Kathy Mills Thesis - Unlocked

i
Multiliteracies: A Critical Ethnography

Pedagogy, power, discourse and access to multiliteracies

Kathy Ann Mills
B Ed (CHC), M Ed (CHC),
Grad Dip Christian Studies (ACT)

Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree
Doctor of Philosophy, undertaken in the Faculty of Education,
Queensland University of Technology,
2006

ii

Paragraph of Keywords

Multiliteracies, access, critical ethnography, critical sociology, sociocultural theory,
multiliteracies pedagogy, structuration theory, pedagogy, power, discourse, diversity,
culture, multimodal, monomodal, literacy, linguistics, semiotics, design, digital texts,
Learning by Design, overt instruction, situated practice, critical framing, transformed
practice, intertextuality, lifeworld, situated learning, marginalisation, domination,

Abstract

The multiliteracies pedagogy of the New London Group is a response to the
emergence of new literacies and changing forms of meaning-making in contemporary
contexts of increased cultural and linguistic diversity. This critical ethnographic
research investigates the interactions between pedagogy, power, discourses, and
differential access to multiliteracies, among a group of culturally and linguistically
diverse learners in a mainstream Australian classroom. The study documents the way
in which a teacher enacted the multiliteracies pedagogy through a series of media-
based lessons with her year six (aged 11-12 years) class. The reporting of this
research is timely because the multiliteracies pedagogy has become a key feature of
Australian educational policy initiatives and syllabus requirements.

The methodology of this study was based on Carspeckens critical ethnography. This
method includes five stages:

Stage One involved eighteen days of observational data
collection over the course of ten weeks in the classroom. The multiliteracies lessons
aimed to enable learners to collaboratively design a claymation movie. Stage Two
was the initial analysis of data, including verbatim transcribing, coding, and applying
analytic tools to the data. Stage Three involved semi-structured, forty-five minute
interviews with the principal, teacher, and four culturally and linguistically diverse
students. In Stages Four and Five, the results of micro-level data analysis were
compared with macro-level phenomena using structuration theory and extant
literature about access to multiliteracies.

The key finding was that students access to multiliteracies differed among the
culturally and linguistically diverse group. Existing degrees of access were
reproduced, based on the learners relation to the dominant culture. In the context of
the media-based lessons in which students designed claymation movies, students from
iii
Anglo-Australian, middle-class backgrounds had greater access to transformed
designing than those who were culturally marginalised. These experiences were
mediated by pedagogy, power, and discourses in the classroom, which were in turn
influenced by the agency of individuals. The individuals were both enabled and
constrained by structures of power within the school and the wider educational and
social systems.

Recommendations arising from the study were provided for teachers, principals,
policy makers and researchers who seek to monitor and facilitate the success of the
multiliteracies pedagogy in culturally and linguistically diverse educational contexts.

iv
Table of Contents
Paragraph of Keywords
Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
List of Abbreviations
Statement of Original Authorship
Acknowledgements

Chapter One Introduction to the Study
1.0 The Multiliteracies Study in its Global Context
1.1 Defining Multiliteracies
1.2 Aim of the Research
1.3 Local Importance for Multiliteracies Policy
1.4 Local Importance for Multiliteracies Praxis
1.5 Overview of the Thesis

Chapter Two Review of Literature and Research
2.0 Introduction
2.1 Contextualising Multiliteracies
2.1.1 Autonomous versus Sociocultural Perspectives
2.1.2 Transmissive versus Progressive Approaches
2.1.3 Cultural Heritage versus Critical Literacy
2.1.4 Genre Approach versus Multiliteracies
2.2 Conceptualising Multiliteracies
2.2.1 Multiplicity of Communication Channels and Media
2.2.1.1 Design, multimodality and a new meta-language
2.2.1.2 Hybridisation and intertextuality
2.2.2 Cultural and Linguistic Diversity
2.2.2.1 Lifeworlds
2.2.2.2 Communities of learners
2.3 Summary of Chapter Two

Chapter Three Theoretical Framing of the Study
3.0 Introduction
3.1 Contributions of Critical Theory to Multiliteracies
3.1.1 Contributions of Sociocultural Theory to Multiliteracies
3.1.2 Contributions of Habermas to the Research
3.2 Theoretical Framing of Multiliteracies Lessons
3.2.1 Pedagogy
3.2.2 Power
3.2.3 Discourses
3.3 Theoretical Framing of Systems Analysis
3.3.1 Domination
3.3.2 Signification
3.3.3 Legitimation
3.3.4 System Reproduction
3.4 Summary of Chapter Three
ii
iii
iv
vii
viii
ix
x
xi

1
3
4
5
8
9

13
14
15
17
20
23
25
26
29
34
35
37
38
38

40
42
44
45
47
48
57
60
67
70
71
72
73
73
v
Chapter Four Methodology of the Study
4.0 Introduction
4.1 Critical Ethnography
4.2 Research Design
4.3 Site
4.4 Participants
4.4.1 Teacher
4.4.2 Students
4.5 Pilot Study
4.6 Data Collection
4.6.1 Data Set One
4.6.2 Data Set Two
4.7 Data Analysis
4.7.1 Coding
4.7.2 Pragmatic Horizon Analysis
4.8 Interpreting Results
4.9 Validity and Limitations
4.10 Research Ethics
4.11 Summary of Chapter Four

Chapter Five Multiliteracies Context and Findings of the
Study
5.0 Introduction

Part I: Multiliteracies Context
5.1 Teacher
5.2 Principal
5.3 Students
5.4 Lessons

Part II: Multiliteracies Findings and Analysis
5.5 Pedagogy and Access to Multiliteracies
5.5.1 Monomodal Writing
5.5.2 English Grammar
5.5.3 Screen-Based Lessons
5.5.4 Claymation Movie-Making
5.5.4.1 Situated Practice in Claymation Movie-making
5.5.4.2 Overt Instruction in Claymation Movie-making
5.5.4.3 Critical Framing in Claymation Movie-making
5.5.4.4 Transformed Practice in Claymation Movie-making
5.6 Power and Access to Multiliteracies
5.6.1 Coercive Power and Excluded Learners
5.6.2 Coercive Power and Monomodal Literacies
5.7 Discourse and Access to Multiliteracies
5.7.1 Marginalised Discourses
5.7.2 Dominant Discourses
5.8 Summary of Chapter Five

75
76
77
80
82
82
83
84
86
87
90
106
107
111
115
116
117
118

119

119
121
123
124
125

127
131
132
137
140
142
143
150
158
164
171
172
177
181
181
188
192

vi
Chapter Six Intersections of Agency, Structure and Access

6.0 Introduction
6.1 Domination and Access to Multiliteracies
6.1.1 Domination in the School System
6.1.2 Domination in the Classroom
6.1.3 Domination in the State and National Systems
6.1.4 Domination in the Local System
6.2 Signification and Access to Multiliteracies
6.2.1 Signification in the School System
6.2.2 Signification in the Classroom
6.2.3 Signification in the Local System
6.3 Legitimation and Access to Multiliteracies
6.3.1 Legitimation in the School System
6.3.2 Legitimation in the Classroom
6.3.3 Legitimation in the State and National Systems
6.3.4 Legitimation in the Local System
6.4 System Reproduction of Access to Multiliteracies
6.5 Summary of Chapter Six

Chapter Seven Conclusion, Significance and
Recommendations
7.0 Introduction
7.1 Summary of the Study
7.1.1 Classroom Findings
7.1.2 Systems Relations
7.2 Model of Differential Access to Multiliteracies
7.3 Significance of the Study
7.3.1 Significance for Multiliteracies Policy
7.3.2 Significance for Multiliteracies Praxis
7.4 Limitations
7.5 Recommendations
7.5.1 Classroom Recommendations
7.5.2 System Recommendations
7.6 Concluding Statements

References

197
201
201
203
204
205
208
208
209
211
212
212
214
217
218
220
222

224
225
225
230
235
239
239
240
241
242
243
247
249

251

vii
List of Figures
Figure 2.2.1.1
Figure 3.0
Figure 3.1.2
Figure 3.2.1
Figure 3.2.1.1

Figure 3.2.2
Figure 3.2.3
Figure 3.3

Figure 4.6.1.1
Figure 4.6.1.2
Figure 4.6.1.3
Figure 4.6.2.1
Figure 4.6.2.2
Figure 4.6.2.3
Figure 4.7
Figure 4.7.1.1
Figure 4.7.1.2

Figure 5.0
Figure 5.5.1.1
Figure 5.5.1.2
Figure 5.5.1.3
Figure 5.5.3
Figure 5.5.4.2
Figure 5.6.1
Figure 6.0
Figure 7.2
Model of Multiliteracies Design Elements
Themes for Interpreting Access to Multiliteracies
Habermas Ontological Categories
Model of the Multiliteracies Pedagogy
Model of the Four Knowledge Processes and the
Multiliteracies Pedagogy
Model of Power Relations
Taxonomy of Discourses
Model of Systems Relations to Investigate Access to
Multiliteracies generated from Pilot Study
Sample of the Primary Record from the Study
Sample of Journal Notes from the Pilot Study
Reflective Researcher Journal Entry from the Pilot Study
Semi-Structured Interview Schedule for Students
Semi-Structured Interview Schedule for the Teacher
Semi-Structured Interview Schedule for the Principal
Sample of Observer Comments from the Study
Sample of Open Coding from the Study
Example of Coding Hierarchy for Two Findings during
Situated Practice
Classroom Seating Arrangement
Picture Sequences
Student Writing Samples
Journal Notes for Screen-Based Lessons
Journal Notes for a Series of Screen-Based Lessons
Video Transcript 2: Journal Note Sample
Classroom Poster for Explaining Excluded Groups
Systems Relations Investigated in the Study
Model of Differential Access to Multiliteracies
30
41
46
48
53

58
61
68

88
89
90
92
99
102
106
107
108

120
133
134
136
141
151
175
198
236

viii
List of Tables
Table 2.2.1.1
Table 3.3
Table 4.2
Table 4.4
Table 4.6.1
Table 4.7.1.1
Table 4.7.1.2
Table 4.7.2.1
Table 4.7.2.2
Table 5.3
Table 5.4.1
Table 5.4.2
Table 5.4.3
Table 5.4.4
Table 5.4.5

Table 5.5
Table 5.6.2
Table 6.0
Table 6.1.4

Table 6.2.2

Table 6.3.1

Table 6.3.2.1

Table 6.3.2.2
Table 6.3.4

Table 7.1.1
Table 7.1.2.1
Table 7.1.2.2
Analysis of Texts Using the Five Modes
Criteria for Systems Analysis
Five Stage Research Design
Participant Roles in the Study
Field Note Conventions
Table of Analytic Themes
Six Substantive Themes Arising from the Data
Index of Pragmatic Horizon Analysis
Pragmatic Horizon Analysis from the Pilot Study
Description of Student Participants
Claymation Movie-Making Lesson Schedule
Schedule of Writing Lessons
Table of Analytic Themes Arising from the Data
Six Substantive Themes and Sub themes
Inventory of Data to Support Finding III Overt
Instruction
Table of Codes for Pedagogy
Pragmatic Horizon Analysis of Teachers Claims
Systems Relations Affecting Access to Multiliteracies
Pragmatic Horizon Analysis for Domination Structures
in the Home
Pragmatic Horizon Analysis for Signification in the
Classroom
Pragmatic Horizon Analysis for Legitimation in the
School
Pragmatic Horizon Analysis for Legitimation in the
Classroom
Pragmatic Horizon Analysis for Social Reproduction
Comparison of Rules and Norms for using Multiliteracies
at Home
Summary of Classroom Findings
Systems Relations that Enabled Access to Multiliteracies
Systems Relations that Constrained Access to
Multiliteracies
32
70
77
82
88
110
111
111
113
125
126
127
128
128
129

131
178
199
207

210

213

215

216
219

225
231
232

ix
List of Abbreviations

ACT Australian Capital Territory
ATSI Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders
DEETYA Department of Eduction, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs
EIP Extensive Innovation Program
ESL English as a Second Language
EQ Education Queensland
LOTE Languages Other Than English
ICT Information and Communications Technologies
NLG New London Group: Joseph Lo Bianco, Courtney Cazden, Bill Cope,
Norman Fairclough, James Gee, Mary Kalantzis,
Gunther Kress, Allan Luke, Carmen Luke, Sarah
Michaels, and Martin Nakata
PD Professional Development
QSA Queensland Studies Authority
SAROP School Annual Report and Operation Plan
STLD Support Teacher for Learning Difficulties

x
Statement of Original Authorship

This thesis is an original work, which has not been previously submitted for a degree
or diploma at any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and
belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another
person, except where due reference is made.

Signed: __________________________

Date: _______________________

xi
Acknowledgements

I give my sincere gratitude to my primary supervisor Dr Annah Healy, and secondly,
to Associate Professor William Corcoran. It has been a privilege to work with two
scholars of their calibre. I have appreciated their wisdom, knowledge and
encouragement throughout the intensive process of research.

I thank the anonymous teacher participant in this research who opened her classroom
to rigorous analysis and critique, and who has afforded a substantial, original, and
invaluable data set upon which this ethnography depended. Without her immense
professional contribution, this thesis would not have been possible. I also thank the
many other research participants principal, teachers, parents, and students who
participated in the pilot study or research proper.

In addition, I am grateful to the support of internationally respected critical
ethnographers, including Professor Phil Carspecken, whose professional
correspondence and ethnographic workshops in Australia equipped me with
methodological expertise. I also appreciate the active support of his colleagues in the
United States, Professors Barbara Korth and Joan Parker Webster, who supported me
with scholarly examples of critical ethnographies.

I thank my colleagues from the School of Education and the Humanities at Christian
Heritage College, who attended my thesis orals throughout my candidature. In
particular, I thank Dr. Robert Herschell for his constant encouragement and interest in
my research progress. I also acknowledge colleagues from the School of Cultural and
Language Studies in Education at the Queensland University of Technology. Their
example, encouragement, and interest in my research has been appreciated.

I am grateful for my parents who provided me with the prerequisite life experiences to
successfully engage in the PhD journey. I sincerely express appreciation to my
husband, Dr Ryan Mills, who tirelessly read every draft of the thesis, and who
constantly affirmed me. Most importantly, I would like to give all honour to God for
his guidance and strength, and for giving me the opportunity to take this journey of
discovery.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 1 -
Chapter One Introduction to the Study

1.0 The Multiliteracies Study in its Global Context
Global trends call for new literacy research to investigate the potential of a
broadened range of hybrid literacies and new pedagogies. Dramatic changes are
occurring in the form of rapidly emerging modes of communication, increased
cultural diversity, evolving workplaces cultures, new challenges for equitable
education, and the changing identities of students. The proliferation of powerful,
multimodal literacies demands research to investigate students access to new forms
of communication, which are necessary to participate fully in our dynamic and
culturally diverse society. This study responds to this global revolution.

Previous conceptions of literacy were tightly confined to writing and speech. The
boundaries of literacy are collapsing, and have been replaced by a multiplicity of
hybrid forms of communication, including audio, visual, gestural, spatial, and
linguistic modes (New London Group, 1996)
1
. Students today will enter universities
and a labour market that are fast becoming globalised. Students require competence
in a growing range of meaning-making systems, such as internet transactions,
website critique and construction, film and media, spreadsheets and databases, and
PowerPoint presentations. These examples point to the need for fresh approaches to
literacy pedagogy and research (Kalantzis, Cope, & Fehring, 2002)

The twenty-first century has been characterised by greater cultural and linguistic
diversity in schools and society. The clientele of Australian schools is drawn from
an increasingly diverse mlange of ethnic, community, and social class cultures,
with a wide range of texts, interests and group identities. For example, the school in
which this research was conducted included students from twenty-five different
nationalities. Participation in community life now requires that students interact
effectively using multiple Englishes, marked by accent, dialect, or subcultural
differences, and communication patterns that cross international boundaries (Lo
Bianco, 2000; New London Group, 2000).

1
See List of Abbreviations for the names of the New London Groups members.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 2 -

Workplaces are changing. Cross-cultural communication and the negotiation of
difference is now a basis for worker creativity and teamwork. An important role of
schools is to prepare students for this new world of work which emphasises change,
flexibility, and networking rather than hierarchical command structures (Gee, 1994;
Gee, 2000b). The division of labour into deskilled components has been replaced by
multi-skilled professionals who have a broad portfolio of skills, and who engage in a
dynamic repertoire of integrated practices (Cope & Kalantzis, 1999). These
workplace changes provide impetus for this research to investigate pedagogies for a
new world of work.

Schools have an historical role in the reproduction of social inequity, both allowing
and preventing access to literacies and its associated power to gain social mobility,
wealth and professional status (Bourdieu, 1977). Literacies have been distributed
unequally on the basis of gender, class, ethnicity, geographical isolation, disability,
and combinations of these social characteristics (Kress, 1993a). Extant sociocultural
research indicates that the values and practices of the dominant culture are reflected
in school literacy practices, while those of minority groups are silenced (Lankshear
& McLaren, 1993; Luke, Comber, & Grant, 2003). Consequently, there is an urgent
need to transform the inequitable distribution of literacies through new pedagogies,
supported by research that investigates whether inequities are reproduced,
legitimated, or alternatively contested (Cook-Gumperz, 1986, p.7).

Students identities are in a continual process of transformation, with increased
complexity and uncertainty. There is a major cultural shift that has contributed to
changing identities, from a culture of literature to popular culture, and from print to
visual culture (Green & Bigum, 1993, p.127; Green, Fitzclarence, & Bigum, 1994,
p.2). Differences in students multilayered identities are influenced by a proliferation
of multi-media environments and technologies, and membership in overlapping
communities on the basis of multiple roles, affiliations and interests (Cope &
Kalantzis, 1997b; New London Group, 2000, p.17). Therefore, literacy pedagogy
must engage with unique identities of individuals, recruiting these as a resource for
learning to unlock the gate of possibility for improved access (Cope & Kalantzis,
1997b; New London Group, 2000).
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 3 -

Together, these five arguments point to the urgent need for research to investigate
students access to the broadening range of powerful and multimodal literacies
needed to participate in our dynamic society in the new times.

1.1 Defining Multiliteracies
The term multiliteracies was coined by the New London Group to encompass two
powerful propositions in the changing communications environment (1996). The
first concerns the multiplicity of communications channels and media tied to the
expansion of mass media, multimedia, and the Internet, while the second pertains to
the increasing importance of cultural and linguistic diversity as a consequence of
migration and globally marketed services (New London Group, 1996).

These two propositions are related because the proliferation of texts is partially
attributed to the diversity of cultures and subcultures. Preferences in modes of
representation, such as linguistic or auditory, differ according to culture and context,
and have specific cognitive, social, and relational effects. For example, in Aboriginal
cultures the visual mode of representation is much richer and more evocative than
linguistics alone (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000b). Likewise, it was observed in this
research that gestural modes of communication, represented through dance and
holistic expressions of movement, are an integral part of Sudanese culture. Chapter
Two (Section 2.2) affords a detailed conceptualisation of multiliteracies.

The multiliteracies pedagogy of the New London Group involves four related
components: situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing and transformed
practice (New London Group, 2000). Situated practice involves building on the
lifeworld experiences of students, situating meaning making in real world contexts.
Overt instruction guides students to use an explicit metalanguage of design. Critical
framing encourages students to interpret the social context and purpose of designs of
meaning. Transformed practice occurs when students transform existing meanings
to design new meanings (New London Group, 1996). These components of the
pedagogy do not constitute a linear hierarchy, but may occur simultaneously,
randomly or be related in complex wayseach of them repeatedly revisited at
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 4 -
different levels (New London Group, 2000, p.32). A detailed explanation of the
multiliteracies pedagogy is presented in Chapter Three of this study (Section 3.2.1).

1.2 Aim of the Research
The primary aim of this critical ethnography was to empirically investigate the
application of the multiliteracies pedagogy of the New London Group within a
culturally and linguistically diverse classroom in terms of the Groups vision of
access for all. The following research question was asked in relation to a teachers
enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy in a year six classroom in Southeast
Queensland, Australia.
What specific interactions between pedagogy, power, and discourse affect
students access to multiliteracies within a culturally and linguistically diverse
classroom group?

This question stimulated inquiry about the potential of the multiliteracies pedagogy
of the New London Group to provide all students with fair and equitable access to
multiliteracies or designs for meaning. These designs refer to mature versions of
multimodal and culturally and linguistically diverse textual practices that are used in
contemporary society, mediated by technological (including writing) tools, such as
contributing digitally-mediated articles to the school newsletter (Cope & Kalantzis,
2000c; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003a; Luke, 1994).

The research question is oriented by the sociology of critical theory, which begins
with the important proposition that certain groups in any society are privileged over
others (Carspecken, 1996). The central themes of pedagogy, power, and
discourse in the research question are located in the work of the New London
Group, critical ethnography, and sociocultural theory respectively (Carspecken,
1996; Cope & Kalantzis, 2000b; Gee, 1996).

The teacher in this study had received professional development to enact a pedagogy
of multiliteracies through Cope and Kalantzis (2005, p.179) Learning by Design
project. The present research was conducted in a co-educational state school situated
in a low socioeconomic area. Twenty-five nationalities were represented in the
school clientele. Student participants in the observed classroom were aged between
11-12 years, and were of Anglo-Australian, Aboriginal, Thai, Sudanese, Tongan,
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 5 -
Torres Strait Islander, and Maori ethnicity, having differing dialects and versions of
Englishes. The group comprised those who had access to digitally mediated
textual practices at home and those who did not.

Applying Carspeckens (1996) critical ethnography, two data sets were utilised: i)
observational data from eighteen lessons gathered over ten weeks; and ii) semi-
structured interview data with the principal, teacher and four students, to triangulate
participants perspectives with observational data. The interviews also investigated
the economic, cultural, and political influences to situate field data within larger
structures of power and privilege. Giddens (1984) structuration theory was applied
to take account of the agency of the research participants and social structures of
power, such as resource allocation and policies, that influenced the distribution of
access to multiliteracies (Giddens, 1984; Popkewitz & Guba, 1990, p.49).

1.3 Local Importance for Multiliteracies Policy
This research has local importance in the light of the growing number of educational
policies which instruct Australian teachers to address multimodal and culturally
diverse textual practices in their classrooms. Multiliteracies is now significant in
educational policies that are concerned with remaking teachers understandings of
literacy and literacy pedagogy. Educators are urged to reconsider what is most
indispensable to literacy curricula, including the new basics that are continually
changing as society becomes increasingly multicultural. Literacy educators must
respond to constantly changing forms of multimedia communications channels and
culturally and linguistically diverse texts, and engage with new pedagogy,
curriculum, and assessment of multiliteracies (Education Queensland, 1999, 2001,
2002). Most importantly, the teaching of multiliteracies is now a state-mandated
requirement throughout Queensland primary schools, where this research was
conducted (Queensland Studies Authority, 2005).

For example, the Years 1-10 English Syllabus, for open trial in Queensland until
2006, emphasises how language choices are shaped by textual resources from a
multimodal range of language systems, including linguistic, visual, gestural, spatial,
and audio modes (Queensland Studies Authority, 2005). The English syllabus uses
terms such as multiliteracies, multiliterate citizens, and the need for students to
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 6 -
communicate in varieties of English for different communication contexts and for
different audiences (Queensland Studies Authority, 2005, p.2).

The Queensland Board of Teacher Registration provides literacy standards to inform
the development of teacher education pre-service programs (Board of Teacher
Registration Queensland, 2001). Standard 1.0 requires that teacher graduates
respect and value cultural diversity and difference a key emphasis of
multiliteracies. Furthermore, Standard 2.0 states that all graduate teachers of
English will understand, apply, and critique a representative range of theory related
to multiliteracies and pedagogy. Students are also required to develop knowledge
and understandings deriving from media and popular culture, including the forms
and manifestations of electronically-mediated environments (Board of Teacher
Registration Queensland, 2001).
Literate Futures Project (Anstey, 2002), authorised by Education Queensland, calls
attention to equipping students with multiliteracies necessary to be active and
informed citizens in a changing world. Three dimensions of multiliteracies are
emphasised: Multimedia and technology, cultural and linguistic diversity, and
critical literacy. A strong case is argued for the centrality of multiliteracies in
Australian society and literacy education.
In a publication entitled 2010 Queensland State Education, proposals are also
made for new communications technologies in Queensland schools (Education
Queensland, 1999). This became the catalyst for the New Basics initiative by the
Queensland Department of Education, involving thirty-eight schools in a three-year
curriculum cycle beginning in 2000 (Education Queensland, 2001). The New Basics
curriculum has four clusters of essential practices or curriculum organisers, one of
which is multiliteracies and communications media. This future-oriented curriculum
emphasises students ability to communicate using languages and intercultural
understandings by blending traditional and new communications media. The
curriculum is rich with concerns of culturally inclusive practices and the recognition
of student diversity.

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 7 -
Many pre-service and in-service teachers throughout Queensland are planning and
implementing the multiliteracies pedagogy in response to these educational and
political initiatives. However, the political importance of multiliteracies extends
beyond state borders. All syllabi across the six states and territories in Australia
make reference to multimodal texts and the need for students to use texts for a
variety of social purposes (See: ACT Department of Education and Training, 2001;
Board of Studies New South Wales, 1998; Department of Education and Training
Western Australia, 2005; Department of Education Tasmania, 2004; Department of
Employment Education and Training Northern Territory, 2005; South Australian
Department of Education and Children's Services, 2004; Victorian Curriculum and
Assessment Authority, 2005).
In April 1999, the Ministerial Council for Education, Employment, Training and
Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) met to formulate a federal policy entitled the Adelaide
Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-first Century
(Ministerial Council for Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs, 1999).
The two key arguments of multiliteracies are embedded in these goals for Australian
school students. For example, statement 3.5 requires that all students understand
and acknowledge the value of cultural and linguistic diversity, and possess the
knowledge, skills and understanding to contribute to, and benefit from this diversity
in the Australian community and internationally. In relation to the second argument
of multiliteracies, statement 1.6 requires that students be confident, creative and
productive users of new technologies, particularly information and communication
technologies, and understand the impact of those technologies on society
(Ministerial Council for Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs, 1999).
These are examples of how multiliteracies is increasingly becoming a curricular and
professional development issue for Australian teachers, providing political impetus
for this research. There is an imperative for research investigating the social
consequences of these policy changes, and the equity of the existing provisions for
students access to multiliteracies (Department of Education Employment Training
and Youth Affairs, 1997). Researchers and educators must consider whether these
changes will remedy or reproduce the existing social problems in education that are
intimately tied to literacy pedagogy (Apple, 1997).
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 8 -
This research investigates first-hand the complex interactions between the enactment
of the multiliteracies pedagogy and the degree to which students of varied
backgrounds have access to multiliteracies. One objective is to inform policy makers
of the effectiveness of these systemic initiatives leading to recommendations for
positive, individual and system-wide changes to literacy pedagogy and curriculum.
In so doing, the aim is to make a small contribution in the quest for a more just
society (Luke et al., 2003).

1.4 Local Importance for Multiliteracies Praxis
This research has local significance for multiliteracies praxis because it investigates
the New London Groups ideal that a pedagogy of multiliteracies can potentially
provide access without children having to leave behind or erase their different
subjectivities (New London Group, 2000 p.18). A pedagogy of multiliteracies is
posited as a teaching and learning relationship that potentially builds learning
conditions that lead to full and equitable social participation (New London Group,
1996, p.60). This is achieved by moving from a standard, national or universal
culture to foster productive diversity that acknowledges the multilayered lifeworlds
of students:
The role of pedagogy is to develop an epistemology of pluralism that provides
access without people having to erase or leave behind different subjectivities.
This has to be the basis of a new norm (New London Group, 2000, p.18).

The New London Group implies that the multiliteracies pedagogy will open
possibilities for greater access. They acknowledge that in the emergent reality, there
are real deficits including a lack of equitable access to social power, wealth and
recognition. However, they claim that a genuine epistemology of pluralism, not a
tokenistic one, is the only way that the educational system can possibly be
genuinely fair in its distribution of opportunity, as between one group and another
(New London Group, 2000, p.125).

From the perspective of critical theory, access to literacy is tied up in the politics and
power relations of everyday life in literate cultures (Luke & Freebody, 1997).
Throughout the history of education there is evidence that schools have continually
failed with minority and marginalised communities in literacy education, serving to
reproduce the patterns of social inequity in wider society (Luke et al., 2003). The
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 9 -
selection of textual practices in schools is never accidental, random, natural or
idiosyncratic. Rather, it is political, supportive of the stratified interests of the social
institution of schooling, and has significant material consequences for learners,
communities and institutions (Luke & Freebody, 1997). For example, through the
selection of text books, genres, media, and literate tastes, dominant mainstream
cultures are conserved and taught as the culture (Luke et al., 2003). How literacy
is taught is tied to key questions about how schools contribute to social access and
equity, ethnic assimilation and discrimination, economic power and social
stratification (Luke et al., 2003). Marginalised and minority communities have the
most urgent stake in the efficacy of literacy education. This is because they have the
greatest distance to travel between their linguistic and lifeworld experiences, and
those of the dominant culture of the school (Cope, 2000).

In the light of these ethical concerns, the ideals for a pedagogy of multiliteracies
require empirical investigation through the collaboration of teachers and researchers.
Extant classroom-based research has not empirically examined the New London
Groups pedagogy in terms of its provision for equitable access. Therefore, this
research is significant because it investigates a teachers enactment of the
multiliteracies pedagogy in a culturally diverse classroom in terms of its potential to
provide access without children having to erase or leave behind different
subjectivities and to be genuinely fair in the distribution of opportunity (New
London Group, 2000, p.18). This examination takes into account the complex web
of relations between the multiliteracies pedagogy, power and discourses used in the
classroom, which operate to prevent or permit access to multiliteracies.

1.5 Overview of the Thesis
Chapter One provided a rationale for this research, which is stimulated by the need
for new conceptions of literacy pedagogy in the context of five revolutionary, global
changes. These include the emergence of powerful communications technologies,
increased cultural diversity, evolving workplace cultures, new demands for equitable
education, and the changing identities of students. These dramatic changes provide
impetus for moving beyond previous conceptions of literacy as monomodal,
monolingual, mono-cultural, and rule-governed forms of English, to consider a
pedagogy of multiliteracies for the new times.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 10 -

A case was made for the significance of this research for multiliteracies policy and
praxis. It was contended that multiliteracies has become a crucial part of state-
mandated educational policies and literacy standards throughout Australia. These
policies give heightened momentum for classroom-based research to inform
educators, administrators and policy makers of the potential enabling and
constraining factors confronted by teachers in the process of pedagogical change.

It was also argued that this study has significant implications for multiliteracies
praxis because it examines the New London Groups ideals for an equitable
pedagogy that can provide access without children having to leave behind their
different subjectivities (New London Group, 2000 p.18). This research investigates
the social consequences of the multiliteracies pedagogy in classrooms, particularly
in terms of whether students of varied ethnic, linguistic, and sub-culturally diverse
backgrounds gain access to the dynamic semiotic systems needed to participate in
society.

Chapter Two addresses literature relevant to a pedagogy of multiliteracies. The first
section (2.1) affords a chronological review of literacy pedagogy in Australia from
1960 to the present, in order to contextualise multiliteracies within the historical
literacy traditions from which it emerged as a new pedagogy. Within this
chronological review, four polarised positions that have divided literacy pedagogy
are contrasted. These include sociocultural theory versus an autonomous view of
literacy, transmissive versus progressive pedagogies, cultural heritage against
critical literacy, and the genre approach versus multiliteracies. These debates
prepared the ground for the multiliteracies pedagogy in 1996. The second section
(2.2) reviews essential theories concerning multiliteracies by key theorists of the
New London Group.

Chapter Three provides the theoretical framing of the study. The contributions of
critical theory, sociocultural literacy theory, Carspeckens (1996) critical
ethnography, and the work of Habermas (1981; 1987; 1992) are discussed in relation
to their methodological application to this study. Chapter Three also systematises the
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 11 -
theoretical framing of the multiliteracies lesson observations, and of systems
analysis in critical ethnography.

Chapter Four describes the methodology, which is principally guided by
Carspeckens (1996) critical ethnography. A rationale for critical ethnography is
provided, followed by a description of the research design, site and participants,
pilot study, data collection procedures and tools, analytic and interpretative methods,
limits to reporting, and the ethical conduct of the research.

Chapter Five presents the research results in two parts: I) Multiliteracies Context;
and, II) Multiliteracies Findings and Analysis. Part I provides the context of the field
work, and describes the school, teacher, principal, students, and lessons. Part II
presents the findings and analysis pertaining to the teachers enactment of the
multiliteracies pedagogy, power, and discourses in the classroom in relation to the
distribution of access to multiliteracies among the students. Results are compared to
extant literature that was introduced in Chapter Two.

Chapter Six discusses systems analysis, which strengthens the validity of results in
critical ethnography (Carspecken, 1996). Systems analysis involves situating the
research problem and its attendant issues within the broader social, cultural,
economic, and political context using an internally descriptive language of theory-
driven analysis. This requires a sociological model that takes account of both
individual agency and structural properties of institutions. Giddens (1984)
structuration theory is applied, which involves analysing the complex network of
relations across micro- and macro-level findings to produce a rigorous explanatory
critique, while allowing the empirical data to extend the sociological theory in a
recursive way.

Chapter Seven summarises the results, which are presented in two sections: a)
Classroom Findings, and b) Systems Relations. A Model of Differential Access to
Multiliteracies arises from this synthesis, presented diagrammatically and
discursively. The significance of the research for multiliteracies policy and praxis is
demonstrated, and the limitations of the research are discussed. The thesis concludes
with recommendations for teachers, principals, policy-makers and researchers who
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 12 -
seek to facilitate the success of the multiliteracies pedagogy in culturally and
linguistically diverse educational settings.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 13 -
Chapter Two Review of Literature and Research

2.0 Introduction
Chapter One has established that the skills required for students to communicate
effectively in society are constantly evolving. Conceptions of literacy as a singular,
canonical English that exclusively concerns linguistics or alphabetic print are no
longer sufficient in an increasingly multimodal and digitally-mediated world of
textual design. In particular, cultural differences and a proliferation of
communications media provide impetus for a pedagogy of multiliteracies. Logically
related to pedagogical change is the need for new research to examine teachers
implementation of the multiliteracies pedagogy in locally-diverse, educational
contexts.

There is a paucity of classroom research that evaluates the effectiveness of the
pedagogy of the New London Group to provide access to multiliteracies among a
culturally diverse group of primary students. Therefore, there is an unarguable need
for this study to bridge the gap in extant multiliteracies research. It is hoped that this
study marks the beginnings of a trajectory of classroom-based research, that engages
in the quest for knowledge about multiliteracies praxis.

Chapter Two provides a review of literature by key theorists of multiliteracies
relevant to the following restatement of the research question:
What specific interactions between pedagogy, power and discourse affect
classroom group?

This chapter begins by contextualising multiliteracies through a chronological
review of literacy pedagogy from 1960 to the present. This review is important
because it provides a critical evaluation of the significant historical trends in literacy
pedagogy that paved the way for the multiliteracies pedagogy (Section 2.1).

Pertinent literature concerning multiliteracies by key theorists of the New London
Group is reviewed (Section 2.2). The first proposition of multiliteracies is raised
concerning the multiplicity of communications channels and media (Section 2.1). It
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 14 -
is argued that the emergence of a burgeoning variety of text forms and the dynamic
nature of language in contemporary life points to the need for a new grammar. The
beginnings of this new grammar for multiliteracies is explored, in which the
elements of language are seen as dynamic representational resources, flexibly
transformed to achieve various cultural purposes.

A second facet of multiliteracies is argued concerning the need for a pedagogy of
multiliteracies to respond to increasing cultural and linguistic diversity. We are
living in a period of intense social and cultural change. This change is all-
encompassing in its global and local implications, and has resulted in the blurring
and redrawing of boundaries between different versions of English. Respect for
cultural and linguistic diversity in local contexts, and the responsive negotiation of
difference, are given priority in a pedagogy of multiliteracies.
2.1 Contextualising Multiliteracies
This section paints an historical backdrop of literacy pedagogy and research since
1960 in order to contextualise the need for a pedagogy of multiliteracies in the local
Australian milieu. This is important because the New London Group draws
selectively from conventional learning theories and practices to reformulate a new
pedagogy for the contemporary communications environment (New London Group,
2000). There have been four polarised positions within literacy education in
Australia, New Zealand, USA and the UK throughout the latter half of the twentieth
century:
a) Autonomous versus Sociocultural perspectives
b) Transmissive versus Progressive approaches
c) Cultural Heritage versus Critical Literacy
d) Genre Approach verses Multiliteracies
The following section works to show how each of these approaches have not
provided dialectic resolution, that is, a solution brought about through continuous
dialogue, to the shifting sands of language and learning (Lather, 1991). The
assumptions underlying these competing models are described and constructively
deconstructed, and the tensions reframed for understanding the multiliteracies
pedagogy, the focus of this investigation.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 15 -
2.1.1 Autonomous versus Sociocultural Perspectives
Historically, there are two opposing views of literacy that have guided literacy
pedagogy and research autonomous and sociocultural perspectives. This debate is
significant to this thesis because the autonomous view of literacy stands in antithesis
to a multiliteracies approach (See for example: New London Group, 1996; 2000). To
the autonomous view, literacy is a canonical set of personal and portable procedures.
It describes language and patterns of meaning making as inherently stable systems
of elements and rules that simply need transplanting to new environments. Street
(1984; 1999; 1993) labels this view the Autonomous Model of literacy because it
treats literacy technically, and as an independent variable that can be separated from
its social context. Individuals are seen as passive recipients, or at best, agents in the
reproduction of conventions. Therefore, this view fails to situate literacy within the
society of which the individual is a member. Devoid of personal, historical, social,
or cultural considerations, literacy is perceived as psychological, private practice
(Hagood, 2000). This view finds its expression in curricula that measure results
against the official standard of the national language. It obscures the connections
between literacy, power and social identity, privileging certain types of literacies and
people (Gee, 1996).

The alternative position is the sociocultural view, followed in this thesis and
explained fully in Chapter Three. Knowledge and literacies are primarily seen as
constructions of particular social groups (See for example: Fairclough, 1989; 1992;
Gee, 1992; 1996; Heath, 1983; 1999; Lankshear, Gee, Knobel, & Searle, 1997;
Lankshear & Knobel, 2003b; 2003; Luke & Freebody, 1997; Street, 1995; 1999;
Vygotsky, 1962; 1978; 1987). This theory has become increasingly visible since the
late 1970s with a renewed emphasis on the work of Vygotsky (Cope & Kalantzis,
1993; Vygotsky, 1962).

Vygotsky (1962) saw language as influenced and constituted by social relations or
socio-genesis, and as a tool for shaping, controlling and interacting with ones social
and physical environment. He theorised about the role of dialogue between an
expert teacher and novice learner, as a precursor to inner speech. When an expert
language user articulates a new concept, the learner can reflect on the dialogue,
using its distinctions and connections to reformulate his or her thoughts. This
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 16 -
perspective draws attention to the development of thought and language as a social
achievement, rather than an exclusively internal and psychological one (Vygotsky,
1962; 1978; 1987).

Street (1984; 1995; 1999; 1993), like Vygotsky, showed how literate practices carry
meaning primarily through their embeddedness in specific cultural values and
orientations. However, he also observed that as a social practice, literacy is linked
ideologically to social power. Street called this the Ideological Model, which
underscores the emphasis on social conventions and ideologies within institutions,
such as schools, that influence students access to literacy. Consequently, literacy is
researched, not as an independent variable, but as inseparable from social practices
and their effects, always embedded with larger social contexts and power relations
(Freebody, 1999).

More recently, Wertsch (1985; 1996a; 1996b) has applied Streets Ideological
Model to a critique of Vygotskys (1962) Thought and Language. Wertsch
(1996a; 1996b) argues that a disjunction exists between Vygotskys emphasis on the
childs internal, private, psychological world of meanings and the role of school in
the childs understanding of the external, public and social world of conventional
and systematic meanings. Similarly, Britton (1987) contends that Vygotsky
overemphasises the individual and considers the social only as interaction, while
ignoring issues of power and difference. Thus, Street, Wertsch, and Britton have
extended Vygotskian perspectives of language development to include factors that
are collectively cultural, thereby taking into greater account sociocultural differences
of language and culture, and critical perspectives of power in language use (Cazden,
2000).

The theoretical shift from the Autonomous model of literacy skills toward
Ideological or Sociocultural perspectives of literacy as a social practice was an
essential precursor to the multiliteracies pedagogy (Freebody, 1999). The theory of
multiliteracies draws attention to societal, institutional, cultural, technological,
economic and political changes on a global scale that have transformed literacy
practices in the twenty-first century (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000b). These changes
demand a pluralised conception of literacy and literacy pedagogy one that goes
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 17 -
beyond the autonomous view of literacy as a monomodal, monocultural, alphabetic
script or set of standard, static skills. The call is for new, multimodal, digitally
mediated, culturally diverse, and dynamic multiliteracies for our changing times.
One of the most contentious debates in literacy concerns transmissive pedagogies, of
which the basic skills approach is the best known, and progressive pedagogies, such
as whole language. This debate is significant to this thesis because two of the
components of the multiliteracies pedagogy overt instruction and situated practice
are a response to this polarisation (New London Group, 2000). The traditional,
compartmentalised, skills-based ideology of literacy has persisted since the 1960s.
While it historically represents the earliest research into literacy learning, its tenets
still dictate educational pedagogy both implicitly and explicitly (Ediger, 2001).

Associated with the transmission of basic skills is a false, sharp distinction between
the literate who possess these skills and the illiterate who do not. This approach is
tied to the autonomous view, because literacy is taught as technical,
decontextualised, neutral skills, which remain constant and stable irrespective of use.
Reading is described as a combination of visual and perceptual skills, sight
vocabulary, word attack skills and comprehension (Stewart-Dore, 2003). These
skills are taught and practised as if the social context of the literature is immaterial to
the learning of reading and ideologically benign. Most importantly, transmissive
approaches conceal the way in which literacy is linked to the agendas and power
relations of institutions and communities (Gee, 2000a; Luke, 1994; Muspratt, Luke,
& Freebody, 1997; Street, 1995; West, 1992).

Readers require knowledge that transcends the simple sound-letter relationships that
are taught in transmissive approaches. Phonological information alone is not a
sufficient resource for readers. A reader must know how to apply this information in
relation to multiple spelling choices for varying word contexts, with attention to
digraphs, blends, diphthongs, prefixes, suffixes, word roots, and syllabification. The
reader must also respond to semantic, syntactic, orthographic, visual, directional,
spatial, and redundancy cues embedded in texts (Bull & Anstey, 2003b; Clay, 1993).
Interpreting textual meaning includes a comprehensive consideration of the
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 18 -
overarching functional frame or cultural context, and the immediate situational or
social context. Furthermore, situated practice is required for students to transfer
literacy practice to genuine literacy situations outside the classroom, and this is
absent in transmissive approaches. The skills taught often have little relationship
with literacy in use, either in community, occupational or subsequent academic
experiences (See: Behrman, 2002; Lave, 1996; Macken-Horarik, 1997; Murphy,
1991; Putnam & Borko, 2000).

During the 1980s, the pedagogical pendulum moved from skills-based approaches to
emphasise the semantics of whole texts. Bartlett (1932), Goodman (1976), Graves
(1983), Smith (1978), Pearson and Johnson (1978), Cambourne (1988), and Turbill
(1983), advocated progressive, whole language approaches to reading.
Psycholinguistic reading research, from which these approaches emerged,
acknowledged the significance of the readers prior knowledge as a factor
influencing success in deriving meaning from texts. It was observed that different
text types and reading tasks require differing fields of prior knowledge. Whole
language and process models emphasised the semantic features of real-world texts,
such as generic structure, that skills-based approaches had disregarded (Ediger,
2001).

By the 1990s, progressive approaches such as whole language had become a subject
of controversy and critique among literacy educators such as Baker and Freebody
(1991), Baker(1989), Church (1994), Delpit (1988), Moorman, Blanton &
McLaughton (1994), Unsworth (1988), and Gray (1987). The whole language
approach is based on the view that the written modes of language can be
successfully taught by reproducing the conditions in which children acquire oral
language (Cambourne, 1988). Critics have contended that this is inadequate because
it fails to acknowledge that oral language acquisition and formal literacy learning
reading and writing are two distinct processes. The rules of interaction and
attendant power relations for some speech situations are known intuitively. However,
written language is not mastered intuitively because it is a social technology
entailing a set of historically evolving techniques for inscription. The lexico-
grammatical structures of written language are different from those of speech, and
the functions of written text vary greatly across literate cultures and historical
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 19 -
epochs (Emmitt & Pollock, 1997; Luke, 1994). Many tribal cultures do not operate
with writing systems, and without instruction children will not necessarily develop
or invent reading and writing skills spontaneously (Muspratt et al., 1997).

Cambournes (1988) Conditions of Learning, which reflect progressive ideals, have
been criticised because they do not take into account the diversity of textual
practices and conditions for early language acquisition across home cultures (Bull &
Anstey, 2003b; Muspratt et al., 1997). A landmark ethnographic study by Heath
(1983) examined a wide range of family literacy practices within and across social
classes. These studies showed that childrens language learning reflects their
respective histories and the distinct patterns of face-to-face interaction in their
communities (Heath, 1983). Heaths research also showed that children whose home
literacy practices most resembled those of the school were the most successful at
school. Cambournes (1988) assumption that there are universal principles that
shape oral language acquisition is not consistent with Heaths research.

A further argument is that the emphasis on acquisition in progressive approaches has
led to implicit rather than explicit teaching practices. Delpit (1988) argues that
children who are not from the dominant culture benefit from explicit teaching
methods and language. Rather than acquiring the dominant discourse of the
classroom naturally, minority students require clearly communicated expectations
regarding the rules for culturally-defined forms of behaviour at school (Delpit, 1988).
Whole language methods that rely on implicit teaching practices and conditions of
learning found in Anglo-Saxon homes advantages the dominant over the minority
ethnic groups and social classes (Anstey & Bull, 1996). The teacher and the
dominant, middle class, Anglo-Saxon students are the native members, while the
marginalised children are immigrants, highlighting the problematic nature of
Cambournes natural learning (See: Bernhard, Freire, Torres, & Nirdosh, 1998;
Bourdieu, 1977; Gallas, 1997; Gee, 1996; Heath, 1983; Soler-Gallart, 1998; Soto,
1997; Street, 1984).

The polarisation between transmissive approaches, such as basic skills, and
progressive approaches, such as whole language, are significant to this thesis
because the multiliteracies pedagogy works to reconcile these historical tensions.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 20 -
This debate highlights the need for a new pedagogy that combines the strengths of
both approaches one that combines systematic, explicit instruction with situated
literacy practices that are used in a changing society.
2.1.3 Cultural Heritage versus Critical Literacy
Another significant polarisation is the cultural heritage versus critical literacy divide.
This is important in this study because it foregrounded the critical framing
component of the multiliteracies pedagogy (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000c). Historically,
cultural heritage advocates have appealed to the unchanging merit and meaning of
historically ratified texts, and the implicit affirmations of fictionally encoded values
and conservative systems of belief (Hollingdale, 1995). On the other side of the
debate, critical literacy educators emphasise the need to develop alternative reading
positions and practices for questioning and critiquing texts with their affiliated social
formations and culturally specific assumptions (Durrant & Green, 2000; Lankshear
& Knobel, 2003a; West, 1992). Reading is seen as critical social practice rather than
as cultural transmission.

The historically validated purposes of the cultural heritage position are legitimate
outcomes of literacy instruction. However, it does not take into account the fact that
texts and textual practices work in the construction of subjectivity and production of
culture (Anstey & Bull, 1996). Critical literacy advocates challenge these
conservative presuppositions on a number of issues.

The cultural heritage model seeks the reproduction of dominant cultural values of
the past and compliance with the literary tastes of the most powerful. Additionally,
arbitrary market decisions play a role in this selective tradition, producing an
excessively derivative and homogenised canon of literature (Anstey & Bull, 1996).
The establishment of a dominant literary tradition is inequitable, since minority and
indigenous communities also have a stake in literate practice in a multicultural
society. Arbitrary value should not be given to historically ratified, Anglo-Saxon
texts. Rather, judgments about quality and inclusiveness must be equally
interrogated in the interests of marginalised groups. Conventionally valued criteria
for judging the quality of childrens literature are biased, reflecting the interests and
ideologies of the dominant culture.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 21 -

Furthermore, this debate can be framed in the light of the diverse purposes of
literacy in society today. Historically valued texts are not representative of the
kaleidoscope of texts and literacies that children encounter in society. For example,
the valued literature canon systematically excludes certain text types such as picture
books, popular texts, romance and science fiction. Removing these popular fictions
from the curriculum disenfranchises many groups and negates valuable opportunities
to meet childrens interests. At the same time, the pervasiveness of popular culture
leaves a significant number of gendered representations and stereotypes unopposed
and unquestioned, and the classroom provides opportunity for this critique (Arthur,
2001; Hollingdale, 1995; Muspratt et al., 1997; Singh, 1997; West, 1992; Wyatt-
Smith, 2000).

The selection of childrens picture books is a culturally and politically complex act.
Through the selection of textbooks, genres, childrens literature, and media, a
selective or dominant mainstream culture is naturalised as the way things are
universally (Knobel & Healy, 1998, p.3). The choice of literature used in schools is
ideologically value-laden, and criteria for judging the quality of school texts are
shifting in the context of changes in society and culture. School texts are key sites in
which mainstream discourses, political ideologies and economic interests can be
contested rather than unquestioningly transmitted (Baker & Luke, 1991; Macken-
Horarik, 1997).

Similarly, critical literacy, which takes an opposing stance on this issue, should not
be exempt from interrogation and critique. The strength of critical literacy is its
attention to the social and cultural nature of literacy in which materially and
symbolically unequal relationships of power are often implicated and constructed
(Green, 1997b). However, the claims of critical literacy are marked by some key
difficulties, because the ability to read and write is no guarantee of either freedom
for the individual or economic prosperity for the nation (West, 1992).

One of the claims of critical literacy is that literate practices are instrumental to
competent social performance, knowledge and power. Critical literacy aims to
oppose prevailing structures that limit the access, entitlement and empowerment of
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 22 -
those marginalised by racial, class, gender, or occupational status. However,
mastery of critical literacies does not automatically ensure that the individual
transcends social class and power structures (Hollingdale, 1995; West, 1992).
Comber warns: Despite the contemporary claims of critical literacy, we need to ask
for the evidence that supports how these literate practices solve poverty and crime,
and challenges the existing social structures and class distinctions (Comber, 1997,
p.25).

Furthermore, the claims for critical literacy are often embedded in pejorative
language that militates against its advancement. For example, the oppressor is
defined, not on the basis of ones intention or wish to oppress, but upon ones
location in an oppressive structure. More specifically, the oppressor is usually
defined as a middle class, white male holding a senior position in a hierarchical
institution. In dialogue with powerful political figures in efforts to reform
institutional structures and educational policies, the disparaging nature of the term
oppressor renders it difficult to employ (West, 1992).

Critical literacy advocates should articulate and critique their own values and socio-
political agendas. Teachers need to reflect continuously on how critical literacy is
constructed in their classroom, ensuring that they are not engaging in a form of
political manipulation and suppression of multiple points of view. For example,
teachers have traditionally had a propensity to claim a high moral ground based on
the negative critique of childrens popular culture (Baker & Luke, 1991; Faraclas,
1997; Knobel & Healy, 1998). Teachers may unwittingly communicate that adults
do not condone certain popular and pleasurable discourses. Consequently, teachers
who offer their critique as a non-oppressive, enlightened, and empowering
alternative are not always understood by students in this way, who may experience
this pedagogy as authoritarian (Kenway & Bullen, 2001).

Thus, despite its many contributions to education, critical literacy does not neutralise
literacy practice, since it is driven by its own political agenda for social change
(Comber, 1997; Kenway & Bullen, 2001). It is important to take a critical position
with regard to both texts and textual practice in schools, subjecting the critical
literacy classroom itself to analysis and critique (Knobel & Healy, 1998). Critical
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 23 -
literacy alone is not the universal remedy to cure the uneven distribution of
knowledge and inequalities of power in contemporary society.
2.1.4 Genre Approach versus Multiliteracies
Literacy educators in the late 1980s and early 1990s began to recognise that access
to literacies requires access to a growing hierarchy of genres, often systematically
related to the structures of power and purposes of language in society. Access to
literacies was seen to require versatile and flexible competencies to contend with
diverse texts, genres and discourses in various social contexts (Hollingdale, 1995).
These genres were seen to have varying degrees of utility and social power. Failure
to acknowledge this principle was a key weakness of both the whole language and
skills-based approaches to literacy (West, 1992). Halliday (1978; 1991; 1994)
developed a functional grammar that could be used to talk about how language was
used and to assist in examining how texts were structured.

Throughout the 1990s, Hallidays functional grammar was applied in Australian
schools as the genre-based or functional approach, extended by leading linguists
including Martin and Rothery (1980; 1981; 1986), Kress (1993b), Christie (1989),
and Cope and Kalantzis (1993). A genre approach to literacy teaching involved
being explicit about the way language works to make meaning. This served to
counter the implicit teaching methods of progressive pedagogies, that had failed to
improve patterns of educational attainment (Cope & Kalantzis, 1993). Four stages of
the genre approach building knowledge of the field, modelling, joint construction,
and independent construction of the text were taught using examples of genres,
showing how purpose and context influence the generic structure and linguistic
features of texts. The genre approach was successful in gaining the support of
Australian educational policy and funding, having a direct contribution to the Years
P-10 English Language Arts Syllabus in Queensland in 1994 (Anstey & Bull, 1996;
Richardson, 1991; Wyatt-Smith, 2000).

Literacy education in Australia was strengthened by the explicit teaching of the
purposes and features of discourses and genres (Richardson, 1991; Unsworth, 2002).
However, the rigid adherence to pure examples of the genre in teachers practice
limited the benefits of the genre approach (Anstey & Bull, 2004b). The tightly
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 24 -
prescribed generic boundaries presented literacy as a seemingly fixed, immutable
world of texts in which the boundaries are clearer and more decisive than they really
are in society.

Many of these specialised genres and competencies were drawn from teacher
reference materials containing highly predictable texts that were not authentic
examples of the genres. These texts had minimal transfer to occupational and
community life, while certain functional and powerful literacies were absent from
primary school programs (Richardson, 1991). As users followed the given structures,
a limited range of genres seemingly became authoritative (Green, 1987).

The static description of the textual features of genres and text types within various
modes does not account for the burgeoning variety of multimodal texts and blurring
of genres that students need to negotiate in order to participate in contemporary
society. Genres rarely exist in static and pure forms, but are dynamic and always
changing in response to the purposes, social contexts, audiences and technologies
used to produce them. For example, explanations are often found within procedural
genres, or recounts within narratives.

Another key criticism of the genre approach is that language was focused on the
written mode. Learning to write cannot be reduced to the control of print-based
genres, which are only one important part of the process of learning to communicate
(Sawyer & Watson, 1987). For example, in the multimedia environment today, a
written report is frequently mediated by digital technology using computer software.
Research might be conducted via the Internet to access on-line databases and
journals. Images and graphs that require the use of a digital camera or graphic
software might be necessary to combine visual and spatial meanings. The final
report might be distributed orally with a PowerPoint presentation, or electronically
via email or a website (Anstey & Bull, 2004b).

Thus, the shortcomings of the genre approach have become more apparent as
children require access to an increasing proliferation of hybrid literacies associated
with multimedia communications channels, and culturally and linguistically diverse
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 25 -
textual practice for the real world. This highlights the need for a new, flexible
system of meaning making that is far more dynamic than the genre approach allows.

In summary, each new wave of educational practice, designed to improve literacy
education, has in turn been replaced by something else (Richardson, 1991). Since the
1960s, each of these perspectives and pedagogies has contributed new
understandings of literacy from skills-based approaches of decoding to progressive
models of text meaning, and from cultural conservation to critique. Taken in
isolation, none of these extant literacy pedagogies is sufficient for all students to
access literacy in a culturally and linguistically diverse society.

Thus, there is a need for a new pedagogy that combines the strengths of past
approaches. The multiliteracies pedagogy was formed partly in response to the
contours of these extant pedagogies, that are becoming increasingly removed from
the changing literacies required in the domains of work, citizenship and public life
(Cope & Kalantzis, 2000c).
2.2 Conceptualising Multiliteracies
The following section (2.2.1) addresses the first proposition of the New London
Group (1996) concerning the multiplicity of communication channels and media,
and its implications for a pedagogy of multiliteracies. This calls for a new,
multimodal metalanguage to extend static, rule-governed, and monomodal
grammars of the past (Section 2.2.1.1). The hybridisation and intertextuality of
contemporary textual designs are addressed in section 2.2.1.2, because they are of
fundamental importance to the view of language underlying a pedagogy of
multiliteracies (Fairclough, 2000).

The second proposition of the New London Group (1996), concerning increasing
cultural and linguistic diversity, is emphasised in Section 2.2.2. It is contended that
literacy pedagogy should make space for the multilayered and divergent lifeworlds
of students through constantly crossing cultural boundaries (Sections 2.2.1). This is
exemplified in classrooms described by the New London Group as Communities of
Learning (Section 2.2.2.2).
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 26 -
2.2.1 The Multiplicity of Communication Channels & Media
The first proposition of multiliteracies is that there is an expanding array of
communications channels and multimodal, semiotic systems in society, which
requires a new literacy pedagogy (Kalantzis et al., 2002; Lankshear et al., 1997).
The New London Group argues that in the twenty-first century, literacy educators
face new challenges associated with technological imperatives (New London Group,
1996). Computer-mediated communication is producing different social practices to
print-based modes, and these are undoubtedly changing education. Digital
technology and the related convergence of the industries of computing, broadcasting
and publishing now shape many aspects of our culture. Participation in
contemporary life necessitates that students become competent users of electronic
literacies. For example, online activity is often the preferred way of negotiating
goods and services by major institutions and service providers (See: Cope, 2000;
Luke, 2000).

The need to integrate electronic environments in literacy pedagogy was
foregrounded in debates throughout the nineties, including the work of Bigum
(1997; 1993a), Dyrud (1995), Burbules (1996), Foster (1989), Green (1997a), Healy
(1999; 2000), Landow (1992; 1991), Lankshear (1998; 1997; 2000), Leu (1996),
Reinking (1997), Snyder (1997), Sproull (1991), Strassman (1997), Unsworth
(1999), and Willard (1985). These theorists argue that computer-based technologies
have decisively changed existing understandings of literacy, curriculum and
research. It is not simply that the tools of literacy have changed, but the very nature
of texts, language, and literacy are undergoing crucial transformations.

The following key differences between screen-based and pencil and paper-based
textual practices provide an agenda for multiliteracies and this thesis:
1. A proliferation of new screen-based genres
2. Non-linear reading and navigation skills
3. Increased interactivity between reader and writer
4. Changed production, processing, and transmission of virtual text
5. A need for heightened critical literacy skills

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 27 -
The first issue is the need for literacy curricula to incorporate a widening range of
digital text types with their associated boundaries of generic structure that are less
visible than time honoured, written forms. New discourses have arisen that are
exclusive to the digital landscape, and the related convergence of linguistic and
iconic codes has prompted textual theorists to examine these shifts in meaning
making (Kalantzis et al., 2002; Lankshear et al., 1997; Mitchell, 1999). Conceptions
of literacy must be expanded to include the visual arts and representational literacies
in digital formats that make possible a fluid relationship between word, sound and
image. The profusion of hypermedia (that is, electronically networked media), has
created new purposes and generic features of reconfigured, screen-based genres.
New discourses and text types have arisen, including abbreviated, informal, and
interactive forms of electronic communication such as emails and on-line
discussions of various kinds (Healy, 1999; Reinking, 1997; Williams, 2001).

Another corollary of the convergence of technology and literacy is that electronic
environments challenge conventional notions of reading (See: Burbules & Callister,
1996; Green & Bigum, 2003; Healy, 1999; Landow & Delany, 1991; LoBianco &
Freebody, 1997; Luke, 2000; McKenna, Reinking, Labbo, & Kieffer, 1999; Snyder,
1998). The physical non-linearity of electronic texts involves increasingly
sophisticated navigational skills and search capabilities. Author-controlled textual
environments, characterised by the arrangement of words in top-down, left-to-right,
beginning-to-end tangibility, have changed. Virtual communication uses flexible,
reader-controlled, dialogical environments that are open to manipulation.

