Literacy and multiliteracies-oriented approaches in collegiate FL curriculum

In the past twenty years, the overall landscape of FL education in U.S. colleges and universities has undergone major changes. A number of factors prompted these changes, including shifts in FL enrollment trends spurred by the forces of globalization, pressures for greater accountability in academia putting FL programs’ futures at risk, questions regarding the place and role of the humanities in the overall mission of institutions of higher learning in the U.S. The well-documented bifurcation of FL programs, which refers to fixed lines of demarcation between lower-level language courses and upper-level literature and culture courses is often cited as a major cause of the current crisis and has prompted many scholars to call again for FL departmental reform, which can effectively respond to that crisis. One such call was issued in 2007 by the MLA Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages in a report which argued for:

1) a unified and broader four-year FL curriculum throughout:

Replacing the two-tiered language-literature structure with a broader and more coherent curriculum in which language, culture, and literature are taught as a continuous whole . . . will reinvigorate language departments as valuable academic units central to the humanities and to the missions of institutions of higher education. (p. 3)

2) a renewed focus on developing students’ “translingual and transcultural competence,” (p. 2), or the ability to operate between languages and cultures, through interaction with FL texts.

Although these recommendations are certainly laudable, the report, as Byrnes, Maxim, and Norris (2010) pointed out, assumes that students will attain high level language competencies without proposing how they would achieve that goal.

The PErCOLATE modules respond to this concern by addressing two interrelated goals:

1) articulate a coherent pedagogical framework that responds to the aforementioned calls for reform and provide an alternative to do away with the differing instructional goals and approaches that characterize two-tiered programs;

2) present this framework in a way that is comprehensible for novice FL teachers

To meet the first goal we foreground the multiliteracies framework (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; Kern, 2000; New London Group, 1996) and the framing concept of literacy which according to Kern (2000) can offer a path to narrow the divide that has traditionally existed between introductory and intermediate courses and courses at the advanced level by offering “a way to reconcile the teaching of 'communication' with the teaching of 'textual analysis'” (p. 43).

To meet the second goal, we focus mostly on pedagogical strategies for integrating the study of language and textual content in lower-level courses given that these courses are generally taught by graduate student instructors (Stewart, 2006). However, in the references section of each module, we often include references which have specific relevance for teaching advanced-level FL courses.

Overall, the purpose of these modules is to serve as a resource for transforming both the content of FL courses and the way it is taught. In this introduction, we first lay out a foundation to help you better understand the relevance of the multiliteracies framework and the framing concept of literacy. For that, we begin with an examination of both the contributions and limitations of communicative language teaching (CLT), the predominant FL teaching framework at lower levels in U.S. colleges and universities, and its goal of communicative competence as currently understood, and use this as a backdrop, to present foundational notions about literacy and the multiliteracies framework

Communicative language teaching (CLT)

CLT finds it origins in research from European linguists with social and functional orientations (Halliday, 1978; Hymes, 1972)and paradigm shifts in education happening in the 1970s. At the same time, researchers in the U.S. were focused on the social aspects of language and the appropriate use of language in various contexts and situations. It is from this work that the notion of communicative competence emerged. Communicative competence characterized language learning as “learning how to communicate as a member of a particular socio-cultural group” (Breen & Candlin 1980, p.90). Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983) expanded this earlier definition of communicative competence to include grammatical, discourse, sociolinguistic, and strategic competencies. In 2007, Celce-Murcia, building on her previous work on communication competence, added to the competencies outlined by Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983) by including formulaic and interactional competencies.

Unlike its predecessor, ALM (audio-lingual method), whose focus was on mastering the building blocks of language through drilling, rote memorization, and practice, CLT's focus is on interaction, collaboration, negotiation, meaning and creative use of language, and attention to input and feedback (Jacob & Farrell, 2003; Richards, 2006). Similarly to communicative competence, CLT also underwent several transformations since its inception in the 1970s, which resulted in a number of CLT variants; today CLT is an umbrella term that covers a wide range of approaches to FL teaching.

However, despite the many contributions that CLT has made to language teaching and learning, many scholars have argued that the transformations that CLT has undergone over the past decades have led to a watering down of the notion of communicative competence and with it, to the content of FL teaching itself. In its current form, CLT has 2 main limitations: 1) its primary focus on “interactive, transactional oral language use” in generic contexts (Byrnes, 2006, p. 244) and 2) its superficial treatment of cultural and textual content. Further, while the CLT classroom encourages students to share their opinions and feelings about the themes and topics examined, this sharing seldom goes beyond expressing individual viewpoints. As a result, it fails to develop students' discourse competence and academic abilities, and is ultimately incompatible with the kind of content with which students are generally expected to interact with outside the lower-level sequence of courses.

