Literacy, media and multimodality: a critical response
Identifieur interne : 001337 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 001336; suivant : 001338Literacy, media and multimodality: a critical response
Auteurs : Cary Bazalgette ; David BuckinghamSource :
- Literacy [ 1741-4350 ] ; 2013-07.
English descriptors
- Teeft :
- Abstract system, Barthes, Bazalgette, Bearne, British film institute, Broader range, Classroom practice, Classroom teachers, Communications technologies, Communicative forms, Computer games, Copyright, Creative work, Curriculum change, David buckingham, Different audiences, Different modes, Different ways, Digital media, Digital technologies, Everyday life experiences, Great britain, Gunther kress, Image media, Image media media, Jewitt, Kress, Literacy, Literacy curriculum, Literacy educators, Literacy teaching, Literacy volume, London group, Many decades, Media educators, Media literacy, Media studies, Media texts, Multimodal, Multimodal analysis, Multimodal literacy, Multimodal texts, Multimodality, Multimodality theorists, Multimodality theory, Other texts, Particular approach, Policy documents, Popular culture, Popular usage, Primary school teachers, Primary schools, Print texts, Professional development, Recent research, Recent years, Routledge, School textbooks, Semiotic approach, Semiotics, Social semiotics, Social theory, Teacher education, Textual analysis, Textual practices, Ukla, Vision project, Visual analysis, Visual design, Young children.
Abstract
In recent years, literacy educators have increasingly recognised the importance of addressing a broader range of texts in the classroom. This article raises some critical concerns about a particular approach to this issue that has been widely promoted in recent years – the concept of ‘multimodality’. Multimodality theory offers a broadly semiotic approach to analysing a range of communicative forms. It has been widely taken up by literacy educators, initially at an academic level, and has begun to find its way into policy documents, teacher education and professional development and classroom practice. This article presents some criticisms, both of the theory itself and of the ways in which it has been taken up within the wider context of curriculum change. It argues that, in its popular usage, multimodality theory is being appropriated in a way that merely reinforces a long‐standing distinction between print and ‘non‐print’ texts. This contributes in particular to a continuing neglect of the specificity of moving image media – media that are central to the learning and everyday life experiences of young children. Drawing on recent classroom‐based research, the article concludes by offering some brief indications of an alternative approach to these issues.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-4369.2012.00666.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:BB433C7713B5A8021B3E78AB0D2A3165EDFD4F39Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Literacy, media and multimodality: a critical response</title><author><name sortKey="Bazalgette, Cary" sort="Bazalgette, Cary" uniqKey="Bazalgette C" first="Cary" last="Bazalgette">Cary Bazalgette</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>CONTACT THE AUTHORSCary Bazalgette, London Knowledge Lab, Institute of Education, University of London, 23–29 Emerald Street, London WC1N 3QS, UK.e‐mail: David Buckingham, Media and Communications, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK.e‐mail:</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: carybaz@gmail.comd.buckingham@ioe.ac.uk</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Buckingham, David" sort="Buckingham, David" uniqKey="Buckingham D" first="David" last="Buckingham">David Buckingham</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>CONTACT THE AUTHORSCary Bazalgette, London Knowledge Lab, Institute of Education, University of London, 23–29 Emerald Street, London WC1N 3QS, UK.e‐mail: David Buckingham, Media and Communications, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK.e‐mail:</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: carybaz@gmail.comd.buckingham@ioe.ac.uk</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:BB433C7713B5A8021B3E78AB0D2A3165EDFD4F39</idno><date when="2013" year="2013">2013</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1741-4369.2012.00666.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/BB433C7713B5A8021B3E78AB0D2A3165EDFD4F39/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001337</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001337</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Literacy, media and multimodality: a critical response</title><author><name sortKey="Bazalgette, Cary" sort="Bazalgette, Cary" uniqKey="Bazalgette C" first="Cary" last="Bazalgette">Cary Bazalgette</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>CONTACT THE AUTHORSCary Bazalgette, London Knowledge Lab, Institute of Education, University of London, 23–29 Emerald Street, London WC1N 3QS, UK.e‐mail: David Buckingham, Media and Communications, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK.e‐mail:</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: carybaz@gmail.comd.buckingham@ioe.ac.uk</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Buckingham, David" sort="Buckingham, David" uniqKey="Buckingham