Networked, digital texts do not require the same text mapping skills as those
required to read lengthy, linear strings of page-bound print. While the non-linear
reading of text appeared long before the Internet was accessible, the Internet makes
these intertextual paths more explicit. Navigating hypertext, (that is, electronically
networked text), diversifies the direction of meaningful associations to a potentially
unlimited degree requiring unlimited semiosis (Burbules & Callister, 1996; Kress,
2000a). The active process of interpreting virtual text is now an open-ended cycle
of linkages to make meaning.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 28 -
Computer mediated communication is also producing radically merged and reshaped
social practices and conceptions of textuality and communication (Luke, 2000). For
example, electronic environments allow readers and writers who are physically
remote to occupy the same cyberspace in radical interactiveness (Burbules &
Callister, 1996). Two-way communication occurs through electronic networks, with
hypertext blurring the distinction between reader and author as both become readers
of hypertext pathways. Electronic texts are not static, discrete units, but are dynamic
and malleable, open to re-authoring multiple times. There is often an abandonment
of the single-minded, authorial voice for scholarly texts, which has been supplanted
by a multivocal metadiscourse, that is, writing which reflects upon itself. There is
increased dialogue between author and reader, along with a greater need to
acknowledge opposing views (Healy, 1999; Leu, 1997; Peters & Lankshear, 1995;
Reinking, 1997).
Similarly, there is a transformation of the production, processing and transmission of
virtual text, changes that have been discussed beyond the New London Group (See:
Anderson-Inman, 1998; Hannon, 2000; Lankshear et al., 1997; Snyder, 1999).
Electronic environments require multimodal writing strategies involving the
transmission and modification of text through digitalised codes. Electronic text is
modifiable, linkable, searchable, replicable, distributable, programmable,
collaborative and able to be stored and retrieved with ease. Functions such as saving
and converting virtual text to print are new components of screen-based writing.

Finally, theorists have long emphasised the need for critical reading of texts and of
the wider social practices sustained through this interaction, such as literacy
pedagogy (See, for example: Bigum & Green, 1993b; Burbules & Callister, 1996;
Peters & Lankshear, 1995; Soloway, 2000; Unsworth, 1981). However, there is now
a heightened educational concern associated with the Internet (Luke, 2000). Many
students have access to a deluge of texts from powerful, unrestrained and potentially
harmful sources purporting to offer authentic information. This has alerted educators
to the need for critical literacy skills to challenge, critique, and evaluate partial and
distorted textual meanings, and to identify who benefits from electronic sites. With
the enormous growth in the volume of textual materials, there is also a requirement
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 29 -
for increased abilities associated with critically selecting, reducing, and evaluating
reliable information.

Therefore, it is now widely agreed that rapid technological change has created
divergences between screen-based texts and books, necessitating new pedagogies to
replace exclusively monomodal literacy approaches (See: Barnitz & Speaker, 1999;
Cope, 2000; Department of Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs,
1997; Department of Education Training and Youth Affairs, 1997b; Healy, 1999;
Hollingdale, 1995; Kling, 1983; Unsworth, 2002). Educators cannot simply assume
that students are competent in techno-literacy practices because they access video
games for pleasure. There is a need for research to investigate the effects of literacy
pedagogy on students access to a wide range of multiliteracies, including those
associated with digital communications environments that are required for
meaningful participation in a changing society.
2.2.1.1 Design, multimodality and a new meta-language.
Design is paramount to a pedagogy of multiliteracies because it describes the active
and dynamic process of meaning making through available resources, rather than
simply conforming to a set of static rules. Design and learning are parallel concepts,
since learning is the result of designing, involving complex systems of people,
environments, technology, beliefs and texts (Buchanan & Margonlin, 1995;
Burbules & Callister, 1996; Kress, 2000a). An important implication of design for
this study is that the students must be free to engage in the transformation of existing
multimedia designs to create new designs, rather than being required to reproduce
linguistic conventions.

Design involves three elements: Available designs; designing; and the redesigned.
Learners draw on available designs that are resources for making meaning,
including the grammars of various semiotic systems such as discourses, styles,
genres, dialects, voices, and gestures. Designing is the semiotic process of shaping
emergent meaning and involves representation or recontextualisation. The product is
the redesigned, which is not a simple reproduction, as transmission pedagogy seeks,
nor solely personal creativity, to which progressive pedagogy aims. Rather, the
redesigned is the product of a process involving both reproduction and creativity.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 30 -
Sign-makers not only make new meanings, but remake themselves through their
engagement with others (Cope, 2000; Kress, 2000a; New London Group, 1996;
Trimbur, 2001). For example, by taking on the situated identities of people engaged
in real work, such as producers, filmmakers, authors, and scientists, students may
see their own and others potential for designing with new confidence.

Multimodality is also central to a pedagogy of multiliteracies. It expresses the
complexity and interrelationship of more than one mode of meaning, combining
linguistic, visual, auditory, gestural or spatial modes. The New London Group
(2000, p.25-28) also uses the terms meanings, modes of meaning, designs,
and design elements as synonyms for the five modes (See Figure 2.2.1.1).

Figure 2.2.1.1 Model of Multiliteracies Design Elements

Visual meanings or modes include images, page layouts, screen formats, colours,
perspectives, vectors, foregrounding and backgrounding. Audio meanings include
music and sound effects. Gestural design involves body language, gestures, kinesics,
feelings and behaviour. Spatial design includes the meanings of environmental,
architectural, and geographical meanings. Multimodal design differs from
independent modes because it interconnects the other modes in dynamic
relationships. It is the most significant because it involves the whole body in the
process of learning (Kress, 2000b; Luke, 2000; New London Group, 2000).

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 31 -
Multimodal meaning making involves processes of integration as the reader moves
alternately between various modes, which form a network of interlocking resources.
Multimodality captures the multifaceted and holistic nature of human expression and
perception, while linguistics alone does not embrace the full richness of semiotics.
In schools, linguistic meaning is often privileged over non-linguistic modes, and
writing over speech. Modes involved in visual arts, movement and music have been
relegated outside dominant theories of communication in education (Kress, 2000a,
2000b). Consequently, students are often unprepared for the demanding uses of
literacy across multiple modes in society. While not all modes are equally important
in all social contexts, they are important aspects of meaning making that require
attention (Black & Goebel, 2002; New London Group, 1996).

Central to a pedagogy of multiliteracies is the development of a new meta-language
that is capable of describing a wider range of communication channels and media in
society (New London Group, 2000, p.19). A salient implication of the new meta-
language for this study is that the teacher and student participants should begin to
articulate and apply a new grammar for describing multimodal texts. This
metalanguage refers to a language for describing the confluence of different words,
images, sounds, gestures, and the spatial organisation of texts, in meaning-making
interactions.

Table 2.2.1.1 provides examples of the beginnings of a multimodal meta-language to
support the critical analysis of designs across the five modes (Cope, 2000). The table
analyses the meanings of everyday texts by addressing: a) Representational meaning
what the meanings refer to, b) Social meaning how meanings connect the
persons involved in the text, c) Organisational meaning how the meanings are
structured to work together, d) Contextual meaning how the meanings fit into the
larger social context, and, e) Ideological meanings how the meanings are skewed
to serve the interests of certain persons.

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 32 -
Linguistic
Examples
Visual
Examples
Spatial
Examples
Gestural
Examples
Audio
Examples
Representational
What do the
meanings refer to?
The word
she is
understood
only in
relation to a
person
previously
named in a
paragraph.
A photo
displayed of
the Queen of
England has
political,
cultural, and
historical
meaning.
Hard seating
at
McDonalds
is designed
to keep cash
flow, food
and
customers
moving.
Facial
expressions
indicate
certain
emotions.
An
ambulance
siren tells
other drivers
to give way
to the
emergency
vehicle.
Social
How do the
meanings connect
the persons
involved?
A first-aid
manual is
written by a
medical
expert for the
novice.
A picture
taken from a
low angle
makes a social
figure look
powerful in
relation to the
viewer.
The design
of a lecture
hall
concentrates
social
interactions
on the main
speaker.
Eye contact
connects
speakers and
listeners.
Restaurant
music
provides a
background
to other social
interactions
while a
concert
orchestra is
the focus of
the social
interaction.
Organisational
How do the
meanings hang
together?
A novel has
a different
generic
structure and
linguistic
features than
a science
report.
Images in the
centre of a
picture are
given priority
over images
in the
margins.
Websites are
hyperlinked
to other web
pages and
sites to
create a non-
linear
network of
information.
The postures
of a group of
actors on a
stage (e.g.
standing/sitti
ng)
communicate
s certain
meanings.
Intonation,
rhythm, pitch,
volume, and
prosody of
speech work
together to
convey
meaning.
Contextual
How do the
meanings fit into
the larger world of
meaning?
SMS
2

messages
blur the
conventions
of speaking
& writing to
convey
informality
and to limit
the duration
of
interactions.
An image
located in an
art gallery has
a different
meaning to
the same
image
depicted in
the context of
an
advertisement.
Modern
architecture
makes
references to
other cultural
contexts (e.g.
Western
design
incorporating
Japanese
motifs).
The meaning
of hand
gestures of a
policeperson
at an
intersection
differs from
other social
contexts.
In the context
of a thriller
movie, music
works with
fast images to
convey
suspense and
excitement.
Ideological
Whose interests are
the meanings
skewed to serve?
The omission
of price in an
advertisement
is deliberate.
Journalists
selectively
present
images to
shock or
persuade the
viewer
The absence
of windows
and clocks in
casinos
manipulates
gamblers to
forget the
passage of
time.
Magic tricks
deliberately
use larger
gestures and
motions to
hide or blur
smaller
motions.
Music in
department
stores is
deliberately
designed to
make buyers
linger.
Table 2.2.1.1 Analysis of Texts Using the Five Modes (Adapted: Cope & Kalantzis,
1999)

2
Short Message Service or cell phone text messaging
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 33 -

In developing a multimodal metalanguage, Cope and Kalantzis have drawn upon
Hallidays (1978; 1994) Functional Grammar, extending his exclusively linguistic
metalanguage to incorporate visual, spatial, gestural and audio modes (See, for
detailed examples of multimodal textual analysis: Cope & Kalantzis, 1999).

The metalanguage for multiliteracies has been criticised by some educators at
various points in its development (See, for example: Cameron, 2000; Pennycook,
1996; Prain, 1997; Trimbur, 2001). For example, Prain (1997) criticises the New
London Group for claiming that static rules do not govern meaning making, because
in practice, the group provides elaborate codes and checklists of multimodal
elements. He asserts that their analysis, based on Hallidays Systemic Functional
Linguistic and discourse analysis, presumes that the constituent elements of meaning
making remain largely stable, chartable and programmable. Prain (1997) argues that
this contradicts their rejection of stable systems of grammar and their appeal to the
multifarious, hybrid texts that are proliferating and ever changing. He argues that the
reformulation of linguistic grammars to include the five modes of design has opened
up an unwieldy number of text types to be addressed in literacy education. This
creates a daunting task for formal analysis, requiring tools that the New London
Group has not provided.

Furthermore, Prain contends that the theoretical and practical boundaries of the
design elements are not sufficient for formulating curriculum, and are currently
unsuitable for classroom discussion. In other words, a usable map of the real terrain
to be negotiated is inadequately developed (Prain, 1997). The content rather than
pedagogy of multiliteracies has similarly been appraised by Pennycooks (1996)
generally positive review, who nevertheless reflected that terms such as design,
designing and the redesigned remain imprecise and require concretisation.

Cope and Kalantzis (1997a; 2000b; 2005) have responded to such critique through
the ongoing reformulation of a multimodal meta-language, and have invited scholars
and researchers to continue this dialogue. In extending the limits of existing
grammars for describing language, they have described a less-bounded system of
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 34 -
meaning making than linguists have previously acknowledged. However, this
reflects the reality of multiple communication modes and textual practices that
emerge in society around us. Multiliteracies are social practices. Therefore, the
boundaries of textual design are dependent on the meaning-making resources
available to text users, in particular cultural, economic, social, political, institutional,
historical, and localised contexts.

Systems of meaning are fluid created, developed and transformed in response to
the communicative needs of society (Kress, Jewitt, Ogborn, & Tsatsarelis, 2001).
Paradoxically, there are some core elements of meaning making that remain
essentially stable. The new meta-language is intended to be sufficiently regular,
while flexible enough to recognise similarities and divergences, boundaries and
fluidity across time and place. This is because the redesigned always builds on
existing resources for meaning making, having a degree of familiarity that enables
the formulation of descriptive and analytic categories (Cope & Kalantzis, 1997a).
Conversely, flexibility is also important, because the relationship between
descriptive and analytical categories and actual events is shifting, provisional,
unsure, and relative to the contexts and purposes of analysis (New London Group,
2000, p.24).
2.2.1.2 Hybridisation and intertextuality.
Hybridisation is fundamentally important to a pedagogy of multiliteracies, because it
draws attention to change, rather than stasis, in textual designs. Hybridisation is the
mixing of different discursive practices in a text, which is realised in the
heterogeneity and creativity of the design (Fairclough, 2000). For example, the
generic limits of picture books have been extended by including puzzles, riddles,
spoonerisms, flaps, pockets and fold-out pages which continually engage the reader
in both the written and visual text (Bull & Anstey, 2003b). The original picture
book can be merged with the hybrid textual features of electronic, networked sites,
transforming the linear reading of the book with simulated hyperlinked pages and
icons, which invoke a non-linear reading of the text and multiple pathways.
Sufficient access to the modes and meanings of the new literacies allows students to
create textual designs that are characterised by hybridisation, using original
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 35 -
combinations of existing resources for meaning making (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005;
Lo Bianco, 2000, p.92).

Similarly, access to designs of meaning requires that students can make intertextual
connections between the meanings represented in various texts, including their own
transformed designs (Cope, 2000, p.211). Intertextuality refers to the cross-
referencing of recognisable connections and juxtaposed meanings between texts. For
example, television advertising is saturated with cross-references to events, images,
quotes, or lyrics in famous movies and songs. In this way, intertextuality draws
attention to the potentially complex ways in which meanings constitute relationships
to other texts (New London Group, 2000). Intertextuality can be reproductive or
hybrid. Reproductive or normative intertextual practices are those that are similar to
existing meanings, such as sentences copied from the blackboard. In contrast, hybrid
practices are those that are creative transformations of original resources for
meaning making, such as an innovative film (Fairclough, 2000).

In conclusion, this section has argued that the semiotic landscape is undeniably
changing in fundamental ways, and this transformation relates to the burgeoning
variety of text forms associated with information and multimedia technologies. The
increasing multiplicity of communication channels & media calls for a new literacy
pedagogy. However, multiliteracies is equally a response to increased cultural and
linguistic diversity in local contexts, and the new demands it places on equitable
literacy education (New London Group, 1996). This is the focus of the following
discussion.
2.2.2 Cultural & Linguistic Diversity
The scale of human movement across nations has made multiculturalism an
unprecedented global phenomenon (Lo Bianco, 2000). Local contexts have become
heterogeneous collections of diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural groups. These local
divergences become more significant via communication and information
technologies that interconnect the world. So as society is becoming globally
connected through the Internet, travel and telecommunications, diversity within local
contexts is also increasing (Fairclough, 2000). Students will have to negotiate
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 36 -
differences every day, in their local communities and in their globally
interconnected working and community lives (New London Group, 2000).

Because of these changes associated with cultural globalisation, language and
literacies are now multicultural and pluralised (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000a). These
factors complicate access to literacies, particularly as dominant and marginalised
cultures need to work harmoniously in locally diverse environments. Changes in
economic, civic and personal spheres of life require changing roles of schools and
the extension of existing literacy pedagogies to be inclusive of cultural and linguistic
diversity (Lo Bianco, 2000).

A profound implication of cultural and linguistic diversity is that there is no
national, canonical English that can or should be taught any more. Local diversity
and global connectedness invalidates the need for a standard language. This is
because language is polymorphous, with a multiplicity of purposes. Likewise, the
repertoires of linguistic resources available in different cultures vary (Cazden,
1972). A pedagogy of multiliteracies should enable student to negotiate and switch
between regional, ethnic or class-based dialects variations in register that occur
according to social contexts and cross-cultural discourses (New London Group,
2000).

This research investigates the degree to which a teachers enactment of the
multiliteracies pedagogy creates space for cultural and language differences among
the learners, while accommodating for a diversity of modalities in communication
(Lo Bianco, 2000). A significant challenge is to find ways to use cultural and
linguistic differences to enable students to access multiliteracies. For example, a
Thai student who had only recently arrived in Australia could speak little English,
but possessed a remarkable ability to communicate through the visual mode. The
teacher could draw on the students visual designs to create a bridge to simple
written and spoken forms of English. Such practices express genuine recognition
and appreciation of cultural and linguistic diversity among students.

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 37 -
2.2.2.1 Lifeworlds.
The concept of lifeworld is central to a pedagogy of multiliteracies because it helps
explain the role of transformation in the everyday experiences of students. The
lifeworld refers to a students purview or world of everyday lived experience,
which is comprised of shared cultural assumptions. It includes established truths
acquired by people, which they apply to everyday life (Cope, 2000, p.206). This is a
reformulation of Husserls concept of lifeworld, which is everyday practical
situational truths (Husserl, 1970, p.109-133). The multiliteracies conception of the
lifeworld differs from Husserl in that individuals possess, not one lifeworld, but
infinite overlapping lifeworlds, always unique while referencing established patterns
of representation and culture. For example, a Tongan student will bring the shared
understandings of their first culture and language to negotiate a very different set of
lifeworld experiences in Australia. At the same time, there will always be some
elements of experience that are shared cross-culturally.

Students lifeworlds are composed of constantly changing, divergent meanings and
subjective, multilayered truths. These differences are based on an individuals
membership in overlapping communities, including different experiences, texts,
media messages, technologies, interests, affiliations and ethnicities. Students must
become adept as they negotiate the various lifeworlds each of them adopts and
confronts in their everyday lives (Cope, 2000; Cope & Kalantzis, 1997a; New
London Group, 2000).

The point for a pedagogy of multiliteracies is this: Education engages with the
dissimilar lifeworlds of students with differing degrees of inclusion (Cope, 2000).
The shift from a childs lifeworld to formal education causes a complex mediation
between the cultures of the home and the school. For example, the language
experiences that children bring to the classroom have varying degrees of continuity
with school literacies (Bull & Anstey, 2003a). Marginalised students have a greater
distance to navigate because of the degree of mismatch between their lifeworld and
the commonly shared experiences of the dominant culture (Cope, 2000, p.206;
Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b). The challenge for teachers of multiliteracies is to create
an environment in which students divergent lifeworlds can burgeon collaboratively
(New London Group, 2000).
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 38 -
2.2.2.2 Communities of learners.
A pedagogy of multiliteracies requires the establishment of the classroom as a
community of learners. The most significant feature of this learning environment is
that learning occurs for students within a zone of joint activity. Drawing from
Vygotsky (1978), the zone of proximal development is the distance between current
levels of comprehension and levels that can be accomplished in collaboration with
peers, books, people or powerful artefacts such as computers (Brown et al., 1993).
The students, technologies, and structured activities perform the role of more
capable experts, rather than students having to rely exclusively on the scaffolding
provided by the teacher (Gee, 2000b). In this way, learning becomes shared,
collaborative and distributed among the students and teacher (Gee, 2000b). For
example, students could collaboratively design a PowerPoint presentation to inform
the school of a forthcoming event. The students would need opportunities to scaffold
one anothers ideas to achieve their purposes. This collaboration should lead to the
transformation of meaning making resources, and more importantly, lead to change
within the students.

2.3 Summary of Chapter Two
Chapter Two has explored relevant literature to contextualise and conceptualise a
pedagogy of multiliteracies (Sections 2.1 and 2.2). The first section (2.1) provided
an historical context for understanding the multiliteracies pedagogy by challenging
four binary oppositions within literacy education in Australian primary schools from
the 1960s to the present. Eight literacy approaches were described, with significant
criticism raised by their detractors. This review highlighted the need for
pedagogical transformation to address the constantly shifting forms of
communication required in the twenty-first century. It was argued that a pedagogy of
multiliteracies draws from the strengths of these extant pedagogies to reframe a new
approach for the changing times.

The second section (2.2) gave careful attention to the twofold emphasis of
multiliteracies; namely, the multiplicity of communications channels, and cultural
and linguistic diversity (New London Group, 1996). The salient implications of
these two dimensions of multiliteracies were examined for literacy pedagogy. It
was contended that a pedagogy of multiliteracies stands in antithesis to monomodal
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 39 -
conceptions of literacy, by providing access to multiple modes of meaning as
dynamic representational resources. Multiliteracies emphasises an open-ended and
flexible grammar which assists learners to describe cultural, subcultural, and
regional language differences.

A pedagogy of multiliteracies aims to create space for cultural and linguistic
differences among the learners. This presents a significant challenge for teachers of
multiliteracies who endeavour to build these learning conditions to open possibilities
for greater access, without students having to leave behind their different lifeworlds
and cultural resources for meaning making.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 40 -
Chapter Three Theoretical Framing of the Study

3.0 Introduction
This thesis applies critical theory to an investigation of students access to
multiliteracies a new space for research in the contemporary communications
environment (New London Group, 1996). Earlier chapters have established that it is
no longer useful to think about a monomodal literacy that exists in isolation from the
vast array of social, technological and economic factors in broader society. The
dramatic shift from the age-old dominance of writing to the power of the image, and
from the primacy of the book to the seduction of the screen, call for a revolution in
literacy pedagogy and research (Kress, 2003). Together, they raise essential
questions about the social consequences of these changes in terms of students
equitable access to powerful, multimodal literacies.

This chapter presents a unique theoretical framework that draws upon a hybrid
combination of perspectives from sociology and literacy theory to afford the best fit
with the purposes of this research. It begins with the contributions of critical theory
and its expression in Carspeckens (1996) critical ethnography, which is applied to
the research methodology. Logical priority is given to critical theory because the
research question is oriented by a concern for social inequity within the institution of
education. Sociocultural theory is explored because it provides the link between
critical theory and literacy research, called upon by the specific research focus on
the distribution of access to multiliteracies among students of varied cultural and
linguistic backgrounds. The application of an Habermasian (1981; 1987)
epistemology for this thesis is consistent with the use of Carspeckens (1996) critical
ethnography, which applies Habermas work to analytic methods. The theories are
discussed that contribute firstly, to the interpretation of the multiliteracies lessons,
and secondly, to conducting systems analysis in critical ethnography (See Figure
3.0).
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 41 -

Figure 3.0 Themes for Interpreting Access to Multiliteracies
As shown in this diagram, the central theme of pedagogy in this study draws from
the New London Groups (1996) pedagogy of multiliteracies, and Kalantzis and
Copes (2005) Learning by Design approach. The key concept of power draws upon
Carspeckens (1996) typology of power relations, and McLarens (1993) theory of
resistance. Gees (1996) theory of discourses in social linguistics is the third
component applied to the interpretation of students access to multiliteracies in this
study, and theorised in this chapter.

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 42 -
The theories represented in the lower box of the diagram are situated in
Carspeckens critical ethnography (1996). These include the key themes of Giddens
(1984) structuration theory domination, signification, and legitimation applied to
systems analysis in this study.

Pragmatic horizon analysis is Carspeckens (1996) method for analysing objective,
subjective, and normative claims, and is applied in this research. This method is
grounded in Habermas (1981; 1987) Theory of Communicative Action, explained
in this chapter.

The intention of this chapter is to transform existing theory by blending elements of
the old with the new. The aim is to envisage an innovative framework suitable for
inquiry into a pedagogy of multiliteracies, in the context of the momentous
revolution that is taking place in the globalised communications and cultural
environment.
3.1 Contributions of Critical Theory to Multiliteracies
This research applies critical theory, following Carspeckens (1996) synthesis within
this diverse school, to interpret the distribution of access to multiliteracies among a
group of students of varied ethnic, subcultural, socio-economic and linguistic
backgrounds. This study continues in the critical tradition by asking an important
ethical question about the historical problem of access, reframing it in the context of
a new pedagogy and powerful new literacies. However, critical research is not a
tight methodological school, since there are a range of epistemological and
sociological propositions that divide theorists. Carspeckens (1996) critical
ethnography affords a theoretically, sociologically and methodologically coherent
guide to engage in interpretive inquiry in education from a critical orientation, and
has therefore been chosen for this thesis.

Critical ethnography begins with the theoretical assumptions of critical theory,
which are outlined here, drawing from Carspecken (1996; 2001; 2003; 1992),
Kincheloe (1994), Glesne (1999), and Quantz (1992). This is important because all
research is informed from its very beginnings by a set of values or a social
orientation. No research is value neutral (Quantz, 1992).
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 43 -
1. Contemporary societies are defective in many ways, having systematic
inequities complexly maintained and reproduced by culture. Therefore,
critical ethnographic research should support efforts for social change and
transformation.
2. Certain groups of students in schools are privileged over others, and these
systematic or structural inequalities are undesirable, unfair, and subtly or
overtly oppressive for many people.
3. Oppression, which characterises contemporary societies, is often
reproduced when subordinates accept their social status as natural or
inevitable.
4. Knowledge is both powerful and political, and is involved in the
reproduction of inequalities in schools.
5. The aim of critical ethnography is to describe, analyse, and open to
scrutiny otherwise hidden agendas, power centres, and assumptions that
constrain actors in institutional sites, such as schools.
6. While values enter into all research, the values of the researcher should be
made explicit, acknowledging that the claims of all research are constituted
and regulated through institutional relations of power and existing social
conditions.
7. Unequal power distorts truth claims. Therefore, value orientations of
democracy, equality and human empowerment should be fused with the
generation of knowledge in critical research to prevent the subordination of
the research participants.

Critical theorists share a common concern about structural inequalities, directing
research toward social change within institutions through the agency of individuals
(Carspecken, 1996, p.x). The productive tension that exists when addressing power
in society has served as a catalyst for an extensive tradition of reflexive work
investigating inequity in education (For example: Apple, 1995; 1996; 1982; Freire &
Macedo, 1987; Giroux, 1983; 1988; 1990; 1999; 1994; McLaren & Leonard, 1993).
From a critical perspective, schools require and produce differing kinds and levels of
literacy, distributing and acknowledging varying levels of knowledge valued by
mainstream society. These differentiations have significant social and economic
consequences in terms of the status, wealth, and mobility available to minority
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 44 -
groups in a class-stratified society, reproducing existing patterns of power, position
and privilege (Carspecken, 1996; Gee, 1996; Luke, 1994). This research applies the
key themes of critical theory, such as power, ideology, access, marginalisation,
domination, and agency, to an investigation of the multiliteracies pedagogy.

The central aim of this critical ethnography is to investigate students access to
multiliteracies, and embrace a partnership in the struggle for a better social world. It
is crucial to note that while this research begins with the critical assumption that
certain students will be marginalised in relation to the dominant culture, there is no
presumption about how or to whom this might occur in the observed social site, nor
the positive or negative outcomes of the multiliteracies pedagogy. Furthermore,
critical theory itself is subject to refinement, alteration, and extension when
interpreted in relation to new fields of knowledge (Quantz, 1992).
3.1.1 Contributions of Sociocultural Theory to Multiliteracies
This thesis inquires about students access to multiliteracies, which necessitates the
application of critical sociology to literacy research. At the intersection of these
theories is sociocultural theory, which upholds that literacy should be researched
with a critical dimension that calls into question ideological and social relations.
Within this perspective, questions of power and the distributions of power are often
foregrounded. It takes into account the social, institutional, cultural, economic, and
political relationships that play a powerful role in the literacies that are valued and
learned by students (Freebody, 1999).

Until the 1970s, educational theory and research was dominated by notions of
reading and writing as specific cognitive abilities or sets of skills (Freebody, 1999).
A strand of this psychological research has maintained a presence in literacy studies,
focused on social cognition (See for example: Lave, 1988; 1991; Rogoff & Lave,
1990; Wertsch, 1991). However, Streets (1984; 1993) distinction between the
autonomous and ideological models of literacy encapsulates the essence of the
major change in literacy research toward sociocultural perspectives (See Section
2.2.1). There are now several decades of sociocultural literacy research, applying a
critical orientation to understanding the ideological, cultural and social context of
literacy learning (See for example: Fairclough, 1989; 1992; Gee, 1992; 1996; Heath,
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 45 -
1983; 1999; Lankshear et al., 1997; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003b; 2003; Luke &
Freebody, 1997; Street, 1995; 1999; Vygotsky, 1962; 1978; 1987). The present
study extends the work of these key theorists, in particular, Vygotsky (1962; 1978;
1987), Street (1995; 1999), Heath, (1983; 1999), Luke (1994), and Gee (1996).
These theorists have examined literacy uses within homes and communities as a
corollary of the view that literacies are primarily seen as constructions of particular
social groups.

In relation to the theoretical coherence of this research, it is important to note that in
the last decade there have been changes within sociocultural studies of literacy.
There has a move away from a structuralist paradigm, based on neo-Marxist
positions of the Frankfurt School, or alternatively, on the work of Paulo Freire,
toward poststructuralist approaches (Freebody, 1999). The present research applies
sociocultural theory to a multiliteracies context, which is a relatively new area of
literacy research, and draws from neither a structuralist nor a postructuralist
paradigm. Rather, this research draws upon Carspeckens critical ethnography,
which is situated in the rigorous critical epistemological tradition of Habermas
(1981; 1987), who recruits many pragmatist ideals (Carspecken, 1996, p.56).

The most important contribution of sociocultural theory to this research is that
students access to multiliteracies is researched as inseparable from social practices
and their effects, and more importantly, embedded within complex power relations
(Cazden, 2000).
3.1.2 Contributions of Habermas to the Research
This thesis applies an Habermasian epistemology, which is necessitated by the use
of Carspeckens (1996) critical ethnography. This is because Habermass (1981)
Theory of Communicative Action has direct implications for the use of pragmatic
horizon analysis, applied in this study. This method is explained in Chapter Four,
and involves analysing and articulating the overt and implicit meanings of the
claims made by participants using three epistemic categories.

Habermas sees that people have a pre-interpreted lifeworld represented by a
culturally transmitted and linguistically organised stock of interpretive patterns that
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 46 -
are always already familiar (Habermas, 1987, p.125). Therefore, in everyday
communication there is no completely unfamiliar situation. When coming to
understanding, people make shared reference to things in the objective, normative
and subjective worlds to arrive at consensus (Habermas, 1981, p.126-127). "Coming
to understanding" means that at least two people understand a linguistic expression
similarly. Habermas (1981, p. 25) calls this the ideal speech situation which he
postulates as a regulating limit case to measure the degree of success of real
communicative acts. In real social situations, an ideal speech situation cannot be
reached because there will always be distortions of some kind (See Figure 3.1.2).

Figure 3.1.2 Habermas Ontological Categories

As shown in Figure 3.1.2, Habermas (1981) distinguished between three kinds of
ontological categories about the nature of existence objective, subjective, and
normative. The first ontological category is the objective realm, which involves
assertions about existing objects and events that are verified through direct
observation. The speaker makes a claim about an existing state of affairs or events
in the material world as an observer (Habermas, 1981, p.308-309). Disagreements
on these claims can be adjudicated through repeated observations and measurement
procedures using the senses (Carspecken, 1996).

Subjective truth claims concern existing states of mind, emotions, beliefs, desires,
intentions and feelings. The speaker takes up a relation to something in the

Speaker As
Pre-Interpreted
Lifeworld or
Stock of
Knowledge
Speaker Bs
Pre-Interpreted
Lifeworld or
Stock of
Knowledge
Objective Claim
Normative Claim
Shared Reference
Subjective Claim
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 47 -
subjective world, revealing ones inner self. Only the speaker has direct or
privileged access, though the validity of these claims is often supported by the
speakers bodily expressions (Habermas, 1981, p.307-308). Subjectivity is implicit
in all acts, but is never completely transparent to observers, and must be inferred
(Carspecken, 1995).

Normative claims are statements about the rightness, wrongness, goodness, or
appropriateness of human action, articulated as should claims. Such claims
concern what is right in relation to a normative context so that the speaker and
listener recognise the claim as legitimate (Habermas, 1981, p.307-308). Once
expressed, they take on a rule-like form, and they impose on others by tacitly
insisting that the other should conform to a certain convention (Carspecken, 1996;
Radigan, 2001).

The theoretical categories have direct implication for pragmatic horizon analysis in
the methodology of this study. Explicit validity claims must be analysed across all
three categories, even though one of the three components is always given linguistic
priority by speakers, and is more apparent in claims made by participants
(Carspecken, 1996). At the same time, the validity of the other two categories of
claims are implicitly acknowledged each time speakers reach consensus (Habermas,
1981). It will also be important to take into account the effects of unequal power
relations because consensus is only valid if it comes freely, without being influenced
by power relations (Carspecken, 2003).
3.2 Theoretical Framing of Multiliteracies Lessons
The following theories are discussed in this section to provide a lens for interpreting
the multiliteracies lessons observed in this study.
a) Pedagogy: New London Groups (1996) multiliteracies pedagogy and Cope &
Kalantzis (2005) Learning by Design approach;
b) Power: Carspeckens (1996) typology of power relations, and McLarens
(1992; 1993) theory of resistance to power;
c) Discourses: Gees (1996) social linguistic theory of discourse
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 48 -
3.2.1 Pedagogy
The focus of this research is the multiliteracies pedagogy, which is implemented by
the teacher participant. Therefore, it is imperative to address the essential elements
of this theory to provide a point of reference against which to interpret the
multiliteracies lessons (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000c; New London Group, 1996). The
New London Group have moved beyond past pedagogies, combining and
transforming them to reframe innovative and relevant literacy pedagogy for the
changing times. These pedagogies include Deweys Progressivism (associated with
whole language), transmission or direct instruction (associated with basic skills),
critical literacy, and finally, strands of cognitive science that emphasise strategies
for transferring situational learning from one context to another (New London
Group, 2000). Applied in isolation, none of these pedagogies can provide students
with sufficient access to the multiliteracies that are required for meaningful
participation in society.

The multiliteracies pedagogy has four components situated practice, overt
instruction, critical framing and transformed practice. These do not constitute a
linear hierarchy. Rather, they may occur simultaneously, randomly or be related in
complex wayseach of them repeatedly revisited at different levels (New London
Group, 2000, p.32). A range of linguistic, visual, auditory, gestural, and spatial
modes are utilised when implementing the pedagogy, with the goal of enabling
students to design hybrid texts for a diversity of purposes (See Figure 3.2.1).

Figure 3.2.1 Model of the Multiliteracies Pedagogy (Concepts from: New London Group,
2000, p.35)

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 49 -
During the teachers enactment of situated practice, learners should be required to
recognise and act on patterns of data and experience that vary within different
contexts. This requires demonstration rather than explanation alone. This is because
requisite patterns are often heavily tied and adjusted to context, too subtle and
complex to be usefully explicated (New London Group, 2000). Therefore, situated
practice must involve the provision of scaffolding or temporary support structures to
enable students to transfer literacy skills independently to situated, real-life contexts.
For example, students could design and presented PowerPoint slides to the school
about the need for healthy lifestyles. They could design posters using Microsoft
Word advertising healthy menu items, displaying these at the school tuckshop. Such
activities involve immersion in meaningful literacy practices that are both similar
and different in some respects to the lifeworld experiences of students.

The literacies taught in situated practice must be congruent with the uses of literacy
in the community, workplace and students previous experiences (Cope & Kalantzis,
2000c). This is important because situated practice is drawn from research in
cognitive science, social cognition, and sociocultural approaches to language and
literacy, demonstrating that the human mind is not a processor of decontextualised
facts. Rather, knowledge is largely situated in sociocultural settings and heavily
contextualised in specific domains and practices (See research in cognitive science,
situated learning and situated literacies: Barsalou, 1992; Bereiter & Scardamalia,
1993; Cazden, 1988; Eiser, 1994; Gardner, 1991; Gee, 1992; Harre & Gillett, 1994;
Heath, 1983; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Margolis, 1993; Nolan, 1994; Rogoff & Lave,
1990; Street, 1984; Swann, 1993; Wertsch, 1985). Cope and Kalantzis (2000b,
p.239) also state that: situated practice sits squarely in the tradition of many
progressivisms, from Dewey (1966) to whole language and process writing.

Situated practice is exemplified in classrooms designed by Brown and Campione
(1994), two cognitive scientists in education. The most noteworthy characteristic of
Browne and Campiones classrooms is the emphasis on guided participation or joint
construction of learning within a zone (Brown & Campione, 1994). They borrow
Vygotskys (1978) concept of the zone of proximal development, introduced
earlier in this chapter. This concept denotes the difference in the level of social and
cognitive attainments between a child working alone and a child working
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 50 -
collaboratively with the guidance of an adult (Vygotsky, 1962). Capable peers or
powerful artefacts such as books, technology and other media can also scaffold and
extend students existing levels of comprehension (Brown et al., 1993). During
situated practice, novices internalise the understandings of experts through
scaffolded, joint activity with people and technologies that function as structuring
guides, rather than relying on the classroom teacher (Gee, 2000b). When combined
with reflection and conscious critique of the tacit goals and values operating within
these practices, powerful learning can occur.

The teachers enactment of overt instruction in this research should involve the
teaching of underlying meaning structures of textual designs. This practice sits in
the tradition of transmissive pedagogy, including traditional grammar and phonics
or basic skills approaches (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000c). Overt instruction should
emphasise learning the process of gaining conscious knowledge through
explanation and analysis (Gee, 1991, pp.1-11). A focus of analysis is the use of an
explicit meta-language, that is, language to describe the multimodal and cultural
conventions of English (New London Group, 1996). This meta-language should
describe the representational resources used to making meanings, the social
connections with persons involved, and the organisational meanings that determine
how meanings are structured and linked together. A meta-language also needs to
describe the processes of meaning making, such as the degree to which texts
express personal voice or agency (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b).

During overt instruction, students should develop conscious awareness, articulation,
and control of the resources for meaning making, rather than simply engaging in
practice alone. For example, students could analyse static advertisements for
familiar family food products, such as Milo and Nutella. Students could critically
consider the visual, spatial and linguistic design elements such as colours, font sizes,
logos, and the location of the graphics, and the specific advertising strategies
designed to target parents and children. This involves learners in concept formation,
generalisations and theory-making processes, and the development of systematic,
analytic and conscious understanding of texts and textual practices (Cope &
Kalantzis, 2000c).

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 51 -
Critical framing is another complex component of the multiliteracies pedagogy to be
enacted by the teacher participant. This practice stems from critical literacy, but is
not synonymous with it (For work on critical literacy, see: Knobel & Healy, 1998;
Lankshear et al., 1997; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003a; Luke et al., 2003). Critical
framing involves interpreting the social, cultural, historical, political, ideological and
value-centred relations of particular designs of meaning and textual practices
(Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b; New London Group, 2000). Students should be guided to
analyse designs critically in relation to whose interests are served by the meanings
(ideology), and by considering the audience to whom the meanings are directed.
Learners consider how these meanings relate to the cultural and social context of
designs. Furthermore, students must interpret how the immediate functions, structure,
and design elements of the text work within larger social and cultural contexts to
communicate the intended meanings of the designer (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b;
Kalantzis & Cope, 2005).

The way in which the teacher guides learners to interrogate the local and global
functions and contexts of designs is important in critical framing. For example, the
teacher could guide students to analyse a segment of a TV program providing
information about healthy, take-away choices. Students could be asked to identify
the intended audience and challenge the bias associated with the sponsoring
organisation. The effectiveness of critical framing is measured by the degree to
which students can utilise information through questioning and critique of texts and
their affiliated social formations, ideologies and value-centred purposes (Kalantzis
& Cope, 2000b; New London Group, 2000).
.
Transformed practice is a component of the multiliteracies pedagogy in which the
teacher needs to emphasise the transfer of knowledge to new contexts. This practice
is based on the research tradition of cognitive psychology (See: Billet, 1992; Brown,
Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Cognitive theorists suggest that
literacy is similar to a set of tools, understood through use and reflection on the
cultural context in which it is used. The transfer of knowledge and skills from formal
school settings to real world settings and cultural sites is often difficult, and it is
common for students to acquire routines and decontextualised knowledge that they
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 52 -
are unable to apply. Consequently, this knowledge becomes inert unless applied to a
variety of authentic, natural, or real life functions in a reflective manner.

Transformed practices should allow students to transfer knowledge to new, real
world, multimodal literacy uses for a multiplicity of cultural purposes (Cope &
Kalantzis, 2000c; New London Group, 1996). For example, a group of students
chose to combine their new scientific knowledge about the human brain with their
knowledge of information reports by designing texts for the school newsletter using
Microsoft Word. Creativity demonstrated in the personal transformation of texts is
central, as learners reflectively design and apply new literacy practices embedded in
their own goals and values.

The degree to which the activities model uses of multiliteracies in everyday life
influences how successfully students will transfer skills to new contexts.
Intertextuality and hybridity are also important in transformed practice, which
involves making connections, recognising influences and cross-referencing
experiences. Most importantly, if transformed practice has occurred for all learners,
there should be changes evident within the designers as the students take on new
social roles and engage in new cultural and textual practices. Transformed practice
may differ in degrees and types of transformed meanings for different students and
for different texts, ranging from close or good reproduction to significant creative
change (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b).

The successful enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy in this thesis requires the
teachers translation of this theory to practice, and its outcomes should enable
students of varied cultural and linguistic backgrounds to access multiliteracies.

Learning Designs
Corresponding to the multiliteracies pedagogy are the four knowledge processes,
based on Kalantzis and Copes (2005) Learning by Design approach. These are
included in the research because they provide a taxonomy for analysing the learning
that occurs for students when the multiliteracies pedagogy is implemented. The
knowledge processes are of major significance when evaluating the students access
to multiliteracies because successful practice cannot be described in terms of
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 53 -
pedagogy alone what the teacher does. Rather, access to multiliteracies is
described principally in terms of the knowledge processes demonstrated by learners.

The relationship between the multiliteracies curriculum orientations and the four
knowledge processes are represented diagrammatically in Figure 3.2.1.1, following
Kalantzis and Copes (2005, p.72) explanation: Each of these four knowledge
processes is more or less equivalent to one of the curriculum orientations in the
multiliteracies pedagogy.

Figure 3.2.1.1 Model of the Four Knowledge Processes and the Multiliteracies
Pedagogy (Concepts from: Kalantzis & Cope, 2005, p.73)

The core knowledge processes experiencing, conceptualising, analysing and
applying follow Kolb (1984), and Bernice McCarthys (1987) 4MAT model. The
original model moved through four distinct phases of the learning cycle using both
right and left brain strategies for knowing. It was constructed along two continua;
namely, perceiving and processing. Perceiving occurs in an infinite variety of ways
that range between experiencing to conceptualising, while processing occurs in ways
that extend from analysing to applying. It should be noted that similar models of
cognitive processing have been devised by Herrmann (1989), and Atkin (1994). The
four ways of knowing have been extended by Kalantizis and Cope (2005) to include
eight categories.
1. Experiencing: a) the known, and b) the new
2. Conceptualising: a) naming concepts, and b) theorising
3. Analysing: a) functions, and b) interests
Experiencing the New & Known Conceptualising by Naming
& Theorising
Applying Creatively &
Appropriately
Analysing Functionally &
Critically
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 54 -
4. Applying: a) appropriately, and b) creatively
Experiencing refers to human perception by personal engagement in sensations,
emotions, physical memories, involvement of the self, and immersion in the human
and natural world (Kolb, 1984; McCarthy, 1987). This experiencing should also be
conscious, systematic, explicit, structured and exophoric (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005).
For example, students might visit a local radio station to experience, first-hand, the
production and transmission of audio texts and report their experiences to others.
Kalantzis and Cope (2005) have extended this model to distinguish between two
distinct ways of experiencing: experiencing the known, and immersion in new
experiences.

Experiencing the known involves drawing on familiar lifeworld experiences, prior
knowledge, community background, personal interests, and cultural resources of
learners. Examples include sharing personal narratives, brainstorming what students
already know about a topic, or bringing texts from home for use at school (Kalantzis
& Cope, 2005).

Experiencing the new is immersion in unfamiliar, real, or simulated domains of
experiences, communities, situations, and texts. For example, when learning about
applications of electricity, students design a cyclone shelter to simulate the
experience of having no electricity. In order for learners to make intuitive links with
prior knowledge, there must be some elements of familiarity in new experiences.
Therefore, learning needs to be scaffolded by the teacher, peers, computers, or books
so that the new aspects of an experience can extend learners existing knowledge
(Kalantzis & Cope, 2005).

Conceptualising is the translation and synthesis of experiences, conceptual forms,
language, and symbols into abstract generalisations (Kolb, 1984; McCarthy, 1987).
For instance, when learning about digital movie making, the teacher could ask
questions to scaffold students analysis of the visual, auditory, spatial, linguistic and
gestural design elements of a popular, animated movie. Conceptualising involves
examining underlying structures, causes, effects, and relationships, which often
challenge commonsense assumptions. Kalantzis and Cope (2005) have also divided
conceptualising into two subcategories: naming concepts and theorising.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 55 -

Conceptualising by naming involves developing or using abstract, generalising
terms, such as labelling the orientation, main characters, protagonist, complications,
climax, resolution and coda within a drama. A concept names particulars and then
abstracts general categories to group particulars together based on their similarities,
despite also having differences (For psycholinguistic theory about naming concepts,
see: Vygotsky, 1978).

Conceptualising by theorising involves a language of generalisation, such as when
students combine their knowledge of narrative elements to construct a complete list
of features of narrative text structure. Theorising involves explicit, systematic,
analytic and conscious understanding to uncover implicit or underlying knowledge.
Meta-languages for talking about the generic structure of linguistic texts in English
and content organisers in subject disciplines is based on theorising (Kalantzis &
Cope, 2005).

Analysing is the transformation of knowledge by ordering, reflecting on, and
interpreting the underlying rationale for particular designs and representations. For
example, students might compare and contrast the features of advertising through
different media, such as television, radio, magazines and billboards. This includes
identifying the functional purposes of the designs, interpreting the perspectives and
intentions of those whose interests are served, and situating these in context.
Kalantzis and Cope (2005) distinguish between two forms of analysing identifying
functions and identifying interests.

Analysing functionally involves examining the functions of a design or represented
meaning, considering its structure, connections, context, and causes and effects. For
instance, students might be asked to read a selection of toy catalogues, analysing the
designers purpose for the spatial arrangement of images on the page, font sizes, fine
print, and use of colours to advertise certain products (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005).

Analysing critically involves cross-examining the intentions of the designer of a text.
For example, when analysing toy catalogues, students consider whose interests are
served, identify the intended product consumers, and analyse how gender, ethnicity,
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 56 -
and age are constructed in relation to marketing toys for subcultural groups. The
learner considers the perspective represented by the design, and the social, economic,
cultural, or political consequences that arise from its use (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005).

Applying is the experiential application of internal thought processes to external
situations in the world by acting, and learning something new. The learner tests the
world and adapts knowledge to multiple, ambiguous situations (McCarthy, 1987).
An example of applying is the design of a digital movie to inform younger students
of important health and safety issues at home and school. Applying can occur in two
ways: applying appropriately and transferring creatively (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005).

Applying appropriately involves acting upon knowledge learned in a typical way.
For example, learners could publish an article about a recent excursion in the school
magazine using Microsoft Word, giving appropriate attention to linguistic and
spatial elements. When applying appropriately, meanings must be represented in a
way that conforms to culturally accepted conventions of representation, such as
following the rules for English grammar. Exact replications do not constitute
applying appropriately because there is always a degree of transformation an
element which is different to what has gone before (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005).

Applying creatively takes knowledge from one setting, adapting it to a new setting in
a radically different way. For example, students might apply their knowledge of
natural disasters to design three-dimensional, interactive science exhibits for the
school showing the cause and effects of tsunamis, cyclones, and earthquakes.
Transferring creatively entails removing knowledge from one context to work in a
new context in a different way, resulting in generative hybridity, divergence, and
originality (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005).

These repertoires or ways of knowing will vary across the lessons in this research
depending on cultures, learners, pedagogies, and academic disciplines. For example,
learning about the textual features of claymation movies emphasises conceptualising
while designing movies emphasises applying. This Learning by Design framework
provides specific criteria for identifying who gains access to multiliteracies, and
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 57 -
more importantly, to what degree students are able to demonstrate learning during
each component of the multiliteracies pedagogy (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005).
3.2.2 Power
A vital focus of the lesson observations in this thesis is the use of power, because
power is inseparable from access to multiliteracies. The study of power has been
applied to multiple aspects of education through critical research (See critical
research on power: Anderson & Burns, 1989; Apple & Weis, 1983; Brodkey, 1987;
Gitlin, Siegel, & Boru, 1989; Popkewitz & Guba, 1990; Popkewitz & Tabachnick,
1981; Quantz, 1992; Quantz & O'Conner, 1988; Roman, 1992; Sharp, 1981; Weis,
1988; Woods, 1992). A key assumption of critical ethnography is that all action is
mediated by power relations. In other words, all acts demonstrate a persons power
to determine one course of action over another, causing a degree of change, either
great or small. In this thesis, action is considered as more or less powerful depending
on how free are the conditions of action from coercion, and how successfully an act
fulfils the purpose of the actor (Giddens, 1979; 1984). Thus, while all action is tied
to power, actions vary by degree of power. Carspeckens (1996; 2003) analytic
themes for power normative, coercive, contractual, and charm are applied to the
lesson data. Additionally, McLarens (1992; 1993) theory of resistance to power is
taken into account. The purpose of analysing power in the lesson data is to interpret
what kind and degree of power participants have to enact or access multiliteracies.

Carspecken classifies power into four types of authority normative, coercive,
contractual, and charm (See Figure 3.2.2).
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 58 -

Figure 3.2.2 Model of Power Relations (Adapted: Carspecken, 1996, p.130)
1 Normative power: Subordinates consent to the higher social position of a
superordinate because of cultural norms.
2 Coercive power: Subordinates act to avoid sanctions imposed by a
superordinate.
3 Contractual power: Subordinates act for the return of favours or rewards
from a superordinate.
4 Charm: Subordinates act in loyalty to the superordinate because of the
latter's personality.
Carspeckens (1996) typology is employed in this thesis to analyse power relations
in the classroom that have a significant influence on the distribution of access to
multiliteracies. Every interaction of power relates to cultural themes drawn upon by
actors. Consequently, this typology of power relations must be studied by attending
to the cultural milieu (Carspecken, 1996). For example, the norm that "students
should follow the directions of the teacher" is understood in the cultural milieu of
schools. The school provides the normative framework that legitimates this claim.

Normative power associates power with status alone, and without foregrounding
other reasons (Carspecken, 1996). An example of normative power is when a
teacher asks a student to assist another who cannot navigate a website, and the
student quickly helps simply because students must obey teachers.
Normative
Charm
Power
Coercive
Contractual
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 59 -

Charm requires the possession of a certain ability to use culturally understood
identity claims and norms to gain the trust and loyalty of others (Carspecken, 1996).
For example, charm is employed when a teacher praises a child for their good idea,
causing a peer, who has made little contribution to a collaborative task, to start
participating enthusiastically and industriously.

Contractual power is an agreement specifying reciprocal obligations between parties,
with one party having greater power to determine the course of an interaction. Very
often, a contract will be negotiated tacitly rather than stated explicitly, and is
understood by both parities. An example of this is when a student produces a well-
edited story using neat handwriting, knowing that the teacher rewards students with
stickers when appropriate attention is given to these aspects of presentation
(Carspecken, 1996).

Coercion is usually employed within normative frameworks of cultural origin that
legitimate it, such as when a student follows the rule because the teacher has
threatened to withdraw a privilege if they resist. The use of coercion is legitimated
by the teacher's role as an authority figure within the normative institution of
schooling (Carspecken, 1996).

Carspecken (1996) acknowledges that his typology of interactive power is
incomplete. This is because it is primarily concerned with the analysis of authority
structures, rather than the agency of students to resist institutional power. Giddens
(1984) argues that any analysis of power must account for the power inherent in
social structures such as schools, and the power inherent in the research participants
who through their actions are able to intervene in the world. In this way, power is
inherent in the actions of all participants, rather than the exclusive property of
institutions, and can be intentional, unintentional, constraining, and enabling. For
example, even a situation involving strong coercion, such as when a student is
cautioned of a highly undesirable sanction, does not render inoperative the actors
power to resist.

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 60 -
Therefore, McLarens (1993) resistance theory is chosen to provide two additional
categories for power in this thesis, a recommendation of Carspecken (1996). The
critical ethnographic research of Willis (1977) and more recently, McLaren (1993)
illustrates the power possessed by individuals to resist the structural power of the
school. Williss (1977) Learning To Labour acknowledged the development of an
anti-school culture through the volition of boys who drew upon familiar cultural
themes in response to institutional constraints. In this way, the boys were not
merely powerless subjects unwittingly dominated by the power of the institution.

McLaren (1993) coined the terms active and passive resistance which is used in
this thesis to account for the agency of individuals to resist structural power. Active
resistance includes intentional attempts by subordinates to subvert or sabotage the
normative codes of the dominant school order. For example, students may argue in
direct confrontation with the teacher. Contrastingly, passive resistance
unconsciously subverts or sabotages the normative codes. For example, two students
may offer to run errands for the teacher because they dont know how to begin their
writing. Another example of passive resistance is when abiding by the rules is
temporarily overridden by the momentary stimulation of conversation with a peer
(Cazden, 1988). McLarens (1993) theme of resistance emphasises the agency of
students, serving to balance Carspeckens emphasis on the subordinate position of
students within the power structures of the school.
3.2.3 Discourses
Discourses are vital in the analysis of multiliteracies lessons in the thesis because
discourses are always tied to status or power relations. The conditions or restrictions
on students primary discourses are central to understanding the distribution of
access to multiliteracies. This is because discourses give the material world certain
meanings, distribute social goods in a certain way, and if misused, privilege certain
symbol systems and ways of knowing over others (Gee, 2003). Consequently,
discourses affect the equality or inequality of students educational and social
futures. Despite the far-reaching implications of discourses in education, they are
often the result of non-deliberate, unconscious choices of teachers (Cazden, 1988).

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 61 -
Discourses are theorised in this thesis in accordance with sociocultural theory and
the work of Gee (1992; 1996; 1999). They are socially accepted ways of displaying
membership in particular social groups through words, actions, values, beliefs,
gestures, and other representations of self (Gee, 1992). Discourses are different
social languages used in multiple social contexts to present varied social identities
(Gee, 1999). For example, to be a good student, one must think, speak, and act like a
good student and recognise others who do the same. In such ways, discourses
function as identity kits or social roles that one adopts to make oneself
recognisable to others (Gee, 1996).

Fairclough (2000) argues that a theory of discourses is central to multiliteracies,
because multiliteracies acknowledges the innumerable discourses in modern
society, each composed of a set of related social practices or identities. Literacy
is pluralised because of this presence of multiple discourses and their associated
identities in society (See earlier work on discourses: Fairclough, 1989; 1992;
1993; 1994; 1995; Gee, 1992; 1996). Figure 3.2.3 synthesises important
elements of Gees (1992; 1996) work on discourses, which foregrounds later
discussions concerning the classroom interactions observed in this study.

Figure 3.2.3 Taxonomy of Discourses (Ideas from1992; Gee, 1996)

Primary discourses refer to the language patterns and social practices of ones early
socialisation or apprenticeship as a community or group member (Gee, 1992). They
are central to this thesis because evidence of primary discourses merging or failing
to merge into school discourses influences students access to multiliteracies.
Understanding primary discourses helps to identify whether some students are more
successful in mastering dominant discourses than others, and if so, who is more
Dominant
Marginalised
Primary
Secondary
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 62 -
successful and why. Primary discourses aim to create solidarity and co-participation
in meaning making, while stressing social and affective involvement. From this
initial social identity, a foundation is established upon which individuals acquire or
resist other discourses. Students bring to the classroom certain ways of speaking and
acting within their homes and communities that differ in varying degrees from one
another (Gee, 1999).

Primary discourses often merge into school-based discourses. For example, teachers
adopt values and ways of behaving found in middle-class, Anglo-Saxon homes,
applying them to discourses at school (Cazden, 1988; Gee, 1999; 1983). Similarly,
middle-class families incorporate school-based discourses within the home, such as
reading bedtime stories. An example is Mehans (1979) research of book reading
sessions involving parents and young children.
1. Parent gives an attention gaining vocative as, Look.
2. Parent initiates a question such as, Whats that?
3. Child responds with a label such as, Its an X.
4. Parent evaluates comment affirmatively such as, Yes, thats an X
With the exception of the parents attention gaining vocative, the remaining parts of
the book reading dialogue reproduce the speech pattern of mainstream, teacher
directed classroom discourse, referred to as Initiation-Response-Evaluation or IRE
(Mehan, 1979):
1. Initiation (I) of a sequence by the teacher calling on a child to speak.
2. Response (R) from a nominated child, who answers the question.
3. Evaluative (E) comment from the teacher before calling on the next child.
In both examples, questions are asked to which the adult already knows the answers.
The fill-in-the-blank discourses of both mainstream classrooms and middle-class
homes is part of a socialisation process to ensure that children, as members of
society, are apprenticed by masters in the right experiences and learn the right
answers.

In studies of the antecedents of school success, there is a high correlation between
the occurrence of book reading episodes at home and subsequent success in school
(Gee, 1996). A picture book reading episode works in collusion with school based
literacies in the production of school success and so-called intelligence.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 63 -
Conversely, students who are not from middle-class, Anglo-Saxon homes are
unfamiliar with this four-part sequence. Consequently, they are disadvantaged when
they confront the IRE discourse of the classroom.

The analysis of secondary discourses is important in this study because these
discourses have proven to be a problematic medium in many culturally diverse,
mainstream classrooms where children bring their own ways of interacting,
speaking, moving, and valuing from their homes and communities. Secondary
discourses are language patterns and social practices outside ones early home and
peer group context to which people are socialised to present themselves within
various institutions. These contexts outside the home include work, school, peer
groups, clubs, and church (Gee, 1992). The following transcript is drawn from the
pilot study, described in the methodology chapter (Section 4.5). A secondary
discourse was used to socialise year two students to the appropriate ways of
speaking and moving in the computer laboratory.

Date: August, 29
th
2003, Section 3
1. Teacher: [Claps rapidly. Students repeat rhythm]. John! Ben! I know
youre new to this classroom, but we have a rule: clap you stop, you
freeze! Towi, youre not looking in my direction. Tim, youre not
looking in my direction. If you have a question, are you going to call
out like Alicia did a minute ago? No! If you have a question, what
should you do? Jake?
2. Jake: Put your hand up.
3. Teacher: Thats a really good answer, Jake. If Im really busy working with
someone else, should you get out of your chair and follow me around?
4. Class: No! [chorus response]
5. Teacher: Should you then call out?
6. Class: No [chorus response]
7. Teacher: No thats absolutely right! Youre logging in, getting into
[Microsoft] Word, and then youre typing up. You need to plan
Excuse me! Sit up! You should still be looking at me! [raised voice]
Second time, Tim! Michael, sit up with your back straight, thank you!
Getting into Word, starting your typing. Any partners that are arguing
over seats, Ill just ask you to come and sit on the carpet. Off you go.

A significant portion of time is devoted to inculcating appropriate group norms or
required ways of being in the computer laboratory, particularly for newcomers
like Ben (Cazden, 1988). This includes controlling the bodily movements of students,
such as John, Towi, and Ben, who failed to converge toward group practices such as
freezing when the teacher clapped. It also includes providing the right answers in
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 64 -
the right way, such as Jakes response, which is rewarded [Line 2]. Participation in
the secondary discourses of this classroom involves a highly complex, co-operative,
self-adjusting pattern of interaction among participants. The teacher rewards and
sanctions the speech and postures of students to ensure that members do not vary
from group norms. The multiple sanctions that apply in this teaching context
evidently prove difficult for both students and teacher to attend to (Gee, 1992). Such
implicit cultural expectations for speaking and acting are central to understanding
the relative success of different students to access multiliteracies.

Dominant discourses are significant in this thesis because control over certain
dominant discourses, such as electronic texts, can lead to the acquisition of social
goods such as money, power or status. Discourses are ideological because they are
linked to a set of social and political relationships between people (For discourses
and power see: Apple, 1986; Freire & Macedo, 1987; Giroux, 1988; Lankshear &
Lawler, 1987; Luke, 1988; McLaren, 1989). Dominant discourses are simply
defined as norms for participation that identify insiders or outsiders to dominant
groups (Gee, 1996). In reality, the distinction between the discourses of insiders or
outsiders is not so sharp, since discourses are matters of degree, changing in
different contexts. For example, consider this transcript from the pilot study, which
was reported in the methodology chapter (Section 4.5). Michael, who is Anglo-
Australian, is presenting the class weather report to the year two class.
29th August, 2003
1. Michael: [Refers to weather chart] Well, on Monday, it was sunny and hot
really hot! And Tuesday it was the same as Monday. And on
Wednesday, it washotter than those two. And on Thursday, it was a
bit cold, um, it was cold and sunny. And on Friday well today, its a
bit cold, and sunny actually, really sunny! And I think all of you
should be wearing, um
2. Teacher: A jumper?
3. Michael: I think actually, for today, um, I think you should be wearing
tracksuit pants. You could wear a jumper instead of tracksuit pants.
And yesterday, I hope you were all just wearing a jumper. And um,
on Wednesday, I hope you were wearing just the normal, T-shirt for
school, and normal shorts, or dresses for girls. And for Tuesday, it
was also very hot, so you should havesome shorts um, and a T-
shirt school T-shirt. And on Monday I think it would be the same
as Tuesday. Thank you.
4. Teacher: That was a very comprehensive weather report, wasnt it? Give
Michael a clap, please. Thanks Michael.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 65 -
5. Class: [Claps]

Michael is familiar with the dominant classroom discourse of the weather report,
including the appropriate ways of speaking. At age seven, Michael is already
apprenticed into a dominant school discourse for presentation of self through
appropriate dress. His account demonstrates intricate and contextualised knowledge
of what counts as normal school dress, including appropriate gender distinctions
(Line 4). He is confident to transform the discourse, creating a hybrid text that
combines the school dress code with the weather conditions. Dominant discourses
always build on the uses of language, gestures and values acquired in ones primary
discourse. They empower culturally dominant students because there is minimal
conflict with their existing discourses (Gee, 1996).

