Poduction 1: Power up

The first and real ‘power-up’ experience was, when I took several seminars on teaching culture and English as a foreign language (TEFL), using technology and films/TV series. Beforehand, I did not know how many different tools, media and apps (iBook author, kahoot.it, flashcards, blogs, audacity, etc.) already existed; and how enriching they can be for students. In these courses, I learned how to integrate apps/websites and media into my teaching units: I had to create teaching material (including technology tools), video essays, etc. for those courses. Hence, I got to know how tools like flascard stash, voodle, etc. can help to make learning vocabulary more fun. 

Another important thing is that I learned not only how I can use technology to teach my students, but also how I can encourage them to use certain tools/media to produce great output (kahoot.it, audacity, etc.). Thus, technology is not only a useful tool for teachers, but also for students. Furthermore, I am working as a substitute teacher, and I tested some of the material in school already. In general, I was interested in the student's feedback – whether they liked certain apps or think it is a good idea to include certain kinds of technology in (my) teaching units.       

Moreover, I also included some tools, like kahoot.it, into my presentations at my home University, and the feedback was always good, as the audience had to do something themselves. Hence, certain kinds of technology could also make students presentations more diverse as well – if they learn how to use them properly, which is, basically, my job as a teacher. Nevertheless, I also concluded that technology should not always replace other teaching methods and tools (books, handwriting, etc.).

           Overall, technology can make learning and education more diverse and interesting, but I think that it is (only) one tool among others.

 


Production 2: Paradigm Chart

The following picture shows the paradigm chart for Wolfgang Klafki (1927-2016). Klafki was a famous German education researcher, who developed the concept of "critical-constructive didactics" (Kritisch-konstruktive Didaktik). In his opinion, general knowledge is the students 'core skill'. Education has to

 

1) ... be accessible for everyone,

2) ... be comprehensive

3) ...address current key issues ("epochaltypische Schlüsselqualifikationen")

 

Nevertheless, I did not enclude "evaluation" in this chart, as that is the problem with Klafki's theory - it is hardly realizable in so far, as Klafki took a quite "broad look" at education rather than how to use his theoretical assupmtions for planning lessons.


Production 3: Postmodernity

                     In The Postmodern Condition Lyotard argues that knowledge always needs legitimation (60). According to Lyotard, “we no longer have recourse to the grand narratives – we can resort neither to the dialectic of Spirit nor even to the emancipation of humanity as a validation for postmodern scientific discourse” (60). Thus, in other words, educational institutions have to undergo a change. Not only because they can no longer legitimate knowledge based on grand metanarratives such as emancipation, but also because “there will be a growth in demand for experts and high and middle management executives in the leading sectors . . . [and] any discipline with applicability to training in ‘telematics’ (computer scientists, cybernetics, linguists, mathematicians, logicians …) will most likely receive priority in education” (Lyotard 48).

            Furthermore, it is the “young people who have to become active” (Lyotard 49) in case of education or in other words: students should no longer be subjects of the technocratic paradigm that tells them how and when to ‘function properly’. Otherwise, students just function as ‘puppets’ where knowledge is incorporated to maximize what Lyotard calls ‘system performance’. He argues that "the technocrats see in telematics a promise of liberalization and enrichment in the interactions between interlocutors, but what makes this process attractive for them is that it will result in new tensions in the system, and these will lead to an improvement in its performativity" (64). Therefore, education has to change, and should resist this totality (consensus, paralogy, etc.) (Lyotard,60;66), as “knowledge is producing not the known, but the unknown” (Lyotard 60).

            Instead, Lyotard’s claim is that the public should be given free access “to the memory and data banks” (Lyotard 67), as "education must not only provide for the reproduction of skills, but also for the progress . . . knowledge should not be limited to the transmission of information, but should include training in all of the procedures that can increase one’s ability (52). Hence, according to Lyotard, teamwork, for example, is a useful tool to improve performativity (52). Moreover, "the traditional teacher is [now] replaceable by memory banks, didactics can be entrusted to machines linking traditional memory banks (libraries, etc.) and computer data banks to intelligent terminals placed at the students’ disposal" (Lyotard 50). Consequently, students do not longer need to wait for knowledge being incorporated into their minds by teachers but can and should become active themselves. To be able to do this, “what is of upmost importance is the capacity to actualize the relevant data for solving a problem “here and now” and to organize that data into an efficient strategy” (Lyotard 51).

            In general, it can be said that we are still to a certain extend of in the condition Lyotard describes, in particular, when it comes to the ‘technocratic paradigm’. This is the case especially in L2 language learning. Even if textbooks might have improved, they are still tools aiming at technocratic goal – comparability, reproducibility and standardization. One claim of a second language learning teacher is that there must be something that makes it possible to compare students’ knowledge of their second language. Hence, if a look is taken at how to create a test in Germany in a second language, most of the tasks are ‘fill in the gaps’ and ‘tick the right answer’ kind of tasks. Only at the end of a test students have to write a short text (something like ‘write a postcard to a friend’, ‘write a short letter to a friend’, etc.). The argument for such a type of a class test is that otherwise it is hard to be objective on students’ performativity in a second language. It is easier to standardize the test with right or wrong answers than to grade a written text.