D" first="David" last="Buckingham">David Buckingham</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>CONTACT THE AUTHORSCary Bazalgette, London Knowledge Lab, Institute of Education, University of London, 23–29 Emerald Street, London WC1N 3QS, UK.e‐mail: David Buckingham, Media and Communications, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK.e‐mail:</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: carybaz@gmail.comd.buckingham@ioe.ac.uk</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Literacy</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">Literacy</title><idno type="ISSN">1741-4350</idno><idno type="eISSN">1741-4369</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><date type="published" when="2013-07">2013-07</date><biblScope unit="volume">47</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="95">95</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="102">102</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1741-4350</idno></series><idno type="istex">BB433C7713B5A8021B3E78AB0D2A3165EDFD4F39</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1741-4369.2012.00666.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">LIT666</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1741-4350</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Abstract system</term><term>Barthes</term><term>Bazalgette</term><term>Bearne</term><term>British film institute</term><term>Broader range</term><term>Classroom practice</term><term>Classroom teachers</term><term>Communications technologies</term><term>Communicative forms</term><term>Computer games</term><term>Copyright</term><term>Creative work</term><term>Curriculum change</term><term>David buckingham</term><term>Different audiences</term><term>Different modes</term><term>Different ways</term><term>Digital media</term><term>Digital technologies</term><term>Everyday life experiences</term><term>Great britain</term><term>Gunther kress</term><term>Image media</term><term>Image media media</term><term>Jewitt</term><term>Kress</term><term>Literacy</term><term>Literacy curriculum</term><term>Literacy educators</term><term>Literacy teaching</term><term>Literacy volume</term><term>London group</term><term>Many decades</term><term>Media educators</term><term>Media literacy</term><term>Media studies</term><term>Media texts</term><term>Multimodal</term><term>Multimodal analysis</term><term>Multimodal literacy</term><term>Multimodal texts</term><term>Multimodality</term><term>Multimodality theorists</term><term>Multimodality theory</term><term>Other texts</term><term>Particular approach</term><term>Policy documents</term><term>Popular culture</term><term>Popular usage</term><term>Primary school teachers</term><term>Primary schools</term><term>Print texts</term><term>Professional development</term><term>Recent research</term><term>Recent years</term><term>Routledge</term><term>School textbooks</term><term>Semiotic approach</term><term>Semiotics</term><term>Social semiotics</term><term>Social theory</term><term>Teacher education</term><term>Textual analysis</term><term>Textual practices</term><term>Ukla</term><term>Vision project</term><term>Visual analysis</term><term>Visual design</term><term>Young children</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">In recent years, literacy educators have increasingly recognised the importance of addressing a broader range of texts in the classroom. This article raises some critical concerns about a particular approach to this issue that has been widely promoted in recent years – the concept of ‘multimodality’. Multimodality theory offers a broadly semiotic approach to analysing a range of communicative forms. It has been widely taken up by literacy educators, initially at an academic level, and has begun to find its way into policy documents, teacher education and professional development and classroom practice. This article presents some criticisms, both of the theory itself and of the ways in which it has been taken up within the wider context of curriculum change. It argues that, in its popular usage, multimodality theory is being appropriated in a way that merely reinforces a long‐standing distinction between print and ‘non‐print’ texts. This contributes in particular to a continuing neglect of the specificity of moving image media – media that are central to the learning and everyday life experiences of young children. Drawing on recent classroom‐based research, the article concludes by offering some brief indications of an alternative approach to these issues.