Using Multiliteracies and Multimodalities to Support Young Children′s Learning

Marie Charles, Bill Boyle

• Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781473905603
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Early Childhood Education

?This is a timely book that effectively challenges the current emphasis on a homogeneous approach to teaching, learning, and assessment in early literacy. It encourages us to engage with the real world complexity of young children's learning and offers a series of rich and detailed examples of this in practice.?
- Sally Neaum, Teesside and Durham Universities, and Author of Beyond Early Reading Grounded in classroom practice, this practical book shows trainees and current teachers how to scaffold children's literacy using a creative and supportive approach. It offers teaching strategies for Multiliteracies (fiction, expository/instructions, poetry, recount) and Multimodalities (reading, writing, speaking, listening, performing, illustrating) and helps to develop a relationship between teacher and learner.

Chapter topics include:

• socio-dramatic play
• collaboration
• guided group teaching strategies
• integration of genres.

This clear and accessible book will be extremely valuable to students and practitioners on PGCE programmes, B.Eds, Masters, workshop and conference CPD, and advanced Teaching Assistant training.

Marie Charles is a teacher, formative assessment researcher and consultant. Professor Bill Boyle was until recently Director of CFAS in the School of Education, University of Manchester.Both authors are regularly involved in school-based research across England and international teacher training programmes.

CHAPTER 1

USING SOCIO-DRAMATIC PLAY TO SUPPORT A BEGINNING WRITER

Introduction

Socio-dramatic play through the use of role play/scenarios and imaginary worlds has the capacity to support beginning writers. Christie (1991) argues that play can legitimately be used to accomplish learning objectives. Isenberg and Jacob (1983) provide a clear understanding of how symbolic play as a process of transforming an object, situation or event through the use of motor and verbal actions provides an important source for literacy development. (cited in Hall & Robinson 1998, p. 8)

This chapter illustrates how a very young boy’s writing needs were identified through evidence elicitation and analysis (Coffey et al. 2011) – this action was agreed upon recognition that writing is a complex problem-solving activity and that complexity required socio-dramatic play as the framework for structuring the child’s development. The chapter focuses on a case study of this young boy (aged 5) at a very early stage of his journey as a writer (see Figure 1.1: he is evidencing ‘pre-alphabetic tendencies’ [Gentry 1982]). Daniel is a talkative, communicative five-year-old who is very keen to tell the listener about the adventures of his dog. Daniel’s baseline demonstrates his awareness that the production of random letters conveys a simple message. However, Daniel does not recognise yet the relationship between spoken language and the corresponding grapheme-phonemes. He does not understand the mapping of those words as whole units of meaning to the corresponding phonemes. At present Daniel is not making the connections between his aural, oral and visual concepts of how words as text are constructed. For example (in Figure 1.1) Daniel’s sentence of ‘My dog licks you’ is represented as:

‘p i p r r p a p r i r r r e p’.

Figure 1.1 Daniel’s drawing of his dog and baseline writing

It is significant that Daniel in his baseline sentence does not use any letters from his name in any recognisable order. This indicates that Daniel has not yet internalised the construction of his name as a group of letters.

Approaches to spelling/writing development

In addressing the development of early years writing the practitioner should be aware of the learning needs of the child as the child develops as an emerging writer in a highly complex problem-solving activity (Flower et al. 1986; Scardamalia & Bereiter 1986). The complexity of the structural and developmental processes needed to become a writer requires that the child is taught not within a predominantly whole-class structure with its demands for completion within fast-paced time limits. The emerging writer requires sustained recursive opportunities to engage with the experiences which take the child from the steps of ‘mark making’ to the abstractions of written composition. This complexity is identified by Graham, Harris and Mason (2005) in that its development depends on changes in children’s strategic behaviour, knowledge and motivation (p. 207). Allied to this it is now recognised that ‘skilled writing for what it is, is a tremendously complex problem-solving act involving memory, planning, text generation and revision’ (Bruning & Horn 2000, p. 26). The whole child cannot change alone ‘if classroom instruction offers superficial [whole-class] low level tasks it is doubtful if children will engage in thoughtful and strategic ways’ (Paris & Paris 2001, p. 93). However, ‘many teachers struggle to understand how children develop writing skill, when writing instruction should begin and how to organise and implement an individualised writing programme’ (Bloodgood 2002, in Martin et al. 2005, p. 236). Equally central to this complexity is ‘the central guiding nurturing force of the teacher whose conceptions of writing will provide a model for and shape [children’s] beliefs. We argue that programmes for developing writing will rest on the beliefs that teachers themselves hold’ (Bruning & Horn 2000, p. 26). For children to become strategic and have an understanding and awareness of their own learning requirements, optimal conditions require that the children are trained as self-regulated learners (Graham & Harris 2000; Perry et al. 2007; Schunk & Zimmerman 1997). The Vygotskyian style is at the heart of [these] interactions as learners actively construct knowledge (Vanderburg 2006, p. 375). ‘This recognises the importance of the interactions of ... teacher-student discourse in the classroom’ (Vygotsky 1962, in Arapaki & Zafrana 2004, p. 45). However, children do not independently arrive at this position and this demands that teachers change from a didactic to a more child-centred pedagogy that leads to the recognition of a child’s zone of proximal development (Vygotsky 1962).

