeuwen, T. V. (1996). Reading images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London, New York: Routledge. • Bolter, J. D.; Grusin R. (2000). Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge, MA, USA: The MIT Press. • BARBERÀ, E.; ROCHERA, M. J. OsAmbientesVirtuais de Aprendizagembaseados no Projeto de MateriaisAutossuficientes e naAprendizagemAutodirigida. In: COLL, C.; MONEREO, C. (Orgs) Psicologia da Educação Virtual: aprender e ensinar com as tecnologias da informação e da comunicação. Porto Alegre, RS: Artmed, 2010. pp. 157-170. • LANKSHEAR, C.; KNOBEL M. New Literacies: Everyday Practices and Classroom Learning. England: OPEN UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2006, p. 29-62. • BAKHTIN, M. [1924] Crítica da Arte e EstéticaGeral. In: BAKHTIN, M. Questões de Literatura e de Estética: a teoria do romance. 6. Ed. São Paulo: Hucitec, 2010. References