Multimodal Pedagogies for Teacher Education in TESOL

TEACHING ISSUES TESOL Quarterly publishes brief commentaries on aspects of English language teaching. Edited by PHAN LE HA University of Hawai‘i at M a noa Multimodal Pedagogies for Teacher Education in TESOL YOUNGJOO YI The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio, United States TUBA ANGAY-CROWDER Georgia State University Atlanta, Georgia, United States As a growing number of English language learners (ELLs) engage in digital and multimodal literacy practices in their daily lives, teachers are starting to incorporate multimodal approaches into their instruction. However, anecdotal and empirical evidence shows that teachers often feel unprepared for integrating such practices into their curricula (Coyle, Ya~ nez, & Verd u, 2010; Sadik, 2008). This particular concern has led the authors of this essay to examine ways in which multimodal literacy practices can be integrated into teacher education for teaching English to speakers of other languages (TESOL). This Teaching Issues article describes how the first author designed and implemented two multimodal practices for preservice and in-service teacher education programs in the United States. The essay highlights the challenges of incorporating multimodal practices into teacher education (e.g., epistemological issues, instructional challenges, and teachers’ resistance to multimodal practices). The authors offer suggestions for overcoming those challenges and propose future directions for TESOL teacher education and professional development. doi: 10.1002/tesq.326 988 TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 50, No. 4, December 2016 © 2016 TESOL International Association A growing number of English language learners (ELLs) engage in digital and multimodal practices in their daily lives. For instance, many ELLs make PowerPoint presentations in school; maintain social networking sites by using texts, photos, and videos; and design and upload multimodal videos on websites such as YouTube. Recent research has shown that multimodal practices enable ELLs to develop multiliteracy skills (Vinogradova, Linville, & Bickel, 2011), enhance critical perspectives of sociopolitical issues (Ajayi, 2008), negotiate their identities (Wilson, Chavez, & Anders, 2012), and become motivated to engage in autonomous and independent learning (Hafner & Miller, 2011). In addition, digital and multimodal literacy is a significant social tool to enhance students’ career and employability skills. As ELLs engage in a wide range of multimodal practices, teachers’ pedagogies are starting to change to integrate digital and multimodal practices into their instruction (Rance-Roney, 2010; Smythe & Neufeld, 2010). Yet, when attempting to engage their students in digital and multimodal practices, teachers often face some challenges. Anecdotal and empirical evidence shows that many teachers do not feel prepared for multimodal pedagogies (Coyle, Ya~ nez, & Verd u, 2010; Sadik, 2008). In particular, they feel that they lack the required skills or training to design and deliver multimodal practices into their instruction. This particular concern has led us to examine issues around how and to what extent multimodal pedagogies can and should be addressed or integrated into teacher education in teaching English to speakers of other languages (TESOL). In this article, we discuss issues related to implementing multimodal pedagogies into TESOL teacher education by describing ways in which Yi, as a teacher educator, designed and implemented two multimodal practices for preservice and in-service teachers in TESOL teacher education programs in the United States. In particular, we focus on the challenges of incorporating multimodal pedagogies into teacher education and make some suggestions for overcoming them in order to enhance teacher education and ELL pedagogy. In doing so, we aim to propose future directions for TESOL teacher education and professional development. & THEORETICAL FRAMING FOR MULTIMODAL PEDAGOGIES In this article, the term multimodal pedagogies is used as a comprehensive term that encompasses “curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment practices which focus on mode as a defining feature of communication in learning environments” (Stein & Newfield, 2006, p. 9). Two TEACHING ISSUES 989 theoretical constructs, multimodality and multiliteracies, are especially significant in conceptualizing and enacting multimodal pedagogies. First, multimodality is an interdisciplinary, social semiotic approach that understands communication and representation as the integration of multiple modes for meaning making. Here mode is understood as a “regularized and organized set of resources for meaning-making, including, image, gaze, gesture, movement, music, speech, and soundeffect” (Jewitt & Kress, 2003, p. 1). Multimodality researchers argue that multimodal resources (e.g., linguistic codes, visuals, sounds, and gestures) are socially constructed over a period of time, and people tend to intentionally orchestrate (by, for example, selecting and configuring) these multiple modes for meaning making. With emerging media and technologies, multimodality is often considered as digital, but “multimodality is not synonymous with the digital” (Early, Kendrick, & Potts, 2015, p. 454). Students have long produced multimodal texts in both print and digital forms (e.g., brochures, posters, and videos). The second construct, multiliteracies, was proposed to overcome the limitations of traditional language-based approaches to literacy pedagogy by emphasizing that