A creative approach was adopted to facilitate the highly complex process of writing development. The use of a play/literacy connection (socio-dramatic play) serves to unlock and support the child’s writing/spelling development. The child is being supported in his development by the teacher strategically easing the cognitive load – in this case, through scribing for the child. As the child’s working memory expands he is capable of taking on board more of the ‘writing requirements’ and is supported to achieve automaticity as a writer. The ‘more knowledgeable writers become – in content, in genre, in linguistic skills – the less effort they need for the planning and implementation process’ (Becker 2004, p. 25).

The decision was made to use the strategy of socio-dramatic play as the framework for the intervention with Daniel. Hall and Robinson (1998) recognise the low status of play ‘to a large extent it is still viewed by society … as a non-educational process … school is for learning not playing’ (p. 2). Similarly, Christie (1991) argues that this misconception of play and the learning of literacy is caused by teachers thinking they must ‘limit the amount of play because they don’t fully understand how to legitimately use play to accomplish educational objectives’ (p. 200). Since the Foundation Stage Early Years framework (2008) the profile of play has been more integrated into a learning concept – however, Siraj-Blatchford and Manni (2008) state that ‘structured planned play opportunities often fall between two extremes – too much adult involvement in planning without child involvement in the origination of the activity, or alternatively, left totally unstructured with no clear understanding of the learning potential of the play activity’ (p. 17). However, Christie is equally definite that ‘play offers a chance to be literate’ (Christie 1991, p. 22).

The early work of Chomsky and Read in the 1970s recognised the conceptualisation of spelling as a writing developmental process. Heald-Taylor (1998) takes this further by recognising that ‘learning to spell is a complex, intricate, cognitive and linguistic process’ (p. 405). These fundamental understandings are important in shaping appropriate expectations and instruction. In order for this to take place, a growing knowledge of developmental stages, in this instance, semi-phonetic spelling needs to be examined.

O’Sullivan (2000) argues that ‘stage models of learning to spell have not been helpful to teachers in teaching spelling’ (p. 9). She suggests further through her case studies that ‘rather than spelling development passing through discrete stages ... children begin to draw on several different sources of knowledge’ (p. 10).

Heald-Taylor (1998) asserts that developmental stages ‘Appear somewhat sequential, they are not static nor fixed; indeed there is considerable overlap between the stages. Moreover, it is folly to suggest that all children will move sequentially from one stage to the next’ (p. 408).

Read (1986) argues against a precise developmental sequence but favours an outline of spelling development (p. 118). Morris and Templeton (2000) offer an interesting balance as they interpret the stage models of spelling development as not creating negative labels that are inflexible and rigid; they offer a starting point for instruction. Read’s (1986) study of 32 children in pre-school and kindergarten’s early spelling attempts to ‘provide a window on their spelling processes’ (cited in Read 1986, p. 2).

Read (1986) explores children’s invented spellings and states that ‘in representing their speech in letters, they are truly applying phonics in an authentic context’ (in Templeton & Morris 1999, p. 108). Similarly, Sipe (2001) recognises that children who engage in invented spelling discover relationships by themselves about sounds and letters (p. 265). Wilde (1992) reminds the reader that ‘invented spellings are a sign of linguistic and intellectual development’ (p. 63). However, caution is necessary as invented spelling as a concept may falsely imply that it is a stage in the developmental process. Bean and Bouffler (1987) indicate that it is a strategy that all writers employ (p. 85). Templeton and Morris (1999) support this by suggesting that invented spelling continues throughout our lives –whenever we take a risk or ‘have a go’ (p. 108). The problem according to Routman (1993) is in invented spelling being misinterpreted by teachers who see ‘Sounding out as the only strategy ... and teachers [are] not allowed to interfere with children’s writing’ (cited in Miller 2002, p. 33).

