Multiple and multiliteracies: dilemmas in New Zealand secondary science classrooms

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1634060/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Multiple and multiliteracies: dilemmas in New Zealand secondary science classrooms

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1634060/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Changes in literacy theory and practices in relation to technological change necessitate shifts in contemporary pedagogical practices. In the New Zealand context, little is known about literacy in terms of multiliteracies pedagogical practices in secondary science classrooms. This study aims to unearth the realities of dilemmas operating in literacy contexts. It is argued that evidence for successful enactment of multiliteracies are scarce. More research work and scholarly debates are needed to clarify and align mismatches between theory and practice. Pedagogical moves as hybrid literacies are suggested carrying potential for students in becoming multi-literate.

Educational Philosophy and Theory

Literacy/Multiliteracies

Multiple literacy theory

pedagogical practice

literacy dilemmas

Underlying the social, cultural and technological changes in society, textual shifts in expanding territories of literacy has gained considerable research focus in recent times. Pedagogical frameworks have been theorised to harness the potential of digitally and culturally rich learning environments. In line with this, the New London Group (1996) coined the term ‘multiliteracies’ to account the changing forms of meaning making with increasing linguistic and cultural diversity in relation to new texts made available with communication technologies. Multiliteracies (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; New London Group, 2000) is a complex and multifaceted approach that has been researched extensively with positive recommendation in diverse learning contexts (e.g., Anstey and Bull, 2004; Khadka, 2018; Stein, 2007; Wohlwend, 2017). A common theme across all studies is learners’ extended multi-literacies as they encounter a plurality of discourses, languages and media.

However, like other literacy theories, enactment of this approach is not flawless. Small amount of research studies have mentioned the challenges and issues in theory and practice. For instance, Mills (2007) found that there exists a complex interaction between the enactment of multiliteracies pedagogy, power relations and classroom discourse that obstruct students’ access to available multimodal semiosis. It has been argued that pedagogy of multiliteracies components of situated practice, overt instructions, critical framing and transformed practice appeared to be both problematic and productive in actual practices because of inherent ideological tensions between each approach (Auerbach, 2001). This study suggests that detailed expositions could help implement this approach productively. In a similar vein, Botelho et al. (2014) attempted to bridge the theoretical gaps and translated the theories of multiliteracies into assessment practices that draw on children’s cognitive-psychological, psycholinguistic, sociocultural and sociopolitical literacy processes. Multiliteracies implication has also raised concerns about marginalisation of conventional approaches to literacy curriculum (Mills, 2009). Situated at the nexus of multiliteracies and multiple literacy theory (MLT), this article serves in such endeavours and aims to unearth the realities of dilemmas opearting in secondary science literacy context.

In the first part of this article developments of literacy concepts in New Zealand curriculum documents have been reviewed to contextualise this study followed by the description of theoretical frames and methods used to realise study aims.

Literacy concepts progression in New Zealand curriculum documents

This section presents how far the changes in literacy theory mentioned in the literature are being reflected in the New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) (Ministry of Education, 2007) statements and policy documents. Reviewing how changes are being addressed and researching what extent these changed concepts are implicated defines the study aims.

New Zealand’s literacy education has long been focused on conceptualizing literacy as the ability to read and write in the English language. Literacy education seemed to focus on finding the right and correct scientific methods of teaching reading and writing and targeting these at marginalized students’ groups. The changing conceptions of literacy and the classroom application of these ideas appeared to be an overlooked aspect of the literacy debates in New Zealand (Limbrick & Aikman, 2008). The interconnected language and literacy concepts connoted knowledge construction underpinned with sociocultural learning theories. Freebody (2004) proved influential in moving the literacy debate from a polarized view of reading and writing to a wider and more complex understanding of what it means to be literate (Limbrick & Aikman, 2008). They introduced the skills a literate person should hold in these words:

In order to be literate, a reader, and by implication a writer, listener, speaker, viewer, and presenter, needs to be a code breaker, a text participant, a text user, and a text analyst (as cited in Limbrick and Aikman, 2008, p. 10).

Even though this model predates the digital turn, literacy was conceived as situated, meaning making and multiliterate practice and this later provided a basis for teaching digitally mediated text practices. It also indicated a view of literacy as critical literacy with implications for literacy education. Following this, the definition of literacy in the handbook for teachers ‘Effective Literacy Practice’ (Ministry of Education, 2003) falls short by focussing on written language only rather than the broader views that Freebody and Luke (1990) had introduced earlier. The most recent printed curriculum statement defines literacy as:

The ability to understand, respond to, and use those forms of written language that are required by society and valued by individuals and communities (Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 13).

The NZC clearly describes the importance of literacy as located in English but with ramifications for other subjects:

As language is central to learning and English is the medium for most learning in New Zealand Curriculum, the importance of literacy in English cannot be overstated (New Zealand Curriculum, 2007, p. 16).

It is likely that this statement characterises potential instructional focus on didactic teaching with the respective use of generic literacy practices. On the contrary, science teachers are less likely to draw on multiliteracies and New Literacies frameworks with respective practices and develop a “repertoire of changing practices for communicating in multiple social and cultural contexts” (Mills, 2010, p. 247). Such practices (among others) would include meaningfully orchestrated teaching resources, scaffolded discourses for students’ engagement, comprehension, and text production, use a variety of text types (Sandretto and Critical literacy research team, 2008), participation in science Discourses (Kelly, 2008), and develop mastery of the genre and critical literacy to empower students (Cope & Kalantzis, 1993; Lankshear, 1997). Although Limbrick and Aikman (2008) suggest that the focus of literacy on reading and writing is not future-focused, others have claimed that the most recent NZC (Ministry of Education, 2007) does reflect the radical shifts in literacy conceptualization worldwide. This document represents literacy as multimodal and embodied with recognition of oral and visual language that emphasise the combination of text, images and audio resources (McDowall, 2015). This is shown in the description of key competencies using language, symbol, and the text “including words – spoken and written – images and movement” (Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 12).

In a more recent update, The NZC Update (2012), the notion of “literacy across the curriculum” is raised. This states that teachers need to become familiar with how to use multimodal texts – printed/digital – and to facilitate students to make meanings using print, visuals, sound, space, and movements consistent with different learning areas. But despite these ‘future-focused’ goals in recent curriculum documents – in which technology integration is one aspect – the question remains, to what extent are these broader views of literacy practiced in present-day science classrooms? What are the literacy processes and pedagogical moves involved that led students in ‘becoming’ multi-literate?

These New Zealand developments reflect some changes; however, the international literature suggests that literacy pedagogy is gradually taking on the influence of contemporary communication that leads to changed learning contexts. In New Zealand, far too little attention has been paid to reframe the policy documents with changing literacy concepts with respective strategies for practices. One such attempt to revise literacy policy documents and resources was the formation of a multiliteracies working group by the Ministry of Education (Jones, 2009). This working group made suggestions for the inclusion of broader approaches to literacy in practice and policy, however, these suggestions were not implemented and proved a missed opportunity for New Zealand literacy policy (Sandretto & Tilson, 2013).