Marginalised discourses are essential in this thesis because students who use
discourses that are peripheral, atypical, or anomalous to dominant discourses may
not gain equitable access to multiliteracies. This is because all discourses emphasise
certain values at the expense of others, unintentionally marginalising attitudes and
values central to other discourses (Erickson, 1987; McDermott, 1987; Trueba, 1987,
1989) Students who use marginalised discourses are often excluded from dominant
groups (Delpit, 1988; Gee, 1996, 2003)..

Discourses have unique symbolic systems including grammatical or lexical patterns,
like clauses and sentence, pronoun cases and verb tenses, used to create meaning
(Gee, 1999). Meaning is not simply decoding. It requires knowing relevant
language choices, tied to context and culture. For example, classroom discourses
often stress variable surface features or co-locutional patterns of language, such as
ing rather than in, to test whether students are apprenticed in the right, status-
giving discourses (Gee, 1992; Gee, 1996). This marginalises Aboriginal students and
those who use bound morphemes, such as in for ing (Cazden, 1988). Both
forms occur in all dialects of English, and have different meanings (Milroy &
Milroy, 1995). The bound morpheme in is signals greater solidarity with, and less
deference toward, the listener. The reverse is true of the form ing, which is used to
honour the listener as one with status or authority.

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 66 -
When the right co-locutional patterns are needlessly emphasised, marginalised
students are unable to draw from their cultural resources (Cazden, 1988). Discourses,
identities and interests of students peripheral to the mainstream culture have been
historically disparaged or misjudged. Research has documented the conditions
placed upon literacies in various learning environments (See: Barnes, Britton, &
Torbe, 1990; Cazden, 1988; Corson, 1993; Dyson, 1993; Fine, 1992; Gallas, 1997;
Gallas, Anton-Oldenburg, Ballenger, & Beseler, 1996; Gee, 1992; Gilmore, 1985;
Heath, 1983; Lee, 1993; Lemke, 1990; McKay & Wong, 1996; Michaels, 1985;
Phillips, 1982; Warren, Rosebery, & Conant, 1994; Wells, 1986; Wertsch, 1991).
These studies demonstrate that schools rarely offer full and meaningful
apprenticeships to students from marginalised communities. Minority and low
socioeconomic groups often have a significant distance to traverse to accommodate
and adapt to dominant school discourses (Gee, 1992; Gee, 1996).

This section was included to raise consciousness of the degree to which the primary
and marginalised discourses of culturally diverse students in this study might be
defined in opposition to secondary and dominant discourses in a multiliteracies
context. A potential strength of the multiliteracies pedagogy is the aim to widen the
repertoire of discourses to include culturally and linguistically diverse discursive
practices. In theory, multiliteracies allows for juxtaposing home and school
discourses without privileging one over the other. This multiliteracies research is
needed to examine whether the multiple discourses of students are valued in a
supportive cultural community. Teachers who enact the multiliteracies pedagogy
need to carefully analyse and consciously reflect upon the secondary discourses used
in the classroom rather than allowing discourses to occur by default (Cazden, 1988).
Therefore, it is important in this thesis to analyse how scaffolds are used to bridge
home and school discourses, and the degree to which students can draw from their
own cultural resources for meaning making.

In conclusion, this section has systematised relevant theories of pedagogy, power,
and discourses to interpret the multiliteracies lessons observed in this research.
Together these theories provide signposts to enable a systematic and conceptually
sound evaluation of the students access to multiliteracies.

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 67 -
3.3 Theoretical Framing of Systems Analysis
Systems analysis, an important part of Carspeckens critical ethnography, makes an
undeniable contribution to strengthening the validity of this research because it
situates the data within broader structures of power and privilege. Critical studies
that fail to do so risk interpreting classroom findings as if they exist unconnected
and uninfluenced by factors within the wider social system (Carspecken, 1996).
Methodological aspects of systems analysis are discussed in Chapter Four (4.8),
findings generated from systems analysis are reported in Chapter Six, and the
underlying theory is presently discussed.

Giddens (1984) structuration theory has been chosen to inform systems analysis in
this thesis, for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is preferable to social theories that are
mechanistic in form, such as structuralism, which depict society as a single entity
and which fail to take into account the agency of individuals. Conversely,
structuration theory has an advantage over action theory and symbolic
interactionism, which have a tendency to minimise the influences of social structure
on individual behaviour. Giddens (1984) theory has earned good support within the
discipline of sociology. When applied to research, it is successful in the analysis of
individual action, without neglecting the importance of institutional examination
(Giddens, 1981; Kaspersen, 2000). Finally, Giddens epistemology and critical
sociology are consistent with that of Carspecken (1996), whose ethnographic
method is employed here.

A requirement of systems analysis is the investigation of events and routines that
take place across several interrelated social sites (Carspecken, 1996, p.201). During
the pilot study, reported in Section 4.5, regionalised links between the classroom
locale and other social sites were mapped for further investigation as potentially
significant explanatory links to students access to multiliteracies (See Figure 3.3).
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 68 -

Figure 3.3 Model of Systems Relations to Investigate Access to Multiliteracies
generated from the Pilot Study

In Figure 3.3, the concentric circles represent the increasing time-space zoning
between the immediate classroom locale and the relevant social systems identified
for investigation in the school, community, state, national and global context. Within
these systems, the actions of individuals and institutions relevant to the problem of
access to multiliteracies can be found at each level. This is because the school is
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 69 -
woven into a network of inter-societal systems, such as the home culture of students
and teachers, the local community, the Department of Education at district and state
levels, universities, and students future world of work. Semistructured interviews
are used to investigate these systems that are separated in time and space from action
within the classroom. For example, during the pilot study, the teacher provided
information about her involvement in the schools Information and Communication
Technologies and English Committees, which enabled her to gain more control of
allocative (material) and authoritative (people) resources for teaching multiliteracies.

Relevant factors identified for investigation at the local community level include
regionalised links between students actions in the classroom and at home (See
Figure 3.3). At local and state levels, links to potentially relevant institutional
structures include the state education system, the district division of state schools,
curriculum bodies, professional development organisations, and institutions of
higher education (See Figure 3.3). At the global level, particular attention is given to
discovering cross-national, time-space paths in the home cultures of students who
have lived outside Australia (See Figure 3.3). For example, the school has a cohort
of students who are Sudanese refugees. These recent immigrants access the
languages of their Sudanese culture, separated in time and space from the observed
classroom interactions.

These systems relations between the classroom and other related social sites may
take differing forms of presence-availability of the actors (Giddens, 1984). For
example, classrooms have high presence-availability of the actors because the
teacher and students have sustained, face-to-face contact. In contrast, regionalised
links between the Queensland Department of Education and the classroom have low-
presence availability. Consequently, relevant links to the classroom might be based
on the physical movement of people, such as when the teacher attends a professional
development course to exchange knowledge about multiliteracies. Contrastingly,
connections might be made between people or media that are distant in time or space,
requiring no face-to-face interaction. Examples of these less visible connections
might include policy documents about multiliteracies, educational theories
disseminated by institutions of higher education, state government funding for
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 70 -
multiliteracies, or the teachers use of the Internet to gain knowledge or resources
(Giddens, 1984; Kaspersen, 2000).

Giddens (1984) structuration theory provides three criteria for systems analysis
domination, signification, and legitimation which are applied in this thesis to
explain the distribution of access to multiliteracies (See Table 3.3).
Domination: Power over persons and materials
a. Authoritative Resources Political control over persons (e.g. positional
power)
b. Allocative Resources Economic command of material objects (e.g.
money, technology)
Signification: Meaning and communication structures (e.g. symbolic structure of
English)
Legitimation: Rules
a. Norms Constitution of meaning (i.e. conduct appropriate to certain social
settings)
b. Sanctions Regulation of social conduct (i.e. codified laws, Ifthen)
Table 3.3 Criteria for Systems Analysis (Adapted from: Kasperson, 2000, Introduction
to a Social Theorist)

This taxonomic distinction between elements is purely analytic, since these three
categories of structures are inherent in all systems simultaneously (Giddens, 1984).
Systems analysis simply aims to explain how the composition and types of these
three elements work together at both actor and institutional levels. Applied to this
study, these three categories can provide explanatory power concerning how
asymmetry of structures that affect the distribution of access to multiliteracies are
reproduced or transformed.
3.3.1 Domination
In this thesis, domination structures that affect students access to multiliteracies are
investigated during systems analysis. Domination structures afford transformative
power to change the system, and depend on the mobilisation of two distinguishable
types of resources allocative and authoritative resources (Giddens, 1984).
Authoritative resources refer to command over personnel, such as the provision of
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 71 -
English as Second Language [ESL] teachers in the school to support culturally
diverse students. Allocative resources refer to command over goods or materials,
such as the control of funding for multiliteracies (Giddens, 1984, p.33). It is
important in this thesis to investigate the way in which significant actors, such as the
principal, teacher, and students, draw upon these two kinds of resources to enable or
gain access to multiliteracies.

In this research, domination structures are examined at each level of systems
analysis; that is, within the classroom, the school, the local community, and the
wider social system. Domination structures at the school and state system level are
investigated through interviews with the principal and teacher. For example, the
principals allocation of funds to provide technology, books, support personnel,
professional development, and specialist support for ESL students, may enable or
constrain students access to multiliteracies.

Additionally, an important inquiry is the way in which the teacher participant is
constrained or enabled by these domination structures, such as the adequacy of
resources and professional development opportunities to teach multiliteracies.
Within the local community, interview data from the teacher and students is used to
obtain information about the economic conditions of action in students homes and
any links to students access to multiliteracies at school. At the state level, the way
in which the state education system ensures supervisory control of policies and
distributes funds for multiliteracies is important.
3.3.2 Signification
The second criterion for systems analysis in this thesis is signification structures
the meaning and communication structures or modes of discourse that are tied to
the distribution of access to multiliteracies. The links between signification
structures and power are important in this analysis of access to multiliteracies.
Modes of discourse, such as tacit and explicit requirements of students to think, act,
write, move, and so forth, embody assumptions that legitimise existing power
relations (Giddens, 1984). For example, the norm-governed practice that students
remain silent for sustained periods, while teachers speak freely, is a mode of
discourse that assumes the legitimate power of teachers over their students. When
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 72 -
students and teachers choose to follow these practices, these signification structures
become a routine part of existence in school life.

In this thesis, signification structures investigated at the classroom level include the
discourses used by the teacher to order student conduct, specifically those that might
differentiate between the students. At the school level, signification structures
employed by administration, such as ability grouping in English lessons, are
investigated for links to the distribution of access to multiliteracies. Signification
investigated at the local community level includes the discourses used by students at
home and at school. For example, even the place of Standard English as the
predominant national language in the Australian public sphere has implications for
students access to multiliteracies (Giddens, 1984, p.31; Ritzer, 1992).
3.3.3 Legitimation
Legitimation is the third criterion for systems analysis in this thesis, which refers to
rules or procedures of action that are applied in the performance and reproduction of
social practices. In this thesis, rules that constrain or enable students access to
multiliteracies are investigated. For example, educational policies that legitimise the
teaching of multiliteracies in the school might enable students to access
multiliteracies, while a rule that prevents students from using the library before
school might constrain access. Legitimation structures can be of two kinds: a)
unstated norms for social conduct, such as socially acceptable or unacceptable
behaviours; and b) formal sanctions or laws that regulate modes of social conduct
(Giddens, 1984, p.18-19; Kaspersen, 2000, p.72).

In the classroom, legitimation structures that differentiate between students access
to multiliteracies are examined, such as formal sanctions prohibiting access to
certain literacies, or implicit norms for students movements, speech and actions.
Within the school site, legitimation structures might include formal rules, such as
school-based planning requirements. These structures also include tacit social norms,
such as routinely displaying students multimodal designs in hallways, which
encourages other teachers to do similarly. At the state level, educational policies,
professional development initiatives, or research from universities, might legitimise
multiliteracies in the school.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 73 -

The semi-structured interviews for the teacher, principal and students systematically
address the domination, signification, and legitimation structures that are tied to the
problem of access to multiliteracies in the context of the classroom, school,
community and wider society.
3.3.4 System Reproduction
To complete systems analysis it is necessary to build up evidence to support the
claim that a system has been discovered (Carspecken, 1996). For example, in this
research, interview questions probing into the future career plans of students would
be necessary to support the claim that a reproductive loop exists between students
present access to multiliteracies and their future world of work. This is system
reproduction; namely, a process in which individuals act consistently in relation to
broadly distributed social conditions (Giddens, 1984).

In explanations of system reproduction, the power of individuals to change the social
conditions is always partially bounded by the consequences of social action. These
consequences become the conditions for social reproduction. For example, the
differing abilities of students to use multimedia in the classroom might be limited by
their differing prior experiences with multimodal designs at home. The unintended
consequences of these differences in students home experiences are conditions for
the social reproduction of differing access to multiliteracies at school. Such relations
would indicate system reproduction of broadly distributed conditions (Giddens,
1979; Giddens, 1984; McLaren & Leonard, 1993).

3.4 Summary of Chapter Three
Chapter Three is pivotal in systematising the theoretical framework of the research,
having direct implications for the methodology and interpretation of the observed
multiliteracies lessons and interview data. The aim was not to simply reproduce an
existing theoretical framework that is passively compliant with the boundaries of a
conventional literacy theory. Rather, the aim was to be reflexively conscious of both
the replication of, and divergence from, extant theoretical roots, to offer a conceptual
framework for thinking about a field that is in a profound state of transition. This
chapter has presented a scaffold to investigate the speech and actions of the research
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 74 -
participants in the observed classroom, while taking into account the structures of
power in the school and broader society.

Firstly, it was argued that the application of critical theory is necessary because this
research enquires about students access to multiliteracies, drawing upon
assumptions about power and its distribution in society. The distinguishing features
of critical ethnography were systematised in relation to the aims of this study.

A important case was made for the application of sociocultural theory in this thesis,
because sociocultural theory maintains that literacy must be researched with a
critical dimension that interrogates ideological and social relations. A justification of
an Habermasian epistemology was given, explaining its contribution to the use of
pragmatic horizon analysis in this study.

Theories that are indispensable to the interpretation of observations and dialogue
within the multiliteracies classroom were foregrounded, identifying the following
key themes and theorists:
a) Pedagogy: The multiliteracies pedagogy of the New London Group (1996),
and the Learning by Design approach by Kalantzis and Cope (2005);
b) Power: Carspeckens (1996) typology of power relations, and McLarens
(1992; 1993) theory of resistance;
c) Discourse: Gees (1996) social linguistic theory of discourse.

A theoretical framework for systems analysis in this study was outlined. It was
contended that systems analysis is a strength of Carspeckens (1996) critical
ethnography, employed in this thesis. A rationale was provided highlighting the
advantages of Giddens (1984) structuration theory over other sociological
frameworks for this research. Central themes of systems analysis domination,
signification, legitimation, and system reproduction were described, providing
examples of their specific application to this investigation of access to multiliteracies.
Together, these theories form a conceptual map for investigating the research
question in the changing social, technological, cultural and communications
landscape.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 75 -

Chapter Four Methodology of the Study
4.0 Introduction
This chapter builds on the theoretical framing of critical ethnography presented in
Chapter Three, to describe the methodology applied in the conduct of this research.
A justification of the suitability of critical ethnography in this thesis is followed by a
description of the research design. This includes the site and participants, data
collection procedures and tools, analytic and interpretative methods, limits to
reporting, and the ethical conduct of the research.

The context of the research was a mainstream, year six classroom in which the
multiliteracies pedagogy of the New London Group situated practice, overt
instruction, critical framing, and transformed practice was enacted by a teacher
who had received professional development in multiliteracies (Cope & Kalantzis,
2000b). The classroom was situated in a suburban primary school in Brisbane,
within a low socioeconomic area. The principal encouraged the teaching of
multiliteracies in the school and was supportive of the conduct of this research.

A ten-week series of lessons was observed and recorded by the researcher in which
the teacher participant employed the multiliteracies pedagogy. This involved
eighteen days of ethnographic fieldwork, with most observations extending through
several school periods. The researcher also dialogued informally with the teacher
and school staff to situate the data beyond the spatial boundaries of the classroom
within the school context. The researcher also observed a school event for parents in
which the multiliteracies designs, created by the students, were presented.

Following the lesson observations, a series of semi-structured interviews were
conducted with the teacher, school principal and four students from the class. These
students were of Anglo-Australian, Indigenous Australian, Sudanese and Tongan
ethnic backgrounds, comprising a culturally and linguistically diverse group.

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 76 -
4.1 Critical Ethnography
Carspeckens (1996) critical ethnography is applied in this research, continuing in
the theoretical tradition of Habermas (1981) and Giddens (1984). A rationale for the
application of critical ethnography in this thesis was presented in Chapter Three
(3.1). It was argued that critical ethnography is consistent with the value orientation
of the research question, sociological perspectives, and epistemic assumptions of the
investigation. Simply stated, the research question is one that a critical ethnographer
would ask:
classroom group?

This question stimulates inquiry aimed to uncover the workings of power in relation
to a perplexing historical problem within the institution of schooling; namely, the
asymmetrical distribution of literacies among dominant and marginalised groups.
However, this historical concern is reformulated in the light of the contemporary
communications environment. It is for this reason that the term multiliteracies is
used to encapsulate the complexity of multimodality, and the cultural and linguistic
diversity of textual practices in todays globalised society.

Critical sociology informs the research question by foregrounding the understanding
that knowledge and cultural capital are often stratified and differentially distributed
along asymmetrical patterns of power and privilege. The features of critical
ethnography were described in the theoretical framing of this study (Section 3.1).
Critical sociologists perceive that contemporary society is often unfair, inequitable,
and both implicitly and clearly oppressive for the marginalised. This research is
designed to identify the specific ways in which the key sociological themes of
critical theory, such as power, agency, resistance, domination, and marginalisation
by race, class and gender, for instance, might be extended to the investigation of
access to multiliteracies in a context of cultural and linguistic diversity (Quantz,
1992). Critical ethnography is a research methodology designed to begin with these
sociological orientations of critical theory (Carspecken, 1996). Thus, the application
of critical ethnography is consistent with the research question, because both are
orientated by the sociology of critical theory.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 77 -
4.2 Research Design
Table 4.2 outlines Carspeckens (1996) five-stage design applied to this research.
Table 4.2 Five Stage Research Design
Five-Stage
Model:

Stage I

Monological
Data
Collection
Stage II

Preliminary
Analysis
Stage III

Dialogical
Data
Collection
&
Analysis
Stage IV

Describing
System
Relations
Stage V

Explaining
System
Relations
Research
Steps
Observational
Research

Initial Data
Analysis
Triangulate
Data
Collection
Examining
social sites in
the wider locale
beyond
primary
research site

Interpreting
results by
comparing
to
social-
theoretical
models
Participant
Teacher selected
from four pilot
study
teachers & 23
students
Teacher Teacher

4 Students

Principal
None None
Site
Year six
classroom in
Brisbane
Off-site Classroom &
Principals
office

Off-site Off-site
Methods
Field notes

Audio-Taping

Video Recording

Photographs

Cultural
Artefacts

Self-reflexive
Journal
Low-level raw
codes

High-level
raw codes

Hierarchical
Schemes

Pragmatic
horizon
analysis
Semi-
structured
interviews (45
minutes each)

Same tools
as stage two.

Stage two
data
compared to
stage one
data.
Interpret data
gathered about
micro-
interactions in
classroom with
links to macro-
structure.
Interpret
results to
confirm,
extend or
modify extant
social theories.

Purpose

To record social
routines as
naturalistically
as possible,
observing
directly
when and where
action takes
place
Pragmatic
horizon
analysis provides
a
consistency
between analytic
procedures & the
underlying
epistemology
Researchers
interpretation
must be
validated
and enriched
by
participants

To discover
system relations
between social
sites
To compare
data to
existing
macro-
theories of
society
Duration
18 days of
lesson
observations
during the
implementation
of a ten week
multiliteracies
unit (36 hours)
250 hours
transcribing data
(36 hrs. of
observation x7+
hours when
multiple group
interactions
recorded
simultaneously)
6 hours of
interviewing
&
member
checking

42 hours
transcribing &
analysing
interviews
(6 hrs x 7)
Unspecified

Unspecified

Date
Feb-March 2004 MarchJuly
2004
Aug. 2004 Sept.
- Oct. 2004
Nov-Dec
2004
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 78 -

The five-stage research design is briefly explained to provide an overview of the
methodology elaborated later in this chapter. Stage One was the collection of
monological or observational data in a year six classroom in which a teacher
implemented a series of lessons applying the multiliteracies pedagogy, theorised in
Chapter Two (New London Group, 1996; 2000). This data was monological
because there was minimal dialogue with the research participants teacher,
principal, and students in order to reduce researcher effect on the data. Multiple
data collection tools were used to record the interaction between the research
participants during the lessons. These included video, tape recorder, journal notes,
photographs, and the collection of cultural artefacts, such as student work samples
on CD ROM. Eighteen days were spent in the classroom over the period of a ten-
week, school term, and the duration of lesson observations was approximately
thirty-six hours.

The termination of lesson observations was tied to the pedagogic structure of the
multiliteracies lessons, which required the complete enactment of the four
components of the multiliteracies pedagogy. The four components were to be
related in complex ways, taught simultaneously, or repeatedly revisited, leading to
the learners collaborative designing of claymation movies (Cope & Kalantzis,
2000b). Remaining in the field for at least one complete cycle of events is regarded
as crucial for establishing the range and variation of activities in qualitative inquiry
(LeCompte & Schensul, 1999a).

It was necessary to make decisions in situ regarding the priority given to recording
some speech acts over others. This is because classrooms are unique social contexts
in which multiple actors speak simultaneously, and three recording devices were not
able to capture more than three speech acts concurrently. Decisions to record certain
interactions were made on the basis of whether the data was original or becoming
redundant, and to give priority to capturing the culturally and linguistically diverse
forms of communication (See for decision-making in-situ: Fetterman, 1989, p.20;
Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p.103; Strauss & Corbin, 1990. p.188).

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 79 -
Stage Two was the preliminary analysis of monological data obtained in Stage One.
Data was replayed multiple times and transcribed by the researcher. Analytic tools
were applied to the lesson transcripts including low and high-level coding, and
reorganising the coded data into hierarchical schemes. Carspeckens (1996)
pragmatic horizon analysis was applied to segments of the data to support the key
themes that emerged from the data (For coding procedures see: Coffey & Atkinson,
1996; Phillips, 1990; Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

Stage Three involved triangulating data collection and analysis to strengthen the
validity of the research, a requirement of Carspeckens (1996) critical ethnography
(See also: Berg, 2004; Creswell, 2003; Heaton, 2004; LeCompte & Preissle, 1993).
The aim was to generate a second set of comparative, dialogical data; that is, data
based on verbal interaction with participants to gain the participant perspectives of
the events (Carspecken, 2001). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the
principal, teacher, and a culturally and linguistically diverse group of four students
to situate the problem of access in the wider social context (For the need to
contextualise data in critical research see: Carspecken, 1996; Kincheloe & McLaren,
1994; Popkewitz & Guba, 1990; Quantz, 1992).

Informal dialogue with the teacher and students occurred both during and after the
eighteen weeks of field work to obtain participant perspectives of the events, and
this data was recorded in the primary record. The researchers interpretation of the
classroom findings were shared sensitively with the teacher after leaving the field.
This encouraged critical reflection through a dialogical process that is required to
democratise the research process and to empower actors in social settings
(Carspecken, 1996, p.155; Lather, 1986). The analysis of this dialogical data
required the application of the analytic tools used in Stage Two; namely, two levels
of coding and the re-organisation of codes into hierarchical schemes, supported by
pragmatic horizon analysis (Carspecken, 1996).

In Stage Four, Giddens (1981) structuration theory of systems analysis was applied
to the data; a discretionary, though unquestionably valuable component of
Carspeckens (1996) critical ethnography. The purpose was to discover relations
between the structures of domination, signification, and legitimation that constrain
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 80 -
or enable access to multiliteracies in the classroom site and those exhibited in other
social sites (Refer to Chapter Three 3.3 for the theoretical framing of structuration
theory).

Stage Five concluded the research design with an interpretation and explanation of
results in the light of a macro-sociological theory. System relationships that
influenced the distribution of access to multiliteracies among the students were
interpreted in relation to Giddens (1984) structuration theory of systems analysis, a
macro-theory that is consistent with critical theory.

4.3 Site
The selection of the classroom site was based on the criterion of cultural and
linguistic heterogeneity. This was necessary to investigate the research question
regarding the distribution of access to multiliteracies among culturally and
linguistically diverse students.

The site of the investigation was a primary classroom in a suburban state school. In
2003, the school had an enrolment in excess of three hundred and twenty-five
students. The school had been operating for over a century, and its community was
composed of diverse cultures and schooling experiences. One of the key visions of
the school, according to a statement in the unpublished School Community Profile
3

(2003), was to achieve the best possible educational outcomes for all our
studentsthrough equity of educational opportunity. The school was situated in a
low socio-economic area, and twenty-five nationalities and twenty-four Brisbane
suburbs were represented in the student cohort.

The population of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (ATSI) was 8%. This was
significantly higher than the nationwide figure from the most recent Census, that is,
the Census of population and Housing: Selected Social and Housing Characteristics
Australia, and Statistics: Local Areas, Queensland (Australian Bureau of Statistics,
2003). According to this census data the Indigenous population in Queensland in
2001 was only 2.2% of the Australian population and 3.1% of the Queensland
population.

3
The complete details of this document are not cited to protect the anonymity of the participants.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 81 -

In 2003, the school population of students for whom English was a second language
(ESL) was 7%. This data indicates that the school cohort meets the selection
criterion of cultural and linguistic diversity. The learning support population of the
school was 27.4 %. The boys (56.5%) outnumbered the girls (43.5%) in the school
enrolment. The percentage of parents who believed that the school was developing
childrens literacy skills was 81%, while 52% were satisfied with their childrens
computer skills. Among the students, 86% enjoyed reading, 70% enjoyed writing,
56% were satisfied with their computer skills, and 38% of students were satisfied
with the opportunities that they have to use computers at school. Students with
access to a computer at home comprised 77% of the school enrolment. The school
had no documented reports or statistics regarding culturally and linguistically
diverse textual practices in the school. The statistics about parent and student beliefs
about multiliteracies during the school year in which fieldwork began are obtained
from the School Community Profile (2003).

The principal of the school was committed to providing the necessary resources,
professional development and support for teachers to become experts in
multiliteracies. For example, he stated:
I see my role is to encourage teachers to take professional development
opportunities in multiliteracies that are presented to them.--- There is no point
encouraging them to teach a wider range of literacies if you dont purchase
new technologies, books, or the tools to teach.

The principal was informed about current policy developments and professional
development opportunities in multiliteracies, which confirmed the suitability of the
school site for the fieldwork. He was also supportive of the teacher participant and
welcomed this research.

The larger geographical areas surrounding the school that were associated with the
lives of participants principal, teacher, and students were also sites of
investigation, a requirement of systems analysis (Giddens, 1984). This data was
gathered through interviews rather than through direct observation. For example,
questions were asked about multiliteracies at home to identify influences on
students access to multiliteracies at school (Apple, 1986, p.51; Carspecken, 1996).
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 82 -
4.4 Participants
Purposive sampling was used to select the participants a grade six teacher, twenty-
three students, and the school principal. The classroom case and its participants were
selected for information richness rather than sample size (Patton, 2002). The aim
was to produce through sampling, a relevant context to make key comparisons about
access to multiliteracies among the culturally and linguistically diverse students
(Mason, 2002). Table 4.4 outlines the total participant pool and describes their roles
in the research.
Table 4.4 Participant Roles in the Study

4.4.1 Teacher
Potential teacher participants were identified through professional network sampling;
namely, the use of an existing professional body to select research participants
(LeCompte & Preissle, 1993). A tertiary educator provided contact details of a
professional network of teachers involved in the Learning by Design project

4
Passive consent required the return of the written consent form only if the participants did not wish
to provide voluntary, informed, and understood consent for their child to participate in the
research. This was a requirement for ethical clearance granted by the University Human Research
Ethics Committee.
Participant Description of Participant Roles in Research
Principal Read information package and provide written consent for
researcher to enter the classroom.
Participate in a 45 minute, semi-structured interview.
Teacher Teach a ten-week sequence of lessons applying the
multiliteracies pedagogy.
Provide consent for the researcher to observe lessons.
Negotiate lesson observation and dialogue with researcher
in fieldwork. Participate in a 45 minute, semi-structured
interview (audio-taped).
Provide researcher with cultural artefacts (e.g. unit plans,
work samples).
Participate in member checks to validate transcripts and
respond to the researchers analysis of the data.
Students
(23)
Read information package and provide passive consent
4
.
Participate in regular classroom activities while the
researcher is present.
Parents (23) Read information package and provide passive consent for
their child to participate.
Students
Interviewed
(4)
Read information package and provide passive consent.
Participate in regular classroom activities with researcher
presence.
Participate in 45 minute, semi-structured interview.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 83 -
reported by Kalantzis and Cope (2005). The local extension of this project began in
March 2003, jointly supported by the Department of Education Queensland and a
district learning and development centre. Upon application, ten primary and
secondary teachers each received a two thousand dollar grant for developing,
teaching, and assessing multiliteracies in classrooms. This professional network
sampling enabled the identification of four pilot study participants who were
scattered throughout a large educational population. Three teachers at two schools
participated in the pilot study conducted to identify one or more suitable teacher
participants and a school research site.

The selected teacher participant had gained eight years of experience in multiple
contexts, including distance education in rural Queensland, and teaching in inner-
city London. She began her employment at the present school in January, 2002. She
was a catalyst for extending multiliteracies by sharing her unit plans and ideas
within other schools, a Hearing Impaired Unit, and at an educational conference in
Canberra. Her educational perspectives were also consistent with critical theory,
evident by her accurate use of key concepts such as empowerment and critical
literacies. The teachers participation in the research was supported by the school
principal who commented:
She has special skills in multiliteracies and will often informally share with
other teachers through professional dialogue. She conducted a brilliant unit
of claymation work with her grade two class. This has now encouraged other
teachers in the school to have a go.

The teacher was also aware of the need to negotiate cultural and linguistic diversity
among the students and their parents. For example, she used a Sudanese translator to
regularly conference with the Sudanese parents of her ESL students about their
progress.

4.4.2 Students
The only criterion for the student cohort was cultural and linguistic heterogeneity, a
requirement of this investigation regarding access to multiliteracies among a
culturally and linguistically diverse group. Aspects of diversity included ethnicity,
socio-economic status, gender, dialects of English, monolingualism, multilingualism,
English as a Second Language (ESL), literacy achievement, and home computer
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 84 -
ownership. Richer data providing more points of comparison could be obtained from
a diverse student cohort than one comprised exclusively of the dominant culture.

A culturally and linguistically diverse group of four, year six students was chosen to
participate in the semi-structured interviews. The number of interview participants
was determined by the confines of a manageable ethnographic study (LeCompte &
Preissle, 1993). The student interview participants were two boys and two girls. Ted
was Indigenous Australian, who lived with his single mum and extended family.
Joshua was a monolingual, Anglo-Australian student from a low-socioeconomic
background, who had learning and behavioural problems. Darles was a multilingual,
African-Sudanese refugee who had lived in Australia since the start of her formal
schooling. Malee was a multilingual, Tongan student who had immigrated to
Australia a year and a half prior to the research. Extensive information was also
gathered from the teacher about Pawini, a Thai female, because Pawini did not have
sufficient oral English skills to participate in the semi-structured interview.

4.5 Pilot Study
The Department of Education Queensland and the principals of two schools
provided voluntary, informed, understood and written consent to conduct a pilot
study. This consent was necessitated because of the involvement of minors across
several state school districts. The ethical consent of one hundred and twenty parents
was also required and obtained to gain voluntary, informed, understood, and passive
consent to conduct the research. Observational data was collected during the
implementation of multiliteracies lessons over several visits to each classroom.
Demographic features of the student cohorts were obtained and the social and
physical environments were observed to provide baseline data (LeCompte &
Preissle, 1993). A year two teacher elected to be involved in the research. Good
rapport and a basic sense of trust was established and maintained between the
researcher and teacher, which are necessary for the free flow of information
(Spradley, 1979).

The teacher provided voluntarily, informed, understood and written consent to
participate in the research, which was trialled as an intensive pilot study for one
month (one hundred hours) in a grade two classroom. The researcher visited every
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 85 -
day from 9:00 am 3:00 pm, with the exception of Thursdays because of existing
professional involvements. Several specialist lessons and school events were not
recorded in the data, such as swimming, religious education, LOTE and physical
education because they were conducted by teachers who were not involved in the
research. The teacher's speech was audio taped continuously with one tape recorder.
The researcher used a second tape recorder to record student dialogue during whole
class discussions or when conversing with students during independent work. Due to
the limited number of recording devices, only one group could be selected at a time
to record the dialogue, though field notes were used to collect continuous data about
interactions occurring concurrently.

In the third week, it was evident that the audio recordings were insufficient to
capture the multimodal forms of data required to answer the research question.
Audio recording proved useful only to capture the direct instruction of the teacher
and the short responses from students during whole class lessons. Interestingly, this
problem is discussed by Cazden (1988) who argued, that at that time, most analyses
of classroom discourse were transcripts of teacher-led discussion. She partially
attributes this to the technological constraints imposed when recording speech that
occurs among multiple participants simultaneously.

The teacher provided voluntary, informed, understood and written consent for the
continuous video-recording of interactions, which began in the third week of the
pilot study. This improved the quality of audio data during multiple group
interactions occurring simultaneously, and provided a visual and spatial record of
events, such as those involving computers, and where audio-taping had failed to
capture multimodal designing.

A self-reflexive researcher journal was kept to record the researcher's influence on
the data and reflections about the research process. Samples of the students' designs
were collected, including monomodal designs, a CD-ROM of Microsoft PowerPoint
presentations and collaborative claymation movies. School policy documents were
obtained including the School Community Profile (2003), Information and
Communication Technologies for Learning Vision (2003), and the School Annual
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 86 -
Report and Operation Plan SAROP (2003)
5
. The interview schedules were trialled
a month later with participants from each cohort, including seven students, two
parents, the teacher, and the principal (For the importance of pre-testing interview
schedules see: Berg, 2004). All methodological tools for data collection were trialled
and analytic procedures were sampled.

An important outcome of the study was the selection of the teacher participant for
the proposed research. The pilot study also informed the methodological tools for
data collection, resulting in the decision to purchase a digital camcorder with a
wide-angle lens and tripod, to capture the actions of all participants in the room
simultaneously. Multiple audio-recording devices were also obtained to capture a
greater number of group interactions concurrently.

4.6 Data Collection
Data collection was divided into monological and dialogical data sets. Monological
or observational data collection methods were used prior to conducting
semi-structured interviewing to initially produce a naturalistic record of social
routines, observing directly when and where the action took place (For the
importance of participant observation see: LeCompte & Schensul, 1999a; Miles &
Huberman, 1994; Sarantakos, 2005). Dialogical data collection involved conversing
with participants to obtain their perspectives. This is delayed until Stage Three in
critical ethnography because dialogue causes some changes in the participants
perspectives and actions (Carspecken, 1996). However, both forms of data were
necessary to compare direct observations of the participants actions and their
verbally-expressed sentiments about the events.

Member checking was conducted to strengthen the trustworthiness of the two data
sets. Lesson and interview transcripts were given to the relevant participants (e.g.
principal checked the principal interview) to allow participants to challenge any
misinterpretations or omissions of significant data by the researcher. A summary of
the research results were also carefully discussed with the teacher participant in
order to respect her perspectives and feelings about conclusions drawn from the

5
The complete citations details are not included in the list of references to protect the anonymity of
the research participants.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 87 -
research. This process was necessary to fortify the interpretive validity or
respondent validation of the research (For a rationale of member checking for
validity see: Berg, 2004; Ezzy, 2002, 2004; LeCompte & Schensul, 1999b; Maxwell,
2005; Silverman, 2001).

4.6.1 Data Set One
Data set one was the construction of the primary record of events in the classroom
during the teacher's enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy over a ten week
period (New London Group, 1996). The lessons observed aimed to enable students
to design multimodal designs for real world, cultural purposes. The aim was to
collaboratively design claymation movies (e.g. Wallace and Gromit) for their
preparatory buddies (aged 4-5). Through direct observation, the researcher
attended to the teachers application of the multiliteracies pedagogy, the power
relations, and the discourses of the participants, that influenced the students access
to multiliteracies.

Multiple data collection tools were used including a digital camcorder, two tape
recorders, journal notes, self-reflexive researcher journal, and the collection of
cultural artefacts and photographs. The speech and actions of the participants were
recorded continuously using the digital camcorder with a wide angle lens. The
camera was mounted on a tripod to capture all relations between participants in the
room during the teacher's interactions with the whole class. Two Dictaphones were
used to supplement the audio-visual data during collaborative group work to capture
the dialogue of three groups simultaneously. These recording devices allowed events
to be replayed multiple times for the purpose of accurate analysis (For the strengths
of audio data in qualitative research see: Grant, 1999; Sarantakos, 2005; Silverman,
2001). The video recording was necessary to reconstruct the participants'
multimodal forms of meaning making, rather than their speech alone. This was
particularly important when students were engaged in visual, screen based, or three
dimensional designing and kinaesthetic activities (For the possibilities of video data
see: Emmison, 2003; Flick, von Kardorff, & Steinke, 2004; Heath, 2004; Marvisti,
2004; Silverman, 2005). The verbatim speech and descriptions of relevant actions of
the participants were transcribed to construct the primary record using the
conventions outlined in Table 4.6.1.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 88 -
Table of Field Note Conventions
Sign Convention Use
three full stops Indicates pause in verbatim
speech
1. number and full stop Line number
[ ] square brackets around
words
Separates observer description,
providing contextual
information,
from verbatim speech.
--- short broken line Verbatim speech has been
selectively omitted.
------------------- long broken line Partitions time.
Table 4.6.1 Field Note Conventions

A sample of the primary record is provided in Figure 4.6.1.1 to demonstrate the
application of field note conventions.
CD 7 Date: 17
th
May, 2004 Time: 12:30pm
[Teacher is leading the whole class, who are seated on the carpet, through a set of
critical questions about the animated movie "Chicken Run, which the students
have just viewed. They have a print version of the questions in front of them].

147 Teacher: When the door opened and Mrs. Tweedie was standing there, the
light spilled out onto the steps. Why did they use the lighting in that
way? What effect did it give her that she was in shadow and the
bright light coming behind her when it panned up her leg?
148 Jack: Strong
149 Teacher: Yeah, it made her look powerful!
150 Ted: Scary.
151 Teacher: She did look a bit scary. Ok.How did the creators show that Mrs.
Tweedie was in power? How did they show that she was the boss,
Sean?
152 Sean: The expression.
153 Teacher: The expression on her face. Did you hear the dog yelp? The door
opened and the dog went [Child barks]. Yeah, and did a little yelp.
Which means that he was definitely scared. What did you think?
154 Darles: She had her hand on her hip.
155 Teacher: Her hands were on her hip. Her body language showed that she was
really very important.
156 Damien: She yelled, What is this chicken doing here?
157 Teacher: So, what she said was important.
158 Robyn: You could see her face and her head.
159 Teacher: Think of the angle. Where was she? Where are they [the chickens]?
What did the creators do to make her look more powerful, Warren?
160 Warren: Looking up [camera angle].
161 Teacher: They were looking up at her, and she was looking?
162 Students: Down.
163 Teacher: Down.which made them look as if they were quite small.

Figure 4.6.1.1 Sample of the Primary Record from the Study
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 89 -
Journal notes were used to record informal interactions with participants when audio
recording was too obtrusive. These notes were written immediately after the events
for trustworthiness (Patton, 2002; Silverman, 1993). This record includes
observations and information from participants about relevant events within the
school locale and wider community. This is a requirement of critical ethnography
because power never works independently of the wider social context (Carspecken,
1996). See Figure 4.6.1.2 for a sample of the pilot study journal notes capturing the
researcher's initial impressions of the research site and participants.
Date: 21.07.2003 Time: 3:00-3:15 pm
I met the year two teacher for the first time today. I was informed by office staff of
the location of her classroom. As I approached the long, wooden building, she
waved to me from the veranda and called out a greeting with a pleasant smile. I
identified myself and met her at the top of the stairs. She is a very warm person
and I instantly felt at ease and accepted by her. She is of similar ethnicity, age and
presentation as me. She continued to smile while producing a long sigh, indicating
that she had experienced a hectic, but satisfying day. I prompted her to share her
experiences. She narrated some of the highlights of the day, and we sat down. She
didn't stop to ask me any questions about the research until she had told me
everything she could think of about her multiliteracies work with the class. With
very few verbal prompts, she continued to share for an hour, missing a meeting to
spend time with me. She seemed to enjoy having someone to share her ideas with,
and I listened to the wide variety of unique experiences she offers her grade two
class. Her class is a difficult group to manage, and she has seven children from
minority ethnic groups such as Korean, Sudanese, and Indigenous Australian. She
expressed that about half of the class were identified as "at risk in the Year 2
Diagnostic and Remedial Net (Education Queensland, 2001). The teacher is full of
creative ideas, and stated that she hopes that her students are "empowered to
determine their futures. The tasks she plans for her students are very situated in
real life experiences and social contexts. Listening to her made me feel excited
about the prospect of doing research in her classroom.
Figure 4.6.1.2 Sample of Journal Notes from the Pilot Study

Cultural artefacts or archival data were used to triangulate information, including
school policy documents, school web pages, teacher planning documents, copies of
student work samples (e.g. print and visual texts, CD ROMs), and printed
communication to parents (For the strengths of cultural artefacts see: Creswell, 2003;
Finch, 1999; Patton, 2002). Photographs were used to provide static, visual and
spatial records of the physical environment, such as environmental print in the
school.

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 90 -
Finally, a self-reflexive researcher journal was used to record the consequences and
critical reflections of the researcher's participation in the field, including a self-
examination of how the research findings were produced (For the importance of
researcher reflexivity see: Heaton, 2004; LeCompte & Schensul, 1999b; Saukko,
2003). See Figure 4.6.1.3 for a sample of a reflective journal entry from the pilot
study demonstrating the researchers consideration of effective methods of data
collection.
Date: 9.09.2003
Because this is a multiliteracies unit, I am finding that audio records and field notes are
missing important data, such as the students interactions with the mouse and computer
keyboard. Video data would overcome these problems. I will start building up the visual
record by taking some photographs of the classroom and library layout, classroom charts,
the school building, and the multiliteracies diagram displayed on the staffroom wall.
Figure 4.6.1.3 Reflective Researcher Journal Entry from the Pilot Study

The criterion used to determine when data set one was satisfactorily completed was
when the point-of-diminished-return was reached; that is, when the observed
patterns of data were repeatedly reaffirmed until no new or relevant data emerged
for each coding category. For example, numerous lessons were observed that
involved the enactment of overt instruction and situated practice rather than critical
framing. Since theoretical saturation was reached in these coding categories,
additional lessons were observed to build up a record of the enactment of critical
framing. Reaching theoretical saturation across important coding categories
strengthened the trustworthiness of this research (LeCompte & Schensul, 1999b).
4.6.2 Data Set Two
The second data set involved semi-structured interviews with the year six teacher,
the principal, and the four students. The purpose was to triangulate sources of data
through multiple actors, comparing interviews with the observational data collected
in Stage One (See: Berg, 2004; Flick et al., 2004; Heaton, 2004; LeCompte &
Schensul, 1999b; Patton, 2002). The semi-structured interviews also investigated
system relations about access to multiliteracies in application of Giddens (1984)
structuration theory, explained in Chapter Three, and pursuant of Stage Four of
Carspeckens (1996) critical ethnography.

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 91 -
Data set two also included informal dialogue between researcher and participants,
recorded as journal notes and supported by audio taping at opportune times.
Questions were formulated in situ to gain participant perspectives of significant
events that occurred in the multiliteracies classroom (Carspecken & Apple, 1992;
Foddy, 1993). For example, the researcher asked questions such as, "What
components of the multiliteracies pedagogy were you aiming to implement in the
lesson?

There is a normative rationale central to critical research, which provided impetus
for the semi-structured interviews and informal dialogue. Firstly, moral respect for
persons is honoured when power is shared in the formation of knowledge about
others. In purely observational research, knowledge and power are on the side of the
researcher rather than the participants. Participants require a voice in the research
process for the democratic, co-construction of knowledge. This dialogic approach
protects participants from becoming unwitting accessories to knowledge claims that
may be false, and from being manipulated in ways they do not understand, and from
which they cannot dissent (See also: Carspecken & Apple, 1992; Giddens, 1984;
Giroux, 1988; Heron, 1988; Hoy & McCarthy, 1994; Kincheloe & McLaren, 1994;
Reason & Rowan, 1988; Schwandt, 2000).

A second reason for interviewing in this research is that through such interactions, a
double hermeneutic is formed; that is, the intersection of two frames of meaning. On
the one hand, there is the meaningful social world as conceived by participants, and
on the other, the perspectives and language of the researcher. This process was
important in exchanging perspectives about how aspects of the school structure
could either be changed or reproduced through individual action ( See also: Banister,
Burman, Parker, Taylor, & Tindall, 1995; Carspecken & Apple, 1992; Denzin &
Lincoln, 2000; Gay & Airasian, 2000; Giddens, 1984; LeCompte, Millroy, &
Preissle, 1992; Morgan, 1988).

Semi-structured interview topics were specified in draft form, while the precise
wording of questions was modified during implementation when applicable. Field
notes and audio taping were used to provide a permanent record of semi-structured
interviews. The student interviews were conducted verbally at a work table in a
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 92 -
small room adjoining the classroom. This location was chosen to minimise noise
interference of the audio recording and distractions from other students.

The student interviews addressed the following topics regarding access to
multiliteracies in order to identify systems relations between home and school
(Carspecken, 1996). This list can be compared to Figure 4.6.2.1, the Semi-
Structured Interview Schedule for Students.
1. Designing multimodal texts at school
2. Access to multimodal textual design at school and legitimation structures
3. Designing multimodal texts at home
4. Reading picture books and popular texts at home
5. Writing with pencil and paper at home
6. Other multimodal texts: TV, movies and media role models
7. Internet and email at home
8. Listening to music at home
9. Reading, writing and multimodality for leisure
10. Perceptions of textual practices: gender, age, monolingualism,
bilingualism, ESL, multiple Englishes
11. Personal textual practices: monolingualism, bilingualism, ESL, multiple
"Englishes
12. Parents multiliteracies routines
11. Scaffolding multiliteracies
14. Student perceptions of structures of legitimation for multiliteracies in the
home
15. Student perceptions of their progress with multiliteracies and ways to
improve access
Semi Structured Interview Schedule for Students
1. Designing Multimodal text at School
a) Do you like designing things which have words, pictures, movement or
sound at school? For example, I have seen you use computers at school to
make PowerPoint Slides and Claymation films. Do you enjoy doing this?
Why?
b) What is the best thing that you have made like this at school?
c) Are there any difficult things about making these kinds of things at
school?
d) Have the chances you get to make these kinds of things changed or stayed
the same as you have moved to different grade levels and classrooms? If
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 93 -
so, how have they changed?

2. Access to Multimodal textual Design at School & Legitimation Structures
a) Do you think that you get enough time on the computers at school for
designing things compared to other children and why?
b) Are you happy with the help you get when your have trouble designing
things with the computer at school?
c) Who can you go to for help?
d) What do you think about the things you are able to design using the
computer at school, and are they better or worse than the ones you have at
home?
e) What do you think about the number of computers at school, and if your
school or classroom could have more computers, how many computers
would you like to have?
f) Are there any rules you must follow for using computers to design things
at school, and if so, can you remember any now?
g) Do you follow these rules, and why?
h) Do you think these rules are fair, and why?

3. Designing Multimodal Texts at Home
a) Do you have a computer at home and if so, how long have you had it?
b) Do you design things on the computer at home, and if so, what sort of
things?
c) Do you enjoy doing these things, and why?
d) How often would you spend doing these sorts of things?
e) Do you ever need help doing these things, and how do you get help?
f) Are there any difficult things about using the computer at home to design
things, and if so, what are they?

4. Reading Picture Books and Popular Texts at Home
a) Do you read books at home, and if so, which kinds? From what and
about what cultures? In what language/s?
b) What are some of your favourite books?
c) Do you read any other things like magazines or comics, and if so, which
ones? From what cultures? In what languages?
d) How often do you read these?
e) Is there something you like to do more than reading, such as sport, dance,
art or playing?

5. Writing with Pencil and Paper at Home
a) Do you write things at home using pencil and paper, and if so, what for
and in what languages?
b) What is your favourite reason for writing?
c) How often and how much do you write?
d) Are you happy with your writing ability, and why?

6. Other Multimodal Texts: TV, Movies and Idols (Role Models)
a) Do you have a TV at home, and if so, what sort of movies and TV
programs do you like the most?
b) How often do you watch TV, videos or see movies?
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 94 -
c) Do you have a TV, movie, or book character you really like a lot, and if
so, who?
d) Do you have any toys or belongings that show that you like these
characters?
e) Have you ever seen people reading books, writing on paper, or using the
computer on TV or in magazines, and if so, who?
f) What do you think about those characters who read, write or use the
computer?

7. Internet and Email at Home
a) Do you have the Internet at home, and if so, how long have you had it?
b) Do you surf the Internet for fun, or send emails to friends, and if so, can
you tell me about it?
c) Which websites do you visit most?
d) How often do you do this sort of thing?
e) Why do you choose to do or not do these things?

8. Listening to Music at Home (Auditory Mode)
a) Do you listen to any music at home, and if so, what sort of music do
you like to listen to at home?
b) In what languages? From what culture/s?
c) Do you have your own music collection or favourite singers, and if so,
which ones?
d) How often do you spend listening to music at home?

9. Reading, Writing and Multimodality for Leisure
a) Do you choose to read with friends just for fun in each others homes
(e.g. magazines, books, comics)? In what language/s? About what
culture/s?
b) If so, why do you do these things?
c) Do you write on paper with friends just for fun (e.g. diaries, letters, and
notes to each other)? In what languages?
d) If so, why do you do these things?
e) Do you use the computer with friends for fun, and if so, what do you do?
(e.g. visiting a friends house to play computer games, or make posters).
f) How do you feel when you do these things?

10. Perceptions of textual practices: gender, ethnicity, monolingualism,
bilingualism, ESL, multiple "Englishes
a) Have you noticed any difference in the way you, your friends, brother or
sister use the computer?
b) Do you think girl/boys/children from different cultures or children with
different or more than one language in Australia like to read the same
amount?
c) Do you think girls/boys/children from different cultures or children with
different or more than one language in Australia like to write the same
amount?
d) Do you think children from different cultures, but who all go to school in
Australia, read, write, communicate or use the computers in the same
ways? Why or Why not?
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 95 -
e) Do you think children who are younger or older read, write, speak,
communicate and use the computer in the same ways? Why or Why not?
f) Would you like things to be different?
g) What could you do change this for yourself?

11. Personal textual practices: Monolingualism, Bilingualism, ESL, multiple
"Englishes
a) Can you understand any language other than English? If so, which one/s?
Is it your first or second language?
b) Do you read, write, or speak, or listen to music in languages other than
English? Describe. At school? At home?
c) Do you read, write, or talk, or do things about or with other people from
other cultures? (e.g. read books, watch movies, or participant in art, dance,
music or customs from other cultures, play with best friend from another
culture etc.) At school? At home?
d) Do you share any special language or ways of talking to close friends or
people in groups or clubs that others might not understand (e.g. code
words, favourite words and exclamations, shortened words, words to do
with your sport etc.)? At school? At home?
e) Is it important to do these sorts of things? Why?
f) Are you happy with the opportunities you have to do these cultural things
at school? At home? Why?
g) Is there anything you would like to be different about the way you do these
things or the opportunities you have to do them? Why?
h) If so, what could you do to change this situation?

12. Observing Parents' Multiliteracies Routines
a) Does Mum, Dad or brothers and sisters use the computer much at home? If
so, what for?
b) Do you think they use the computer anywhere else, like at work? If so,
what sort of things do they use the computer for? (e.g. mails, internet, chat
rooms, word processing)
c) Would you like to do the same kind of jobs at work or home that Mum or
Dad do when you grow up, or would you do something different?
d) What would you like to do when you become an adult, and why?

13. Scaffolding Multiliteracies
a) Do your parent/s, brothers or sisters, friends or anyone else show you to
read, and if so, in what language/s or from what culture/s?
b) Do your parent/s, brothers or sisters, friends or anyone else show you to
write, and if so, and if so, in what language/s or from what culture/s?
c) Do your parent/s brothers or sisters, friends or anyone else show you to use
the computer, and if so, in what language/s or for what purpose?
d) Do your parent/s, brothers or sisters, friends or anyone else do these sorts
of things themselves when you are around? (e.g. Newspaper, mails, mail,
magazines)

14. Student Perceptions of Legitimation Structures in the Home
a) Are there any rules you have to follow at home about using the computer,
and if so, what are they?
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 96 -
b) Are there any rules about how much reading you should do, and if so, what
are these rules?
c) Are there any rules about how much writing you should do, and if so, what
are these rules?
d) Are there any rules about how much watching TV or videos you can do,
and if so, what are these rules?
e) Are there any rules about how much listening to music you can do, and if
so, what are these rules?
f) Do you like all of these rules, and why?
g) Do you think these rules are fair, and why?
h) Do you follow these rules, and why?

15. Self Perceptions of Progress with Multiliteracies
a) Is it important to know how to use computers for reading and writing
things for different purposes, and why?
b) Are you happy with how good you are at making things using the
computer, and why?
c) Are you happy with how good you are at reading books and why? In what
languages?
d) Are you happy with how good you are at writing, and why? In what
languages?
e) Are you happy with opportunities you get to use your language, culture
and ways of communicating to others at school?
f) Would you like anything to be different about the way you do these
things?
g) Is there anything that you could do either at school or at home to help
you get even better, and if so, what could you do?
Figure 4.6.2.1 Semi-Structured Interview Schedule for Students

The multiliteracies addressed in the student interviews included monomodal,
multimodal, and culturally and linguistically diverse literacies (New London Group,
1996, 2000). The interview questions attended to the first argument of
multiliteracies by investigating students use of designs that draw upon the six
design elements linguistic, visual, audio, gestural, spatial and multimodal. The
interviews investigated the second argument of multiliteracies by attending to issues
of cultural and linguistic diversity (Cope & Kalantzis, 1996; Kress, 2000b; New

The interview questions addressed multiliteracies in both home and school
environments to examine possible relationships between the classroom site and the
cultures of related social sites. The theoretical impetus for these questions is found
in the Stage Four requirements of Carspeckens (1996) critical ethnography to
conduct systems analysis. Accordingly, systems relations or social routines that
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 97 -
occurred in several sites were investigated. Site relationships were sought by
considering the physical movement of participants between sites, such as school and
home. Relations were also sought between systems media cultural commodities
that are physically absent in time or space. Systems media were examined in
interview questions four, and six to nine, particularly in relation to the students
routine use of magazines, comics, websites, computer games, television shows, and
popular music in the home (Apple, 1986; Giddens, 1984).

Student perceptions of access to multiliteracies in relation to gender, ethnic, cultural
and linguistic diversity were investigated in questions one, two, ten and eleven.
These questions applied an important assumption of critical theory to multiliteracies;
namely, the principle that not all members of society have access to all meanings,
but are distributed, available, and accessible along the overlapping lines of these
social categories (For principles of critical theory see: Giroux, 1983; Kincheloe &
McLaren, 1994; Luke et al., 2003). Evidence of system reproduction was sought,
that is, the way in which people act predictably with respect to broadly distributed
conditions in the wider society. Links were observed between learners access to
multiliteracies in the classroom and corresponding relations in the larger society
(Cope & Kalantzis, 1996; Giddens, 1984; McLaren & Leonard, 1993).

The scaffolding of students multimodal textual practices was examined in questions
three, twelve, and thirteen. These questions investigated the influence of experts
such as peers, parents, or siblings, to guide students designing. Expert guidance is
required for learners to reflect upon the modelled uses of multiliteracies and
reformulate these practices independently (Gregory, 1994). These questions drew
upon Vygotskys view that language, and thus, designing, is stimulated and
constituted by social relations or socio-genesis. Thus, childrens socialisation into
multiliteracies in the home was an important focus of investigation (Bloome, 1994;
Vygotsky, 1962; 1978; 1987).

Questions two and fourteen inquired about rules or legitimation structures
constraining or enabling access to multiliteracies in the home and school. This
applies a principle of Giddens (1984) structuration theory; namely, that structures
of legitimation tacit norms and formal sanctions are both constraining and
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 98 -
enabling forces, and all social activity requires their prior existence. These two types
of legitimation structures influencing students access to multiliteracies, were
analysed in school and home contexts (Giddens, 1984).

Question eleven addressed students experiences with culturally and linguistically
diverse textual practices, identifying monolingualism, multilingualism, English as a
Second Language (ESL), subcultural differences in English use, and diversity in
cultural ways of communicating (New London Group, 2000). Students were
prompted to consider how to improve their own access to multiliteracies. This
question acknowledged the critical ethnographic requirement of catalytic validity
the degree to which research empowers and emancipates a research community (For
research on catalytic validity and empowerment in critical research see: Altheide &
Johnson, 1994; Anderson, 1989; Banister et al., 1995; Carr & Kemmis, 1986;
Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Giroux, 1988; Lather, 1986; Tesch, 1990). The teacher
was interviewed in the classroom during recess using a tape recorder, while the
principal was interviewed in his office during formal lessons. Field notes rather than
tape recording was used to record the principals interview at his request, and the
details were recorded from memory immediately after the interview. Both the
principal and teacher provided voluntary, informed, understood, and written consent
to participate in the interviews.

The key purpose of the interviews for the teacher and principal was to investigate
system links between classroom data and the wider school and social context. The
questions were constructed and numbered congruently to triangulate teacher and
principal perceptions. This included questions about the wider institutional,
economic, cultural, social and political context a requirement of critical
ethnography (Carspecken, 1996; Carspecken & Walford, 2001). The following list
of specific issues addressed can be compared to Figure 4.6.2.2, the Semi-Structured
Interview Schedule for the Teacher, and Figure 4.6.2.3, the Semi-Structured
Interview Schedule for the Principal.

1) The historical development of multiliteracies in the school
2) Legitimation structures: Norms for providing access to multiliteracies
3) Legitimation structures: Sanctions or formal rules for providing access
to multiliteracies
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 99 -
4) Domination Structures: Resource allocation and authorisation
5) Teacher access to knowledge about multiliteracies
6) Signification or structuring of the classroom social space through the use
of the multiliteracies pedagogy
7) Selective information filtering and multiliteracies
8) The provision of networked communication systems in the school
9) Diversity, multiliteracies and system reproduction
10) Cultural diversity, monolingualism, bilingualism, ESL, and subcultural
versions of English
11) Role of the teacher and principal in multiliteracies and ways to improve
access

Semi Structured Interview Schedule for the Teacher

1. Historical development of multiliteracies in the school
a) What is your conception of multiliteracies?
b) What developments have occurred since the beginning of your tenure in
relation to providing opportunities for children to use multiliteracies? By
this I mean literacies, that that combine visual, auditory, linguistic, spatial
and gestural information such as literacies using computer. I also mean
cultural texts of various languages and forms of English.
c) What role have you played in these developments?

2. Legitimation structures: Norms for providing access to multiliteracies
a) Is the provision of student access to multiliteracies initiated formally (e.g.
state-wide policies) or informally (e.g. teachers expertise), or through
both?
b) Have you observed any patterns of teacher behaviour in the school that
demonstrate a school-wide concern for providing children with access to a
range of multiliteracies?
c) How do you demonstrate your concern for this in the school in informal
ways?
d) How does the principal demonstrate concern?

3. Legitimation structures: Sanctions or formal rules for providing access to
multiliteracies
a) Have these practices become formalised over time by the principal, other
teachers or yourself (e.g. teachers taking a role in formulating the
multiliteracies curriculum)?
b) Do you follow certain policies, curriculum, or agendas to ensure than an
emphasis on multiliteracies is sustained?
c) If so, do other teachers follow them, or are these your initiatives?

4. Domination structures. Resource allocation and authorisation
a) What support personnel (e.g. Reading Recovery teachers, information
technology support, multiliteracies experts) does the school currently
provide for children from different cultural and language backgrounds to
engage with a range of multiliteracies?
b) Are they adequate or can they be improved?
c) What material resources (e.g. texts from different cultures and in different
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 100 -
languages or kinds of English, computers, software, reading materials,
music, art) does the school currently provide for children to engage in a
variety of multiliteracies?
d) Are they adequate or can they be improved?
e) What systems are in place for the maintenance or building up of these
resources?
f) Are they adequate or can they be improved?
g) Do political and economic factors outside your control have an effect on
the resource allocation in this area, and if so, in what ways?
h) Are you happy with the funding and personnel available to support
multiliteracies?

