Critical Praxis, Design and Reflection Literacy: A Lesson in Multimodality

  • Diane PottsEmail author
Part of the Educational Linguistics book series (EDUL, volume 33)


In this chapter, I explore a critical praxis grounded in social semiotics that is distinct from the traditions of critical literacy in a) its emphasis on the capacity to create and b) its explicit attention to the range of semiotic resources with which we communicate. Drawing on the concept of design put forward by The New London Group and on the concept of reflection literacy as described by Hasan, I put forward the tenets of such a praxis before illustrating the ideas using classroom data from a national SSHRC-funded study of multiliterate pedagogies. The examples powerfully demonstrate students’ capacity to engage with and remake sophisticated meanings not only to achieve sanctioned curricular goals, but also for purposes they have charted independently.


Multimodality Critical praxis Multiliteracies Mediation Social semiotics Reflection literacy 


  1. Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (2000). Literacy practices. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivanič (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 7–14). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Bell, W. (1999). Zack. Toronto: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  3. Bernstein, B. (1990). Structuring of pedagogic discourse, volume 4: Class, codes and control. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2016). Multimodality, learning and communication: A social semiotic frame. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Bruni, F. (2016). Rethinking college admissions. The New York Times. Accessed 2 Jan 2016.
  6. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies, 4(3), 164–195. doi: 10.1080/15544800903076044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Early, M., Kendrick, M., & Potts, D. (2015). Multimodality: Out from the margins of English language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 49(3), 447–460. doi: 10.1002/tesq.246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd.Google Scholar
  9. Halliday, M. A. K. (2007). Some basic concepts of educational linguistics. In J. J. Webster (Ed.), Language and education: The collected works of M.A.K. Halliday, V. 9 (pp. 341–353). New York: Continuum. (Original work published 1988).Google Scholar
  10. Harvard Graduate School of Education. (2016). Turning the tide: Inspiring concern for others and the common good through college admissions. Making Caring Common Project. Accessed 19 Jan 2016.
  11. Hasan, R. (1996). Literacy, everyday talk and society. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 377–424). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  12. Hasan, R. (2004). The concept of semiotic mediation: Perspectives from Bernstein’s sociology. In J. Muller, B. Davies, & A. Morais (Eds.), Reading Bernstein, researching Bernstein (pp. 30–43). New York: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  13. Hasan, R. (2005). Reading picture reading: A study in ideology and inference. In J. J. Webster (Ed.), Language, society and consciousness (pp. 228–255). Oakville: Continuum.Google Scholar
  14. Hasan, R. (2011). Globalization, literacy and ideology. In J. J. Webster (Ed.), Language and education: Learning and teaching in society (pp. 207–231). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
  15. Janks, H. (2000). Domination, access, diversity and design: A synthesis for critical literacy education. Educational Review, 52(2), 175–186. doi: 10.1080/713664035Ja.CrossRefGoogle 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). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. New York: Routledge. (Original work published 1996).Google Scholar
  19. Latour, B., & Weibel, P. (Eds.). (2005). Making things public. Atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Luke, A. (2000). Critical literacy in Australia: A matter of context and standpoint. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43(5), 448–461.Google Scholar
  21. Luke, A. (2012). Critical literacy: Foundational notes. Theory Into Practice, 51(1), 4–11. doi: 10.1080/00405841.2012.636324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Martin, J. R. (2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education, 20(1), 10–21. doi: 10.1016/j.linged.2009.01.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2009). Meaning in the making: Meaning potential emerging from acts of meaning. Language Learning, 59(s1), 206–229. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00541.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moran, M. J. (n.d.-a). Term one – Literature circles: Reflections. The Multiliteracy Project. Accessed 6 Jan 2016.
  25. Moran, M. J. (n.d.-b). Term two – Talking, drawing, writing: The why and how. The Multiliteracy project. Accessed 6 Jan 2016.
  26. Moran, M. J. (n.d.-c). Term two – Talking, drawing, writing: The process. The Multiliteracy Project. Accessed 6 Jan 2016.
  27. Moran, M. J. (n.d.-d). Term two – Talking, drawing, writing: Preparation for presentations. The Multiliteracy Project. Accessed 6 Jan 2016.
  28. Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–91. doi: 10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Potts, D., & Moran, M. J. (2013). Mediating multilingual children’s language resources. Language and Education, 27(5), 451–468. doi: 10.1080/09500782.2012.720688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney school. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
  32. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2013). The role of metalanguage in supporting academic language development. Language Learning, 63(s1), 153–170. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00742.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Williams, G. (in press). Reflection literacy in the first years of schooling: Questions of theory and practice. In W. Bowcher & J. Liang (Eds.), Society in language, language in society: Essays in honour of Ruqaiya Hasan. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  35. Zipin, L., Fataar, A., & Brennan, M. (2015). Can social realism do social justice? Debating the warrants for curriculum knowledge selection. Education as Change, 19(2), 9–36. doi: 10.1080/16823206.2015.1085610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lancaster Literacy Research CenterLancaster UniversityLancasterUK

Personalised recommendations