the strategic use of multiple communication channels and media and the consideration of increasing linguistic and cultural diversity are critical to students’ academic careers and civic lives (New London Group, 1996, p. 60). As a new pedagogy of literacy, multiliteracies suggests a theory of pedagogy that integrates four components or approaches to education, namely, “situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing, and transformed practice” (New London Group, 1996, p. 83). These four components can be an important foundation for multimodal pedagogies (for more detailed descriptions about how we designed and implemented tasks that were aligned with these four components to engage multilingual adolescents in exploring multiple literacies, see Angay-Crowder, Choi, & Yi, 2013). Interestingly, multimodality and multiliteracies are often used together or interchangeably without distinguishing the two terms from each other; however, Rowsell and Walsh (2011) eloquently explain the relationship between the two as follows: Multimodality is the field that takes account of how individuals make meaning with different kinds of modes. Multiliteracies is a pedagogy developed by the New London Group . . . . Designing on-screen has not only transformed how we make meaning, but also transformed ways of reconstructing and renegotiating our identities. Multimodality comes first in that it informs how we make meaning, and multiliteracies, as a possible pedagogy, give us tools for doing so . . . . Multiliteracies as a 990 TESOL QUARTERLY pedagogy simultaneously account for linguistic diversity and the use of multimodalities in communication. (pp. 55–56) IMPLEMENTATION OF MULTIMODAL PRACTICES INTO TESOL TEACHER EDUCATION In this section, we briefly describe ways in which a TESOL teacher educator (Yi) designed and implemented two multimodal practices into TESOL teacher education courses in the United States. All these multimodal practices were theoretically grounded (Jewitt & Kress, 2003; New London Group, 1996). Creating Multimodal Projects for Teacher Learning Drawing upon a principle of “teachers first” (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003) that addresses “teachers’ needs in learning new technologies and their relations to language and literacy even before addressing the needs of students” (p. 66), Yi adapted a print-based term paper assignment into a multimodal project1 in her course titled “Applied Linguistics for ESOL/Bilingual Teachers.” This course, required for both ESOL licensure students (12 preservice teachers) and ESOL endorsement students (4 in-service teachers), teaches essential theories and concepts in second language acquisition (SLA) and learning. Description of this multimodal project in the course syllabus is as follows: In the final project, you should multimodally demonstrate (a) your understanding of some key concepts, terminology, or theories in the teaching and learning of language(s), (b) your application of selected concepts to actual teaching, and (c) ways in which these concepts and theories are taken up by ELLs. This multimodal project was implemented with the aim of helping ESOL teachers to learn SLA concepts, apply their theoretical knowledge in classroom practice, and represent their knowledge multimodally. Teachers in this course created and uploaded their multimodal projects using different software and resources, including Microsoft PowerPoint, Movie-maker, iMovie, Prezi, Storybird, Voicethread, Weebly, and YouTube. 1 This project was initially conceptualized by Yi and eventually co-constructed by her and her colleague. Yi implemented this project to her face-to-face course, and her colleague implemented it in her online course. TEACHING ISSUES 991 Designing Multimodal Instructional Materials to Teach ELLs In another course, “Language Arts and ESL Instruction,” teachers (22 preservice teachers and 8 in-service teachers) were asked to create multimodal instructional materials to help ELLs enhance their second language (L2) literacy learning.2 Unlike the previous multimodal project, this project gave teachers an opportunity to make their own multimodal material to teach ELLs academic literacy. More specifically, they designed a 5-minute digital story that could be used as a pre-reading activity to scaffold a literature passage or content area reading. They first designed a lesson plan for reading instruction in which they used at least two pre-reading strategies that were discussed in the course and then created their digital story within the context of their reading lesson. The majority of the teachers used either iMovie or Movie-maker software to create their digital story and later uploaded their multimodal instructional videos on YouTube or a course website. As an instructor of both classes, Yi offered several minilessons and workshops on multimodality, multimodal texts, and technological aspects of designing multimodal texts. Some literature (e.g., RanceRoney, 2010; Smythe & Neufeld, 2010; Wilson et al., 2012) and several websites (e.g., www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc-qjmdetp8&feature=youtube; digitalstorytelling.coe.uh.edu) were introduced to the class in order to help teachers develop their multimodal projects. CHALLENGES FOR TEACHER EDUCATION As we aim to discuss issues in the integration of multimodal pedagogies into teacher education, in this section we explore challenges3 that a teacher educator (Yi) has faced with multimodal practices across the two contexts described above. One of the fundamental challenges of incorporating multimodal practices into teacher education seems to pertain to epistemological issues in relation to what counts as knowledge and what counts as academic literacies. For instance, when Yi initially conceptualized a multimodal learning project for teachers in her applied linguistics course, she had to carefully consider (a) whether what teachers gain from designing multimodal projects is significant teacher knowledge and (b) 2 Yi created this multimodal practice drawing upon digital projects that were examined in Rance-Roney’s (2010) study. 