Double Entry Journal # 12

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.