New London Group

These guys seem to be the "big enchilada"--the ones who started all of this multimodal, multiliteracies, multisemiotics uproar.

"A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures." The New London Group, Eds. Harvard Educational Review. Spring 1996.

The New London group states their two primary goals to be:

1) "to extend the idea and scope of literacy pedagogy to account for the context of our culturally and linguistically diverse and increasingly globalized societies, for the multifarious cultures that interrelate and the plurality of texts that circulate."

2) "that literacy pedagogy now must account for the burgeoning variety of text forms associated with information and multimedia technologies. This includes understanding and competent control of representational forms that are becoming increasingly significant in the overall communications environment, such as visual images and their relationship to the written word."

A pedagogy that embraces multiliteracies then is one that 1) considers the multicultural and diverse society that we all live in and 2) broadens our understanding of "literature" to include multimedia and visual forms of literacy. For example, wikis, text messages, blogs, visual texts such as comics and graphic novels, film, video games, slam poetry.

This type of classroom might look much different than the ones that many of us were raised in. A multiliterate pedagogy might ask us to consider how, not only print texts and standard written forms of literature contribute to our understanding of the world around us, but how we "read" visual and technological texts and what these new forms of "literature" speak to us as well.

The New London Group is the name designated to a group of 10 scholars from around the country who are dedicated to the question of the evolution of literacy education. Among the scholars listed are Courtney Cazden, Bill Cope, James Gee, Gunther Kress, Norman Fairclough, and Sarah Michaels. Although each member comes from diverse backgrounds, each "agreed that in each of the English-speaking countries [they] came from, what students needed to learn was changing, and that the main element of this change was that there was not a singular, canonical English that could or should be taught anymore. Cultural differences and rapidly shifting communications media meant that the very nature of the subject - literacy pedagogy - was changing radically."

A distinction between "mere literacy" and "multiliteracies" is considered in the article as well:

"'mere literacy'" remains centered on language only, and usually on a singular national form of language at that, which is conceived as a stable system based on rules such as mastering sound-letter correspondence. This is based on the assumption that we can discern and describe correct usage. Such a view of language will characteristically translate into a more or less authoritarian kind of pedagogy. A pedagogy of multiliteracies, by contrast, focuses on modes of representation much broader than language alone. These differ according to culture and context, and have specific cognitive, cultural, and social effects."

The new multiliteracies design lists six new elements that contribute to the process of meaning making: Linguistic Meaning, Visual Meaning, Audio Meaning, Gestural Meaning, Spatial Meaning, and the Multimodal patterns of meaning that relate the first five modes of meaning to each other

The article goes on to define the different modes of multiliterate design while considering a critical framework for this work.

Multimodality, Multiliteracies, Multisemiotics

What in the world do these terms really mean? I decided I could no longer move forward without gaining a better understanding of what multimodal education is. Here are my best guesses, based upon the research I could find:

Williamson, Ben. "What are Multimodality, Multisemiotics, and Multiliteracies?" Futurelab.
May 2005.

Hmm. Sounds like a good place to start.

In order to move beyond what author Ben Williamson refers to as the "linguistic camouflage," some practical definitions of these terms are provided in the article. First, Williamson points out that while these newly coined terms have recently become popular within the language of teaching, the "phenomena" that the terms describe is hardly new:

Everyday experiences of every individual are multimodal: we see, we hear, we touch, we smell, and we taste. Our experience of the world comes to us through the multiple modes of communication to which each of our senses is attuned.

• Multimodal, then, refers to a multiple access to data, originally referring to the ways we learn to interact with the computer.

• The multiple meanings we are able to derive from these modes of communication, ie: the five senses, are what we call multisemiotics.

• Our ability to read these multiple modes of communication is what we refer to as multiliteracy. Eventually we not only become adept readers of multiple modes of communication, but we become creators of it as well.

These terms were created in order to be able to discuss the "altered landscape" that our children are growing up in today. Not only do they interact with and recreate print texts alone, but they engage in music, motion, pictures, hyperlinks, video games, etc. Generally, this interaction happens with more than one "mode" at once. For example, when reading a webpage, students visually read text, they encounter pictures, they manipulate the text by clicking on hyperlinks, they interact with the text through games. This is much more than reading words from a page.

How students create "whole" meaning from these multiple modes is how we describe multiple literacies. We might say a students who can decipher the whole meaning of an interactive website is multi-literate. Williamson describes it this way:

While multimodality is not exclusively new, then, it is clearly important for us to be able to accurately describe the altered landscape of communication that young people are growing up in. Likewise, their experiences of learning will be increasingly visual, aural and interactive, not simply because they will have better access to computers, but because teachers no longer simply speak at children, and children no longer simply read texts and write down responses.

