International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 2834-7919   |  e-ISSN: 1554-5210
International Journal of Progressive Education
International Association of Educators

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2014, Vol. 10(2) 56-72

Multimodalities, Neuroenhancement, and Literacy Learning

Joseph Sanacore, & Joseph Piro

pp. 56 - 72   |  Manu. Number: ijpe.2014.051

Published online: June 15, 2014  |   Number of Views: 60  |  Number of Download: 423

Save PDF

Abstract

In the United States, children are in front of the “screen” about six hours a day, and because schools are a microcosm of society, educators need to incorporate more screen-oriented activities into the literacy program. Transmediation, based in social semiotics, promotes collaborative conversations, which nurture positive translations from one sign system to another, for example, from print to the Internet or from print to dance. In support of this pedagogy, related theory and research are presented as well as strategies and activities for engaging students in multimodal learning while demonstrating potential neuroenhancing effects.

Keywords: social semiotics, transmediation, sign systems, multimodality, pantextual meaning, neuroenhancement

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Sanacore, J. & Piro, J. (2014). Multimodalities, Neuroenhancement, and Literacy Learning . International Journal of Progressive Education, 10(2), 56-72.

Harvard
Sanacore, J. and Piro, J. (2014). Multimodalities, Neuroenhancement, and Literacy Learning . International Journal of Progressive Education, 10(2), pp. 56-72.

Chicago 16th edition
Sanacore, Joseph and Joseph Piro (2014). "Multimodalities, Neuroenhancement, and Literacy Learning ". International Journal of Progressive Education 10 (2):56-72.

