“Uh Oh”: Multimodal Meaning Making During Viewing of YouTube Videos in Preschool
With young children’s increased use of digital technologies, there is growing interest in their multimodal meaning making. Little is known of the ways that interactions between young children and adults produce multimodal meaning making as an aspect of digital literacies. This chapter explores children’s production of multimodal meaning making during their viewing of YouTube videos in a preschool. Video-recorded data are drawn from a large study of young children’s everyday practices with digital technology in preschools and in their homes. Conversation analysis is used to investigate the multimodal resources employed by the children and their teacher to accomplish individual and shared understandings of video events as humorous, out-of-the-ordinary, and even dangerous. Discussion establishes how social interaction informed viewing, made use of multimodal resources, and extended opportunities for children’s learning. The chapter contributes to thinking about practices necessary for educators to support children’s multimodal meaning making during their use of digital technologies.
KeywordsMultimodal Meaning making Young children Conversation analysis Digital literacies Preschool
We thank the Australian Research Council, who awarded funding to Susan Danby, Amanda Spink, Karen Thorpe, and Christina Davidson for the project Interacting with Knowledge, Interacting with People: Web Searching in Early Childhood (DP110104227). The project has ethical approval by Queensland University of Technology’s University Human Research Ethics Committee (Reference No.: 1100001480) and Charles Sturt University’s Research Ethics Office (Reference No.: 2012/40). We thank the teachers, children, and families of the Crèche and Kindergarten Association for their participation in this study. We thank Sandra Grant and Sandy Houen for video recording in the preschool.
- Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (1999). Jefferson’s transcript notation. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (pp. 158–166). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Danby, S. (2002). The communicative competence of young children. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 27(3), 25–30.Google Scholar
- Danby, S., & Davidson, C. (2007). Young children using language to negotiate their social worlds. In L. Makin, C. Jones Diaz, & C. McLachlan (Eds.), Literacies in childhood: Changing views, challenging practice (2nd ed., pp. 118–132). Port Melbourne, Australia: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Davidson, C. (2012a). Ethnomethodology and literacy research: A methodological “road less travelled”. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 11(1), 26–42.Google Scholar
- Davidson, C., Danby, S., Given, L., & Thorpe, K. (2014). Talk about a YouTube video in preschool: The mutual production of shared understanding for learning with digital technology. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 39(3), 76–83.Google Scholar
- Du Bois, J., Sehuetze-Coburn, S., Cumming, S., & Paolino, D. (1993). An outline of discourse transcription. In J. A. Edwards & M. D. Lampert (Eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research (pp. 45–87). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Garfinkel, H. (1984). Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Glenn, P., & Holt, E. (2013). Introduction. In P. Glenn & E. Holt (Eds.), Studies of laughter in interaction (pp. 1–22). London/New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
- Hepburn, A., & Varney, S. (2013). Beyond ((laughter)): Some notes on transcription. In P. Glenn & E. Holt (Eds.), Studies of laughter in interaction (pp. 25–38). London/New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
- Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Jefferson, G. (1985). An exercise in the transcription and analysis of laughter. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis (Vol. 3, pp. 25–34). London: Academic.Google Scholar
- Keating, E., & Sunakawa, C. (2011). “A full inspiration tray”: Multimodality across real and computer-mediated spaces. In J. Streeck, C. Goodwin, & C. Le Baron (Eds.), Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world (pp. 194–204). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies: Everyday practices and social learning. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
- Lerner, G. H., & Zimmerman, D. (2003). Action and the appearance of action in the conduct of very young children. In P. Glenn, C. LeBaron, & J. Mandelbaum (Eds.), Studies in language and social interaction (pp. 441–457). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Lerner, G. H., Zimmerman, D., & Kidwell, M. (2011). Formal structures of practical tasks: A resource for action in the social life of very young children. In J. Streek, C. Goodwin, & C. Lebaron (Eds.), Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world (pp. 44–56). Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Plowman, L., Stephen, C., & McPake, L. (2010). Growing up with technology: Young children learning in a digital world. Milton Park, OX/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Schutz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world (G. Walsh, & F. Lehnert, Trans.). London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
- Thorpe, K., Hansen, J., Danby, S., Zake, F. M., Grant, S., Houen, S., et al. (2015). Teachers, teaching and digital technology: Reports from the early childhood classroom. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.04.0.