Multimodality and multisemiotics are attempts to theorise these multiple forms of communication, identifying how multiple modes such as images, words, and actions all depend on each other to create whole meanings.

Literature Review

Time to write about some of the books and articles I have been reading over break and think about how my own interests fit into the existing scholarship.

Articles:

• Jacobs, Dale. "More Than Words: Comics as a Means of Teaching Multiple Literacies." English Journal. 96.3 (2007): 19-25.

This is a fantastic article, and probably the closest I've found to what I would actually like to write about in my dissertation. Jacob's main premise is twofold:

1) Reading comics involves a complex, multimodal literacy; and
2) by using comics in our classrooms we can help students develop as critical and engaged readers of multimodal texts (19).

Jacobs argues that our past focus on comics and graphic novels as tools for motivating reluctant readers or for stimulating students into reading more "significant" literary texts, "places severe limitations on the possibilites of our uses of the medium as literacy educators" (20).
Jacobs considers the "complex environment" whereby we negotiate meaning inside of comic texts. Through analysis of panels, gutters, word balloons, sound effects, and conceptual spaces, Jacobs argues that comics provide "multiple realms for meaning making" (21). He reference the work of the New London Group and concludes that "embracing the idea of multimodal literacy in relation to comics" allows us to "help students engage critically with ways of making meaning that exist all around them"--for example, the Internet, multimedia, newspapers, TV, film, etc.
Jacobs continues his discussion through a close reading of a passage from Polly and the Pirates. In this close reading he examines how comics address the six design elements of multimodal learning: linguistic, audio, visual, gestural, and spacial modes of interpretation.

While the close reading provides a profound way for teachers to begin understanding how comics and graphic novels can work in the classroom to build critical literacy, Jacobs does not show how his theories work with real classrooms, teachers, and students.

• Frey, Nancy and Douglas Fisher. "Using Graphic Novels, Anime, and the Internet in an Urban High School." English Journal. Urbana: Jan. 2004. Vol. 93, Iss.3, p. 19-25

With a primary ambition of addressing struggling readers and writers, Frey and Fisher study the effects of using graphic novels on "urban English language learners and native English speakers" in order to improve written communication skills. The article considers the authors' experiences "teaching a ninth-grade writing course that emphasized the use of popular culture as a vehicle for developing students' writing skills." Noticing that many of the students were engaged in the reading of manga, graphic novels, and zines, Frey and Fisher chose short excerpts from Will Eisner's New York: The Big City to examine in the classroom. Using Leslie Oster's "Think Aloud" technique (2001), the students "read" the story while the instructors paused to "point out techniques the artist...used to convey meaning." The session continued with students brainstorming descriptive vocabulary that might accompany the text and ended with students constructing a written narrative of the story. Given the success of this lesson, Fisher and Frey chose further selections of graphic novels to help discuss the conventions of mood, tone, word choice and vocabulary with their students. According to the authors, "Using graphic novels to scaffold writing instruction helped students practice the craft of writing and gain necessary skills to become competent readers." Compelling student writing and testimony is mixed into the body of the article--strengthening the argument of the authors. Fisher and Frey refer to their use of graphic novels, manga, and the Internet as a type of "visual vocabulary" used to enrich student comprehension of writing techniques, including dialogue, tone, and mood.

• Schwartz, Gretchen E. "Graphic Novels for Multiple Literacies." Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. Newark: Nov 2002. Vol. 46, Iss. 3. pp. 262-265.

Schwartz argues that graphic novels have high appeal for young people and "offer diverse alternatives to traditional texts" (263). She also lists the major types or genres of graphic novels as outlined by Stephen Weiner: the Superhero story, the Human Interest story, Manga, Adaptations or Spin-offs, and Adaptations of literary work. M.R. Lavin is referenced in his assertion that "Educators need not worry that graphic novels discourage text reading", rather "reading graphic novels may require more complex cognitive skills than the reading of text alone" [article, "Comic Books and Graphic Novels for Libraries" (1998)]. Schwartz also considers the way in which students might study and examine the medium of graphic novels when she writes, "Students can explore such questions as how color affects emotions, how pictures can stereotype people, how angles of viewing affect perception, and how realism or the lack of it plays into the message of a work" (265). She concludes her article with the assertion that "the production of graphic novels allows for real diversity, which is essential for a literate democracy" (265).

