Literature Review 2:
Connecting Multiliteracies and engagement of students from low socio-economic backgrounds: using Bernstein’s pedagogic discourse as a bridge
Katina Penklis Zammit
“Classrooms can be sites where students see education as a potential – a resource to be profitably employed within their lives. Alternatively, they can be places that convince students that school is not for them” (Zammit, 2011, p.203).
My initial needs assessment has uncovered evidence that our year 5/6 students are not feeling connected to the school. The discourse in the school playground and in the classroom has revealed a lack of positive dialogue about the school and learning in general. In this paper, Zammit explores the use of ICTs with multiliteracies as an alternative to more traditional approaches to curriculum, pedagogy and assessment practices that may hinder students’ engagement and achievement from low socio-economic backgrounds. She explains the pedagogical discourse in the classroom between a traditional classroom-approach to Literacy and one that includes multiliteracies is greatly different for students, with the latter catering more to the needs of these learners by validating their place in school and by legitimizing other literacy practices.
Zammit (2011) identifies that “simply using a multiliteracies approach does not guarantee improved learning outcomes” (p.205). It is the pedagogical discourse that needs to move from a regulative discourse, one that is focused on management style of classroom talk, and an instructional discourse, that focuses on content and assessment strategies. There needs to be a recontextualisation of classroom practices and a change in the messages that students receive about themselves in the learning environment.
With this in mind it is easy to appreciate why simply using ICT and having an approach to multiliteracies in the classroom may not necessarily engage the learner any more than the traditionally focused classrooms. Students may still opt to carry out repetitive tasks that are not challenging, in preference to tasks that require them to think, interact and solve problems. “Teachers’ interactions with students reinforce who is knowledgeable and who is not” (Zammit, 2011, p.206). By allowing the students to be part of the instructional discourse they will view themselves as capable. If they are excluded form that level of discourse, the result could be negative messages about themselves as learners and create disengagement with school.
Zammit’s (2011) studies concluded that teachers were motivated to “disrupt the discourses of power within their classrooms in order to change the messages students received about their knowledge, ability, control, voice and place” (p.217).
References:
Zammit, K. P. Connecting Multiliteracies and Engagement of Students from Low Socio-Economic Backgrounds: Using Bernstein's Pedagogic Discourse as a Bridge. Language and Education, 25(3), 203-220.
“Classrooms can be sites where students see education as a potential – a resource to be profitably employed within their lives. Alternatively, they can be places that convince students that school is not for them” (Zammit, 2011, p.203).
My initial needs assessment has uncovered evidence that our year 5/6 students are not feeling connected to the school. The discourse in the school playground and in the classroom has revealed a lack of positive dialogue about the school and learning in general. In this paper, Zammit explores the use of ICTs with multiliteracies as an alternative to more traditional approaches to curriculum, pedagogy and assessment practices that may hinder students’ engagement and achievement from low socio-economic backgrounds. She explains the pedagogical discourse in the classroom between a traditional classroom-approach to Literacy and one that includes multiliteracies is greatly different for students, with the latter catering more to the needs of these learners by validating their place in school and by legitimizing other literacy practices.
Zammit (2011) identifies that “simply using a multiliteracies approach does not guarantee improved learning outcomes” (p.205). It is the pedagogical discourse that needs to move from a regulative discourse, one that is focused on management style of classroom talk, and an instructional discourse, that focuses on content and assessment strategies. There needs to be a recontextualisation of classroom practices and a change in the messages that students receive about themselves in the learning environment.
With this in mind it is easy to appreciate why simply using ICT and having an approach to multiliteracies in the classroom may not necessarily engage the learner any more than the traditionally focused classrooms. Students may still opt to carry out repetitive tasks that are not challenging, in preference to tasks that require them to think, interact and solve problems. “Teachers’ interactions with students reinforce who is knowledgeable and who is not” (Zammit, 2011, p.206). By allowing the students to be part of the instructional discourse they will view themselves as capable. If they are excluded form that level of discourse, the result could be negative messages about themselves as learners and create disengagement with school.
Zammit’s (2011) studies concluded that teachers were motivated to “disrupt the discourses of power within their classrooms in order to change the messages students received about their knowledge, ability, control, voice and place” (p.217).
References:
Zammit, K. P. Connecting Multiliteracies and Engagement of Students from Low Socio-Economic Backgrounds: Using Bernstein's Pedagogic Discourse as a Bridge. Language and Education, 25(3), 203-220.