3 Challenges discussed in this section were identified based on our qualitative analysis of data collected from the two contexts described in the previous section. The data analyzed for this paper include Yi’s teaching journal from the first context as well as her field notes, interviews, and multimodal projects from the second context. 992 TESOL QUARTERLY whether multimodal literacies that teachers engage in through this project are legitimate academic literacies in a graduate level course. Further, she reconsidered “what counts as legitimate representation” (Romero & Walker, 2010, p. 213) when she asked teachers to represent their SLA knowledge multimodally. Yi grappled with these questions partly because she as a researcher and teacher educator had been familiar with academic literacy practices at institutions where the linguistic and print-based modes of meaning making and communication tended to be considered more rigorous and legitimate than new representational forms and multimodality. She realized that while she practiced a traditional, language-based approach to teaching and learning, she tended to emphasize the teaching and learning of written and spoken linguistic codes and was restricting her students to traditional printbased writing in TESOL education courses. A language-based approach is quite limiting because the contemporary communicative landscape “requires addressing the full range of semiotic resources used within a community and/or society” (Early et al., 2015, p. 448). Second, issues of assessment have been another ongoing challenge. The initial issue involved deciding which elements or components should be considered to evaluate multimodal projects in the courses. When designing rubrics for the multimodal project, Yi drew heavily upon rubrics that were used to evaluate teachers’ content knowledge. Only a few criteria (e.g., use of nonlinguistic modes and coordination of multiple modes) to evaluate the designing aspects of multimodal projects were added to rubrics. Further, when Yi evaluated multimodal projects, she realized that she did not have information about why certain images, fonts, or background music were intentionally selected and coordinated. By the same token, one preservice teacher in the language arts and ESL instruction course reported in an interview with Yi (October 3, 2014) that she wished that she could have had an opportunity to explain why she selected a certain font, image, color, pacing, and so forth for her multimodal instructional material. In a promising sense, some researchers have recently addressed the issue of assessment for multimodal products. For instance, Hung, Chiu, and Yeh (2013) developed a theory-driven design rubric in order to evaluate Taiwanese college students’ English presentations on topics of their choice, but this rubric did not necessarily consider content knowledge. Nonetheless, the design rubric can be helpful in evaluating the designing aspects of multimodal products, but Yi has faced challenges developing a rubric that can be used to evaluate both teachers’ content knowledge and the design of multimodal projects. In addition, Yi noticed some teachers’ resistance to digitally mediated multimodal practices. This resistance to multimodal practices seems to stem from teachers’ concerns, challenges, and negative TEACHING ISSUES 993 attitudes toward multimodal practices. Here, we discuss this issue by drawing upon findings from recent first language (L1) and L2 studies. A growing body of research has revealed that, while many teachers acknowledge the value of multimodal practices for teaching and learning, some have reported concerns such as (a) lack of content knowledge and technological skills to effectively implement multimodal practices into instruction (Shanahan, 2013), (b) lack of resources and administrative support, (c) time constraints, and (d) pressure to prepare their students to pass standardized testing (Tan, Bopry, & Guo, 2010). In addition, some preservice teachers “struggled to craft an argument, to think with image, and to maintain authorial control of the reader’s/viewer’s experience” even though they identified themselves as strong writers and fluent technology users (Hundley & Holbrook, 2013, p. 504). Further, some teachers held skeptical views of digital and multimodal practices for two specific reasons. First, some teachers claimed that they often experience tensions between the digitally and multimodally mediated practices and the print-based unimode of assessment (Tan et al., 2010). Second, some teachers reported feeling doubtful about the positive impact of multimodal practices upon student academic achievement (Coyle et al., 2010; Sadik, 2008). In our view, these teachers’ concerns and constraints are likely to increase their psychological barriers to integrating multimodal practices into their instruction. Importantly, such barriers and resistance of teachers seem to hinder teacher educators who would like to integrate multimodal practices into teacher education from doing so. Yi has had a similar experience noted here. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHER EDUCATORS IN TESOL We have discussed some challenges that arise as multimodal practices are incorporated into TESOL teacher education. In this final section, we make some suggestions for teacher educators and propose future directions for teacher education and professional development. The most critical step is to reconceptualize various aspects of multimodal practices. First, we (teacher educators and teachers alike) should reexamine our views and perceptions of what multimodal practices are. Often, multimodal practices are “seen only as either useful extensions or helpful interventions for high-performing and at-risk students respectively” (Tan & McWilliam, 2009, p. 203). We need to (a) challenge our preconception that text-based linguistic modes and recourses are more legitimate than nonlinguistic modes and resources 994 TESOL QUARTERLY (e.g., image, sound), and (b) reexamine our pedagogical beliefs about “the status/design of non-print and print-mixed modes as ways of knowing and communicating” (Miller, 2007, p. 63). In doing so, we are likely to explore our own bias toward multimodal practices for academic purposes and see “multimodal possibilities as resources for learning and communication” (Abiria, Early, & Kendrick, 2013, p. 571). Here a cautionary note is necessary: with a multimodal perspective we argue for using the full range of multiple modes for meaning making, but do not intend to underestimate the importance of the multilinguality of ELLs in their multimodal practices. Multilinguality is a vital resource for ELLs in their language learning, and we should continue to tap into our students’ multilinguality by encouraging them to use multiple languages in their multimodal presentations. In addition, there is an urgent need to reconceptualize assessment in order to allow learners (in-service and preservice teachers in teacher education programs) to represent their knowledge multimodally. Teacher education classrooms should be reconceptualized as semiotic spaces that allow learners to use a wide range of linguistic and multimodal resources for teaching and learning. So, what can we do to reconceptualize our views of multimodal practices, assessment, and classrooms? Here, we make some specific suggestions. First, we should critically examine our own practices (especially teaching, researching, and writing) in light of multimodality and reflect upon how print-based unimodal and multimodal practices coexist and collaboratively contribute to understanding, knowing, and representing knowledge. For instance, let’s look into our literacy practices. We often navigate across multiple literacy practices (both print-based and digital/ multimodal practices) for meaning making; we read print and online resources, draw outlines or diagrams to synthesize our reading or organize our thoughts, make notes and PowerPoint slides, write our papers on computers, and so forth. When we become more aware of such constant navigation across these multiple literacy practices (including print-based and digital/multimodal practices), we are likely to better understand how much multimodal practices are embedded into our literacy practices and contribute to our teaching and learning. Second, we should experiment with multimodality within teacher education courses and professional development programs so that we can better understand what is involved in designing and evaluating multimodal texts (including both digital and nondigital examples). For instance, we can draw the structure of reading, represent a term or concept in linguistic and visual forms, create a multimodal synthesis of our papers (e.g., see http://ed-ubiquity.gsu.edu/wordpress/angay-crowdersynthesis-2-1/ for Angay-Crowder’s [2015] multimodal synthesis of her journal article), analyze multimodal texts (e.g., advertisements), create TEACHING ISSUES 995 teaching and learning materials (e.g., posters, PowerPoint slides), and so forth. When we experiment with multimodality, it is critical to learn “the metalanguage of multimodal texts” (Hung et al., 2013, p. 409). For instance, the metalanguage for visual texts (e.g., colors, perspective, foregrounding, background, and angle) should be taught and used to describe multimodal texts. Overall, our experiment with multimodality enables us to develop our understanding and skills to critically and strategically analyze, design, and use multimodal texts and think deeply about what it means to know, think, and communicate multimodally. In addition, while experimenting with multimodality, we are likely to become novices again. For instance, when Yi implemented the multimodal projects into various contexts, she became a co-learner and acquired skills and knowledge alongside her students. This process was particularly evident when Yi explored the technological tools and skills for digital composition. Students brought vast knowledge and experience of using emerging technologies to teacher education courses. Thus, the instructor and students jointly fostered a learning community in which they collectively co-constructed knowledge. Our suggestions do not fully address how to overcome all the challenges hindering the adoption of multimodal pedagogies, nor do we propose that learning how to integrate multimodal practices into teaching can be achieved in one workshop or a professional development session. Instead, we urge teacher educators (and teachers alike) to consider more fundamental issues of multimodal pedagogies, such as reexamining our own biases or skeptical views of multimodal practices for teaching and learning