Literacy as Multimodal Meaning Making

Reading Response Journal #5

From the readings for this week, along with the presentation and discussion, I have come to the conclusion that multimodal literacy is something that we practice everyday, and in multiple situations in early childhood. It seems to me that the practice itself is not something new, however, the new-ness comes in the form of the definition, or even the recognition of literacy making within this practice, and this is the concept that I am beginning to understand. In regards to this, Seigel states that, "despite the claim that multimodal literacy is new on the literacy scene, children have always engaged in what are now called multimodal literacy practices".

I think that to further explore this idea within this blog, I will refer to a photograph that I took some time ago of a small project that took place in the child centre where I work. I will attempt to analyze this photo and the project from which it was taken with the perspective of multimodal literacy. The reason why I want to do this, is to help me to be able to place value and recognition on the aspects of multimodal literacy learning and exploration witin an actuvity which I might not have otherwise thought of in terms of literacy.

(picture removed)

Here is a brief synopsis of the project. It started with a provocation from me. I had noticed that there was a dominance of boys who played with the train set in my classroom. From this observation, combined with inspiration from an earlier EDUC class, I decided to paint the trains pink, to see what would happen, and what the children's reaction would be.

The initial act of painting the trains and seting them out, as I now see it, would be a commnication, or a symbol from me to a child or children, to act or react in some way. This let to the children responding initially through laughter, then comments, and conversation regarding the provocation, a verbal piece that Harste et al considered an "intimate and integral aprt of the writing process".

Later on in this project, we were led to some questions around the body, which in turn led us to a visit to the Biology department in the college. The children took note pads and pens and went to explore. They saw skeletons, body replicas, pictures and graphs and were inspired to make various sketches and "writings" on their pads. I think that if looking at this through a lens of multimodal literacy, I could identify that children were experiencing print in a natural environment, through the drawings and labels in the lab, using and experiencing "symbolic media". The act of using the pen and pad to transcribe their thoughts and experience would also be a process of literacy in that the children were making representative symbols in relation and reaction to something they were immediately experiencing.

These are just a few examples of multimodal literacy within this project, but I think it is a meaningful exercise for me to be re-examining this past event and finding these moments, noticing them, and being able to start to put power into these experiences as literacy learning.  

Oral Storytelling

After this week's readings I have realized that I do a lot of oral storytelling with children. However, similar to the authors findings of literacy researchers in 'My Mother Never Read to Me', I have never given proper credit to the value of this type of literacy learning. If someone asked me how I promote literacy with children, I wouldn't think to include the many daily instances of oral storytelling that happens in our classroom.

This article made me think of the stories that I tell children about my own life. I have always found that talking about personal experiences or adventures helps me to connect with children, and to create understanding between us. I find that children ask for me to re-tell these stories, again and again, and treat them not just as a fleeting anecdote.

Actually, yesterday, the mother of a young toddler who I work with came to me, confused, asking why her daughter kept telling her that "Teacher Sarah eats bugs!" I realized that almost a year ago, I had told a group of children of the time I spent in Thailand, and an instance when I tried the local snack of fried cockroaches. This story had resonated with her, and she was then re-telling it to her family.

Another example of oral storytelling that we engage in is on Mondays, I ask a few parents what they did on the weekend. Then at group time, I re-tell those events as "stories", acted out with props and puppets. My reasoning for doing this, has centered around a response to some children's need to have support with recalling past events. However, I have never given this activity credit in the literacy department.

It occurs to me now that these stories are among those that the children seem most engaged with, and recall with the most enthusiasm. Maybe this has something to do with these stories' relevance to their own lives and the lives of those who are close to them.
And perhaps this is what Nina Sabnani is referring to when she talks about oral stories being "inclusive because it allows several people to become part of the narritive and.....gives them a sense of identity".  It also seems to me that when we tell stories orally, there is more engagement between story teller and listener. We make more eye contact, and naturally become more animated then when reading text.

In regards to this point, Sabnani says that "both telling and listening are considered sacred and one cannot exist without the other". This differs with written text in that the reader can exist without a listener. The social aspect of oral story telling is not present in the conditions of written story telling. This makes me wonder about the idea of social literacy. Is there any connection between literacy as a social act and the benefits of oral storytelling? What is the connection with other forms of oral storytelling, such as theatre or film? Are these forms ever explored in regards to learning literacy?

Literacy as Social Practice

ECUD 376

Reading Response Journal #3

Here is a trailer for the Baby Einstien program as well as a link to an article in the New York Times regarding the lawsuit and settlement over their product.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/education/24baby.html

This past week we were talking about Literacy as social practice. This concerns the way that we learn literacy through everyday experiences, as well as the way that literacy is used in a social context. In contrast, we looked at programs such as 'My Baby Can Read!' and 'Baby Einstien'. There was a consensus within the students that this type of system was unnecessary and even potentially harmful for children at the age of developing a love and the skills towards emerging literacy. What was an interesting and slightly disturbing coincidence, was that the day following this class, I was at work, having a meeting with a consultant from a government agency which specializes in advising centres (and parents) in how to work with children with extra support needs. We were talking about a child who has a delay in his language. The consultant brought out a package which she recommended we use at the centre to help this child in his challenge. It was a Baby Einstien book and toy. After the meeting, I asked the consultant if she was aware of the lawsuit that the Baby Einstien company has faced, and lost. She was unaware of it, and mentioned that her agency has just purchased the entire library of Baby Einstien materials to give out to parents and centres.

This was quite a troubling encounter for me. The form of "literacy learning" that is being encouraged here with flashcards and pictures is just the opposite of what is explored in the text about social literacy. A quote from the text is, "One cannot separate literacy from social contexts within which it operates." However, through systems such as 'My Baby Can Read', literacy is being removed from any sort of social learning. In fact, it creates the scenario where a caregiver doesn't even have to be present or engaged with the child, let alone help them to experience literacy in their environment or community. Is this absence of social practice perhaps one of the reasons why the lawsuit against Baby Einstien argues that children aren't actually gaining skills in literacy, and instead emerging from this program with lower literacy levels than their peers?

To follow up on a topic from a previous posting, I had an encounter with a toddler who was displaying his emerging literacy skills and recognizing and identifying an image from his community. I came to work with a coffee yesterday morning and put it down in the kitchen before coming into the classroom. A toddler (who is at the stage of speech when he is doing a lot of labelling) noticed my coffee cup and was pointing at it. He kept repeating "french fries". It took me a moment before I realized that he had recognized the symbol on my McDonalds cup and had made the connection between the "golden arches" and french fries. To me, this was a perfect example of literacy as "inextricably connected to social, political and cultural conditions". This toddler was identifying something not only in his community, but also in his social experience. He was communicating with a hugely significant image from popular culture, and it was affecting his literacy learning. Despite my feelings of uneasiness, as a teacher in these times, I suppose I have to challenge myself to accept and possibly even encourage this occurrence of social learning!