The society that our students inhabit is global, fluid (Bauman, 1998) and networked. Their communication skills need to evolve accordingly, and as teachers and administrators, we continually ask ourselves what epistemological and pedagogical changes must occur so that our students are literate in the 21st century. Research shows that our students must be engaged, passionate, learned, and capable of design. To best prepare our students, we must ensure that our curriculum embraces the tenets of both Critical Literacy Theory and Multimodality. Without this combined framework, our students will not participate in meaningful learning that will allow them to thrive in the 21-century workplace. Our task then is twofold. We must ascertain that our community of educators fully understands and embraces these theories and we need to make sure that our curriculum aligns with the research to best support the growth of these ever-evolving 21-century literacy skills.
Critical Literacy Theory and Multimodality Defined
Critical literacy theory is actively reading the text in a manner that promotes a deeper understanding of socially constructed concepts, such as power, inequality, and injustice in human relationships. Shor and Freire (1987) called it a dream of a new society against the power now in power. Foucault (1980) stated that it was an insurrection of subjugated knowledges. Ray William (1977) wrote that it was a counter-hegemonic structure of feeling. And Adrienne Rich (1979) added that it was language used against fitting unexceptionally into the status quo.
For our usage, the aptest definition is that “literacy is a social action through language use that develops us as agents inside a larger culture, while critical literacy is understood as part of the process of becoming conscious of one’s experience as historically constructed with specific power relations” (Anderson and Irvine, 1982). Critical literacy is language use that questions the social construction of self (Shor,1999). As readers, we examine our ongoing development to understand ourselves and the world around us. It is how we learn how to make sense of the world. And students of all ages need adult alliances to help win language rights to free speech and to social criticism.
Critical reading and critical literacy theory are not the same. However, the two can be closely linked (O’Byrne, 2018). The Common Core State Standards support critical analysis of a text in two ways. The students are expected to focus on significant details or patterns in order to develop a deep, precise understanding of the text’s meaning. And secondly, the students are asked to determine an author’s point of view or purpose in a text and explain how it is conveyed in the text. Critical literacy moves the reader’s focus away from the “self” in critical reading to the interpretation of texts in different environmental and cultural contexts (Luke, 2000).
In order to prevent the low profile, everyday forms of silencing John Goodlad 1983 Michelle Fine (1987,1993) found in mass schooling, we need to create an environment that does not base its curriculum on standardized tests, commercial textbooks, and one-correct-answer tests. Our curriculum must have a focus on situated practice based on the learners’ experiences. We need to challenge the traditional monologic relationship between teacher and student. We need to take the students’ experiences, interests, and existing technological and discourse resources as a starting point (Jewitt, 2008). The social and political goal of multiliteracies is to situate teachers and students as active participants in social change, the active designers of social futures (Cope&Kalantis, 2000). With this explicit agenda for social change, the pedagogic aim of multiliteracies is to attend to the multiple and multimodal texts and a wide range of literacy practices that students are engaged with (Jewitt, 2008).
We need to make sure that our classrooms are places where everyone is given equal chances at success. If education were indeed neutral, everyone would have equal access as well as equal monies invested in their development something this democratic never provided and still doesn’t (Quality Counts, 20-21, 54). Often students of color show lower representation in gifted and talented classes due to biased testing.
Multimodality (Kress, Jewitt, Ogborn & Tsatsarelis, 2001; Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001), like multiliteracies, has emerged in response to the changing social and semiotic landscape. From the multimodal perspective on literacy, there is an understanding that meanings are made (as well as distributed, interpreted, and remade) through many different communicational resources. Language is only one of those resources (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001). Multimodality is a term that is now widely used in the academic world. A mode (image, gesture, gaze, language, body posture, sound, music, speech, and so on) is defined as a unit of expression and representation. As Jewitt (2009) purposed, it is the outcome of the cultural shaping of material. It is socially and materially situated. Halliday (1978) broadened the definition to extend “far beyond mere physicality, to encompass ephemeral, immaterial qualities that are materialized through physical features such as color, heft, light, angle, and gaze.” Different means of meaning-making are not separated but almost always appear together; image with writing, speech with gesture, math symbolism with writing and so forth. What is most important is how the different kinds of meaning-making are combined into an integrated, multimodal whole that scholars attempt to highlight when they start using the term multimodality (Jewitt, 2008). Rosewell (2013) gives precise examples of how these modes can work together in different ways. Transmodal elements reach across the modes like the visuals and sound in films. Intermodal elements are when the modes can exist separately but can cross-reference each other. For example, in a book, the illustrations may work in sync with the font. And lastly, there are intramodal elements that join together to make meaning. An example of this may be the choice of fabric and color that work together to create a particular fashion statement. Successful designers, be they creators of homes, clothes, art, or interfaces, all make these types of multimodal decisions in their design processes. Each mode carries affordances and constraints.
Why is multimodality important?