Similarly, little research has explored new literacies and multiliteracies perspectives in pedagogical practices. Here it is important to mention two previous research projects. The first TLRI research project titled as “Critical multiliteracies for ‘new times’ (2011-2013)” aimed at investigating the critical literacy component of multiliteracies and the reconceptualising of literacy concepts (Sandretto & Tilson, 2013). The second project title as “Literacy teaching and learning for the 21^st century: Bridging the theory to practice gap” (McDowall, 2010) drew on the ‘Four Resource Model’ (Freebody & Luke, 1990; Luke & Freebody, 1999) to illustrate literacy teaching and learning from a multiliteracies perspective. However, neither of these projects have addressed science teachers working to implicate changing or multiliteracies in ordinary science classroom context. One way to think how far science teachers have taken up or resisted the new approaches is to describe teachers and students as facing a series of dilemmas to instantiate new ways enabling students in ‘becoming’ multi-literate. This gap is a justification for this work. The overarching question is: To what extent has science teaching in New Zealand secondary schools incorporated new approaches to literacy pedagogy?

This study presents an account of how science teaching and learning are responding to the challenge of multiliteracy pedagogy and practices of literacy. Eventhough the literacy cultures characterise secondary science in New Zealand context, the ongoing challenges associated with new approaches to literacy pedagogy provide a moderate base for enhanced reflective practice. Not only the participating teachers but also the readers, researchers and science teachers worldwide can draw inferences that could help guide their practices in future.

Theoretical framework

This study draws on paradigmatically different approaches of multiliteracies, new literacy and MLT. What follows is the synthesis of this fusion as an analytical lense to explore the complexity of pedagogical moves in literacy cultures operating in science contexts.

A pedagogy of multiliteracies

Multiliteracies theories are philosophically based in phenomenology (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000) and grounded in ideas of pedagogical design. It offer a pedagogy of multiliteracies as emerging understanding and practices of literacy in digital environment to harness the evolving ‘multi’ of multimodal texts and communication practices in different sociocultural contexts, knowledge and experiences. The New London Group (2000) has identified four interrelated dimensions of situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing and transformed practice that led to learning as teachers engaged in process of ‘weaving’ backward and forward, across and between different pedagogical moves or orientation (Luke et al. 2004). A short description and its connection to discussed dilemmas is given below.

Situated practice (dilemma 1, 2)

This orientation make use of learners’ reflections and immersion in experiences through personalised or collborative learning, giving choices for participation in varied discourses and enactment of workspaces. Pedagogical approaches range between traditional teacher to facilitator who invite learners’ funds of knowledge and keep track of students’ learning.

Overt instruction (dilemma 3, 4)

The enactment of overt instructions use metalanguage that serve a conceptual tool to gain mastery over diverse representational froms (Serafini & Gee, 2017). This involve pedagogical discourse in social context using explicit instructions through face-to face or online interactions that support students to become cognitively and socially literate. Scaffolded pedagogical discourse and actions in multimodal context forground the employment of ‘multi’ of multimodality in science.

Critical framing (dilemma 5, 6, 7, 8)

This orientation speaks to the critical insight and evaluation into pedagogical processes and taking right move to strategically implement literacy practices in a setting. The use of differenciated instructions, opportunities for exploratory use of langauge, hypothetical modes of teaching and assessment for technology medaited practices are the key to pedagogy.

Trasnformed practice

In pedagogical process tranformed practice occur when learners employ learned concepts in new contexs and situations to solve problems. Unfortunately this study is limited as evidence is lacking to discuss potential dilemmas in implementing tranformed practice.

new literacies

Generally new literacy refers to the skills needed to work and make-meanings with digital technologies. In contrast to conventional literacies, new literacies are characterised by ‘new technical’ and ‘ethos stuff’ (Knobel & Lankshear, 2007) and are more participative, collaborative and less published and individual. Research literature that discussed the theoretical basis of new literacies, ‘ethos stuff’ is termed as new or second mindset that refers to participative practices of doing and learning. This mindset assumes that technology has changed the world, while ‘old’ or first mindset emphasise working with technology in conventional ways. The first mindset sees the learning as an outcome of bounded workspaces while learners work on a singular task at a given point in time. Opposed to this, the second mindset relates learning with ‘negotiating and enacting workspaces’ where multitasking or off-task behaviors are often seen as a must condition of learning

Multiple literacy theory

During past fifty years, the driving force of social, cultural and technological changes have shifted the basic concepts of literacy as reading and writing ability to concept of multiple literacies as set of social practices. The literacy theorists such as Street, Heath, Gallego and Hollingsworth, Martin-Jones and Jones, and the New London Group are the pioneer who conied this term (Lotherington, 2007). The conceptual frame work of multiple literacies encompasses whole host of literacies in perspective of school, community and personal literacies (Gallego & Hollinsworth, 2000). Despite extensive characterisations and taxonomies given in literature, the idea of multiple literacy is used as an analytical frame in this study. The use of MLT as analytical lense explore the nature of literacies as processes as science teachers and students lived through the literacy dilemmas. It explains how literacies intersect in complex and nonlinear way enabling learners in ‘becoming’ other (Masny & Cole, 2007).

While MLT is situated within a poststructural paradigm and draws on the work of French philosopher Gilles Deleuze and his work with Felix Guattari (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987, 1994). In recent times, Masny and Cole are the first scholars who listed the MLT paradigmatic differences to literacy theories carrying autonomous and ideological models. With MLT, an enormous amount of their research work explored the language and literacy processes and learners’ transformations in becoming others (Masny, 2010; Masny, 2011; Masny & Cole, 2007; Masny &Waterhouse, 2011).

This study conceptualises literacy as social construction and the act of constructing meanings in becoming literate that is culturally driven (Castanheira et al. 2001). Here ‘text’ is conceptualised from a broad perspective as “any instance of communication in any mode in any combination of modes” (Kress, 2003, p. 48). Literacy events are defined as a set of social practices in which individuals interpret, interact, and communicate to make meanings using any mode or any combination of modes.

This study explored concept of multiliteracies as science teachers enact pedagogical moves to deal with digital curriculum and students’ diversity in their classes. In broader perspective by juxtaposing the multiliteracies core concepts, literacy has been conceptualised as developed students’ multi-literacies repertoire comprising ‘ways of being’ to make and communicate meanings while interacting with people, texts and technologies (diSessa, 2004; Kelly, 2011).

In context of this study, MLT approach provides a viewpoint to tease out the rhizomatic connections and processes (Masny, 2010) in literacy cultures that are contentious in nature. It discusses how literate practices arise out of pedagogical provisions as continuous investments allowing students in becoming multiply-literate. Overall, MLT is a tool box in which literacies are taken as visual, oral, written, and multimodal digital (Masny, 2011). The fundamental differences of MLT to multiliteracies that justify and support this exploration include its reliance on random collision of effects (Parisi, 2004) than structured projects as multiliteracies that influence indeigenous or marginalised communities, action learning that is communal in nature rather than fixed or standard meaning and effects. Moreover, technology use is not a dominant theme in MLT rather a usual practice than multiliteracies that see technology as an essential element in designing contemporary literate practices.