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>literacy</json:string><json:string>multimodality</json:string><json:string>multimodal</json:string><json:string>kress</json:string><json:string>multimodality theory</json:string><json:string>bazalgette</json:string><json:string>routledge</json:string><json:string>multimodal texts</json:string><json:string>ukla</json:string><json:string>multimodal analysis</json:string><json:string>barthes</json:string><json:string>semiotics</json:string><json:string>jewitt</json:string><json:string>bearne</json:string><json:string>image media</json:string><json:string>copyright</json:string><json:string>media studies</json:string><json:string>media literacy</json:string><json:string>literacy educators</json:string><json:string>recent years</json:string><json:string>classroom practice</json:string><json:string>young children</json:string><json:string>communicative forms</json:string><json:string>computer games</json:string><json:string>media educators</json:string><json:string>print texts</json:string><json:string>literacy teaching</json:string><json:string>textual analysis</json:string><json:string>social semiotics</json:string><json:string>classroom teachers</json:string><json:string>policy documents</json:string><json:string>teacher education</json:string><json:string>recent research</json:string><json:string>semiotic approach</json:string><json:string>particular approach</json:string><json:string>literacy volume</json:string><json:string>gunther kress</json:string><json:string>other texts</json:string><json:string>curriculum change</json:string><json:string>school textbooks</json:string><json:string>broader range</json:string><json:string>professional development</json:string><json:string>popular usage</json:string><json:string>visual analysis</json:string><json:string>multimodal literacy</json:string><json:string>image media media</json:string><json:string>multimodality theorists</json:string><json:string>great britain</json:string><json:string>primary schools</json:string><json:string>popular culture</json:string><json:string>digital technologies</json:string><json:string>different modes</json:string><json:string>many decades</json:string><json:string>everyday life experiences</json:string><json:string>different ways</json:string><json:string>london group</json:string><json:string>social theory</json:string><json:string>media texts</json:string><json:string>abstract system</json:string><json:string>visual design</json:string><json:string>different audiences</json:string><json:string>textual practices</json:string><json:string>communications technologies</json:string><json:string>primary school teachers</json:string><json:string>digital media</json:string><json:string>creative work</json:string><json:string>literacy curriculum</json:string><json:string>vision project</json:string><json:string>david buckingham</json:string><json:string>british film institute</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Cary Bazalgette</name><affiliations><json:string>CONTACT THE AUTHORSCary Bazalgette, London Knowledge Lab, Institute of Education, University of London, 23–29 Emerald Street, London WC1N 3QS, UK.e‐mail: David Buckingham, Media and Communications, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK.e‐mail:</json:string><json:string>E-mail: carybaz@gmail.comd.buckingham@ioe.ac.uk</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>David Buckingham</name><affiliations><json:string>CONTACT THE AUTHORSCary Bazalgette, London Knowledge Lab, Institute of Education, University of London, 23–29 Emerald Street, London WC1N 3QS, UK.e‐mail: David Buckingham, Media and Communications, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK.e‐mail:</json:string><json:string>E-mail: carybaz@gmail.comd.buckingham@ioe.ac.uk</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>media</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>multimodality</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>critical literacy</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>digital literacy/ies</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Early Years</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>new literacies</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>popular culture</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>LIT666</json:string></articleId><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>In recent years, literacy educators have increasingly recognised the importance of addressing a broader range of texts in the classroom. This article raises some critical concerns about a particular approach to this issue that has been widely promoted in recent years – the concept of ‘multimodality’. Multimodality theory offers a broadly semiotic approach to analysing a range of communicative forms. It has been widely taken up by literacy educators, initially at an academic level, and has begun to find its way into policy documents, teacher education and professional development and classroom practice. This article presents some criticisms, both of the theory itself and of the ways in which it has been taken up within the wider context of curriculum change. It argues that, in its popular usage, multimodality theory is being appropriated in a way that merely reinforces a long‐standing distinction between print and ‘non‐print’ texts. This contributes in particular to a continuing neglect of the specificity of moving image media – media that are central to the learning and everyday life experiences of young children. Drawing on recent classroom‐based research, the article concludes by offering some brief indications of an alternative approach to these issues.