I lacked a plan. Or at least that’s what my parents thought about my choice to major in English, Psychology, and TV / Radio Production. It was no shock to them that I failed to find a starting position in any of these fields after graduating college. With a combination of parental advice and substitute teaching, I went back to college for my certificate in elementary education. Turned out that my dual degrees were good for something after all.
My undergraduate focus in cognitive and developmental psychology classes primed me for theories of teaching and learning. Seeking a better use for my English degree, I pursued literacy education – particularly in the field of emergent readers and writers. Having completed all the course offerings in developmental literacy, registered for secondary courses in English education.
I was able to successfully culminate my previous experiences towards a purposeful goal. It was the blend of substitute teaching, focus in literacy, and having student taught fifth grade that I landed a job teaching sixth grade language arts. I was onto something; it was after my second year teaching middle school that I made the decision to return to college- this time to pursue a Masters in Literacy Education.
My new plan was simple: continue coursework in literacy; while at the same time earn the state certificate in supervision and curriculum. It just so happened that my first graduate course at Rutgers was the National Writing Project’s (NWP) Invitational Summer Institute. The NWP focused my professional trajectory: I established a strong professional network, deepened my knowledge on the teaching of writing, and fell into the executive position as Technology Liaison (TL).
At that time, I had little formal training in computers and communication technology- only a working knowledge. Through my position with the NWP, I was able to tap into a national network of TL’s. We constantly communicate through a listserv (system of mass emails) about the topics of writing and technology. The NWP also hosts an annual convention, where the TL’s gather face-to-face to demonstrate and discuss the latest technologies. I credit my technology expertise to my work with the NWP and association with the national TL network.
When I first entered college, I failed to bridge a connection between Psychology, English, and TV / Radio Production. Add to that mix my recent pursuit of recent pursuit of technology and literacy education. Using the lens of New Literacy, I have a better understanding how these seemingly disparate fields relate. These are my professional funds of knowledge- how my personal interests have filtered into my approach to teaching middle school language arts, and have fueled my interest in New Literacies. I thought it essential to provide my background in these fields to better understand my reflection on modality in the classroom.
Since my first year of teaching, it felt natural to incorporate various modalities into the teaching of writing. Take for example, the sixth grade Literary Day assignment. Literary Day is an opportunity for the students to practice oration; at the core, the project is about reciting poetry- moving text into the mode of speech.
The students also have to present three index cards: an introspective account why they choose the poem; identify particular literary devices such as alliteration, rhyme, repetition, etc.; and explain the meaning / imagery of the poem.
The students also needed to depict the poem, choosing from an array of artistic expression – collage, photography, illustration, or student-created computer images. Finally, they must also present a three-dimensional prop. This prop can serve as either a physical symbol into the meaning of the poem, or be dramatically incorporated into the presentation of the poem. There are six presentation dates throughout the year- this allows the students to attempt a variety of presentation / artistic styles and choose from several authors.
I now see this project as inherently multimodal, as students represent poetry text through speech, art, physical dramatization, physical representation, and sometimes technology (a handful of students choose PowerPoint as a vehicle for presentation). I am fascinated how the students move the poem through these various modes. Even though I may hear Shel Silverstein or Jack Prelutsky for the umpteenth time, no two presentations are ever the same.
In another example, I used various modes to teach commercial propaganda. In the first half of the unit, student worked to gain an understanding of five propaganda techniques: bandwagon, testimonial, transfer, emotional appeal, and repetition. Once they had a working knowledge, the students were required to identify these techniques in various media: magazine ads, radio, TV, and Internet pop-ups / banners.
The idea was to get them to think about how each propaganda technique worked in each media. For example, how the careful repeated placement of a corporate logo in a magazine ad differs from a radio ad that continually repeats the brand name through a jingle. The students would understand that the Repetition technique was common to both ads, although the modes differed.
In the second half of the assignment, students worked to create a TV commercial to advertise an imaginary product. They were required to write a TV script, collect / create various props, act out the script, and record onto a camcorder (without editing). Here is an example of another assignment that pushes a text through the various modes: written, vocal, physical movement, artistic / symbolic props, iconic logos, and video. Although very little writing is produced (about a page’s worth of dialogue), the students were challenged to work through these various other modes.
My ultimate objective is to shape the students into a more conscientious consumer, not as affected by the gloss of commercialism. That is somewhat of a lofty goal- the advertising agencies are just too craft in their attempt to create felt needs. Although, at least the students have a better understanding of “why” as they are lulled into that siren song of advertisements.