References
  1. Ajayi, L. (2009). English as second language learners’ exploration of multimodal texts in a junior highschool. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52(7), 585-595. [Google Scholar]
  2. Albers, P., Holbrook, T., & Harste, J. (2010). Talking trade: Literacy researchers as practicing artists. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 54(3), 164-171. [Google Scholar]
  3. Berghoff, B., Egawa, K., Harste, J., & Hoonan, J. (2000). Beyond reading and writing: Inquiry, curriculum and multiple ways of knowing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bitz, M. (2004). The comic book project: Forging alternative pathways to Literacy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 47(7), 574-586. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bosse,M.L., Tainturier, M.J., & Valdois, S. (2007). Developmental dyslexia: The visual attention span deficit hypothesis. Cognition, 104, 198-230. [Google Scholar]
  6. Brice-Heath, S. (2000). Seeing our way into learning. Cambridge Journal of Education,30(1), 121- 132. [Google Scholar]
  7. Broudy, H. (1987). The role of imagery in learning. Los Angeles: The Getty Center for Education in the Arts. [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown, S., Martinez, M., & Parsons, L. (2006). Music and language side by side in the brain: A PET study of the generation of melodies and sentences. European Journal of Neuroscience, 23, 2791–2803. [Google Scholar]
  9. Calo, K. (2011). Comprehending, composing, and celebrating graphic poetry. The Reading Teacher, 64(5), 351-357. [Google Scholar]
  10. Chun, C. (2009). Critical literacies and graphic novels for English language learners. Teaching Maus.Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 53(3), 144-153. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cowan, K., & Albers, P. (2006). Semiotic representations: Building complex literacy practices through the arts. The Reading Teacher, 60(2), 124-137. [Google Scholar]
  12. Daniels, H. (Producer). (2001). Looking into literature circles [Audiovisual media]. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. [Google Scholar]
  13. Danzak, R. (2011). Defining identities through multiliteracies: EL teens narrate their immigration experiences as graphic stories. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 55(3), 187-196. [Google Scholar]
  14. Eisner, E. (1998).Thekind of schools we need: Personal essays, Lois Bridges (Ed.), Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann. [Google Scholar]
  15. Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Nelson, J. (2012). Literacy achievement through sustained professional development. The Reading Teacher, 65(8), 551-563. [Google Scholar]
  16. Gaillard, W.D., Balsamo, L.M., Ibrahim, Z., Sachs, B.C., & Xu, B. (2003). fMRI identifies regional specialization of neural networks for reading in young children. Neurology, 60(1), 94 100. [Google Scholar]
  17. Gallagher, K. & Ntelioglou, B. (2011). Which new literacies? Dialogue and performance in youth writing.Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 54(5), 322-330. [Google Scholar]
  18. Gee, J. (2008). Literacy, video games, and popular culture. In K. Drotner & S. Livingston (Eds.), The international handbook of children, media, and culture (pp. 196-212). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  19. Goodman, N. (1976). Languages of art, 2nd  ed. Indianapolis: Hackett. [Google Scholar]
  20. Gowen, E. & Miall, R. C. (2007). The cerebellum and motor dysfunction in neuropsychiatric disorders. Cerebellum, 6(3), 268-79. [Google Scholar]
  21. Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  22. Harste, J. (2009). Multimodality: In perspective. In J. Hoffman & Y. Goodman (Eds.), Changing literacies for changing times (pp. 34-48). New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  23. IRAInspire. (2012). Literacy goes pop! Retrieved from www.reading.org [Google Scholar]
  24. Jenkins, H., with Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education in the 21st century. An occasional paper on digital media and learning, The MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved from digitallearningmacfound.org/atf/cf/%7B7E45C7E0-A3E0 4B89AC9CE807E1B0AE4E%7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF [Google Scholar]
  25. Kirkland, D. (2009). Researching and teaching English in the digital dimension. Research in the Teaching of English, 44(1), 8-22. [Google Scholar]
  26. Knowledge Works. (2010). 2020 Forecast: Creating the future of learning. Pala Alto, CA: Institute of the Future. Retrieved from http://knowledgeworks.org/2020-forecast [Google Scholar]
  27. Kowatari, Y., Lee, S.H., Yamamura, H., Nagamori, Y., Levy, P., Yamane, S., &Yamamoto, M.(2009). Neural networks involved in artistic creativity. Human Brain Mapping, 30(5), 1678-1690. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kress, G. (2004). Reading images: Multimodality, representation, and new media. Retrieved from www.knowledgepresentation.org/.../Kress2/Kress2.html [Google Scholar]
  30. Kress, G. (2010).Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Abingdon, Oxon, England: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  31. Kress, G., & Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kress, G., & Leeuwen, T. (2006): Reading images: The grammar of visual design. 2nd Ed. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  33. Lotherington, H. (2011). Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: RewritingGoldilocks. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  34. Mashal , N. , Faust , M. , & Hendler , T . (2005). Processing conventional vs. novel metaphors by the two cerebral hemispheres: Application of principal component analysis to fMRI data. Neuropsychologia, 43, 2084– 2100. [Google Scholar]
  35. McAllister, S. (Ed.). (2008). A bigger boat: The unlikely success of the Albuquerque slam poetry scene.   Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. [Google Scholar]
  36. McCormick, J. (2011). Transmediation in the language arts classroom: Creating contexts for analysis and ambiguity. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 54(8), p. 579-587. [Google Scholar]
  37. Meltzer, J. A., McArdle, J.J., Schafer, R.J., & Braun, A.R.(2010). Neural aspects of sentence comprehension: Syntactic complexity, reversibility, and reanalysis. Cerebral Cortex, 20(8), 1853-1864. [Google Scholar]
  38. Mills, H., & Jennings, L. (2011). Talking about talk: Reclaiming the value and power of literature circles. The Reading Teacher, 64(8), 590-598. [Google Scholar]
  39. Mills, K. (2011). ‘I’m making it different to the book’: Transmediation in young children’s multimodal and digital texts.  Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(3), 56- 65. [Google Scholar]
  40. Molnár, G. (2008). Neuropsychiatric background of severe drawing disturbances. Psychiatria Hungarica, 23(3), 206-13. [Google Scholar]
  41. Morgan, D., & Rasinski, T. (2012). The power and potential of primary sources. The Reading Teacher, 65(8), 584-594. [Google Scholar]