and reconceptualizing various related aspects of multimodal pedagogies. When both teacher educators and teachers collectively tackle these fundamental issues, we will be better able to integrate multimodal pedagogies into TESOL teacher education. THE AUTHORS Youngjoo Yi is an associate professor in foreign/second language education at the Ohio State University. She has published numerous book chapters and articles on second language writing, issues of identity construction, and teacher education in such journals as TESOL Quarterly, Journal of Second Language Writing, and Canadian Modern Language Review. Tuba Angay-Crowder has recently earned her Ph.D. in the Language and Literacy program at Georgia State University. Her research interests include second language writing, second language identities, multimodal/digital literacies, academic literacies, and (online) professional development. 996 TESOL QUARTERLY REFERENCES Abiria, D., Early, M., & Kendrick, M. (2013). Plurilingual pedagogical practices in a policy constrained context: A northern Ugandan case study. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 567–590. doi:10.1002/tesq.119 Ajayi, L. (2008). Meaning-making, multimodal representation, and transformative pedagogy: An exploration of meaning construction instructional practices in an ESL high school classroom. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 7, 206– 229. doi:10.1080/15348450802237822 Angay-Crowder, T. (2015). Arts in Turkey and need for multimodally-oriented curriculum based on lived experiences. Ubiquity: The Journal of Literature, Literacy, and the Arts, 2(1), 90–123. Available at http://ed-ubiquity.gsu.edu/wordpress/ angay-crowder-2-1/ Angay-Crowder, T., Choi, J., & Yi, Y. (2013). Putting multiliteracies into practice: Digital storytelling for multilingual adolescents in a summer program. TESL Canada Journal, 30(2), 36–45. Coyle, Y., Ya~ nez, L., & Verd u, M. (2010). The impact of the interactive whiteboard on the teacher and children’s language use in an ESL immersion classroom. System, 38, 614–625. doi:10.1016/j.system.2010.10.002 Early, M., Kendrick, M., & Potts, D. (2015). Multimodality: Out from the margins of English language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 447–460. doi:10.1002/ tesq.246 Hafner, C. A., & Miller, L. (2011). Fostering learner autonomy in English for science: A collaborative digital video project in a technological learning environment. Language Learning and Technology, 15(3), 68–86. Hundley, M., & Holbrook, T. (2013). Set in stone or set in motion? Multimodal and digital writing with preservice English teachers. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 56, 500–509. doi:10.1002/JAAL.171 Hung, H., Chiu, Y., & Yeh, H. (2013). Multimodal assessment of and for learning: A theory driven design rubric. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44, 400– 409. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01337.x Jewitt, C., & Kress, G. (Eds.). (2003). Multimodal literacy. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom learning. Buckingham, England: Open University Press. Miller, S. M. (2007). English teacher learning for new times: Digital video composing as multimodal literacy practice. English Education, 40(1), 61–83. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social factors. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92. Rance-Roney, J. (2010). Jump-starting language and schema for English-language learners: Teacher-composed digital jumpstarts for academic reading. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 53, 386–395. doi:10.1598/JAAL.53.5.4 Romero, D., & Walker, D. (2010). Ethical dilemmas in representation: Engaging participative youth. Ethnography and Education, 5(2), 209–227. doi:10.1080/ 17457823.2010.493409 Rowsell, J., & Walsh, M. (2011). Rethinking literacy education in new times: Multimodality, multiliteracies, and new literacies. Brock Education, 21(1), 53–62. Sadik, A. (2008). Digital storytelling: A meaningful technology-integrated approach for engaged student learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 487–506. doi:10.1007/s11423-008-9091-8 Shanahan, L. E. (2013). Composing “kid-friendly” multimodal text: When conversations, instruction, and signs come together. Written Communication, 30(2), 194–227. doi:10.1177/0741088313480328 TEACHING ISSUES 997 Smythe, S., & Neufeld, P. (2010). “Podcast time”: Negotiating digital literacies and communities of learning in a middle years ELL classroom. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 53, 488–496. doi:10.1598/JAAL.53.6.5 Stein, P., & Newfield, D. (2006). Multiliteracies and multimodality in English in education in Africa: Mapping the terrain. English Studies in Africa, 49(1), 1–21. doi:10.1080/00138390608691341 Tan, J. P., & McWilliam, E. (2009). From literacy to multiliteracies: Diverse learners and pedagogical practice. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3), 213–225. doi:10.1080/15544800903076119 Tan, L., Bopry, J., & Guo, L. (2010). Portraits of new literacies in two Singapore classrooms. RELC Journal, 41, 5–17. doi:10.1177/0033688210343864 Vinogradova, P., Linville, H. A., & Bickel, B. (2011). “Listen to my story and you will know me”: Digital stories as student-centered collaborative projects. TESOL Journal, 2, 173–202. doi:10.5054/tj.2011.250380 Wilson, A., Chavez, K., & Anders, P. L. (2012). “From the Koran and family guy”: Expressions of identity in English learners’ digital podcasts. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 55, 374–384. doi:10.1002/JAAL.00046 998 TESOL QUARTERLY