At the end of every school year, I have the student complete a form to provide me some positive feedback. Over the last five years, the students have consistently reported the Literary Day and propaganda project as their favorite assignments of the year. In light of recent graduate courses, I am beginning to wonder if the multimodal nature of these assignments has something to do with this fact. That is to say that I’ve never attempted to uncover the “why” behind these student responses.
Last year, the state reported one subgroup scored below par on the NJ ASK- our standardized test. Under the Federal mandate No Child Left Behind, we are now labeled as a failing school. The district Supervisor of Curriculum has shared with me a concern to promote more writing instruction across all grade levels. She commented that teachers would need to cut out the “Crayoloa Curriculum” – a term she uses to describe projects that have more glitter than substance.
I’m not once to be wavered by testing pressures. I feel that these assignments are covered under the NJ Core Curriculum Standards, despite not being assessed on the standardized test. However, her comment prompted me to consider how I could use concepts of New Literacies to better teach writing, particularly the genres of writing that are more likely to appear on the state standardized assessments; how I can create multimodal writing lessons to improve the quality of student writing.
This is the district purchased Lucy Calkins Units of Study – an intensive writing program developed by Columbia University’s Teachers College and adopted by New York City public schools. Going with the adage “Write what you know”, this curriculum begins with the “Personal Narrative” writing genre before moving into the “Personal Essay” (think National Public Radio’s “This I Believe” series). The writing units then progress towards the more unfamiliar fictional narrative and academic essay. Secondly, the program narrows writing instruction to naming specific writing strategies that can be used across writing genre. The students should be able to name the strategy, identify it in the work of a published author, and use the strategy in their own writing.
The students begin the year journaling to various writing prompts. For example, one prompt asks the students to list a series of moments: proudest, scariest, most embarrassing, a time when they were most happy, memory about a particular family member, a first, etc. Then, they move from the journal to create a “life map” – a timeline of their life. The timeline follows Western reading paths, and generally moves from top right to bottom left. I have them construct the line as a ray, with an arrow at the end to show that their life continues onward. The students then place these events in chronological order, identifying each event with a title, or caption, and a small iconic image. The life map is used as one particular writing strategy to generate a list of suitable topics for writing the personal narrative.
I then pulled two particular writing strategies from Barry Lane’s book, Reviser’s Toolbox. The first is the use of a “Snapshot” – using language to create a strong mental image in the reader’s mind. I have the students choose one particular memory, and depict is as a full-page color illustration. I model the strategy, portraying the important aspects of my memory in good symbolic representation (not necessarily great artistic representation). This is to emphasize the significance of the image, and downplay art for arts sake. After the students sketch their memory, they journal the experience, now using language to replace the visual symbol. This strategy makes use of the visual mode as a means to generate descriptive writing.
Another named strategy borrowed from Barry Lane is the use of “thought shot” – or the use of language to express emotion and thoughts. The students pull another memory from their life map, and narrate the event in a paired setting. The orator is instructed to take notice of vocal quality as they narrate. The listener is instructed to prompt the narrator with questions, to reveal what they were thinking or feeling at that particular moment in the narration. After, the students journal this experience, using language to express how they were feeling. This strategy utilizes speech as a means to generate introspective writing.
Using these two journals as my gateway activity, I actively teach the terminology of “snapshot” and “thought shot” to the students. I also included the icons of a square (representing a photograph) and thought bubble as iconic representation of these writing strategies. As a follow up activity, I distribute a handout “Divorce Rules”, by Elizabeth Kerlikowske. This vignette was carefully selected for the author’s use of thought and snapshots. The students then highlight the snapshot sentences in one color, thought shots in a second color, and dialogue in a third color. I elicit responses, and follow along on an overheard transparency. This activity uses these colors and icons to demonstrate how the author alternates between these three writing techniques.
At this point, the students have composed journal entries, formally learned snapshots and thought shots, and analyzed an author’s use of these techniques; they are now ready to write a personal narrative with more technique than their previous entries. As an observation, the students were more prepared to begin writing their personal narratives. This leads me to action research question: Do writing lessons that utilize various modes in the prewriting stage produce different quality writing than a more traditional approach? More specifically, will student writing reflect the various modes such as visual, gesture, auditory, etc. How do they combine modalities in their writing?