  42. Moyer, J. (2011). What does it really mean to read a text? Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 55(3), 253-256. [Google Scholar]
  43. National Research Council. (2011). Learning science through computer games and simulations.Committee on Science Learning: Computer Games, Simulations, and Education, [Google Scholar]
  44. M. Honey & M. Hilton (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and      Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. [Google Scholar]
  45. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL). (2003). enGauge®21st Century Skill: Literacy in the Digital Age. Institute of Education Sciences: Washington,D.C. Retrieved    from http://pict.sdsu.edu/engauge21st.pdf [Google Scholar]
  46. NCTE. (2008). The NCTE definition of 21st century literacies [Position statement]. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. [Google Scholar]
  47. November, A. (2012). Current and future trends and challenges facing K-12 and higher education today. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the College of Education, Information, and Technology, Long Island University, Brookville, NY. [Google Scholar]
  48. O’Neil, K. (2011). Reading pictures: Developing visual literacy for greater comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 65(3), 214-223. [Google Scholar]
  49. Paivio, A. (2006). Mind and its evolution: A dual coding theoretical interpretation, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  50. Paivio, A. (1975). Coding distinctions and repetition effects in memory. In G. H. Bower (ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation,Vol. 9, New York: Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  51. Pantev, C., Oostenveld, R., Engelien, A., Ross, B., Roberts, L.E., & Manfried, H. (1998). Increased auditory cortical representation in musicians. Nature, 392, 811-813. [Google Scholar]
  52. Patel, U., & Hellige, J. (2007). Benefits of interhemispheric collaboration can be eliminated by mixing stimulus formats that involve different cortical access routes. Brain & Cognition, 63, 145- 158. [Google Scholar]
  53. Pearson, P., & Gallagher, M. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317-344. [Google Scholar]
  54. Peretz, I., & Zatorre, R. J. (2005). Brain organization for music processing. Annual Review of Psychology,56, 89-114. [Google Scholar]
  55. Piro, J. (2002). The picture of reading: Deriving meaning in literacy through image. The Reading Teacher, 56(2), 126-135. [Google Scholar]
  56. Rudd, L. (2012). Just slammin! Adolescents’ construction of identity through performance poetry. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 55(8), 682-691. [Google Scholar]
  57. Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2004). A dual coding theoretical model of reading. In R.B. Ruddell, & N.J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (pp. 1329-1362). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. [Google Scholar]
  58. Sanacore, J. (2004). Genuine caring and literacy learning for African American children. The Reading Teacher, 57(8), 744-753. [Google Scholar]
  59. Sasaki, H., Morimoto, A., Nishio, A., & Matsuura S. (2007).  Right hemisphere specialization for color detection. Brain and Cognition, 64(3), 282-9. [Google Scholar]
  60. Schlaggar, B., & McCandliss., B.D. (2007). Development of neural systems for reading. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 30, 475-503. [Google Scholar]
  61. Serafini, F. (2009). Understanding visual images in picturebooks. In Evans, J. (Ed.), Talking beyond the page: Reading and responding to picturebooks (pp. 10-25). New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  62. Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia: A new & complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. New York: Random House. [Google Scholar]
  63. Short, K. G., Kauffman, G., & Kahn, L. (2000). "I just need to draw": Responding to literature across multiple sign systems. The Reading Teacher, 54(2),160-171. [Google Scholar]
  64. Siegel, M. (2012). New times for multimodality? Confronting the accountability culture. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 55(8), 671-680. [Google Scholar]
  65. Soundy, C. S., & Drucker, M. F. (2010). Picture Partners: A co-creative journey into visual literacy.  Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(6), 447-460. [Google Scholar]
  66. Stowe, L., Haverkort, M., & Zwarts, F. (2005) Rethinking the neurobiological basis of language. Lingua, 115, 997–1042. [Google Scholar]
  67. Symthe, S., & Neufeld, P. (2010). “Podcast time”: Negotiating digital literacies and communities of learning in a middle years ELL classroom. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 56(3), 488-496. [Google Scholar]
  68. Taylor, K., & Regard, M. (2003). Language in the right cerebral hemisphere: Contributions from reading studies. Physiological Sciences, 18, 257- 261. [Google Scholar]
  69. Tierney, B. (2012). Message from AERA’s president: The academic profession: AERA 2025: Remembrance of (academic) things past. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. [Google Scholar]
  70. Tobias, S., & Fletcher, J. (Eds.) (2011). Computer games and instruction. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. [Google Scholar]
  71. Turner, K. (2011). “Rap universal”: Using multimodal media production to develop ICT literacies.  Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 54(8), 613-623. [Google Scholar]
  72. Vaca, J., Lapp, D., & Fisher, D. (2011). Designing and assessing productive group work in secondary schools. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 54(5), 372-375. [Google Scholar]
  73. Walsh, M. (2007). Reading visual and multimodal texts: How is 'reading' different? Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 29(1), 24-37. Retrieved from http://www.literacyeducators.com.au/docs/Reading%20multimodal%20texts.pdf [Google Scholar]
  74. Walsh, M. (2008). Worlds have collided and modes have merged: Classroom evidence of changed literacy practices. Literacy, 42(2), 101-108. [Google Scholar]
  75. Walsh, M. (2009). Pedagogic potentials of multimodal literacy. In L. Tan Wee Hin & R. Subramanian (Eds.), Handbook of research on new media literacy at the K-12 level: Issues and challenges (pp. 32-47). US: IGI Global. [Google Scholar]
  76. Walsh, M. (2010). Multimodal literacy: What does it mean for classroom practice. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 33(3), 211-239. [Google Scholar]
  77. Wolf, S. (2003). Interpreting literature with children. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  78. Wolf, S. (2006). The mermaid’s purse: Looking closely at young children’s art and poetry. Language Arts, 84(1), 10-20. [Google Scholar]
Download
Metric
History
Related

Volume 10 Issue 2

June 2014

All Articles

International Journal of Progressive Education

International Association of Educators.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License.
Privacy policy     |     Terms of Use     |     Use of Cookies
Creative Commons Lisansı
© 2012 - 2024 - THDSoft e-Journal Management System.