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>7.352</score><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>595.44 x 841.68 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractCharCount>1276</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>6092</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>37340</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>8</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>196</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Literacy, media and multimodality: a critical response</title><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>Literacy</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1741-4369</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>1741-4350</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1741-4369</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>LIT</json:string></publisherId><volume>47</volume><issue>2</issue><pages><first>95</first><last>102</last><total>8</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><subject><json:item><value>Original Article</value></json:item></subject></host><categories><wos><json:string>social science</json:string><json:string>linguistics</json:string><json:string>education & educational research</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>economic & social sciences</json:string><json:string>social sciences</json:string><json:string>education</json:string></scienceMetrix></categories><publicationDate>2013</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2013</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1741-4369.2012.00666.x</json:string></doi><id>BB433C7713B5A8021B3E78AB0D2A3165EDFD4F39</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/BB433C7713B5A8021B3E78AB0D2A3165EDFD4F39/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/BB433C7713B5A8021B3E78AB0D2A3165EDFD4F39/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/BB433C7713B5A8021B3E78AB0D2A3165EDFD4F39/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Literacy, media and multimodality: a critical response</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><availability><p>Copyright © 2013 UKLACopyright © 2012 UKLA</p></availability><date>2013</date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note>Economic and Social Research Council UK</note><note>UK Film Council's Film: 21st Century Literacy</note><note>Qualifications and Curriculum Authority</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Literacy, media and multimodality: a critical response</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">Cary</forename><surname>Bazalgette</surname></persName><email>carybaz@gmail.comd.buckingham@ioe.ac.uk</email><affiliation>CONTACT THE AUTHORSCary Bazalgette, London Knowledge Lab, Institute of Education, University of London, 23–29 Emerald Street, London WC1N 3QS, UK.e‐mail: David Buckingham, Media and Communications, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK.e‐mail:</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-2"><persName><forename type="first">David</forename><surname>Buckingham</surname></persName><email>carybaz@gmail.comd.buckingham@ioe.ac.uk</email><affiliation>CONTACT THE AUTHORSCary Bazalgette, London Knowledge Lab, Institute of Education, University of London, 23–29 Emerald Street, London WC1N 3QS, UK.e‐mail: David Buckingham, Media and Communications, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK.e‐mail:</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Literacy</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">Literacy</title><idno type="pISSN">1741-4350</idno><idno type="eISSN">1741-4369</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1741-4369</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><date type="published" when="2013-07"></date><biblScope unit="volume">47</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="95">95</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="102">102</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">BB433C7713B5A8021B3E78AB0D2A3165EDFD4F39</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1741-4369.2012.00666.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">LIT666</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2013</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract><p>In recent years, literacy educators have increasingly recognised the importance of addressing a broader range of texts in the classroom. This article raises some critical concerns about a particular approach to this issue that has been widely promoted in recent years – the concept of ‘multimodality’. Multimodality theory offers a broadly semiotic approach to analysing a range of communicative forms. It has been widely taken up by literacy educators, initially at an academic level, and has begun to find its way into policy documents, teacher education and professional development and classroom practice. This article presents some criticisms, both of the theory itself and of the ways in which it has been taken up within the wider context of curriculum change. It argues that, in its popular usage, multimodality theory is being appropriated in a way that merely reinforces a long‐standing distinction between print and ‘non‐print’ texts. This contributes in particular to a continuing neglect of the specificity of moving image media – media that are central to the learning and everyday life experiences of young children. Drawing on recent classroom‐based research, the article concludes by offering some brief indications of an alternative approach to these issues.