CLT has undoubtedly made several significant contributions to the teaching and learning of foreign languages, namely by focusing on effective communication, a wider range of communicative competencies, connections between form and meaning, and a focus on the learner. However, CLT does not go far enough. As underscored by Kern (2000), CLT puts limits not only on the ways students can use language but also on their understandings of how language, communication and culture connect. To overcome CLT's shortcomings, the view argued in the PErCOLATE modules is that the concept of communication needs to be pushed further and that curriculum and instruction need to be grounded in texts in order to facilitate students' FL literacy development.

Literacy and the multiliteracies framework

As a way to fill the aforementioned curricular and instructional gap found in many foreign language and literature programs, scholars (e.g.: Allen & Paesani, 2010; Byrnes, Maxim, & Norris, 2010; Kern, 2000; Swaffar & Arens, 2005) have proposed literacy and a pedagogy of multiliteracies (New London Group, 1996) to frame collegiate FL curricula and instruction, and encourage learners to interpret and think critically about discourse through a variety of contexts, modes, and textual genres. In their seminal article, The New London Group argues that the emergence of increasingly diverse linguistic and cultural communities and the rise of new technologies and communication channels foregrounding new modes of communication is contributing to a paradigm shift away from earlier notions of literacy, traditionally defined as the ability to read and write, to new literacies embodied in new social practices. A result of these broad and far-reaching changes is that, it is no longer enough for “learners to know how to communicate meanings; they have to understand the practice of meaning making itself” (Kramsch, 2006, p. 251). Instead, learners need to develop the ability to comprehend, interpret, and produce a wide range of multimodal texts in the target language, but also need to develop the ability to understand how language and other symbolic systems are used in order to design meaning. To put it differently, learners need to learn “how to rely on clues other than verbal ones to find out the intentions of [their] interlocutor…” (Kramsch, 2006, p. 250).

Key elements of a multiliteracies-based pedagogy

The New London Group put forth two paradigms which can be used to structure teaching around the principles of multiliteracies: Design of meaning and the four curricular components (or four pedagogical acts).

Design of meaning is defined as an active, dynamic, and transformative process which involves the construction of meaning-form-function connections while engaging in the interpretation or creation of texts.

The three key aspects of the design of meaning process (Available Designs, Designing, and the Redesigned, are described below:

Design of Meaning

So, this conception of meaning expands the typical focus of FL instruction from an almost exclusive focus on the linguistic available designs of grammar and vocabulary to include other types of available designs.

Available Designs

Available Designs also include “multimodal” ensembles of any of these semiotic modes in combination. A representation of multimodality is provided in this graph.

The Four Curricular Components

In order to instantiate a pedagogy of design and multimodality, NLG (1986) proposed four curricular components to scaffold student learning and engagement in acts of meaning design: Situated Practice, Overt Instruction, Critical Framing, and Transformed Practice. Twenty years later, Kalantzis and Cope (2005) reframed these four dimensions of multiliteracies pedagogy into “four acts of knowing” or “knowledge processes”: Experiencing, Conceptualizing, Analyzing and Applying (p. 69).

When framed within the four curricular components, instructional activities involve both interpretive and productive engagement with texts, and metacognitive reflections on how meaning is made which draw attention to how choice of form (linguistic, spatial layout, color, etc.) creates certain meanings and not others. These four curricular components form a paradigm that can be used to structure daily lessons. They do not represent a hierarchical or sequential arrangement, but rather offer “a map of the range of pedagogical moves” that can be interwoven in a non-linear, recursive sequence in order to best meet learners’ literacy needs (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009, p. 186). Furthermore, many activities simultaneously involve multiple curricular components. Traditionally, Situated Practice and Overt Instruction have been at the center of instruction in lower-level courses, leaving out Critical Framing and Transformed Practice, which are essential “for the development of students’ critical and cultural understanding of language, literacy, and communication” (Kern, 2000, p. 134). A goal of a multiliteracies approach is to ensure that the abilities developed through Critical Framing and Transformed Practice activities are also a significant goal at the beginning and intermediate levels for a better aligned 4-year FL curriculum. As Kern (2008) explains:

texts – whether written, oral, visual, or audiovisual – offer more than something to talk about (that is, content for the sake of practicing language). They offer students the chance to position themselves in relation to distinct viewpoints and distinct cultures. They give students the chance to make connections between grammar, discourse, and meaning, between language and content, between language and culture, and between another culture and their own – in short, making them aware of the webs, rather than strands, of meaning in human communication (p. 380).

