Advertisement

Children, Elders, and Multimodal Arts Curricula: Semiotic Possibilities and the Imperative of Relationship

  • Rachel HeydonEmail author
  • Susan O’Neill
Chapter
Part of the Educating the Young Child book series (EDYC, volume 12)

Abstract

This chapter explores the affordances of multimodal curricula and pedagogy within intergenerational learning programs. The aim is to provide an understanding of how semiotic possibilities can be promoted within children’s meaning making and the reciprocity of intergenerational relationships. Drawing on findings from our intergenerational multimodal arts research, we discuss how intergenerational learning programs can provide skipped generations (e.g., young children and elders) with collaborative, systematic, and shared learning opportunities through multimodal arts practice. These opportunities are co-constitutive of multimodal literacies and communal agency, which are of fundamental significance for fostering intergenerational relationships and children’s expansive literacy options (i.e., the ways they have for making meaning of and representing the world) and identity options (i.e., the ways they have for seeing themselves in the world). We present new tools for thinking about and planning multimodal arts and literacy curricula in early childhood education that are responsive to the fast-paced changes in communication technology and capable of promoting literacy practices across the life span in mono- and intergenerational settings.

Keywords

Intergenerational learning Literacy options Identity options Multimodal arts Technology Communal agency Semiotics Digital art iPad 