Science education and multiliteracies

Generally, science education has always aim to achieve students’ scientific literacy (Brown, Reveles & Kelly, 2005). More specifically scientific literacy connotes use of disciplinary literacy as distinct ways of talking, writing, viewing, drawing, graphing, and acting within a specialized discourse community (Moje, 2008). With proliferation of new tools and technologies and qualitative shifts in literacy conceptions, it is commonly perceived that literacy practices must make use of diverse social, authentic and academic contexts, digital technologies, interaction with variety of science texts, multimodal representations and discourses. Despite such a broader perspective underpinned with changing literacy thesis, the characteristics of scientific literacy practices has not been mentioned as part of multiliteracies (Allison & Goldston, 2018). Nonetheless, it has been argued that implications of multiliteracies in science education include extension of traditional literacy with an emphasis on multimodality of the texts and linguistic/cultural diversity of students (ibid).

Multiliteracies pedagogies in science could include multitude of practices but are not limited to the use of digital tools, multimodal resources, representations and models with pedagogical discourses and actions, peers discussion for knowledge construction, online or in person collaboration opportunities, problem solving, information evaluation and communication. Viewed in this way, in science pedagogy – guided by the sociocultural (Kelly, 2008) and multimodal nature (Kress et al, 2001; Lemke, 2000) of science discipline – the multiliteracies pedagogies can be built on traditional and constructivist approaches. Pedagogical scaffolds and explicit instructions are needed in constructing and conveying meanings from variety of multimodal ensembles using linguistic, audio, visual, gestural and spatial meanings.

In science education literature, limited research has explored multiliteracies as practical pedagogical moves to improve literacy practices. In this connection, research evidence suggested that multiliteracies and scientific literacy practices have connections to support science learning (Allison & Goldston, 2018), online forum offer possibilities and challenges for students’ motivation and learning (Ridgewell & Exley, 2011), and students’ self-questions serve to construct knowledge (Alvermann, 2004). Taken together, the idea of multiliteracies speaks to the implication of literacy in its multiple forms, for instance, print, visual, digital, cultural and on top of that social that led to building students’ competence to deal with people, texts and technologies. However, in previous research studies little attention is paid to highlight the challenges caused by implementation of multiliteracies in class practices. This study aims to cover the potential gaps in existing research literature.

This qualitative case study took place – as a PhD – with a rationale to account the implementation of ‘future oriented science education’ agenda that was put forward by New Zealand government in 2011. The use of technology and e-learning in secondary schooling were seen essentail to develop ‘forward-looking, innovative, smart, and knowledge-oriented’ and scientifically literate youth. This study draws on case study approach and ethnographic methods. Case study methods help researchers to examine and “[…] understand particular aspects of the human experience that are often overlooked or unexamined by other types of research” (Tobin, 2012, p. 771).

Researcher worked with an ethnographic perspective as conceptual approach while drawing pedagogical theories from the field of education (Green & Bloom, 1997) to interpret pedagogical investments. Because science subject is usually taught as specialisation at secondary level therefore only three science teachers and their classes were purposively selected using purposive sampling method (Palys, 2008) for in-depth exploration. Data collection methods include teachers’ interviews, teachers’ and researcher’s reflective journal and non-participant classroom observations for six one-hour-long lessons from each science classroom. Observation protocol served to record the sequence of literacy events and practices. Only one lesson out of six lessons from an individual case was transcribed and a timeline was developed. The selection of that lesson was based on having the maximum number of literacy events related to the emerging themes. Multiple lessons observed for each case, informal talks to clarify the researcher’s initial questions, member checking by the participating teachers, repeated comparisons of the teacher’s articulated views (open ended interviews questions about their literacy pedagogical practices) with class practices was an attempt to draw on methodological triangulation to enhance the validity of the study.

Braun & Clark (2006) thematic analysis was used to analyse data. After coding the data, preliminary themes were searched that later revised, modified and developed further with generation of subthemes that led to a thematic map. An account of the findings was written by weaving the interpretation within or across the themes with support from the research literature and field data. The complete description of literacy practices and their characteristics are given in author’s publications (ref).

What follows is the short introduction to three cases and core themes that emerged during data analysis.

Steve, David and Amy are three secondary science teachers teaching in year 9, year 10 Science and year 12 Biology respectively at the time of data collection. Steve is teaching in blended learning enviroment using designed e-curriculum portal. The students’ ‘voice and choice’, informal and student-centered classroom environment were the core characteristics. Students’ often observed enagaged in gaming during class time. Students’ participation in classroom discussion was scarce. The students’ roll belonged to white upper-middle-class families with the majority of students’ parents or caregivers working full time. David’s classroom was likely an ordered place because he spelled out classroom rules from time to time and no-one was allowed to override his expectations. David was observed using genre pedagogy. Students’ engagement in collaborative discussions was usual as they were accustomed to listening to the teacher and each other’s views as novices. David’s class was ethnically mixed. The majority of students belonged to low-income families residing within the housing governed by the city housing trust. Amy’s classroom seemed compliant with classroom rules and students often listened to her instructional input for most of the class time. A combination of transmission pedagogy and personalised learning approaches using technology dominated. Most students belonged to mixed ethnicities from working middle-class, white European families.

In writing that follows the first paragraphs in each dilemma serve to summarise the overall conundrum followed by the indepth exploration based on generated themes.

Pedagogical investments with operating dilemmas in process of becoming

1. Teacher’s control versus students’ choices

Traditionally teachers are responsible for establishing class routines and managing control for students’ work on literacy activities. However, in technology-driven classrooms, the ethos of students’ voice and choice appeared to gain prominence. This changed the level and extent of teacher’s control over the literacy practices that urge teachers to relinquish control leading to damaged classroom interactional space and time.

Steve appeared to relinquish control in the teaching process to students’ choices because of his predominant belief in the ethos of students’ choice in a digitally-driven classroom. He appeared to draw on his personalized learning framework to teach with the e-curriculum. Also, he had an overriding ethos for respecting students’ choices as part of dealing with a confident and ‘entitled’ student culture.

A personalized learning framework places students at the center of their learning, empowered with access to ‘voice and choice’ (Stewart, 2017). It appeared that Steve not only gave away the control, rather it was likely that the use of such ‘personalized’ and ‘individualized’ approaches enabled students to make choices as ‘self-managing’ and ‘independent’ learners to meet the learning needs or expectations of their e-curriculum. In such environments students’ choices as to how to carry out the tasks including making decisions of when, where, and how to learn were evident in Steve’s talk as he mentioned that “students in my classroom have choices at which standards they want to work. They can choose different tasks even if their fellows are working on a different learning sequence”.

From Steve’s statement, one can presume that the use of e-learning was likely seen in reference to the second mindset in giving agency to accomplish activities according to individual’s pace of learning. Students work on different standards could be the expression of their immersion in familiar experiences or real life texts in e-curriculum. Nonetheless, it is difficult to understand how a science teacher could scaffold students’ learning or make sure that learning has happened if everyone chooses to work with different standards.

How could an interlinked science concept presented as a sequence – hierarchies of big ideas E4 constructivist framework (Bybee, 1997) and solo taxonomy in the e-curriculum portal – be learned if not followed in a sequence? What if students were allowed to choose and then used up valuable space and time to self-direct their learning in the wrong direction or in alternative practices such as gaming? Does technology let pedagogical practices off the hook? Student-centered learning approaches, enables building autonomous self-directed learners, however, an important consideration that needs to be highlighted here is the extent of choices that should be given to students to accomplish literacy activities with an e-curriculum and how far a teacher should retain control in order to intervene in the students’ learning. In this respect, Knobel and Lankshear (2007) caution about the above mention consideration in these words:

…this is not to imply that people operating from the second mindset cannot and do not compartmentalize time and space and/or dedicate long stretches of time within a particular space to a single task or purpose – for clearly, they do. It is, however, to say that a lot of contemporary literacy activity is conceived and undertaken “on the fly” and simultaneously with other practices. (p. 15)

The second important reason for this dilemma could be linked with students’ socioeconomic status. In describing the school population, Steve expressed that the majority of the students belonged to high socioeconomic status as he said that:

Students in this school are quite entitled, as there are no poverty issues. We are a decile eight school, but there are some other issues that we need to deal with. The most important one is that the students become quite arrogant at times. The teachers cannot expect respect, and they have to work with them to earn respect. It is important that a teacher should politely approach them. If teachers become confrontational, it’s not gonna work.

Keeping this in focus, Steve’s tendency to downplay authority and to invest considerable power in students, seemed to signal the use of indirect means to encourage students’ good behavior (Tobin et al., 1989). Rather than using assertive discipline, he appeared to use a non authoritarian style to manage the class discipline. However, this seemed not effective in terms of students’ literacy learning in science because to the observer, it appeared that Steve’s attempts to enact ‘voice and choice’ had provided opportunities for off-task activities. On the other hand, David and Amy seemed to approach the teachers’ control differently to Steve. While working with constructivist pedagogy, David tended to have a traditional science teachers’ role in setting up the tasks and keeping track of his students’ work although he liked to involve students’ voices in collaborative discussions as well. Similarly, Amy also tended to work with scheduled students’ activities with a combination of structured activities and self-directed opportunities. Both these teachers have tried to enact a balance of both these aspects and tended to have control over their literacy practices.

2. Personalized learning versus collaborative learning

Individualized work alone will not prepare people for the future workplace that demands collaborative professionals who know how to think, act and negotiate together. Learners’ abilities in collaborating and participating in sense-making experiences in both classroom and online context (Koschmann, 1996; Haythornthwaite, 2006) is paramount for building active meaning makers. On the other hand, students’ learning in personalised or self-directed environments (Hase & Kenyon, 2001) prepares them to take greater responsibility for their work. Therefore, managing a balance between collaboration and self-direction is vital for students’ science learning.

This dilemma points to managing two distinct literacy cultures a traditional collaborative culture and an individualized or self-directed culture. The literacy cultures in Steve’s and David’s classrooms appeared to be at the two extremes. However, Amy’s pedagogical practices were a minor combination of both these aspects.

On the one hand, the ideology of a flexible curriculum that places students’ voice and choice at its center to develop informed, empowered and engaged learners seemed to dominate Steve’s pedagogical practices (Howard, 2016). In such a technology-driven classroom, personalised approaches to learning seemed a necessary condition to work with e-curriculum that aimed to develop self-managing learners. In justifying and to account the potential benefits of self-directed individualised work Steve expressed that:

Due to available self-directed activities in e-curriculum my students are now
competent in handling task demands without seeking teacher’s scaffold and
follow up that is a main characteristic of traditional teaching.

While on the other hand, the use of collaborative learning in David’s classroom likely meant to encourage deep thinking and communication norms leading to socialisation and peer mediation to accommodate diverse learners. David expressed his preferred strategy and said:
In whole-class discussions, we looked at how the science ideas learned in
classrooms are applicable in our daily life and in a broader perspective of the
community.

The use of collaborative discussions also served to put students’ ideas at the centre of a community to encourage the social construction of knowledge. Based on these observations it can be suggested that an idealised literacy culture should draw on both aspects equally.

3. Whole class versus individual interactions

Sociocultural theories of learning support the view that a teacher should present science ideas in a social context, building students’ abilities to be ‘cognitively and socially literate’ (Anstey & Bull, 2003). Classroom interactions and collaboration are vital for students’ knowledge building in science. On the contrary, personalized learning principles in an e-curriculum characterise a science teacher as a facilitator or delegator who tends to scaffold individual student’s learning on demand. This limits the opportunities for social learning unless the technology is used to specifically support whole-class interactions.

This dilemma was also observed repeatedly in Steve’s classroom when he preferred to talk to individual students more often than managing the pedagogical practices of whole-class discussions – teacher-students, student-student interactions. In other words, Steve as a science teacher appeared to have adapted pedagogical philosophy and role in the blended environment and this new approach to pedagogy fell short to account for the social aspects of learning.

The use of the e-curriculum and ‘personalized’ learning framework enabled individual student’s interactions with sequenced activities in such a way that each student could learn with the teacher’s scaffolds on demand. The use of technology appeared to motivate students and enhanced their self-efficacy as how to self-direct their learning. In a similar vein, Steve’s facilitative role to intervene in students’ learning more often than providing detailed instructional input could be linked with his adapted response to such a technology challenge where technology had been used to drive the curriculum. Steve’s thoughts about how he should teach and interact with students were evident in an interview when he expressed notions of more individual interactions with students as part of his practice.

Technology-mediated practices of the e-curriculum type presented a paradox of changing roles and patterns of learning with an underlying misalignment between theory and practice. On the one hand, it worked to limit the role of more-knowledgeable others that socio-cultural theories emphasise in science learning processes to become a model of more ‘individualized’ and ‘personalized’ learning.

It was likely that Steve’s role in year 9 did not follow the role of a science teacher who introduces and supports the use of new knowledge so that scientific knowledge becomes ‘common knowledge’ in class practices (Edwards & Mercer, 1987). Moreover, the teacher’s instructional input can serve as a means to model the language of science (Hodson, 2009) and the teacher’s use of more informal vocabulary to explain ideas helps students to develop a relationship between science and real-world common sense knowledge (Lemke, 1987, 1990).

It is worth to mention here that the theoretical basis of social aspects in learning language and constructing science knowledge through human interactions (Moje, 2008) have not been discussed in the perspective of online or e-curriculum context. However, the ways with words for the social construction of literacy in science in becoming other could be suggestive of implications for learners’ new literacies through pedagogical focus for meaningful technology integration with balance for face-to-face and online interactions and discourse opportunities. The pedagogical approaches in the e-curriculum context should respond to and embrace new ‘ethos’ for participative and collaborative (author’s publication) sense-making experiences and learning through the social situation either online or offline or small group and whole-class interactions.

In the case of David, the literacy aspects of individual and whole-class interactions seemed balanced for students’ science learning either with or without technology than Amy where direct instructions dominate for most of the class time.

4. The multiplicity of modes in the e-curriculum versus monomodal linguistic pedagogical practices

Science teaching practices through multimodal means such as gestures, signs, and gaze could enrich and deepen students’ meaning-making practices leading to their literate capabilities with multiple modes of meaning-making (New London Group, 1996). However, in technology-mediated classrooms, the role of multimodal teachers’ actions is often overlooked in favour of multimodal digital texts to teach science ideas.

This dilemma deals with the teacher’s use of action together with multimodal digital means in literacy pedagogy rather than relying solely on the digital text to communicate meanings. Steve’s pedagogical practices drew heavily on using language as opposed to the broad range of semiotic materials available for meaning-making within the e-curriculum. Steve relied on technological affordances that took precedence over pedagogical “action” to realize meanings and interactions (Kress et al., 2001, p. 60). In describing his understanding of technology use, Steve expressed that the use of the e-curriculum serves to motivate and engage students in multimodal literacy learning practices. He said:

Usually, students are not familiar with reading some huge, big lumps of the written text in textbooks or listening to the lectures. They are familiar with looking at animations or doing interactive practice whenever they cannot understand and explain scientific ideas. With interactive sites that offer experimental practice as students can change the variables and see the effects without even using chemicals this serves to get the students’ attention. So, it is easy to keep them engaged, and they themselves find it easy to engage.

These remarks depict Steve’s preference for offering digital means for students’ rich meaning-making rather than his pedagogical practices. Based on his teaching experience in the e-curriculum for the last three years, he declared that the “use of the e-curriculum requires minimal teaching”.

Given the fact that all teaching and learning practices are multimodal in nature depending on the orchestration of the available semiotic materials of gesture, gaze, posture, and eye contact (Jewitt, 2009). It is worth to mention here that I use the idea of modal density (Norris, 2009) to refer to Steve’s pedagogical practices as monomodal linguistic practices. Norris's concept of modal density is helpful to explore the construction of higher-level action that social actors perform – in terms of varying amounts of used modes and attention paid to the action. Modal density refers to the modal intensity and/or the modal complexity through which a higher-level action is constructed.

The use of technology serves to emphasise the multimodal character of pedagogy (Jewitt, 2003). However, Steve’s adapted pedagogical response to technology-mediated practices was the opposite as it drew only on monomodal linguistic practices. In describing the role of “action” as a multimodal science pedagogical practice, Kress et al. (2001) mentioned that teachers who realise meaning through actions mediate (Vygotsky, 1986) the learners’ experiences “through interactions between people, objects, equipment, and materials” (p. 98). Perhaps it could be inferred that a different kind of teaching is required for the e-curriculum, and rather than being ‘minimal’ this teaching needs to be as multimodal and engaging as the e-curriculum which forms the backbone of the learning. Therefore, ait is suggested that a new multimodal pedagogy carrying higher modal density could draw both on action (Kress et al. 2001) – with attention paid to action – and exploratory use of language (Barnes, 1976) to unpack meanings of multimodal ensemble available through digital curriculum.

In contrast to Steve’s pedagogy, Amy’s pedagogical practices seemed to draw on multimodal literacy pedagogy. In Amy’s classroom, there was evidence of teaching ‘fluid mosaic’ modal by combining the elements of actions and multimodal digital display on the projector. However, David’s pedagogical practices drew heavily on linguistic and written modal forms than multiple modes of meaning making.

5. Voluntary participation versus forced participation

Multi-ethnic students’ access to literate culture is paramount to encourage their participative role in classroom meaning-making processes. To enhance students’ repertoire in different ‘social languages’ (Gee, 1996) differentiated literacy instructions should cater to the learning needs of the culturally diverse students. Professional educators should be able to devise strategies to deal with these differences. Here the pedagogical move of forced participation led to students’ abilities to devise their language strategies and recognition that a particular context requires a strategic application of literacy strategies (Anstey & Bull, 2006).

This dilemma concerns the varied patterns of students’ participation either in print-based or digitally driven literacy practices evident in three classrooms. In Steve’s and Amy’s classroom, students who seemed to be compliant and competent tended to ‘peer tutor’ to participate, collaborate and pool their knowledge. This could be seen as their response to solving the technology issue and learning in a digital environment. While in David’s classroom, the students’ participation was mandatory in an already established learning community. Students’ voluntary participation in two classrooms – Steve’s and Amy’s – seemed to link with the students’ socioeconomic status and the enculturation experiences they might have undergone in their childhood. Students who come from high socioeconomic status often get provision for designed enculturation experiences for literate culture as their educated parents often choose to structure their out of school activities in a process that Lareau (2003) terms ‘concerted cultivation’.

These parents often encourage their children to develop ‘expertise’ based on their interests in particular fields (Crowley & Jacobs, 2002; Gee & Hayes 2011) and this helped them to take powerful roles in school (as observed in Steve’s classroom) compared to those who had had limited access to tools or literate culture (as evident in David’s classroom) in their out of school experiences (Gee & Hayes, 2011). These students found it difficult to participate and share in science discourse which required competence in understanding and communicating the languages of science. In both these contexts, students’ participative practices have nothing to do with pedagogical attempts to enable students’ language development in science rather lies more with students’ inbuilt capabilities and dispositions to participate in collaborative discussions.

Compared to Steve’s pedagogical practices, David appeared to enact a different route to literacy and forced his students to participate in class discussion and learn exploratory use of langauge. These students belonged to the multi-ethnic origin and often find it difficult to voice their thoughts. David had critical insight into what work best for multi-ethnic students in his classroom. His practices also evidenced the use of vernacular language to manage the elements of diversity. He opined that:

Students' voices are more important than the teacher’s explanations and instructions. I
always use minority students’ ethnic dialect as opportunities to realte and bring their
their culture in learning.

6. Teacher’s selection of literacy text versus students’ selection of literacy text

Students’ abilities in multiliteracies for being cognitively and socially literate necessitates active engagement in a variety of texts or information (Anstey & Bull, 2006). Preference for using conventional screen hosted texts will not prepare students as proficient meaning-makers in technology-mediated environments. Similarly, the use of digital text with pedagogical practices in information transfer practices (Kern, 2003) should not gain prominence. A new pedagogical approach is needed with pedagogical scaffolds for students’ successful literacy attainment with variety of text types.

This dilemma depicts the situation where the use of the pedagogical approach for digital text selection tended to limit the traditional literacy practices of reading conventional texts. Amy thought that the use of digital means in pedagogy is important to meet the needs of 21^st-century learners. She justified her use of digital texts in these words:

As human beings, we all are born with different senses, and more we use all our senses the better we can interpret what we read and write. Viewing, reading and writing with digital and visuals means allows students to better understand the science text.

The use of authentic texts suggests the students’ everyday use of language and literacy in out of school contexts that influenced how they perceived literacy in science (Sørvik & Mork, 2015). Similarly excessive use of schooled texts without referring to everyday authentic texts such as news and science reports may risk students’ engagement in meaning making experiences they encounter in everyday lives. On the other hand, David encouraged students to use real-world example and texts to understand science meaningfully. He indicated that:

The content knolwedge is quite important to get the concepts but the most important
thing for the students is to make connections with their everyday life, and if a science
teacher can’t do so then he is missing the point. Because the more connections
students’ can make the more authentic the learning would be.