            However, that is the reality of school. At university most of the TEFL – professors (at least the ones I had) try to persuade the students that a change has to take place in education away from the standardization of education in second language learning to a more student oriented type of education. The sentence I heard most in my teaching methodology classes was “we as second language teachers tend to give the evaluation of grammar far too much priority – creating tasks that produce only standardized output, instead of using other techniques to teach grammar to students”. Hence, the argument is that there are indeed attempts to change education in the way Lyotard suggests, to resist totality, but they are seldom implemented in schools themselves.

            Nevertheless, something has changed in teaching, such as that teamwork or ‘group work’ is nowadays more important in German schools or that the teacher functions more as a mentor rather than a ‘traditional teacher’. In addition, technology such as computers, films, social media, etc. are more and more integrated in education in general. However, in second language learning it is still as Lotherington and Jenson (2011) claim: “the view held by most L2 educators who still embrace a technocratic notion of literacy and emphasize the development of decontextualized skills” (228). Thus, schools are slowly integrating what scholars try to establish in case of education practices, and still do not do enough to implement the suggested model of multimodalities. As it was stated before, this is the case for schools but not university (again as I experienced it). Overall, it is quite depressing to experience that there are so many attempts to change education, and ideas how to implement this theory in institutions like school, but it is not possible in many schools to actually teach as one learned it at university.

            During every internship I did, in English as a second language, most of the time books were used, except for students being 10th-13th graders (in Germany High School is from grade five to 12/13). I have to admit that they have changed a bit, and included tasks where students have to do research on the internet or create presentations, and so on. However, they are still technocratic tools to compare different classes, e.g. how far each class has come, and what students should now know in terms of grammar, vocabulary, etc. In addition, textbooks are still text-based and include listening comprehension, but do not really embody multiliteracies, as demanded by scholars such as The New London Group. Moreover, it is often also due to missing equipment that one cannot teach the way one would like (e.g. not enough smartboards, reduced amount of copies one is allowed to make during a school term, no free wifi in classrooms, etc.).

            What is interesting is that in my other subject, catholic religion, teaching by using multiliteracies is much easier, and even more implemented in schools than in second language learning. Of course, there is always a difference between teachers whether they use a more technocratic kind of education or not. Nevertheless, in my internship I could experiment with different kinds of multiliteracies, and it is indeed done more often than in ESL classes. Another interesting and last point is that my students at school often tell me that the “younger teachers” such as trainee teachers’ classes are more interesting and that they use a broader and different variety of ‘technology’ than the ‘older teachers’ do. Hence, maybe we as teachers have the opportunity, and even the responsibility to implement new views, and ‘techniques’ in our classroom to meet the needs of todays’ students.

            In a nutshell, we are still in the situation Lyotard describes, but still certain changes have been made since the 1970’s – especially in the case of using the internet or technology in general in the classroom. However, there are still lots of things that have to be improved in case of education, and its claim of being multimodal.

 


Production 4: Multiliteracies

                     Buckingham and Mill rearticulated and practically modelled the “what” and “how” of multiliteracies of the London Group. Based on the definition that language is “influenced and constituted by social relations or sociogenesis” and that “it functions as a tool for shaping, controlling, and interacting with one’s social and physical environment” (Mills 247), multimodal texts now “combine visual, audio, gestural, special, or linguistic modes to enrich, modify, and enliven meaning” (Mills 250).

            The “what” of mulitileracies does not only include the different designs or modes that have to be included in education, but has to take into account the different sectors of society as well, as education should not be restricted to schools only. This paradigm shift also includes the idea of everyone being involved to redesign his or her own (social) future (The New London Group 64). The idea of mulitliteracy implies that it is targeted at a diverse and global audience. Using Mills' words: “[M]ultimodal quality of texts is the reality of our fast-changing, globalized textual environment.”

            In this case technology plays an important role. By using technological tools, students are not only enabled to use and integrate different modes into their productions, but it is now possible for them to reach a broader, more globally connected and diverse audience (Mills 250). Moreover, this depicts a paradigm shift “from traditional authority to epistemology of shared knowledge and expertise” (Mills 254). Education is no longer restricted to the setting of school. Instead, the concept of multiliteracy makes it possible to “make stronger connections with the local and popular literacy of the youth in recreational contexts” (Mills 254-55), which alludes to one of the London Group’s key concepts: hybridity (London Group 83).