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>keywords</head><item><term>media</term></item><item><term>multimodality</term></item><item><term>critical literacy</term></item><item><term>digital literacy/ies</term></item><item><term>Early Years</term></item><item><term>new literacies</term></item><item><term>popular culture</term></item></list></keywords></textClass><textClass><keywords scheme="Journal Subject"><list><head>article-category</head><item><term>Original Article</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2013-07">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/BB433C7713B5A8021B3E78AB0D2A3165EDFD4F39/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component type="serialArticle" version="2.0" xml:lang="en" xml:id="lit666"><header xml:id="lit666-hdr-0001"><publicationMeta level="product"><doi>10.1111/(ISSN)1741-4369</doi><issn type="print">1741-4350</issn><issn type="electronic">1741-4369</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="LIT"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="LITERACY">Literacy</title><title type="short">Literacy</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="7102"><doi>10.1111/lit.v47.2</doi><copyright ownership="publisher">Copyright © 2013 UKLA</copyright><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="47">47</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue">2</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2013-07">July 2013</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="60" status="forIssue"><doi>10.1111/j.1741-4369.2012.00666.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="LIT666"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="8"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="articleCategory">Original Article</title><title type="tocHeading1">Original Articles</title></titleGroup><copyright ownership="publisher">Copyright © 2012 UKLA</copyright><eventGroup><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Aptara" date="2012-01-02"></event><event type="xmlCorrected" agent="Aptara" date="2013-01-04"></event><event type="xmlCorrected" agent="SPi Global" date="2013-07-02"></event><event type="publishedOnlineEarlyUnpaginated" date="2012-07-23"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2013-07-18"></event><event type="firstOnline" date="2012-07-23"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-02-01"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.6.4 mode:FullText" date="2015-10-03"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst">95</numbering><numbering type="pageLast">102</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo><lineatedText xml:id="lit666-lntxt-0001"><line xml:id="lit666-line-0001">CONTACT THE AUTHORS</line><line xml:id="lit666-line-0002">Cary Bazalgette, London Knowledge Lab, Institute of Education, University of London, 23–29 Emerald Street, London WC1N 3QS, UK.</line><line xml:id="lit666-line-0003">e‐mail: <email>carybaz@gmail.com</email></line><line xml:id="lit666-line-0004">David Buckingham, Media and Communications, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK.</line><line xml:id="lit666-line-0005">e‐mail: <email>d.buckingham@ioe.ac.uk</email></line></lineatedText></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:LIT.LIT666.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><titleGroup><title type="main">Literacy, media and multimodality: a critical response</title><title type="short">Literacy, media and multimodality</title></titleGroup><creators><creator xml:id="lit666-cr-0001" creatorRole="author" corresponding="yes"><personName><givenNames>Cary</givenNames><familyName>Bazalgette</familyName></personName></creator><creator xml:id="lit666-cr-0002" creatorRole="author" corresponding="yes"><personName><givenNames>David</givenNames><familyName>Buckingham</familyName></personName></creator></creators><keywordGroup type="author"><keyword xml:id="lit666-kwd-0001">media</keyword><keyword xml:id="lit666-kwd-0002">multimodality</keyword><keyword xml:id="lit666-kwd-0003">critical literacy</keyword><keyword xml:id="lit666-kwd-0004">digital literacy/ies</keyword><keyword xml:id="lit666-kwd-0005"><fc>E</fc>arly <fc>Y</fc>ears</keyword><keyword xml:id="lit666-kwd-0006">new literacies</keyword><keyword xml:id="lit666-kwd-0007">popular culture</keyword></keywordGroup><fundingInfo><fundingAgency>Economic and Social Research Council UK</fundingAgency></fundingInfo><fundingInfo><fundingAgency>UK Film Council's Film: 21st Century Literacy</fundingAgency></fundingInfo><fundingInfo><fundingAgency>Qualifications and Curriculum Authority</fundingAgency></fundingInfo><abstractGroup><abstract xml:id="lit666-abs-0001" type="main"><title type="main">Abstract</title><p xml:id="lit666-para-0001">In recent years, literacy educators have increasingly recognised the importance of addressing a broader range of texts in the classroom. This article raises some critical concerns about a particular approach to this issue that has been widely promoted in recent years – the concept of ‘multimodality’. Multimodality theory offers a broadly semiotic approach to analysing a range of communicative forms. It has been widely taken up by literacy educators, initially at an academic level, and has begun to find its way into policy documents, teacher education and professional development and classroom practice. This article presents some criticisms, both of the theory itself and of the ways in which it has been taken up within the wider context of curriculum change. It argues that, in its popular usage, multimodality theory is being appropriated in a way that merely reinforces a long‐standing distinction between print and ‘non‐print’ texts. This contributes in particular to a continuing neglect of the specificity of moving image media – media that are central to the learning and everyday life experiences of young children. Drawing on recent classroom‐based research, the article concludes by offering some brief indications of an alternative approach to these issues.