It was observed that due to extensive use of digital text students’ in Amy’s classroom often avoid the use of conventional reading with printed texts. This scenario challenged science teachers’ pedagogical planning because extensive use of digital texts lead to the disappearance of conventional reading practices. Similary extensive use of content knolwedge and schooled text may change students’ orientation to choose and understand authentic text to relate and make sense of science knowledge. Apparently, there is a need for a redesigned literacy pedagogy that could maintain a balance between the use of conventional and digital text practices, and use of schooled and authentic texts with interactive dialogues along the modalities in use that could support students’ active meaning-making with both text types.

7. Teacher’s control of knowledge versus student control of knowledge

Students’ abilities in multiliteracies lie with the recognition that a particular context requires certain literacy practices to be strategically applied in a setting (Anstey & Bull, 2006). In a pedagogical sense, designed pedagogy should take into account how far students have access to opportunities to devise their strategies in using language through participation in collaborative discourse to make meanings that lead to their control over the knowledge construction processes. In other words, science teachers should not be an expository teacher who aims to solely control the literacy pedagogy and transfer the contents to be learned.

This dilemma points to the two kinds of teaching approach one that draws on expository mode (Bruner, 1961) while the second that entails hypothetical mode of teaching both allowing students to make meanings differently.

In the expository mode of teaching – typical of Amy’s classroom – the teacher as expositor had full control over the style and pace of the instructions while seeing students in the role of mere listeners. As a speaker, an expository teacher has a variety of choices at their disposal to manipulate the contents while generating interpretations. However, as passive listeners students were often unaware of such internal options and passively received culturally available meanings.

In the hypothetical mode of teaching as exemplified in David’s classroom teacher and students cooperate to formulate knowledge. Pedagogical opportunities facilitated students to draw on their strategies to use language in making sense of ideas in generation and communication of meanings. Steve's pedagogical practices differ from both these contexts and draw heavily on students’ self-direction and independence that likely lead to his students’ attempts in imposing personal subjective meanings to the contents and contexts as they worked with literacy practices.

8. Standardized assessment versus assessment for technology-mediated practices

Linguistic or print-based assessment practices could not assess the multimodal sign making that students drew on to represent their science learning thus leaving unassessed students’ abilities to make meanings with the multiplicity of modalities. This suggests the need to redesign the assessment procedures for technology-mediated literacy practices.

In all three science classrooms, there exists a disparity between students’ meaning-making with technology-mediated and assessment practices that followed print-based conventions. The underlying reason could be the standardised assessment criteria that likely pressurised teacher to value abilities for text writing with respective ‘mono-modal’ assessment practices rather than an overall assessment of what is to be learned and how it is learned (Jewitt, 2003) into which social, participative and multimodal meaning-making practices mediated through technology are the vital dimensions.

In this respect as Matthewman, Blight and Davies (2004) had noticed that the dominating print-centric mindset often failed to account for the curriculum change and points to concern as to where in the curriculum should these skills be explicitly taught and assessed? This raises an important question for science educators to attend to the intricacies and processes involved in multimodal sign making and social dimensions of new literacies that today’s students draw on to make-meanings and how these should be best assessed with respective designed assessment practices. In this example, a traditional pedagogical approach to literacy assessment has overlooked the new approach to assessing students’ meaning-making literacy learning.

The above mentioned exploration suggests that development of students’ multi-literacies repertoire involves complex interactions between available pedagogical moves, text types and varied sociocultural factors that define actualisation of literacies in classroom settings. Depending on the pedagogical uptake of text and events, transforming effects of literacies flow out in highly unpredictable ways that sometimes facilitate, obstruct or prove counterproductive in processes of becoming other.

One of the vital contradictions that arise in present study is the mismatch between social aspects of knowledge construction in science through human interactions using dialogue and uptake of pedagogical moves as personalised learning in online or e-curriculum context. This is indicative of what Mills (2009) has noticed that “this is increasingly the case as existing pedagogies become further removed from the multimodal forms of communication required in the twenty-first century” (p. 110). This study calls for new scholarly debate to clarify the mismatches between theory and practices because finding a way through this conundrum is needed. This study affirms Mills (2009) statement which indicate that: “Multiliteracies pedagogy is an innovative attempt to combine the strengths of past approaches to overcome their weaknesses while addressing the need for new, multimodal, digitally mediated, culturally diverse and dynamic multiliteracies for our changing times” (p. 110).

In response to evolving new literacies or meaning-making practices in contemporary times, this study suggests that designed assessment practices should attend to the multimodal and social aspects of learning on equal accounts. For this, reference is made here to the literature that discussed the design of new assessment practices in science.

Firstly, in multimodal environments, students undergo complex learning and literacy processes; hence, assessment practices in linguistic forms are problematic. Toward that end, Jewitt (2003) argued for re-thinking of the whole complex of representation involved in communicating information in today’s technology classrooms as she suggested that:

In order to assess what it is that is learned, assessment needs to refocus in order to attend to the full range of modes involved in learning (p. 100).

Following this, Tang et al. (2011) study explained how conceptual understanding in science is dependent on the integration of various modes of representation that constitute a specific thematic pattern. This research introduced the idea that the construction of students’ science concepts can be made visible through analysing the multimodal actions such as speaking, writing, drawing, and gesturing that students use to communicate their learning. Such assessment results could reveal how far students’ concepts conform to, or deviate from, the formalised thematic patterns used to teach science concepts. However, classroom enactment of this idea needs explicit pedagogical focus to recognise which thematic patterns correspond to the illustrated science concepts through integrated or juxtaposed multimodal representations and actions in literacy pedagogy.

Secondly, to take into account the social, participative and negotiated nature of new literacies in technology-mediated environments, assessment practices could capitalize on formative rather than summative practices with “ongoing cycles of feedback on performance … [for students’] deep learning” (Knobel & Lankshear, 2014, p. 100). The digital platform as an online multimodal learning space can support ongoing dialogue through formative feedback cycles between teachers and students or peer reviews to build students’ reflections on their compositions (Hatzipanagos & Warburton, 2009). In that context, the digital platform enables assessment – receiving peer reviews on threaded discussions – of social cognition that previously has been conceived of as impossible to assess (Cope, Kalantzis & Smith, 2018).

Finally, in assessing the social process of learning afforded through learners’ participation in horizontal planes of communication, Cope et al. (2018) argued for shifting writing into multimodal writing as a representation of learned concepts that learners have developed as designed thinking. Similarly, performance-based assessment can be devised for students’ engagement in learning through video games and simulations.

It is worth mentioning here that a comparison is made between three different grade levels and subject teachers pedagogical practices (year 9, 10 science and year 13 Biology). Nonetheless, use of national curriculum was one of the vital contextual similarity among all. The coverage demands and standardized testing could be the probable reasons that guided Amy’s pedagogical efforts – of all three teachers – to draw on content knowledge and to strive for how students get prepared to attain excellence in the standardised assessment (NCEA). This likely guided her pedagogical attempts to use extensive digital texts for screen hosted conventional literacies. The probable difference in implementation likely linked with individual teacher’s teaching style or pedagogical theories they hold to enact literacy. The pre-service teacher training difference could be a reason. The above-mentioned pedagogical weaving across different orientations is challenging because as Serafini and Gee, 2017 have mentioned that this “requires considerable skill and expertise of teachers, as well as a deep knowledge of literacy not cultivated by most teacher education programs” (p. 6).