In classrooms studied by Clarke (1988) the teachers seem to have not commented on the correctness of the children’s spellings. Treiman (1993) observed the same patterns in her classroom study and reported that: ‘The teacher did not discuss how the children’s spellings differed from the conventional ones and did not help the child to improve his/her spellings’. Sipe (2001) provides a fitting example of a child who spells conventionally for her reading support teacher yet does not do so in class – as she explains: ‘My teacher gives me a break, she just wants me to come close’ (p. 264). Wilde (1992) argues beyond ‘a phonological strategy and a more direct visual/orthographic one’ (p. 25) and strongly advocates the introduction of cognitive dissonance (p. 37). This is why modelling, that is, seeing letters, words, sentences and paragraphs in print, is so important for children. For example, modelling a daily sentence which has been originated orally by the children – essentially a detailed and complex structural activity – becomes a fun exploration of language in action. This can be developed further through the introduction of comprehension skills, for example higher-order thinking strategies. Such interrogatives as ‘who’, ‘what’, ‘why’ and ‘where’, and asking children to pose those questions to their peers to model their use and application in real contexts. This strategic intervention is supported by Montgomery (1997) who argues that a sole emphasis on phonics ‘ignores the true speed of eye and brain, which enables us simultaneously to spell by ear and read by eye’ (p. 9).

Socio-dramatic play to support early writing

Christie’s previous statement of how to use play legitimately to accomplish learning objectives leads the debate on to symbolic play. Isenberg and Jacob (1983) provide a clear understanding of how; ‘Symbolic play as a process of transforming an object ... situation or event through the use of motor and verbal actions ... provides an important source for literacy development’ (in Hall & Robinson 1998, p. 8).

Wilford (2000) states that developing symbolic processes, for example a fantasy character, ‘underpins the realisation that a written word stands for a spoken word and letters alone or in combination can represent sounds’ (p. 1). Pellegrini and Galda (1991) state that ‘symbolic representations are the best predictors of emergent writing’. These statements provide a conducive basis for developing a child’s spelling, which also recognises and acknowledges that learning should be fun, stress free and enjoyable, particularly for very young children. Hughes (1999) in reminding us that ‘the brain is proficient at remembering anything that is emotional, unusual, exaggerated or dramatic’ (p. 40) provides a platform for understanding the relevance of transcription for ‘novice’ writers, that is, a five-year-old engaging with written symbols.

Myhill (2006) criticises the current teacher-centred pedagogy which still focuses largely on a legacy model based on the linear National Literacy Strategy Framework in which the objectives rather than the child’s real or re-enacted experiences control the language programme. The dominant pedagogical model throughout the period has been and still is that of substantial whole-class teaching which Myhill (2006) suggests causes an ‘orientation towards coverage and elicitation of facts rather than the creation and co-construction of interconnected learning’ (p. 34) and evidences no ‘substantial use of progressive child-centred methods’ (Gammage 1987, p. 105), The Organisation for Economic Co-operation Development (OECD) survey of 15 classrooms found that ‘in general the pedagogy was not focused on the observed interests of the children but sought to interest them in the concerns of the teacher’ (2004, p. 59). In summary, what the OECD team observed was a teacher-centred rather than a child-centred pedagogy characterised by ‘a focus on literacy and numeracy related activities, with evaluation criteria narrowly focused on cognitive outcomes and the early introduction of written symbolisation’ (OECD 2004, p. 59). Teachers are not converting those objectives from the Framework into children’s interests. Cook (2000) signals the need to build a bridge between play and the learning of cognitive skills (p. 74). For example, Price (1988) working with a group of nursery-age children constructed a large model of a ladybird after reading the ‘Bad Tempered Ladybird’. He observed that the children: ‘Appeared to collude that it was real and constantly talked about it as if it was real ... an ideal opportunity to incite some letter writing’ (in Hall 1991, p. 2). In response to a party invitation from the ladybird, four-year-old Joel wrote (p. 11):

‘UKNCCMtomypt’

(you can come to my party)

Here Joel is demonstrating elements of a semi-phonetic speller (Gentry 1982), and the context provided for the learning activity is both meaningful and fun. ‘The children had gained significant insights into the conventions of written dialogue’ (Price 1988, p. 13, in Hall (1991)). This example demonstrates the benefits to language...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title
• Advertisement
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures
• About the Authors
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1 Using Socio-dramatic Play to Support a Beginning Writer
• 2 How Collaboration Develops Early Years Writing Skills
• 3 The Importance of Multimodality and Multiliteracies in Developing Young Communicators
• 4 Using Big Books as Visual Literacies to Support Emergent Writers
• 5 How a Guided Group Teaching Strategy Can Support Emerging Writers
• 6 An Analysis of a Guided Group’s Story Writing
• 7 Introducing Early Years Children to the Importance of Non-fiction for their Writing Development
• 8 The Integration of Genres (Narrative to Non-fiction) within a Formative Pedagogy
• 9 Concluding Thoughts
• References
• Index