            By creating websites, blogs or wikis, students do not only reach a wider audience, but they can connect their “recreational context” with education and learning, or in Mills's words: “developing hybrid genres, textual features, vocabulary, and practices that are tied to original purposes for engaging in new literacies using digital media” (256). Victoria and Christina, for example, introduced the app izi.Travel, where students can create visual tours on various places in the world, using different modes for education (texts, voice over, navigation, etc.). Here, not only can different kinds of modes be used, but also a broad audience is available, as everyone around the world, who uses the izi.Travel app, can see and use this material. Moreover, this challenges the students to produce advanced and meaningful output, to make sure that the students do not embarrass themselves in front of the worldwide audience.

            Furthermore, the role of the school and teachers is addressed. Here, again, a paradigm shift is visible: teachers are no longer the “teacher as examiner” of students' works, as websites, and other digital media productions can now reach a broader audience, and, therefore, provide multiple kinds of feedback. Moreover, the teacher is seen as a mentor for the students, as the students can now function as “peer-tutors” for each other (for example during group work). Nevertheless, the teacher is still important because multiliteracies “must also entail a form of ‘critical framing’ that enables the learner to take a theoretical distance from what they have learned, to account for its social and cultural location, and to critique and extend it” (Buckingham 45). In other words, this alludes to the “how” of mulitliteracies: Teachers are important, as they must provide overt instructions (‘scaffolding’) (London Group 86-87) to enable students to develop skills such as critical thinking (London Group 87-88) which leads to transformed practice––student has mastered something and must now redesign it (London Group 87-88).

            In case of overt instructions, the teacher makes “instructional decisions that dr[a]w on new technologies and media for sophisticated forms of collaboration, social inquiry, problem solving, and critical thinking” (Mills 260). Furthermore, critical thinking involves the “ability to understand and make informed judgements about the place of technology within society and culture” (Buckingham 47), as well as students

 

            need to be able to evaluate and use information critically if they are to transform it into knowledge. This means asking                       questions about the source of that information, the interest of its producers, and the ways in which it represents the world,                  and understanding how technological developments and possibilities are related to broader social economic forces                              (Buckingham 46).

 

Thus, whenever they create or use digital media, students must be able to know the relevance of the tools they use or produce, but also critically scrutinize them. Hence, the teacher must provide the necessary knowledge and tools to lead students to what the London Group calls transformed practice. For example, if a look is taken at the app izi.Travel that Victoria and Christina introduced, students should be able to question this app, because izi.Travel owns all content that designers create on this app, and can restrict, edit, or delete content based on their terms of use and government laws. What is more, it is not completely obvious who exactly invented this app. Hence, students should be able to evaluate if there might be a better app, or at least be aware of these restrictions that might be occur.

            Nevertheless, multiliteracy can be criticized in so far, as there is the question of accessibility and prior knowledge. On the one hand, it is said that using multiliteracies in schools “enables poorer children to ‘catch up’ educationally” (Buckingham 52) because they learn to use and work with technology, what they might not be able to learn at home due to lack of money for technological devices, etc. On the other hand, there is the question of inequality of prior knowledge. How can students that have never used technology before ‘catch up’ with those who already have advanced prior knowledge? Moreover, there is the question of what to do if parents do not want to provide their children, in particular young children, to use technology that often or provide them with smartphones, tablets, iPads, etc.? The questions that arises is, whether technology should be only used in school then, or how such a dilemma could be solved?

 

            To sum up, it can be said that the idea of multimodality/multiliteracies offers many ideas in how to reform education, and shows possible ways to enhance education and learning in a global and diverse society. As already mentioned above, the role of a teacher has changed: he is no longer the only person output is targeted at. Hence, teachers are no longer the only experts in the classroom, students can be experts, too. With teachers being mentors rather than a ‘know-it-all’ illustrates that the relationship between teachers and their students is a democratic rather than hierarchical one. Furthermore, blogs, wikis, video essays, apps like izi.Travels enhance learning, not only because a broader audience can be reached, but also because they enable students use different modes for education. Thus, they are no longer only targets of education, but can be educators themselves. Another important point is that the teacher enables students––through scaffolding––to critically engage with the tools they use. Nevertheless, there are certain points where more precise solutions must be provided, in particular, how to prevent huge differences between students in case of prior knowledge and the accessibility of technological devices.

 

 

 

Sources:

 

  1. Mills, K. A. (2010). A Review of the Digital Turn in 'The New Literacy Studies'. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 246-271.
  2. Buckingham, D. ( 2007). Digital Media Literacies: rethinking media education in the age of the Internet. Research in Comparative and International Education, Volume 2, Number 1, 2007.
  3. A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures (1996) by the New London Group.

Production 5:


Production 6: L2/ Culture Serious Comic

Below you can find my "L2/Culture Serious Comic". It is a comic about 'false friends' -  effects language can have on communication between different cultures.

Download
Comic_False Friends.pdf
Adobe Acrobat Dokument 1'022.7 KB

Production 7: Twine

I produced a fan fiction Twine named "The Goblet of Fire". I clearly alludes to the Harry Potter Series (Films and Books). Click on the following link to be able to play the game.