Based on the dilemmas discussed above, this study suggest the following assumptions as pedagogical moves or hybrid literacies as investments carrying potential for students in becoming multi-literate. These assumptions can be seen as potential pedagogical moves – as science teachers who are cognisant of multiliteracies pedagogy – design and implement literacy practices for development of multi-literate individulas. Multi-literate individuals draw on a range of learning processes that require designed activities with variety of literacy approaches. In class practices, the teacher’s role varies (at different point in a lesson) from a traditional teacher who controls the students’ literacy activity to a facilitator in e-learning contexts (Garrison & Anderson, 2011), one who relinquish control but provides needed scaffolds (Hase and Kenyon, 2001) to support students’ choices and engagement in authentic e-curriculum activities. This also requires thoughtful management of the new ethos to negotiate and enact workspaces (Lankshear & Knobel, 2007) that enable students’ engagement in participative and active meaning-making processes.

Multi-literate individuals are able to fluently perform the role of a collaborative learner (Koschmann, 1996). Therefore, pedagogical practices should draw not only on real-world practices of collaboration, participation and community engagement.
Multi-literate individuals are cognitively and socially literate across a variety of texts or information (Anstey & Bull, 2006). Pedagogical scaffolds using explicit instructions together with discourse practices in multimodal contexts (Rau, 2017) are needed. This led to develop students’ sense-making experiences with print/digital texts and material resources. Moreover, students’ competence to respond appropriately to multiple forms of digital texts and communities of practice (Haythornthwaite, 2019; Gee, 2004; Jenkins et al. 2009) is another form of multiliteracy .
Multi-literate individuals are literate in multiple modes of meaning-making (New London Group, 1996). This point to the implications for the enactment of multimodal literacy pedagogy in science classrooms and respective assessment practices.
Multi-literate individuals have capabilities in what Gee (1996) called social languages to deal with discourse differences in professional, national, ethnic, subcultural and/or affinity group contexts. One aspect within this broad perspective is to manage the students’ diversity through encouraging the kind of socialisation that enables ethnic minority students to access classroom meaning systems.
Multi-literate individuals are “cognitively and socially literate with paper, live, and electronic texts” (Anstey & Bull, 2006, p. 23). This involves pedagogical opportunities for extensive social interactions around texts, resources and technologies. Teachers can locate narratives of learning in social and communication contexts while bringing the new ethos of collaboration into meaning-making and sharing practices rather than giving way to increasingly do-it-yourself expertise in the technological context.
Multi-literate individuals are able to recognise that a particular context requires certain literacy practices to be strategically applied in a setting (Anstey & Bull, 2006). This needs pedagogical opportunities that prompt collaboration and exploratory uses of language to negotiate and communicate meanings with limited use of literacy for information transfer (Kern, 2003) or individualised or self-directed literacy practices.

This article has presented the challenges science teachers and students lived through as they make sense of and negotiated a changing literacy landscape. This complicated picture holds minor evidence for the uptake of new practices. This study argues that in New Zealand science literacy context during 2019–2020, the evidence for successful enactment of multiliteracies are scarce. More research work and scholarly debates are needed to clarify and align mismatches between theory and practice.

Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Allison, E., & Goldston, M. J. (2018). Modern scientific literacy: A case study of multiliteracies and scientific practices in a fifth-grade classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27, 270-283.

Alvermann, D. E. (2004). Multiliteracies and self-questioning in the service of science learning. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspective on theory and practice (pp. 226-238). Newark, DE: International Reading Association and National Science Teacher Association.

Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2004). The literacy labyrinth. Frenchs Forest: Pearson.

Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2006). Teaching and learning multiliteracies: Changes times, changing literacies. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.

Auerbach, E. (2001). Considering the multiliteracies pedagogies: Looking through the lens of family literacy In M. Kalantzis & B. Cope (Eds.), Transformations in language and learning: Perspectives on Multiliteracies. Altona: Common Grounds.

Botelho, M. J., Kerekes, J., Jang, E., & Peterson, S. S. (2014). Assessing Multiliteracies: Mismatches and opportunities. Languages and Literacy, 16(1), 1-20.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

Brown, B. A., Reveles, J. M., & Kelly, J. G. (2005). Scientific literacy and discursive identity: A theoretical framework for understanding science learning. Science Education, 89 (5), 779-802.

Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. In J. S. Bruner (Ed.), On knowing: Essays for the left hand (pp. 81-96). London: Harvard University Press.

Bybee, W. R. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Castanheira, M. L., Crawford, T., Dixon, C., & Green, J. L. (2001). Interactional ethnography: An approach to studying the social construction of literate practices. Linguistics and Education, 11(4), 353-400.

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (1993). The power of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing. London: The Falmer Press.

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. Melbourne: Macmillan.

Cope, B., Kalantzis, M., & Smith, A. (2018). Pedagogies and literacies, disentangling the historical threads: An interview with Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis. Theory into Practice, 57(1), 5-11.

Crowley, K., & Jacobs, M. (2002). Island of expertise and the development of family scientific literacy. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 333-356). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A Thousand Plateaux. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1994). What is philosophy? New York: Columbia University Press.

diSessa, A. (2004). Metarepresentation: native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 293-331.

Edward, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen.

Freebody, P. (2004). Hindsight and Foresight. In A. Healy & E. Honan (Eds.) Text Next: Newton: PETA.

Freebody, P., & Luke, A. (1990). Literacies programs: Debates and demands in cultural context. Prospect: Australian Journal of TESOL, 5(3), 7-16.

Gallego, M. A., & Hollingsworth, S. (2000). Introduction. The idea of multiple literacies. In M. A. Gallego & S. Hollingsworth (Eds.), What counts as literacy: Challenging the school standard (pp. 1-23). New York: Teachers College Press.

Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2011). e-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. New York: Routledge Falmer Press.

Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd Ed.). London: Routledge.

Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. New York: Routledge.

Gee, J. P., & Hayes, R. (2011). Language and learning in the digital age. London, UK: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Green, J., & Bloom, D. (1997). Ethnography and ethnographers of and in education: a situated perspective In J. Flood, S. Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds.), A handbook for literacy educators: Research on teaching the communicative and visual arts (pp. 1-12). New York: Macmillan.

Hase, S., & Kenyon, C. (2001). Moving from andragogy to heutagogy: Implications for VET. Paper presented at the Proceeding of Research to Reality: Putting VET Research to work: Australian Vocational Education and Training Research Association (AVETRA), Adelaide, SA.

Hatzipanagos, S., & Warburton, S. (2009). Feedback as dialogue: Exploring the links between formative assessment and social software in distance learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(1), 45-59.