• Versaci, Rocco. "How Comic Books Can Change the Way Our Students See Literature: One Teacher's Perspective." English Journal. Urbana: Nov. 2001. 61-67.

Versaci argues that comics have the ability to "teach much needed analytical and critical thinking skills, and...invite students to develop meaningful opinions about what constitutes literary merit" (62). Versaci designed an advanced first-year composition course that investigated "popular culture representations of life experiences, ethnic groups, and historical events" through comics and graphic texts. I believe this course was an introductory level college English course. Versaci describes the "interplay of the written and the visual" as a "complicated process. He refers to Sabin and McCloud whose ideas on comic closure and gutter spaces imply that our understanding of comics happens somewhere "in-between" the pictures and the words.
Versaci believes that comic books "force students...to reconcile these two means of expression" (64). Some of the essential questions he poses to his students include: "How does the drawing style interact with the story?" "Why these particular pictures?" "How would a different style change the story?" A few paragraphs are dedicated to a discussion of how his students "read" and analyzed a passage from Debbie Drecshler's Daddy's Girl. Students examined the use of light and shadow and made connections to the way the girl felt emotionally in this passage.

• Weiner, Stephen. "Show, Don't Tell: Graphic Novels in the Classroom." English Journal. Urbana: Nov. 2004. 114-117.

• Weiner, Stephen. 101 Best Graphic Novels. 1996.

Weiner offers a brief history on the rise of the graphic novel and argues, as many texts do, that graphic novels can serve as "transitions" into more intensive works." Much of the article (and the book) is focused around introducing graphic texts that teachers might consider for use in the classroom. In this way it serves more as an annotated bibliography rather than a critical consideration of how comics work in the classroom.

• Gorman, Michele. Going Graphic: Novels to Promote Literacy With Preteens and Teens. Linworth Publishers. 2004

Probably the most interesting part of Gorman's text is the Forward written by Jeff Smith in 2003. Smith writes:

"When you read a comic--when you experience the words and the pictures simultaneously--the drawings take on a dimension of time and begin to perform. The implied movement of the subject matter from one panel to the next, and indeed the panels themselves become instantaneous signals on how to proceed. The reader then--and this is the cool part--experiences in real time anything that happens inside the comic...the reader is witnessing a private film in his imagination...They are a secret that only you can activate" (ix).

The rest of the text, similar to Weiner and Gravett's texts, concerns itself with providing a brief history of the graphic novel. An exhaustive annotated bibliography makes up the bulk of the text. Rather than focusing on teachers, Gorman addresses librarians. Her goal is to build literacy through graphic novels by ensuring that library's begin to offer access these texts.

First Day of Class

The holidays are finally over and it's back to work. Today was my first day with my Literary Interpretation class. The class meets at 8 am and my biggest worry was wondering if anyone would actually show up. Out of the 17 scheduled, only 12 showed up and one of them informed me she would be transferring to another class. I like small classes, but I want to have enough students to really dig in with.

I'm not really sure how they took the "focus" of the course. Some of them seemed excited to be exploring contemporary themes, along with the classics. Others seemed to raise a few eyebrows. I suppose it is a natural response. What does Star Wars or "picture book" graphic novels have to do with "real" literature. I expect this apprehension will be one that I continually grapple with. I wonder if my enthusiasm for alternative literature sounded inviting or just odd. I noticed when I sent around the sign-up sheet for the individual discussion leading project, most students gravitated toward texts they were already familiar with. Everyone wanted to talk about Romeo and Juliet and Beowulf. Hardly anyone wanted to talk about Maus or American Born Chinese. Is it simply because they are unfamiliar with the texts? Of course it would be easier to talk about something you've already read--less work.

But less effort is not what I'm going for here. Even if they choose Romeo and Juliet, I want them to view it in a new way--one that their high school English teachers did not teach them when they were 14-year-old freshman. Looking ahead to all of the work I need to do to help them envision these texts and themes in a new way, I am not surprised that so many teachers choose to teach texts in old ways. It's easier. It's....less work. But if I want my students to identify Marxist theory in Beowulf or apply Queer theory to Oranges are not the Only Fruit, I'm going to have to do a lot of work.

I'm not afraid of getting my hands dirty...I'm simply afraid of being ineffective at conveying these ideas. I'm no expert in literary theory. I'm not an expert in teaching classical texts or even in the art of the graphic novel. I have ideas---that's all. I wonder if they will be enough.

I'm excited to build this class, to see where it goes, but the problem is, I have no idea what's at the end of the yellow brick road.