School literacy is criticized where it continues to focus on restrictive print and language-based options of literacy (Gee, 2004; Lam, 2006; Leander, 2007). As Jennifer Roswell writes, “there remains a veil of secrecy around what experts in productions, design, and multimodality know and do and a discrepancy between that and the conventions that we teach students when they produce texts in the real world.” We need to make curricular changes so that students will be better prepared for a life of meaningful and productive 21st-century work. If we privilege only written language, our students will lose important opportunities.
How do we ensure that our practices reflect our beliefs?
The following factors are identified as key (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; New London Group, 1996). We must make sure that:
The students need to be immersed in an acquisition-rich environment. Teachers and students need to be trained in acquisition skills. New digital materials, including better databases, should be made available.
Our focus is on situated practice based on the learners’ experiences. Lessons should be tied to current issues that are age appropriate. From math, to science, to ELA, the students will solve problems that motivate and engage.
We provide overt instruction allows for the systematic and explicit teaching of the vocabulary for understanding the design processes. Because very few of the professionals in education have a design background, we need to provide professional development to build these skills.
We use a critical framing stance that connects meanings to their social contexts and purposes to interpret and interrogate the social and cultural context of designs. With this intention, the students would be given the opportunity to solve meaningful problems that will prepare them for engaged participation in our democracy on the local, national, and worldwide scale. We cannot expect our citizens to be knowledgable participants unless we give them the skills needed to make informed decisions.
We encourage transformative practice which allows students to recreate and recontextualize meaning across contexts. We will accept that the boundaries between modes blur and mesh into new configurations. These new configurations affect the construction of knowledge and identities (Jewitt, 2006; Leander, 2007; Pelletier, 2005, 2006). These concepts will first be built with professional development that involves hands-on participation.
We recognize that a significant amount of this work is accomplished through a range of modes. We will not privilege written language as the only option for communication.
The success of this transition depends solely on teacher training. Most teachers (other than those who enter teaching as a second career) do not have the skills readily available to assist students in the design process. They should not be expected to learn through trial and error or to learn on their own. The transition to a school that embraces critical learning theory and multimodality should be considered a multiple year project, with dedicated leadership guiding the process. Students finding their own way (as is often the response when technology is introduced) is misguided and unethical.
How do we make sure the curriculum is aligned with our beliefs?
With guided scaffolding, the teachers will create a rubric based on research. This rubric will evaluate the quality of the current materials and processes. The community of teachers will set the criteria based on the research they have read and the professional development they have received. The criteria would include aspects of critical literacy theory and multimodality.
When our students and our teachers are able to access the materials and processes used in the modern workplace, armed with the freedom and the knowledge developed in a critical thinking and multimodal environment, our classroom work will be engaging and productive. With adequate support, a fair and purposeful curriculum would be available to all students.
Works Cited
1998. “Quality counts: The urban challenge–public education in the 40 states”. Education Week, 17.17(January 8).
Anderson, Gary L., and Patricia Irvine. 1993. Informing critical literacy with
ethnography. In Critical literacy: Politics, praxis, and the postmodern. Eds. Colin
Lankshear and Peter L. McLaren. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 81-104.
Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies. London: Routledge.
Cazden, C., Cope, B., Fairclough, N., Gee, J., & Et al. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review,(6), 1st ser., 60.
Fine, Michelle. (1987). Silencing in public school. Language Arts, 64(February): 157-164.
Foucault, Michel. (1980). Power/knowledge. Ed. C. Gordon. New York: Pantheon.
Freire, Paulo. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury.
Goodlad, John. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Halliday. M. (1978). Language as a Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.
Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and Literacy in School Classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 241-267.
Jewitt, C. (ed.) (2009). The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. London: Routledge.
Kress G. (2003). Literacy in the New Media Age. London: Routledge.
Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold.
Lam, W. (2006). Culture and learning in the context of globalization: Research directions. Review of Research in Education, 30, 213-237.
Leander, K. (2007, June). Youth internet practices and pleasure: Media effects missed by the discourses of “reading” and “design.” Keynote delivered at ESRC Seminar Series: Final Conference, Institute of Education, London.
Luke, A. (2000). Critical literacy in Australia: A matter of context and standpoint. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43(5), 448-461.
O’Bryne, W. (2018, May 11). What is “Critical Literacy” in Education? Retrieved from https://wiobyrne.com/critical-literacy/
Pelletier, C. (2005). The use of literacy in studying computer games: Comparing students’ oral and visual representations of games. English Teaching; Practice and Critique, 4(1), 40-59.
Pelletier, C. (2006). Reconfiguring interactivity, agency, and pleasure in the education and computer games debate: Using Zizek’s concept of interpassivity to analyze educational play. E-learning, 2(4), 317-326.
Rowsell, J. (2013). Working with multimodality: Rethinking literacy in a digital age. New York: Routledge.
Shor, Ira, and Paulo Freire. (1987). A pedagogy for liberation. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Shor, I. (1999). What is Critical Literacy. Journal of Pedagogy, Pluralism, and Practice,1(4), 2-32.
Williams, Raymond. (1977). Marxism and literature. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wiobyrne. (2018, May 11). What is “Critical Literacy” in Education? Retrieved from https://wiobyrne.com/critical-literacy/
Jennifer Melberg 