1. Sourced from http://sites.uci.edu/theredhairedteacher/my-mission-statement/bloom1/ March 10,2014
Are teacher’s reinventing
literacy, by using multiliteracies,
enough in the classroom in order
for student’s to function in the
21st Century?
Natalie Todd
0061009707
EDX3270 – Assignment 1

2. Sourced from http://www.forsyth.k12.ga.us/domain/3487, March 10, 2014
Timetable
Period 1 – Reinventing Literacy in the 21st Century
Break 1 – what literacy used to entail within the classroom prior to the
introduction of Multiliteracies
Period 2 – The digital divide
Period 3 – Literacy Frameworks and Pedagogy
Break 2 – What literacy is like within our classroom today
Period 4 – Critical Essay
Period 5 – Self reflection on ICT learning
End of Day - references

3. Sourced from http://www.thebookchook.com/2011/07/letter-to-book-chook-creative-literacy.html, March 17, 2014

4. “Teacher’s express concern that there is a lack of professional
development related to the teaching of reading”
Meyer, K. (2010). ‘Diving into Reading’: Revisiting Reciprocal Teaching in the Middle
Years. Literacy Learning: the Middle Years, 18(1), 41-52
Meyer provides an analytical view on how reciprocal teaching strategies promote
Bloom’s Higher Order Thinking, critical thinking and increased student
participation. The article provides some elaborate ideas on scaffolding the
children within the Middle Years, however it is limiting in the way that the ideas
are based on text in print. This article does highlight that the traditional way of
teaching in which the students have to guess
what the teacher wants as an answer is on
the way out, and that students are benefiting
from the more student centred learning
perspective. Unfortunately this article does
not integrate the notion that the world is
ever-changing in terms of technology. By
embracing new technologies and
philosophies in our pedagogy, this can only
benefit our middle year students. Sourced from
http://learn.moodle.net/mod/glossary/showentry.php?courseid=2&eid=171&display
format=dictionary, March 17, 2014

5. “Multiliteracies broadens our understanding of literacy by embracing
linguistically
and culturally diverse ways of using language”
Peterson, S. S., Botelho, J., Jang, E. & Kerekes, J. (2007). Writing Assessment: What Would
Multiliteracies Teachers Do? Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 15(1), 29-35.
Stagg, Botelho, Jang and Kerekes draw on their background experiences and
provide a dissection on one of the assessment strategies that are currently used
in the traditional classroom for writing. The authors’ aim within this journal is to
educate teachers who are reliant on the cognitive perspective of teaching in the
beneficial multiliteracies perspective of teaching. They offer their objective
opinion by providing realistic examples on how to modify assessment strategies
within Spandel’s (2005) six traits.
This journal article highlights the importance of going beyond the
norm and relating the assessment to that of the student’s individual
needs, learning abilities and discourses.
Sourced from http://www.scoop.it/t/6-traits-resources?tag=6-traits, March 11,
2014

6. “Children need to understand what they read. Simply saying the words is not
enough”
Schubert, M. (2009). Comprehension activities for the middle years of schooling: Teaching
and learning to comprehend texts across the curriculum. Literacy Learning: the Middle
Years, 17(1), i-vii
Whilst we talk about multiliteracies being the important factor within the
classroom in order to essentially prepare our children for society, we cannot
forget about our traditional concepts such as comprehension. Schubert within her
article provides a summary of scenarios reminding the reader that comprehension
is pivotal in any literacy program. An essential part of literacy is that children must
comprehend what they are reading within paper based text or multiliteracies.
Whilst Schubert’s scenarios are essentially based on paper based text they can
easily be modified for the inclusion of digital technologies. This article offers new
ideas for teachers to utilise within their literacy program.
Sourced from http://nikkiscoolcrewgrade1.pbworks.com/w/page/58322574/Nikki's%20Crew%20Reading%20Page, March 17, 2014

7. Classroom prior to the introduction of
Multiliteracies

8. Sourced from http://blog.jobsfirstnyc.org/2011/09/bridging-digital-divide-in-new-york.html, March 17, 2014
The Digital Divide

9. “The world is awash with hybrid texts created and communicated using
ever-emerging forms of ICT”
Cloonan, Anne. Multiliteracies in the Early Years: Filming and Professional Learning
[online]. Australian Screen Education Online, No. 35, Winter 2004: 43-46
Cloonan’s article is based on a series of interactions with Dr Bill Cope, Professor
Mary Kalantzis and four teachers who are hesitant in the usage of
Multiliteracies within the classroom. The major question this article is based
around is “Are Primary Teachers Technophobes?”. Cloonan’s research around
this thesis is phenomenal. She encourages the teacher’s to throw themselves
into the world of multiliteracies and let go of their insecurities. It highlighted
the level of unawareness that the teachers had of their students digital
capabilities and the
ability to reflect on
their current literacy
practices It also
highlighted where they
could implement
changes within the
literacy program that is
adaptive of digital
growth. Sourced from http://www.socmedsean.com/social-media-comic-the-technophobe/, March 18, 2014

10. “Today’s young people are growing up in a world full of digital technologies
and, for many, the use of multiple technologies is part of everyday life”
Henderson, R. (2008). It’s a Digital Life! Digital Literacies, Multiliteracies and
Multimodality. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 16(2), 11-15.
Henderson bases her journal article on the collection of statistical data to expose
the emerging popularity of digital technology within the home. Her statements
within the article are supported effortlessly by research that has already been
conducted in regards to multiliteracies and the way children have been exposed
to this outside of the classroom. The article provides examples detailing the
digital literacy capabilities the students bring to the classroom. It provides valid
links between the varying levels of attitudes, the
range of multiliteracies that children bring into
their classroom and offers the notion that
teachers need to acknowledge this in order
to improve literacy outcomes within the
classroom.
Sourced from http://www.infosysblogs.com/voices-instep/,
March 17, 2014

11. There is evidence that the digital divide between schools and homes
continues to widen as more and more technologies become available
Henderson, R. (2011). Classroom pedagogies, digital literacies and the home-school digital
divide. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, (6)2, 152-161
Henderson’s journal article is based on a research assignment conducted by
herself in which takes a confronting look into what teachers see as digital
technology (e.g. computer) compared to what the students are exposed to
within their environment and discourses (e.g. mobile phones, applications, game
consoles). Within this article it is evident that the two teachers in which the
research was conducted on are quite naive on the implementation of evolving
digital technologies. They too underestimate the
resources available to themselves within the
classroom and what the children are exposed to
outside the classroom. Henderson’s article highlights
the importance of taking the time to allow students to
demonstrate their digital abilities and scaffold from
there within problem solving and critical thinking.
Sourced from http://www.pearson.com.au/products/S-Z-Tompkins/Literacy-for-the-21st-Century-A-Balanced-Approach/9781442532700?R=9781442532700, March 20, 2014

12. “Statistics on the academic success of Aboriginal students present a dismal
picture”
Pirbhai-Illich, F. (2010). Aboriginal Students Engaging and Struggling with Critical
Multiliteracies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, (54)4, 257-266.
The author of this article draws on prior research done on Aboriginal people
and their attendance and attitudes towards education. She highlights the
importance of connecting the Aboriginal culture and literacy education
together in order to engage the students. It brings forth the evidence that
education within the Aboriginal community is somewhat ‘incidental’ and in
essence the classroom teacher needs to change his/her teaching strategies in
order to improve their literacy standards. School attendance and literacy levels
improved dramatically when multiliteracies were introduced. The author
provides alternative methods of teaching and goes above and beyond in her
facilitation of this research project. This is an
essential read for any teacher looking at teaching
in the Aboriginal community.
Sourced from http://peppermintmag.com/category/culture/, March 21, 2014

13. “The change in communication technologies that seems to happen almost
daily is both real and dramatic in the ways it is changing how young people
read and write with words and images”
Williams, B. T. (2008). “Tomorrow will not be like today”: Literacy and identity in a world of
multiliteracies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, (51)8, 682-686.
Williams’ injects some thought provoking comments in regards to the evolving
world of digital technologies. She raises some valid points about the
“differences between generations” and recognises the students of today do not
know any different in regards to digital technologies as they were born into it. A
common trend throughout her article is her lack of experience of utilising
digital literacy within a literacy programme and how she often feels out of her
depth when teaching using it, however; she does realise that there are various
online resources and personal development courses that are available not only
to herself but to other teachers feeling the same.
Sourced from http://multiliteraciespp107.blogspot.com.au/,
March 21, 2014

14. Classroom with Multiliteracies

15. Sourced from http://composing.org/digitalwrd/expanding-first-year-writing-learning-outcomes/,
March 20, 2014
Sourced from https://kielikompassi.jyu.fi/resurssikartta/netro/gradu/g_3_3_3.shtml,
March 20, 2014
Literacy and
Pedagogical
frameworks

16. “The four resources are interactive and not discrete resources
unconnected from one another – there is a good deal of overlap between
them”
Santoro, N. (2004). Using the four resources model across the curriculum. In A. Healy, &
E. Honan (Eds.), Text next : new resources for literacy learning (pp. 51-67). Newtown,
NSW: Primary English Teaching Association.
In this chapter the author theorizes that literacy is so much more than one’s
ability to read and write. The author educates the reader on the various types
of questions and activities that would be beneficial in order to engage a
student within a literacy program that involves the Four Resource Model - text
participating, analysing, using and code breaking. It provides clear and concise
examples that can be used across the curriculum and benefits not only the
students, but the teacher in order to meet literacy requirements.
Sourced from
http://www.angelamaiers.com/2008/07/the-
four-resour.html, March 21, 2014

