Advertisement

Sensory Ways to Indigenous Multimodal Literacies: Hands and Feet Tell the Story

  • Kathy A. MillsEmail author
  • Jane Dooley
Chapter
Part of the Language Policy book series (LAPO, volume 19)

Abstract

This chapter reports original research that asks the question: What are the ways of knowing, being, and communicating that are valued and practiced in Indigenous communities? Literacy curricula, internationally and nationally, typically do not take into account the multi-sensorial dimensions of non-Western forms of representation that go beyond narrow conceptions of print. For example, literacies are often conceived as drawing on print, visual, spatial, gestural, and audio modes, but the role of haptics and locomotion has typically received little attention. This chapter highlights examples of the multi-sensoriality of Indigenous literacies observed in participatory community research with an Indigenous school. It extends recent theories of sensory studies in the history and cultural anthropology of the senses, applying these principles to literacy education. Sensory literacies is a theoretical perspective that gives priority to the sensorial dimensions of the body and its role in communication in literacy practice, because without a sensing body, we cannot know about or communicate with the world. The data demonstrates how the forgotten role of the hands and feet in dominant theories of communication is central to Indigenous identity and literacies. Written by a white academic with an Indigenous researcher, the chapter problematises the privileging of narrow, logocentric, and Western forms of literacy and its implications for rethinking the role of the whole body in literacy and the literacy curriculum for Indigenous students.