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Literacy, media and multimodality: a critical response</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Literacy, media and multimodality</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Literacy, media and multimodality: a critical response</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Cary</namePart><namePart type="family">Bazalgette</namePart><affiliation>CONTACT THE AUTHORSCary Bazalgette, London Knowledge Lab, Institute of Education, University of London, 23–29 Emerald Street, London WC1N 3QS, UK.e‐mail: David Buckingham, Media and Communications, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK.e‐mail:</affiliation><affiliation>E-mail: carybaz@gmail.comd.buckingham@ioe.ac.uk</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">David</namePart><namePart type="family">Buckingham</namePart><affiliation>CONTACT THE AUTHORSCary Bazalgette, London Knowledge Lab, Institute of Education, University of London, 23–29 Emerald Street, London WC1N 3QS, UK.e‐mail: David Buckingham, Media and Communications, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK.e‐mail:</affiliation><affiliation>E-mail: carybaz@gmail.comd.buckingham@ioe.ac.uk</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2013-07</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2013</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><abstract>In recent years, literacy educators have increasingly recognised the importance of addressing a broader range of texts in the classroom. This article raises some critical concerns about a particular approach to this issue that has been widely promoted in recent years – the concept of ‘multimodality’. Multimodality theory offers a broadly semiotic approach to analysing a range of communicative forms. It has been widely taken up by literacy educators, initially at an academic level, and has begun to find its way into policy documents, teacher education and professional development and classroom practice. This article presents some criticisms, both of the theory itself and of the ways in which it has been taken up within the wider context of curriculum change. It argues that, in its popular usage, multimodality theory is being appropriated in a way that merely reinforces a long‐standing distinction between print and ‘non‐print’ texts. This contributes in particular to a continuing neglect of the specificity of moving image media – media that are central to the learning and everyday life experiences of young children. Drawing on recent classroom‐based research, the article concludes by offering some brief indications of an alternative approach to these issues.</abstract><note type="funding">Economic and Social Research Council UK</note><note type="funding">UK Film Council's Film: 21st Century Literacy</note><note type="funding">Qualifications and Curriculum Authority</note><subject><genre>keywords</genre><topic>media</topic><topic>multimodality</topic><topic>critical literacy</topic><topic>digital literacy/ies</topic><topic>Early Years</topic><topic>new literacies</topic><topic>popular culture</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Literacy</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>Literacy</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><subject><genre>article-category</genre><topic>Original Article</topic></subject><identifier type="ISSN">1741-4350</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1741-4369</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1741-4369</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">LIT</identifier><part><date>2013</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>47</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>2</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>95</start><end>102</end><total>8</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">BB433C7713B5A8021B3E78AB0D2A3165EDFD4F39</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1741-4369.2012.00666.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">LIT666</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">Copyright © 2013 UKLACopyright © 2012 UKLA</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>WILEY</recordContentSource></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Sarre/explor/MusicSarreV3/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001337 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001337 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Sarre
|area= MusicSarreV3
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:BB433C7713B5A8021B3E78AB0D2A3165EDFD4F39
|texte= Literacy, media and multimodality: a critical response
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.33. |  |