Multimodality: a
Gimmick, a Tool, a Means of literacy
The
New Literacies Theory can be loosely summarized as the admirable attempt of
contemporary educators to incorporate digital technologies into the modern
classroom. While this term is now only loosely defined and will continue
defining itself indefinitely as the development of new digital technologies
continue, the current pioneers behind the methodology’s development have paved
a foundation with their findings. While the nature of each teacher’s incorporation
of technology may differ vastly, all of them seek to answer the same three
questions: Which technologies should be incorporated and why? More importantly,
what will be the repercussions? Through their discoveries, as well as my own
personal experiences, I have posited an answer to these questions by breaking
up multimodality into three broad categories: gimmicks, tools, and new
literacies.
This
categorization is in fact a hierarchy. The lowest category on the totem, being
multimodal gimmicks, is obviously the undesirable application of technologies
into curriculum. This can be defined nicely by Nancy Baily in her essay titled
“The Importance of a New Literacies Stance in Teaching English Language Arts.”
but if these
practices are not systematically integrated with other sociocultural approaches
and framed within a deep understanding of how to use principles of
multimodality and multiliteracies, then teachers may merely use what they think
are new literacies to make more palatable to their students the learning of
static, anachronistic curriculum. When teachers think that integrating new
literacies merely means using digital technologies to engage and motivate
students in disconnected activities…they may fail to create change in their
traditional, static, classroom routines and miss opportunities to initiate
significant growth in
students’ literacy experiences” (Bailey 46).
Here, Bailey highlights the dangers of
incorporating certain technologies in the class by shedding light on a common
misconception: the incorporation of technology into curriculum is inherently an
act of teaching new literacy. This quote represents the apex of all the
literature we have studied in class formed around the New Literacies theory, as
it seeks to differentiate the simple inclusion of multimodality from a
thoughtful incorporation of it. She notes specifically that using technology as
an enticing veneer to bait students is both ineffective and comes with negative
consequences.
Carol Olsen illustrated
one such situation in the same article by Nancy Baily. She described a scenario
in which she used the sitcom “Friends” as a tool to help her students analyze
the elements of a short story, a technique described as “Multimodality as the ‘spoonful
of sugar’” (Bailey 47). Though her students initially responded well to the
exercises, once she tried reverting back to traditional means of teaching, she
discovered that her students did not respond well and actually performed poorly
on their quizzes about the elements of short stories (Bailey 47). In effect,
the simple incorporation of technology into the classroom as a means of
enticing students was outwardly ineffective.
Aside from lack
of effectiveness, we must also consider the potential losses accrued by
substituting classical methods. When we for instance replace classical
literature for an episode of “Friends” or the like, what are the sacrifices we
are making for the sake of appeal? The answer is content. Yes, we can achieve a
simple objective through analysis of different material; in a best-case
scenario, students can learn the elements of a short story through analyzing
sitcoms. The issue, then, lies within the peripheral learning that happens in
class.
Let’s take, for
example, “The Iliad.” To teach this text, students need to understand a certain
degree of mythology. They need to understand certain aspects of history and
culture. Aside from the content, they would need to understand how it is
structured, and why certain language was used. There are lessons of grammar and
syntax embedded in it. Also, there are so many resources available to teachers
due to the fact that this piece has been dissected and analyzed for decades. There
are so many avenues to explore from an academic standpoint.
When we narrow
our vision to the point of a class objective, it is easy to think that we can
achieve a sufficient degree of education through sitcoms, or any other more
attractive form of media. Thus, we need to consider the fact that there is
value in the things our students learn outside of the objectives we have set,
as well as the implications of excluding a piece of classical literature for the
sake of appeal. In effect, our emphasis
should be placed on making meaningful literature more appealing to our students
through technology, rather than using
it as a means of replacing it.
Which brings me
to the use of technology as a tool. While using technology as a gimmick to
entice our students still functions as a tool, this category is reserved for
more noble applications of technologies in the classroom. It differs from
gimmicks in that its incorporation of technologies into curriculum must somehow
seek to generate a superior outcome of the objective, not simply a cheap
generator of interest.
A great example
of this can be found in Monica Blondell and Suzanne M. Miller’s essay titled “Engaging Literature Through
Digital Video Composing.” They illustrate their point through the observations
of a teacher named Diane Gorski, noting how she incorporated digital video
composition into her curriculum. The Digital Video Composing project was
Diane’s response to her students’ performance on the state graduation test
essays. Specifically, she noticed that her students were having “difficulties
expressing their own ideas in writing” (Blondell 84).
She saw DV as a
possible tool for student learning: by composing a DV on these test rubric
qualities, they would interpret the criteria using their “own language” and
then create their understanding using all the available modes in DV…She also
began to see how genre and the modes were essential to constructing spaces
where students could inject their voices and visions to gain a deeper and more
connected understanding of curriculum (Blondell 84-85).
Here, Diane’s application of technology
allows her to achieve her original objective, one prescribed by the state. She
uses technology here as a simple tool for mitigation.
Finally technology as a means of literacy is the
use of technology in the classroom wherein specific technologies and their
applications are the focal point of the curriculum; the technology is thus an
integral element of the objective itself. What separates this from technology
as a tool is that the fluency in the technology being implemented is the
objective, not simply a means of achieving a different objective. So, while
Diane Gorski’s Digital Video Composition project was a useful tool for her
students to gain a better understanding of certain literary elements, we as
educators should not suspect that the knowledge of navigating the specific
video software will be built upon or retained after the project is done. It is
safe to assume this because, unless the student takes a particular interest in
creating videos, they will not likely encounter a need for this specific skill
set again.
I have described
this particular category as a “literacy” while excluding the other examples
based on one simple distinction: frequency. Literacy is defined as a
proficiency in a subject. Thus, it would not be accurate to say that creating a
single project using a specific type of technology would constitute a student
as being proficient in that technology. Just as a student who passed a 9th
grade Spanish vocabulary test would not be called literate in any other terms
than the ones defined by that single test; the designation of “proficient”
should be reserved for a much higher level of understanding. This is a level of
understanding that can only be obtained through use inside of, outside of, and
beyond the realm of public school.
New Literacies
theories are based around the idea of not only using multimodality as a tool
for educating, but also “navigating a changing landscape” (Kadjer 2). So in
order to achieve literacy, we must first distinguish the “language” in which
our students must become literate. Social media would be a perfect example of a
technology that would require literacy. Facebook alone boasts 1.35 billion
active users worldwide (facebook newsroom). Within this and other social media,
entirely new types of communication have evolved, spanning from emoticons, hash
tags, acronyms, etc. They also come on a variety of contexts: Photo comments,
Wall postings, and tags to name a few. The new dialect has even spawned odd
connotations; “defriending” can be perceived as an act as treacherous as
drawing a line in the sand, or it can be the result of condensing a contact
list.
And, while
social networking may not seem like it should be the forefront of New
Literacies advocates’ addendum, we have to accept that illiteracy in the realm
of social networking comes with consequences for our students. Just as drug
popularity, sexually transmitted diseases, and driving became eventual
necessities for students, these new technologies represent a movement that
require not just passive engagement, but a status deserving of something we can
call a literacy.