References

  1. Arola, K. L., & Wysoki, A. (2012). Composing media, composing embodiment. Logan: Utah State University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA]. (2016). National assessment program: Literacy and numeracy (NAPLAN). Syndey: Australian Government.Google Scholar
  3. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA]. (2017). Australian curriculum: Version 8.3. Canberra: Australian Government. Retrieved December 13, 2017, from: http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/?dnsi=1
  4. Castagno, A. E., & Brayboy, B. M. J. (2008). Culturally responsive schooling for indigenous youth: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 941–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collins-Gearing, B., & Osland, D. (2010). Who will save us from the rabbits? Rewriting the past allegorically. The Looking Glass: New Perspectives on Children’s Literature, 14(2). Retrieved December 13, 2017, from: http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/ojs/index.php/tlg/article/view/227/225
  6. Eco, U. (1976). A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Farnell, B. (2012). Dynamic embodiment for social theory. London: Taylor and Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ford, M. (2013). Achievement gaps in Australia: What NAPLAN reveals about education inequality in Australia. Race Ethnicity and Education, 16(1), 80–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Giaccardi, E. (2012). Heritage and social media: Understanding heritage in a participatory culture. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Howes, D. (1991). The varieties of sensory experience: A sourcebook in the anthropology of the senses. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  11. Howes, D. (2014). Anthropology and multimodality: The conjugation of the senses. In C. Jewitt (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (2nd ed., pp. 225–236). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Howes, D., & Classen, C. (2014). Ways of sensing: Understanding the senses in society. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Ingold, T. (2000). The perpection of the environment: Essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Ingold, T., & Vergunst, L. (2008). Ways of walking: Ethnography and practice on foot. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  15. Jewitt, C. (2006). Technology, literacy and learning: A multimodal approach. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Kress, G. (2000). Design and transformation: New theories of meaning. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 153–161). South Yarra: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Kress, G., & Bezemer, J. (2008). Writing in multimodal texts: A social semiotic account of designs for learning. Written Communication, 25(2), 166–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (1987). The social history of the natural history of an interview: A multidisciplinary investigation of social communication. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 20, 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Martin, K. L. (2003). Ways of knowing, being, and doing: A theoretical framework and methods for indigenous and Indigenist research: Voicing dissent new talents 21st century, next generation Australian studies. Journal of Australian Studies, 76, 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Martin, K. (2008). Please knock before you enter: Aboriginal regulation of outsiders and implications for researchers. Flaxton: PostPressed.Google Scholar
  22. Mills, K. A. (2010). Filming in progress: New spaces for multimodal designing. Linguistics and Education, 21(1), 14–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mills, K. A. (2011). The multiliteracies classroom. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  24. Mills, K. A. (2016a). Literacy theories for the digital age: Social, critical, multimodal, spatial, material, and sensory lenses. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  25. Mills, K. A. (2016b). Rethinking Indigenous ways to literacy assessment: Hands that speak, feet that tell the story. Paper presented at the Research and Innovation in Classroom Assessment Conference, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
  26. Mills, K. A., & Dreamson, N. (2015). Race, the senses, and the materials of writing practices. In J. Turbill, C. Brock, & G. Barton (Eds.), Teaching writing in today’s classrooms: Looking back to look forward (pp. 298–312). Norwood: Australian Literacy Educators’ Association.Google Scholar
  27. Mills, K. A., & Unsworth, L. (2017). Multimodal literacy. In G. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of education. Oxford: Oxford Univeristy Press.Google Scholar
  28. Mills, K. A., & Unsworth, L. (2018). The multimodal construction of race: A review of critical race theory research. Language and Education, 32(4), 331–332.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2018.1434787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mills, K. A., Comber, B., & Kelly, P. (2013). Sensing place: Embodiment, sensoriality, kinesis, and children behind the camera. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 12(2), 11–27.Google Scholar
  30. Mills, K. A., Davis-Warra, J., Sewell, M., & Anderson, M. (2016). Indigenous ways with literacies: Transgenerational, multimodal, placed and collective. Language and Education, 30(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Monroe, M. H. (2011). Australia: The land where time began: A biography of the Australian continent. Retrieved December 13, 2017, from: http://austhrutime.com/geology.htm
  32. Morphy, H. (1991). Ancestral connections: Art and an aboriginal system of knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Nespor, J. (1997). Tangled up in school: Politics, space, bodies, and signs in the educational process. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  34. O’Halloran, K. L. (2009). Historical changes in the semiotic landscape: From calculation to computation. In C. Jewitt (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 98–113). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Oodgeroo, N. (1990). My people. Sydney: Angus and Robertson.Google Scholar
  36. Pandya, V. (1993). Above the forest: Andamanese ethnoanemology, cosmology, and the power of ritual. Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Paterson, M. (2007). The senses of touch: Haptics, affects and technologies. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  38. Pietikäinen, S., & Pitkänen-Huhta, A. (2013). Multimodal literacy practices in the indigenous sámi classroom: Children navigating in a complex multilingual setting. Journal of Language & Literacy Education, 12(4), 230–247.Google Scholar
  39. Pink, S. (2009). Doing sensory ethnography. London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Porteous, D. (1990). Landscapes of the mind: Worlds of sense and metaphor. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Raworth, K., Sweetman, C., Narayan, S., Rowlands, J., & Hopkins, A. (2012). Conducting semi-structured interviews. Oxford: Oxfam.Google Scholar
  42. Romero, A., Arce, S., & Cammarota, J. (2009). A barrio pedagogy: Identity, intellectualism, activism, and academic achievement through the evolution of critically compassionate intellectualism. Race Ethnicity and Education, 12(2), 217–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sarra, C. (2003). Cherbourg state school: Strong and smart. What works program: Improving outcomes for Indigenous students. Retrieved December 13, 2017, from: http://www.whatworks.edu.au/dbAction.do?cmd=displaySitePage1&subcmd=select&id=111
  44. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2003). Discourses in place: Language in the material world. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Silverman, D. (2014). Interpreting qualitative data (5th ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. Stanton, D., Bayon, V., Neale, H., Ahmed, G., Gahli, A., Benford, S., Cobb, S., Ingrim, R., O’Malley, C., Wilson, J., & Pridmore, T. (2001). Classroom collaboration in the design of tangible interfaces for storytelling. CHI Letters, 3(1), 482–489.Google Scholar
  47. Stein, P. (2006). The olifantsvlei fresh stories project: Multimodality, creativity, and fixing in the semiotic chain. In C. Jewitt & G. Kress (Eds.), Multimodal literacy (pp. 123–138). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  48. Stoecker, R. (2005). Research methods for community change: A project-based approach. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stoller, P. (1989). The taste of ethnographic things: The sense in ethnography. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  50. Tuhiwai Smith, L. (2006). Choosing the margins: The role of research in indigenous struggles for social justice. In N. K. Denzin & M. D. Giardina (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry and the conservative challenge (pp. 151–174). Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  51. Van de Kleut, G. (2011). The whiteness of literacy practice in Ontario. Race Ethnicity and Education, 14(5), 699–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Walsh, M., & Simpson, A. (2014). Exploring literacies through touch pad technologies: The dynamic materiality of modal interactions. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 37(2), 98–106.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Learning Sciences and Teacher EducationAustralian Catholic UniversityBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Deakin UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations