Multimodality and assessment Stornaiuolo, A., Hull, G., & Nelson, M. (2009). Mobile Texts and migrant audiences: Rethinking literacy and assessment in a new media age. Language Arts, 82 (5), 382-92.
- In this article, the authors argue that young people growing up in a digitally mediated educational milieu have “wide-ranging opportunities to choose how to represent themselves in relationship with others (pp. 383 of original text).” Does this argument seem somewhat naïve or romanticized in that these very same young people face far greater constraints, where identity construction is concerned, i.e., available selves, vis-à-vis their more affluent white counterparts?
- The authors argue for a re-conceptualization of the current measurements, which seek to gauge young people’s cognitive abilities/capabilities. More specifically, they argue for assessments that take into account poor, marginalized students’ multimodal, culturally-informed, pre-existent identities. If these types of measurements are enacted, what if any, effect do you feel they will have on the lives of young people whose lived experiences mirror the students highlighted in this paper?
Stein, Pippa. (2004). Representation, rights, and resources: Multimodal pedagogies in the language and literacy classroom. In Bonny Norton & Kelleen Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and language learning (95-115). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- The author argues that: “Classrooms are semiotic [meaning-making] spaces in which multimodal texts are constantly being produced and transformed by human beings who are the agents of their own meaning-making (pp. 98 of original text).” Do you agree with this line of thinking? More to the point—are students truly “agents of their own meaning-making” or are they identities, in fact, informed and (re)configured by the institutions and structures that they are enmeshed within? (This doesn’t have to be an “either/or” argument.)
- Do you agree with Stein’s argument that language is limited? What does she mean by this? Please explain.
The author’s argument gets its credit for acknowledging somewhat unlimited capability that digital media has in telecommunication and in various methods representing its users. Especially, a variety of ways to represent someone make the importance of enhanced understanding of the role of audiences emphasized because the more different ways to represent someone are the more manners to interpret those various representations exist. The audiences correspond to ‘others’ in quoted sentence from the original text. In other words, even though many adolescents who are more accustomed to digitalized characters and symbols have a choice of options to select how to characterize themselves in relationship with others, the relationship they tend to make cannot last long without understandings of the audiences. Those understandings range from the cerebral ability to use digital tools and interpret somewhat new symbols in digital world to economical capability to afford digital tools or to learn how to use the tools. For those who do not have enough intellectual and economical capacity, these understandings become restrictions, and needless to say, they don’t even have an opportunity to construct their identity on digitally mediated educational environment, which possibly results in digitalized discrimination. In this point of view, the author’s argument seems quite naïve.
ReplyDeleteThe authors feel it necessary to amend the “old basics” of educational learning measurement. They feel that standardized testing and other neutral assessments are rather neutral and “[tell] people how they should be valued and how to value others” (914). Every person is intelligent and possesses an individual talent or skill that may not be measurable by, for example the SAT test. Though the prior system is fair and more objective in making, the “new basics” of measuring ability are proposed as “multiple semiotic systems” that support a “redefinition of literacy using a multiliteracies framework” (914-915). This would incorporate not just looking at speech or writing, but understanding how various modes blend together so that we can understand how a child’s choices and inherent decision-making change based on what he or she learns in school. One suggestion given in the text is to assess something that the child is already involved in, such as technology for some or poetry for others. This is not easy to quantify, and then again learning and improvement are not always perfectly enumerated. If a measurement system is devised not to judge students but to work with each student to help him or her learn, it will be very beneficial. A personalized plan will slow down or speed up to accommodate the learning style of the students, and rather than “[suppressing] multimodal communication and representation (914),” education will encourage it and motivate students to enjoy in-school and out-of-school learning (Ambe). However, a great debate always engages in terms of school equity; a school may not always have the resources to work with each individual student. But the day that these side-problems can be resolved and education can indeed become personalized and associated with the problem-posing model of education (Friere), students of all backgrounds and identities will thrive and excel.
ReplyDeleteWhen the author writes that “classrooms are semiotic spaces” I do agree with this to an extent but the argument raised in the question—about how it might really be the institutions that we are enmeshed in that are dictating our meaning-making rather than ourselves as agents—is compelling. I feel many times it’s the modes that the teacher provides us that allows us to explore meaning-making by ourselves. I think it’s true that once we find ourselves in modes that we are comfortable in, like Lungile’s “performative” mode, it is then that we are able to become agents. However, if the teacher only offers projects and assignments in writing, then we are subjected to follow that mode, which might be something that is not culturally provocative for us. In order to truly make your identity, it is important to have access to multimodal opportunities that you let you express yourself and also are able to consider your cultural and historical background.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to Stein’s argument about how language is limited, I do agree with that. She specifically puts in the context of AIDS/HIV and sexuality but I feel it can apply across many genres. Language is delimiting. There are times where it cannot express things in the historical/cultural context. Language sometimes cannot account for social taboos that exist in society. To the point, language can at times be too expressive and explicit. This is when you need modes in performance and gesture that can facilitate communication without use of the spoken word.
I agree with the need of a re-conceptualization of current educational measurements, for as they stand they fail to fully take into account the multiplicity of cognizance and intelligence. While, I think the standards that exist in the educational system carry some importance and ought to be measured in some capacity, I do not believe that they ought to be the only facets measured. To hold all students and individuals to the standards that exist does not take a fair measurement of the cognitive capacities of these individuals. Instead the current standards should a sub set of a varied system that includes the multimodal capacities that students posses. I think that for students that come from similar experiences as those listed in the article would feel a sense of validation if they saw a positive value placed on the ways of communication they are accustomed to. The stifling precision and demand of formality in letter writing is an unfamiliar are for many and to be evaluated on such a form that may or may not have much relevance in that students life could be detrimental to that students confidence should they score poorly. Contrastively, if the day-to-day, common style of communication were validated through evaluation, that validation could transcend to the student, as they too could see value in their day lives. Transcending the stifling formalities that are pervasive in educational standards could be benefit students in demonstrating an appreciation of common tasks that the students see daily, adding a positive value in their daily lives.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Stein’s line of thinking that classrooms are semiotic spaces where people produce and transform multimodal texts. I think students are truly “agents of their own meaning-making” in the active tense more than they are configured by institutions and structures in the passive tense. As much as there are things happening inside the classroom, students are affects by what happens out the classroom as well. Also within the classroom, there are verbal and nonverbal signs the students make to communicate amongst themselves. One example from my experience was when I heard a group of boys yelling “Scat!” often in class. When I asked one of them why, he replied, “We’re not supposed to say the real word.” It took me a while to realize that Scat was a substituted word for Shit (I hope you excuse this bit of profanity please). The boys had other words like scat that substituted for other forbidden words inside the classroom. In a way, I felt that they had created their own semiotic space that did not clash with the classroom space, but still allowed them to express themselves the way they wanted to. One can argue that they were informed by the institution to not say certain words, but the idea of coming together to come up with words that only the insiders should know came from the boys’ imagination and will to make meaning. I like to think of occasions like these to be a cause, effect, and cause instead of a cause and effect. Although students are affected by institutions and society’s structures, I still believe that students can feel the effect and come up with their own cause. Like place-making, I believe there is meaning-making that goes on amongst human beings.
ReplyDeleteAddressing the first question regarding the Stornaiuolo, Hull, and Nelson readings, I believe that there might be an element of romanticism or naïveté in the authors' assertion that students have "wide ranging opportunities" in the construction of a digital self identity, however, the creation of an online identity is a powerful weapon against the perception of immutability of identity vis-a-vis more socioeconomically advantaged counterparts. In my experience in the Space2Cre8 lab at SMDP, the childrens' digital identities are varied and complex, and striking in their difference from the kids outward personas. Jackie is quite forward and gregarious in her social life, while her page is nearly bare, without even a picture to represent herself, while Victor is a quiet student who has a strong image on his Space2Cre8 page. There is a great dichotomy between a student's digital persona vs their real persona. This might weaken the postulate that the kids images are constrained by the social caste system that they are unwillingly apart of. I think that there certainly is a constraint in the image that poor minority children can have about themselves, due to the prevalence of subjugation of the minority class in both minority and majority communities, but I also believe that electronic media gives the children a way to break out of this mold. This is because the social caste system was created by and serves the old white men of the world, and because of this, social media provides an outlet created by the new generation (not subject to *all* the rules and restrictions of the dominant social hegemony). This allows the minority children to create a new dialogue. I'm not arguing that it isn't difficult to create a new dialogue, but rather that if children work with ferocious determination then they can be successful in implementing a new story that describes their social identity.
ReplyDeletePippa Stein--
ReplyDeleteI somewhat agree with this line of reasoning, as I follow steins' example of the girl that I expresses a single concept in three modalities and identifies the other that she performs, claiming that other modes may behoove the typical single stream writing mode. I believe that the expression of self through multiple media is a better practice than forcing a single form. Where I do not completely agree with Stein is in her claim that students are “agents of their own meaning making.” Regardless whether you are in post-apartheid South Africa, or in institutionalized America, all individuals exist and express in response and in accord to the structures that dictate their daily lives. No individual is a true agent, free of influence or force. To claim that a student, or any individual, has her own autonomous agency is shortsighted and an incomplete analysis of the interconnectedness of all institutions. Rather, individuals perform in constant reaction to institutions or the influence of those institutions. Some degree of agency may appear in how they react to those influences, but they are, no less, guided by institutions. Such influences are so powerful that hey can can shift and skew the interpretation of one individual compare to some other individual. One sign may mean one thing for one, and something completely opposite for another, based on the experiences that each individual has had. AS this relates to eduction, I think a holistic approach ought to be employed when examining the modalities of expression. While Stein proposes an overhaul overall, I would propose a case by case examination of how each student prefers how to express himself, as it it will vary, depending on his or her past experiences.
This argument doesn’t seem naïve to me at all. While it of course might be true that a non-white child might (and that is a big might, I’m not necessarily agreeing with that) have less opportunity in terms of identity construction, that would not change the fact that they still have “wide-.ranging opportunities to choose how to represent themselves.” This is particularly true if we think of the situation today as compared to the situation in times past, which is more the author’s point, in my opinion. The author is talking about how the advent of new technologies, particularly the computer and internet technologies that have allowed for the rise, spread, and explosive growth of social media, have afforded today’s youth a true plethora of manner in which to express themselves, construct their own identities, and fool the world into thinking that they are who they are.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think it’s even necessarily a positive thing that people have these new, rather artificial ways to express themselves. Rather than being judged by their actions and character, today’s youth can simply join a predefined group by listening to certain kinds of music, posting certain kinds of pictures on their facebook profiles, buying and wearing certain kinds of clothes popularized through both mass and social media. But it is definitely true that there are many more identities available to children today, and many more ways to express themselves.