To guide teaching practice, Kern (2000) offered the following seven principles of literacy: Interpretation, Collaboration, Conventions, Cultural knowledge, Problem-solving, Reflection and Self-reflection, and Language use. Whereas language use, conventions, and cultural knowledge represent core elements of multiliteracies instruction, they are taught in conjunction with the processes of interpretation, collaboration, problem solving, and reflection. According to Kern (2000), “this seven-point linkage between literacy and communication has important implications for language teaching, as it provides a bridge to span the gap that so often separates introductory ‘communicative’ language teaching and advanced ‘literary’ teaching” (p. 17).

Here, you have a graphic representation of the multiliteracies framework, which includes the components which have just presented. They are all interrelated, as illustrated by the arrows: available designs & genre, or the content of instruction; principles of literacy, or the learning processes in which students engage; and curricular components, or the instructional activities used to implement this approach in the classroom.

Another benefit of the multiliteracies framework is that it provides a more holistic, consistent, and effective professionalization of collegiate FL teachers. Having one single framework not only challenges us to rethink the beliefs and assumptions that we hold about teaching and learning, but it can also provide us with coherent notions of teaching and learning that we can apply throughout the FL curriculum.

---

References

– Allen, H. W ., & Paesani, K. (2010). Exploring the feasibility of a pedagogy of multiliteracies in introductory foreign language courses. L2 Journal, 2, 119-142.

– Breen, M. & Candlin, C. (1980). The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 1, 89-112.

– Byrnes, H. (1998). Constructing curricula in collegiate foreign language departments. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Learning foreign and second languages: Perspectives in research and scholarship (pp. 262-295). New York: Modern Language Association.

– Byrnes, H. (Ed.)(2006) Perspectives: Interrogating communicative competence as a framework for collegiate language study. Modern Language Journal, 90, 244-266.

– Byrnes, H. & Maxim, H. H. (Eds.) (2004). Advanced foreign language learning: A challenge to college programs. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

– Byrnes, H., Maxim, H.H. & Norris, J. (2010). Realizing Advanced Foreign Language Writing Development in Collegiate Education: Curricular Design, Pedagogy, Assessment. The Modern Language Journal, 94(s1), 1-235.

– Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2-27). London: Longman.

– Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to foreign language teaching and testing. Applied linguistics, 1, 1-47.

– Celce-Murcia, M. (2007). Rethinking the role of communicative competence in language teaching. In E. Alcón Soler & M. P. Safont Jordà (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 41-57). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

– Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4, 164-195.

– Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. London, England:Edward Arnold.

– Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J.B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 53-73). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.

– Jacobs, G. M. & Farrell, T. S. C. (2003). Understanding and implementing the CLT (communicative language teaching) paradigm. RELC Journal, 34(1), 5-30.

– Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (Eds.). (2005). Learning by Design. Melbourne, VIC: Victorian Schools Innovation Commission and Common Ground.

– Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

– Kern, R. (2008). Making connections through texts in language teaching. Language Teaching, 41, 367–387.

– Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

– Kramsch, C. (2003). Teaching language along the culture faultline. In D. Lange & M. Paige (Eds.), Culture as the Core: Perspectives on Culture in Second Language Learning (pp. 19-35). Greenwich (CT): Information Age Publishing.

– Kramsch, C. (2006). From communicative competence to symbolic competence. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 249-252.

– Maxim, H. H. (2009). An essay on the role of language in collegiate foreign language programmatic reform. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 42, 123–129.

– New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60-92.

– Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

– Scott, V. & Tucker, H. (Eds.). (2002). SLA and the Literature Classroom: Fostering Dialogues. Boston: Heinle Cengage Learning.

– Swaffar, J. (2006). Terminology and Its Discontents: Some Caveats about Communicative Competence. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 246–249.

– Swaffar, J. K., & Arens, K. (2005). Remapping the foreign language curriculum: An approach through multiple literacies. New York: Modern Language Association of America.

---

This module includes:
• A short webinar led by an expert on the topic
• A few core readings and a set of learning activities to consider before, during, and after reading
• A series of pedagogical applications
• A reflective teaching prompt which engages teachers to think back on their experience preparing and implementing a literacy-based lesson
• A few additional resources, which will include: 2-4 annotated references, including one that focuses on advanced instruction; links

---

---

---

---

---