17. This article, in acknowledgement to the ever changing social/online
environment, the New London Group introduces the word ‘multiliteracies’.
These authors put forward a credible argument in regards to the constraints
of how a traditional literacy program within a classroom can inhibit a
student’s needs and wants within their working and private life, when in
comparison to a multiliteracies approach. They within the article provide the
underpinnings of the ‘how’ and ‘what’ of literacy pedagogy. The author’s also
provide the ramifications of social advancement, all whilst outlining the six
design elements and the four components
that fall under the multiliteracies pedagogy
branch. It endorses the notion that literacy
pedagogy should be entwined with the
students lifeworld experiences.
“…one could say that it s fundamental purpose is to ensure that all
students benefit from learning in ways that allow them to participate fully in
public, community, and economic life”
The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures.
Harvard Education Review, 66)1. 60-93
Sourced from http://www.docstoc.com/docs/111132059/New-London-Group-A-
Pedagogy-of-Multiliteracies, March 20, 2014

18. Critical essay that synthesises the annotated texts
“A Multiliteracy theory keeps apace with the changes in technology and the ways in which communication technology has changed what it means to be a literate
person” (Peterson, Botelho, Jang & Kerekes, 2007). Being literate goes above and beyond the ability to read and write in the 21st Century. When we discuss literacy,
we have to include about how we can within the classroom complement our students comprehension of the digital technologies that they require to live astute and
productive lives. This critical essay aims to synthesise the ten annotated texts in order to highlight the multiliteracy concepts pivotal to an engaging pedagogical
literacy program. The themes that have been explored are; reinventing literacy in the 21st-century, the digital divide and literacy frameworks and pedagogy.
Santoro (2004) highlights the importance that there are several literacies – school, computer, out-of school, social and so on that can be characterised by a wide range
of written, spoke, aural, visual, digital and multimodal texts. This can be further supported by Bull & Anstey (2007) who claim that “a 21st-century multiliterate
individual needs to have the skills to consume all five semiotic systems (linguistic, visual, gestural, spatial and aural)”. In essence within the classroom the students not
only need to understand what they read (Schubert, 2009) but they need to have the opportunity to “develop critical thinking and critical literacy skills that become a
natural part of being an active citizen and an active reader of the ‘word and the world’. (Freire & Macedo, 1987, as cited in Meyer, 2010).
“Australian children are among the youngest and prolific users of the internet in the world, according to a new study that compared the experience of Australian
children aged 9-16 to those of their European counterparts” (Queensland University of Technology, n.d.) Through the internet children in the 21st Century are able to
have access to education websites, social networking sites, play games, listen to music and watch movies. “Widening levels of education seem to magnify the digital
divide; households with higher levels of education are increasingly more likely to use computers and the Internet” (Stanford University, n.d.), however, unfortunately
not every student has access to this technology and in essence Henderson (2011) points out that the digital divide between student’s homes and schools will continue
to widen as technology continues to develop.
Cloonan (2004) writes that “most primary teachers are ‘technophobes’. This bold statement could be due to the fact that the average age of a primary school teacher
is 42.1 years (ACER, 2012). Whilst “most young people in Australia have firsthand experience of a range of digital technologies” (Henderson, 2008) and have been born
into the evolving world of digital technologies, spare a thought for the primary school teachers who are trying to “make meaning in a world undergoing rapid and
intense changes wrought by technology and globalization”(Cloonan, 2004). Teachers have a general “concern that there is a lack of professional development courses”
(Meyer, 2010), resources, and computing systems in order to effectively incorporate meaningful multiliteracy learning programs. As Peterson et al (2007) injects
teachers should not to feel that they have to discard their current practices and tools that they currently utilise within the classroom in order to teach using a
multiliteracies perspective, they just need to look at making modifications.
“Even though much has been said about the need for teachers to ensure the ‘new’ literacies are included as part of classroom practice” (The New London Group,
1996; Anstey & Bull, 2006) the classroom has a limited range of multiliteracies (Henderson, 2011). This exacerbates the digital divide within the classroom as it
highlights that the divide is indeed between the rich range of technologies used in the home when in comparison to the “narrow and restricted practices engaged in
by schools and teachers” (Henderson, 2011). A student is somewhat defined by their “cultural and subcultural diversity and the different language backgrounds that
come with this diversity” (The New London Group, 1996) and in lieu of this it is important to link the student’s discourses and experiences within the classroom in
order to create a rich and engaging literacy program.
The challenges of working with students with diverse abilities mean that teachers need to be extremely flexible in their plans, instructions and tasks (Pirbhai-Illich,
2010) and also there seems to be a “few ways of escaping the fact that we are living through a moment in which literacy practices are being fundamentally altered
(Williams, 2008). In order to meet the social and cultural needs of the individual students that come through our classroom doors we need to ensure that a pedagogy
such as The Multiliteracies Pedagogy (The New London Group, 1996) is incorporated within the curriculum that the students are exposed to. This pedagogy meets the
requirements in order to produce citizens that are not only literate learners but also competent in meaning making in the 21st Century.

19. Self-reflection on ICT learning
My goal for this assignment was to incorporate a Web 2.0 platform that I had not previously been
exposed to and one that included the five semiotic systems (linguistic, visual, gestural, spatial and
aural) (Bull & Anstey, 2007). I was looking forward to challenging myself for this task as my exposure
to ICT’s previously has been limited. Whilst I was hoping to come out on the other side of this
assignment having learnt a bit more of what applications are available I can say that my Stage of
Interaction as per Finger, Russell, Jamieson-Proctor & Russell (2007) is still at the investigation stage.
Within the execution of this assignment I knew that I would have various barriers to face and these
were not ICT related. I had a very heavy workload on at work so I was working 12 hour days (plus
transport to and from the city) and then there was the admission to hospital twice. Both of these
operations were overnight or more stays and one of them left me pretty heavily sedated which
meant days were awash with recuperation and sleep. Whilst my university took a back seat over my
health I had to make the decision to simplify the Web 2.0 platform tool I was going to use as I could
not spare the time to fiddle around and watch tutorials on “how to use” a certain platform. In the end
I used PowerPoint (as it was easy to manage on my Samsung tablet) and Slide share. Both of these
applications provided me with the five semiotic systems that I wanted to incorporate.
I acknowledge the potential of incorporating ICTs within the classroom in order to create multimodal
texts that are rich in various design components. I realise that I have some work that I need to do in
my own time in order to successfully provide a succession of engaging and meaningful lessons and
myself become a proficient user of the ever evolving technologies in the 21st Century.

20. References
ACER. (2012). Painting a picture of the teaching workforce. Retrieved March 21, 2014, from
http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1099&context=resdev
Bull, G., & Anstey, M. (2007). What’s so different about multiliteracies? Curriculum & Leadership Journal, (5)11. Retrieved March 22,2014 from
http://www.curriculum.edu.au/leader/whats_so_different_about_multiliteracies,18881.html?issueID=10766
Cloonan, Anne. Multiliteracies in the Early Years: Filming and Professional Learning [online]. Australian Screen Education Online, No. 35, Winter 2004: 43-
46
Finger, G., Russell, G., Jamieson-Proctor, R., & Russell, N. (2007). Transforming learning with ICT: Making it happen. Frenchs Forest, NSW Australia: Pearson
Education Australia.
Henderson, R. (2008). It’s a Digital Life! Digital Literacies, Multiliteracies and Multimodality. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 16(2), 11-15.
Henderson, R. (2011). Classroom pedagogies, digital literacies and the home-school digital divide. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, (6)2,
152-161
Meyer, K. (2010). ‘Diving into Reading’: Revisiting Reciprocal Teaching in the Middle Years. Literacy Learning: the Middle Years, 18(1), 41-52
Peterson, S. S., Botelho, J., Jang, E. & Kerekes, J. (2007). Writing Assessment: What Would Multiliteracies Teachers Do? Literacy Learning: The Middle
Years, 15(1), 29-35.
Pirbhai-Illich, F. (2010). Aboriginal Students Engaging and Struggling with Critical Multiliteracies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, (54)4, 257-266.
Queensland University of Technology. (n.d). Media Release: Aussie Kids ‘Earliest Internet Users’. Retrieved March 21, 2014, from
http://www.cci.edu.au/about/media/media-release-aussie-kids-%E2%80%98earliest-internet-users%E2%80%99
Santoro, N. (2004). Using the four resources model across the curriculum. In A. Healy, & E. Honan (Eds.), Text next : new resources for literacy learning (pp.
51-67). Newtown, NSW: Primary English Teaching Association.
Schubert, M. (2009). Comprehension activities for the middle years of schooling: Teaching and learning to comprehend texts across the curriculum. Literacy
Learning: the Middle Years, 17(1), i-vii
Stanford University. (n.d.). Digital Divide. Retrieved March 21, 2014, from http://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/digital-divide/start.html
The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures. Harvard Education Review, 66)1. 60-93
Williams, B. T. (2008). “Tomorrow will not be like today”: Literacy and identity in a world of multiliteracies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, (51)8,
682-686.