5. Teacher Access to Knowledge about Multiliteracies
a) What staff development program or university courses have you been
involved with in relation to multiliteracies? How is this viewed by other
staff and the principal?
b) Does the school have any systems, such as professional development, to
encourage teachers to access to new knowledge about multiliteracies?
c) Would you like to see any improvement in this area among other
teachers? Please describe.
d) How do you see the principals role in this area?
e) How do you see the role of teachers in this area?
f) How do you see your role in this area?

6. Signification Structures: Multiliteracies Pedagogy
a) What kind of classroom structures, routines, systems or teaching practices
do you use for the literacy curriculum (e.g. situated learning, direct
instruction, critical literacy, transformed practice or systems for sharing
the classroom resources).
b) What sorts of practices are encouraged in the school, and do they differ
from your ideals?

7. Selective Information Filtering and Multiliteracies
a) Do you think that the role of multiliteracies poses any threats to your
classroom program? (e.g. to other competing educational agendas or
aspects of the existing literacy curriculum).
b) Are there other mandated threats to the curriculum that take up time you
would rather give to literacy?
c) How much time do you allocate for multiliteracies?
d) How much time is available for you and your students to access
computers for multimodal, digital literacies?
e) How much time is available to engage with texts from other cultures and
languages?
f) Does this vary across the grades or among teachers? If so, how?
g) How important are multiliteracies in the school curriculum in comparison
with other priorities or subject areas? Why?

8. Networked Communication Systems
a) How important is Internet and email access for primary students at
school?
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 101 -
b) What grade levels does this become important as part of the core
curriculum?
c) How does the school prevent children from accessing controversial or
inappropriate websites?
d) Is there a place for critical reading skills, and if so, at what grade levels?

9. Diversity, Multiliteracies & Social Reproduction
a) Have you noticed any diversity in the way students access the computer
facilities in the primary school or in your classroom?
b) Have you noticed any diversity in the way students access culturally and
linguistically diverse texts, such as books, music, dances, art forms?
c) If so, which student groups seem to benefit most (e.g. cultures, language
experiences, gender, etc)?
d) To what do you attribute these differences (e.g. student age, gender,
culture, ethnicity, ESL, bilingualism, monolingualism, subcultural
differences, language experiences, socio-economic status, home computer
ownership, personal literacy choices, or other factors, such as the
expertise and values of the teacher?)
e) Some speculate that patterns of disadvantage in society outside of school
are reproduced in the school in relation to accessing multiliteracies. Have
you seen any evidence of that in your experience?
f) On the other hand, have you seen situations in which children who come
from minority cultural backgrounds or diverse backgrounds in other ways,
have excelled in multiliteracies?

10. Cultural Diversity, Monolingualism, Bilingualism, ESL, Linguistic
experiences, Subcultural Differences and Textual Practice
a) What special provision is made for children of marginalised ethnicity, or
ESL, bilingual, and linguistically diverse backgrounds in the school? In
your classroom?
b) Are languages other than English, informal Englishes, or subcultural
variations of English part of classroom or school life? (e.g. children using
home dialects). Describe.
c) Do you use culturally diverse texts and resources for learning? (e.g.
Children from non-dominant cultures bring in books about other cultures,
study art forms and music from other cultures etc.)
d) How do you harness the diverse cultural and linguistic experiences of
students to encourage learning?
c) Is there anything you would like to change about the existing situation in
relation to these issues of diversity? If so, what could you do?

11. Role of the Teacher in Multiliteracies
a) What areas would you like to see developed in relation to the range of
literacies, traditional, multimodal, and culturally and linguistically diverse
texts, in both your classroom and the school in the future?
b) What role does the principal play in these developments?
c) What role can parents play?
d) What role can the children themselves play?
e) What role could you play in these changes?

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 102 -
Figure 4.6.2.2 Semi Structured Interview Schedule for the Teacher

Semi-Structured Interview Schedule for the Principal
1. Historical Development of Multiliteracies in the School
a) What is your conception of multiliteracies?
b) What developments have occurred since the beginning of your tenure in
relation to providing opportunities for children to use multiliteracies? By
this I mean literacies that include reading, writing, speaking and
multimodal literacies that combine visual, auditory, linguistic, spatial and
gestural information, such as literacies using computers. I also mean
cultural texts of various kinds in various languages and forms of English.
c) What role have you played in these developments?

2. Legitimation Structures: Norms for Providing Access to Multiliteracies
a) Is the provision of student access to multiliteracies initiated formally (e.g.
state-wide policies) or informally (e.g. teachers expertise), or both?
b) Have you observed any patterns of teacher behaviour that demonstrate a
school-wide concern for providing children with access to a range of
multiliteracies?
c) How do you demonstrate your concern for this in informal ways?

3. Legitimation Structures: Sanctions or Formal Rules for Providing Access to
Multiliteracies
a) Have these informal practices become formalised over time by yourself
or teachers? (e.g. teachers taking a role in formulating the multiliteracies
curriculum)?
b) Do you follow certain policies, curriculum, or agendas to ensure that an
emphasis on multiliteracies is sustained? Can you describe these and are
they your initiatives?
c) If so, do teachers follow them?

4. Domination Structures: Resource Allocation and Authorisation
a) What support personnel (e.g. Reading Recovery teachers, information
technology support, multiliteracies experts) does the school currently
provide for children from different cultural and language backgrounds to
engage with a range of multiliteracies? Are they adequate or can they be
improved?
b) What material resources (e.g. texts from different cultures and in different
languages or kinds of English, computers, software, reading materials,
music, art) does the school currently provide for children to engage in a
variety of multiliteracies?
c) Are they adequate or can they be improved?
d) What systems are in place for the maintenance or building up of these
resources?
e) Are they adequate or can they be improved?
f) Do political and economic factors outside your control have an effect on
the resource allocation in this area, and if so, in what ways?
g) Are you happy with the funding and personnel available to support
multiliteracies?

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 103 -
5. Teacher Access to Knowledge about Multiliteracies
a) What staff development programs or university courses for teaching
multiliteracies has your staff been engaged in?
b) Do you have any systems or do you initiate professional development for
all staff to access knowledge about multiliteracies?
c) Would you like to see any improvement in this area among your staff?
Please describe.
d) How do you see the role of teachers in this area?
e) How do you see your role in this area?

6. Signification Structures: Multiliteracies Pedagogy
a) What kind of classroom structures, routines, systems or teaching practices
do you encourage teachers to use in the literacy classroom? (e.g. situated
learning, direct instruction, critical literacy, transformed practice)
b) What sorts of practices do you see used in the school, and do they differ
from your ideals?

7. Selective Information Filtering and Multiliteracies
a) Do you think that the role of multiliteracies poses any threats to your
school curriculum? (e.g. to other competing educational agendas or
aspects of the existing literacy curriculum).
b) Are there other mandated threats to the curriculum that take up time you
would rather teachers give to literacy?
c) How much time do you allocate for multiliteracies?
d) How much time is available for teachers and their students to access
computers for multimodal, digital literacies?
e) How much time is available in the program to engage with texts from
other cultures and languages?
f) Does this vary across the grades or among teachers? If so, how?
g) How important are multiliteracies in the school curriculum in comparison
with other priorities or subject areas to you? Why?

8. Networked Communication Systems
a) How important is Internet and email access for primary students at
school?
b) What grade levels does this become important as part of the core
curriculum?
c) How does the school prevent children from accessing controversial or
inappropriate websites?
d) Is there a place for critical reading skills, and if so, at what grade levels?

9. Diversity, Multiliteracies & Social Reproduction
a) Have you noticed any diversity in the way students access the computer
facilities in the primary school?
b) Have you noticed diversity in the way students access cultural and
linguistically diverse texts, such as books, music, dances, art forms?
c) If so, which student groups seem to benefit most (e.g. cultures, language
experiences, gender, etc)?
d) To what do you attribute these differences (e.g. student age, gender,
culture, ethnicity, ESL, bilingualism, monolingualism, subcultural
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 104 -
differences, language experiences, socio-economic status, home computer
ownership, personal literacy choices, or other factors such as the expertise
or values of the teacher)?
e) Some speculate that patterns of disadvantage in society outside of school
are reproduced in the school in relation to multiliteracies. Have you seen
any evidence of that in your experience?
f) On the other hand, have you seen situations in which children who come
from marginalised backgrounds excel in multiliteracies?

10. Cultural Diversity, Monolingualism, Bilingualism, ESL, Linguistic
experiences, Subcultural differences and Textual Practice
a) What special provision is made for children of ESL, Bilingual,
Linguistically diverse students in the school?
b) Are languages other than English, informal Englishes, or subcultural
variations of English part of school life? (e.g. children using home
dialects). Describe.
c) Do you encourage the use culturally diverse texts and resources for
learning? (e.g. encourage children from minority cultures bring in texts
from home in their language, read English books about other cultures,
include art forms, literature and music from other cultures in the
curriculum etc.)
d) How do you harness the diverse cultural and linguistic experiences of
students to encourage learning? (e.g. cultural days, LOTE, culturally
diverse texts in library)
e) Is there anything you would like to change about the existing situation in
relation to these issues of diversity? If so, what could you do?

11. Role of the Teacher in Multiliteracies: Empowerment.
a) What areas would you like to see developed in relation to the range of
literacies, print-based, multimodal, and culturally and linguistically
diverse, offered in the school in the future?
b) What role can teachers play in these developments?
c) What role can parents play?
d) What role can the children themselves play?
e) What role can you play in these changes?

Figure 4.6.2.3 Semi Structured Interview Schedule for the Principal

The interviews initially obtained the participants conceptions of multiliteracies, and
worked to establish a common understanding of multiliteracies between participant
and researcher. Question one traced the development of multiliteracies in the school
prior to the researchers entry to the field, which is important in ethnographic field
work (Patton, 2002). It is also important to locate critical ethnographic research
within the broader historical and socio-political context (Carspecken, 1996;
McLaren, 1993).

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 105 -
In questions two and three, evidence of legitimation structures was sought; that is,
norms and sanctions regulating conduct, that constrained or enabled access to
multiliteracies in the school. Again, this was an application of Giddens structuration
theory of systems analysis (Giddens, 1984). Specifically, these questions
investigated whether tacit social norms were tied to access to multiliteracies, such as
teachers receiving recognition for enacting the multiliteracies pedagogy. These
questions also investigated formal rules, such as policy requirements for teaching
multiliteracies (Giddens, 1984).

Questions four, five and eight applied Giddens (1984) structuration theory in
relation to domination structures of two kinds. These included resource authorisation,
or command over human resources, and resource allocation or command of
materials. For example, resource authorisation included the provision of ESL,
teachers, library staff, remedial teachers and computer technicians. Resource
allocation included the adequate provision of materials such as computers, software,
culturally diverse texts, and professional development (Giddens, 1984).

Question six engaged with Giddens (1984) concept of signification structures.
These include two kinds of symbol structures: meaning and communication
structures, and modes of discourse. These are norm-governed practices in the
classroom and school that directly or indirectly legitimise power relations. For
example, there exists a tacit, societal expectation in Australia for people to draw on a
knowledge of Standard English, and this knowledge is linked to ones social
power. Question six aimed to identify which meaning structures were either
enabling or constraining for students to access multiliteracies (Giddens, 1984; Luke
et al., 2003).

Question seven addressed selective information filtering the principle that in a vast
universe of possible knowledge, only some knowledge is privileged as official
(Giddens, 1984; Searle, 1984). Questions were asked to determine how the principal
and teacher, as strategically placed actors, regulated the conditions that determined
the relative priority given to multiliteracies and other curriculum imperatives
(Giddens, 1984; Kaspersen, 2000).

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 106 -
Issues of diversity were addressed in questions nine and ten in response to the
multiliteracies argument to account for cultural and linguistic diversity (Cope &
Kalantzis, 2000a). Giddens principle of system reproduction was explored in
question ten. Participants were asked to identify ways in which students of various
social groupings (e.g. ethnicity, culture, language, class, gender) were accorded
access to multiliteracies, and to reflect on how social conditions outside the school
influenced these patterns within the school (Giddens, 1984).

The interviews were concluded by prompting critical reflection about praxis.
Participants identified ways to change some of the conditions of action in the school
to improve access to multiliteracies through their own volition (Anderson, 1989;
Giddens, 1984; Lather, 1986).

4.7 Data Analysis
Stages two and three of the research design involved the analysis and triangulation
of the two data sets to make comparisons. The monological and dialogical data was
transcribed by the researcher using a word processor over a period of several months.
The video and tape recorded data were replayed multiple times to accurately record
the verbatim speech and actions of participants during the lesson observations and
the semi-structured interviews. The handwritten journal notes generated in situ were
word-processed, along with self-reflexive journal notes. Contextual information was
integrated into the primary record during this process of transcription, placed within
square brackets to differentiate descriptive comments from verbatim speech. Figure
4.7 provides an example of the use of observer comments to make clear the non-
lexical referents accompanying speech.

CD17 Date: 15
th
June Time: 10:00am
[The class is working in groups in the computer room with support staff, choosing audio
design elements to complement the moving, visual images of their claymation movies.
The teacher is working with a group involving a Thai female and two Anglo-Australian
males who are rehearsing sound using a microphone attached to the computer. The teacher
is saving each digital recording.]

132. Teacher. Yep. Ok. That's fine. Now, you're going to say, "Watch out run! "Help,
Mum, Help!" [demonstrates to show sense of urgency in voice]. You've got to
get the sound more dramatic, because the more dramatic you sound, the better
the movie will be. You [Pawini] need to actually say "Watch Out run!"
[Teacher leaves group to attend to some students for a moment]
133. David: Watch out Run [dramatic]
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 107 -
134. Pawini: Watch out Run [less dramatic]
135. Teacher: "Watch out run! Help, Mum, Help!"
138. Sean: Do I do the ambulance second?
139. Teacher: No remember we're doing it in sound chunks. This is all we're doing.
You're next.
140. Pawini: Watch out run [staccato rhythm].
141. Teacher: No. Watch out run! [smooth joins, in desperation]
143. Pawini: Watch out run [spoken in monotone].
144. Teacher: Doesn't sound like you're yelling. Try it again. "Watch out run."
145. Pawini: Watch out run! [some urgency in voice, but pronunciation still unclear].
Figure 4.7 Sample of Observer Comments from the Study

The following section describes the two analytic procedures applied to the data;
namely, coding and pragmatic horizon analysis.
4.7.1 Coding
Coding procedures were applied to the entire body of data. Open coding was applied
initially to identify the themes and meaning reconstructions in the word processed
transcripts using comment boxes (See Figure 4.7.1.1).
CD 18, June 16th, Time: 2:15 - 3:00 pm
[The teacher is working with the group of girls to record the
audio elements of the "Disappearing Pimples claymation
movie. They have rehearsed for about one hour in a previous
lesson. They are seated at the computer with a microphone and
script.]
Teacher: Ok, so when you're talking, you have to make sure
that you're really close to this. So I'll hop out the way.
You need to be right up. The closer you are to it, the
less background noise we're going to pick up, because
your voice will be stronger. Ok. All right. So, you're
going to have... "Let's party and dance!" [Teacher
demonstrates first line of script with enthusiasm.] And
one person Malee says, "Yes, you'd never guess".
Right, you need to get closer in. One, two [Counting
on fingers]
All: Let's party and dance!
Malee: Yes you'd never guess!
Teacher: [Replays] You didn't say that all together. See how
you're supposed to say that all together? All right? So
when I press play, I'll go... [gestures by counting on
hand] ,and that means to start talking. Let's try it again.
You need to get closer to the microphone. You're not
loud enough.
Tenneile: So we're doing that? [Points to section of script]
Teacher: Yes, we're doing it again. You need to get closer
Tenneile. [Teacher counts girls in using her fingers and
presses record]. Ready.
Girls: Let's party and dance! [Said in unison]
Malee: Yes, you'd never guess!
Open Coding
Situated practice
for audio design

Digitally-mediated
textual practice

Time-on-task=
35-40 min.

Spatial mode position
of speaker to
microphone for audio
clarity

Collaborative
competence required

Situated practice
redesigning the audio
elements until they
reach a collaborative
level of competence

Audio element volume

Teacher as expert guide

Teacher controls the
digital technology to
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 108 -
Teacher: [replays] Ok [nods] That's good! [Saves as Sound bite
one]. This is our sound ... one. Save. Now, "sound
two", remember, is the music. Sound three is Rhonda.
So everyone move back so Rhonda can get closer.
make audio text
permanent (saving)

Figure 4.7.1.1 Sample of Open Coding from the Study

The raw codes were then organised and reordered into tighter hierarchical schemes
in separate files with their reference details to make connections between the codes
(Carspecken, 1996; Ezzy, 2002). See Figure 4.7.1.2 for an example of raw codes and
meaning reconstructions that were compiled to support one of the findings for
"situated practice", a subset of pedagogy (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000b). The
corresponding segments of raw data were indexed with hyperlinks to assist the
researcher in retrieving the relevant data files on the computer.

Example of a Hierarchical Coding Scheme
For Two Findings in Situated Practice
1) Pedagogy
a) Situated Practice & Experiencing the Known & the New
(v) The absence of situated practice during some stages of multimodal designing
constrained the demonstration of knowledge processes experiencing the known
and the new
Introducing Claymation Movie-making
[CD2 Summary, Notes] The first claymation movie-making lesson consisted
exclusively of overt instruction. The absence of situated practice in this early
phase of the unit lead to learners inability to demonstrate knowledge processes
conceptualising.

Claymation Set Design
[CD9 Summary, L503-541] Learners did not understand the relationship between
camera angles and set size because of the paucity of situated practice (Group P).
[CD9 L232-239, 242] Teacher attempted to explain concepts rather than provide
situated practice (Group P).
[CD9 L550-578] Learners did not understand three-dimensional elements of
claymation movie set design in the absence of situated practice (Group P).
[CD 9 [Sec 3]L276-280, 295-297, 310-314] Teacher provided additional overt
instruction and viewing claymation movies rather than providing situated practice
to experience the new (Group P).
[CD11, [Sec 2] L104] [CD11,[Sec2] L43] Teacher reflected on learners inability
to demonstrate knowledge processes applying appropriately to three
dimensional visual & spatial design (Group S)
[CD15, L1-23, L92, L60-70, L162-174] Learners were unable to collaboratively
apply knowledge of three-dimensional, visual and spatial design creatively and
appropriately in the absence of expert novices (Group C).
(vi) There were limitations to the use of situated practice as the sole basis for
pedagogy during some aspects of designing. Learners varied quite significantly
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 109 -
from each other, and from curricular goals, and some spent extended time
designing unproductively.

Claymation Movie Set Design
[CD12 L303-308, CD11 Summary CD11[Sec1] L139-144] Reflections
L43] Learners spent extended time designing unproductively because
pedagogy relied on situated practice alone. Learners did not understand
three-dimensional elements of claymation movie set design (Group S)
[CD10, L261-274] [CD10, L317-323] Learners were unable to demonstrate
knowledge processes: applying appropriately and creatively knowledge of
three-dimensional visual/spatial design of set (Group C).
[CD11 [Sec2] L1-4] Learners were unable to demonstrate knowledge
processes: applying appropriately and creatively knowledge of three-
dimensional visual/spatial design of set (Group B).
[CD15, L363-365, L748-759] Teacher and researcher evaluated three-
dimensional visual/spatial design concluding that the message of the text
was unclear (Group D).
[CD13, [Sec1] L384-394] Learners were unable to demonstrate knowledge
dimensional visual/spatial design of set to communicate intended message
with clarity (Group C).

Claymation Movie Character Design
[CD12, L9-14, 23-32, 74-81, 311-312, 326-332, 305-307, 165-189] [CD12,
L210-212] Learners spent extended time designing unproductively because
pedagogy relied on situated practice alone. Learners did not understand the
need for three-dimensional figures for stability (Group S)
[CD12, L35-47] [CD13, L361-372, [Sec 2] L75-82] Learners spent
extended time designing unproductively because pedagogy relied on
situated practice alone. Learners designed two-dimensional paper clothes
for three-dimensional figures (Group D)
[CD13, [Sec1] L555-567,] Learners were unable to demonstrate knowledge
dimensional visual/spatial design of characters until they received overt
instruction from teacher during designing (Group G) [CD13, [Sec1] L742-
754].

Filming Claymation Movies [Multimodal/Gestural/Visual/Spatial
Design]
[CD 14, L853-861] Learners were unable to do close-up filming when
situated practice was the sole basis for pedagogy(Group S)

Figure 4.7.1.2 Example of Coding Hierarchy for Two Findings during Situated
Practice
The level of inferencing of the codes and descriptions could be positioned along a
continuum from low to high, or from pure description using non-technical terms to
theoretical, abstract terms and meanings (Carspecken, 1996; Strauss & Corbin,
1990). An example of low-level coding in this sample is the category Introducing
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 110 -
Claymation Movie-Making", which summarises the events observed. The high-
inference codes are more theory-laden and abstract, such as Pedagogy,
Experiencing the Known and the New and Situated Practice (Carspecken, 1996).

During data analysis, peer debriefing was used to check the inference level of the
codes and challenge the codes chosen. A critical and experienced researcher read
samples of the coding and analysis to challenge the degree of bias, clarity,
appropriateness and inference levels of the technical vocabulary (Carspecken, 1996).
The researcher then responded to this critique to strengthen the validity of the data
analysis. After stage three, when the two data sets had been triangulated, the
complete list of codes comprised thirty categories. While most data was linked to
multiple codes, the themes of greatest importance were give priority for the purposes
of analysis, indicated in Table 4.7.1.1.
Situated
Practice
Experiencing Coercive
Power
Assisted
Performance
Cultural
Diversity
System
Relations
Overt
Instruction
Conceptualising Normative
Power
Independent
Performance
Linguistic
Diversity
Domination
(Resources)
Critical
Framing
Analysing Charismatic
Power
Collaborative
Performance
Gender Signification
(Symbols)
Transformed
Practice
Applying Contractual
Power
Intertextuality Teacher
Conceptions
Legitimation
(Rules)
Design
Elements
Monomodal
Pedagogies
Discourses Roles Marginalis-
ation
Self-
Reflexivity
Table 4.7.1.1 Table of Analytic Themes

This process of coding was both inductive and deductive. The codes did not emerge
from the data uninfluenced by pre-existing theory. Neither were the codes
predetermined by the theory, since many of the themes in the literature were found
to have limited relevance to the interpretation and explanation of the data. Rather,
the process of theory building involved an ongoing dialogue between data and
theory. Certain themes from the literature appeared in what was observed, along
with new and explicit patterns of events that were able to be explained using the
themes. Coding was continued until no new information in each category was being
generated by sorting, comparing or contrasting the data, and the analysis produced
no new codes or categories; namely, when theoretical saturation was reached. This
is a necessary validity requirement of coding in qualitative research (Ezzy, 2002;
Hall & Hall, 2004). The outcome of coding was six substantive themes, supported
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 111 -
by the literature, under which the most relevant data could be subsumed (See Table
4.7.1.2.
Classroom Data System Relations in Wider
Social Context
Pedagogy
Power
Discourse
Domination
Signification
Legitimation
Table 4.7.1.2 Six Substantive Themes Arising from the Data

The emphasis for the final analysis and reporting of the classroom results focused on
three potent themes that had the most significant bearing on the distribution of
access to multiliteracies among the students; namely, pedagogy, power and
discourse. Before entering the field, the research question had asked: What is the
access to multiliteracies among culturally and linguistically diverse learners? During
data analysis, the research question was reformulated and refined to give attention to
these key themes, helping to focus the analysis on the most valuable data. The
analysis of system relations between the classroom locale and the wider social
system focused on domination, signification, and legitimation, theorised in Chapter
Three (3.3).

4.7.2 Pragmatic Horizon Analysis
Pragmatic horizon analysis was used to support high-level coding across each of the
major themes listed in Table 4.7.2.1. Selective use of pragmatic horizon analysis to
support important high-level inferences is a requirement of critical ethnography
(Carspecken, 1996). The following table provides a thematic index of the pragmatic
horizon analysis applied to twenty verbatim segments of the data.

Index of Pragmatic Horizon Analysis

Classroom Data

A. Pedagogy
1. Reversion to Extant Pedagogies
A. Transmissive Pedagogy / One Grammar
Teacher: "Here is the rule... "
B. Process writing pedagogy/ monomodal drafts
Teacher: "We are simply coming in to type"
2. Multiliteracies Pedagogy
A Isolating Situated Practice and Overt Instruction
Teacher: They still don't get the, "this has to stand up"
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 112 -
Teacher: You were left to independently do this, and you haven't
managed to do it."
B. Power
1. Coercive Power
Teacher: groups will be "kicked out of claymation"
Teacher: groups will be "Shut down" and these are the "black and white
rules"
Teacher: groups will be "out of the race"
Poster: "Groups filming" versus "groups not filming"
2. Literacy as Sanction
Teacher: "You've got literacy you need to get back to"
Teacher: Normal work
Teacher: "Wasting students lunch time" with print literacy
C. Discourse
1. Marginalised Discourses
Ted: And I never get to speak
Teacher: Whats Pawini done today
Pawini: Thats more big

2. Dominant Discourses
Tenneile: "Miss Taylor said..."We've got a lot of time. We've been
working really hard."
System Relations

D. Domination
Teacher: "You've still got teachers that nod and say, yes, but then go
and do what they've been doing for the last twenty years anyway."
Teacher: "But we get, things like a Please explain from head office---.
E. Signification
The teacher apologised that the lesson was dominated by direct teaching
for the low ability group.
F. Legitimation
Teacher: "Travelling at will" Ted Doyle
G. System Reproduction
Student: "work at McDonalds" to "get more money"
Table 4.7.2.1 Index of Pragmatic Horizon Analysis

Pragmatic horizon analysis, introduced in Chapter Three (3.1.2) is an analytic tool
developed by Carspecken (1996) theoretically located in Habermas (1981)
pragmatic theory of meaning the Theory of Communicative Action. Simply re-
explained here, pragmatic horizon analysis involves the process of articulating
validity claims in horizontal (objective, subjective and normative), and vertical
(foregrounded, backgrounded and intermediate) arrays to interpret the range of
possible meanings of a stretch of speech (Carspecken, 1996, 2001). Table 4.7.2.2
provides an example of pragmatic horizon analysis applied to a segment of verbatim
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 113 -
data recorded during the pilot study. The raw data is presented in the first cell of the
table, and the analysis follows in the shaded sections.

On the last day of the school quarter the children were grouped by three levels
according to a whole school reward system. The teacher gathered the students who
had received red cards for rule breaking. These students had been placed in the
lowest of three levels to complete spelling worksheets in a detention room. The
others viewed an animated movie and ate ice blocks.
Transcript Segment: Date: 19.0903 Time: 10:30-10:35 am
14. J: OKWhere are all the Naughties? (Pause) Not the Naughties the Level
Ones.
Possible Objective Claims
Quite foregrounded, quite immediate
Ive come to collect the appropriate group of students to do the drill and practice
workbooks.
Less foregrounded, less immediate
Im taking the group of students identified in our school program as having the most
resistant behaviour to the school rules.
Possible normative claims
Foregrounded, less immediate
The students in level one are naughty.
The other children are good. (and) Perhaps I shouldnt have said it that way. Ill use the
correct school language for referring to these students Level Ones.
Highly backgrounded, remote, taken-for-granted
There is an expectation that students must always obey the school rules and be good.
Possible Subjective Claims
Quite foregrounded, Quite immediate
I want you to know that Im not happy with your behaviour
Im a bit worried that I just said that. Id better correct myself.
Highly backgrounded, remote, taken-for-granted
My actions are right as a teacher in a position of authority (identity claim).
Table 4.7.2.2 Pragmatic Horizon Analysis from the Pilot Study

In this example, pragmatic horizon analysis was applied to Line 14 of the primary
record. Note the horizontal or pragmatic dimension, which is the three-part
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 114 -
distinction (denoted by separate cells in the table) between objective, subjective, and
normative claims of the participants. The objective validity claim in this analysis a
statement about the world that can be observed was simply that the teacher was
assembling a certain group of students to do a certain activity. This truth claim was
open to multiple access by others through direct observation using the senses
(Carspecken, 1996, 2001).

The normative position regarding what "should be was the tacit assumption that the
"naughties" had not fulfilled their moral obligation as good students and therefore,
should be differentiated from the others. Also, by self-correcting her statement, there
was evidence that the teacher was aware of the professional expectations within the
organisation to use the legitimate or normative school discourse. In both respects,
there was an assumption about what was right, wrong, good or bad (Carspecken,
1996; Habermas, 1981; Searle, 1984).

A subjective validity claim was made when the teacher modified or self-corrected
her statement with the possible intent to reinstate her identity as a fair and
professional teacher. This claim had the privileged and direct access of the speaker,
and can therefore, only be inferred by the researcher and readers of this report. The
subjective claim was an assertion about the teachers inner world, feeling, intentions,
and state of awareness. Social research always involves subjective validity claims
because all human action is tied to the subjective references of the actor. The point
for the researcher is to take into account the possible tacit meanings of this
ontological category at play, rather than to simply ignore it because it is not self
evident through the senses (Carspecken, 1996; Popkewitz & Tabachnick, 1981).

The vertical or temporal dimension of the teachers statement was also analysed in
relation to most foregrounded or immediate meanings to most highly backgrounded
or remote meanings within the objective, normative and subjective aspects of the
speech (Line 14). Within the normative horizon, the most foregrounded assumption
was that the students who were labelled the "naughties" were inherently bad. This
claim was the most immediate or self evident normative declaration, emphasised
and apparent in the linguistic content of the act. Labelling these students also
implied a less foregrounded, tacit claim that the students from whom they were
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 115 -
distinguished, were intrinsically good. There was also a possible or highly
backgrounded appeal to the moral expectations or norms for student behaviour
within the institutional context of schooling. This backgrounded claim was a distant
meaning, not immediately apparent to an observer in the linguistic content of the
speech act (Carspecken, 1996, 2001; Habermas, 1981).

4.8 Interpreting Results
Stages Four and Five involved the discovery and explanation of complex systems
relations that influenced the distribution of students access to multiliteracies.
Evidence was sought for system relationships existing between the events observed
in the classroom and those in other related sites. For example, routine district
division meetings to discuss departmental policies and strategies served as a catalyst
for teaching multiliteracies in the school. Giddens (1984) structuration theory was
applied to analyse relationships between the micro-level factors in the classroom and
the macro-level factors in the wider social system that enabled or constrained access
to multiliteracies. Accordingly, the degree of economic, symbolic and political
power of the teacher, principal and students, emerged as some of the explanatory
factors, reported in Chapter Six (Carspecken, 1996).

While it is important to build into any social research a theoretical explanation of the
broader conditions that affect phenomena, the analysis of systems relations is
necessary in critical ethnography. This is because the field data must be situated
within larger structures of power and privilege, rather than as existing independently
of the social system. The aim is to produce an analysis that is critical of existing
social structures, inequalities and cultural ideologies (Apple, 1995; Giddens, 1984).
This attention to the complexity of educational phenomena and their establishment
within the broader socio-political context, strengthens the validation of claims of
this critical ethnographic account (Kincheloe & McLaren, 1994; Popkewitz & Guba,
1990; Quantz, 1992).
4.9 Validity and Limitations
The trustworthiness or validity of the data collection and analysis methods was
strengthened by reaching theoretical saturation before leaving the field and before
completing coding. Transcribing the complete record of verbatim speech and actions
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 116 -
of participants was conducted by the researcher, rather than by external transcribers
who cannot clarify ambiguities or contextualise the data. Using of state-of-the-art
audio-visual equipment strengthened the validity of the primary record and captured
a greater range of pedagogies than achieved in studies that are limited to audio
recording of teacher's direct instruction (Cazden, 1988).

A self-reflexive journal was kept to take account of the researchers own influence
on the data. Member checks were conducted with the participants during and after
data transcription to obtain participant perceptions of the raw data. During the
drafting of the thesis, the classroom findings were discussed with the teacher to
obtain her perspective on the findings. Peer debriefing with a university lecturer
was used to check the inference levels of meaning fields and to check the theoretical
accuracy of the coding categories (For the need to ensure the validity or
trustworthiness of ethnographic accounts see: Berg, 2004; Ezzy, 2002; Heaton, 2004;
Maxwell, 2005; Saukko, 2003; Silverman, 2001).

The research results were appropriately grounded in the data because the emphasis
of the coding scheme and final report was generated from the data through repeated
analysis, rather than being established prior to the final analysis of the primary
record (Carspecken, 1996). The report pertained only to the research question
regarding the interactions of pedagogy, power and discourse that influenced the
distribution of access to multiliteracies. The data was reported in sufficient detail to
illuminate the most important findings across each of the major coding themes,
without becoming trivial or monotonous, yet not being too sparse or general so as to
remove context or meaning (Patton, 2002).
Results were supported by relevant transcripts, rich with in vivo terms the research
participants own categories and vocabulary. By placing heuristic importance on
members own categories, the readers can assess for themselves the extent to which
the conclusions are warranted (Athanases & Heath, 1995).

Finally, the reporting of the research was not completely objective, and a value-free
inquiry was not presupposed. Rather, it is acknowledged that the results were
unavoidably incomplete and selective in nature. In the tradition of critical
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 117 -
ethnography, it is emphasised that all research is situated in relations of power, and
this influences the selectivity of the report (Creswell, 2003; Denzin & Lincoln, 1998;
Simon & Dippo, 1986). For example, the researcher exercised respect when
reporting data about the teacher participant who opened her classroom to critique.
Additionally, there is a section of the academic community which has vested
interests in the theory of multiliteracies and the sociology of critical theory. These
interests hold a degree of influence over the researcher. Further limitations are
discussed in the final chapter of the thesis (Section 7.4).

4.10 Research Ethics
This investigation was conducted in an ethical manner consistent with the guidelines
outlined in the Queensland University of Technology University Human Research
Ethics Manual. The project gained expedited ethical clearance from the University
Human Research Ethics Committee from the 27th of May, 2003 to the 31st of
January, 2006 (Queensland University of Technology, 1999).

The participation of minors was ethically justified because the data is used to
improve the quality of education. The circumstances in which the research was
conducted provided for the physical, emotional and psychological safety of the
children as occurring commonly in educational settings. The minors were recruited
on educational premises during a period of time when the participants were in an
agencys care. Therefore, written, voluntary, informed and understood consent was
obtained from the education authority of the Department of Education Queensland,
the principal, and classroom teacher. Passive, voluntary, informed, and understood
consent was obtained from the parent or legal guardian. Passive consent was
obtained from the students to supplement parental consent through the use of an
appropriately worded information sheet.

Participants were informed that they were free at any time to withdraw from further
involvement in the research. There was no ethical conflict between a students
freedom to withdraw from the research and their obligation to the school.
Participants were assured that the privacy, confidentiality and anonymity of the
informants would be maintained, and this anonymity is honoured throughout all
stages of the research. Informants are protected against coercion, exploitation,
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 118 -
humiliation, undesirable consequences, or any form of harm by the research process
(Carspecken, 1996; LeCompte & Preissle, 1993; Queensland University of
Technology, 1999).

4.11 Summary of Chapter Four
Chapter Four has outlined and justified the five-stage design of this critical
ethnography, described the research site and participants, and explained the data
collection schedule, tools and analytic procedures. Limits for reporting results have
been established, and research ethics have been justified.

Chapter Five reports the results of this critical ethnography in the year six classroom
in which the multiliteracies pedagogy was enacted. The research site, participants
and lesson schedule are briefly described to provide a context for the results,
drawing from both observational and interview data. The results of the lesson
observations are presented in relation to pedagogy, power and discourse respectively.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 119 -
Chapter Five Multiliteracies Context and Findings of the Study

5.0 Introduction

Chapter Four described the five-stage methodological design of this critical
ethnography, including the selection criteria for the school site, principal, teacher,
and student participants, which emerged from the initial analysis of the pilot study
data. Analytic tools for the interpretation of the data were also described.

The primary purpose of Chapter Five is to present the classroom findings and
analysis of data in relation to the specific research question, restated here:
classroom group?

Chapter Five is divided into main two parts: I) Multiliteracies Context, and II)
Multiliteracies Findings and Analysis. Part I contextualises the critical ethnography
by describing the school, teacher, principal, students, and lessons. Part II presents
the findings and analysis of the eighteen weeks of lesson data pertaining to the
teachers enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy.
Part I: Multiliteracies Context
The site of this investigation was a primary classroom in a suburban state school,
preschool to year seven, in Brisbane, Australia. A significant number of Aboriginal,
Torres Strait Islander, and English as a Second Language (ESL) students were
integrated into the mainstream English curriculum. The principal spoke of the
schools growing needs in relation to supporting cultural diversity:
Our school has particularly high needs for ESL support because we have thirty
ESL children enrolled in the school. And its not only the high numbers, its the
level of support needed because twelve of the students have extremely limited
English experience. These are Sudanese students who have no English
background when they arrive at the school their first experience of education
in Australia. Their families are also non-English speaking. So this means that
the complexity is increased in providing English language support for these
students.

Special provision was made for ESL students in the upper primary grades who
received specialist English lessons one day per week as a combined cohort. The full
time ESL teacher also provided individual English instruction for students who
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 120 -
required higher levels of support. The school principal and teachers regarded the
teacher librarian as a key resource person for ensuring that culturally diverse texts
were available for library and classroom use. The classroom teachers had received
professional development focusing on strategies for respecting the cultural and
language differences that students bring from home to school. Chinese was taught as
a formal part of the Languages Other Than English (LOTE) curriculum to widen
students repertoire of cultural and linguistic textual practices.

The corridors between the classrooms were fully enclosed, and multimodal designs
were displayed along the walls. The grade six classroom was located on the second
floor of a brick administration building. The desks were arranged to facilitate
collaborative designing. The seating of the lowest literacy ability group is
represented in Figure 5.0. The vacant seats belonged to the eight students who were
withdrawn for lessons in another room.

Figure 5.0 Classroom Seating Arrangement

The spatial arrangement of desks served to diffuse power among the teacher and
students by providing opportunities for students to interact with one another. The
space around the groups also allowed the teacher to interact personally in proximity
to students rather than as a distant authority figure. However, the desks placed in the
front row concentrated the power of the teacher over the boys Justin, Warren and
Wooraba who frequently resisted the classroom rules. In this way, the differential
spatial arrangement of the classroom seating implied differing power relationships
between the teacher and the various subjectivities adopted by students, from
compliant to resistant (McComiskey, 1998).
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 121 -
Two computers and a printer were positioned at the rear of the classroom, used
continually by students on a roster basis. Posters were displayed near the computers
outlining the steps for designing hyperlinks and E-Books, that is, books in which the
contents are presented in an electronic format. The Reader Resource model by
Muspratt, Luke and Freebody (1997) code breaker, meaning maker, text analyst
and text user was displayed as an educational chart. The multiliteracies pedagogy
situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing, and transformed practice
was also represented diagrammatically on wall charts in the classroom and staffroom
(New London Group, 2000).
5.1 Teacher
The teacher had received professional development in multiliteracies through the
Learning by Design project coordinated by original members of the New London
Group Kalantzis and Cope (2005, p.179). She had specialist knowledge and
expertise in new, digitally-mediated textual practices, and had gained many years of
experience teaching literacy in culturally and linguistically diverse teaching contexts.
The teacher articulated her conception of multiliteracies in the interview.
I believe that multiliteracies is using more than just books as a text. Its
using real life texts. For example, video, DVDs, magazines, newspapers,
instructions, cereal boxes whatever you can get your hands on that has
writing. And its not just words as text, its visual literacies: looking at icons,
pictorial things, angle shots, camera shots, movies. All of that, to me, is
multiliteracies. So its not just sitting down doing guided reading with
books which certainly has a place. I still do that directional teaching.
But its extending it to more [pause] texts.

Multiliteracies is defined by the teacher here as textual practices that include and go
beyond monomodal literacies. This interpretation emphasises the first proposition of
multiliteracies; namely, the multiplicity of communications channels and media,
while neglecting to mention the second the increasing cultural and linguistic
diversity of teaching contexts and textual practices (New London Group, 1996, p.60-
63). However, when prompted, the teacher articulated her cognisance of culturally
and linguistically diverse textual practices:

When I look for texts and pieces of writing that the children are doing, Ive
always got culture in the back of my mind because of the children that Ive
got, particularly. I have to make sure that texts are not biased towards
certain cultures. It could be biased by whos missing in the story, and
whos not being represented in the piece of writing or visual text that were
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 122 -
looking at. So its just a simple matter of using your critical questions and
getting the children to think about it when youre using that text. So I dont
necessarily discard texts for not catering for different cultures. Its in the
questioning and how you use the text. We do use quite a few different
cultural texts, and I get the children to bring in texts from home so that it
brings a real life experience for them.

The teachers enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy was consciously built upon
her existing orientations to teaching and learning, such as transmissive or direct
instruction, critical literacy, and progressivisms such as process writing and whole
language. The teacher explained:
The multiliteracies pedagogy is the only one I plan now, because it makes such
sense. Ive been using it since term two last year when it was first shown to me
at the professional development meetings. I really like it! Ive been teaching
like that for years, but it just formalised it, and made it a bit more structured.
And Ive always done situated practice had some sort of cultural event or
social purpose for their texts, and given children a choice.

The teacher mentioned that she had always drawn on situated practice, which
constitutes immersion in experience and the utilisation of available designs of
meaning. This practice is positioned comfortably in the tradition of the many
educational progressivisms which became popularised in the 1980s in Australia
(Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b, p.244). The New London Group acknowledges that these
orientations to learning are softened, enhanced and transformed when fused
together in the multiliteracies pedagogy (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b, p.240). For the
teacher, the multiliteracies pedagogy complements and extends, rather than replaces,
her existing practices. This is consistent with the intentions of the New London
Group (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b, p.239).

The teacher also described her use of critical framing, which is a development of the
more recent tradition of critical literacy. Critical framing involves interpreting the
historical, social, cultural, political, ideological, and value-centered contexts of
designs of meaning (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b, p.239-247).
It [critical framing] should be done in every genre constantly. It doesnt
matter what genre youre teaching. Pull things apart when youre modelling
your work at the beginning of your units. It doesnt matter what grade youre
in you should be analysing things. Were doing Christmas catalogues at the
moment. Mothers Day was interesting. We looked at photos of mothers, and
how mothers are perceived, and the students compared them to their own
mothers.

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 123 -
These perceptions are consistent with the New London Groups claim that there is
nothing radically novel in the four aspects of the multiliteracies pedagogy. Each
represents a tradition in pedagogy, some positioned in opposition to one another.
The four aspects of the multiliteracies pedagogy relate back directly to the main
traditions in literacy teaching. However, teachers are cautioned that each of these
traditions is problematic in their more doctrinaire or isolated forms (Kalantzis &
Cope, 2000b, p.240).
5.2 Principal
The principal clearly expressed his conviction that multiliteracies has an important
position in the school curriculum. When asked, Do you think that the role of
multiliteracies poses any threat to your school curriculum, such as other competing
educational agendas or aspects of the existing literacy curriculum? the principal
stated:
No, definitely not! This comes back to the professionalism of teachers. If the
children cant read and write, they wont be able to access the New Basics.
New literacies require very high standards of English to use them properly. So
we still need the basics, which is always a foundation of our curriculum.
Thats my opinion, anyway. We need both.

The principal gave priority to multiliteracies over other competing educational
agendas, and did not perceive this agenda as a binary opposition to monomodal
literacies. Rather, the importance of both monomodal and digitally mediated
multiliteracies were emphasised, with complex and advanced understandings
associated with the latter.

However, the principals conception of multiliteracies emphasised digital
communication technologies over culturally and linguistically diverse textual
practices. When asked, What is your conception of multiliteracies? the principal
responded:
Multiliteracies is the use of many forms of language so that people have the
opportunity to communicate in a variety of ways. For example, rather than just
using traditional forms of literacy with pencil and paper, students need to use
the many language forms used in the real world like mobile phones, internet,
PowerPoint, robotics. The forms of language used in society need to be tied to
the literacy program so that students have access to multiple forms of
communication.

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 124 -
The principal defined multiliteracies as multiple forms of language to communicate
in society, drawing attention to new communications technologies rather than
culturally and linguistically diverse textual practices in his list of examples. This
was also implicit in his response to the question, What developments have occurred
since the beginning of your tenure in relation to providing opportunities for children
to use multiliteracies?
In the area of resources, we have purchased more computers, software, a
digital camera, a data projector, and a retractable screen.

When asked about his visions for further provisions for widening the schools
repertoire of resources for cultural and linguistic diversity, the principal commented:
One area I would really like to see developed further is provisions for ESL
students [English as a Second Language]. --- I believe that it is so important
for the younger ones to have this support during the early years.

Therefore, while issues of diversity did not explicitly arise from the principals view
of multiliteracies, strategies for negotiating difference were central to his vision for
this globally connected and locally diverse school community (New London Group,
1996).
5.3 Students
The observed grade six class was streamed on the basis of results in the standardised
Queensland Year Five Test in Aspects of Literacy and Numeracy (Queensland
Studies Authority, 2002). The class was comprised of the twenty-three lowest-ability
students eight females and fifteen males. Eight students whose literacy test scores
were closer to average were withdrawn for English lessons with another teacher
almost every day of the week Shani, Tenneile, Raleigh, Malee, Jack, Nick,
Matthew and Mark
7
. The claymation movie-making lessons were often scheduled
outside of the English period so that the teacher could work with the whole class.
During claymation movie-making, the twenty-three students were divided into six
small groups. The eight average-literacy ability students were divided into male and

7
All names in this document are pseudonyms to maintain privacy, confidentiality and anonymity.
This research received ethical clearance from the Queensland University of Technology
University Human Research Ethics Committee (Queensland University of Technology, 1999).

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 125 -
female groups. They were not integrated with the fifteen lowest-ability students
because of the timetabling and streaming arrangements. The fifteen lowest-ability
students were divided into male or combined gender groups. See Table 5.3 for a
description of the twenty-three students, their ethnicity, literacy-ability group, and
collaborative movie-making groups.
Table 5.3 Description of Student Participants
5.4 Lessons
The aim of the claymation lessons was to enable learners to collaboratively design a
claymation movie an animation process in which static clay figurines are
manipulated and digitally filmed to produce a sequence of images of lifelike
movement. The process occurs by shooting a single frame, moving the object
slightly, and then taking another photograph. When the film runs continuously, it
Student Ethnicity Ability Group Movie Title
Female
Shani Anglo-Australian Average Disappearing
Pimples
Tenneile Anglo-Australian Average Disappearing
Pimples
Raleigh New Zealand / Torres
Strait Islander
Average Disappearing
Pimples
Malee Tongan Average Disappearing
Pimples
Rhonda Anglo- Australian Low Crossing the Road
Pawini Thai Low Crossing the Road
Julie Anglo- Australian Low Healthy Picnic
Darles African-Sudanese Low Healthy Picnic
Male
Jack Anglo-Australian Average Slip, Slop, Slap
Nick Anglo-Australian Average Slip, Slop, Slap
Mark Anglo-Australian Average Slip, Slop, Slap
Matthew Anglo-Australian Average Slip, Slop, Slap
Sean Anglo-Australian Low Crossing the Road
David Anglo-Australian Low Crossing the Road
Ted Indigenous Australian Low Healthy Picnic
Joshua Anglo-Australian Low Healthy Picnic
Wooraba Maori Low Inventing a Car
Bradley Anglo-Australian Low Inventing a Car
Jed Anglo-Australian Low Inventing a Car
Jim Anglo-Australian Low Inventing a Car
Warren Anglo-Australian Low Breaking News
Simon Anglo-Australian Low Breaking News
Jared Anglo-Australian Low Breaking News
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 126 -
appears that the objects move by themselves. Famous claymation productions
include Wallace and Gromit, and Chicken Run.

The technique involved planning a storyboard, sculpting plasticine characters,
designing miniature, three-dimensional movie sets, filming using a digital camera,
and combining music or recorded script. After filming, the students digitally edited
the movies with teacher assistance using Clip Movie software. The movies were
presented using Quick Time Pro software and a data projector. The students were
required to effectively communicate an educational message to their "buddies" in the
preparatory year level (age 4 -5). The movies were also presented at a school event
for the parent community, having real, cultural purposes, and demonstrating the
transformation of resources to create original, hybrid texts. See Table 5.4.1 for a
schedule of lessons, which were implemented with the whole class rather than
during the streamed English period.
Claymation Movie-Making

Time
View Claymation Movies
Teacher displays movies from other students and discusses the strengths and
weaknesses.
1 hour
Critiquing Claymation Movies
Teacher guides students to analyse critically and functionally the claymation movie
Chicken Run.
1 hour
Storyboard
Discuss plan for movie plot, scenes, characters. Allocate roles. Record ideas using
picture frames and labels. List materials required. Create movie title.
2
hours
Set Design
Plan and create three-dimensional dioramas with backdrop, stage, and props using real
objects and mixed media.
4 hours
Character Design
Create three-dimensional characters by sculpting plasticine on
wooden figures or other media.
2 hours
Rehearsing
Rehearse movements and determine photo schedule. Set up
filming area, match set proportions to camera angles.
1
hours
Filming
Take 60-200 digital photos of the sets using a tripod while moving the characters and
objects gradually. Control lighting, expressions and gestures. Close ups & long shots.
2-4
hours
Sound
Rehearse script, select music files, and record sound digitally using computer and
microphone.
2 hours
Digital Editing
Use digital software to create special effects, subtitles, title pages, movie credits,
backgrounds, and to combine images & sound.
hour
per
group
Presenting Movies to Community 3 hours
Table 5.4.1 Claymation Movie-Making Lesson Schedule

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 127 -
Open-ended aspects of designing included the students collaborative choice of
movie genre (e.g. information reports, narrative), theme, message, scenes, characters,
events, media (e.g. fabric, paint, sand), spatial layout, photo composition, visual
elements, and duration. Audio elements could involve background music, sound
effects, digitally recorded speech or a combination of these resources to accompany
the moving images. Title pages, credits, and subtitles could include unlimited spatial
layout options, backgrounds, contrasts, fonts, colours, graphics and digital effects.
When the teacher evaluated the movies, she acknowledged the extent and value of
creativity, the aptness of the movie to the intended audience, and the degree of
transformation of existing resources to new contexts.

The teacher also invited the researcher to observe monomodal writing lessons for the
low-ability English stream which were scheduled in the daily English period. Table
5.4.2 outlines the content of these lessons.
Monomodal Writing
Lessons
Writing narratives to match a given picture sequence
Character development in narratives using Big Book: Lester
and Clyde.
Character development in narratives using picture book,
Greg.
English Grammar Using an or a appropriately in sentences.
Improving sentences through adverbs and adverbial phrases
which answer how, when, where, or why.
Editing sentences for punctuation and choosing better
synonyms for said.
Screen-Based
Lessons
Typing texts on the computer using hand-written drafts
Table 5.4.2 Schedule of Writing Lessons
Part II: Multiliteracies Findings and Analysis
Part II is divided into three sections pedagogy, power and discourse. The first
section, the analysis of pedagogy, primarily draws upon themes from the New
London Groups (1996) multiliteracies pedagogy and Cope & Kalantzis (2005)
Learning by Design framework. The second section addresses the analytic theme of
power applying Carspeckens (1996) typology of power relations, and Willis(1977)
theory of resistance. The third section deals with discourses, utilising Gees (1996)
social linguistic theory of discourse. These concepts were theorised in Chapter
Three (3.2).

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 128 -
The selection of classroom data gives priority to the recurring themes that
contributed to answering the research question. As outlined in Chapter Four (4.7.1),
the complete list of codes arising from the comparison of both data sets classroom
observations and interviews comprised thirty categories (See Table 5.4.3).
Situated
Practice
Experiencing Coercive
Power
Assisted
Performance
Cultural
Diversity
System
Relations
Overt
Instruction
Conceptualising Normative
Power
Independent
Performance
Linguistic
Diversity
Domination
(Resources)
Critical
Framing
Analysing Charismatic
Power
Collaborativ
e
Performance
Gender Significatio
n
(Symbols)
Transformed
Practice
Applying Contractual
Power
Intertextuali
ty
Teacher
Conceptions
Legitimatio
n
(Rules)
Design
Elements
Monomodal
Pedagogies
Discourses Roles Marginal-
isation
Self-
Reflexivity
Table 5.4.3 Table of Analytic Themes Arising from the Data

This process of theory building involved an ongoing dialogue between data and
theory. In order to choose the final emphasis for reporting, the thirty categories were
subsumed under six substantive themes (See Table 5.4.4).
Classroom Data
1. Pedagogy
Situated Practice
Overt Instruction
Critical Framing
Transformed Practice
Experiencing
Conceptualising
Analysing
Applying
Monomodal Pedagogies
Design Elements
Assisted Performance
Independent Performance
Collaborative Performance
Intertextuality
Teacher Conceptions
2. Power 3. Discourses
Coercive Power
Normative Power
Contractual Power
Charm
Roles
Self-reflexivity (Researcher)
Cultural Diversity
Linguistic Diversity
Gender Difference
Marginalisation
Systems Relations
4. Domination
5. Signification
6. Legitimation
Table 5.4.4 Six Substantive Themes and Sub themes

Findings derived from the first three major themes pedagogy, power, and
discourse are presented as major sections of this report. The latter three
domination, signification, and legitimation relate to the systems analysis presented
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 129 -
in Chapter Six. The sub codes that yielded the most significant and repeated findings
in relation to students access to multiliteracies are underlined in Table 5.4.3, and
relate directly to section headings in this report. A significant portion of data
pertaining to the remaining sub codes was integrated within the discussion of the
underlined themes because the data was related. For example, data concerning
students demonstration of knowledge processes experiencing, conceptualising,
analysing, applying is discussed with the corresponding components of the
multiliteracies pedagogy situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing,
transformed practice because the knowledge processes describe the learning, while
the pedagogy describes the teaching (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005; New London Group,
1996).

Sub codes that did not yield consistent findings, or which did not contribute to
understanding the distribution of access to multiliteracies, are not addressed in this
report. For example, of Carspeckens (1996) four themes for analysing power
coercive, normative, contractual, charm only coercive power was found to have a
significant and consistent influence on students access to multiliteracies.

The selection of findings for each major theme was chosen from a sixty page
hierarchical inventory of coding categories used to organise the data, described in
Chapter Four (4.7.1). Table 5.4.5 provides a sample of this inventory to illustrate
one of the findings and its links to the supporting raw data in the lesson transcripts
(e.g. CD2 Sec 1, L13-19 refers to Coding Data Lesson 2, Section 1, Lines 13-19).
(iii) Overt instruction from experts that focus the learner and allow the learner to gain
explicit information was not given at times in which it could most usefully
organise and guide practice. Consequently, learners had no conscious
awareness and control over what was being learned over the intra-systematic
relations of the domain being practiced.
Claymation Movie Storyboard Design [Linguistic, Oral, Visual]
[CD2 [Sec1] L13-19] [CD2] [CD6, [Sec 1] L1-3] Claymation production steps were taught
up to eight weeks before designing
Compare to:[CD9 [Sec2.] L147-148, L160-178, L202-204] Two of four learners had
sufficient scaffolding to apply knowledge creatively and appropriately to visual/linguistic
design of their claymation backdrop (Group P)
Claymation Movie Set Design
[CD2, L260-285] Overt instruction about combining visual/spatial elements occurred one to
two weeks before claymation set design
[CD11, L231] Teacher gave overt instruction to class about visual/spatial design elements
required prior to claymation set design

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 130 -

Compare to:
[CD10, L261-274] [CD10, L317-323] Learners were unable to demonstrate knowledge
processes: applying appropriately and creatively knowledge of three-dimensional
visual/spatial design of set (Group C).
[CD12 L305-307, CD11 Summary CD11[Sec1] L139-144] Reflections L43] Learners were
unable to demonstrate knowledge processes: applying appropriately and creatively
knowledge of three-dimensional visual/spatial design of set due to timing of overt
instruction (Group S).
[CD11 [Sec2] L1-4] Learners were unable to demonstrate knowledge processes: applying
appropriately and creatively knowledge of three-dimensional visual/spatial design of set
(Group B).
[CD15, L363-365, L748-759] Teacher & researcher evaluated three-dimensional
visual/spatial design concluding that the message of the text was unclear (Group D)
[CD13, [Sec1] L384-394] Learners were unable to demonstrate knowledge processes:
applying appropriately and creatively knowledge of three- dimensional visual/spatial design
of set to communicate intended message with clarity (Group C).

Claymation Movie Character Design
[CD2, L78-82] Overt instruction occurred three weeks before three-dimensional character
design [knowledge was to be applied three weeks later]
Compare to:
[CD12, L11-14, 23-32, 74-81, 311-312, 326-332, 303-307, 165-189] [CD12, L210-212]
Learners were unable to demonstrate knowledge processes: applying appropriately and
creatively knowledge of three-dimensional visual/spatial design of characters (Group S)
[CD12, L35-47] [CD13, L361-372, [Sec 2] L75-82] [CD13, [Sec1] L555-567,] [CD13,
[Sec1] L743-754]. Learners were unable to demonstrate knowledge processes: applying
appropriately and creatively knowledge of three- dimensional visual/spatial design of
characters until they received overt instruction from teacher during designing (Group G).
[CD13, [Sec1] L556-567,] Learners were unable to demonstrate knowledge processes:
applying appropriately and creatively knowledge of three- dimensional visual/spatial design
of characters until they received overt instruction from teacher during designing (Group D)
[CD13, [Sec1] L743-754].

Filming Claymation Movies [Multimodal/Gestural/Visual/Spatial Design]
[CD2, L204-207] [CD2L249-251] [CD13L288-292] Overt instruction for gestural design
occurred up to eight weeks before digital filming
[CD13, L55-64, (lighting) 274-276 (angles) [CD13 L988-994] (set and camera proportions)]
Overt instruction for lighting, visual, angles spatial and digital elements occurred one to two
days before digital filming
[CD13, [Sec 2] L332-339, 985, 1037-1043] Overt instruction occurred one to two days
before digital filming
[CD13, L993-994] [CD8 [Sec2]L294-296] Overt instruction for camera angles occurred one
to two days before digital filming
[CD2, [Sec2] L226-246] [CD2, [Sec2] L30] Overt instruction for close-up shots occurred
eight weeks before digital filming
Compare: [CD 14, L853-861 Learners were unable to do close-up filming in the absence of
overt instruction during designing (Group S)
[CD2, L226-246] Overt instruction for gestural design occurred eight weeks before filming.
Compare: [CD15, L1667-1677] Learners were able to recall the necessary overt instruction
for gestural design but were unable to apply it at the appropriate stage of designing (Group
D)

Digital Editing Of Movies
[CD13, L 257-267] Teacher discussed editing software weeks before digital editing began.
However, the teacher also provided instruction during editing.
Compare to: [CD17, L68-84, L99-145] Overt instruction for digital editing and special
effects lead to assisted competence (Group P)
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 131 -
[CD7, 25-42] Teacher discussed editing software incidentally when questioned by student
significantly long before knowledge was applied

Other Texts
[TTPS7&8 [Sec 2] L4-21] Year two learners were unable to demonstrate knowledge
processes: applying creatively and appropriately to design an interactive, visual, spatial text
[library display] without expert scaffolding
[TTPS7&8 [Sec 6] L1-47, 58-157] Compare above transcript to example of same activity
with teacher scaffolding provided applying appropriately and creatively was demonstrated
[TTPS3 L26] Digital metalanguage provided before designing
Table 5.4.5 Inventory of Data to Support Finding III Overt Instruction

In this table, the key finding was that, Overt instruction from experts that focus the
learner and allow the learner to gain explicit information was not given at times in
which it could most usefully organise and guide practice. This finding was
supported by over twenty-five consistent occurrences across a range of claymation
movie making stages and learning contexts. In this research, there were over one
hundred findings derived from the data, each with a minimum of three supporting
transcripts. Findings that were the most well-supported by the data were given
priority in this report. Additionally, only a select number of the most clear, concise
and powerful lesson transcripts are published to illustrate each finding. This is to
ensure that the reporting of the data for each finding does not become redundant,
and to provide sufficient balance and breadth across the major themes.
5.5 Pedagogy and Access to Multiliteracies
This section discusses significant findings concerning the enactment of pedagogy
and the students access to multiliteracies during the monomodal writing, English
grammar, screen-based, and claymation movie-making lessons (See 5.4.2). The
findings in this section relate to the codes in Table 5.5.
Multiliteracies Pedagogy Knowledge Processes
Situated Practice Experiencing
(known & new)
Overt Instruction Conceptualising
(naming & theorising)
Critical Framing Analysing
(functionally & critically)
Transformed Practice Applying
(appropriately & creatively)
Teacher Conceptions of the Multiliteracies
Pedagogy
Assisted Performance Level
Monomodal Pedagogies Independent Performance Level
Modes (Visual, spatial, linguistic, gestural,
auditory)
Collaborative Performance Level
Table 5.5 Table of Codes for Pedagogy

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 132 -
5.5.1 Monomodal Writing
The findings concerning monomodal pedagogies are given significant attention here,
because the use of these methods had a strong influence on the distribution of access
to multiliteracies among the students. A series of monomodal writing lessons (See
Table 5.4.2) were taught to fifteen students who were grouped together based on
their below-average scores in the Queensland Year 5 Aspects of Literacy and
Numeracy Test (Queensland Studies Authority, 2002). The teacher explained that
the writing lessons were designed to balance multimodal designing with basic
literacy skills. She explained that many students were not aware of the structure of
narratives and experienced difficulty producing a page of writing. Eight learners
whose literacy test scores were closer to average were withdrawn to attend another
class operating concurrently, which was not observed in the absence of the teachers
ethical consent.