Haythornthwaite, C. (2019). Facilitating collaboration in online learning. Online Learning, 10(1), 7-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v10i1.1769

Haythornthwaite, C. (2012). New media, new literacies, and new forms of learning. International Journal of Learning and Media, 4(3-4), 1-8.

Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and Learning about Science: Language, Theories, Methods, History, Traditions, and Values. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Howard, M. (2016). The castle of goodies, baddies, kings, and queens: An exploration of
personalising learning. Principals’ Sabbatical Report. www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/.../Moira%20Howard%20-%20personlised%20learni...

Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Weigel, M., Clinton, K., & Robinson, A. J. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Jewitt, C. (2003). Re-thinking assessment: multimodality, literacy and computer-mediated learning. Assessment in Education, 10(1), 83-102.

Jewitt, C. (2009). An introduction to multimodality. In The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 14-27). London: Routledge.

Jones, S. (2009). Making connections with multiliteracies. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.

Kelly, J. G. (2008). Learning science: discursive practices. In A. d. Mejia & M. Martin-Jones (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of Language and Education, Vol 3: Discourse and Education (pp. 329-340). New York: Springer.

Kern, R. (2003). Literacy as a new organizing principle for foreign language education. In P. C. Patrikis (Ed.), Reading between the lines: Perspectives on foreign language literacy (pp. 40-59). New Heaven: Yale University Press.

Khadka, S. (2018). A broad- based multiliteracies theory and praxis for a diverse writing classroom. Computers and composition, 47, 93-110.

Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2014). Studying new literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(2), 97-101.

Koschmann, T. E. (1996). CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the New Media Age. London: Routledge.

Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. New York: Continuum.

Lankshear, C. (1997). Changing Literacies. New York: Open University Press.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2007). Sampling "the New" in New Literacies. In M. Knobel & C. Lankshear (Eds.), A new literacies sampler (pp. 1-24). New York: Peter Lang.

Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: class, race, and family life. London: University of California Press.

Lemke, J. L. (1987). Social semiotics and science education. American Journal of Semiotics, 5, 217-232.

Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood: Ablex.

Limbrick, L., & Aikman, M. (2008). Literacy and English: A discussion document prepared for the Ministry of Education. Auckland: University of Auckland.

Lotherington, H. (2007). From Literacy to multiliteracies. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching: Springers Science, LLC.

Luke, A., Cazden, C., Lin, A., & Freebody, P. (2004). The Singapore classroom coding scheme. Technical Report. National Institute of Education, Centre for Research on Pedagogy and Practice, Singapore

Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (1999). A map of possible practices: Further notes on the Four Resource Model. Practically Primary, 4(2), 5-8.

Masny, D. (2010). Multiple literacies theory: How it functions, what it produces. Perspectiva, 28(2), 337-352.

Masny, D. (2011). Multiple literacies theory: exploring futures. Policy Futures in Education, 9(4), 494-504.

Masny, D., & Cole, D. R. (2007). Applying multiple literacies in Australian and Canadian contexts. Paper presented at the Future directions in literacy: International conversations conference 3-6 September 2007, The University of Sydney, Division of Professional Learning, Australia.

Masny, D., & Waterhouse, M. (2011). Mapping territories and creating nomadic pathways with multiple literacies theory. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 27(3), 287-307.

Matthewman, S., Blight, A., & Davies, C. (2004). What does multimodality mean for English? Creative tensions in teaching new texts and new literacies. Education, Communication & Information, 4(1), 153-176.

McDowall, S. (2010). Literacy teaching and learning for the 21st century: Bridging the theory to practice gap. https://www.nzcer.org.nz/nzcerpress/set/articles/literacy-teaching-and-learning-21st-century-bridging-theory-practice-gap.

McDowall, S. (2015). Literacy research that matters: A review of the school sector and ECO projects. Wellington: New Zealand council for educational research. https://www.nzcer.org.nz/research/publications/literacy-research-matters-review-school-sector-and-ece-literacy-projects.

Mills, K. (2007). Have you seen Lord of the Rings? Power, pedagogy and discourses in a multi-literacies classroom. Journal of Language and Identity, 6(3), 221-241.

Mills, K. (2009). Multiliteracies: Interrogating competing discourses. Language and Education, 23(2), 103-116.

Mills, K. A. (2010). A review of the "digital turn" in the New Literacy Studies. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 246-271.

Ministry of Education. (2003). Effective literacy practices in Year 1 to Year 4. Wellington, NZ: Learning media.

Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.

Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96-107.

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Design of social future. Harward Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.

New London Group. (2000). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. (pp. 9-74). London: Routledge.

Norris, S. (2009). Modal density and modal configurations. In C. Jewitt (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 78-90). London: Routledge.

Parisi, L. (2004). Abstract Sex: Philosophy, Bio-technology and the mutations of the desire. London: Continuum Books.

Rau, M. A. (2017). How do students learn to see concepts in visualisations? Social learning mechanism with physical and virtual representations. Journal of Learning Analytics, 4(2), 240-263.

Ridgewell, J., & Exley, B. (2011). The potentials of student initiated netspeak in a Middle primary science-inspired multiliteracies project. Research in Science Education, 41(5), 635-649.

Sandretto, S., & Critical Literacy Research Team. (2008). A collaborative self-study into the development and integration of critical literacy practices: Final report. Wellington: Teaching and learning initiative (TLRI).

Serafini, F., & Gee, E. (2017). Introduction. In F.Serafini & E. Gee (Eds.), Remixing Multiliteracies: Theory and Practice from New London to New Times. Language and Literacy Series. New York. NY: Teachers College Press.

Sandretto, S., & Tilson, J. (2013). Reconceptualizing multiliteracies for "new times". http://www.tlri.org.nz/sites/default/files/projects/Sandretto_Summary_final_1.pdf

Stein, P. (2007). Multimodal pedagogies in diverse classrooms: Representations, rights and resources. Abingdon: Routledge.

Stewart, D. (2017). Personalised learning pedagogies within contemporary schools. Journal of Initial Teachers Education, 3. International License. http://hdl.handle.net/10092/14630

Sørvik, G. O., & Mork, S. M. (2015). Scientific literacy as social practice: Implications for reading and writing in science classrooms. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 11(3), 268-281.

Tang, K.-S., Tan, S. C., & Yeo, J. (2011). Students' multimodal construction of the work-energy concept. International Journal of Science Education, 33(13), 1775-1804.

The New Zealand Curriculum update (2012). Literacy across the curriculum. https://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/content/download/.../NZCUpdate23_ONLINE pdf on 11th November 2016.

Tobin, R. (2012). Quick start to case study research. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepon, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of case study research (pp. 771-774). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Tobin, J. J., Wu, D. Y. H., & Davidson, D. H. (1989). Preschool in three cultures: Japan, China, and the United States. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Wohlwend, K. E. (2017). The expression of multiliteracies and multimodalities in play. In E. R. Hayes & F. Serafini (Eds.), Remixing multiliteracies: Theory and practice from New London to new times. New York: Teachers College Press.

Yore, L., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689-725.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Multiple and multiliteracies: dilemmas in New Zealand secondary science classrooms

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Introduction

Research Methods

Discussion

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Status:

Version 1