Chapter 6: Analyzing
Students’ Multimodal Texts: The Product and Process
1.
Why do educators
need to be careful about terms like the “Digital
Native”?
We need to
be careful with terms such as “Digital
Natives” that lead to an understanding of a whole generation as a
homogeneous group. There is more variance across individuals than is suggested
by broad generalizations such as the “Digital
Native” and the “Net Generation.” “No
two digital natives are created equal,” “each of them has varying degrees of
access to digital technologies, literacy skills, and participation within their
peer culture” (Bylin). An example
is, “while most of the younger students
were proficient in using the Web, they could not adequately perform advanced
searches or evaluate the validity of the recourses they found” (VanSlyke).
2.
What outcome
occurs when young people are encouraged to transform their understanding of
particular topics by designing a multimodal text?
Such
studies support the notion that digital transformations and designing can
enhance the learning process. This recognition of the importance of developing
young people’s creative and critical productions with technology signals the
need for closer attention by researchers and educators to the actual products
that young people create in their learning activities. “There are aspects of multimodal designs that need more careful
scrutiny and explicit teaching is needed of the more subtle design elements.
This is an area that teachers and researchers need to explore” (Adlinglton
and Hansford).
3.
You may skip the
section titled “Context for the Project.”
4.
What was the
goal of the project in terms of product?
The goal in
terms of product was to track the development of the participants’ multimodal
literacies over a two-year period by comparison two multimodal products created
at the beginning and the end of the period.
5.
What was the
goal of the project in terms of process?
The goal in
terms of process was to gain deeper understanding of how multimodal texts were
created, especially when the students were working in pairs at the computer.
6.
How were the
participants for the study selected?
From
careful analysis, they selected ten students who best represented the cohorts
and the multimodal products of these students provided the core product data of
the study. For the study on process, the student pair selected for in-depth
analysis was determined through an incremental, cyclical process of
elimination. They initially chose to focus on a small group represented by one
school. Then, from this group, they selected the students who fulfilled the
following three criteria: they had worked collaboratively in pairs, they had
fully completed the task, and the video screen data recordings were intact and
complete.
7.
Describe the
task students engage in for the purpose of this study?
The 2004
task required students to evaluate possible solutions in response to the
environmental threats posed by plastic bags; the 2006 task followed a similar
pattern, but with global warming as the topic. Each task was carefully
structured and divided into three phases of development: researching, designing, and reflecting.
Part of the research process required the student to complete two templates:
first, a concept map to organize
information acquired from web sources; the second, a decision-making matrix to facilitate transformation acquired from
web sources; and third, a decision-making
matrix to facilitate transformation of the ideas in their concept map into
a preferred solution, as required for the multimodal text. Following these
preparatory stages, the students could create a multimodal text using a word
processor, a presentation tool, or a web-publishing program.
8.
Explain how the
researchers compared the student created multimodal texts?
In order to
compare and contrast the products, it was necessary to isolate particular
characteristic features of the product that represented capacity in operational
terms. The research group reduced the features required when determining
quality in multimodal texts to three key elements. Ultimately, they limited
their field of view to design, content, and
cohesion for their analysis. This
approach allowed them to identify individual differences and develop
understandings of the nature of digital, multimodal text production at and
across different year levels. A series of questions was developed in each of
the three categories below, to define the distinctive attributes and to provide
a basis for caparison of multimodal products at different new levels.
-
The first
slide/page in the set (title slide/ page);
-
The choice and
shape or wording in the headings of individual slides/pages throughout the set (heading); and
-
The quality of
knowledge revealed in each slide/page and the complete set (knowledge representation).
9.
What difference
in Jenny’s PowerPoint presentation do you find the most interesting?
At Year 10,
Jenny is still having difficulty formulating her own views and drawing
collusions from the material she has read on the resource website. She is not
on top of the material she has read and she has not processed it sufficiently
so as to reach the point where she has formed an opinion that she can then
communicate clearly.
10.
How is working
together on a computer unlike working together using a pencil and paper?
There are
at least three important differences. First, while typed words may appear
immediately on screen, there is often a considerable wait time between the
keying in of an instruction and a response from the computer. Second, the
length of the wait time is unpredictable and may by several minutes. There is
also another kind of unpredictability. The result the computer provides to an
instruction is often unexpected, as in the selection and ordering of items
located in a web search.
11.
What was
interesting about students’ behavior as they collaborated on a task at the
computer?
Fist,
students took turns in operating the keyboard and the mouse. Second, while much
of the talking responded directly or indirectly to task requirements, there was
also evidence of off-task discussion. And third, there was evidence of various
kind of multitasking within the local computing environment.
12.
What can
teachers learn about designing learning activities that involve the creation of
multimodal texts from this study?
It would
appear that increased scaffolding of the task through the provision of start-up
materials rather than requiring students to start from scratch would ensure
students engage with more complex decision-making and text production. Specific
tasks and task structure will lead to specific types of learning. And, applying
Skehan’s concept of cycles of task-based activity beyond language learning may
also increase quality in both process and product.
13.
According to the
conclusion of this study, what do students need to learn in order to
successfully complete a multimodal text construction?
It is
beneficial to develop in students’ time management skills and a sense of
priorities in relation to the task at hand.
14.
Are you
surprised by the conclusion drawn in this study?
To be
perfectly honest I wasn’t truly surprised, I expected such results to come
about. Being a student myself I have engaged in activities a lot like these
studies and the result was very similar. The only thing that I found kind of
shocking is how these studies and there results could come about from any form
of group participation within students. Time management is an issue with any
group projects whether it be computing or not, and increased scaffolding from
the teacher would help in any form of lesson whether it involve technology or
not.