The first example of a monomodal writing lesson was one in which the teacher
reviewed a systematic writing process: a) plan, b) write draft, c) read and revise, d)
share and edit, e) proofread and make changes, f) publish and present. The teacher
used cards as visual aids as she outlined the steps.
12 Teacher: When youre writing, what is the first thing that you have to do,
before you start writing? Wooraba? [Wooraba, Rhonda and David
put hands up].
13 Wooraba: Plan
14 Teacher: Thats right you usually have to plan what it is that youre
writing. What do you do after youve planned your writing?
15 Ted: Write a draft [Response was not nominated].
16 Teacher: Write your first draft. After youve written your first draft, what
might be the thing you do next? [Rhonda, David, Warren, Ted and
Jim have hands up]. All these people with their hands up their
brains switched on. Warren?
17 Warren: Read it with a helper
18 Teacher: You can read it with a helper and check your writing [Teacher
attaches the coloured cards to blackboard]. What would you usually
check it for when youre reading it though before, when youre
reading it through? [Ted responds without being nominated] Dont
call out please.
19 Rhonda: Check that your writing makes sense.
20 Teacher: If your writing doesnt make sense! Now, the next thing that
you usually do is share your writing with other people and edit it.
Can you see that in brackets here. It says repetitively. You dont
just check it once and go, Yep its alright! You have to go back
and keep going back several times.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 133 -
21 Teacher: Next step keep reading it, making changes to your writing.
This is the part where a lot of you seem to lose the plot and, ah, you
think that writing a rough draft is enough. And the last one
publish your work.

After twenty minutes of direct instruction, learners were required to apply the steps
by writing a short narrative to accompany a commercially produced picture
sequence with a beginning, middle and end. The students could choose from two
picture sequences shown in Figure 5.5.1.1.

Figure 5.5.1.1 Picture Sequences (Adapted from Picture Qs Books Learning
Materials Limited, 1993)
Sample texts from two students who chose A Big Splash are reproduced in Figure
5.5.1.2. The first was written by Darles, Sudanese, and the next by Rhonda, Anglo-
Australian.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 134 -
Figure 5.5.1.2 Student Writing Samples
From the perspective of the Learning by Design Framework (Kalantzis & Cope,
2005), learners were required to demonstrate applying appropriately through
correct application of linguistic design elements including punctuation, grammar,
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 135 -
vocabulary, and spelling. However, the writing task does not constitute transformed
practice in the manner intended by the New London Group.

Firstly, the writing steps confined designing to exclusively pencil and paper-based
drafting and editing rather than multimodal forms of communication. The students
meaning making was restricted by a writing approach that confined monomodal
textual practice to a rigid, linear process. This is significant because the use of word
processing in society has made the writing process much more amorphous less
bounded by distinct stages. Using the word processor, writers can switch between
paragraphs, easily deleting and modifying the text in a non-linear rather than
sequential way.

Transformed practice in multiliteracies also requires the original generation of a
hybrid text linguistically heterogenous in the discursive practice drawn upon
with a specific cultural purpose and audience (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000c; Fairclough,
2000). This activity did not allow transformed practice to occur because there was
no possibility for commitment of the producer to the message, and no sense of
certainty or modality, because the meaning making was predetermined.
Ideologically, these low-ability learners were not permitted to indicate their interests
because authorship was controlled by the social context, and the purpose for
meaning was determined by the teacher (Cope, 2000). Therefore, the writing activity
did not allow the learners to contribute something of themselves to draw from their
own lifeworld and experiences. In this respect, learners access to designs of
meaning was prohibited. The cultural purposes of the required designs were limited
to school work. There was no real-world audience for their texts. Therefore, the
literacies developed did not constitute powerful social practices for societal
participation.

Furthermore, the semantic elements of the task were restricted so tightly that the
learners designs lacked a diversity of meaning making and limited the creative
transformation of available resources. Kalantzis and Cope (2005) make an important
distinction between applying appropriately, which is the correct application of
knowledge in a specific situation, and applying creatively, which is the innovative
application of knowledge, or transfer to different situations. Both elements are
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 136 -
important in transformed practice. In this lesson, the overall generic organisation
properties, and the setting, plot, and characters in the students narratives, were
duplicates or reproductions of the picture sequence.

This monomodal writing pedagogy persisted in similar lessons conducted in the
computer room with the whole class. Several lessons were observed in which
students who were first to complete their written drafts were given priority use of the
twelve computers. This unintentionally, yet selectively privileged the students from
middle-class, Anglo-Australian backgrounds.
2 Teacher: Before you get on the computer, you and your partner will work
out how to finish your writing.
3 Teacher: You need to come up with three things. So if you dont have
three things written down, no computer until youve got three
things written down.
4 Teacher: When you think youve finished all your plans, then you may
come and get a red sign on card [containing password].

Figure 5.5.1.3 Journal Notes for Screen-Based Lesson

The requirement to complete written drafts before using the computers enabled the
teacher to keep all learners on-task despite the limited number of computers.
However, the children who were least familiar with written English were the
students who were denied access to the computers. Keeping students busy with
word-building exercises, such as adding -ed to root words, replaced multimodal
designing with repetitive, isolated skills that are not directly transferable to real
world social contexts and communities of practice (Gee, 2000b). In contrast,
computers were being used to scaffold writing in powerful and motivating ways that
parallel uses of literacy in the workplace. The observed restrictions associated with
Journal Notes (1.09.2003)
After the students had begun typing, the teacher realised that many of the
students had not completed their first written drafts on their worksheet.
All the children had stood up to have a turn at the computers, with some
having failed to achieve the prerequisite preparation. The teacher sent the
children to the floor who had not written rough drafts, inadvertently
excluding the ethnically marginalised students of Tongan, Thai, Sudanese,
and Indigenous descent. These children were given worksheets to
complete while still waiting for the first computer users to finish.
Consequently, the Anglo-Australian students were given more time to
access powerful, digitally mediated multiliteracies.

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 137 -
use of a monomodal writing pedagogy privileged culturally dominant, Anglo-
Australian learners who received extended time using the computers.

During these lessons, the teacher referred to typing final versions of hand-written
drafts using a computer, serving to sustain remnant pedagogies of the typographic
age. New digital tools for designing were being used in the same way as typewriters.
Typewriters do not allow the separation of text preparation from its final form,
whereas word processors allow the user to exploit this feature to make editing
changes. In this respect, textual practices of a bygone era persisted in the screen-
based lessons.

The teacher used computers to support existing pedagogies rather than allowing
word-processing software to transform the writing process. Digital texts are flexible
and able to be re-authored multiple times, rather than static, discrete units. The way
in which words were always fixed in a top-down, left-right, and beginning-end
structure, is no longer the same. Instead, new designs of meaning often use flexible,
interacctive environments, open to reshaping. The linearity required for typographic
inscription is no longer required in the design of digital texts, and takes for granted
the most basic potentials of word processors (Snyder, 1997).

Multiliteracies were taught as an addendum to existing literacy pedagogy. More
importantly, requiring hand-written drafts unintentionally prohibited learners least
familiar with linguistic design elements from engaging in powerful, multimodal
designing using the computers. Such pedagogy was subtly selective, favouring those
who had the least distance to traverse between their lifeworld of experiences and the
discourses of schooling (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000a). What was needed was the
transformation of antiquated modes of pedagogy through new social practices
associated with the production and processing of digital texts (Lankshear et al.,
1997).
5.5.2 English Grammar
Several English grammar lessons were taught to the low-ability literacy group using
direct instruction. A transcript from one lesson is shown here to illustrate the typical
teaching methods observed. In this lesson, the teacher used transmissive pedagogy
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 138 -
for thirty minutes to teach the grammar rule: use an to introduce a word that
begins with a vowel. The instruction was followed by the task of copying sentences
from the blackboard and choosing the correct word a or an in each sentence.
Transcript 7
16 Teacher: Now in your writing, if you are writing a sentence and you have
a word that starts with a vowel, would I write a apple, or an
apple?
17 Children: an [chorus response]
18 Teacher: Would I write a elephant, or an elephant? I have a
elephant or I have an elephant. Which would it be?
19 Children: an/ a [both responses called]
20 Ted: Both! [loudly]
21 Teacher: No, not both an. This is the rule: when you have a word
starting with a vowel you always use an. If you have a word
starting with a consonant you always use a in front of it.

This lesson exploited a monomodal pedagogy that emphasised the transmission of
curriculum content. It positioned the teacher at the centre of a classroom discourse,
while learners were located as passive recipients, or at best, agents in the
reproduction of linguistic conventions. English was taught as an inherently stable
system of autonomous elements and rules that simply needs transplanting to new
environments. In other words, textual practice was treated technically, as a set of
independent variables that can be separated from their social context and purpose
(Street, 1999). Furthermore, this practice presented English as a one-size-fits-all
curriculum, regardless of student diversity. In contrast, multiliteracies is about
creating a pedagogy in which language and other modes of meaning are dynamic
representational resources, constantly remade by users as they work to achieve their
various cultural purposes (Cope, 2000).

Later in this lesson, the teacher drew attention to a students subcultural dialect of
English, illustrated in this transcript.
22 Teacher: Now in almost all of your writing I have seen you doing things
like this: I had a apple for lunch. Ted I hope you are watching.
You do this: Can I have a apple for lunch?. It doesnt even
sound right, does it? So you have to try to remember your rule for
a and an. What if the word was dog? I have an dog for a
pet or I have a dog for a pet?
23 Children: a
24 Teacher: A dog for a pet. Why a? What is it about the word dog that
tells me I have to use the word a?
25 Child: Because it makes sense.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 139 -
26 Teacher: No. Jed?
27 Jed: Theres a vowel after d.
28 Teacher: No. David?
29 David: It doesnt start with a vowel.
30 Teacher: It doesnt start with a vowel, it starts with?
31 Children: d
32 Teacher: Which is? Im interested in vowels or consonants. Im going to
keep going until everyone gets this.

In the opening line, the teacher draws attention to the way in which Ted, who was
Indigenous Australian, did not use the Standard English rule in his dialect. This
practice clearly opposes the heart of multiliteracies. Access to multiliteracies must
be possible no matter what identity markers, such as language, dialect, and register,
a person happens to have (Cazden, 2000). Later in the lesson, Ted was nominated to
contribute to the teacher-directed classroom dialogue, but was unable to apply the
lexical rule.
40 Teacher: Ted Doyle, May I have a ice-cream? May I have an ice-
cream?
41 Ted: a ice-cream [pause] a? [pause] an?
42 Teacher: Which one is it a ice-cream or an ice-cream?
43 Ted: an ice-cream? [as if asking a question]
44 Teacher: How did you know it was an ice-cream? What is the special
thing about ice-cream that tells me to use the word an?
45 Ted: [stares blankly]
46 Teacher: Oh, you dont know? Who can tell Ted what is the special thing
about ice-cream that tells me to use the word an?
47 Simon: Its got a vowel.
48 Teacher: It starts with a vowel [rhythmical pattern in voice].

This ethnically marginalised learner could not articulate why the lexical rule applied
to the given text, so the teacher then deferred the question to other learners. Simon,
an Anglo-Australian, provided the correct rule. This traditional literacy pedagogy
rewarded speakers of Standard, grammatically-correct forms of a dominant language
while failing to cater for social and cultural differences among learners (Cope,
2000). Literacy was centered on a singular, national form of the English language
presented as a stable system of elements based on rules such as mastering correct
lexical usage. Kalantzis and Cope (2000b) argue that a belief in Standard English
typically translates into an authoritarian kind of pedagogy. Such uses of
transmissive pedagogy work to obscure literacys connections to power and social
identity, privileging certain types of literacies and people.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 140 -

In relation to the Learning by Design framework, the writing task again required the
application of linguistic knowledge (applying appropriately) while prohibiting
creative communication of an intended message for a genuine social purpose
(applying creatively) (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). Applying creatively is a
process that involves imaginative originality, creative divergence, and hybrid
juxtapositions that generate innovative meanings in new contexts. The transfer of
literacy practice to new, real-world forms of communication was impeded in these
grammar lessons. Multiliteracies must have affiliation with the designs of meaning
used in social contexts outside of school (New London Group, 1996).

Furthermore, importance was attached to the learning of English at the lexico-
grammatical level at the expense of the full repertoire of visual, audio, spatial,
gestural, and linguistic design elements. The aim of the multiliteracies pedagogy is
to develop a metalanguage language for talking about the function of language
that accounts for multimodal design differences, and for different cultural purposes.
At the heart of multiliteracies is the understanding that language is polymorphous,
that is, language has a multiplicity of purposes and the repertoires of linguistic
resources available to different cultures also varies. In contrast to these ideals of the
New London Group, the observed lessons did not create a community of learning
where a range of individual experiences could excel, and where cultural differences
become a resource to enrich literacy pedagogy (Cazden, 2000; Cope, 2000;
Kalantzis & Cope, 1999; New London Group, 2000).
5.5.3 Screen-Based Lessons
Students were ability grouped by the teacher whenever the whole class visited the
library to use the computers. The teacher inadvertently selected only Anglo-
Australians who owned computers to participate in the high-ability group, while the
low-ability group included the ethnically marginalised students and some Anglo-
Australians who did not own computers.

The high-ability stream always received the first allocated time of thirty minutes
using the computers, with one child to each computer. This frequently extended five
to ten minutes into the time for the low-ability group, reducing the second allocation
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 141 -
to twenty minutes. While the low-ability group waited for their turn, they completed
vocabulary exercises in commercially produced workbooks. When the low-ability
students used the computers, they were required to work in pairs with the high-
ability students to assist them. This created a situation in which the competent
students controlled the keyboard and mouse, while their marginalised peers watched.
The high-ability students often received one hundred percent time-on-task to engage
in powerful, multimodal, and digitally-mediated designing, receiving twice as much
time-on-task as the remaining students. This was observed across a number of
lessons, demonstrated in these journal notes.
Journal Notes for a Series of Screen-Based Lessons
August 26th, 2003
Time: 10:30 am-11:30 am
Some of the children on the floor havent had access to a computer. The next class is arriving
in the computer room. Most of the class had less than 40 minutes on the computers, while the
students who were on the floor had less than 10 minutes.

September 1st, 2003
Time: 10:30-11:30 am
The teacher sends the children to the floor who have not written the rough drafts. This
includes ethnically marginalised students of Maori, African, and Aboriginal ethnicity. The
children who are least literate are given the school based print task on the worksheet, while
the dominant students are given access to the most powerful literacies using the word
processor. The workspace for these children is not adequate. They lie on the floor, but cannot
correctly form their letters, so they begin to search the library next door for books to lean on.

September 10th, 2003
Time: 10:05 am -11:00 am
The teacher says that the children who have just worked on the computer must keep their
page open, and insert a new page. You will help the new person, now that you know what
to do. Those on the computers first (high ability group) got twice as much time on the
computers.
An Anglo-Australian girl with a computer at home is permitted to continue on a computer
on her own. She will have the computer for the longest.
An Anglo-Australian male was asked to insert new slide for an Indigenous student, who
began to watch his more capable peer.
An Anglo Australian girl has a computer to herself again.
A boy and girl work together, but the boy is dominating the mouse and having twice as much
time on task.
Figure 5.5.3 Journal Notes for a Series of Screen-Based Lessons

Often, the low-ability group did not receive the opportunity to log on using a
password, open programs and locate documents because the files had already been
opened by the first group. Similarly, they did not save and close the documents,
because three Anglo-Australian students were selectively taught the required skill as
peer helpers who were responsible for this task.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 142 -

The low-ability group did not gain access to powerful literacies as readily as those
from privileged groups. In this way, the pedagogies used to teach screen-based
multiliteracies did not provide the competences needed by culturally and
linguistically diverse students to succeed. Stratified differences fell along the
historical grids of ethnicity and socio-economic status. The ability grouping and its
associated routines and practices patently distributed digitally mediated and
multimodal textual practices to students who were already the most proficient in
these discourses, while disenfranchising those who were not.

5.5.4 Claymation Movie Making
This section reports and analyses the teachers enactment of the multiliteracies
pedagogy during the claymation movie-making lessons for the whole class. This
section gives attention to the manner in which the curriculum orientations of the
multiliteracies pedagogy were taught; that is, situated practice, overt instruction,
critical framing, and transformed practice. Additionally, relations between the
enactment of pedagogy and learners demonstration of the four knowing processes
experiencing, conceptualising, analysing and applying are analysed by drawing
upon the Learning by Design framework (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005, p.72; New
London Group, 2000). Transcript segments that illustrate the findings most
pointedly have been selected, so that the reporting of data is not redundant.

Learners were required to engage in designing that was different in many respects to
their previous designing. For example, the teacher acknowledged that her students
had limited prior experiences of multimodal textual design upon which to link new
knowledge:
Has any one here done clay animation before? No so its a new process for
you. For most of your literacy lessons so far in your education, which means
from grade one to grade five, youve probably done a lot of work from the
blackboard, or writing stories, or doing a bit of research. Not many of you
have probably used multimedia when youre using different types of media.
So well be using computers. Well be using digital cameras. We may be using
scanners or CD players, and using different types of technology to do our
literacy. I love using multimedia!

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 143 -
The teacher discussed how students would be involved in experiencing new
knowledge through processes in which the learners would make sense of unfamiliar
activities. Students meaning making at school had been predominantly centered on
monomodal, page-bound literacies. The teacher acknowledged, The interesting
thing about these kids is they have no background in this. So theyve just got no
idea.

The utilisation of available designs of meaning often involves experiencing the
new (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000c). Students acquire experiences that are both
different and similar to their lifeworlds. New forms of designing may not make
sense to the students initially. However, the provision of contextual clues enables
cultural scaffolds or bridges to be made to other worlds of meaning (Kalantzis &
Cope, 2000b). One of the challenges in the successful implementation of the
multiliteracies pedagogy is to provide situated practice to enable these students to
make links to the unknown.
5.5.4.1 Situated practice in claymation movie making.
Ted, an Indigenous Australian, Darles, a Sudanese refugee, and Julie, an Anglo-
Australian, talk as they make clothes for the plasticine characters in their claymation
movie.
742 Ted: Darles is still doing the
743 Julie & Ted [in unison]: shoes!
744 Julie: Shes started a new sandal-type fashion[smiles]
745 Ted: Weve been wasting a whole million watchin her doin her
shoes.

When analysing the enactment of situated practice, a focus is the provision of
scaffolding or temporary support structures to enable students to transfer literacy
skills independently to situated, real-life contexts. Textual designing in situated
practice should be congruent with the uses of literacy in the community, workplace,
and students previous experiences (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000c). A central ideal is to
recruit learners previous experiences and community discourses in this process.
The classroom must be an environment in which all learners are secure in taking
risks, and who are able to trust the guidance of others. Teachers must guide a
community of learners as masters of practice, supplementing this with the other
components of the pedagogy (New London Group, 2000).
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 144 -

In this transcript, a group of girls of Anglo-Australian, Maori and Tongan
background were designing clothing for their claymation characters. This required
three-dimensional configurations of meaning using visual and spatial modes. The
girls modelled the characters according to their personal image, including their
unique cultural features such as eye colour, hair colour and style.
Transcript 12
35 Shani: Im trying to make a shirt [cutting a shirt shape as a poncho from
green fabric. Emphasises trying as if she is unsure that she will
achieve her purpose]
36 Raleigh: Its really hard because you cant reallybecause when you put
something on there, its either too small or too big.
37 Researcher: Whos the shirt for?
38 Shani: Thatthat! [Points to the tiny, wooden figure]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
42 [Malee is also experimenting with different design solutions. She is
attaching plasticine to the wooden character whose torso is a rectangular
prism. Malee uses the plasticine to adhere the two-dimensional, T-shirt
shaped panels (front and back no sides) leaving large gaps where the
side seams cannot be joined].
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Days later]
367 Researcher: What happened to the green jumper that you made?
[Observing that the claymation character was dressed last week].
368 Tenneile: Mrs. Fulton said that the clothes didnt look real because they
looked like ragsThings that are just stuck on.

These girls experienced difficulty overcoming the spatial design constraints imposed
by tailoring garments to fit a small, three-dimensional wooden figure. They
transferred their ability to draw two-dimensional forms to a new context, which
required three-dimensional designing. The girls recognised the inadequacy of their
designs to communicate their message effectively, but were unable to devise a
solution. Over the course of several days, they engaged in multiple, collaborative
transformations of the characters using plasticine, paper, fabric, tape, sewing pins,
adhesive gum, string and other materials. Finally, when time became short, they
received scaffolding from the teacher to show them how to join the materials
together. These learners spent more time pursing design constraints than
possibilities and this situated learning did not lead to mastery in practice (Cope &
Kalantzis, 2000b).

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 145 -
Similarly, a group of boys spent extended time designing and redesigning their
plasticine figures because the pedagogy relied on situated practice alone. These
learners did not understand the need for three-dimensional figures for stability until
they had exhausted many hours of designing.
Transcript 12, Section 1
9 Researcher: So which one is your character?
10 Jack: This is the main character [points to a flat, plasticine shape
resembling a gingerbread man]
11 Researcher: How are you going to make him stand up?
12 Jack: Like, when we film were going to holdlike, string above him.
13 Researcher: He wont wobble around, will he?
14 Jack: I dont know he might. Well test him.

These boys were unable to realise the design possibilities of the three dimensional
materials to make the characters for their claymation movie. They were constrained
by their limited experiences of three-dimensional design, reproducing their previous
experiences with two-dimensional drawings. Gee (2000a), of the New London
Group, makes a useful distinction between acquisition and learning that helps to
explain what is occurring here. He defines acquisition as: ...a process of
acquiring something subconsciously by exposure to models, a process of trial and
error, and practice within social groups, which happens naturally and functionally.
In contrast, he defined learning as ...a conscious process gained through teaching
and in more formal contexts, requiring reflection and analysis (Gee, 2000a, p.113-
114). In this example, acquisition and learning were separated, contributing to the
boys difficulty with the new medium. Certain forms of instruction or learning were
needed alongside immersion to enable the acquisition of new three-dimensional,
visual and spatial designing to communicate their intended message.
[Twenty Minutes Later]
165 Researcher: What are you boys doing now?
166 Jack: Tying the string [fishing line] on so that you can hold it up.
167 Mark: Yeah, hes got to tie it really straight [as if string can become
rigid].
168 [Jack holds the string up and it swings unsteadily. He fiddles for quite
some time, unable to make the figure stand]
169 Jack: Its gonna be hard!

These learners were still discovering the cause and effect relationships between
various media to achieve their purposes. For example, they were unable to predict
the design constraints of suspending characters by string, which is a flexible rather
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 146 -
than rigid medium (Lines 166-167). The learners needed guidance to analyse
functionally the most suitable materials, and to realise the spatial and visual design
possibilities. Later, the teacher commented that, They still dont get the this has to
stand up - that has to be there. The complexity and subtleties of three-dimensional
representation required expert dialogue to enable these learners to reflect on the
dialogue and reformulate their designs of meaning (Cochran-Smith, 1991;
Vygotsky, 1987, p.4).

While most learners spent extended time designing during situated practice,
ethnically and socio-economically marginalised learners benefited least. This was
most apparent among a group of Anglo-Australian boys from low socioeconomic
backgrounds.
103 Teacher: What is the reporter saying?
104 Jared: In Hawaii there is a volcano happening [said softly, as if to
himself]
105 Teacher: What do you mean volcano happening? Whats a better word
to use than happening?
106 Jared: Um, destroying?
107 Teacher: Volcano erupting today? [The teacher proceeded to spell this
word when Jared could not progress beyond er.]

These students lacked sufficient knowledge and prior experiences in relation to
many aspects of designing. For example, they had insufficient knowledge of the
generic structure of a television news report. They required new semiotic resources
for linguistic design, such as technical vocabulary (e.g. erupting) and orthography
(e.g. spelling erupting).

157 Simon: What about ash? [makes whistling sound decreasing in pitch like
fireworks]
158 Teacher: Come on Simon! On task for heavens sakes! Your
concentration span! Volcano.
159 Teacher: Right. The next picture. You want the volcano shaking and an
earthquake. Did you want people in this picture?
----------------------------------------------------------
249 Teacher: That would be great. Come on, Simon, move it! Gosh boys, you
get off-task quickly!
250 Jared: Two hundred people were injured, and one person was killed
[reading back script][squeaking, rubbing sound made by the boys]
251 Teacher: They are just completely off-task! I cannot keep them on-task.
Its just too much effort.

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 147 -

The boys were unable to anticipate the design constraints that would be confronted
when representing motion, such as shooting ash, through a sequence of still, digital
images. The teacher had grouped these students together on the basis of their
difficult learning behaviour so that she could work more closely with them than the
remaining groups. This grouping arrangement later became unhelpful because the
teacher had to attend to the needs of the other students. This resulted in a lack of
peer experts to guide the learners. According to Kalantzis and Cope (2000b), during
situated practice, scaffolding should be provided by peers as expert novices to guide
learners, serving as mentors and designers of learning in the classroom as a
community of practice.

These boys required an exceptionally high level of continual scaffolding throughout
all stages of the claymation movie-making. They never completed this set design,
and did not receive the opportunity to experience the later stages of claymation
movie making including filming, digital editing, special effects, and audio
designing. Sadly, the movie was never filmed. Situated practice alone did not
provide learners with access to powerful designs of meaning that are required for
purposeful participation in society. There was a need for a pedagogy that combined
doing and analysis, immersion in experience with explicit metalanguage, for these
socio-economically marginalised learners (Luke & Freebody, 1997, pp.185-209).

These connections between immersion pedagogy and the limited access to new,
multimodal designs of meaning for marginalised learners is supported by Delpit
(1988), who observed that children who are not of the dominant, Anglo-Saxon,
middle-class culture require explicit teaching methods and language. Rather than
acquiring the dominant discourse of the classroom naturally, minority students
require clearly communicated expectations regarding the rules for cultural forms of
behaviour in the classroom. Pedagogy that relies on implicit teaching practices has
been found to advantage dominant cultural groups over minority ethnic groups and
social classes (Anstey & Bull, 2004b). The teacher and students of the dominant,
middle-class culture are native members, while marginalised students are as
immigrants, highlighting the problematic nature of situated practice alone (See
research on literacy and the dominant culture: Bernhard et al., 1998; Bourdieu,
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 148 -
1977; Gallas, 1997; Gee et al., 1996; Heath, 1983; Soler-Gallart, 1998; Soto, 1997;
Street, 1984).

The following is a positive example of learning that occurred when situated practice
was enacted successfully with other components of the multiliteracies pedagogy. In
this interaction, the teacher is guiding a group of mixed gender and ethnicity to
digitally record the script to complement the moving visual design elements of their
claymation movie. Pawini had limited verbal English skills, having lived in
Australia for less than one year, and speaking Thai at home.
Teacher: I know English is your second language, so this is hard for you:
Look out for cars. Maybe you need to say: Look out for cars, son
[to emphasise the s on the end of car a sound which Pawini was
omitting]. Try it again.
Pawini: Look out for cars, son!
David: Ok. Mum
Teacher: All right. Thats all youre saying, and then Im stopping the
recording--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean: Oh no. I hit a child! I shouldnt have been talking on the phone.
Pawini: Oh my son! [very dramatic]
Teacher: Very good, Pawini! Right Sean. Im going to let you listen to
yourself even though you know it was just a practice run. [Replays
recording]
Teacher: Ok, lets do it one more time. See if you can get a little bit better.

The teacher provided timely scaffolding of the audio and linguistic text before and
after each short rehearsal. This process continued for almost an hour with the
pedagogy alternating between instruction and practice. Sometimes the teacher
applied critical framing by asking the students to analyse their text functionally
when she replayed the recordings. She asked, Do you think the audience will
understand that? She asked them to evaluate the effectiveness of their text and
make critical evaluations about whether competence had been reached and if more
situated practice was required. The teacher was able to record over the audio text
multiple times until the learners had attained a collaborative level of competence;
that is, producing a joint piece of work effectively with others, including those with
different knowledge to their own (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005, p.95).

Situated practice and overt instruction were enacted concurrently to enable students
to engage in transformed practice. When the digital sound bites were joined together,
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 149 -
the quality of the audio design elements of the claymation movies was very high
across all groups. Therefore, when situated practice became linked to other
components of the multiliteracies pedagogy through collaboration between teacher
and novices, learners were able to accomplish tasks more complex than they could
on their own.

During film-making, students were part of the shift, from a culture of predominantly
linguistic designing in school, to the culture of image-making, gestural and audio
designing, characteristic of contemporary popular culture. Students were required to
engage in a new form of subjectivity, a new way of being and becoming in a
multimedia world (Green, 1993; Green & Bigum, 1993; Green et al., 1994).
However, the multiliteracies pedagogy is not simply about exploiting the
affordances of different media and modes, but requires equally skilful scaffolding to
enable learners to draw upon their cultural resources for meaning-making.

In particular, students need to be provided with scaffolding or temporary support
structures during situated practice to transfer literacy skills to real-life contexts in
which textual designs are produced, received and used. This is confirmed by
research in social cognition indicating that meaningful learning only occurs through
the learners engagement in authentic versions of practice and reflection in the
situation or context in which the knowledge will be applied (See research on situated
learning: Cazden, 1988; Gee, 1992; Heath, 1983; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Street,
1984). Conversely, the transfer of knowledge and skills from formal to real-world
settings is constrained if students receive decontextualised knowledge that is not
applied in a meaningful context.

These findings demonstrate how learners experienced differing degrees of success
in designing, exhausting valuable time and resources pursuing unproductive paths in
the absence of scaffolding from experts, peers, books or other media. Additionally,
without some form of overt instruction, learners did not gain conscious control and
awareness of their designing, and were unable to articulate the design process to
others through a metalanguage or grammar for designing (New London Group,
2000). Most importantly, learners who were not of Anglo-Australian, middle-class
culture benefited least from the sole use of situated practice. In contrast, when
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 150 -
scaffolded collaboration in practice was provided, students demonstrated
experiencing the known and the new by engaging in specialist and hybrid forms
of meaning making (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005, p.117).

The New London Group states that the multiliteracies pedagogy combines the
strengths of past approaches to literacy practice. These include Deweys
Progressivism (linked to whole language and process-writing), transmissive
pedagogy or direct instruction, critical literacy and approaches that emphasise
strategies for the transfer of learning from one context to another (Kalantzis &
Cope, 2000b, p.239; New London Group, 1996, p.31). They explain that the four
components of the multiliteracies pedagogy should not be enacted in isolation, but
be related in complex ways, though at times, one may predominate (Cope &
Kalantzis, 2000c).

The need for scaffolding to guide learners during situated practice is supported by
Vygotsky (1962; 1978), who maintained that collaboration in practice provides a
foundation for learning. He argued that certain forms of instruction are needed to
supplement immersion or acquisition if learners are to gain conscious awareness and
control of what they acquire. His theory of language learning suggests that the
effective learning occurs when practice and instruction occur concurrently
(Vygotsky, 1962). The enactment of situated practice needs to occur in the zone of
proximal development for all students, requiring explicit guidance of an adult or
more capable peers
5.5.4.2 Overt instruction in claymation movie making.
In the following transcript, the teacher is discussing the generic features of narratives
such as characters, plot, and setting.
99 Teacher: And at this stage of the game, in your career, which is your
education, you should start to think about making your plot more
interesting, creating tension. Do you know what tension means? What is
tension in a story?
100 Child: Build up.
101 Teacher: Its the build up. Its the climax of the story. Its the nail biting
part of the story. It could be the music. It could involve words like
suddenly to create a little bit of tension in your story

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 151 -
This section reports findings concerning the teacher's enactment of overt instruction
and the learners' ability to conceptualise by naming and to conceptualise by
theorising, again applying the Learning by Design framework. Conceptualising by
naming involves the development of abstract, generalising terms. In contrast,
conceptualising with theory involves linking concept names into a language of
generalising. This theorising involves explicit, overt, systematic analytic and
conscious understandings (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005, p.77). Overt instruction
primarily introduces these explicit meta-languages to enable learners to describe and
interpret different modes and representations of meaning (New London Group,
2000).

In the first of the eighteen claymation lessons, the teacher taught a lesson intended to
provide overt instruction to prepare students for collaboratively producing a
claymation storyboard.
Figure 5.5.4.2 Video Transcript 2: Journal Note Sample

Given the constraints of the school timetable, the teacher relied on transmissive
pedagogy for the low-ability learners with its one-way, expert-to-novice dispensing
of knowledge. In contrast, when she taught this lesson to the average-ability group,
she used an interactive pedagogy in which the students dialogued with the teacher.
The following week, both groups were required to collaboratively produce a
claymation storyboard, scaffolded by a worksheet of blank picture frames, and no
additional guidance from the teacher. The limitations of this version of overt
instruction was demonstrated by a group comprised of a Thai female, an
Anglo-Australian female, and two Anglo-Australian males. In this transcript, the
students are reading the worksheet with the headings: "Title", "Characters,"
"Photographer," and "Scene", and have been asked to design a storyboard.
Video Transcript 2, Journal Notes
In the first lesson, the teacher spent one hour with each ability group showing
examples of students' claymation movies using a data projector. In the lesson with
the low-ability students, the teacher showed the students the design strengths and
weaknesses of claymation movies constructed by other students. The teacher
explained to the researcher that the first lesson with the low ability students relied
on direct teaching because she had insufficient time to guide these students to
discover the answers. Normally, she would be more interactive with the students,
and "draw the information from them."

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 152 -
Transcript, Section 3
1 David: Who wants?
2 Sean: What, what?
3 David: Who wants to be the photo grapher? [mispronounced]
4 Rhonda: Whats the photographer? [mispronounced]
5 Sean: Let Robyn be one.
6 Rhonda: I dont want to be pick Paweni.
7 Paweni: No, no!
8 Rhonda: Ok, I willI will be the photographer.
9 David: What characters?
10 Sean: Ill be, um
11 David: Whos the character? Whos the character?
12 Rhonda: Um?
13 Sean: Whats the characters?
14 Rhonda: Characters, like um, like I dont know!
15 David: Everybody - you need everybody to be the character!
16 Rhonda: Can you just wait Ive gotta get my, like
17 David: Um, I dont know everybody. You need everybody to be a
character.
18 Rhonda: With the like, characters, you need like, the name, and then
19 David: No, what are we doing first - what are we doing?
20 Sean: Yeah, what are we doing first?

The students were motivated to engage in designing, but were unable to produce a
storyboard and script following the overt instruction. The learners were not familiar
with the written form of the metalanguage for storyboard design, including the
meaning of terms such as "photographer" and "characters". By the end of this
interaction, students were still unsure of a suitable starting place for meaning making.
The teacher had introduced a new metalanguage for clay animation movie designing
in the form of teacher-centred transmission, but the learners were required to transfer
this metalanguage to their designing independently. This group of varied gender and
ethnicity required a higher level of scaffolding by peer or teacher experts to
conceptualise the metalanguage for storyboard planning. The necessary overt
instruction was not given during a time when it could most profitably direct and
systematise practice immediately prior to, and during storyboard design.
Consequently, learners spent more time than necessary producing their storyboard.

The effect of the teachers isolated use of overt instruction on learners designing
was also demonstrated here by three Anglo-Australian boys of low socio-economic
backgrounds.

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 153 -

1 Simon: What we should do, what we should do is just write the script
first and then go back and draw all the pictures, and
2 Jared: Yeah, thats a good idea but, how we gonna but what happens if
the person is too big for the new script and we dont know how to
draw it.
3 Warren: Well, maybe we could draw it little.
4 Teacher: Come on boys why has someone not got a pencil, and why are
you not actually writing your script! Dont waste any more time!
You already wasted one day when I wasnt here.
5 Jared: We should um [pause] we should umah your turn, Simon.
6 Simon: We should start writing the script.
7 Jared: Ok.
8 Simon: Im gonna write first [softly] Im gonna write first? [loudly]
9 Warren: Are you?
10 Jared: Ahhmmm. Anyone got a ruler? I need a ruler.
11 Simon: Ill get a ruler.
12 Warren: So what are we gonna do first? [No answer from Jared. Long
silence as they wait for Simon to return]
13 Simon: Ok. I got the ruler.
14 Warren: What are we gonna do first?
15 Simon: Write the script.

The boys were unable to understand the requirements of script design by the end of
this interaction. The use of transmission followed by time for collaborative
designing was not sufficient for these boys to begin work performed with available
designs in the semiotic process. These difficulties were compounded by the lack of
"expert novices" to guide peers during collaborative designing, because the
low-ability learners had been grouped together.

During the three-dimensional backdrop designing for movie making, some learners
experienced difficulty understanding the full potentials and limitations of this new
medium. This was because situated practice with the digital camera was not
provided to enable learners to recruit experiences required for designing their movie
sets. Darles, a Sudanese refugee, is the focus of the following transcript. She had
immigrated to Australia as a four-year-old at the start of her formal schooling. In
Sudan, she spoke two languages in the home, Sudanese Arabic and a local
vernacular, Otto-tana. Darles discourses used in the home included a rich variety of
multilingual and multimodal textual practice, using three languages interchangeably
English, Arabic and Otto-Tana.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 154 -

In this example, Darles began to draw the second backdrop as a distance scene of a
park. She intended this to be photographed behind a life-size sandwich on a
tablecloth. She was unable to understand that the distant objects in the background
would not match the spatial proportions of the large sandwich in the foreground
when viewed through the lens of a camera.
Transcript 9
523 Adult: For scene number two, if youve got the focus on the sandwich, all
youre going to see behind it is green grass. Because when youre
focussing on something that close, all that will surround you is just
green.
524 Darles: So thats just gonna be, like, all grass? But thats weird
because
525 Adult: Look like that[holds object in front of backdrop]. Whereas if
you have a scene thats too far away, youll have this giant
sandwich next to these little buildings!
526 Darles: Yeah, but then thats gonna be funny, because grass up there!
Isnt there supposed to be grass underneath the mat?
527 Adult: Yes, but when you look at something in a scene, the scene behind
it will only be green grass because your camera is not getting up
that high.
528 Darles: It will be up like that? The camerawill take the photo up like
that?
529 Adult: Thats right.
530 Darles: So um, I dont get it. I get this one I really do get this one [the
first backdrop of the distance shot of the park].

The principles required here to understand designing were too complex to be fully
and usefully described or explicated. Backdrop designing required prerequisite
spatial and digital knowledge that was primarily situated and heavily contextualised
in specific knowledge domains and practices, best acquired through experiences. In
the absence of situated practice, Darles was unable to understand, even when
explained to her, the concept of close-up angles and its implications for the spatial
and visual design of the set. Darles required the situated, concrete experience of
viewing a three-dimensional movie set through the lens of a digital camera to make
sense of the unknown. She needed to be immersed in authentic versions of digital
camera use to view tangible claymation movie sets designed by other experts.

In contrast, Julie, an Anglo-Australian, explained to her peers how the claymation
set could be constructed in a box with the top and front panels removed, like a
diorama.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 155 -
232 Julie: What we could do is we could just have a box like the back of a
box like that. [Used a plastic box to demonstrate] Like this. We
can have the sandwich down there, and the blue sky up here.
233 Darles: I though we were going to have cardboard for backdrops?
234 Julie: Thats what were supposed to do.
235 Darles: So were going to have a box instead? [perplexed expression].
236 Julie: A box! [frustrated] ...like that and like that [pointing to walls of the
box].
237 Darles: So were going to have a box? Were not going to have
cardboard as a backdrop?
238 Julie: Yeah, we still use the coloured cardboard. [sighs] Well stick them
on the back so we actually have colour, and we can like, make the
path.
239 Darles: No, wait! So were making a box for our backdrop - a box?
240 Julie: A box, like, to keep everything together. Pretend this is like, the
box, right. Like, we have it like that, so that we just do it on plain
cardboard, and then we can hold it all together with the box. So
when we do use the camera, we can see everything.
241 Darles: But thats gonna be weird like, were gonna take a photo of the
box?
242 Julie: Yeah, but we wont be able to see the box!
243 Darles: Yes, we will. Arent we gonna, um, arent we gonna?
244 Julie: Yeah, its just like this. Its like, it looks like that! [Places box on
side]
245 Darles: Yeah, I know, but that wasnt a box?
246 Julie: It was a box, box...box!

The teacher had provided overt instruction to the whole class by describing and
showing completed claymation movies by other students. The claymation movies
they had viewed on the data projector were made by taking photographs of three-
dimensional objects inside a cardboard box or diorama with the front panel removed.
Julie was able to recognise the design possibilities of three-dimensional visual and
spatial design and could explain this clearly to others without situated practice.

The teachers enactment of transmissive pedagogy transported Julie into a world that
was unfamiliar, but not too perplexing. Julie had a shorter distance in her journey
from lifeworld to the "transcendental - the place over and beyond the commonsense
assumption of the child's lifeworld or place of belonging" (Cope, 2000, p.206 210).
However, for Darles, learning could not occur because the landscape of movie
making was unseeable, unthinkable, and unachievable. Without situated practice, the
distance between Darles lifeworld, and the new spatial elements of designing, was
too great.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 156 -

During the lesson immediately prior to filming, the teacher provided half an hour of
direct instruction to explain to students what would happen if the height and length
of the movie backdrop did not match the proportions of the camera lens. However,
the instructions were provided after the students had already designed their movie
sets with the incorrect length to height ratio. A group of culturally diverse learners
were unable to apply this instruction when they began to film.
Video Transcript 14
637 [The teacher is still adjusting the camera and tripod to fit the set
perfectly in the viewfinder. Sighs loudly.]
638 Teacher: This whole thing is crazy! Ok. I cant fit your park in [groan]
641 Ted: [Ted adjusts the zoom on the camera, which the teacher has just set
up in an unsuccessful attempt to fix the problem]. Mrs. Taylor,
You can see that - there and there [Points to visible sides of set.]
673 Teacher: What are you doing? [as if frustrated]You dont want the
whole set. Its not all going to fit in. Thats it! Youre not going to
fit this part in you never were!

Even when the camera was zoomed in and out, important details of the backdrop
were outside the viewfinder, while gaps were visible at the sides of the sets. These
constraints were similarly confronted by other groups who were also unable to
match the proportions of their set design to the camera angle capabilities. Groups
comprised of learners who were not of the dominant, middle-class, Anglo-Australian
culture were least able to transform meaning-making resources to create new visual
and spatial designs.

The teacher needed to provide situated practice for students to view their sets
through the lens of the digital camera during construction. Overt instruction was also
required to focus the learners and provide explicit information during set design
when it could most usefully organise and guide situated practice (Cope & Kalantzis,
2000c). This would have involved collaborative efforts and active interventions on
the part of the teacher and other experts throughout movie set design to extend and
utilise learners existing knowledge and proficiencies (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b).

To conclude, a counter example demonstrates how learning occurred when the
components of the multiliteracies pedagogy were very successfully combined during
the design of audio elements. The teacher worked with each group in the computer
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 157 -
laboratory to record the music and speech for their claymation movies. In this
example, the group of girls rehearsed and recorded their script multiple times until
transformed practice was reached for each segment of the script. The students had
already rehearsed for an hour in a previous lesson with the specialist support of the
drama teacher, focusing on the expressive reading of the script without having to
simultaneously attend to correct microphone use.
Video Transcript 18
1. Teacher: Ok, so when you're talking, you have to make sure that you're
really close to this. You need to be right up. The closer you are
to it, the less background noise we're going to pick up, because
your voice will be stronger. Ok. All right. So, you're going to
say the first line of the script, Let's party and dance! [Teacher
demonstrates with enthusiasm.] And Malee says, Yes, you'd
never guess. Right. You need to get closer in. One, two
2. Girls: Let's party and dance!
3. Malee: Yes you'd never guess!
4. Teacher: [Replays] You didn't say that all together. So when I press play,
I'll go... [counts 1,2,3 using fingers] and that means to start
talking. Let's try it again. You need to get closer to the
microphone. You're not loud enough. [Teacher counts using
fingers and presses record]. Ready.
5. Girls: Let's party and dance! [unison]
6. Malee: Yes, you'd never guess!
7. Teacher: [Replays] Ok. That's good! [Saves]. This is our sound ... one.
Save. Now, sound two is the music. Sound three is Rhondas
line. So everyone move back so Rhonda can get closer.

The teacher was able to record and replay the audio text multiple times until the girls
had demonstrated a collaborative level of competence (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005,
p.97). Collaboration in practice became a foundation for learning the new specialist
and hybrid forms of semiosis required to design the digitally-mediated, audio
elements of the claymation movies. Immersion in audio designing was provided
concurrently with instruction, involving both acquisition and learning (Gee,
2000a, p.113-114).

The enactment of overt instruction described in this study did not always provide
learners with access to powerful designs of meaning that are required for purposeful
participation in society. Again, students who were not of Anglo-Australian,
middle-class culture were least served by the separation of overt instruction and
situated practice. There was a need for consistent pedagogy that combined doing and
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 158 -
analysis immersion in experience integrated with an explicit metalanguage, as
intended by the New London Group (2000, p.32-35). Transformed practice occurred
for all students when the teacher employed a seamless pedagogy that simultaneously
integrated both situated practice and overt instruction.
5.5.4.3 Critical framing in claymation movie making.

Teacher: This author wrote a lovely book about two fat frogs who had a fight,
because he wants you to get the point about not polluting the earth.
Do you agree with him?
Children: Yes.
Teacher: You do agree? You dont have to. You dont have to agree with the
author. Thats the beauty of books. Do you agree that we should stop
polluting?

This section analyses the teachers enactment of critical framing in relation to
learners access to designs of meaning. Here, critical framing refers to pedagogy that
is centrally concerned with relating meanings to their social contexts and purposes
(New London Group, 2000, p.31). Neither immersion in situated practices nor overt
instruction specifically gives priority to the critical and cultural understandings
addressed in the critical framing component of the multiliteracies pedagogy.
Immersion and overt instruction alone become socialising agents that render learners
uncritical and unconscious of the cultural location of designs of meaning and social
practices (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b).

During critical framing, the most important of the four knowledge processes is
analysing. Students should be able, firstly, to analyse the general function or
purpose of a text and to make causal connections, and secondly, to analyse the
explicit and implicit motives and agendas and interest behind a text (Kalantzis &
Cope, 2005, p.96). Therefore, findings are reported in relation to the degree to which
the teachers enactment of critical framing enabled learners to analyse designs both
critically and functionally, applying both forms of analysis to their own claymation
movie designs.

Several lessons were taught in which the teacher prompted students to analyse
critically the cultural location of designs and practices in relation to the workings of
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 159 -
power, ideology and values (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). This was demonstrated in a
lesson in which students viewed the popular claymation movie Chicken Run.

Video Transcript 7
164 Teacher: When the door opened and Mrs. Tweedie was standing there,
the light spilled out onto the steps. Why did they use the lighting
in that way? What effect did it give her that she was in shadow
and the bright light coming behind her when it panned up her leg?
165 Jack: Strong
166 Teacher: Yeah, it made her look powerful!
167 Ted: Scary.
168 Teacher: She did look a bit scary. Ok.How did the creators show that
Mrs. Tweedie was in power? How did they show that she was the
boss, Sean?
169 Sean: The expression.
170 Teacher: The expression on her face. Did you hear the dog yelp? The
door opened and the dog went[Child barks] Yeah, and did a little
yelp. Which means that he was definitely scared. What did you
think?
171 Darles: She had her hand on her hip.
172 Teacher: Her hands were on her hip. Her body language showed that she
was really very important.
173 Damien: She yelled, What is this chicken doing here?
174 Teacher: So, what she said was important.
175 Robyn: You could see her face and her head.
176 Teacher: Think of the angle. Where was she? Where are they [the
chickens]? What did the creators do to make her look more
powerful, Warren?
177 Warren: Looking up [camera angle].
178 Teacher: They were looking up at her, and she was looking?
179 Students: Down.
180 Teacher: Down.which made them look as if they were quite small.

The teacher used a series of critical questions to draw the learners attention to the
particular multimodal design elements to communicate power. Learners were guided
to analyse critically and functionally the representation of power through lighting
and shadows (Lines 147-150), facial expression (Lines 151-153, 160) and bodily
movements or gestures (Line 156-157). They also analysed functionally the audio
design elements (Lines 153-155), speech (Lines 158-159), and spatial elements, such
as camera angles, spatial relations between characters, and how the viewer is
positioned (Lines 161-165). The following is another powerful example of the
teachers use of critical framing to guide learners to analyse critically the implicit
ideology or values in texts.

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 160 -

Video Transcript 7
109 Teacher: What is the message that the movie creators are trying to get
across to you? What does he really want you to think about during
this movie, Warren?
110 Warren: Not to stop trying.
111 Teacher: Youre not to stop trying. Dont give up. Oh! Excellent. Whats
the other message do you think?
112 Child: They are prisoners.
113 Teacher: That the chickens are prisoners! What else, Ted?
114 Ted: That the chickens want to get free.
115 Teacher: To free the chickens. Do you think thats why they made the
movie - to try to make you think about chickens that are in captivity?
116 Child: Dont lock chickens up.
117 Teacher: Dont lock chickens up. Where do you get your eggs from?
118 Children: Chickens.
119 Children: Chickens in farms.
120 Teacher: Are there chicken farms where chickens are allowed to run free?
121 Child: Yes

In this interaction, learners were required to analyse the intentions and interests of
the designers of this movie. The learners gained access to designs of meaning by
considering whose point of view or perspective was represented, whose interests
were served, and what social and environmental consequences followed. The
learners were assisted to critically analyse the social and environmental issue of
animal captivity and the way viewers were positioned to empathise with the
characters of Chicken Run. This was one of many instances in which the teacher
stimulated students to analyse representations by making explicit the belief system
inscribed in the text. When reading the Big Book Lester and Clyde the teacher
asked:
So why do you think that the author of this story was writing about two frogs
living in a beautiful pool, and then one going away and finding a polluted pool?
What was the message he was trying to get across to the people who read this
book?

Within this lesson, the teacher restated the global message of the text, and
challenged the assumptions of the author, taking the analysis further by stimulating
alternate perspectives.

210 Teacher: Thats right. This author wrote a lovely book about two fat
frogs who had a fight, because he wants you to get the point about
not polluting the earth. Do you agree with him?
229 Children: Yes.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 161 -
230 Teacher: You do agree? You dont have to. You dont have to agree with
the author. Thats the beauty of books. Do you agree that we should
stop polluting?

Implicit in this pedagogy is the recognition that literacy is a social practice,
ideologically linked to social power, and it should be researched with a critical
dimension that calls into question ideological and social relations. The teachers
enactment of critical framing emphasised the social, cultural and ideological work of
texts, modelling the critique of texts and their affiliated social formations and
cultural assumptions (Luke, 1994, p.144; West, 1992, p.16). Texts were shown to
represent particular points of view that silence other voices and are open to critique
(Muspratt et al., 1997). In the teachers questioning on many occasions, literacy was
not regarded as an independent variable, but as inseparable from social practices and
their effects, embedded within larger social contexts. Students were guided to see
how designs of meaning are culturally specific, serving particular social and political
purposes.

The second type of critical analysis observed in the lessons involved identifying the
immediate function of multimodal designs by analysing the use of particular design
elements to effectively communicate meaning (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). For
example, in this lesson, the teacher guided learners to analyse functionally the
intended audience of the movie Chicken Run.

Video Transcript 7
122 Teacher: All right. Who was the movie audience, Jed?
123 Jed: Family.
124 Teacher: The family.
125 Bradley: Everybody.
126 Teacher: Everyone in the family.

The learners were guided to identify the overall function of the text and its
representation of meaning. Again, the teacher guided the whole class to analyse
critically functionally the intended audience of the picture book Lester and Clyde
and the axiological interpretation of the value of text.

Video Transcript 3
231 Teacher: Do you think this is a book worth reading to the other children?
232 Children: Yes.
233 Teacher: Who else should read this book? Jared?
234 Jared: Adults.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 162 -
235 Teacher: Adults should read this book?
236 Rhonda: Everyone should. And like that pond thats how our earth will
end up.

The teacher challenged the learners to make a subjective evaluation of the books
value or worth, encouraging alternative reading positions and practices for
questioning and critiquing texts. The learners concluded that the message of the text
not to pollute the earth is a message also applicable to adults (Line 234-236).
Rather than considering texts to have one meaning and unlocking the correct
meaning of texts, the learners were encouraged to find multiple readings of the text.
When alternative reading positions and practices for questioning and critiquing texts
and their social assumptions are suppressed, teachers assume a reproductive model
of meaning. Without critical pedagogy of this kind, comprehension becomes
cultural assimilation, bringing readers epistemologies into critical alignment with
those of a corpus of historically valued knowledge.

A related and important finding was that the learners were frequently encouraged to
stand back from their own design choices, considering their multimodal texts
critically in relation to both forms of critical analysis. For example, the teacher
assisted the boys in the Inventing a Car group and the girls in the Disappearing
Pimples group to analyse functionally the visual and audio design elements in
relation to the message for the intended audience.

Video Transcript 13, Section 1
619 Teacher: Whos going to be looking at this?
620 Bradley: Weve got prep buddies!
621 Teacher: So do they know that this is a spoiler and that thats the exhaust?
Do you understand what Im trying to encourage you to think?

Video Transcript 18
124 Teacher: Are you happy with that?
125 Girls: [nod]
126 Teacher: Are you sure? Do you think people would understand what you
are saying, cause, remember this is playing when your photos are
coming up slowly at the end. So do need to speak quickly?

The teacher encouraged learners to analyse the functional relationship between the
duration of audio and moving visual images so that the modes were combined
effectively. In this way, critical framing was closely linked to transformed practice,
and critical framing became grounded in everyday social purposes (Kalantzis &
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 163 -
Cope, 2005, pp.35, 240). Through the enactment of critical framing, learners began
to independently analyse their own designs functionally, recognising that the textual
features of their own designs were not isolated from social meanings, but carry
meaning primarily through their embeddedness in the wider system of meaning
making and textual practice (Heath, 1999, p.103; Street, 1984; Wagner, 1987). For
example, the boys in the Slip, Slop, Slap group analysed the clarity of the visual
design elements of their storyboard in the context of the social purpose of their
design.
Video Transcript 8, Section 3
86 Nick: Whats that coming out of the shore?
87 Mark: Why dont we make that an illusion - where its just a big rock?
88 Nick: What do you think?
89 Jack: Im thinkingI dont think the prep kids would understand that.
90 Nick: Oh yeah!
91 Matthew: Good point
92 Mark: Yeah, good point [laughs].

Jack, as an expert novice, focused the groups attention on analysing how everyday
designs of meaning and discourses work to communicate certain interests for certain
audiences and cultural purposes. The teachers consistent modelling of critical
processes had empowered these learners to independently analyse how their own
multimodal designs situate readers. Designs of meaning were understood by students
to be culturally specific, serving particular social purposes.

Critical framing was the pedagogical strength of the teachers enactment of the
multiliteracies pedagogy, and this had important interactions with the learners
ability to access designs of meaning by relating meanings to their social and cultural
contexts and purposes. Firstly, learners were beginning to analyse critically the
human intentions and interests, the underlying social, cultural, ideological, political,
and value-laden assumptions of designs and the workings of power. They were
encouraged to consider multiple readings of texts and alternate points of view rather
unlocking or reproducing the correct meaning. Secondly, they were able to access
the structure, function, connections and contexts of design of meaning by analysing
texts functionally. Finally, students were principally able to combine both of forms
of analysing critical and functional to the cultural purposes and meanings of their
own multimodal designs (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005, p.21). Critical framing became
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 164 -
linked to transformed practice, and was grounded in everyday social purposes, as
intended by the multiliteracies pedagogy (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005, p.35, pp.240).
5.5.4.4 Transformed practice in claymation movie making
Two boys worked collaboratively to design a script to accompany the moving
images of their claymation movie. The teacher had prompted them to consider
whether music and images alone would effectively communicate their intended
message. Subsequently, the boys decided to use voice-over to describe the action
more clearly to their audience.
32. Brandon: Mrs. Fulton, this is what were worked out. Were going to
have a script instead of music. Ok.
33. Brandon: Ah, Here is our car frame.
34. James E: Now we put on the back wheel
35. Brandon: Next the front wheel
36. James: Now the spoiler.
37. Brandon: Then the body kit
38. James: What about the exhaust pipe?
39. Brandon: Oh yeah, I forgot about that.
40. James: Whos going to drive?
41. Brandon: I am.
42. James: Then weve got the music, and then the car crashes.

This section has important implications for evaluating the degree to which students
accessed multiliteracies. Transformed practice is the climax of the multiliteracies
pedagogy, when students demonstrate their application of knowledge to creative and
appropriate designing. Effective transformed practice enables learners to transfer
meaning making practice to work in other contexts or cultural sites (Cope &
Kalantzis, 2000c, p.35). Rather than focusing on the teachers practices, there is a
greater emphasis here on evaluating the effectiveness of the learners designs. The
movies designed by each of the six groups are described in relation to the degree of
transformation demonstrated in their collaborative, hybrid, and multimodal texts.

The designing of animation movies involved learners in the creation of hybrid texts
that entailed significant creative change rather than simply good reproduction. This
is very significant because a requirement of transformed practice is that learners
transfer meaning-making practice by putting meaning to work in other context or
social sites (New London Group, 2000, p.35). The students were given decision-
making power to collaboratively choose any educational movie theme and any
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 165 -
combination of cultural resources to achieve their unique social purposes. For
example, the global coherence relations or generic structure of the movies included
narratives, information reports, procedural texts, and combinations of text types. The
designs utilised a diversity of messages, modes, media, settings, characters, plots,
backdrops, stage props, music, sound effects, scripts, spatial layouts, linguistic
features, fonts, colours, graphics, photography techniques, subtitles, and special
digital effects. The movies were of varying duration and communicated unique
educational messages to their preparatory buddies and the parent community. The
teachers evaluation of the claymation movies acknowledged the extent and value of
creativity in the transformation, its aptness to the intended audience, and the
transferring of design ideas to other contexts.

Four students of mixed ethnicity, and from the low-literacy ability group, designed
the movie The Healthy Picnic. Group members included Darles, who is Sudanese,
Julie and Joshua, who are Anglo-Australians, and Ted, who is Indigenous Australian.
The group designed a procedural text entitled The Healthy Picnic involving two
scenes. The first scene was a distance view of a park filled with insects, people and a
picnic. The second scene was a close-up of the picnic tablecloth demonstrating the
assembly of a real salad sandwich. The teacher had emphasised to the students that
they could determine the message of their movie. This fulfilled the pedagogical
intentions of transformed practice to create a space for applying appropriately and
applying creatively (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). However, this ethnically diverse
group chose to draw upon one of the teachers suggestions to the whole class:

So take my healthy sandwich idea. If youre going to have a healthy sandwich,
your first box might be an empty plate. Your next scene might be bread, moving
onto the screen to sit on the plate. Then you might have a piece of
hamcheeselettucetomatothen on the top, the other piece of bread.
Then you might have a bite taken out the sandwich until the sandwich is
completely gone with some crumbs on the plate.

The students chose to represent these ideas using a scalloped cookie-cutter between
photos to remove bite-shaped pieces until only crumbs remained. The movie
climaxed with a plasticine ant consuming the crumbs. This applied another of the
teachers ideas given to the whole class: You might want a picnic rug full of food,
then ants come along and start eating it. The audio design involved background
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 166 -
music that effectively complemented the moving visual and spatial text. The
students stated that the two messages of their text were: a) To eat healthy food,
and b) How to make a healthy sandwich.

Designing for this collaborative group involved a significant measure of
transformation rather than an exact replication or precise reproduction of an existing
design. These learners reinvented or revoiced the world in a way that had never
occurred before, expressing effectiveness in communicating cultural meaning
though a unique combination of multiple modes of meaning (e.g. linguistic, visual,
audio, spatial, gestural, digital).

However, it could be argued that the teachers enactment of transformed practice
limited the students from applying creatively because she allowed them to draw
upon her examples to the class. Nevertheless, the view of the New London Group is
that transformed practice can involve differing degrees and types of transformation
of meaning. For these students, designing involved some degree of reproduction, but
a much greater degree of significant creative change using a multiplicity of
representational resources. For example, the group transformed the teachers simple
idea expressed verbally, into a complex, digitally animated movie that involved
three-dimensional modelling, digital photography, digital music, graphics, and so
forth, to communicate their own message. Good reproduction was not the aim or
outcome of designing (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b). The extent of creativity is very
apparent when contrasted with the monomodal writing and grammar lessons (5.5.1-
5.5.2), when students were simply agents in the unreflective reproduction of
linguistics conventions (Cope, 2000).

An ethnically diverse group of four males from the low-ability group designed
Inventing a Car. Group members included Bradley, Jim, and Jed, who are Anglo-
Australians, and Wooraba, who is Maori.

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 167 -
180 Bradley: Were just doing the garagethe garage.
181 Jim: Its like, were making a car, [step-by-step] and then someone
comes and drives it along and crashed it
182 Bradley: into a pole
183 Jim: into a pole. We dont have to see the crash. Were just seeing like
184 Bradley: Were just going to have a wheel coming back and thenboom!
188 Researcher: And whats the message of the show?
189 Jim: Dont drive too fast!

The design drew upon the teachers proposal, These are just ideas. You might want
to do a car one about a car being built from nothing to anything. You can have the
wheels coming, and the body coming, and then something else, and then making the
car, and then the car zooming off with black smoke. Thus, a degree of reproduction
was again demonstrated in the boys movie plot. The movie was also limited by two-
dimensional representation and inadequate attention to detail in character and prop
design. The most significant issue, in terms of the Learning by Design approach, is
that these students were unable to apply appropriately (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005).
The boys were limited in their ability to communicate effectively in ways that
conform to the conventions of movie making.

A collaborative group of diverse gender and ethnicity from the low-ability group
designed an amateurish movie entitled Crossing the Road. David, Sean and
Rhonda, Anglo-Australians, and Paweni, who is Thai, were the designers. The plot
involved a mother and child crossing a road and climaxed with a car colliding with
the child who was rushed to hospital in a tissue box ambulance.
Transcript 8
22 Rhonda: Ah, title of the Claymation? [reading from a scaffold sheet]
23 David: Do you want to um, do um, Look out, look out - theres children
about?
24 Sean: You mean, Watch out, watch out - theres danger about?
25 David: Look out, look out - theres children about, like
26 Rhonda: cause thats really good for our buddies.

The teacher had suggested to the whole class: You might want to choose crossing
the road safely look left, look right, look left again, hold an adults hand. These
learners made an intertextual connection between the teachers suggestion and a
familiar television road wise slogan, Look out, look out, there are children about.
The aim of the design was consistent with the pedagogic ideal of transformed
practice and applying creatively because the intended message of this hybrid text
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 168 -
was different in some ways, as well as similar to existing designs, and involved a
genuinely original combination of knowledge and ways of communicating
(Kalantzis & Cope, 2005).

The students chose a message that was highly appropriate for their preparatory
buddies and the parent community. However, the visual, spatial, auditory and
gestural design elements did not effectively communicate the intended message,
and thus, failed to demonstrate applying appropriately. The movie did not
demonstrate that these learners had reached what Kalantzis and Cope (2005) term a
collaborative level of competence; that is, students did not become masters of a
convention or genre to the point where they become fully-fledged members of a
new community of practice (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005, p.96).

Warren, Simon and Jared were Anglo-Australian males from low socioeconomic
backgrounds. They designed Breaking News, building upon one of the teachers
suggestions: Weve done natural disasters last term a tornado or a cyclone, an
earthquake. One of those might be something youre interested in. The boys
required a very high level of explicit scaffolding and instruction to design a
storyboard, which followed the generic structure of an information report about
three natural disasters. This movie was never completed. The group was unable to
reach what Kalantzis and Cope (2005, p.95-96) describe as the lowest level of
performance, termed assisted competence. This is because they were unable to
combine several conventional forms of communication in a meaningful way, even in
a structured environment.

Jack, Nick, Mark and Matthew were a group of middle class, Anglo-Australian
males from the average-ability group. These boys transformed the sun-safe
television slogan Slip, Slop, Slap, transferring meanings to work in another
context.

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 169 -
38 Researcher: So tell me what the story is because I havent seen yours yet.
39 Jack: Slip, Slop Slap!
40 Nick: Yeah!
41 Jack: A man like, gets like, burned
42 Nick: Sunburnt
43 Jack: And hes like, just got pants on [no shirt slipped on for sun
protection].
44 Jack: And hes, hes, like, angry. Then he goes into the water, cause he
thinks its gonna make it better, but it gets worse
45 Mark: instead.
46 Jack: And then a sunscreen bottle comes up with some sunscreen.

This movie was characterised by intertextuality, transferring knowledge and
capabilities from one setting, and adapting them to their design with imaginative
originality and generative hybridity. The most remarkable feature of the movie was
the effective combination of audio elements speech and music in a sophisticated
way. However, the visual and spatial elements were limited by two- rather than
three-dimensional representations. Thus, the collaborative design demonstrated
varying levels of applying appropriately and creatively across different modes of
communication (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005).

An ethnically diverse group of females from the average ability group included
Shani and Tenneile, Anglo-Australians, Raileigh, of Maori descent, and Mele,
Tongan. These girls designed The Case of the Disappearing Pimples employing
intertextuality and hybridity by making connections to an extreme makeover, virtual
reality television program Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. The girls transferred
the theme of image from a context of popular media culture and its stereotypes, to
the context of their own pre-teen lifeworlds. In this way, a cross-cultural aspect of
meaning making was evident in this transformation. The plot was summarised by the
teacher to the class, as follows:

Movie description: A man on a beach gets sunburned and goes for
a swim to cool off. The scene changes to an underwater seascape
with relaxing music. The scene returns to the beach were he is still
hot after the swim. A sunscreen bottle offers sun protection to the
man, squirting him with the liquid. The voiceover warns the viewer
to Slip, Slop, Slap. Jazz music concludes after the dialogue.

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 170 -
Transcript 18
This movie is about girls who are at a party. So you wont actually hear the
party music yet, which is a bit of a disadvantage [Runs movie without sound].
One of them is talking about eating too much junk food. And the next day they
are shopping in the shopping centre and one of the girls has developed lots of
pimples. So theyve decided that they are going to buy fresh fruit and
vegetables, and buy Clearasil. Two weeks later, theyre having a healthy party
with lots of sandwiches. The girls are talking about how her pimples have
cleared up, Isnt she beautiful! Now weve just recorded the sound and the
sound is excellent.

The message of the text was communicated implicitly in the plot and explicitly in
the final voice-over and complementary linguistic text: Dont eat too much junk
food. This hybrid, multimodal text was characterised by the most significant
degree of transformed meanings and originality, and drew upon the learners
existing semiotic or cultural resources. The characters in the story were
reconstructions of their own identity, so that each member contributed elements of
their personal history and culture to the design (Kress, 2000a). The movie
demonstrated multiliteracies knowledge processes involving applying appropriately
and creatively because the pedagogic outcome was more than an exact replication
or precise reproduction. The movie design had required taking knowledge and
capabilities from one setting, and adapting them to results in imaginative originality
and generative hybridity as masters of the convention of movie-making (Kalantzis &
Cope, 2005).

In summary, the teachers enactment of transformed practice engaged with the
divergent lifeworlds of students with varying degrees of inclusion and
transformation, from discernable reproduction to substantial innovation (Cope,
2000). Each group adapted and transferred existing ideas embedded in their own
collaborative goals and values by juxtaposing and transferring meaning to work in
other cultural site or contexts. Thus, in these respects, the aim of transformed
practice was achieved (New London Group, 2000, p.35). The redesigned,
multimodal texts provided evidence of the ways in which the learners active
intervention in the world, that is, designing, had transformed the designers to
varying degrees (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b).

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 171 -
However, the transition from learners lifeworlds to claymation designing caused a
difficult dialogue between the culture of the institution and the subjectively lived
experiences of some students. The prior language experiences that the children
brought to the classroom did not always assist them when they encountered new,
digitally-mediated modes of communication (Bull & Anstey, 2003a). Certain
students, such as the Breaking News group, had a greater distance to travel
because of the degree of mismatch between their worlds of everyday lived
experience, and the shared meanings within the classroom (Cope, 2000; Kalantzis &
Cope, 2000a). More pointedly, transformation occurred easily for dominant students
in an immersion environment in which collaborative designing involved minimal
teacher direction (Kress, 2000a). In contrast, the low ability groups relied more
closely on the directions of the teacher. These students designed texts that more
closely reproduced existing meanings than those of their ethnically dominant
counterparts. The degree of transformation was tied to their degree of familiarity
with the requirements of multimodal designing, and more importantly, their
familiarity with the dominant culture. The demanding challenge which remained
beyond the teacher, was to create a community of learning where all students could
access transformed designing (New London Group, 2000).
5.6 Power and Access to Multiliteracies

609 Teacher: There will be consequences for your actions today, Simon Bird.
You need to prove that youre working, otherwise watch out!
You wont be filming!

This section describes the most important findings concerning the influence of
power on learners access to multiliteracies. Following Carspeckens critical
ethnographic research tradition, an assumption of this research is that all action is
mediated by power relations. Carspeckens (1996; 2003) analytic themes
normative, coercive, contractual, and charismatic power were applied to the
lesson data. Additionally, McLarens (1992; 1993) theory of resistance to power is
used to take into account the agency of students. Data coded under the categories
normative power, contractual power and charm did not have a repeated
influence on the degree to which students were able to access multiliteracies. In
contrast, the teachers use of coercive power had a significant and consistent
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 172 -
influence on the distribution of multiliteracies, and is therefore, discussed in the
following section.
5.6.1 Coercive Power and Excluded Learners
Significant events were observed during the latter half of the multiliteracies lessons
involving five boys who were excluded from continuing claymation movie making.
These interactions had important implications in relation to the working of power
and its connections with access to multiliteracies.

There was significant conflict among the three boys who were designing a movie
entitled Breaking the News. These boys Warren, Simon and Jared were Anglo-
Australians from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Warren experienced significant
learning difficulties such as an inability to concentrate, had high absenteeism, and
frequently refused to engage in both independent and collaborative designing after
situations involving conflict with the teacher. The teacher was in the process of
referring Warren to a paediatrician.

Simon was ascertained through standardised tests as intellectually impaired; that is,
having an Intelligence Quotient below seventy and qualifying for government
funded learning support. He was often unable to contribute meaningfully to the
teacher-directed discussions, even when nominated by the teacher to respond. For
example, Simon was unable to articulate the authors purpose for writing the picture
book Lester and Clyde (Reece, 1976).
223 Teacher: The author is telling you about the environment. Hes telling us
about polluting the pond. So why did he write this book? What
did he want children to think, Simon?
224 Simon: Trash, [pause] putpollution.
225 Teacher: Trash put pollution. What do you mean?
226 Simon: [Silence]
227 Teacher: Ok. Start it again.
228 Simon: [Silence].
229 Teacher: Bradley?

Simon generally followed classroom rules and despite his learning difficulties,
would attempt to respond to the teachers questioning.

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 173 -
Jared used an informal dialect of English from his home, including bound
morphemes such as catchin, cmon, cept, cause, and gonna. He frequently resisted
the secondary discourses of the school such as appropriate ways of acting, sitting,
moving, and speaking in the classroom. The following transcript is an example of
Jareds typical behaviour during independent work in the computer room.
Weve got about six children who are just lounging around. Look at your body
language! [directly to Jared] Youve got your hands behind your head, and
youre leaning back like youre in the Bahamas, and you are so far behind in
your work. You havent got time to scratch yourself!

On several occasions, power relations between the three boys Warren, Simon and
Jared escalated into physical fights and swearing. The teacher intervened to create
spatial and physical boundaries to separate the boys during these times. The teacher
decided to negotiate a contract with the whole class to determine how much school
rule breaking would result in exclusion from claymation movie-making. The
following interaction is one of the most significant in the study in relation to power
and its attendant relationship to learners access to multiliteracies. The teacher
addressed the class:
We need to decide what the punishment is going to be for people who are kicked
out of claymation. There are people in the classroom who are constantly getting
their names on the blackboard. Weve got people with three crosses against
their names, and weve had groups today that have been swearing at other
people, not cooperating - arguing. This group of boys who were working over
here got almost nothing done today, and if it wasnt for me intervening, Im
quite sure there would have been a serious fight. So Simon, and Jared and
Warren your group is this close from being completely shut down and
cancelled [shows small gap between fingers]. Because Im that unimpressed
with the work that youre doing.

So what should be the cut-off? Should it be that when you have a certain
number of crosses against your name on the blackboard that you dont get to
film? Should it be if your movie set is not finished by the end of next week, you
dont get to film?

These sanctions were negotiated as fair, to afford everyone the same opportunity for
success conditional upon following the established rules. The negotiable aspect of
this interactively established contract was to determine the number and type of rule
violations that would invoke the sanctions, such as arguing on two occasions, or
swearing once. The students could also decide whether individuals or the group
would receive the sanctions if one member did not follow the rules.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 174 -

The teacher had predetermined that the threat of sanctions was being kicked out of
claymation movie-making or the group shut down. Therefore, the sanction
exclusion from claymation designing was not negotiable. Furthermore, these
negotiations occurred in the context of unequal power relationships that exist
between the teacher and students within the school institution. The following
transcript illustrates the beginning of this negotiation process.
23 Teacher: Were going to vote on this as a class. Anyone else got a
suggestion?
24 Jack: Yeah, if your name is on the board and you have a cross as well.
25 Teacher: So your name and a cross as well, and you should be out. Just
that person or the whole group?
26 Jack: Just that person
27 Teacher: Just that person. Anyone else have a suggestion? Because I
am sick, I am tired and Im cranky, and there are people in this
classroom I guarantee that wont be filming. Cause quite frankly,
I dont have time for it. Its pathetic, the behaviour Im getting.
28 Rhonda: If you swear you cant film.
29 Teacher: So if youre a person who swears, you get kicked out
instantly?
30 Children: Yeah

During this negotiation process, normalising statements were used to control the
social setting such as:
For you to be allowed to do claymation, you have to be able to work
independently. You dont need to have me there to hold your hand and make
sure everyone is feeling nice about themselves and doing the right thing.
Youre in year six!

This operation of normalising discourse rendered the legitimacy of the new
standards and sanctions unquestioned. The outcome was the establishment of three
sanctions for violations of the rules. The majority of students voted that the
sanctions would be administered when students had three accounts of rule breaking
involving any situation at school. Individuals who swore once would receive the
sanctions, rather than the whole group. The teacher also established a non-
negotiable sanction:
I tell you right now: the whole group, or any group, who does not have their
set, and their props, and their characters finished by next Friday, will not be
filming.

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 175 -
All three sanctions prohibited access to digitally mediated designing.

The following week, a new notice was displayed prominently on the back wall of
the classroom, differentiating between the students who had received the sanctions
(Figure 5.6.1). The public poster served to make the dominant discourse official,
and to make the teachers ephemeral or temporary speech permanent. This poster
served to legitimise the sanctions. It also applied exclusionary techniques to
differentiate the children by three behavioural categories as a means of tracing the
limits that defined difference and boundary.
Figure 5.6.1 Classroom Poster for Explaining Excluded Groups

The Breaking the News group Warren, Jared, and Simon were listed in both
categories of exclusion for having incomplete sets and for rule-breaking behaviour.
The fourth learner excluded was Jed, from the Inventing a Car group.

The teacher would often regulate Jeds behaviour by punctuating her direct
instructions to the whole class with Jed. He had one of the highest levels of
absenteeism during the observed lessons. The fifth student to receive the sanctions
was Joshua, from the Healthy Sandwich group. The teacher described Joshua as
her main behaviour problem. He continually sought attention from both peers
and the teacher, moving out of his seat, calling out, and adopting exaggerated
gestures and movements. All five boys excluded were Anglo-Australians from low
socio-economic backgrounds. The teacher reinforced the enactment of the sanctions
by making an announcement to the whole class
The only [whole] group that wont be doing their claymations is the
Breaking the News group because they are nowhere near finished their set.
So they are now out of the race. They had three sets to make. They made one
character and half of one set. So they are not anywhere near being able to
catch up. So they will not be able to make their claymation movie. You said
Groups to Film
Slip, Slop, Slap [Jack, Matthew, Mark, Nick],
Inventing a Car [Jim, Bradley, Wooraba],
Making A Healthy Sandwich [Ted, Darles, Julie],
Junk Food Gives You Pimples [Shani, Raleigh, Teneille, Malee],
Look for Cars [David, Sean, Paweni, Rhonda].
Not filming as sets not complete on time: Breaking the News
(You may display your work completed at book launch but not film).
Not filming because of behaviour: Joshua, Jed, Warren, Jared, Simon
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 176 -
that as a group. You voted on it. Joshua and Jed also have more than two
crosses, so they dont get to film as well. So Jeds group, you still film, but Jed
does not. Ok.

The enactment of these sanctions functioned to exclude the economically
marginalised males from the full repertoire of multiliteracies. In the teachers words,
they were now out of the race. These sanctions operated unfairly to deny those
most resistant to the dominant, middle class discourses of schooling, from accessing
multiliteracies. Power operated as a form of dissimilation; that is, sorting students
according to their social class location, within the classroom (McLaren, 1994).

The full implications of the sanctions became apparent during the following weeks
when the remainder of the class continued the digital aspects of movie making,
while the boys finished their story writing or coloured in drawings. The sanction
excluded the boys from two more hours of movie set designing involving three-
dimensional visual and spatial modes, two hours of digital filming, two hours of
audio designing, and one hour of digital editing and special effects using ClipMovie
software. Monomodal literacies, that is, literacies using linguistics only, became the
sanction for violating the rules. This replaced claymation movie making, which
involved digitally mediated, multimodal designing for a real world purpose.

Carspeckens typology of power relations, described in Chapter Two,
distinguishes between four types of power normative, coercive, contractual,
and charm (Carspecken, 1996). The use of coercive power selectively prohibited
the five boys from gaining access to digitally mediated, multimodal designing.
Coercive power is the threatening of sanctions by a superordinate to force
obedience from a subordinate. The subordinate is expected to comply, not on the
basis of the superordinates status, but in order to avoid an unpleasant sanction
(Carspecken, 1996).

However, the use of coercive power alone did not deny students access to
multiliteracies, because learners still possessed agency and could act to avoid the
threatened sanctions. Parallels can be drawn between this study and Willis (1977)
classic qualitative research in which a culture of resistance was evident among the
working class lads in and outside the classroom, implicated by unequal power
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 177 -
relations between students and teachers. Similarly, McLarens (1993) theory of
resistance explains that the boys episodes of resistance to power worked in
conjunction with the sanctions to implicate them further in their own domination.
This resistance was often demonstrated bodily in the posture of the boys (McLaren,
1993). For example, Warren would pretend that he couldnt hear the teachers
instructions even when she was in close proximity. Ted would often slump in his
chair and look downwards when he was reprimanded. Learners postures showed
implosion and constriction when conceding points of defeat in interactions of
unequal power (Carspecken, 1996). Resistance was evident holistically in the boys
bodies as they became sites of struggle.

Applying McLarens (1993) theory of resistance, the use of the coercive power
was not a powerful strategy with respect to making students productive and
compliant workers. Rather, the use of coercive power was ineffectual against
student resistance, helping to secure a loss of meaning making for the boys. This
condition was exacerbated by increased absenteeism of the boys following the
enactment of the sanctions. Correspondingly, the boys resistance to domination
ironically weakened the school's potential to help them rise above oppressive
forms of work in society.

Relations of power in the classroom were systematically asymmetrical, tied to
interactions between coercive power and the boys resistance to the dominant
discourse (McLaren, 1993). This domination was masked by inviting the
students to negotiate the minor details of the sanctions through an interactively
established contract, concealing the teachers authorisation of the sanctions that
ultimately prohibited access to certain form of multiliteracies.
5.6.2 Coercive Power and Monomodal Literacies
It is significant that the use of coercive power differentiated the curriculum for
students who violated the rules, because monomodal literacies, such as writing
stories, replaced multiliteracies. The teachers perceptions of monomodal literacies
and multimodal literacies are analysed in the following pragmatic horizon analysis.

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 178 -
Actors: Teacher to researcher Date: 27.05.04 Time: 3:00 pm

Teacher talks to researcher after the tenth claymation lesson in which some
students were not working cooperatively.

342 Teacher: Yeah. Yeah. And Ive told my kids that if they get their name on
the back wall, theyre not allowed to do claymation. Theyll just sit
down and do normal work. Because some of the boys their
behaviour is starting to get out of control.

Those who later received this sanction were given monomodal literacies, such as
writing in their exercise books with a pencil and paper, while the others continued
with the digital aspects of the claymation movie designing.
Teacher: Ive told the students that if they break the classroom rules (i.e. name on the back
wall) they will not be permitted to continue claymation movie-making. Instead, they
will do monomodal literacies (i.e. normal work) like students in other classes.
Highly Backgrounded, Remote, Taken-for-Granted
Teacher: Digital multiliteracies (i.e. claymations) do not constitute normal work, while
monomodal literacies do.
Possible normative-evaluative claims
Foregrounded, Immediate
Teacher: These students have failed to comply with the normative classroom rules so they
should receive sanctions withdrawal of privileges.
Teacher: Access to digital multiliteracies should be denied to students who cannot follow
the classroom rules because it is a privilege. Print-based literacies are an appropriate
sanction for rule breaking because they are mandatory.
Teacher: I am tired of students resisting the classroom rules. They dont deserve to do
special activities that I provide like claymation filming. Ill give them monomodal
literacies instead, as students do in normal classrooms.

Table 5.6.2 Pragmatic Horizon Analysis of Teachers Claims

Here, the foregrounded and backgrounded meanings of the teachers claims
underscore the view that claymation movie making does not constitute normal
literacies. The teacher perceives that these digital, multimodal forms of literacies
are not the core of a literacy curriculum, and therefore, this privilege can be
withdrawn to maintain social order in the classroom.

However, it is important to recognise that monomodal literacies are not equal to the
multimodal, digitally mediated textual practices in terms of the social goods that are
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 179 -
accorded to these forms of literacy in society (Bull & Anstey, 2003a). All literate
practices are not of equivalent power in terms of the socioeconomic gains and
cultural knowledge they generate, some having negligible relevance to community
and occupational contexts. Therefore, access to more literacy does not equate with
access to more social power, because literacies have different statuses, functions,
and social relations in different institutional contexts.

The perception that monomodal literacies can be used as a sanction for school rule
breaking, was observed repeatedly in the wider locale of the school. For example,
the principal had established a whole school behaviour management system in which
the students received rewards for avoiding the accumulation of red cards. The red
cards were a form of coercive power to deter students from transgressing school
rules. All students began the year as level ones and could progress to the next
level at the end of each quarter or term. The aim was to reach level five by the end
of the year. The receipt of one red card prevented a student from progressing to the
next level until the following quarter. At the end of each term, the school cohort
were labelled and sorted into rooms. Students in levels two to five received rewards,
such as watching a movie, while level ones completed monomodal literacy
exercises, such as adding suffixes to root words. In this way, monomodal literacies
that were decontextualised from uses of literacy in the real world became a form of
social control in the school institution, tied to the use of coercive power.

During the pilot study, three students of Maori, Indigenous, and African ethnicity,
and two economically marginalised, Anglo-Australian students received the level
one sanctions, and were labelled by one teacher as the naughties. This
hierarchical system of labelling and exclusion systematically distributed rewards to
students of the dominant, middle-class culture, while administering sanctions to
those who were not. Thus, this system of formalised domination tied to coercive
power served to reproduce or solidify patterns of unequal power and
disenfranchisement in a flagrant way. In essence, the school produced differing
kinds and levels of literacy, permitting some, while preventing others from accessing
multiliteracies.

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 180 -
To conclude, the enactment of coercive power prohibited five boys from being
socialised into valued multiliterate practices of contemporary society (See research
on literacy as a socialisation process: Baynham, 1995; Gee, 1996; Green, 1994;
Heath, 1999; Kress, 1993c; 1997; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003a; Lave & Wenger,
1991; Moll, Saez, & Dworin, 2001; Street, 1984). The complex social, institutional,
and cultural relationships in these interactions played an important role in
determining what literacies formed part of these boys lives. The students existing
cultural knowledge and social power also played a significant role in who gained
access to multiliteracies and who did not. Not all learners had access to all meanings.
Rather, meanings were distributed, available, and accessible along the overlapping
social characteristics of gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status within the
context of the dominant institutional structure of the school and the society. This
confirmed the critical ethnographic principle that access to knowledge and cultural
capital is discursively situated in relations of power (Carspecken, 1996, p.22).

The New London Groups (2000 p.18) ideal is to provide access without children
having to leave behind or erase their different subjectivities. These findings
demonstrate that this goal can be coopted by the enactment of coercive power.
Coercive power can implicitly maintain learners existing levels of access to
multiliteracies as a marginalising practice of social regulation. This can became so
habitual or natural in the school setting that educators accept marginalising
practices as normal, unproblematic, and expected. However, who was included,
excluded, valued or denigrated by the enactment of coercive power in this study,
was not arbitrary or random, but was tied to the power and status of the learners in
the context of the dominant culture (Luke et al., 2003).

Carspecken (1996, p.131) states that coercive power is usually employed within
normative frameworks that legitimate it. Classrooms are normative cultural
milieus in which actors are differentiated in terms of who has the most power to
determine the course of interactions. There is never equal communicative input from
all actors involved. When actors in superordinate positions enact coercive power, the
unequal distribution of literacies can be normalised, legitimated or ignored. This is
because there is a normative cultural model at work that historically defines what is
expected of students and teachers.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 181 -

The successful provision of access to multiliteracies for all students requires that
educators draw upon non-coercive forms of power, ensuring that certain learners are
not prohibited from participation in culturally and linguistically diverse, multimodal
and digitally mediated forms of meaning making. Access to multiliteracies requires
that all students are socialised into the existing system of valued cultural meanings
and practices. In this way, the enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy can
function within the normative cultural milieu of schooling in a manner intended by
its proponents as a system of inclusion rather than exclusion.
5.7 Discourse and Access to Multiliteracies
Ted, an Indigenous Australian, smiled at Julie as they filmed their claymation movie
and asked, Have you seen Lord of the Rings? Overhearing from the other side of
the room, the teacher reprimanded, Ted, thats got nothing to do with this! This
intertextual reference could have been recruited for an apprenticeship into hybrid,
multimodal texts, with its potential for the discussion of creative visual and auditory
text combinations. Ted used a different social language to engage in literacy practice
one that communicated solidarity with others. However, what counted was who he
was and what he was required to do (Gee et al., 1996).

This section describes the most salient findings concerning the interactions between
access to multiliteracies and discourses; namely, the socially accepted ways of
displaying membership in particular social groups through words, actions, values,
beliefs, gestures, and other representations of self (Gee, 1992). Discussed here is
the degree to which the ethnically dominant, Anglo-Australians and ethnically
marginalised learners were able to draw from their existing cultural resources. These
are reported under the categories marginalised and dominant discourses.
5.7.1 Marginalised Discourses
It was observed on multiple occasions that students were not always free to draw
from the resources of their primary discourses; that is, the language patterns and
social practices of their early socialisation (Gee, 1992). For example, this was
evident in the following lesson in which the teacher used a questioning sequence
to draw attention to the visual design elements of a Big Book entitled, Lester
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 182 -
and Clyde (Reece, 1976).
Transcript 3
158 Teacher: What has the illustrator done here to show you that its not a
very nice pond? Ted?
159 Ted: Um, it looks like the rubbish has been chucked in there.
160 Teacher: But how did the illustrator show that. How did they do it?
161 Ted: Oh, by um, like, just chucking stuff in there.
162 Teacher: What? Did the illustrator throw things in there?
163 Ted: No
164 Teacher: Or did they draw pictures?
165 Ted: Yeah
166 Teacher: Well, then you need to explain it. Can you say, They drew
pictures of rubbish.
167 Ted: They drew pictures of rubbish.
168 Teacher: Bradley?
169 Bradley: They drew the pond and the leaves and that to make it look
rotten.
170 Teacher: It looks a little bit rotten, but what tells youI can even see that
it smells. What has the illustrator done to show you that it smells?

The teacher drew attention to the Teds inappropriate primary discourse
chucking stuff in the context of this whole class interaction. Perhaps Ted had
misunderstood the term illustrator, not realising that a designer of the book had
drawn the rubbish. After the teachers initial, incredulous response to Ted, What?
she challenged Teds statement, asked him to clarify it, and elicited the correct
response from him by rote. Ted submissively repeated the teachers rephrasing of
his statement when requested, copying the teachers dominant discourse (Gee,
1996). The teacher deferred the original question to Bradley, an Anglo-Australian
student who answered successfully. The important point is that Teds primary
discourse was corrected because it was not consistent with the secondary discourses
of the classroom language patterns to which people are socialised within various
institutions, outside early home and peer group socialisation (Gee, 1992; Gee et al.,
1996).

Ted had mastery of oral discourses to gain solidarity with others, both peers and
adults. For example, he was the first student to confidently and amiably introduce
himself to the researcher. On one occasion, the researcher met Ted by chance in a
local suburban shopping centre during evening trading hours. He had almost sold a
box of fundraising chocolate bars to idle cashiers at clothing boutiques, because he
was successful in the persuasive discourse of marketisation (Fairclough, 2000,
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 183 -
p.163). However, Ted differed from the expected classroom norms with respect to
his Indigenous Australian primary discourse. His speech was characterised by the
use of bound morphemes, evident in phrases such as Watcha doin? or Weve
been wasting a whole million watchin her doin her shoes.

The forms doin and watchin mean that the speaker is signaling greater
solidarity with, and less deference towards the listener, treating them more as a peer
or friend. Speakers unconsciously mix and match various degrees of in and ing
in a stretch of language to achieve just the right level of solidarity and deference
(Chambers, 1995; Gee, 1993; Labov, 1972; Milroy & Milroy, 1987). This language
had meaning when used in Teds community a culture that has retained substantive
ties with an oral cultural tradition. However, it was not part of the dominant
discourses in the formal social context of the classroom. Rather than using Teds
oral language as a bridge to other forms of literacy, his primary discourses were
frequently prohibited or misunderstood within the institution of schooling.

Ted continually violated the discursive patterns or rules by which discourses were
formed and that governed what could be said or remain unsaid, and who could speak
with authority or remain silent (McLaren, 1994). For example, Ted was frequently
reprimanded for unsolicited replying calling answers without being nominated by
the teacher (Cazden, 1988). This occurred in the context of lessons in which the
teacher controlled the topic and applied the three-part sequence of interactions
teacher Initiation, student Response, and teacher Evaluation (IRE) (Mehan, 1979).
This common pattern of classroom discourse in Western schooling requires
interactions by invitation of the teacher. According to Cazden (1988), unsolicited
replying is a common Indigenous Australian discourse pattern.

Ted had not adopted the identity kit of dominant ways of acting, dressing and
becoming a student (Gee, 1996). He would forget to take his hat off indoors and was
unable to efficiently carry out tasks for the teacher. The teacher labelled him,
Travelling-at-will Ted Doyle. He frequently sought legitimate ways to subvert the
boundaries of the secondary discourses of the classroom, such as by getting a drink,
borrowing stationery, or going to the toilet block during lessons to remain in
physical motion.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 184 -

On many other occasions ethnically marginalised learners failed because the
secondary discourses rendered them unable to draw from their existing cultural,
semiotic resources for meaning making. Pawini, is the focus of the following
transcript. She had only been in Australia for one year and spoke Thai at home to her
mum and English at school. During storyboard designing a picture frame
sequence for the movie Pawinis group was requested by the teacher to explain
their movie plans.
237 Sean: Look right, Look left, look right [infant voice]. And then the
cars there, and they walk across, but they saw no car there, and
the car was there. The car had just turned out and came out
[picture provides external referents].
238 Teacher: Sounds to me like you two [points to Sean and David] are
doing a lot of the thinking. Whats Paweni done today?
239 Sean: Shes...
240 David: Shes just
241 Rhonda: Shes trying to
242 Teacher: Ok. Paweni, can you tell me what youre doing today? Whats
your job?
243 Paweni: Mum.
244 Teacher: Youre going to be the mum? [character in the movie plot]
245 Children: Yeah.
246 Teacher: And are any of these your ideas today? Have you got any
suggestions? Have you thought about what we should use on the
set? Are you going to have trees? Are you going to have hills?
247 Sean: Thats what shes thinking
248 David: Yeah
249 Teacher: Can you make sure that Paweni has some suggestions?

The teacher praised Sean and David for their successful contribution to the
storyboard, while using this to contrast Pawenis failure. The children attempt to
advocate on Pawenis behalf, making incomplete defences that appeal to Pawenis
effort (Lines 239-241). In doing so, they identify with her different life-world,
cultural and language experiences. The teacher interrogated Paweni with five
rapidly spoken, consecutive questions (Line 246), requiring Paweni to give an
account of her contribution to the design. It should be noted here that during the
lesson observations Pawini had never spoken more than two words in sequence, and
these were generally common nouns or verbs.

Paweni lacked the linguistic resources to respond to the teachers complex
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 185 -
questioning and made no reply (Line 246). Sean moved to give an account in
Pawenis defence, appealing to her thought processes a subjective truth claim that
was confirmed by her collaborative contribution to the visual aspects of the design.
David also demonstrated cultural inclusiveness by supporting Seans defence.
Pawenis fluency with the dominant discourses was tested. The gate was open to
fluent users of the dominant discourses, but closed to the non-native the student
who was not born to the dominant discourses, and who could not show some
mastery on this occasion of use. There is a tension between the dominant,
secondary discourses of the classroom and Pawenis primary discourses, identity
and Thai culture with which she was most intimately connected (Gee, 1996).

Use of the dominant IRE pattern of discourse also influenced the way in which
Paweni was judged in the following whole class interaction (Mehan, 1979). This
occurred in the context of the shared reading of the Big Book Lester and Clyde
(Reece, 1976).
Transcripts 3
102 Teacher: Tell me two things about Lester. Im going to be asking Warren
and Paweni this time [Paweni has not raised her hand to answer a
question]. Paweni, tell me two things about Lester?
103 Paweni: [no response]
104 Ted: Old [unsolicited response]
105 Teacher: Definitely not old. Clydes old. Dont tell her. Whats two
things you can tell me about Lester the frog? [long pause]. Ill
come back to you. Warren two things?
106 Warren: Hes smaller and cheeky.
107 Teacher: Hes smaller and hes cheeky, Ok! Paweni, anything else you
can tell me about Lester?
109 Teacher: Listen to the sentence. Lester is smaller, and hes a lot of fun. A
naughty, a cheeky, a mischievous one. What can you tell me about
Lester?
111 Teacher: Is he a good frog?
112 Paweni: No
113 Teacher: So what tells you that hes not a good frog?
114 Joshua: Because hes[unsolicited response]
115 Teacher: Im asking Paweni, thank you. Who can tell Paweni what words
there tell us about Lester? [no response from Paweni] Ted?
116 Ted: [inaudible response]
117 Teacher: I cant hear you? Sit up, Ted.
118 Ted: He reckons that he has fun.
119 Teacher: Hes full of fun, but I want to know, What words there tell that
he is not a good frog? Shani?
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 186 -
120 Sean: mischievous
121 Teacher: mischievous
122 Joshua: and naughty
123 Teacher: And naughty thank you! Did you hear that Paweni naughty
and mischievous? Theyre the words that we just read, and thats
describing him.

Paweni was not successful at this IRE discourse common in Western schooling,
and did not gain access to the required multiliteracies. She did not have sufficient
linguistic resources in English to describe attributes of a character in the written
narrative. Pawenis failure at question time was tied to difference her culturally
based social identity was constituted in her Thai language, which she was unable to
use. The IRE discourse failed to apprentice Paweni to the sorts of language through
which she could gain status in the classroom. Such an apprenticeship should have
been based on an engagement with and recruitment of her existing meaning making
resources, and the social identity it betokens (Gee, 1996).

Yet another example of learners unfamiliarity with the dominant discourses and
the restrictions placed upon marginalised discourses occurred in the context of
digitally recording the script for the audio design of the claymation movies.
Transcripts 17, Section 2
102 Paweni: Look out for cars! [deepened accent to sound older]
103 David: Ok. Mum. [baby voice for child role]
104 Paweni: Watch out run! [staccato rhythm]
105 Teacher: No! Remember - were just recording this bit this snippet.
Lets listen to how clear you were, and if theres background
sound [replays]. Could you hear Paweni?
106 David or Sean: Yes.
107 Teacher: Clearly? No! You need to speak clearly. I know English is a
second language, so this is hard for you. Look out for cars
[cars] said with two syllables, high to low intonation]---
-----------------------------------------------------------------
139 Paweni: WatchoutRun [staccato rhythm].
140 Teacher: No!
141 Teacher: Watchout Run! [demonstrating smooth joins]
142 Paweni: Watch out Run![spoken in monotone]
143 Teacher: Doesnt sound like youre yelling. Try it again. Watch Out
Run!
144 Paweni: Watch out Run! [drama in voice, but pronunciation still
unclear].
145 ---------------------------------------------------------
153 Paweni: Watch out [short pause to look down at script] Watch out
Run!
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 187 -
154 Teacher: Youve only got three words to remember! [frustrated voice]
Watch out run. You dont need to look at it! [the script]

When the teacher asked the boys if they can hear Paweni clearly, Sean and
David refused to criticise Pawenis speech (Line 105-106). The teacher corrected
Pawenis early approximations of the linguistic speech text, later acknowledging
overtly that English is a second language for Paweni (Line 107). After multiple
unsuccessful rehearsals, the teacher implored that Paweni should be able to
remember three words without referring to the script (Line 154). Paweni came to
school with a marginalised language and dialect, and this affected the way she
performed and was judged (Cook-Gumperz, 1986, p.8). Marginalised learners
like Paweni are expected to acquire mainstream discourses extremely late in
their education. These students required explicitness or meta-knowledge to make
them consciously aware of what they are being called upon to do (Gee, 1996).

Extant sociocultural research has drawn attention to the need for literacy
pedagogy to make use of students existing competencies and familiarity with
literacy events as a resource, moving them systematically toward capability with
the powerful literate practices that are essential for community life, scholastic
achievement and occupational access (Anstey & Bull, 2004a).

It was observed on many occasions that students of the dominant, Anglo-
Australian ethnicity worked to include ethnically marginalised students in
collaborative tasks. For example, Pawenis peers recognised that she had a
special ability to design two-dimensional visual elements to communicate
meaning effectively. They began to give her a key role in movie backdrop
designing to utilise her existing cultural resources for visual designing. The
following example, highlights the inclusive way in which ethnically dominant
peers were able to recruit Pawenis use of existing cultural resources during
backdrop designing.
275 Paweni: Thats more big. [starts to erase] Here. Here. [Paweni uses a
ruler to measure a wider, straighter road.]
276 --------------------------------------------------------
277 David: Paweni that roads too big.
278 Sean: Very big.
279 Rhonda: Way, way, way, way, way, too big!
280 ---------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 188 -
281 Sean: Can we just turn it over?
282 David: No [there is paint on the back].
283 Sean: Can we turn it over?
284 Paweni: Wait too big! [Paweni rubs out the lines as others watch].

In this example, Paweni initially confused the comparative form of the adjective
bigger or too big with more big (Line 275). Her culturally dominant peers
accepted Pawenis approximation. They understood Pawenis difficulty with English
speech patterns and intentionally demonstrated three alternative comparative forms
too big, very big, and way too big, speaking slowly and with repitition to
build her repertoire of linguistic resources (Lines 277-279).

The peers succeeded in scaffolding her speech to enable her to gain access to the
discourse in an inclusive way, demonstrated by Pawenis response. She chose a
suitable comparative form, too big (Line 283). Pawenis language was an
invitation to other children to anticipate with her in sense making, to achieve
solidarity with her and they readily accepted this invitation.
5.7.2 Dominant Discourses
The following section contrasts the previous examples of marginalised discourses
with the successful use of dominant discourses. The support teacher focused the
attention of two Anglo-Australian, middle-class girls on the required script for their
claymation movie entitled The Case of the Disappearing Pimples.
Transcript 13
927 Support Teacher: What are you saying? ---
928 Shani: Shesshes going to take the person who has pimples who is
[acted by] Nalee shes going to take her to the shops to buy
allstuff.
929 Tenneile: Yeah
930 Teacher: Ok. And what are what are you going to say? Lets go to the
shops
931 Tenneile: Do you want to put something on to um, to try this stuff on
your face?
932 Shani: And um
933 Support Teacher: Do you want to get some of this stuff on your face?
Is that a nice job for the preppies? [preparatory school audience] Prep
school are age five. Are you going to have them listening to you
saying, Are you going to come and get this stuff? No!
938 Shani: No, you would say, Would you like to come to the shops and
buy some of the cosmetics?
939 Support Teacher: Some cosmetics!

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 189 -
The support teacher expected the girls to design a verbatim script for their movie,
and began to model the required discourse (Line 930). The teacher initially
questioned the appropriateness of Tenneiles informal discourse in terms of its
suitability for the instructive purpose of the text (Line 933). The girls demonstrated
familiarity with the appropriate classroom discourse by constructing standard
English speech, which satisfied the support teacher (Lines 938-939).
940 Support Teacher: Good. Ok. And what else is going to be said?
941 Tenneile: And then, Do you want to buy some fruit?
942 Support Teacher: At the, at theat Oh, I see! [Observes
backdrop of a supermarket]
943 Ricki-Lea: Were also got a partytheres a big party!
944 Support Teacher: By gee! Youre leaving your work extremely late!
945 Support Teacher: Well, you need to really, really, reallyI dont
know I dont know how on earth youre going to [finish
everything]
946 Shani: Miss Taylor said, um
947 Tenneile: Weve got a lot of time. Weve been working really hard.
948 Support Teacher: Oh, Ok. Ok. Thats fine.

The tension in this interaction was resolved when the girls used their knowledge of
the dominant, secondary discourses of the classroom to appeal to the normative
power of the teacher (Line 946). They also made recourse to values of Western
schooling: Weve got a lot of time, and Were working really hard (Line 947).
The girls were able to access the literacies required through their familiarity with the
dominant discourses, and were successful in satisfying the expectations of the
support teacher.

There is a sense in which the support teachers interaction with the girls mirrored
conversations between parent and child in Anglo-Australian homes. These
interactive fill-in-the-blank activities required building toward more descriptive
and lexically explicit detail. The girls drew from the practices built in to their home-
based culture practices that resonated with a certain type of schooling. Shani and
Tenneile were not overtly aware of the IRE scheme in school-based literacy practice,
but they were experts in engaging in the sorts of adult-child verbal scaffolding
expectations demonstrated in the above conversation.

These culturally and linguistically dominant students were able to organise the
required text within the parameters of the secondary discourses of the school. This is
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 190 -
because they have a life-long history of apprenticeship in the social practice of
schooling and ways of making sense of experience. This enculturation or
apprenticeship has given them certain forms of language, ranging from linguistic
resources to familiarity with the process of schooling. These forms of language
encapsulate meanings shared and lived by the dominant social group (Bull &
Anstey, 2003a; Gee, 1992).

Culturally and linguistically dominant students were consistently able to report on
their work to satisfy the expectations of the teacher. They were selected to become
spokespersons for groups. They gained control of classroom discussions by raising
their hands Warren, I see your hand up youre in control. Such ways of acting
and speaking in the multiliteracies classroom were considered successful by the
teacher. Dominant students gained rewards, praise and power in directing whole
class discussions because they sat upright with their hands on their heads and
assumed other required postures.

The teacher made the following statements in varied contexts: Everybody turn to
face him please, Wait until everybody is sitting on their bottoms, and actually look
like listeners please, and, Thanks to those people who are sitting up nicely ready
to listen. Through such mechanisms, dominant students frequently gained greater
access to multiliteracies than those who were less familiar with social and cultural
expectations within the classroom.

Dominant students also reproduced the secondary discourse of the classroom to
control interactions among their peers. For example, Julie used imperative
statements to direct peers such as, You better move along then. When asked to
give an account of their progress to the teacher, David satisfied the teachers
expectations with the dominant discourse, Were on task. Language alone was not
important, but a combination of being the right kind of person, saying and doing the
right kinds of words and actions, as well as gestures, body positions and even
grooming. Making sense in this multiliteracies classroom required appropriate
listeners and readers, speakers and designers within this institutional context,
recruiting meaning value-laden ways (Gee et al., 1996).

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 191 -
In contrast, Paweni, Ted, and their ethnically marginalised peers, did not have
mastery of the school-based social practice, with its ways of interacting, talking,
thinking, and valuing that the school and mainstream culture rewards (Gee, 1992).
They did not yet have time to pick up these skills as concomitant to the
apprenticeship process, because they had not been socialised into the required ways
of being in the classroom that were intimately connected to the social identity of
dominant culture. Dominant learners succeeded in this immersion environment
because they knew the hidden rules of the game. Outsiders to the cultures of literacy
and power did not. In this social and political context, access to the spectrum of
multiliteracies was limited.

These findings indicate that when the teacher enacted her conception of the
multiliteracies pedagogy, not all learners had access to all meanings. Rather,
meanings were distributed along overlapping lines of ethnicity, socio-economic
status, and degree of familiarity with the dominant discourses (Kress, 1993a). This
teachers translation of the multiliteracies pedagogy to classroom practice was not
exempt from being implicated in the reproduction of class relations, because
ethnically marginalised students were unable to draw from their existing cultural
resources (Fairclough, 1989). In contrast, dominant students who were familiar with
the discourses of Western schooling gained greater access to multiliteracies than
their marginalised counterparts. This raises important issues for teachers who wish
to avoid these pitfalls and who desire to enact the multiliteracies pedagogy as
successfully as its proponents intended.

The New London Group theorises that equitable access requires the negotiation and
respect of diverse cultures and prior experiences of students, and this may require
that the dominant group or institution is itself transformed. Education must start with
the recognition of lifeworld experience and use that experience as a basis for
extending what children know and can do. The multiliteracies pedagogy was
intended to provide access without children having to leave behind or erase their
different subjectivities (New London Group, 2000, p.18). Regarding the conditions
of equity, Kalantzis and Cope (2000a, p.122) maintain that an educational system is
required that does not favour or reward some life experiences over others.

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 192 -
Therefore, there was a need to give attention to the inclusiveness of classroom
discourses, rather than concentrating only upon the pedagogic structure of lessons
(situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing, and transformed practice) and
the multiliteracies design elements. The proximity of cultural and linguistic
diversity today necessitates that the language of classrooms must change. When
enacting the multiliteracies pedagogy, the multiple discourses of students should be
valued in classrooms that are characterised by a supportive cultural community.

Ultimately, there is a need to reassess selective traditions that are implicit in the
discourses that may persist when enacting the multiliteracies pedagogy,
transforming them in the interests of marginalised groups. The clientele of schools is
increasingly diverse, calling for the system-wide transformation of dominant,
secondary discourses to enable the provision of access to multiliteracies for all
students. There is a need for the continued, informed revaluation of educational
discourses in relation to the ever-changing place and potential of literacies (Cazden,
1988).
5.8 Summary of Chapter Five
This chapter has contextualised, reported and analysed findings in relation to the
research question concerning the affects of pedagogy, power and discourse on the
learners access to multiliteracies.

A key findings was that the teachers existing monomodal pedagogies and their
associated discourses prohibited certain learners from gaining access to the
multiliteracies. Monomodal writing pedagogies differentiated the curriculum for
low-ability learners, failing to provide access to powerful, multimodal and non-
linear textual practices used in society outside of school. The teaching materials
predetermined the semantic elements of writing, limiting the diversity of meanings
among the learners designs. Students were unable to demonstrate the knowledge
process applying creatively in relation to their use of available resources for
meaning making (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005).

Grammar lessons taught only to low-ability learners did not permit access to
culturally and linguistically diverse textual practices, because direct instruction was
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 193 -
used to teach the grammar of Standard English. This worked against cultural
inclusiveness, marginalising students who were not of the dominant, Anglo-
Australian, middle-class culture. Again, the transfer of literacy practice to genuine
literacy situations outside the classroom was impeded, prohibiting access to real-
world forms of meaning making.

During screen-based lessons, the practice of ability grouping and its associated
routines worked to distribute digitally mediated textual practices to students who
were the most proficient in these discourses, while disenfranchising those who were
not. Pedagogies of the typographic age, such as typing from handwriting written
drafts, confined word processing to a lengthy, linear, and repetitive process of
designing, instead of allowing for digitally-mediated, non-linear, multimodal
designing reflective of textual practices in workplaces and society (Kress, 2000a).
In these ways, the reversion to existing monomodal pedagogies prohibited access to
multiliteracies, particularly for students in the low-ability group who were ethnically
and socio-economically marginalised.

In relation to the four components of the multiliteracies pedagogy, it was found that
situated practice was used for sustained periods during movie set and character
designing. There was a paucity of expert scaffolding from peers, books,
technologies or the teacher during situated practice. Learners invested excessive
time pursuing design constraints, and were unable to understand three-dimensional,
visual and spatial designs of meaning (experiencing the new) (Kalantzis & Cope,
2005). Most importantly, ethnically and socioeconomically marginalised learners
benefited least from the implicit teaching methods.

The isolated use of teacher-centred transmission as overt instruction was not
sufficient for learners to transform meaning-making resources to create storyboards.
Students conceptualising and experiencing was constrained because complex
relations between camera angles and the dimensions of movie sets required the
amalgamation of situated practice and overt instruction (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005).
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 194 -
Those who were least able to access new designs of meaning were groups comprised
of learners from the low-ability stream who were ethnically and socioeconomically
marginalised.

During critical framing, learners were successfully guided to analyse the authors
purpose, intended audience, and implicit values of various multimodal texts
(analysing critically). They were encouraged to challenge rather than reproduce
the authors ideological assumptions. Learners began to analyse camera angles,
facial expressions, lighting, music, sound effects, moving images, picture book
illustrations and so forth, in relation to their overarching social contexts and
purposes (analysing functionally) (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). Most importantly,
learners were able to combine both forms of analysis critical and functional to
the cultural purposes and meanings of their own claymation movies (Kalantzis &
Cope, 2005, p.21).

The teachers enactment of transformed practice engaged with the divergent
lifeworlds of students with varying degrees of inclusion and transformation, ranging
from discernable reproduction (applying appropriately), to substantial innovation
(applying creatively) (Cope, 2000; Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). Certain students had
a greater distance to travel because of the degree of mismatch between their worlds
of everyday lived experience, and the shared meanings within the dominant culture
and the school (Cope, 2000; Kalantzis & Cope, 2000a).

In relation to power, it was found that the enactment of coercive power worked as a
form of domination, selectively excluding five boys from certain forms of
multiliteracies. Monomodal literacies became the sanction for the boys resistance to
the dominant discourses of the classroom, in the context of unequal power relations
between students and teachers (McLaren, 1994; Willis, 1977). The monomodal
literacies were not equal to the multimodal, digitally mediated textual practices that
the boys were excluded from in terms of the social goods that are accorded to these
forms of literacy in society (Bull & Anstey, 2003a).

The analysis of classroom discourses demonstrated that Sudanese, Indigenous
Australian, Tongan and Thai students were unable to draw from their existing
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 195 -
cultural resources because of the restrictions upon the use of their primary
discourses (Gee, 1996). Secondary discourses of the classroom were more accessible
to children from Anglo-Australian, middle-class backgrounds, because these
discourses were congruent with learners experiences outside of school (Gee, 2000a).
Ethnically marginalised students were unfamiliar with rules for collaborative
designing, and required clearly communicated expectations.

To conclude, the analysis of the lesson observations demonstrated that not all
students were permitted to access multiliteracies that are affiliated with the designs
of meaning used in society outside of school (New London Group, 1996). The
students who successfully drew upon new designs of meaning were those with
existing cultural knowledge, affluence and social power, while ethnically and socio-
economically marginalised groups were disenfranchised. In this respect, the school
reproduced existing inequities of class, power and identity.

The successful enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy required more than simply
adding multimodal and digital forms of meaning making to an existing repertoire of
monomodal pedagogies and textual practices. It required more than the enactment of
the multiliteracies pedagogy situated practice, overt instruction, situated practice
and critical framing as if it constituted a linear hierarchy or isolated stages (New
London Group, 2000, p.32). What was required was the enactment of the
multiliteracies pedagogy in a way that related the pedagogical components in
complex ways, with elements of each occurring simultaneously, repeatedly revisited
at different levels of meaning making. More importantly, what was required was a
recognition that different designs of meaning available to students were located in
different cultural contexts.

Ultimately, there was a need for the reflexive use of pedagogies, discourses, and
power to allow for the infinite variability of different forms of meaning making.
These differences relate to the cultures, subcultures, and identities that the
multiliteracies design elements were intended to serve (New London Group, 2000,
p.36). In this way, designing can restore human agency and cultural dynamism for
all students. It is only then that the interrelated, multilayered, complementary, and
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 196 -
increasingly divergent lifeworlds of students can become ideally creative, and
flourish as responsible makers of meaning (New London Group, 2000).

Chapter Six presents the discussion and interpretation of findings using systems
analysis, a powerful element in the interpretation of results in critical ethnography.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 197 -
Chapter Six Intersections of Agency, Structure and Access
6.0 Introduction
Chapter Six is the reporting and explanation of complex systems relations that
influenced the distribution of the students access to multiliteracies. Specific
evidence is sought for patterned activity or system relationships existing between the
events observed in the classroom and those in other related sites. Giddens (1984)
structuration theory is applied to examine relationships discovered between the
micro-level factors in the classroom, and the macro-level factors in the wider social
system that enabled or constrained access to multiliteracies.

The analysis of systems relations reinforces the validity of this critical ethnography,
because the dominant societal structures which distribute power and privilege are
explored. Thus, the classroom is not seen as existing independently of the social
system (Carspecken, 1996, p.38). The measure of economic, symbolic and political
power of the most significant actors principal, teacher, and students were key
explanatory factors of the research question, restated here:
classroom group?

This analysis of systems relations emerges from the data obtained from the semi-
structured interviews with the principal, teacher, and students, supported by lesson
transcripts and journal notes where applicable. The semi-structured interview
schedules, presented with detailed justification in Chapter Four (4.6.2),
systematically inquired about domination, signification, and legitimation structures
in the school that potentially affect access to multiliteracies. These analytic themes
are located in Giddens (1984) structuration theory, theorised in Chapter Three (3.3).

During the pilot study, systems relations were identified as possible influences on
the distribution of access to multiliteracies in the classroom, and were further
investigated during the research (See Figure 6.0).
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 198 -

Figure 6.0 Systems Relations Investigated in the Study
As shown in Figure 6.0, the analysis of systems relations in this study involved
investigating the problem of access to multiliteracies within the: a) classroom, b)
school, c) local community, and d) state, national, and global systems. These time-
space zones guides the systematic selection and reporting in this chapter, of systemic
factors relevant to the problem of access. The following table summarises the most
significant systems relations discovered concerning the distribution of access to
multiliteracies, which are expanded upon in this chapter (See Table 6.0).
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 199 -
Table 6.0 Systems Relations Affecting Access to Multiliteracies

Enabling & Constraining Structures Affecting Access
Domination Signification Legitimation
School System

Actor:
Principal

Prioritised professional
development for
teachers in
multiliteracies
Prioritised human &
material resources for
teaching multiliteracies
Limited structures to
ensure that knowledge
& material resources
for multiliteracies
were utilised by all
teachers
Principal was limited
by inadequate state
funds for human
resources (e.g. ESL
teachers)
Principal
encouraged students
to draw upon their
own cultural
symbols in events
that were embedded
in the institutional
structure (e.g.
Sudanese dances)
Principal deferred
control of
signification
structures in
classrooms, such as
a pedagogy, to
teachers resulting in
uneven access to
multiliteracies
Principal initiated
the teaching of
multiliteracies by
informal norms (e.g.
verbal
encouragement) and
formally through
unit planning
requirements
Both forms of
legitimation
structures had a
limited degree of
power to ensure that
students gained
access to
multiliteracies.
Principal
Interview
Q. 1 b, c
Q. 4a-c, f-g
Q.10 a
Q.10 b-d
Q.6 a-b
Q.2 a-c
Q.3 a-b
Classroom

Actor:
Teacher/s
Accessed grant and
professional
development for
teaching
multiliteracies
Member of school
committees to gain
greater access to
resources for
multiliteracies
Limited by inadequate
funds for ESL students
and multimedia
technology
Initiative to access
resources for teaching
multiliteracies varied
among teachers
Ability grouping
distributed different
literacies in a
marginalising way
low ability groups
received monomodal
rather than
multimodal
literacies, and
transmissive
pedagogies rather
than the
multiliteracies
pedagogy.
Dialectic of
control between
formal sanctions
and student
resistance to rules
resulted in
exclusion from
digital designing
for economically
marginalised boys
Teacher
Interview
Q.1, b, c
Q.4. a-c, f-g
Q. 5.a, c, e

Q. 6a-b
Q. 2b
Q. 3c
Lesson Transcripts
Coded for Pedagogy
Q.2 a-c
Q.3 a-c
Lesson Transcripts
Coded for Power &
Discourses
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 200 -

Local System

Actors:
Students
Limited access to
allocative resources
for multimodal
designing in homes
(economic
conditions of
action) resulted in
uneven access to
multiliteracies at
school
Language and
dialects drawn
upon by students
at home differed
to the school for
ethnically
marginalised
students, resulting
in different
degrees of agency
to access
multiliteracies at
school.
Rules and norms
for reading,
writing, and
multimodal
designing varied
among students,
resulting in
differing degrees
of power to access
multiliteracies at
school.
Student
Interview
Q. 2d
Q. 3a
Q. 7a
Q. 11 a-c, f
Q. 12 a-b
Q. 13 a-d
Q. 3a, 4a, 5a
Q. 14 a-h

State &
National
Systems

Actors:
Policy Makers
Administrators
State resources to
support high
numbers of ESL
students (e.g.
Sudanese refugees)
and Aboriginal
students
constrained access
to multiliteracies
for culturally
diverse students
National use of
English as
dominant
language
constrained ESL
students but
enabled Anglo-
Australians
State government
initiatives for
teaching
multiliteracies
were formalised
over time in the
school, increasing
access but could
not ensure the
teaching of
multiliteracies
across all
classrooms because
of time-space
distance
Principal &
Teacher
Interview
Principal Q.4 f-g, Q. 11a,
Q.10 e
Teacher Q.4 f-g, Q.11 a,
Q.10 e
Classroom Observation Principal Q.3 a-c
Teacher Q. 3.a-c
System
Reproduction
Domination: Inadequate state government allocative and authoritative
resources for ESL and Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander students
contributed to system reproduction of marginalisation
Domination: Economic marginalisation in homes constrained access to
multiliteracies at school
Signification: Students in low-ability groups received transmissive
pedagogies and monomodal literacies, while others received interactive
pedagogies and multiliteracies. Composition of the groups reflected
marginalisation in wider society and will potentially constrain their future
employment.
Signification: Students with different languages and dialects at home had
differing degrees of agency to access multiliteracies at school
Legitimation: The dialectic of control between the classroom sanctions
and student resistance resulted in exclusion from multiliteracies. Students
excluded were of economically marginalised, reproducing patterns in
wider society. Differentiated literacies will potentially constrain their
future employment.
Interviews
Principal Q. 9, a-f
Teacher Q.9, a-f
Student Q. 3a, 4a, 5a ,Q.12 a-d, Q. 11a-c, f, Q. 13a-d, Q. 14a-h
Table 6.0 Systems Relations Affecting Access to Multiliteracies
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 201 -
6.1 Domination and Access to Multiliteracies
This section reports the most salient system relations discovered between
domination structures and the distribution of access to multiliteracies in the
classroom, based on repeated themes in the coding of the semi-structured interview
data. System links within each section of this report are addressed in order of the
principals role within the school system, the teachers role in the classroom, factors
within the state and national systems, and lastly, the students lives within their
homes in the local community.
6.1.1 Domination in the School System
Within the school, the principal was the most strategically placed actor, having
power to prioritise economic resources to meet competing sectional interests in the
school, such as between the Key Learning Areas (subject disciplines). He
determined the proportion of allocative resources for multiliteracies within the
confines of the total school budget, which in turn, was allocated by the Queensland
Department of Education.

In order to advance the teaching of multiliteracies in the school, he reflexively drew
upon domination structures, both allocative (material) and authoritative (human)
resources (Giddens, 1984). Two important allocative resources provided for the
teaching of multiliteracies included professional development for teachers and new
technologies to broaden the multiliteracies taught in the school. When asked about
his role in the development of teaching multiliteracies in the school (Q. 1c) the
principal responded:
I see my role is to encourage teachers to take professional development (PD)
opportunities in multiliteracies presented to them. Information about a range
of PD opportunities comes through the school. I screen them, and then select
the ones of greater importance, inviting teachers to attend.

Secondly, I encourage teachers to use the resources that are provided to
them. There is no point encouraging teachers if you dont provide the
resources to support them. So I encourage teachers to include new literacies
by purchasing new technologies or the tools to teach.
Since the beginning of the principals tenure, the range of multiliteracies made
available to students in the school had increased. The principal and teacher, in their
respective interviews, reported this partial transformation of the school structure.
When asked what developments had occurred since the beginning of his tenure in
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 202 -
relation to providing opportunities for children to use multiliteracies (Q. 1b), the
principal responded:
In the area of resources, we have purchased more computers, software, a
digital camera, a data projector, a retractable screen --- We always review our
reading program each year and redevelop it with new resources to
complement new programs. Education Queensland gives us certain curriculum
imperatives and we have to rewrite our school based program for our SAROP
(School Annual Reporting Operational Planning). ---The new literacy
curriculum includes such changes as incorporating more multiliteracies.

The principal was concerned about providing all students with access to a wider
range of multiliteracies in the school. This concern was based on his knowledge of
the state educational policies and state government professional development
initiatives, such as Literate Futures (Anstey, 2002). This was confirmed by the
teacher who reported that the following changes in the school had extended access to
multimodal and culturally and linguistically diverse textual practices (Q. 1a):
Weve had a lot of staff in-services on multiliteracies this year, so theres a
huge awarenessand its a big push at the moment. So weve had a lot of
professional development. Mainly this year--- Oh, the new Literate Futures
have started, so I in-serviced the whole staff on that

Weve also had the purchase of a new digital camera, the projector screen ---
buying of new resources, the computer lab being set up in the library. So
weve now got fifteen or so computers in the library. Were getting a laptop,
and a second digital camera, because theres a need for it. Weve spent a lot
of money on books, listening posts---lots of Big Books!

The librarian is very aware of Aboriginal children, making sure we have
enough books to cater for them, because we have a fairly high Aboriginal
population here. And we do have quite a few books and movies and DVDs
that have the subtext in other languages. Our ESL teacher is constantly
bringing resources for us to share and use in our classrooms to cater for those
differences.

Another significant domination structure within the school system was the
principals allocation of authoritative resources (human) to support access to
multiliteracies among the large cohort of students for whom English was a second
language (ESL). Many of these were Sudanese refugees whom the teacher described
as often fresh off the boat. The families of these students were non-English
speaking, increasing the complexity of providing access. The principal channelled
funds into two areas of support for culturally and linguistically diverse students.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 203 -
When asked what special provisions are made for children of ESL, bilingual, and
linguistically diverse students in the school, he replied (Q. 10a):
There are two main ways. The first is through the ESL teacher and teacher
aids who are there to provide special provision for these students. This
includes for some students, one-on-one English instruction, and for others,
whole group classes for ESL students.

The second way is through the classroom teachers. Because ESL and
Indigenous students are integrated throughout the school from grades one to
seven, there are students with special language needs in every class. The
teachers are given professional development and classroom resources to
develop their planning and teaching methods to respond to these language
needs. We have a Reading Recovery teacher, and STLDs (Support Teacher for
Learning Difficulties). We also have an Extensive Innovative Program (EIP)
using teacher aids, mainly in literacies. I include numeracy when I say
literacy.

However, the principals agency to draw upon domination structures to extend the
teaching of multiliteracies was constrained by the state Department of Education.
There was inadequate funding for human resources to support the large cohort of
culturally and linguistically diverse students in the school. This will be further
addressed in relation to domination structures within the state and national system
(6.1.3).
6.1.2 Domination in the Classroom
The teacher exercised agency by drawing upon domination structures, such as an
educational grant, to attain professional development in multiliteracies. When asked
what role she had played to further the teaching of multiliteracies in the school, the
teacher responded:
Because I had the multiliteracies scholarship [grant], I used it to receive a lot
of professional development. ---I created a multiliteracies unit on claymation
movies--- thats been showcased in Canberra. Lots of people have come into
my classroom to watch it so Ive had quite a bit to do with promoting
multiliteracies. Another staff member and I ran an in-service for the staff
this year, and with schools in the local district.

This use of economic resources transformed her ability to reflect on the routine
social practices of classroom life, and more importantly, to change them. This
consciousness of multiliteracies caused the teacher to move from the level of routine
action to reflexive discursiveness (Giddens, 1984). Accordingly, the teacher changed
some aspects of her pedagogical patterns of action in the light of new information.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 204 -
Her degree of discursive consciousness was linked to the degree of power available
to her to incorporate the new pedagogy and broaden the range of multiliteracies
taught in her classroom. Furthermore, she became a catalyst for promoting the
teaching of multiliteracies across other schools in the system. The teacher also
affiliated herself with the schools English and Information Technology Curriculum
Committees, entitling her to greater control of allocative resources for teaching
multiliteracies.
Im on the ICT and English committees. I put myself thereI nag them until I
get things like the lap top.--- I put out my own survey two weeks ago. I created
one asking: What software do you use already? What do you plan to use next
year? Whats your wish list?

The teacher requested, obtained, and utilised new allocative resources such as
software for digital movie making, a digital camera, data projector, and screen to
transform existing social practices in the classroom. The teacher accessed
domination structures through the exchange of allocative resources and knowledge
with multiliteracies experts in other schools. Travelling to meetings or
communicating via the internet was a regular occurrence. Such regionalised time-
space paths differed among teachers in the school depending on their exercise of
agency.

The teacher exercised her agency to exceed resource allocations by observing when
resources, such as class time on the computers, were not utilised by other teachers in
the system. She often indicated that she would like to see other staff take more
initiative in teaching multiliteracies. Therefore, while the principal had increased
levels of allocative and authoritative resources for multiliteracies, he was unable to
regulate their consistent use by teachers within the school. An important by-product
of these interactions was the system reproduction of existing levels of students
access to multiliteracies in some classrooms.
6.1.3 Domination in the State and National Systems
While greater levels of state funds were provided for teaching ESL (e.g. Sudanese)
and Aboriginal students than culturally dominant students, the principal and teacher
both reported system constraints in this area. For example, when asked if political
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 205 -
and economic factors outside of his control have an effect on the resource allocation
for culturally and linguistically diverse students, the principal responded (Q. 4g):
Principal: Yes I work within a given budget.
Researcher: Is it adequate or can it be improved?
Principal: The provisions for culturally and linguistically diverse students
could be improved. Id like to see our grade one ESL students, of which
we have four at the moment, have the opportunity for a whole day of
ESL intensive English classes per week. I think its important for the
younger ones to have this support during the early years at the school,
which will benefit them in later years.

Triangulation of the principal and teacher interview responses confirmed that
domination structures at the state level constrained access to resources to support
culturally diverse students. When asked whether political or economic factors
beyond the teachers control have an effect on the resource allocation for
multiliteracies in the school, the teacher replied:
Teacher: Yes We cant have inspiration beyond our budget!
Researcher: Is this from sources beyond the principal?
Teacher: Yes completely! Every year our budget keeps getting smaller and
smaller. Even this year, our teacher-aid time has been slashed in half,
with less teacher-aid time again. Its to do with the government over-
spending and theyre trying to cut back. So theyre cutting back on
human resources.

Thus, there was inadequate federal and state funding for the large cohort of
Sudanese refugees, Aboriginal, and Torres Strait Islanders, who required particularly
high levels of support to access multiliteracies. Neither the principal nor teachers in
the school had sufficient transformative capacity to ensure that access to
multiliteracies was distributed fairly to all students. This was because the scope of
power and possibility of utilising domination structures is determined by the kind
and amount of allocative and authoritative resources present, and these were
inadequate (Kaspersen, 2000, p.70).
6.1.4 Domination in the Local System
The analysis of domination structures within the local system, in particular, in
students homes, was another pertinent area of investigation. Data from the four
student interviews provided evidence that economic conditions of action in each of
the students homes constrained their access to multiliteracies at school. For
example, when each of these students were asked to compare opportunities for
digital designing at school and at home, all reported that opportunities were better at
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 206 -
school. The Indigenous Australian and Tongan students did not have access to a
computer at home, while the Sudanese and Anglo-Australian students both reported
that they could do better things at school because of the software and the teacher.
Furthermore, none of the students interviewed had internet access at home. A
consistent classroom observation was that the students who were least able to access
multimodal designing at school did not own computers. The teacher observed that
students home computer ownership contributed to their multimodal designing at
school, which supported this finding.
Home computer ownership is a huge factor! Most of the children in my class
dont own computers at home. At the beginning of the year, some of them were
quite scared that they might blow it up or something. They thought theyd get
lost, and were quite unsure about it. Those children who did have computers
at home were just so much more confident and faster. Even with things like
manipulating the mouse, their confidence was quite high (Q. 9a).

Similarly, the principal identified this system link between the uneven distribution of
economic resources in homes and its constraint on multimodal designing at school.
When the researcher asked: Have you noticed any diversity in the way students
access the computer facilities in the primary school? he replied: (Q. 9a)
Yes, I think that the children who have computers at home tend to really
benefit most from the computers at the school, because they are more aware of
the capabilities of the tools. The children from poorer backgrounds, or that do
not have computers at home, are less comfortable using computers, and
perhaps benefit less.

In this way, economic constraints in students home contexts had unintended
consequences for the reproduction of differential access to multiliteracies in the
school context. In some homes, the lack of power over allocative resources extended
to basic needs such as food and safety. For example, a year two Sudanese refugee
was asked to compare his new life in Australia with his life in Africa.
Researcher: Did you like it in Sudan?
Tawadi: [shakes head for negative response]
Researcher: Do you like it better here?
Tawadi: Yeah
Researcher: Why?
Tawadi: cause they dont have many, many food and theretheres more
food [here].
Since arriving in Australia, Tawadis power over material resources, such as books
and tools for textual production, was relatively limited. Similarly, an Indigenous
Australian student was observed stealing a portion of cheese supplied by peers for
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 207 -
a claymation movie and pocketing it in his tracksuit for lunch. These students had
minimal power to draw from allocative resources in their homes. This economic
marginalisation was reproduced in the school where gaining access to material needs
was more important to the students than learning. In the following transcript,
supported by pragmatic horizon analysis, the teacher commented reflexively about
the performance of economically marginalised students in standardised instruments
for measuring literacy achievement (See Chapter 4.7.2 for an explanation of
pragmatic horizon analysis and Chapter 3.1.2 for its underlying theory).
Actors: Teacher to Researcher Date: 23.09.04 Time: 11:40 am Line: 268-273

In the teacher interview, the teacher drew attention to links between the
requirements of the Department of Education, the school, and the home contexts of
students.
Teacher: But we get things like a Please explain from head office as to
why we catch so many children [Teacher is reference to identifying
children in the Year Two Diagnostic NET (2000)]. But they dont
really think about the economicah, you know, the families that
they come from, and all the other social issues. So there are a lot of
other things in these kids lives that we need to deal with.
Teacher: The state educational authorities do not take into account issues of social
disadvantage when they interpret the state-wide, standardised literacy
measures of year two students in this school, which have been questioned
by state authorities.
Teacher: The state educational system is inadequate to deal with the complex social
issues underlying literacy failure of students in the school, and the
Department is attributing this failure to the performance of teachers and
the school.
Possible Normative-Evaluative Claims
Teacher: The school is accountable to state educational authorities in the
institutional structure for standardised measures of literacy. The
authorities have a moral imperative to take account of the social and
economic context of the school clientele when they consider low literacy
outcomes. The school should not be left to deal with these needs of
students single-handedly, unsupported by the system.
Teacher: As a representative of this school, I feel unsupported and misunderstood in
my role to enable my students who are marginalised economically and
socially to reach the state average literacy levels, and to deal with the
deeper social issues underlying this problem.
Table 6.1.4 Pragmatic Horizon Analysis for Domination Structures in the Home
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 208 -

Therefore, several sources confirmed that the economic conditions of actions in the
students homes constrained their access to multiliteracies at school. The unintended
consequence was the reproduction in the classroom, of the marginalisation evident
in the local community.

In these ways, domination structures within the classroom, school, local community
and state social systems were linked through a complex network of intentional
human actions that served, through unintended consequences, to sustain and
reproduce unequal access to multiliteracies.
6.2 Signification and Access to Multiliteracies
System links between signification structures, that is, communication structures or
modes of discourse, that were found to constrain or enable students access to
multiliteracies, are reported here. These include factors such as the tacitly-grasped
rules for classroom interactions, school routines and pedagogies. These symbolic
structures were constantly invoked in the course of day-to-day activities, and
structured the texture of school life (Giddens, 1984, p.23).
6.2.1 Signification in the School System
Some provision was made for diverse students to draw upon their own symbols in
cultural events that were embedded in the institutional structure. For example, the
principal described institutionalised links that were made with a local Sudanese
community:
The school also encourages cultural groups, such as the Sudanese community,
to use the school facilities, like the hall for Sudanese dance and other local
Sudanese community events. All students are encouraged to be a part of this. It
is especially important that Sudanese students and students from other
cultures can still have avenues to use their own cultural language forms.

However, the principals reflexive efforts to transform the symbolic routines of the
school were exceptions to the customary structures of signification in the school. For
example, while a large proportion of the students were bilingual or multilingual, the
teachers were monomodal speakers of English. Consequently, English was the
dominant language structure drawn upon by teachers and students.

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 209 -
The principal exercised limited power over the signification structures used in
classrooms, such as teaching pedagogy. His response to the question What kind of
classroom structures, routines, systems or teaching practices do you encourage
teachers to use to define the way children interact in the literacy classroom? was
circumspect.
Principal: Teachers involve a whole range of practices to cater for different
needs. This is all very much up to teachers.
Researcher: What sorts of teaching practices do you see used in the school,
and do they differ in any way from your ideals?
Principal: Teachers are the decisive decision-makers.

The principal deferred direct power to manage classroom signification structures to
the agency of teachers, and this was supported by observing the principals
infrequent presence in classrooms during formal teaching periods. Consequently, the
implementation of the multiliteracies pedagogy was not regulated throughout the
school.
6.2.2 Signification in the Classroom
In the classroom, the most powerful signification structure influencing students
access to multiliteracies was the symbolic practice of ability grouping for English
lessons. This institutionalised practice worked as a form of differentiation,
distributing different literacies to different students in a marginalising way (See
Chapter 5.5). The following pragmatic horizon analysis highlights an unintended
consequence of ability grouping.
Actors: Journal Notes Date: 29.04.04 Time: 2:15 pm

These are journal notes regarding the teachers reflections on a lesson with the low-
ability students. This lesson involved one hour of viewing claymation movies using
a data projector. The teacher told the students the strengths and weaknesses of each
movie as she showed each one. Students listened.

The teacher apologised that the lesson was dominated by direct teaching
without questioning sequences. However, she said that this was due to a lack
of time because it takes longer to guide these low-ability students to come up
with the correct answers. Normally she would be more interactive with the
students, and draw the information from them rather than doing all of the
analysis herself. She demonstrated use of questioning when she conducted the
same lesson last week with the average-ability group.

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 210 -
The low-ability group requires more direct instruction and less guided questioning and
interaction than the average-ability group. The low-ability group are more time-
consuming, and time is limited.
Low-ability students require more authoritarian forms of pedagogy. They should be told
what to think rather than be guided to think for themselves, unlike average-ability students.
Low-ability groups require more direct instruction, and more time should be given to
teachers to achieve the same outcomes with low-ability groups.
Possible subjective Claims
I am trying my best to find the right teaching strategies for these low-ability students who
take so long to understand when I use guided questioning.
Table 6.2.2 Pragmatic Horizon Analysis for Signification in the Classroom

In this example, the teacher reasoned that the low-ability group should receive
transmissive forms of pedagogy while the average-ability group should have guided
questioning. This differentiation of the curriculum created the conditions for further
marginalisation, because transmissive forms of instruction used to regulate the
actions of students in the low-ability group did not equip them with the necessary
thinking, decision-making, and communication skills that are required to transcend
working class jobs. Most concerning is that the low-ability group in this study was
comprised mostly of economically marginalised boys, and those who were
ethnically marginalised, while the average-ability group was comprised of middle-
class, Anglo-Australians.

In other lessons, reported in Chapter Five, the institutionalised practice of ability
grouping was used to distribute monomodal literacies such as the direct teaching of
Standard English grammar rules exclusively to the low-ability group (See 5.5.1-
5.5.2). Additionally, ability grouping during multimodal designing in electronic
environments had the unintended consequence of distributing greater time-on-task
for high ability students (See 5.5.3). Therefore, the signification structure of ability
grouping, with its attendant distribution of exclusively monomodal literacies and
transmissive pedagogy, created a non-reflexive feedback cycle or causal loop. The
differential distribution of multiliteracies and pedagogies to differing groups served
to sustain the social reproduction of disadvantage by reproducing, in the classroom,
the patterns of marginalisation in the wider social system (Giddens, 1984).
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 211 -
6.2.3 Signification in the Local System
Students differing degrees of familiarity with the dominant signification structures
of the school was tied to the students divergent time-space paths in the local
community outside of school. Ethnically marginalised students drew upon different
symbolic orders than those employed in the school. For example, the teacher
explained how Pawini, who had arrived in Australia the previous year, drew upon
the meaning structures of her Thai language and culture at home.
Pawini still speaks Thai at home almost full time at home with her mum.
Because her mum, apparently, according to Dad whos Australian [Anglo],
says that mum has come to Australia, but wants desperately to go back to
Thailand. She will not give up her Thai culture, and will not speak English.
Shes not interested in fitting in. But when it comes down to her actually going
back and physically living in Thailand, she wont go because she likes the
lifestyle she has now. So when Pawini is at home, she speaks Thai to her mum,
and when shes at school she speaks English. And thats why I think Pawini is
so far behind.

Pawinis lifeworld and home experiences were centred on the meaning or
signification structures of her Thai culture, distantly separated from Australian
society in time and space. For speakers of the dominant language, drawing upon the
signification structures of English enabled them to achieve their intentions and
desires. However, for ethnically and socio-economically diverse students, like
Pawini, the requirement to use English, expressed by the teacher as fitting in,
constrained them from expressing their needs at school (See Chapter 5.7.1). The
teacher discussed similar cases of students who spoke subcultural dialects of English.
If you look at Wooraba, his family are from New Zealand. Their grammar is
just all back-to-front, compared to the way that Im used to. He writes that way,
and he speaks that way. Mum writes that way and speaks that way, and so
does Grandma. Theres just no way Im going to get him to break that habit.
So when Im conferencing a piece of work, he cannot pick up something that
it is grammatically incorrect. I try to explain it, but he still doesnt use it,
because he writes the way he speaks. Thats frustrating for me. But theres not
much I can do about it.

Therefore, familiarity with the signification structures of the dominant culture
played a potent role in either enabling or constraining the students possibilities for
action in the classroom (Ritzer, 1992). These cases serve to illustrate how the
students had widely varied structures of signification to draw upon, and thus, had
entirely unequal access to multiliteracies at school.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 212 -
6.3 Legitimation and Access to Multiliteracies
Systems analysis of legitimation structures, that is, formal sanctions and informal
norms to regulate social conduct, yielded important findings that both enabled and
constrained access to multiliteracies (Giddens, 1984, p.18-19). For example, unit
planning requirements were aimed to enable greater access to multiliteracies across
the school. In contrast, classroom sanctions for rule-breaking constrained access to
multiliteracies for some students.
6.3.1 Legitimation in the School System
The semi-structured interviews for the principal and teacher investigated two kinds
of legitimation structures norms and sanctions for enabling access to
multiliteracies in the school (Q.2). The teacher was asked to describe how the
principal demonstrated his expectations of teachers regarding the teaching of
multiliteracies.
He talks about multiliteracies and supports it in staff meetings. And hes also
on the ICT committee. So hes quite supportive in that regard. He certainly
makes a point of encouraging multiliteracies, and talks about it when
teachers are doing it well.

Unlike formal sanctions, these legitimation structures, which the principal drew
upon to encourage the teaching of multiliteracies, were tacit and informal. These
norms were reinforced by discursive, formal legitimation structures through unit
planning requirements for teaching multiliteracies. The principal explained:
I also encourage the incorporation of multiliteracies through the unit planning
formats that we use. I have included a section in the unit framework that
prompts teachers to address multiliteracies.

These unit planning requirements established by the principal were used to bridge
the distance between himself and the multiple school classrooms. However, the
implementation of the unit plans was not monitored or sanctioned, and many
teachers resisted efforts to transform existing curricula. The following pragmatic
horizon analysis of an interview response illustrates the degree of effectiveness of
these legitimation structures to ensure access to multiliteracies across the school.

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 213 -
Actors: Teacher and Researcher Date: 5.12.03 Time: 11:40 pm

The teacher discusses the effectiveness of legitimation structures for teaching
multiliteracies in the context of an interview.

73 Teacher: But then it comes down to whether the teachers are
comfortable using it or, or trialling it. Youve still got
teachers that nod and say yes, but then go and do what
theyve been doing for the last twenty years anyway.
74 Researcher: So theres no sort of controls on whether it actually
happens?
75 Teacher: No there should be! (laughs)
76 Researcher: Ok all right. (laughs)
77 Teacher: I think so (emphasis on I).

Teacher: There are teachers who say that they will teach multiliteracies, but in
practice remain fixed in their previous pedagogies.
Teacher: Teachers should not only verbally affirm new multiliteracies pedagogy but
they should seek to change their existing practice.
Less Foregrounded, Less immediate
Teacher: My colleagues should do more than just create a good impression to school
authorities. They should change their pedagogy to meet the new state and
school policy requirements for multiliteracies.
Teacher: Teachers who say that they will accept changes regarding multiliteracies
pedagogy, but in practice remain fixed in their teaching pedagogies,
personally frustrate me.
Table 6.3.1 Pragmatic Horizon Analysis for Legitimation in the School

The unit planning and policy requirements for multiliteracies were intended to
systematise the teaching of multiliteracies across the school, but the implementation
of the curriculum ultimately depended on teacher agency. The unintended
consequence of teachers failing to draw upon these legitimation structures, and
choosing to continue their existing practices, was the uneven teaching of
multiliteracies across the school. When asked how she saw the principals role in
encouraging teachers who might be less interested in teaching multiliteracies, the
teacher responded:

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 214 -
I think he needs to enforce that people are doing things, formalising it a little
bit. He also need to continue supporting us by getting the resources that we
need and the technology and the professional development.

Therefore, a significant system link discovered was that both forms of legitimation
structures norms and sanctions were established by the principal to regulate the
teaching of multiliteracies in classrooms. However, these had a limited degree of
power to ensure that students gained access to multiliteracies.
6.3.2 Legitimation in the Classroom
It was discovered that classroom legitimation structures, in particular sanctioned
modes of conduct, played a powerful role in the uneven distribution of
multiliteracies.

Chapter Five (5.6.1) described a series of incidents involving the teachers efforts to
regulate the moral conduct of five rule-breaking boys. To summarise, the existing
punitive sanctions in the classroom were unable to effectively regulate the conscious
behaviour of the boys during claymation movie making lessons. The boys were
increasingly disruptive and deliberately reduced their labour intensity, invoking the
teacher to establish new sanctions tied to the use of coercive power (Carspecken,
1996; Giddens, 1984, p.15). The new sanctions limited the students choices to two
actions. They could maintain productivity and follow the rules to gain access to
claymation movie-making. Alternatively, they could choose to resist the rules and
receive the sanctions; namely, to be denied access to claymation movie filming,
sound production and digital editing. These circumstances of constraint should not
be equated with the dissolution of agency. Even though power relations appear to
favour the teacher, the students had the opportunity to exert counter-power (Giddens,
1984, p.129).

The boys chose to resist the rules and the teacher chose to enact the sanctions. The
sanctions are outlined in the words of a classroom poster, supported here by
pragmatic horizon analysis to interpret the backgrounded and foregrounded
meanings (See Table 6.3.2.1).

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 215 -

Actors: Permanent Text by Teacher Date: 7.06.04 Time: 12:00 pm Line: 70

The following poster was displayed on the back wall of the classroom to make the
enactment of sanctions for five boys exclusion from claymation overt and
legitimate.

The students in the first list will film their claymation movie. The students in the second
list will not film because they did not complete their work on time. The students in the
third list will not film because they resisted the school rules for behaviour.
Less foregrounded, Less Immediate
The students will receive different privileges based upon their ability to meet norms
(productivity) and sanctioned rules (moral behaviour).
Less Foregrounded, Less immediate
Students are required to follow the school rules for productivity and legitimate ways of
behaving in the classroom. The teacher has the authority to withdraw the privilege of
claymation movie making from the students who do not follow these boundary-
maintaining requirements of the system.
Students should be differentiated from one another to distribute privileges fairly on the
basis of student compliance with expected norms (productivity) and sanctioned rules
(moral behaviour). (also) Filming claymation movies is a privilege that can be withdrawn
from students who resist school rules.
I am a fair teacher.
Table 6.3.2.1 Pragmatic Horizon Analysis for Legitimation in the Classroom

The direct consequence of these legitimation structures was the exclusion of five
boys from powerful, multimodal literacies, such as digital photography, audio
design, script production, digital editing and special effects (See Chapter 5.6.2).
Groups to Film
Slip, Slop, Slap [Jack, Matthew, Mark, Nick],
Inventing a Car [Jim, Bradley, Wooraba],
Making A Healthy Sandwich [Ted, Darles, Julie],
Junk Food Gives You Pimples [Shani, Raleigh, Tenneile, Malee],
Look for Cars [David, Sean, Paweni, Rhonda].
Not filming as sets not complete on time: Breaking the News
(You may display your work completed at book launch but not film).
Not filming because of behaviour: Joshua, Jed, Warren, Jared, Simon
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 216 -
Instead, the boys were kept occupied with monomodal literacy tasks, which were not
situated meaningfully within the wider community (Gee, 2003). Prohibiting access
to real world forms of meaning making for these socio-economically marginalised
boys impeded the transfer of literacy practice to genuine literacy situations in
society. Thus, the reproduction of differential access to multiliteracies was secured,
and agency and structure became synergised to reproduce existing inequities of
class, power, and identity.

A longitudinal study would be required to prove the long-term effects of this
marginalisation in the boys future working lives. However, there was some early
evidence of this in this research. The following is a pragmatic horizon analysis of an
interview transcript involving one of the five boys who received the sanctions.
Actors: Joshua and Researcher Date: 9. 09.04 Time: 10:15 am

This transcript probes Joshuas plans in the future world of work. Joshua has just
explained that when he leaves school, he would like to do the same kind of work
that his father does.

439 Researcher: Um, what does he [Joshuas Father] do?
440 Joshua: He makes garden hoses.pipes.
441 Researcher: Right.
442 Joshua: You know PPI? [Manufacturer]. Near Geebung. Working for
the boss.
443 Researcher: Ok. So is there anything else you might like to dowhen
you become an adult?
444 Joshua: Work at MacDonalds---Because they earn more.

I might work at McDonalds when I become an adult because people who work there earn
good money.
People who work at McDonalds should be paid good money.
I would probably work at McDonalds because I will earn money.
I am looking forward to leaving school and earning money to buy the things I want.
Table 6.3.2.2 Pragmatic Horizon Analysis for Social Reproduction

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 217 -

Joshua, whose father worked as a labourer for a hardware manufacturing company,
stated his desire to do the same kind of work as his father. When prompted by the
researcher to think of alternatives, he stated that he would like to work at
McDonalds when he grows up because he imagines that he will get more money.
In this way, the observed social practices in the school were connected to features of
the society in general, and the wider system through which societys inequitable
conditions and structures are eventually realised (Giddens, 1984; Kaspersen, 2000).
6.3.3 Legitimation in the State and National Systems
The Queensland Department of Education and professional development
associations were also relevant structures of legitimation in this research. These
structures made their power felt vis--vis multiliteracies via the Years 1-10 English
Syllabus (Queensland Studies Authority, 2005), the Literate Futures initiative
(Education Queensland, 2002), and the Learning by Design project by Kalantzis and
Cope (2005).

The teacher identified two forms of legitimation structures, namely, informal norms
and formalised rules, that had contributed to the teaching of multiliteracies in the
school, expressed in this statement:
Its both. In state-wide policies, such as the new Literate Futures,
multiliteracies is a big focus. So it has been introduced formally, and all staff,
well, in our district at least, that I know of have been in-serviced in it.

The teacher continued to describe norms for teaching multiliteracies, such as the
expectation to display students multimodal designs in hallways, and for teachers to
share their curriculum ideas, expertise, and materials for teaching multiliteracies
with other staff. The teacher described that legitimation structures authorising the
implementation of multiliteracies across the school were in a process of becoming
formalised over time.
At the moment, a staff member and I are writing a reading policy, but were
waiting for the new Literate Futures CD ROM to come out. Then it will be for
all teachers: Yes, you will be doing this. Well also be getting a lot more in-
service. Nothing is formal yet, but its in the pipeline to become formal. I think
currently, teachers are just experimenting with what they can do with it
[multiliteracies].

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 218 -
The effectiveness of formal legitimation structures was partially constrained by the
enclosed nature of the school from outside agencies, such as the Queensland
Department of Education. This was incurred by the nature of the school as a
disciplinary organisation in which the intensity of surveillance inside the school
necessary to ensure the power of teachers over students inhibits direct control from
the agencies represented by the school (Giddens, 1984, p.139). Consequently,
teachers were afforded a significant degree of autonomy from direct supervisory
control of the state to regulate multiliteracies praxis.

Therefore, legitimation structures, such as state-mandated policies, were becoming
formalised over time, serving to increase the current levels of access to
multiliteracies across the school. However, these formal legitimation structures were
unable to completely overcome the absence of face-to-face interaction between the
state Department of Education and the school, resulting in the uneven distribution of
multiliteracies.
6.3.4 Legitimation in the Local System
Differences between structures of legitimation in the students homes and those of
the school were found to contribute to the differential distribution of access to
multiliteracies among the students. For example, Table 6.3.4 compares the responses
of four students to interview questions about rules and norms for engaging in
multiliteracies at home.

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 219 -
Ted
(Aboriginal)
Darles
(Sudanese)
Joshua
(Anglo)
Malee
(Tongan)
Do you
read at
home?
Not really Yes chapter books
and magazines
Some-
times
Yes novels
How often
do you
read?
[Could not name
any reading
materials]
Every day Once a
month
Twice a week for
10 minutes
Do you
write at
home?
Na. Yes every day for at
least 10 minutes.
Homework, notes,
letters, drawing
I draw.
Phone
messages
Yes stories and a
diary after I finish
my homework.
(1 page or hour).
Are there
any rules
about
homewor
k?
If I have homework
and I go to my
uncles after
school, I cant do it
because we dont
get home until
midnight.
10 minutes of reading,
10 minutes of writing,
and only watch our
favourite TV shows
because too much
damages us.
Do what
I have to
do (what
the
school
says).
Yes finish
homework before
watching TV. Read
first
Does
anyone
use the
computer
at home?
What for?
I dont know what
they do.
[Ted does not own
a computer & lives
with his Uncle,
single mum and
many cousins]
My brother uses it for
homework.
My Dad usually
searches things on
Arabic on the
computer.
My mum just uses it for
typing.
My older
sister
teaches
me how
to do
graphics.
My Dad uses it and
showed me how to
send emails. Now I
live with my Aunt
and Uncle who
dont have a
computer. My
parents live in
Tonga.
Table 6.3.4 Comparison of Rules and Norms for using Multiliteracies at Home

The student interviews demonstrated that students day-to-day routines for reading,
writing, and multimodal designing varied significantly, tied to differing family
cultures and values. These findings were supported by the teachers reflections on
the cultural differences of students in her year two class, and its relationship to the
way in which digital multiliteracies were accessed in the school context.
Culture race has a lot to do with it, because I know that Tawadi, who is an
African child in my classroom, really struggles with computers. He just never
gets exposed to it. And its not very important in his culture.

Whereas, Ive got a girl in my class whos Korean, and her family are quite
technologyfocused. So shes really quite good. She knows that its
somethingthats important to her culture.

These system links in the local community underscore the principle that students
themselves did not exclusively invent their attitudes and uses of multiliteracies at
school. Rather, they drew upon different legitimation structures and funds of
experiences built into their lives outside of school, built up historically within their
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 220 -
communities. The established norms and rules for multiliteracies in students homes
and the attendant cultural dimensions of students lives were not the same, and thus,
students had entirely unequal possibilities for action at school. This explains why
students acted differently during multiliteracies lessons, and why rules and resources
utilised in their actions were not the same for all (Kaspersen, 2000, p.163). In
bringing their differing cultural experiences to bear on the school milieu, they
reproduced the structures that maintained inequitable configurations of access to
multiliteracies (Giddens, 1984).
6.4 System Reproduction of Access to Multiliteracies
The sociological principle of system reproduction is a key factor to explain the
differential access to multiliteracies among the culturally and linguistically diverse
learners. System reproduction, that is, the repetition of the same actions and
structures, worked through domination, signification, and legitimation structures in
specific ways, discussed here to theorise the findings reported in this chapter.

Firstly, system reproduction of differential access to multiliteracies operated through
domination structures, both material and human resources, administered by the
Queensland Government. The principal reflexively directed economic resources to
purchase technological resources, professional development for teachers, and ESL
teachers to extend current levels of access to multiliteracies. However, these
economic resources were inadequate, particularly for the Sudanese refugees in the
lower and middle primary who lacked the prerequisite language skills to participate
fully in the social practices of the classroom. Thus, ESL students could not gain
access to the powerful, digitally mediated and multimodal resources for meaning
making that are required for their successful participation in society. In this way,
domination structures within the state social system created conditions for the
unequal distribution of multiliteracies, contributing to the social reproduction of
disadvantage.

Social reproduction through domination structures was also evident in relation to the
unequal allocative resources for multiliteracies in students homes, such as new
technologies for communication. These patterns of economic marginalisation limited
the students power to take up multiliteracies in the classroom, reproducing in the
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 221 -
school, the marginalisation of their home contexts. The unintended consequences in
the school had became a by-product of the regularised behaviour of the participants
in their homes (Giddens, 1984).

Secondly, system reproduction of differential access to multiliteracies occurred
through structures of signification, in particular the practice of ability grouping.
This institutionalised practice was a form of differentiation that distributed different
literacies to different students in a marginalising way. The low-ability students
received monomodal literacies and transmissive forms of pedagogy, while the
average-ability group accessed interactive pedagogies and digitally mediated
multiliteracies. System links to patterns of marginalisation in the wider society was
apparent because the low-ability group was comprised of the ethnically and socio-
economically marginalised students, while the average-ability group was exclusively
comprised of middle-class, Anglo-Australian students. Thus, ability grouping and its
attendant distribution of multiliteracies served to sustain the social reproduction of
disadvantage.

Thirdly, system reproduction of the uneven distribution of multiliteracies worked
through legitimation structures in the classroom. Formal sanctions used to regulate
appropriate student behaviour militated against the boys from low socioeconomic
backgrounds. In particular, the teacher drew upon formal sanctions exclusion from
claymation movie making that were intended to deter students from classroom rule
breaking.

However, the sanctions failed to prevent the boys acts of resistance. The boys
exercised their agency by applying their discursive and practical knowledge of the
school environment to oppose the system. For example, the boys actively opposed
the authority relations of the school and had a well-developed ability to identify
points of weakness in the disciplinary power of the system. They found ways to
escape the surveillance of the teacher in legitimate ways during formal lessons in the
back regions of the school, such as the toilets. They spent extensive time drawing
pictures instead of writing during the enactment of the sanctions. In this way, they
applied their power to modify the sanctions for their immediate benefit,
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 222 -
demonstrating a form of oppositional agency often overlooked in the analysis of
system reproduction in schools.

Thus, there was evidence of a dialectic of control between the teacher and the boys,
that is, a complex fusion of determinism (of the structure) and voluntarism (of the
actors) (Kaspersen, 2000). These processes ultimately contributed to the system
reproduction of marginalisation by distributing exclusively monomodal literacies to
the socio-economically disadvantaged boys.

Therefore, system reproduction was evident in the differential distribution of
multiliteracies in the school, which was an unintended consequence of these specific
system relations across the classroom, school, local community and wider society.
6.5 Summary of Chapter Six
To conclude, the aim of this chapter has been to produce an explanation of access to
multiliteracies observed in this study, which takes into account complex system
relations, involving both agency and structure (Kaspersen, 2000). The principal,
teacher, and students in this research contributed to the production and reproduction
of the differential distribution of multiliteracies in the school through their actions as
agents with purpose. The school, and the educational system more generally, were
both a means and an outcome of their actions. In other words, actors drew upon
institutional structures resources, meanings, and rules in a recursive way,
shaping the conditions of their own actions (Giddens, 1984, p.2). Thus, the
individual actions of the teacher and students were not determined by institutional
structures. Rather, students had differential access to multiliteracies through a
process whereby individual actions in the classroom simultaneously structured and
were structured by the system (Kaspersen, 2000).

The three interpretive criteria applied here domination, signification, and
legitimation contributed to an explanation of why regionalised patterns of action in
the classroom and wider social system were repeated, along with the unintended
consequences that served to reproduce the uneven distribution of multiliteracies
(Giddens, 1984, p.81, 84, 251; Kaspersen, 2000). Although the differential
distribution of multiliteracies in the wider society was reproduced in school by the
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 223 -
intentional activities of policy makers, the principal, teachers, and students, it was
not intended in that direction. Therefore, it is an aim of this research to raise the
consciousness of those involved in multiliteracies praxis, to bring the intersections
of agency, structure and access under a degree of positive, conscious guidance in the
future.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 224 -
Chapter Seven Conclusion, Significance and Recommendations

7.0 Introduction
This research investigated the question:
classroom group?

The historical problem of the distribution of literacies in the institution of schooling
was re-examined in the context of a teachers enactment of the multiliteracies
pedagogy in the contemporary communications environment (Cope & Kalantzis,
2000b). This inquiry uncovered the workings of power in relation to the distribution
of multiliteracies among a culturally and linguistically diverse year six classroom.

The question was investigated by applying Carspeckens (1996) critical ethnography,
utilising monological and dialogical data obtained during eighteen days in the
classroom over ten weeks. Data collection tools used during lesson observations
included field notes, journal notes, continuous audio-visual and audio cassette
recording, and cultural artefacts such as school-based curriculum documents,
students work samples, and photographs. Semi-structured interviews were
conducted with the principal, teacher and four student participants of Anglo-
Australian, Indigenous, Tongan, and Sudanese ethnicity. Data analytic tools
included low and high inference coding. Pragmatic horizon analysis, a critical
ethnographic method of analysing verbatim speech, was applied to relevant
segments of the data. Finally, systems analysis, which drew upon Giddens (1984)
structuration theory, was used to situate the classroom data within the enabling and
constraining powers of the wider social system.

This final chapter of the thesis summarises the results, which are presented in two
sections: a) Classroom Findings, and b) Systems Relations. A theoretical model for
access to multiliteracies arises from this synthesis, presented diagrammatically and
discursively. The significance of the study for multiliteracies policy and praxis is
argued. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the limitations and
recommendations of the research.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 225 -
7.1 Summary of the Study
The students access to multiliteracies needs to be interpreted in light of the duality
between the actions of students and the teacher, and the structures within the school
and wider social system that enabled or constrained their action. These structures
were economic (domination), cultural (symbolic), and political (legitimation).
7.1.1 Classroom Findings
The analytic themes for classroom data pedagogy, power and discourse were
drawn from the following theorists:
a) New London Groups (1996) multiliteracies pedagogy and Kalantzis and
Copes (2005) Learning by Design model;
b) Carspeckens (1996) typology of power relations and McLarens (1993)
theory of resistance;
c) Gees (1996) social linguistic theory of discourse.

Table 7.1.1 summarises the significant findings from the lesson data.
P
e
d
a
g
o
g
y

The teachers existing monomodal pedagogies constrained access
Monomodal writing pedagogies were used exclusively with the low-ability group,
and did not reflect the powerful, multimodal practices used in society
English grammar lessons were used to teach an exclusive language form to low-
ability groups at the expense of a flexible, multimodal grammar
During screen-based design, digitally mediated, multimodal textual practices
were distributed to students who were the most proficient
Using computers to type from handwritten drafts confined meaning making to a
lengthy, linear, and repetitive process instead of non-linear designing.
Sustained use of situated practice and need for expert scaffolding constrained
access to multiliteracies
Ethnically marginalised learners benefited least from implicit teaching
Overt instruction became teacher-centred transmission, which was not
sufficient for learners to transform meaning making resources

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 226 -
P
e
d
a
g
o
g
y

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)

The enactment of critical framing enabled learners to critically analyse the
underlying purposes, value and meanings of designs and to analyse functionally
the structure, connections and context of design elements
Transformed practice engaged with the lifeworlds of students with varying
degrees of inclusion, from reproduction to innovation
Students least able to access new designs of meaning were learners from
ethnically and socio-economically marginalised groups
P
o
w
e
r

Use of coercive power excluded five boys from digital, multimodal designing
Monomodal literacies became a sanction for rule-breaking to replace digitally
mediated, multimodal designing
Students who were excluded were from low socio-economic backgrounds
D
i
s
c
o
u
r
s
e

Ethnically marginalised learners were unable to draw from their cultural
resources
Secondary discourses of the classroom were more accessible to Anglo-
Australians
Ethnically marginalised students were unfamiliar with rules for collaborative
designing
Ethnically marginalised students required clearer expectations
Table 7.1.1 Summary of Classroom Findings
Findings concerning pedagogy demonstrated that the teacher frequently drew from
existing monomodal practices for low-ability groups, while intending to implement
the multiliteracies pedagogy. These monomodal writing pedagogies prohibited
students from gaining access to the multimodal and culturally and linguistically
diverse forms of meaning making. The exclusive and intensive focus on a set of
invariable, linear writing steps neglected the learners potentials in other modes that
are required to communicate powerfully in society. Furthermore, the students were
unable to express their interests and purposes in designing, which was
predetermined by the teacher within the broader institutional context of the school
(Cope, 2000).

English grammar lessons were taught exclusively to the low-ability group, involving
direct instruction to teach Standard English. Importance was attached to learning
English at the lexico-grammatical level at the expense of the full repertoire of visual,
audio, spatial, gestural, and linguistic design elements. This transmissive pedagogy
did not involve the transfer of literacy practice to genuine literacy situations outside
the classroom. The theory of multiliteracies emphasises the necessity of an open-
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 227 -
ended and flexible functional grammar, which assists language learners to describe
language differences. No longer can antiquated pedagogies of a standard, national
language be used exclusively (New London Group, 2000, p.6).

During screen-based lessons, ability grouping and its associated routines and
practices worked to distribute digitally mediated practices to students who were the
most proficient, while disenfranchising those who were not, confirming existing
research that access to screen-based modes is fundamentally tied to economic
privilege (Luke, 2000). Ability grouping is a differentiating practice grounded in a
psychological perspective that labels cultural differences and varied experiences as
literacy deficits. This practice assumes developmental contingency in literacy
learning; that is, when students learn monomodal decoding then comprehension will
follow, and later, critical analysis. Advanced, screen-based textual practices should
not be distributed exclusively to students who demonstrate the greatest competence
based on pedagogical expediency. Schools should not prescribe which categories of
students can access advanced forms of digital representation, while excluding
marginalised groups from these powerful literacies.

Using computers to type handwritten drafts also confined meaning making to a
lengthy, linear, and repetitive process of designing. Computers were used to support
obsolete textual practices such as typing from hand-written drafts, rather than
allowing new word-processing software and technologies to transform designing.
Screen-based communication challenges typical notions of textual construction with
non-linear, flexible, interactive environments, open to continuous manipulation.
Electronic texts are able to be changed, reproduced, stored, retrieved, searched, and
re-authored continuously, and do not remain as static, independent units. Author-
controlled writing processes of the past, where texts were always written in a
predetermined linear direction, are no longer fixed (Green & Bigum, 2003; Healy,
1999; Landow & Delany, 1991; Snyder, 1998).

The sustained use of situated practice during claymation movie set designing
constrained learners access to multiliteracies. Students were unable to experience
successful three-dimensional visual and spatial designing without the provision of
scaffolding or temporary support structures provided by expert novices people
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 228 -
who are experts at learning new domains in some depth such as the teacher or
peers or through books and technologies. Most importantly, culturally marginalised
learners benefited least from implicit teaching methods. Forms of overt instruction
were needed to supplement immersion to enable these learners to gain conscious
awareness and control of new representational resources (New London Group, 2000).

Overt instruction was enacted as teacher-centred transmission, which was not
sufficient for learners to transform meaning making resources. Learners experienced
difficulty designing movie storyboards, and failed to understand the relations
between camera angles and the dimensions of the movie sets without situated
practice. A significant finding was that the collaborative groups least able to access
new designs of meaning through transmissive pedagogies were those who were
socio economically and ethnically marginalised. There was a need for interventions
by the teacher and other experts to scaffold claymation designing, and to provide
explicit knowledge when it could most profitably systematise and direct practice.
Students were unable to demonstrate conscious awareness and control over the intra-
systematic relations of three-dimensional designing and digital filming (New
London Group, 2000, p.33).

During the successful enactment of critical framing, students were firstly enabled to
analyse the general function or purpose of multimodal texts, and to make causal
connections between design elements and their social context (analysing
functionally) (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005, p.96). Secondly, they were guided to
analyse the explicit and implicit motives and agendas and interests behind designs,
such as the authors messages and intended audiences (analysing critically)
(Kalantzis & Cope, 2005, p.96). Furthermore, students were able to apply both
forms of analysis to the purposes of their own claymation movie designs.

Transformed practice engaged inclusively with the divergent lifeworlds of students
to varying degrees. An analysis of the students claymation movies showed that
students designing ranged from discernable reproduction to substantial innovation
(Cope, 2000). For marginalised students, the transition from their lifeworlds to
claymation designing required a complex negotiation between the discourses of the
classroom and their subjective experiences. The language experiences that the
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 229 -
children brought from home assisted them to varying degrees when they
encountered digitally mediated and collaborative modes of communication (Bull &
Anstey, 2003a).

The analysis of power demonstrated how interactions between the teachers use of
coercive power and students resistance to the dominant discourse functioned as a
form of domination, excluding five boys of low socioeconomic backgrounds from
digitally mediated multiliteracies (Carspecken, 1996; McLaren, 1993). Monomodal
literacies, such as story writing, became a sanction for rule breaking. This replaced
claymation movie making which involved more powerful, digitally mediated,
multimodal designing for a real world purposes. This pattern was observed
repeatedly in the wider locale of the school.

In relation to discourses, culturally marginalised students were unable to draw from
their existing cultural resources. Conditions or restrictions were placed upon the use
of their primary discourses in the classroom, despite the teachers discursive
knowledge of the need for cultural inclusiveness. This opposes the heart of
multiliteracies (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000b). The secondary discourses of the
classroom were more accessible to children from the dominant, Anglo-Australian
culture, because they were congruent with their experiences (Gallas et al., 1996).
The Sudanese, Indigenous, Tongan and Thai students were least familiar with the
tacit norms and rules for collaborative group work. These students only contributed
to collaborative designing when peers or the teacher communicated expectations to
them clearly, personally, and directly.

These findings demonstrate that students access to multiliteracies was affected by
the teachers enactment of pedagogy, power, and discourses in the classroom.
Ultimately, students of the dominant, Anglo-Australian, middle class culture were
enabled by these factors, while students who were ethnically and socio-economically
marginalised, were constrained. In an era of increasing local diversity and global
interconnectedness, access to multiliteracies requires both teacher and students
crossing cultural boundaries, switching between one lifeworld context and other
(Cope, 2000, p.211). The successful enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy
begins with a focus on change and transformation, rather than a focus on stability
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 230 -
and regularity. Students must be seen as individuals who have at their disposal a
complex range of representational resources, grounded in their cultural experiences
and layers of their identities. Students need to be able to draw from the breadth,
complexity and richness of the available meaning making resources so that
designing is not simply a matter of reproduction, but a matter of transformation
(Cope, 2000, p.204).
7.1.2 Systems Relations
The study of the individual teacher and her students must be located within the
wider structures of power in the school and society. Tables 7.1.2.1 and 7.1.2.2 take
into account both enabling and constraining institutional structures, and the agency
of individuals who drew upon them to enable students to access multiliteracies.

Domination structures the allocation and authorisation of material and human
resources were analysed at the school, local, state and national levels (Giddens,
1984). An important outcome was that the principal and teacher drew upon available
domination structures to provide students with access to multiliteracies, including
educational policies, curriculum, and professional development initiatives for
multiliteracies in Queensland (See 6.1.1).

The principal reflexively gave priority to multiliteracies when selecting professional
development opportunities for teachers, and purchased new technologies and
material resources to enable teachers to broaden the repertoire of literacies taught.
Similarly, the teacher drew upon discretionary economic resources such as grants to
attain professional development in multiliteracies. This use of economic resources
enabled her to reflect on the routine social practices of classroom life to transform
them. This new consciousness moved her from routine action to reflexive
discursiveness, changing her pedagogical patterns of action in the light of new
information (Giddens, 1984). The teacher was enabled to use the schools existing
resources more effectively, and requested, obtained and utilised new allocative
resources for teaching multiliteracies. When resource allocations were insufficient to

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 231 -
Enabling Structures Affecting Access to Multiliteracies
Agency of
Principal
Prioritised professional
development for
teachers in
multiliteracies
Prioritised funds to
obtain human &
material resources for
Provided ESL teachers
& support for teachers
with ESL students
Principal encouraged
students to draw upon
their own cultural
symbols in events
embedded in the
institutional structure
(e.g. Sudanese dance)
Principal initiated the
teaching of
multiliteracies by
informal norms (e.g.
verbal encouragement)
and formal
requirements (e.g. unit
planning)
Agency of
Teacher/s
Accessed professional
development from
multiple sources
Accessed grant for
Access to resources
and personnel for
multiliteracies
exceeded regular
allocations
Became member of
school committees to
gain greater power to
control resources
Modes of discourse
used in the classroom
enabled culturally
dominant students to
access multiliteracies
Reflexively changed
pedagogy in response
to policy initiatives
Became a catalyst for
change to encourage
other teachers to use
multiliteracies
Informal professional
networks increased
teacher knowledge and
enthusiasm to
implement the
multiliteracies
pedagogy
Agency of
Students
Students interest in
accessing
multiliteracies at
school varied,
depending on levels of
economic resources to
support multiliteracies
at home
Students who were
familiar with the
structure of English
were enabled to access
literacy in the school
context
Students who were
familiar with digital
multiliteracies were
enabled to access
digital literacies
Students who chose to
follow school rules
gained privileged
access to
multiliteracies
Culturally dominant
students drew upon
their existing
knowledge of school
discourses to access
multiliteracies
State &
National
Systems
Higher levels of state
funds were provided to
support ESL students
(e.g. Sudanese
refugees) than
culturally dominant
students
Australian society
requires schools to
draw upon multiple
symbolic structures to
prepare students for
participation in
contemporary private,
work, and public life.
Formalised state-wide
educational initiatives,
such as Literate
Futures (Anstey,
2002), increased
teacher knowledge of
multiliteracies
Queensland syllabus
increased teachers
awareness of
multimodal forms of
communication and
need to respond to
cultural diversity
Table 7.1.2.1 Systems Relations that Enabled Access to Multiliteracies

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 232 -

Constraining Structures Affecting Access to Multiliteracies
Agency of
Principal
Limited by
inadequate state
funds for human
resources (e.g. ESL
teachers)
Limited structures to
ensure that
knowledge &
material resources
for multiliteracies
were utilised by all
teachers
Deferred the control of
pedagogy to teachers,
resulting in the uneven
teaching of
multiliteracies across
the school
Legitimation
structures for
multiliteracies (e.g.
unit planning and
verbal
encouragement), had
a limited degree of
power to ensure the
teaching of
multiliteracies
across the school
Agency of
Teacher/s
Initiative to access
resources for
teaching
multiliteracies
varied among
teachers
Limited by
inadequate human
resources for ESL
students and
multimedia
technologies
Ability grouping
distributed different
literacies in a
marginalising way
low ability groups
received monomodal
rather than multimodal
literacies, and
transmissive
pedagogies rather than
the multiliteracies
pedagogy.
Dialectic of control
between formal
sanctions and
student resistance to
rules resulted in
exclusion from
designing for
economically
marginalised boys
Agency of
Students
Limited access to
allocative resources
for multimodal
designing in homes
(economic
conditions of action)
resulted in uneven
access to
multiliteracies at
school
Students possessed
varied symbolic
resources, resulting in
different degrees of
agency to access
multiliteracies at
school.
Rules and norms for
reading, writing, and
multimodal
designing varied
among students,
resulting in differing
degrees of power to
access
multiliteracies at
school
State &
National
Systems
State provision of
human resources
were inadequate for
ESL & and
Indigenous
Australian students
National use of
English as dominant
language constrained
ESL students and
those with subcultural
dialects of English, but
enabled Anglo-
Australians
State policies did not
ensure the teaching
of multiliteracies
across all classrooms
due to time/space
distance between
political departments
and the school
Table 7.1.2.2 Systems Relations that Constrained Access to Multiliteracies
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 233 -

achieve her pedagogical aims, she located underutilised resources from other
departments. She also gained membership in curriculum committees and
professional development networks to gain greater control of resources for teaching
multiliteracies.

However, other teachers in the school resisted efforts to implement the
multiliteracies pedagogy. As discussed in Chapter 6.1, this contributed to the
reproduction of existing pedagogies and levels of student access to multiliteracies.
The principal did not establish systems to ensure that allocative and authoritative
resources for multiliteracies were drawn upon by all teachers. Furthermore, because
of the time-space distance between the school and authorities, there was limited
supervisory control of the enactment of multiliteracies from outside agencies such as
the Queensland Department of Education (Giddens, 1984).

A pertinent discovery regarding domination structures at the state level was the
inadequate allocative and authoritative resources from the Queensland Department
of Education for the large cohort of Sudanese refugees and Aboriginal students who
required particularly high levels of literacy support. Neither the principal nor
teachers had sufficient transformative capacity to ensure that access to
multiliteracies was provided to these students (See 6.1.3).

With regard to domination in the local system, a significant finding was that
economic constraints in students homes reproduced differential access to
multiliteracies in the school. Access to digital, multimodal designing was greater at
school than at home for Indigenous, Sudanese, Thai, Tongan, and Anglo-Saxon
students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds. There was no scaffolding or
modelling of digital designing for the Indigenous and Tongan learners at home. The
lack of economic resources was so marked in some homes of these students that
basic needs of food and safety took priority over access to multiliteracies. Therefore,
domination structures and their associated network of intentional human actions
ultimately served to sustain and reproduce unequal access to multiliteracies (See
6.1.4).

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 234 -
Signification structures also mediated the distribution of access to multiliteracies
(6.2). In particular, the principal and teacher acted reflexively to transform the
symbolic routines of the school. For example, the principal made institutionalised
links with the local Sudanese community to host Sudanese dances in the school hall.
However, such events were exceptions to the reified structures of signification in the
school that were tied to the dominant culture. Another important finding was that the
principal exercised limited control of classroom signification structures, such as the
use of the multiliteracies pedagogy, deferring these decisions to the agency of
teachers. This contributed to the asymmetrical distribution of access to
multiliteracies across the school, which was dependent upon the agency of interested
teachers.

In the classroom, the symbolic practice of ability grouping for English was found to
be a constraining form of differentiation, distributing different literacies to students
in a marginalising way. The low-ability group received monomodal literacies and
transmissive forms of pedagogy, which created the conditions for further
marginalisation. Transmissive pedagogy used to regulate the behaviour of the low-
ability literacy group did not foster decision-making, communication, creative and
technological skills that are required to transcend working-class jobs. Furthermore,
the low-ability groups were comprised of the culturally, linguistically, and socio-
economically marginalised students. Thus, the signification structure of ability
grouping for English, and its attendant distribution of monomodal literacies
unintentionally contributed to a non-reflexive causal loop that sustained the unequal
distribution of multiliteracies (Giddens, 1984).

Legitimation structures drawn upon by the principal for multiliteracies included unit
planning requirements (formal rules) and verbal encouragement of teachers (norms).
However, there was not an effective system to ensure that these legitimation
structures for teaching multiliteracies were drawn upon by all teachers, who
remained fixed in their existing teaching practices. Thus, these tacit norms and
formal rules had a limited degree of power to ensure the teaching of multiliteracies
across the school.

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 235 -
In the classroom, the most important factor influencing students access to
multiliteracies through legitimation structures, was the dialectic of control between
formal sanctions and student resistance to rules. This unintentionally prohibited five
economically marginalised boys from accessing digital multiliteracies. Furthermore,
the sanctions involved the substitution of monomodal literacies for the powerful,
digital aspects of movie-making. A by-product of these interactions was the unequal
distribution of access to multiliteracies that will potentially limit their employment
opportunities (Giddens, 1984).

At the state and national level, it was found that political structures of legitimation,
such as the Years 1-10 English Syllabus (Queensland Studies Authority, 2005),
stimulated the principal and teacher to begin the process of formalising the teaching
of multiliteracies in the school. However, state policies did not have the power to
regulate the teaching of multiliteracies across all classrooms because of the time-
space distance between the Department of Education and the school.

Structures of legitimation in the students homes differed in varying degrees to those
of the school. Rules and norms for reading, writing, and multimodal designing
varied among students, resulting in differing degrees of power to access
multiliteracies at school. Consequently, students had markedly unequal possibilities
for action during the multiliteracies lessons (Kaspersen, 2000). In bringing their
differing cultural experiences to school, they reproduced the structures that
maintained inequitable configurations of access to multiliteracies (Giddens, 1984).
7.2 Model of Differential Access to Multiliteracies
This thesis aimed to explain the distribution of access to multiliteracies through the
lens of Giddens (1984) structuration theory. Differential access to multiliteracies
resulted from unintended consequences of complex interactions between intentional
individual activities and social structures. The three interpretive criteria of Giddens
structuration theory domination (allocative and authoritative resources),
signification (meaning), and legitimation (norms and sanctions) help to explain
how patterns of action in the classroom and wider social system were repeated,
serving to reproduce the asymmetrical distribution of multiliteracies (Giddens, 1984;
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 236 -
Kaspersen, 2000). This analysis of classroom interactions and system relations is
represented diagrammatically in Figure 7.2.

Figure 7.2 Model of Differential Access to Multiliteracies

The following thesis statement provides an explanation of Figure 7.2:
Students access to multiliteracies among a culturally and linguistically
diverse group was differential. Their experiences varied on a continuum from
reproduction of existing degrees of access, to transformed designing. These
experiences were mediated by pedagogy, power, and discourses in the
classroom, which were in turn influenced by the agency of individuals. The
individuals were both enabled and constrained by domination, signification
and legitimation structures within the school and wider social system.

This thesis has confirmed a perspective of critical sociology, which is that despite
the intentions and efforts of educators, the school system is not providing equitable
access to powerful literacies (Gee, 1996; Luke, 1994). Historically, schools in the
West have evolved as institutional sites for the reproduction of stratified
sociocultural inequality (Apple, 1995; Freire & Macedo, 1987; Luke et al., 2003;
McLaren, 1989; Popkewitz & Guba, 1990; Wexler, 1987). At the same time, many
educators are striving to transform literacy curricula through the multiliteracies
pedagogy, with the goal of increasing students powerful participation in a
multiliterate culture. Multiliteracies represents the beginning of a reflexive move
towards a culturally and linguistically diverse, and multimodal English curriculum.

System
Relations
Domination
Signification
Legitimation
System Reproduction
of Differential Access to
Multiliteracies
Classroom
Relations
Pedagogy
Power
Discourse
Enabling &
Constraining
Structures
Agency
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 237 -
This has not yet been realised in the manner intended by its proponents (New

This research has demonstrated that access to multiliteracies remains linked to the
distribution of knowledge and power in contemporary society. This issue is
significant, not only for individual students lives and economic destinies, but for the
overall distribution of competence and knowledge, wealth and power. The findings
of this research were consistent with historical patterns of cultural, linguistic and
socio-economic marginalisation, tied to a self-reproductive function of schooling.

Despite the enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy initiated by system level
change and the agency of individuals throughout the system, the school continued to
parcel out different literacies for diverse groups of students, based on uneven
configurations of social power. In turn, varying kinds and levels of cultural capital
will limit or broaden students entry into different life trajectories in their future
world of work, citizenship and personal relationships (Luke, 1994). Inequitable
practices such as ability grouping attributed stratified levels of reading and writing
to individual differences, which unintentionally fell along the historical grids of
social class, ethnicity and gender. For example, there were a higher percentage of
boys allocated to low-ability groups (Anyon, 1981; Luke, 1994). Hence, the school
both permitted and prevented access to multiple languages and discourses, and was a
system of both inclusion and exclusion.

The teachers enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy was not sufficient to
overcome these inequitable school practices that worked against the ideals of the
multiliteracies pedagogy. A multiliteracies approach is tied to a sociocultural rather
than psychological model that recognises and capitalises on the varied and hybrid
cultural resources that children bring to classrooms (Luke, 1994). Students from low
socioeconomic, culturally marginalised, and culturally dominant backgrounds have
an equal right to multiliteracies.

Although the differential distribution of multiliteracies was reproduced by the
intentional activities of individuals, the actors did not intend this outcome. The
distribution of multiliteracies eluded the concerted effort of policy makers, the
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 238 -
principal and teacher to transform the system (Giddens, 1984). Here, Giddens
principle of system reproduction is a key explanation for the uneven access to
multiliteracies among the culturally and linguistically diverse learners. System
reproduction connotes the repetition of the same actions and structures, rather than
their inherent invariability. Conversely, there was some evidence of system change.
This occurred when individuals, through intentioned action, raised consciousness of
multiliteracies. This brought the disparity between marginalised and dominant
students under some degree of conscious, positive direction. For example, the
teachers initiative to apply for a multiliteracies grant resulted in a positive feedback
loop, whereby the professional development transformed her ability to reflect on the
routine social practices of classroom life and, more importantly, to change them.

The principal, teacher and students are knowledgeable and purposive agents, able to
be reflexive in the reordering of social practices to improve access to multiliteracies.
Students were able, by varying degrees, to gain or resist access to multiliteracies,
while the principal and teacher drew upon the available structures to recursively
transform existing pedagogies to provide this access. This is important because
access to multiliteracies was not pre-determined or entirely constrained by the
existing institutional structures, but was mediated by the reflexive agency of the
research participants. For example, the principal initiated whole school unit
planning that included some attention to multiliteracies, while the teacher widened
the students collaborative designing to include multiple modes (Giddens, 1984).

Access to multiliteracies, like certain self-reproducing items in nature, was found to
be recursive. That is to say, access to multiliteracies was not brought into being by
the agency of the principal, teacher and students, but was continually recreated by
them via the structures or means available. Through their activities, they reproduced
the conditions that made or constrained access to multiliteracies (Giddens, 1984).
For example, students designing of effective and hybrid claymation movies for their
younger peers was not exclusively the result of their own actions in the classroom.
Rather, these students reproduced existing conditions, such as their cultural and
linguistic resources from home and school, securing their continued degree of access
to multiliteracies.

