Advertisement

A Rich Mix: What Is English? Integrating Literature, Literacy, Language and Multimodal Dimensions of Meaning-Making in the UK Secondary School English Classroom

  • Alison Douthwaite
Chapter
Part of the Multilingual Education book series (MULT, volume 30)

Abstract

This chapter proposes a new tripartite model of critical voice development for secondary English literature education. It argues that English teachers need a revised, cohesive theory around criticality development that can both account for new practices with technology and mesh productively with existing disciplinary conventions. The chapter reports on attempts to meaningfully integrate iPad usage into the study of literary texts, exploring the experiences of two classes producing multimodal responses to literary texts. Drawing on Kress’ scholarship on multimodality and reader-response theories, it argues that multimodal response can increase motivation, engagement and originality by acknowledging students’ cultural agency and giving them access to a broader range of semiotic modes. It highlights ways in which task design encourages students to draw on traditional disciplinary skills. The chapter also explores how the engagement demanded by embodied approaches to learning can have an impact on students’ sense of identity and belonging in both positive and difficult ways, underscoring the social and intersubjective dimensions of literacy development. By enabling closer attention to complexity of criticality development through literary study, the tripartite model may develop our understandings of under-recognised aspects of this process, offering teachers greater scope to imagine productive new ways of working with technology in English literature classrooms.

Keywords

English literature Criticality Multimodality Literacy education Secondary education Educational technology Mobile technologies Reader response 

References

  1. Annenberg Foundation. (2017). Introduction the Envisionment-Building Classroom, Making Meaning in Literature Grades 6–8. Accessed on 25 July 2017 at https://www.learner.org/libraries/makingmeaning/makingmeaning/introducing/
  2. Bearne, E., & Styles, M. (2003). Ways of knowing: Ways of showing – towards an integrated theory of text. In E. Bearne & M. Styles (Eds.), Art, narrative and childhood (pp. ix–xxvi). Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.Google Scholar
  3. Beavis, C. (2013). Literary English and the challenge of multimodality. Changing English, 20(3), 241–252.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1358684X.2013.816527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1986). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Bryer, T., Lindsay, M., & Wilson, R. (2014). A take on a gothic poem: Tablet film-making and literary texts. Changing English, 21(3), 235–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crook, C. (2005). Addressing research at the intersection of academic literacies and new technology. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(7–8), 509–518.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2006.07.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Early, M., & Marshall, S. (2008). Adolescent ESL students’ interpretation and appreciation of literary texts: A case study of multimodality. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(3), 377–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fish, S. (1980). Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Francis, D. (2006). Critical incident analysis: A strategy for developing reflective practice. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 3(2), 169–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gallas, K. (2004). “Look, Karen, I’m running like Jello”:Imagination as a question, a topic, a tool for literacy research and learning. In C. Ballenger (Ed.), Regarding children’s words (pp. 119–147). New York/London: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning. Ebl., 40, 58–59.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9345.2006.02802_1.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goodwyn, A. (2012). The status of literature: English teaching and the condition of literature teaching in schools. English in Education, 46(3), 212–227.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-8845.2012.01121.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harrison, J. K., & Lee, R. (2011). Exploring the use of critical incident analysis and the professional learning conversation in an initial teacher education programme. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 37(2), 199–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jenkins, H., Ravi, P., Margaret, W., Katie, C., & Alice, R. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century (Vol. 21, pp. 2–3). Cambridge/Lonndon.  https://doi.org/10.1108/eb046280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jocson, K. M. (2012). Youth media as narrative assemblage: Examining new literacies at an urban high school. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 7(4), 298–316.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2012.715735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kress, G. (1996). Reimagining English: Curriculum, identity and productive futures. In B. Doecke, M. Howie, & W. Sawyer (Eds.), Only connect:English teaching, schooling and community (pp. 27–30). Adelaide: Wakefiled Press/AATE.Google Scholar
  17. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the New Media Age. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Kress, G. (2014). Design: The rhetorical work of shaping the semiotic world. In Multimodal approaches to research and pedagogy: Recognition, resources, and access (pp. 1–20).  https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315879475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Langer, J. (2011). Envisioning literature: Literary understanding and literature instruction (2nd ed.). New York/London: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  20. Luhrmann, B. (Director) (1996). William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet [Motion Picture on DVD.] Twentieth Century Fox.Google Scholar
  21. McGuinn, N. (2005). A place for the personal voice? Gunther Kress and the English curriculum. Changing English: Studies in Culture & Education, 12(2), 205–217.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13586840500164243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. Oxford: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moore, T. J. (2013). Critical thinking: Seven definitions in search of a concept. Studies in Higher Education, 38(4), 1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.586995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. OFSTED. (2009). English at the crossroads, (June) (Vol. 51, pp. 4–19).  https://doi.org/10.2307/810222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pandya, J. Z. (2012). Unpacking Pandora ’ s box. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(3), 181–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1995). Literature as exploration (5th ed.). New York: MLA.Google Scholar
  27. Thomson, P. (2008). Field. In M. Grenfell (Ed.), Pierre Bourdieu: Key concepts. Stocksfield: Acumen.Google Scholar
  28. Wissman, K., Costello, S., & Hamilton, D. (2012). “You’re like yourself”: Multimodal literacies in a reading support class. Changing English, 19(3), 325–338.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1358684X.2012.704583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yandell, J. (2013). The social construction of meaning: Reading literature in urban English classrooms. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationUniversity of BathBathUK

Personalised recommendations