Advertisement

“Uh Oh”: Multimodal Meaning Making During Viewing of YouTube Videos in Preschool

  • Christina DavidsonEmail author
  • Susan J. Danby
  • Karen Thorpe
Chapter
Part of the Educating the Young Child book series (EDYC, volume 12)

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Multimodal Meaning making Young children Conversation analysis Digital literacies Preschool 

Notes

Acknowledgment

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.

References

  1. 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
  2. Bazalgette, C., & Buckingham, D. (2013). Literacy, media and multimodality: A critical response. Literacy, 47(2), 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benjamin, T. (2012). When problems pass us by: Using “you mean” to help locate the source of trouble. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 82–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burnett, C. (2010). Technology and literacy in early childhood educational settings: A review of research. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 10(3), 247–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burnett, C. (2013). Investigating pupils’ interactions around digital texts: A spatial perspective on the “classroom-ness” of digital literacy practices in school. Educational Review, 66(2), 192–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burnett, C., Merchant, G., Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (2014). The (im)materiality of literacy: The significance of subjectivity to new literacies research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35(1), 90–103. doi: 10.1080/01596306.2012.739469.Google Scholar
  7. Danby, S. (2002). The communicative competence of young children. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 27(3), 25–30.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Davidson, C. (2010). Transcription matters: Transcribing talk and interaction to facilitate conversation analysis of the taken-for-granted in young children’s interaction. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 8(2), 115–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davidson, C. (2012a). Ethnomethodology and literacy research: A methodological “road less travelled”. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 11(1), 26–42.Google Scholar
  11. Davidson, C. (2012b). Seeking the green basilisk lizard: Acquiring digital literacy practices in the home. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 12(1), 24–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Flewitt, R. (2008). Using video to investigate preschool classroom interaction: Education research assumptions and methodological practices. Visual Communication, 5(1), 25–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Flewitt, R., Nind, M., & Payler, J. (2009). “If she’s left with books she’ll just eat them”: Considering inclusive multimodal literacy practices. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 9(2), 211–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garfinkel, H. (1984). Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  17. Glenn, P. (2010). Interview laughs: Shared laughter and asymmetries in employment interviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1485–1498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Hackett, A. (2014). Zigging and zooming all over the place: Young children’s meaning making and movement in the museum. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 14(1), 5–27. doi: 10.1177/1468798412453730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Hester, S., & Francis, D. (1997). Reality analysis in a classroom storytelling. British Journal of Sociology, 48(1), 96–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. Keisanen, T. (2012). “Uh-oh, we were going there”: Environmentally occasional noticings of trouble in in-car interaction. Semiotica, 191(1), 197–222. doi: 10.1515/sem-2012-0061.Google Scholar
  26. Kidwell, M., & Zimmerman, D. H. (2007). Joint attention as action. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 592–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New technologies in early childhood literacy research: A review of research. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 3(1), 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies: Everyday practices and social learning. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. Levy, R. (2009). ‘You have to understand words … but not read them’: Young children becoming readers in a digital age. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(10), 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marsh, J. (2007). New literacies and old pedagogies: Recontextualizing rules and practices. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 11(3), 267–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Pomerantz, A. (1988). Offering a candidate answer: An information seeking strategy. Communication Monographs, 55, 360–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on conversation: Volumes 1 & 2. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis (Vol. 1). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(1), 361–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schutz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world (G. Walsh, & F. Lehnert, Trans.). London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  39. Stivers, T., & Sidnell, J. (2005). Introduction: Multimodal interaction. Semiotica, 156(1/4), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.
  41. Wohlwend, K. E. (2009). Early adopters: Playing literacies and presenting new technologies in print-centric classrooms. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 9(2), 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wolfe, S., & Flewitt, R. (2010). New technologies, new multimodal literacy practices and young children’s metacognitive development. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40(4), 387–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christina Davidson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Susan J. Danby
    • 2
  • Karen Thorpe
    • 2
  1. 1.Charles Sturt UniversityWagga WaggaAustralia
  2. 2.Queensland University of TechnologyKelvin GroveAustralia

Personalised recommendations