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 239 -
This explanation of differential access to multiliteracies has given attention to the
micro-level action of individuals in the classroom, and macro-level or system factors
in the wider social context. Furthermore, it has taken account of the enabling and
constraining forces which were at times mediated by social structures, and at other
times, by individuals who utililised these structures in positive or negative ways.
7.3 Significance of the Study
In Chapter One the potential of the study was outlined in relation to its local
importance for multiliteracies policy and praxis (See 1.3-1.4). In this section, the
outcomes of the research are synthesised with respect to these issues.
7.3.1 Significance for Multiliteracies Policy
The findings of the study are relevant to educational policies authorising the
teaching of multiliteracies. Chapter One reviewed current state policies and
standards in Queensland addressing the need for technological, multimodal and
culturally diverse textual practice. These included the Queensland Years 1-10
English Syllabus (Queensland Studies Authority, 2005), the Queensland Board of
Teacher Registration literacy standards for teacher education pre-service programs
(Board of Teacher Registration Queensland, 2001), and Literature Futures (Anstey,
2002). Issues of multimodality, digital literacies and culturally diverse textual
practice have existed since before the turn of the century. These include policies and
initiatives such as New Basics (Education Queensland, 2001), 2010 Queensland
State Education (Education Queensland, 1999), and the Queensland Years 1-10
English Language Arts Syllabus (Education Queensland, 1994). Syllabi in all
Australian states and territories emphasise the need for students to use multimodal
and digital texts for a variety of cultural purposes (ACT Department of Education
and Training, 2001; Board of Studies New South Wales, 1998; Department of
Education and Training Western Australia, 2005; Department of Education
Tasmania, 2004; Department of Employment Education and Training Northern
Territory, 2005; South Australian Department of Education and Children's Services,
2004; Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority, 2005). Thus, the outcomes
of this research have value in a political context in which the teaching of multimodal
and culturally diverse forms of communication is now a requirement.

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 240 -
Despite the global importance of multiliteracies and these state educational
initiatives, there is a paucity of research investigating the outcomes of these policies
for enabling access to multiliteracies in primary schools (Department of Education
Employment Training and Youth Affairs, 1997). This investigation demonstrated
how these policy initiatives provided impetus for the teacher to enact the
multiliteracies pedagogy. The teacher sought to induct students into versatile and
flexible multiliterate competences to contend with diverse texts in various media for
varying cultural purposes. However, not all students gained access to the powerful,
digital forms of communication for different cultural purposes. Certain students
were prohibited by the persistence of past pedagogies, the use of coercive power,
and the secondary discourses of the classroom (Gee, 1996). To facilitate
constructive engagement with these findings, educational theorists and
policymakers need to provide clearer guidelines regarding the specific discourses,
pedagogies and power relations that are necessary for the successful enactment of
the multiliteracies pedagogy.
7.3.2 Significance for Multiliteracies Praxis
The significance of the research for multiliteracies praxis concerns the investigation
of the claim of the New London Group to provide meaningful access to all
students. The research demonstrated the ways in which power in the classroom,
school and wider social systems, operated to prevent or permit certain students from
accessing multiliteracies. In a diverse classroom, which included students from
Anglo-Australian, Indigenous, Maori, Tongan, Sudanese, Thai, and Torres Strait
Islander descent, it was found that the multiliteracies pedagogy did not necessarily
enable education to be genuinely fair in the distribution of opportunity (New
London Group, 2000). The observed enactment of the multiliteracies pedagogy did
not provide access without children having to leave behind or erase their different
subjectivities (New London Group, 2000).

This research does not challenge the validity of the multiliteracies theory and its aim
to be fair and its rules even-handed (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000b). Rather, the
problem concerns the translation of the multiliteracies theory to classroom practice,
in which a wide gap was observed (See Chapter Five, Part II). Practical steps are
necessary to enable teachers to negotiate the difficult dialogue between varied
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 241 -
lifeworld experiences of students to provide equitable access for all. There is a need
to temper the current overconfidence that has been placed in multiliteracies as a
pedagogical panacea for the equity problem in education. Greater attention needs to
be given to providing effective support structures for teachers to realise the New
London Groups theory in practice.

Another contribution to multiliteracies praxis resulted from the application of
Carspeckens (1996) critical ethnography. The research fulfilled the aim of critical
ethnography to find a clear match between the empirical findings and an existing
macro-sociological theory; in this case, Giddens (1984) structuration theory. The
application of structuration theory enabled the discovery of systems relations across
the school and its surrounding sites. This lead to the generation of the Model of
Differential Access to Multiliteracies (Figure 7.2), used to interpret findings in a
way that accounted for the agency of the research participants and system level
factors. The study extended the critical perspective that schools have historically
served to reproduce social inequity, demonstrating the specific outworking of this
principle and its effects in a multiliteracies context (Gee, 1992; Gee et al., 1996).
Therefore, the application of critical ethnography to the investigation of
multiliteracies praxis yielded significant results.
7.4 Limitations
This research was limited to one site in South East Queensland during a specific
period of time. Caution should be exercised when making generalisations from this
investigation to other settings. This is because similarities and differences between
research contexts should be taken into account (For the generalisability of results in
qualitative research see: Berg, 2004; LeCompte et al., 1992). For example, the
results were mediated by the teachers personal conceptualisation and enactment of
the multiliteracies pedagogy, the individual actions of students in her culturally and
linguistically diverse class, and the system relations between classroom structures
and institutional structures in the social milieu.

The second limitation concerns the requirement of critical research to strive to
maintain equal power relations between the researcher and the research participants.
A genuinely interdependent relationship was sought between researcher and teacher,
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 242 -
from the first meeting to the recursive dialogue about the findings during the
drafting of the thesis. However, although the ideal of democratic research was
upheld throughout the conduct of this research, one cannot claim that the truly equal
generation of knowledge was fully attained. For example, the researcher made
recommendations sensitively to the teacher regarding her use of coercive power. The
teacher stated that few teachers would agree with her decision to prohibit the boys
from the digital aspects of designing, yet she had witnessed an improvement in the
boys behaviour during subsequent multimodal projects. Thus, there can be no
absolute parity of influence between the researcher and his or her co-opted
participants (Heron & Reason, 2001, p.185). Lather stresses the importance of self-
reflexivity to examine our own contribution to dominance in spite of our liberatory
intentions (Lather, 1991, p.150).

Given that no research can claim to maintain precisely equal power relations
between researcher and participants, an important role of the researcher is to
articulate how any residual power differential was directed to the benefit of the
participants. Through the semi-structured interviews, the teacher, principal and
students in this research were able to identify ways to exercise agency to improve
access to multiliteracies within the enabling and constraining institutional structures
(4.6.2). For example, the principal identified possibilities for extending human and
material resources for the Sudanese refugee students who enter Year One. In a
debriefing interview held one year after the field work was conducted, the teacher
reflected that her pedagogies had been transformed by her involvement in this
research and her concurrent involvement in the Learning by Design project
initiated by Cope and Kalantzis (2005). She expressed that her understanding and
implementation of the multiliteracies pedagogy had continued to develop after the
researcher had left the field. Therefore, the unequal power relations between the
researcher and the researched enabled the participants to consider life beyond the
horizons of current experience (Lather, 1990, p.332).
7.5 Recommendations
Recommendations arising from this research apply to teachers seeking to apply the
multiliteracies pedagogy in the classroom, and to school principals, policy makers,
and system administrators.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 243 -
7.5.1 Classroom Recommendations
Although the teacher articulated her belief in the value of multiliteracies, her deeply
seated perceptions of literacy found their expression in pedagogies that focused on
grammar and form, and which measured and differentiated between students based
on the official "standard" of the national language. There was a privileging of
linguistic meanings, and particularly, written meanings, at the expense of other
modes (Cope, 2000, p.214). These anachronistic practices reduced learners
expressive possibilities, rather than utilising the full range and technical integration
of multimodal communication (Cope, 2000, p.217). Multimodality and synaesthesia,
that is, the transduction of meaning from one semiotic mode to another, is part of
human nature, because our senses never operate independently of each other (Kress,
2000a, p.159). Providing learners with opportunity for synaesthesia and exploring
the multimodality of new, globalised communications media should transform
literacy pedagogy rather than become an addendum to monomodal practices (Cope,
2000, p.223).

What is required is a radical ideological shift from perceiving language as an
intrinsically fixed system of elements and rules focused on stability and regularity,
to emphasise change and transformation of meaning making and culture. Students
can avail themselves of complex representation resources, never exclusively of one
culture, but of multiple cultures in their repertoire of experiences tied to the many
dimensions of their identity. The breadth, complexity and richness of the available
meaning making resources renders multiliteracies more than a matter of
reproduction. Rather, it must involve reconstructing meaning in a way that leads to
transformation (Cope, 2000, p.204). Agency is a critical factor in this
transformation, because students must have voice in the act of designing, and in so
doing, remake the world (Cope, 2000, p.205).

The successful enactment of multiliteracies must begin with a very different set of
assumptions about meaning making and culture. Instead of focusing on stability and
regularity, there is a need to see meaning and culture as a matter of dynamic, hybrid
design and change, forever open and undergoing transformation. Students need
opportunities to recombine the many layers of their identities, experiences, and
discourses through designing in ways that are always unique and hybrid.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 244 -

The metalanguage of multiliteracies is not a narrow, univocal, authoritarian
grammar that claims to describe one grammar for all social contexts. Rather,
multiliteracies involves a new grammar that contrasts and accounts for different
usages, not only between languages, but within English (Cope, 2000, p.234). Such a
grammar provides a range of choices for designing communication for specific ends,
including a greater recruitment of non-linguistic forms. All students need access to
versatile competences to contend with diverse modes for various social, community
and cultural purposes, including those that cross national boundaries (Cope &
Kalantzis, 2000c; New London Group, 1996).

Teachers also need to understand the distinction between overt instruction and
transmissive pedagogy. Overt instruction does not imply direct transmission, drills
and rote learning. Rather, it provides learners with explicit information during
times when it can usefully organise practice (New London Group, 1996, p.86).
Transmissive pedagogy restricts literacy to formalised, monolingual, monocultural
and rule-governed forms of language, impeding the transfer of literacy practice to
genuine literacy practices used in society. Furthermore, transmissive pedagogy aims
for simple reproduction, rather than new meanings through which designers remake
themselves. In contrast, the aim of multiliteracies is designing that is never a
reproduction of one available design, but a transformation of existing designing
(New London Group, 1996, p.76).

Overt instruction should involve the development of a meta-language to assist
students to articulate how their cultural position is related to textual practices. This
metalanguage can be used to describe the way in which textual practices differ from
texts of ones own community. With this understanding, ethnically marginalised
students can position themselves in relation to the duality between those who
construct and what they construct, seeing themselves independently of any
misrepresentations or omissions of their cultural position (Nakata, 2000, p.119).
The development of a metalanguage appropriate for multicultural classrooms is
crucial, for there is a much greater challenge for students who must code switch
between several languages, than for monolingual, Australian students (Nakata, 2000,
p.119).
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 245 -

During the enactment of situated practice, it is imperative that designing is
sufficiently scaffolded by expert peers or adults. Teachers need to reject the myth
that situated practice exclusively consists of implicit teaching methods. Students
should not be expected to drift in the direction of a standard form of the language
through immersion in practices of communicative significance (Cope, 2000, p.204).
Rather, teachers should provide explicit instruction during situated practice, with
higher levels of scaffolding to support ethnically marginalised learners. Situated
practice should allow for the inclusion of the experiences of ethnically and socio-
economically marginalised lifeworlds (Nakata, 2000, p.119). This is because an aim
of situated practice is to provide implicit and explicit knowledge of how written
language works in varied cultural contexts (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b).

The successful enactment of critical framing in this study serves as an example of
how to enable students to interpret the social and cultural contexts of particular
designs (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b). An outcome of critical framing should be the
ability to analyse the general function or purpose of a text, making causal
connections between its design elements (analysing functionally)(Kalantzis &
Cope, 2005). Of equal importance is the ability to analyse the explicit and implicit
motives, agendas and actions behind a piece of knowledge (analysing
critically)(Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). The strength of the effective enactment of
critical framing in this study was the linking of critical framing to the other three
components of pedagogy overt instruction, situated practice and transformed
practice. For example, students were able to stand back from the design process to
analyse both functionally and critically the purposes, context and connections of
their own transformed designs (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005, p.21).

Transformed practice goes beyond the simple reproduction of standard, written,
linguistic design elements according to appropriate conventions (applying
appropriately) (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005). Western schooling has tended to privilege
the reproduction of written conventions over the rich resources for human semiosis
in the new landscape of multimodal and culturally diverse communication (Kress,
2000b). Transformed practice too often involves mastering linguistic conventions
that conform to textual genres at the expense of creating hybrid, multimodal texts
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 246 -
characterised by intertextuality. It should involve a genuinely original combination
of knowledge, actions and ways of communicating (applying creatively)(Kalantzis
& Cope, 2005). Transformed practice must result in transferred meanings to work
in other, real-world contexts. It must involve making connections and recognising
influences and cross-references of culture and experience, leading to some degree of
creative change. In turn, this process of designing should transform the designers
themselves by enabling them to accomplish new things (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000b,
p.248).

The use of coercive power as opposed to normative, charismatic and contractual
forms of power should not be used to order the social space because it may
prohibit certain students from accessing multiliteracies (Carspecken, 1996). This
may result in the differential distribution of literacies because marginalised groups,
whose values have the greatest conflict with school norms and rules, may have a
culture of resistance to sanctions (McLaren, 1993; Willis, 1977). Distributing
monomodal literacies to students who resist the school rules is not arbitrary or
inconsequential. Rather, it is essentially a form of regulation in the interests of
dominant groups, mirroring the distribution of power in the wider society (Luke et
al., 2003).

Educators need to evaluate the inclusiveness of dominant, secondary discourses
when enacting the multiliteracies pedagogy (Gee, 1996). The proximity of cultural
and linguistic diversity today necessitates that the language of classrooms must
change (New London Group, 1996). This requires a realisation that the lifeworlds of
students are inherently diverse and multilayered, and that learners are capable of
communicating though multiple senses and combinations of modes. Each student
possesses, not one lifeworld, but a multiplicity of overlapping lifeworlds, always
distinctive, yet always referenced in other ways to established patterns of
representation and culture (New London Group, 2000, p.207). For students of the
dominant culture, their induction into specialist domains has been built via rich
bridges to their lifeworlds in attenuated forms, such as bed time stories as a bridge to
classroom interactions (Gee, 1996). However, these bridges must be constructed in
schools for minority groups, who have mastered the codes and conventions of their
own communities language systems (New London Group, 1996).
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 247 -

The effective implementation of the multiliteracies pedagogy requires that teachers
reflect on and critique the discourses of their own culture. The use of discourses is
often unconscious, unreflective and uncritical. Discourses safeguard their users by
performances that appear to be normal, natural or right. When teachers
unconsciously and uncritically act within their discourses, they become compliant
with a set of values that may unwittingly marginalise certain students. Thus, teachers
who seek to enact the multiliteracies pedagogy successfully have an obligation to
gain meta-knowledge about discourses in order to resist unreflexive, routine
practices that limit the potentials of students. Students also need space to juxtapose
diverse discourses and to understand them at a meta-level through a language of
reflection. Through such an approach to multiliteracies, students can transform and
vary their discourses, create new ones, and experience better, socially just ways of
being in the world (Gee, 1996, p.190-191).

7.5.2 System Recommendations
Recommendations for domination structures concern the fair distribution of material
and human resources by political and economic institutions to enable students to
access multiliteracies. Principals are strategic agents in directing the use of these
allocations, and should prioritise the provision of professional development, human
& material resources, and ESL support for teaching multiliteracies. Current levels of
state funding to support ESL students, such as Sudanese refugees, are insufficient to
ensure these students have access to multiliteracies. The allocation of these
resources should provide greater support for socio-economically and culturally
marginalised groups than dominant groups, taking into account the differing
economic conditions of action in students homes (New London Group, 1996).

Principals also need to establish domination structures to ensure that knowledge &
material resources for teaching multiliteracies are utilised systematically by teachers.
Research grants authorised by independent organisations and educational institutions
may serve as incentives to increase teacher knowledge about multiliteracies.
Additionally, the continued international dissemination of research and literature
about multiliteracies is also necessary to stimulate pedagogical change in schools.

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 248 -
Principals and teachers should establish signification structures in the school that
enable students to draw upon their own cultural symbols, such as community dances,
art events, and the freedom to use multiple languages and dialects in the school. This
recommendation contrasts the historical, assimilatory goal of schooling that sought
to create homogeneity out of differences in order to discipline and skill students for
regimented industrial workplaces (New London Group, 1996). The enactment of the
multiliteracies pedagogy needs to recruit, rather than ignore or erase, the different
subjectivities, interests, and commitments of students. Symbolic orders of discourse
should not be used to persuade, regulate, and control differences in language use
(Luke & Freebody, 1997). Rather, culturally inclusive modes of discourse are
required that mirror the primary discourses found in students homes and
communities. Curriculum and pedagogy need to include students different
subjectivities with their attendant languages, discourses, and registers. Culturally
inclusive modes of discourse are needed in Australian schools because effective
citizenship and productive work require an ability to interact effectively using
multiple languages, multiple Englishes, and communication patterns that cross
community, cultural, and national boundaries (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000b).

Recommendations for legitimation structures are also significant because access to
multiliteracies is a political enterprise contingent upon social and economic power
relations. Normative legitimation structures, including federal, state and school
policies, currently provide a degree of impetus for the teaching of multiliteracies in
schools across Australia. However, there is a need for such policies to provide more
specific structures to enable teachers to address cross-cultural communication and
negotiated forms of discourse required in increasingly diverse local contexts (New

Furthermore, normative sanctions, such as state-mandated policies, express
structural asymmetries of domination, and the relations of those nominally subject to
the sanctions may not express commitment to those norms. Informal legitimation
systems, such as professional networks, grants, opportunities for teachers to
disseminate their work, and personal encouragement from school administrators can
help members of the school system to internalise their own commitment to teaching
multiliteracies. Normative elements of social systems, such as policy claims upon
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 249 -
which the teaching of multiliteracies is partially contingent, must ultimately be
mobilised effectively by the agency of teachers in real classroom encounters.
Teachers are knowledgeable agents who reflexively monitor the flow of interaction
with one another. They are not easily programmed or determined by a normatively
co-ordinated legitimate order (Giddens, 1984).
7.6 Concluding Statements
This research investigated a teachers enactment of pedagogy, power and discourse,
and students access to multiliteracies among a culturally and linguistically diverse
group. Learners experiences varied on a continuum from the reproduction of
existing degrees of access to transformed access. Their experiences were mediated
by pedagogy, power, and discourses in the classroom, which were in turn influenced
by the agency of individuals students, teachers and the principal. The research
participants were both enabled and constrained by structures within the school and
wider social system. An unintended consequence of these factors was differential
access to multiliteracies. This reflected the inequitable configurations of knowledge
and power in the wider society.

Access to multiliteracies requires more than the extension of monomodal literacies
to include multimodal combinations of design elements. Furthermore, access to
multiliteracies necessitates more than a veneer of the multiliteracies pedagogy
situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing and transformed practice over
the anachronistic structures of existing practices. A pedagogy of access also
demands a reassessment of selective traditions that are often implicit in the
discourses, pedagogies and power relationships of the classroom, reflexively
transforming them in the interests of marginalised groups.

The clientele of Australian schools is increasingly characterised by local diversity
and global connectedness. Cultural and linguistic diversity must be seen as a
powerful classroom resource for access to multiliteracies, not only for marginalised
groups, but for the benefit of all. Classrooms must be places for the negotiation of
regional, ethnic or class-based dialects, hybrid cross-cultural discourses, and
variations in register that occur according to social context. Likewise, classroom
discourses need to create spaces for code switching, different registers, and multiple
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 250 -
modes of meanings. When learners juxtapose different languages, discourses, and
forms of communication, they gain substantively in meta-cognitive and meta-
linguistic abilities, and in their ability to reflect critically on complex system and
their interactions (New London Group, 1996, p.69).

These culturally inclusive practices transcend tokenistic tributes to diversity in
multicultural classrooms, such as celebrating ethnic traditions, which can mask real
conflicts of power and interests between dominant and marginalised groups (New
London Group, 1996, p.69). Only then can education open the possibilities for
greater access, and in turn, provide access to symbolic capital and real answers to
the needs of learners in our changing times (New London Group, 1996, p.69).

Kathy Mills, 2006
- 251 -

References

ACT Department of Education and Training. (2001). English Language Curriculum
Framework. Retrieved 2 November, 2005, from http://www.decs.act.gov.au
Altheide, D., & Johnson, J. (1994). Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in
qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (pp. 485-499). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Anderson, G. (1989). Critical ethnography in education: Its origins, current status
and new directions. Review of Educational Research, 59(3), 249-270.
Anderson, L., & Burns, R. (1989). Research in classrooms: The study of teachers,
teaching and instruction. Sydney: Pergamon Press.
Anderson-Inman, L. (1998). Electronic text: Literacy medium of the future. Journal
of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 41(8), 678.
Anstey, M. (2002). Literate futures: Reading. Coorparoo DC, QLD: Access Ed.
Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (1996). The literacy labyrinth. Sydney: Prentice Hall.
Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2004a). Literacy as social practice. In The literacy labyrinth
(pp. 56-74). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson.
Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2004b). The literacy labyrinth (2nd ed.). Frenchs Forest,
NSW: Pearson.
Anyon, J. (1981). Elementary schooling and the distinctions of social class.
Interchange, 12, 118-132.
Apple, M. (1986). Teachers and texts: A political economy of class and gender
relations in education. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Apple, M. (1995). Education, culture, and class power: Basil Bernstein and the Neo-
Marxist sociology of education. In A. R. Sadovnik (Ed.), Knowledge and
pedagogy: The sociology of Basil Bernstein (pp. 45-66). Norwood, New
Jersey: Ablex.
Apple, M. (1996). Cultural politics and education. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Apple, M. (1997). The new technology: Is it part of the solution or part of the
problem in education? In G. E. Hawisher & C. L. Selfe (Eds.), Literacy,
technology and society: Confronting the issues (pp. 160-178). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Apple, M., & Weis, L. (Eds.). (1983). Ideology and practice in schooling. PA:
Temple University Press.
Apple, M. W. (1982). Cultural and economic reproduction in education. London,
Boston and Henley: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Arthur, L. (2001). Young children as critical consumers. Australian Journal of
Language and Literacy, 24(3), 182-194.
Athanases, S., & Heath, S. (1995). Ethnography in the study of the teaching and
learning of English. Research in the Teaching of English, 29(3), 263-287.
Atkin, J. (1994). Thinking: Critical for learning. In J. Edwards (Ed.), Thinking:
International interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 201-215). Highett, VIC:
Hawker Brownlow Education.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2003). Census of population and housing: Selected
social and housing characteristics Australia and statistics local areas,
Queensland. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Baker, C., & Freebody, P. (1989). Children's first school books. London: Blackwell.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 252 -
Baker, C., & Luke, A. (1991). Towards a critical sociology of reading pedagogy:
Paper of the XII World Congress on Reading (Vol. 28). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Banister, P., Burman, E., Parker, I., Taylor, M., & Tindall, C. (1995). Qualitative
methods in psychology: A research guide. Buckingham, PA: Open
University Press.
Barnes, D., Britton, J., & Torbe, M. (1990). Language, the learner and the school.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Barnitz, J., & Speaker, R. (1999). Electronic and linguistic connections in one
diverse 21st-century classroom. The Reading Teacher, 52(8), 874.
Barsalou, L. (1992). Cognitive psychology: An overview for cognitive scientists.
Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bartlett, F. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baynham, M. (1995). Literacy practices: Investigating literacy in social contexts.
London: Longman.
Behrman, E. (2002). Community-based literacy learning. Reading Literacy and
Language, 36(1), 1-28.
Bereiter, B., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry in the
nature and implications of expertise. Chicago: Open Court.
Berg, B. (2004). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (5th ed.).
Sydney: Pearson.
Bernhard, J., Freire, M., Torres, F., & Nirdosh, S. (1998). Latin Americans in a
Canadian primary school: Perspectives of parents, teachers, and children on
cultural identity and academic achievement. Journal of Regional Studies,
19(3), 217-236.
Bigum, C. (1997). Teachers and computers: In control or being controlled?
Australian Journal of Education, 41(3), 247-261.
Bigum, C., & Green, B. (1993a). Changing classrooms, computing and curriculum:
Critical perspective and cautionary notes. Australian Educational Computing,
8(1), 1993.
Bigum, C., & Green, B. (1993b). New kids on the chopping block? Media culture
and educational practice in new times. The Professional Reading Guide,
15(1), 1-4.
Billet, S. (1992). Towards a theory of workplace learning. Studies in Continuing
Education, 14(2), 143-155.
Black, P., & Goebel, Z. (2002). Multiliteracies in the teaching of Indonesian. Babel,
37(1), 22-26.
Bloome, D. (1994). Reading as a social process in a middle school classroom. In D.
Graddol, J. Maybin & B. Stierer (Eds.), Researching language and literacy in
social context (pp. 100-130). Adelaide, S.A: Open University Press.
Board of Studies New South Wales. (1998). K-6 English Syllabus. Retrieved 2nd
November, 2005, from
http://k6.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/english/english_index.html
Board of Teacher Registration Queensland. (2001). Literacy in teacher education:
Standards for preservice programs. Brisbane: Board of Teacher Registration
Queensland.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni
Press.
Britton, J. (1987). Vygotsky's contribution to pedagogical theory. English in
Education, 22(6).
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 253 -
Brodkey, L. (1987). Writing critical ethnographic narratives. Anthropology and
Education Quarterly, 18, 67-76.
Brown, A., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J.
(1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon (Ed.),
Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp.
188-228). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, A., & Campione, J. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In
K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom Lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and
classroom practice (pp. 229-270). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Brown, A., Collins, J., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of
learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Buchanan, R., & Margonlin, V. (1995). Discovering design - explorations in design
studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bull, G., & Anstey, M. (2003a). Critical literacies and cultural studies. In The
literacy lexicon (pp. 15-36). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education
Australia.
Bull, G., & Anstey, M. (Eds.). (2003b). Literacy lexicon. Frenchs Forest, NSW:
Pearson Education Australia.
Burbules, N., & Callister, T. (1996). Knowledge at the cross-roads: Some alternative
futures of hypertext learning environments. Educational Theory, 46(1), 23-50.
Cambourne, B. (1988). The whole story: Natural learning and the acquisition of
literacy in the classroom. Sydney: Ashton Scholastic.
Cameron, D. (2000). Situated literacies/multiliteracies/global literacies and the
World Wide Web - Book review. Changing English: Studies in Reading and
Culture, 7(2), 203-207.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and
action research. Lewes: The Falmer Press.
Carspecken, P. (1995). Pragmatic binary oppositions and intersubjectivity in an
illegally occupied school. In P. McLaren & J. Giarelli (Eds.), Critical theory
and educational research (pp. 185-202). Albany: State University of New
York Press.
Carspecken, P. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical
and practical guide. New York: Routledge.
Carspecken, P. (2001). Critical ethnographies from Houston: Distinctive features
and directions. In P. Carspecken & G. Walford (Eds.), Critical ethnography
and education (Vol. 5, pp. 1-26). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
Carspecken, P. (2003). Ocularcentrism, phonocentrism and the counter
enlightenment problematic: Clarifying contested terrain in our schools of
education. Teachers College Record, 105(6), 978-1048.
Carspecken, P., & Apple, M. (1992). Critical qualitative research: Theory,
methodology, and practice. In M. LeCompte, W. Millroy & J. Preissle (Eds.),
The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 507-553). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Carspecken, P., & Walford, G. (Eds.). (2001). Critical ethnography and education
(Vol. 5). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
Cazden, C. (1972). Functions of language in the classroom. In C. Cazden, V. John &
D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom (pp. xi-lvi).
London: Teachers College Press.
Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 254 -
Cazden, C. (2000). Taking cultural differences into account. In B. Cope & C.
Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social
futures (pp. 249-266). South Yarra: Macmillan.
Chambers, J. (1995). Sociolinguistic theory: Linguistic variation and its social
significance. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Christie, F. (1989). Writing in schools: B Ed course reader. Geelong: Deakin
University Press.
Church, S. (1994). Is whole language really warm and fuzzy? The Reading Teacher,
47(5), 362-371.
Clay, M. (1993). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Heinemann:
Auckland.
Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Word processing and writing in elementary classrooms:
A critical review of related literature. Review of Educational Research, 61(1),
107.
Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data:
Complementary research strategies. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.
Comber, B. (1997). Literacy, poverty and schooling. English in Australia, 119(20),
22-34.
Cook-Gumperz, J. (Ed.). (1986). The social construction of literacy: Studies in
interactional socio-linguistics (Vol. 3). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Cope, B. (2000). Designs for social futures. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.),
Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 203-
234). South Yarra: Macmillan.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (1993). The power of literacy and the literacy of power.
In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), The powers of literacy: A genre approach
to teaching writing (pp. 63-89). London: Falmer Press.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (1996). Putting multiliteracies to the test. Retrieved 9th of
June, 2003, from
http://www.edoz.com.au/educationaustralia/archive/features/mult1.html
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (1997a). Multiliteracies, Education and the New
Communications Environment: A response to Vaughan Prain. Discourse:
Studies in the cultural politics of education, 18(3), 469-478.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (1997b). Productive diversity: A new Australian model
for work and management. Annandale, NSW: Pluto Press.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (1999). Teaching and learning in the new world of
literacy: A professional development program and classroom research
project: Participants' Resource Book. Melbourne: RMIT University: Faculty
of Education, Language and Community Services.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000a). Introduction: Multiliteracies: The beginnings of
an idea. In M. Kalantzis (Ed.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the
design of social futures (pp. 3-8). South Yarra, VIC: MacMillan.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000b). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design
of social futures. South Yarra: Macmillan.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000c). A pedagogy of multiliteracies. In M. Kalantzis
(Ed.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp.
9-37). South Yarra, VIC: MacMillan.
Corson, D. (1993). Minority social groups and non-standard discourse: Towards a
just language policy. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 271-295.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 255 -
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other
people's children. Harvard Educational Review, 5(3), 280-298.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.).
London: UK: SAGE.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Introduction: Entering the field of
qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape
of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 1-34). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Department of Education and Training Western Australia. (2005). Outcomes and
Standards Framework: English. Retrieved 2nd November, 2005, from
http://www.eddept.wa.edu.au/curriculum/CIP2/docs/English%20OSF.pdf
Department of Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs. (1997). Digital
rhetorics: Literacies and technologies in education: Current practices and
future directions. Brisbane: QLD: Queensland University of Technology.
Department of Education Tasmania. (2004). English Learning Area: Statement and
Profile. Retrieved 2nd November, 2005, from
http://www.education.tas.gov.au/english/stateprof.htm
Department of Education Training and Youth Affairs. (1997b). Digital rhetorics:
Executive summary. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.
Department of Employment Education and Training Northern Territory. (2005).
Northern Territory Curriculum Framework: English Learning Area.
Retrieved 2nd November, 2005, from
http://www.deet.nt.gov.au/education/ntcf/docs/learning_areas_english.pdf
Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press.
Durrant, C., & Green, B. (2000). Literacy and the new technologies in school
education: Meeting the L(IT)teracy Challenge? Australian Journal of
Language and Literacy, 23(2), 89-108.
Dyrud, D. (1995). Book Review - Literacy and computers: The complications of
teaching and learning with technology edited by Cynthia L. Selfe and Susan
Hilligoss. Technical Communication, 42(3), 510.
Dyson, A. (1993). Social worlds of children learning to write. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Ediger, M. (2001). Issues in reading instruction. Reading Improvement, 38(1), 22-26.
Education Queensland. (1994). Years 1-10 English Language Arts Syllabus.
Brisbane: Government Printery.
Education Queensland. (1999). 2010 Queensland State Education. Brisbane:
Education Queensland.
Education Queensland. (2001). New basics: The why, what, how and when of rich
tasks: Rich tasks booklet. Retrieved March 1st, 2003, from
http://education.qld.gov.au/corporate/newbasics/html/news/news.html
Education Queensland. (2002). Literate Futures Project, from
http://education.qld.gov.au/currciulum/learning/literate-futures/
Eiser, J. (1994). Attitudes, chaos, and the connectionist mind. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Emmison, M. (2003). The conceptualisation and analysis of visual data. In
Qualitative analysis: Practice and innovation. Crown Nest, NSW: Allyn and
Unwin.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 256 -
Emmitt, M., & Pollock, J. (1997). Language and learning: An introduction for
teaching, (2nd Edition ed.). Oxford University Press: Melbourne.
Erickson, F. (1987). Transformation and school success: The politics and culture of
educational achievement. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 18, 335-
356.
Ezzy, D. (2002). Qualitative analysis: Practice and innovation. Crows Nest, NSW:
Allyn and Unwin.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Critical language awareness. London: London.
Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketisation of public
discourse: The universities. Discourse and Society, 4(2), 133-168.
Fairclough, N. (1994). Conversationalisation of discourse and the authority of the
consumer. In R. Keat, N. Whitley & N. Abercrombie (Eds.), The authority of
the consumer. London: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. London: Longmans.
Fairclough, N. (2000). Multiliteracies and language: Orders of discourse and
intertextuality. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy
learning and the design of social futures (pp. 162-181). South Yarra:
Macmillan.
Faraclas, N. (1997). Critical literacy and control in the New World Order. In S.
Muspratt, P. Luke & P. Freebody (Eds.), Constructing critical literacies:
Teaching and learning textual practice. Allen & Unwin: Melbourne.
Fetterman, D. M. (1989). Ethnography: Step by step. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Finch, J. (1999). It's great to have someone to talk to: The ethics and politics of
interviewing women. In A. Bryman & R. Burgess (Eds.), Methods of
Qualitative Research (Vol. 2, pp. 68-80). London: SAGE.
Fine, M. (1992). Silencing and nurturing voice in an improbable context: Urban
adolescents in public school. In M. Fine (Ed.), Disruptive voices: The
possibilities of feminist research (pp. 115-138). Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Flick, U., von Kardorff, E., & Steinke, I. (2004). A companion to qualitative
research. London: Sage.
Foddy, W. (1993). Constructing questions for interviews and questionnaires: Theory
and practice in social research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Foster, E., Thomas, I., & Fraser, L. (1989). Appendix B: Computer access for
English classes. In C. Selfe, D. Rodrigues & W. Oates (Eds.), Computers in
English and the language arts : The challenge of teacher education (pp. 287-
289). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teacher of English.
Freebody, P. (1999). Literacy education in New Zealand and Australia. In D.
Wagner, R. Venezky & B. Street (Eds.), Literacy: An international handbook
(pp. 440-443). Boulder, California: Westview Press.
Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. Hadley,
MA: Bergin and Garvey.
Gallas, K. (1997). Bad boys and silent girls: What children know about language
and power. Women and Language, 20(1), 63.
Gallas, K., Anton-Oldenburg, M., Ballenger, C., & Beseler, C. (1996). Focus on
research: Talking the talk and walking the walk: Researching oral language
in the classroom. Language Arts, 73(8), 608.
Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools
should teach. New York: Basic Books.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 257 -
Gay, L., & Airasian, P. (2000). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and
application (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Gee, J. (1991). What is literacy? In C. Mitchell & K. Weiler (Eds.), Rewriting
literacy (Vol. pp.1-11). New York: Bergin and Garvey.
Gee, J. (1992). The social mind: Language, ideology, and social practice. New York:
Bergin and Garvey.
Gee, J. (1993). An introduction to human language: Fundamental concepts.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gee, J. (1994). New alignments and old literacies: From fast capitalism to the canon.
Paper presented at the 1994 Australian Reading Association Twentieth
National Conference.
Gee, J. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.).
New York: Routledge and Falmer.
Gee, J. (1999). An Introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London:
Routledge.
Gee, J. (2000a). Discourse and sociocultural studies in reading. In M. Kamil, P.
Mosenthai, P. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol.
3, pp. 195-208). Mahwah, NJ.: Erlbaum.
Gee, J. (2000b). New people in new worlds: Networks, the new capitalism and
schools. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning
and the design of social futures (pp. 43-68). South Yarra: Macmillan.
Gee, J. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New
York: Palgrave, Macmillan.
Gee, J., Hull, G., & Lankshear, C. (1996). The new work order: Behind the language
of the new capitalism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. London: Macmillan.
Giddens, A. (1981). Agency, institution, and time-space analysis. In K. Knorr-Cetina
& A. Cicourel (Eds.), Advances in social theory and methodology: Toward
an integration of micro and macro sociology (pp. 161-174). Boston, MA:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Gilmore, P. (1985). Gimme room: School resistance, attitude and access to literacy.
Journal of Anthropology and Education, 167(1), 111-128.
Giroux, H. (1983). Theories of reproduction and resistance in the new sociology of
education. Harvard Educational Review, 53(3), 257-293.
Giroux, H. (1988). Schooling and the struggle for public life: Critical pedagogy in
the modern age. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Giroux, H. A. (1990). Critical theory and the politics of culture and voice:
Rethinking the discourse of educational research. In R. R. Sherman & R. B.
Webb (Eds.), Qualitative research in education: Focus and methods (pp. 190-
210). East Sussex: The Falmer Press.
Giroux, H. A. (1999). Foreword: Critical pedagogy and the project of exemplary
prophecy. In P. Leistyna (Ed.), Presence of mind (pp. vii-xv). Boulder,
Colorado: Westview Press.
Gitlin, A., Siegel, M., & Boru, K. (1989). The politics of method: From leftist
ethnography to educative research. International Journal of Qualitative
Research in Education, 2, 237-253.
Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (2nd ed.).
New York: Longman.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 258 -
Goodman, K. (1976). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of
Reading Specialist, 4, 126-135.
Grant, C. A. (1999). Multicultural research: A reflective engagement with race, class,
gender and sexual orientation. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.
Graves, D. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. New Hampshire:
Heinemann.
Gray, B. (1987). How natural is natural learning theory? Employing holistic
methodology in the classroom. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 12(4),
3-20.
Green, B. (1987). Gender, genre and writing pedagogy. In I. Reid (Ed.), The place of
genre in learning: Current debates (pp. 83-90). Geelong: Deakin University
Press.
Green, B. (1993). Curriculum, technology and textual practice. Geelong, VIC:
Deakin University Centre for Education and Change.
Green, B. (1994). Post-curriculum possibilities: English teaching, cultural politics,
and the postmodern turn.Unpublished manuscript, Geelong, VIC.
Green, B. (1997a). Literacy, information and the learning society. Paper presented at
the Joint Conference of the Australian Association of the Teaching of
English, the Australian Literacy Educators' Association and the Australian
School Library Association, Darwin High School, Darwin, NT.
Green, B. (1997b). Reading with an attitude; or deconstructing "critical literacies".
In S. Muspratt, A. Luke & P. Freebody (Eds.), Constructing critical literacies:
Teaching and learning textual practice (pp. 227-242). St. Leonards, NSW:
Allen and Unwin.
Green, B., & Bigum, C. (1993). Aliens in the classroom. Australian Journal of
Education, 37(2), 119-141.
Green, B., & Bigum, C. (2003). Literacy education and the new technologies:
Hypermedia or media hype. In G. Bull & M. Anstey (Eds.), The literacy
lexicon (2nd ed., pp. 209-224). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education
Australia.
Green, B., Fitzclarence, & Bigum, C. (1994). Schooling and what future? Student
welfare and learning in a time of change. Principal Matters, 6(1), 40-41.
Gregory, E. (1994). Negotiation as a criterial factor in learning to read in a second
language. In D. Graddol, J. Maybin & B. Stierer (Eds.), Researching
language and literacy in social context (pp. 49-61). Adelaide, S.A.: Open
University.
Habermas, J. (1981). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the
rationalisation of society (Vol. 1). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Lifeworld and system: A
critique of functionalist reason (Vol. 2). Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1992). The philosophical discourse of modernity: Twelve lectures (F.
G. Lawrence, Trans. Sixth ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Hagood, M. (2000). New times, new millennium, new literacies. Reading Research
and Instruction, 39(4), 311-328.
Hall, I., & Hall, D. (2004). Evaluation and social research: Introduction to small-
scale practice. New York: Palgrave: Macmillan.
Halliday, M. (1978). Language as social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. (1991). Linguistic perspectives on literacy: A systemic-functional
approach. Paper presented at the Inaugural Systemic Functional Linguistic
Conference, Deakin University, Darwin, NT.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 259 -
Halliday, M. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward
Arnold.
Hannon, P. (2000). Reflecting on literacy in education. London: Routledge and
Falmer.
Harre, R., & Gillett, G. (1994). The discursive mind. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Healy, A. (1999). Learning literacy in a post-typographic age. Unpublished PhD
Thesis, QUT, Brisbane: QLD.
Healy, A. (2000). Teaching reading and writing in a multiliteracies context:
Classroom practice. Flaxton, QLD: Post Pressed.
Heath, C. (2004). Analysing face-to-face interaction: Video, the visual and material.
In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice
(3rd ed., pp. 166-282). London: Sage.
Heath, S. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and
classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Heath, S. (1999). Literacy and social practice. In D. Wagner, R. Venezky & B.
Street (Eds.), Literacy: An international handbook (pp. 102-106). Boulder,
California: Westview Press.
Heaton, J. (2004). Reworking qualitative data. London: Sage.
Hermann, N. (1989). The creative brain. North Carolina: Brain Books.
Heron, J. (1988). Philosophical basis for a new paradigm. In P. Reason & J. Rowen
(Eds.), Human inquiry: A sourcebook for new paradigm research (pp. 19-35).
New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Heron, J., & Reason, P. (2001). The practice of co-operative inquiry: Research 'with'
rather than 'on' people. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of
action research: Participative Inquiry and practice (pp. 179-188). Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Hill, M. (1996). Learning resources for you and your children. Link - Up, 13(4), 37.
Hollingdale, P. (1995). Children's literature in an age of multiple literacies.
Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 18(4), 248-258.
Hoy, D., & McCarthy, T. (1994). Critical theory. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
Husserl, E. (1970). The crisis of European sciences and transcendental
phenomenology. Evanston: North-western University Press.
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (1999). Multicultural education: Transforming the
mainstream. In S. May (Ed.), Critical multiculturalism: Rethinking
multicultural and antiracist education (pp. 245-274). Taylor and Francis:
Falmer Press.
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2000a). Changing the role of schools. In B. Cope & M.
futures (pp. p.121-148). South Yarra: Macmillan.
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2000b). A multiliteracies pedagogy: A pedagogical
supplement. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy
learning and the design of social futures (pp. 239-248). South Yarra:
Macmillan.
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (Eds.). (2005). Learning by design. Melbourne, VIC:
Victorian Schools Innovation Commission and Common Ground.
Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., & Fehring, H. (2002). Multiliteracies: Teaching and
learning in the new communications environment. Primary English Notes,
133, 1-8.
Kaspersen, L. B. (2000). Anthony Giddens: An introduction to a social theorist (S.
Sampson, Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 260 -
Kenway, J., & Bullen, E. (2001). Consuming children: Education-entertainment-
advertising. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Kincheloe, J., & McLaren, P. (1994). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative
research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
research (pp. 138-157). New York: SAGE.
Kling, R. (1983). Value conflicts in computing developments: Developed and
developing countries. Telecommunications Policy, 7(1), 12.
Knobel, M., & Healy, A. (1998). Critical Literacies: An Introduction. In M. Knobel,
& Healy, A. (Ed.), Critical literacies in the primary classroom (pp. 1-12).
Arizona, USA: Zephyr Press.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kress, G. (1993a). Communication and culture: An introduction. In G. Kress (Ed.),
Communication and culture (pp. 3-19). Kensington, NSW: New South Wales
University Press.
Kress, G. (1993b). Genre as social process. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), The
powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing (pp. 1-21). London:
Falmer Press.
Kress, G. (1993c). Language as social practice. In G. Kress (Ed.), Communication
and culture (pp. 71-130). Kensington, NSW: New South Wales University
Press.
Kress, G. (1997). Before writing: Rethinking the paths to literacy. London:
Routledge.
Kress, G. (2000a). Design and transformation: New theories of meaning. In B. Cope
& M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of
social futures (pp. 153-161). South Yarra.
Kress, G. (2000b). Multimodality. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies:
Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 182-202). South Yarra:
Macmillan.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the media age. London: Routledge.
Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and
learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Landow, G. (1992). Hypertext: The convergence of contemporary critical theory and
technology. Baltimore, USA: Jones Hopkins University Press.
Landow, G., & Delany, P. (1991). Hypertext, hypermedia and literary studies: The
state of the art. In P. Delany & G. Landow (Eds.), Hypermedia and literary
studies (pp. 3-50). London, England: MIT Press.
Lankshear, C. (1998). Meanings of literacy in contemporary educational reform
proposals. Educational Theory, 48(3), 351 - 372.
Lankshear, C., Gee, J., Knobel, M., & Searle, C. (1997). Changing literacies.
Philadephia: PA: Open University Press.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003a). Literacy, culture and technology. In G. Bull
& M. Anstey (Eds.), Literacy lexicon (pp. 67-79). Frenchs Forest, NSW:
Pearson Education Australia.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003b). New literacies: Changing knowledge and
classroom learning. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Lankshear, C., & Lawler, M. (1987). Literacy, schooling and revolution. London:
Falmer Press.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 261 -
Lankshear, C., & McLaren, P. (1993). Introduction. In C. Lankshear, P. Mclaren &
M. Greene (Eds.), Critical literacy: Politics, praxis, and the postmodern (pp.
1-56). New York: State University of New York Press.
Lankshear, C., Snyder, I., & Green, B. (2000). Teachers and techno-literacy:
Managing literacy, technology and learning in schools. St Leonards: NSW:
Allen & Unwin.
Lather, P. (1986). Research as praxis. Harvard Educational Review, 56(3), 257-277.
Lather, P. (1990). Reinscribing otherwise: The play of values in the practice of
human science. In E. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 315-355).
Newbury Park: Sage.
Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy within the
postmodern. New York: Routledge.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday
life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J. (1996). Teaching as learning in practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3,
149-164.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Learning Materials Limited. (1993). Picture Q's books. Sydney: Learning Materials
Limited.
LeCompte, M., Millroy, W., & Preissle, J. (1992). The handbook of qualitative
research in education. San Diego: Academic Press.
LeCompte, M., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in
educational research. San Diego: CA: Academic Press.
LeCompte, M., & Schensul, J. (1999a). Designing and conducting ethnographic
research. Walnut Creek, California: Alta Mira Press.
LeCompte, M., & Schensul, J. (Eds.). (1999b). Analysing and interpreting
ethnographic data. Walnut Creek, California: Alta Mira Press.
Lee, C. (1993). Signifying as a scaffold for literacy interpretation: The pedagogical
implications of an African American discourse genre. Urbana, IL: National
council of Teachers of English.
Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Leu, D. (1996). Sarah's secret: Social aspects of literacy and learning in a digital
information age. The Reading Teacher, 50(2), 162.
Leu, D. (1997). Caity's question: Literacy as deixis on the Internet. The Reading
Teacher, 51(1), 62.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic enquiry. Beverly Hills, CA:
SAGE.
Lo Bianco, J. (2000). Multiliteracies and multilingualism. In B. Cope & M.
LoBianco, J., & Freebody, P. (1997). Australian literacies: Informing National
policy on literacy education. Belconnen, ACT: Language Australia.
Luke, A. (1988). Literacy, textbooks and ideology. London: Falmer Press.
Luke, A. (1994). The social construction of literacy in the primary school.
Melbourne: Macmillan Education Australia.
Luke, A., Comber, B., & Grant, H. (2003). Critical literacies and cultural studies. In
2003 (Ed.), The literacy lexicon (2nd ed., pp. 15-35). Frenchs Forest: NSW.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 262 -
Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (1997). Shaping the social practices of reading. In S.
Muspratt, A. Luke & P. Freebody (Eds.), Constructing critical literacies:
Teaching and learning textual practice (pp. 185-225). Sydney: Allen &
Unwin.
Luke, C. (2000). Cyber-schooling and technological change. In B. Cope & M.
Macken-Horarik, M. (1997). Relativism in the politics of discourse: Response to
James Paul Gee. In S. Muspratt, A. Luke & P. Freebody (Eds.), Constructing
critical literacies: Teaching and learning textual practice (pp. 303-314).
Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Margolis, H. (1993). Paradigms and Barriers: How habits of mind govern scientific
beliefs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Martin, J., & Rothery, J. (1980). Writing project report number 1: Working papers in
linguistics. Sydney: University of Sydney.
Marvisti, A. (2004). Qualitative research in sociology. London: SAGE.
Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative research in sociology. London: SAGE.
Maxwell, J. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
McCarthy, B. (1987). The 4 MAT system: Teaching to learning styles with right and
left mode techniques. Barrington, IL: Excel.
McComiskey, B. (1998). Postmodern cultural studies and the politics of writing
instruction: Teaching English in the two year college. Urbana, 26(2), 144-
154.
McDermott, R. (1987). The explanation of minority school failure - again.
Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 18, 361-364.
McKay, S. L., & Wong, S. C. (1996). Multiple discourses, multiple identities:
investment and agency in second-language learning among Chinese
adolescent immigrant students. Research in the Teaching of English, 32(126-
160).
McKenna, M., Reinking, D., Labbo, L., & Kieffer, R. (1999). The electronic
transformation of literacy and its implications for the struggling reader.
Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15(111-126).
McLaren, P. (1989). Life in Schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the
foundations of education. New York: Longman.
McLaren, P. (1992). Collisions with otherness. Qualitative Studies in Education,
5(1), 77-92.
McLaren, P. (1993). Schooling as ritual performance: Towards a political economy
of educational symbols and gestures (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
McLaren, P. (1994). Life in Schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the
foundations of education (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
McLaren, P., & Leonard, P. (Eds.). (1993). Paulo Freire: A critical encounter (2nd
ed.). London: Routledge.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Michaels, S. (1985). Hearing the connections in children's oral and written discourse.
Journal of Education, 167, 36-56.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 263 -
Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: SAGE.
Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (1995). Authority in language: Investigating language
prescription and standardisation. London: Routledge.
Milroy, L., & Milroy, J. (1987). Whose language? Milton, Keynes: Open University
Press.
Ministerial Council for Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs. (1999,
28th July). The Adelaide Declaration on the National Goals for Schooling in
the Twenty-First Century. Retrieved 2nd November, 2005, from
http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/policy_initiatives_reviews/
key_issues/literacy_numeracy/national_literacy_and_numeracy_benchmarks.
htm
Mitchell, R. (1999). Catching literature in the 'net'. Primary English Teaching
Association(117), 1-8.
Moll, L., Saez, R., & Dworin, J. (2001). Exploring biliteracy: Two student case
examples of writing as a social practice. The Elementary School Journal,
101(4), 435.
Moorman, G., Blanton, W., & McLaughton, T. (1994). Rhetoric and community in
whole language: A response to Cambourne, Willinsky and Goodman.
Reading Research Quarterly, 29(4), 348-351.
Morgan, D. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Murphy, W. (1991). Understanding language: A thumbnail sketch. English in
Australia, 97, 25-35.
Muspratt, S., Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (1997). Constructing critical literacies:
Teaching and learning textual practice. Allen & Unwin: Melbourne.
Nakata, M. (2000). History, cultural diversity and English language teaching. In B.
Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design
of social futures (pp. 106-120). Chapel Street, South Yarra: Macmillan.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures.
Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.
New London Group. (2000). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures.
In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the
design of social futures (pp. 9-38). South Yarra: Macmillan.
Nolan, R. (1994). Cognitive practices: Human language and human knowledge.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation method. London: Sage.
Pearson, P., & Johnson, D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York:
Holt Rinehart Winston.
Pennycook, A. (1996). TESOL and critical literacies: Modern, post or neo? TESOL
Quarterly, 30(1), pp.163-171.
Peters, M., & Lankshear, C. (1995). Critical literacy and digital texts. Educational
Theory, 45(4), 51-70.
Phillips, D. (1990). Subjectivity and objectivity: An objective inquiry. In E. Eisner
& A. Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate
(pp. 19-37). New York: Teachers College Press.
Phillips, S. (1982). The invisible culture: Communication in classroom and
community on the Warm Springs Reservation. New York: Longman.
Popkewitz, T., & Guba, E. (1990). Whose future? Whose past? Notes on critical
theory and methodology. Newbury Park: SAGE.
Popkewitz, T., & Tabachnick, B. (1981). The study of schooling: Field based
methodologies in educational research and evaluation. New York: Praeger.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 264 -
Prain, V. (1997). Multi(national)literacies and globalising discourses. Discourse:
Studies in the cultural politics of education, 18(3), 453-467.
Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge have to say
about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.
Quantz, R. (1992). On critical ethnography (with some postmodern considerations).
In M. LeCompte, W. Millroy & W. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of
qualitative research in education (pp. 447-505). SanDiego: Academic Press.
Quantz, R., & O'Conner, T. (1988). Writing critical ethnography: Dialogue,
multivoicedness, and carnival in cultural texts. Educational Theory, 38, 95-
109.
Queensland Studies Authority. (2002). Queensland Year 5 Test in Aspects of
Literacy and Numeracy. Brisbane: Queensland Government.
Queensland Studies Authority. (2005). Years 1-10 English Syllabus for Open Trial.
Retrieved 2 November, 2005, from
http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/yrs1to10/kla/english/syllabus.html
Queensland University of Technology. (1999). Human research ethics. Retrieved
May 9th, 2003, from http://www.qut.edu.au/draa/or/ethics/human/index.html
Radigan, J. (2001). The class clown and negotiated epistemology in a classroom. In
P. Carspecken & G. Walford (Eds.), Critical Ethnography and Education
(Vol. 5, pp. 61-88). 2001: Elsevier Science.
Reason, P., & Rowan, J. (1988). Foreword. In P. Reason & J. Rowan (Eds.), Human
inquiry: A sourcebook of new paradigm research (pp. xi-xxiv). New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
Reece, J. (1976). Lester and Clyde. Sydney, NSW: Scholastic.
Reinking, D. (1997). Me and my hypertext: A multiple digression analysis of
technology and literacy. The Reading Teacher, 50(8), 626.
Richardson, P. (1991). Language as personal resource and as social construct:
Competent views of literacy pedagogy in Australia. Educational Review,
43(2), 171-190.
Ritzer, G. (1992). Metatheorizing: Key issues in sociological theory. London: SAGE.
Rogoff, B., & Lave, J. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in
social context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Roman, L. (1992). The political significance of other ways of narrating ethnography:
A feminist materialist approach. In M. LeCompte, W. Millroy & P. J. (Eds.),
The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 555-594). San Diego:
Academic Press.
Sarantakos, S. (2005). Social research (3rd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Saukko, P. (2003). Doing research in cultural studies: An introduction to classical
and new methodological approaches. London: Sage.
Sawyer, W., & Watson, K. (1987). Questions of genre. In I. Reid (Ed.), The place of
genre in learning: Current debates (pp. 46-57). Geelong: Deakin University
Press.
Schwandt, T. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry:
Interpretivism, hermeneutics and social constructionism. In N. Denzin & Y.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189-213).
London: UK: SAGE.
Searle, J. (1984). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sharp, R. (1981). Marxism, the concept of ideology, and its implications for
fieldwork. In R. Popkewitz & B. Tabachnick (Eds.), The study of schooling:
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 265 -
Field based methodologies in educational research and evaluation (pp. 112-
154). New York: Praeger.
Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text
and interaction. London: SAGE.
Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text
and interaction (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Silverman, D. (2005). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook (2nd ed.).
London: Thousand Oaks.
Simon, R., & Dippo, D. (1986). On critical ethnographic work. Anthropology and
Education Quarterly, 17(4), 195-202.
Singh, P. (1997). Reading the silences within critical feminist theory: Response to
Pam Gilbert. In S. Muspratt, A. Luke & P. Freebody (Eds.), Constructing
critical literacies: Teaching and learning textual practice (pp. 77-94). Sydney:
Allen & Unwin.
Smith, F. (1978). Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Snyder, I. (1997). Page to screen: Taking literacy into the electronic era. London:
Routledge.
Snyder, I. (1998). Beyond the hype: Reassessing hypertext. In I. Snyder (Ed.), Page
to screen: Taking literacy into the electronic era (pp. 125-141). London:
Routledge.
Snyder, I. (1999). Using information technology in language and literacy education:
An introduction. In J. Hancock (Ed.), Teaching literacy using information
technology (pp. 1-10). Carlton South, VIC: Australian Literacy Education
Association.
Soler-Gallart, M. (1998). The misteaching of academic discourses: The politics of
language in the classroom. Harvard Educational Review, 68(4), 588.
Soloway, E. (2000). Teachers and technology: Easing the way. Association for
Computing Machinery. Communications of the ACM, 43(6), 23.
Soto, L. (1997). Language, culture and power: Bilingual families and the struggle
for quality education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
South Australian Department of Education and Children's Services. (2004, 10th
December 2004). South Australian Curriculum Standards and Accountability
Framework. Retrieved 2nd November, 2005, from
http://www.sacsa.sa.edu.au/splash.asp
Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Bergin and Gargey.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the
networked organisation. Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.
Stewart-Dore, N. (2003). Strategies for practicing multiliteracies. In G. Bull & M.
Anstey (Eds.), The literacy lexicon (2nd ed., pp. 161-180). Frenchs Forest:
NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
Strassman, P. (1997). Information systems and literacy. In G. Hawisher & C. Selfe
(Eds.), Literacy, technology and society: Confronting the issues (pp. 134-
141). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. London, UK: SAGE.
Street, B. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Street, B. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development,
ethnography and education. London: Longman.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 266 -
Street, B. (1999). The meaning of literacy. In D. Wagner, R. Venezky & B. Street
(Eds.), Literacy: An international handbook (pp. 34-40). Boulder, Colorado:
Westview Press.
Street, B. (Ed.). (1993). Cross cultural approaches to literacy. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Swann, J. (1993). Observing and recording talk in educational settings. In D.
Graddol, J. Maybin & B. Stierer (Eds.), Researching language and literacy in
context (pp. 26-48). Adelaide, SA: Open University.
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types & software tools. Bristol, PA:
The Falmer Press.
Trimbur, J. (2001). Review: Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of
social futures. College Composition and Communication, 52(4), 659.
Trueba, H. (1987). Success or failure? Learning and the language minority student.
New York: Newbury House.
Trueba, H. (1989). Raising silent voices: Educating the linguistic minorities for the
21st century. New York: Newbury House.
Turbill, J. (1983). Now we want to write. Rozelle: PETA.
Unsworth, L. (1981). Tests, assessment and evaluation in reading. Paper presented at
the Proceedings of the second Milperra AAE Reading Centre Symposium,
Sydney: Milperra College of Advanced Education.
Unsworth, L. (1988). Whole language or procedural display? The social context of
popular whole language activities. Australian Journal of Reading, 11(2), 127-
137.
Unsworth, L. (1999). Developing critical understanding of the specialised language
of school science and history texts: A functional grammatical perspective.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42(7), 508-521.
Unsworth, L. (2002). Changing dimensions of school literacies. The Australian
Journal of Language and Literacy, 25(1), 62 -77.
Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2005). Victorian Essential
Learning Standards: English. Retrieved 2nd November, from
http://vels.vcaa.vic.edu.au/essential/discipline/english/index.html
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. London: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1987). Problems of general psychology: Including the volume
thinking and speech (Vol. 1). New York: State University of New York.
Wagner, D. A. (1987). The future of literacy in a changing world. Oxford:
Pergamom Press.
Warren, B., Rosebery, A., & Conant, F. (1994). Discourse and social practice:
Learning science in bilingual classrooms. In D. Spencer (Ed.), Adult
biliteracy in the United States (pp. 191-210). Washington DC: Center for
Applied Linguistics.
Weis, L. (1988). Class, race and gender in American education. Albany: NY: State
University of New York Press.
Wells, G. (1986). The meaning makers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Wertsch, J. (1985). Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kathy Mills, 2006
- 267 -
Wertsch, J. (1996a). Vygotsky: The ambivalent Enlightenment rationalist. In M.
Cole & J. Wertsch (Eds.), Contemporary implications of Vygotsky and Luria
(pp. 39-62). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.
Wertsch, J. (1996b). Vygotsky's two minds on the nature of meaning. Chicago:
Research Assembly of the National Council of Teachers of English.
West, A. (1992). Reading against the text: Developing critical literacy. Paper
presented at the Domains of Literary Conference, England.
Wexler, P. (1987). Social analysis of education: After the new sociology. Routledge:
1987.
Willard, T., & Lawler, A. (1985). Megachoices: Options for tomorrow's world. The
Futurist, 19(4), 13.
Williams, M. (2001). Digital guests in your classroom. Primary English Teaching
Association, 129.
Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labour: How working class kids get working class jobs.
Hampshire, England: Gower Publishing Company.
Woods, P. (1992). Primitive education in the history of education. Harvard
Educational Review, 16(235-254).
Wyatt-Smith, C. (2000). The English literacy interface in senior school: Debates in
Queensland. English in Australia, 127-128, 71-79.

Kathy Mills Thesis - Unlocked

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kathy Mills Thesis - Unlocked

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

i

Multiliteracies: A Critical Ethnography

You might also like