References

  1. Albers, P. (2007). Finding the artist within: Creating and reading visual texts in the English language arts classroom. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  2. Barnett, R. (2012). The coming of the ecological learner. In P. Tynjälä, M.-L. Stenström, & M. Saarnivaara (Eds.), Transitions and transformations in learning and education (pp. 9–20). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-2312-2_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts for development: A learning ecology perspective. Human Development, 49, 193–224. doi: 10.1159/000094368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (2000). Literacy practices. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivanič (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 7–15). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Beynon, C. A., & Alfano, C. (2013). Intergenerational music learning in community and schools. In D. Elliott, K. Veblen, S. Messenger, & M. Silverman (Eds.), Community music today (pp. 121–132). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  6. Brummel, S. W. (1989). Developing an intergenerational program. Journal of Children in Contemporary Society, 20(3–4), 119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, A., & Moss, P. (2011). Listening to young children: The mosaic approach. London: National Children’s Bureau and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
  8. Crisp, B. R. (2010). Belonging, connectedness and social exclusion. Journal of Social Inclusion, 1(2), 123–132.Google Scholar
  9. Cummins, J. (2001). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: California Association for Bilingual Education.Google Scholar
  10. Cummins, J., & Early, M. (Eds.). (2011). Identity texts: The collaborative creation of power in multilingual schools. Sterling, VA: Trentham Books.Google Scholar
  11. Cummins, J., Mirza, R., & Stille, S. (2012). English language learners in Canadian schools: Emerging directions for school-based policies. TESL Canada Journal, 29(SI6), 25–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fraser, S., & Gestwicki, C. (2002). Authentic childhood: Exploring Reggio Emilia in the classroom. Albany, NY: Delmar Thomson.Google Scholar
  13. Friedman, B. (1997). The integration of proactive aging education into exciting educational curricula. In K. Brabazon & R. Disch (Eds.), Intergenerational approaches in aging: Implications for education, policy and practice (pp. 103–110). Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gillen, J., & Hall, N. (2013). The emergence of early childhood literacy. In J. Larson & J. Marsh (Eds.), The Sage handbook of early childhood literacy (2nd ed., pp. 3–17). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gregory, E., Long, S., & Volk, D. (Eds.). (2004). Many pathways to literacy: Young children learning with siblings, grandparents, peers, and communities. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  16. Guerra, N. G., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2008). Linking the prevention of problem behaviors and positive youth development: Core competencies for positive youth development and risk prevention. In N. G. Guerra & C. P. Bradshaw (Eds.), Core competencies to prevent problem behaviors and promote positive youth development. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 122, 1–17. doi:10.1002/cd.Google Scholar
  17. Hamilton, M., Heydon, R., Hibbert, K., & Stooke, R. (2015). Introduction. In M. Hamilton, R. Heydon, K. Hibbert, & R. Stooke (Eds.), Negotiating spaces for literacy learning: Multimodality and governmentality (pp. 1–14). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  18. Heydon, R. (2007). Making meaning together: Multimodal literacy learning opportunities in an intergenerational art program. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(1), 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heydon, R. (2012). Multimodal communication and identities options in an intergenerational art class. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 10(1), 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heydon, R. (2013). Learning at the ends of life: Children, elders, and literacies in intergenerational curriculum. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  21. Heydon, R. (2013–2014). Paint brushes and ipads: A study of multimodal literacy and pedagogy in an intergenerational art program. Unpublished grant proposal for the Faculty of Education, Western University, London.Google Scholar
  22. Heydon, R., & O’Neill, S. (2014). Songs in our hearts: The affordances and constraints of an intergenerational multimodal arts curriculum. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 15(16). Retrieved November 20, 2014 from http://www.ijea.org/v15n16/.
  23. Heydon, R., & Rowsell, J. (2015). Phenomenology and literacy studies. In K. Pahl & J. Rowsell (Eds.), Routledge handbook of literacy studies (pp. 454–471). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Hibbert, K. (2013). Developing a wisdom of practice with multiliteracies-in-use. In J. Bainbridge & R. Heydon (Eds.), Constructing meaning: Teaching the language arts K-8 (5th ed., pp. 491–527). Toronto, Canada: ThomsonNelson.Google Scholar
  25. Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1988). Social semiotics. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  26. i2i Intergenerational Society. (2014). Goals of IG immersion. Retrieved from http://www.intergenerational.ca/.
  27. Izuhara, M. (2010). Introduction. In M. Izuhara (Ed.), Ageing and intergenerational relations: Family reciprocity from a global perspective (pp. 1–12). Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
  28. Jarrott, S. E., & Bruno, K. (2007). Shared site intergenerational programs: A case study. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 26(3), 239–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jarrott, S. E., Kaplan, M. S., & Steinig, S. Y. (Eds.). (2011). Shared site intergenerational programs. Common space, common ground [special double issue], 9(4). Retrieved from http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/spissue/wjir-si1.asp.
  30. Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 241–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jewitt, C., & Kress, G. (2001). Multimodal learning and teaching: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  32. Kress, G. (1997). Before writing: Rethinking the paths to literacy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Kress, G., & Jewitt, C. (2003). Introduction. In C. Jewitt & G. Kress (Eds.), Multimodal literacy (pp. 1–18). New York: P. Lang.Google Scholar
  34. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  35. Kuehne, V., & Kaplan, M. (2001). Evaluation and research on intergenerational shared site facilities and programs: What we know and what we need to learn. Project SHARE Background Paper#1. Washington, DC: Generations United.Google Scholar
  36. LaPorte, A. M. (2004). Community connections: Intergenerational links in art education. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.Google Scholar
  37. Mackenzie, S. L., Carson, A. J., & Kuehne, V. S. (2011). The meadows school project. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 9(2), 207–212. doi: 10.1080/15350770.2011.568343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marriage & Family Encyclopedia. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://family.jrank.org/pages/903/Intergenerational-Programming-Program-Models.html.
  39. Martin, J. (2007). Educating communal agents: Building on the perspectivism of G. H. Mead. Educational Theory, 57(4), 435–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Martin, J., & McLellan, A.-M. (2013). The education of selves: How psychology transformed students. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McAdams, D. P. (1993). The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the self. New York: William Morrow & Company.Google Scholar
  42. McKee, L., & Heydon, R. (2015). Orchestrating literacies: Print literacy learning opportunities within multimodal intergenerational ensembles. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 15(2), 227–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mead, G. H. (1938). The philosophy of the act. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  44. Murcia, K. (2014). Interactive and multimodal pedagogy: A case study of how teachers and students use interactive whiteboard technology in primary science. Australian Journal of Education, 58(1), 74–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. O’Donnell, D., & McTiernan, K. (2013). Storied lives: Connecting life course narrative identities and eudaimonic happiness in later life. In A. Nicolas & I. Flaherty (Eds.), Growing up, growing old: Trajectories of times and lives (pp. 151–176). Oxford, UK: Interdisciplinary Press.Google Scholar
  47. O’Neill, S. A. (2016). Young people’s musical lives: Learning ecologies, identities and connectedness. In R. A. R. MacDonald, D. J. Hargreaves, & D. Meill (Eds.), Oxford handbook of musical identities. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (2005). Literacy and education: Understanding the new literacy studies in the classroom. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences. (2003). Developing an intergenerational program in your early childhood care and education center: A guidebook for early childhood practitioners. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
  50. Prinsloo, M. (2005). The new literacies as placed resources. Perspectives in Education, 23(4), 87–98.Google Scholar
  51. Red Jumper. (2014). Book Creator for iPad (Version number 3.2) [Mobile application software]. Retrieved from http://www.apple.com/itunes/.
  52. Ryan, J., Scott, A., & Walsh, M. (2010). Pedagogy in the multimodal classroom: An analysis of the challenges and opportunities for teachers. Teachings and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 16(4), 477–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stein, P. (2000). Rethinking resources in the ESL classroom: Rethinking resources: Multimodal pedagogies in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 333–336. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.proxy1.lib.uwo.ca/stable/3587958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stein, P. (2008). Multimodal pedagogies in diverse classrooms: Representations, rights and resources. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Stein, P., & Newfield, D. (2007). Multimodal pedagogies, representation and identity: Perspectives from Post-Apartheid South Africa. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 919–930). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stetsenko, A. (2012). Personhood: An activist project of historical becoming through collaborative pursuits of social transformation. New Ideas in Psychology, 30, 144–153. doi: 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2009.11.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. United Nations General Assembly. (1990). Convention on the rights of the child. New York: United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/crc.pdf.Google Scholar
  58. van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. [electronic version]. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Walsh, M. (2011). Multimodal literacy: Researching classroom practice. Newtown, Canada: Primary English Teaching Association (e:lit).Google Scholar
  60. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Williams, B. (2008/1985). Ethics and the limits of philosophy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  62. Wohlwend, K. E. (2013). Literacy playshop: New literacies, popular media, and play in the early childhood classroom. New York: Teachers College Press, Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Western UniversityLondonCanada
  2. 2.Simon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations