Abstract
Developed by the New London Group in 1996 and based on the premise of hybridity, the concept of multiliteracies is deeply embedded in the paradigmatic changes brought about in languages by the advent and expansion of technology and virtualisation. In the same line as multiliteracies, new perspectives in language sciences converge towards complexity, multimodality and related concepts that question and redefine traditional and monolithic conceptions of the written text as the only admissible form of linguistic manifestation. In this chapter, we explore multiliteracies by drawing parallels between language studies and the teaching and learning of science, in particular physics. We investigate the extent to which physics trainee teachers display multiliteracy skills in their teaching–learning experience, focussing on their conceptual knowledge and understanding of the physics concept of free fall. Linguistic communication, action, visualisation and physics conceptual understanding form the components of the multiliteracy competencies. The trainee teachers manifested limited multiliteracy competencies as they experienced difficulties to articulate and to represent their ideas about physics concepts. We argue for an experience-driven, multimodal and multilliteracies-based conception of physics that goes beyond text-centrism. The task of the trainee teacher is not limited to only exploit, navigate and negotiate with multiliterate competencies, but also to solicit diverse linguistic repertoires in the (co)construction of knowledge through active meaning-making.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Alvermann, D. E., & Wilson, A. A. (2011). Comprehension strategy instruction for multimodal texts in science. Theory and Practice, 50(2), 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2011.558436.
Benveniste, E. (1966). Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.
Bell, J. C. (2014). Visual literacy skills of students in college-level Biology: Learning outcomes following digital or hand-drawing activities. The Canadian Journal for Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2014.1.6.
Carpooran, D. (2007). Appropriation du francais et pédagogie convergente dans l’Océan Indien: Interrogations, applications, propositions. Paris: Editions des Archives Contemporaines.
Charters, E. (2003). The use of think-aloud methods in qualitative research. An introduction to think-aloud methods. Brock Education, 12(2), 68–82.
Chinnappan, M. (2008). Productive pedagogies and deep mathematical learning in a globalised world. In P. Kell, W. Vialle, D. Konza, & G. Vogi (Eds.), Learning and the learner: Exploring learning for new times (pp. 181–193). University of Wollongong.
Claassen, G. (2007). Journalism and cultural literacy: An exploration towards a model for training journalism students. South African Journal for Communication Theory and Research, 21(1), 12–20.
Costley, C., Elliot, G., & Gibbs, P. (2010). Doing work based research: Approaches to enquiry for insider-researcher. Los Angeles: Sage Publications Ltd.
Crawford, I. (1997). Marketing research and information systems. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.
Drapper, D. C. (2015). Digital knowledge mapping as an instructional strategy to promote visual literacy: A case study, D. M. Baylen & A. D’Alba (Eds.). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05837-5_11.
Engel, P. (2007). ≪Experience≫ Dictionnaire des concepts philosophiques, M. Blay (Ed.). Paris: Larousse & CNRS Editions.
Fortus, D. (2009). The importance of learning to make assumptions. Science Education, 93, 86–108.
Freebody, P. (2007). Literacy education in schools: Research perspectives from the past, for the future. Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading, and learning: Theoretical and practical considerations. Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 191–209.
Hidi, S. (2006). Interest: A unique motivational variable. Educational Research Review, 1, 69–82.
Holstermann, N., Grube, D., & Bogeholz, S. (2010). Hand-on activities and their influence on students’ interest. Research in Science Education, 40, 743–757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9142-0.
Jewitt, C. (2005). Multimodality, “reading” and “writing” for the 21st century. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 26(3), 315–331.
Jewitt, C., Kress, G., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Exploring learning through visual, actional and linguistic communication: The multimodal environment of a science classroom. Educational Review, 53(1), 5–18.
Kibble, B. (2006). Understanding forces: What’s the problem? Physics Education, 41(3), 228–231.
Lemke, J. (2004). The literacies of science. In E. Wendy Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction. (pp. 33–47). Newark, DE: International Reading Association and Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Lemke, J. (1987). Talking science: Content, conflict, and semantics. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association meeting, Washington DC, 1987. Arlington VA: ERIC Documents Service (ED 282 402).
Llyod, P., & Scott, P. (1994). Discovering the design problem. Design Studies, 15, 125–140.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92.
Newman, M. (2005). Rap as literacy: A genre analysis of Hip-Hop ciphers. Text, 3, 399–436.
Oksuz, Y. (2016). Evaluation of emotional literacy activities: A phenomenological study. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(36), 34–39.
Robillard, D. (2008a). Perspectives alterlinguistiques (Vol. 1). Paris: Démons: l”Harmattan.
Robillard, D. (2008b). Perspectives alterlinguistiques (Vol. 2). Paris: Ornithorynque: L’Harmattan.
Rowsell, J., & Walsh, M. (2011). Rethinking literacy education in new times: Multimodality, multiliteracies, and new literacies. Brock Education, 21(1), 53–62.
Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Recommended Resources
Recommended Resources
Ajayi, L. (2010). Preservice teachers’ knowledge, attitudes, and perception of their preparation to teach multiliteracies/multimodality. The Teacher Educator, 46(1), 6–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2010.488279.
Charters, E. (2003). The use of think-aloud methods in qualitative research: An introduction to think-aloud methods. Brock Education, 12(2), 68–82.
Leander, K., & Boldt, G. (2012). Rereading “A pedagogy of multiliteracies”: Bodies, texts, and emmergence. Journal of Literacy Research, 45(1), 22–46.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Oozeerally, S., Ramma, Y., Bholoa, A. (2020). Multiliteracies—New London Group. In: Akpan, B., Kennedy, T.J. (eds) Science Education in Theory and Practice. Springer Texts in Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43620-9_22
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43620-9_22
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-43619-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-43620-9
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)