Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Multimodal composing and teacher preparation
(USC Thesis Other)
Multimodal composing and teacher preparation
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
1
Multimodal Composing and Teacher Preparation
by
Kimberly McCutchan
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2019
Copyright 2019 Kimberly McCutchan
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
2
Acknowledgements
To my parents for nurturing my passion for education, my grandparents for supporting
my dreams of graduate school, and my husband for motivating me throughout the three-year
process, this would not be possible without you. To Dr. Paula Carbone, thank you giving me the
tools to impact change.
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
3
Table of Contents
List of Figures 5
Abstract 6
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 7
Background & Importance of the Problem 8
Literacy as a Social Practice 8
Composition and Communication 9
An Expanded View of Literacy 11
Equity and Multimodal Composing 12
Teacher Preparation 15
Problematic Situation 17
Statement of the Problem 18
Purpose of the Study 18
Significance of the Study 19
Limitations 20
Delimitations 20
Key Terms 20
Chapter Two: Literature Review 22
The Context of Pre-Service Teacher Education as it Relates to MMC 22
Technologies as a Pedagogical Tool 23
MMC as a Core Practice 25
Design in MMC 26
MMC Production 28
The Pedagogy of MMC 29
Understanding MMC 29
Distributed Collaboration 31
MMC to Critically Engage Students 32
Assessing MMC 34
Sociocultural Learning Theory and MMC 37
Chapter Three: Methodology 40
Site and Sample Selection 40
Site 40
Sample 42
Data Collection 43
Interviews 43
Artifacts 45
Observations 45
Chapter Four: Results 47
Context 47
Site 47
Participants 48
James and Jill 48
Kate 48
MMC Awareness 48
Perception of MMC in Curriculum 49
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
4
Jill 49
Jack 50
Kate 50
Defining MMC 51
Kate and James 52
Kate 52
James 53
Jill 55
Observation 56
PSTs Perceived Preparedness 57
PSTs Felt Unprepared to Utilize MMC 58
The Relationship Between Practice and Preparation 59
MMC as a Tool to Promote Equity 61
Jill’s Recognition of MMC as a Tool to Promote Equity 61
James’s Oversimplification of MMC as a Tool to Promote Equity 62
Summary 64
Chapter Five: Discussion 65
Findings 65
Perceived Preparedness 66
Shared Language 66
Practice 67
Gap in Perception Between Equity Discourse and Pedagogy 68
View of Equity 68
Equity Discourse and Practice 69
Implications 69
Practice-based Curriculum 70
Fieldwork Placement 71
Assessment 72
Recommended Research 72
Fieldwork Observations 73
Sample Size 73
Professional Work 73
Critical Literacy 73
Credential Requirements 73
Conclusion 74
References 76
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
5
List of Figures
Figure 1: Framework of the Study
39
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
6
Abstract
This study utilizes sociocultural learning theory to examine how pre-service secondary
English Language Arts Teachers perceive their preparedness to implement multimodal
composing (MMC) in their practice. Furthermore, the study aims to identify how pre-service
teachers (PSTs) plan to use MMC to promote equity pedagogy. Three participants informed this
study. Two participants were PSTs from a competitive TE program in Southern California. The
third was a professor from the TE program. Given the complexity of the research questions, the
inquiry was inductive. By gathering data from PSTs about their perception to utilize MMC in
their future classrooms, as well as their understanding of the relationship between MMC and
equity through semi-structured interviews, observation and collection of artifacts, it was possible
to generate a theory about the effectiveness of the TE program to prepare PSTs to use MMC. The
study found that PSTs do not feel prepared to utilize MMC in their future classroom contexts and
while they acknowledge the relationship between equity and MMC, do not have the confidence
to implement equitable learning opportunities using MMC with students. The findings suggest
that an examination of TE program’s structure may be required to more clearly connect theory
with practice in order to better prepare PSTs for their future classroom contexts.
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
7
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Two undeniable truths in education inform this study. The first, research has proven that
teachers are an integral part of schooling (McCaffrey, Lockwood, Koretz, & Hamilton, 2003).
The role they play in shaping a student’s educational experience is hugely significant and it is
essential to invest in their pre-service training so that they are prepared to enter the classroom
and provide an equitable education to diverse groups of students. The second, the landscape of
information consumption is changing (Poyas & Eilam, 2010). The way students consume,
consider and communicate information has changed drastically, so the way we educate them
should respond accordingly (Kress & Selander, 2012). Pre-service teachers (PSTs) require
specialized training in key pedagogical practices in order to enter future classroom contexts
prepared to meet the needs of their students (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Ball & Forzani, 2009). This
paper addresses the intersection of these two points in order to examine PST training,
specifically in multimodal composing (MMC). For the purpose of this research, MMC is defined
as the interaction and integration of specific semiotic resources co-deployed across various
modalities to communicate a coherent message (Lim et al, 2015). This study will seek to uncover
how PSTs perceive their preparedness to implement MMC. This is a significant issue because
incorporating multimodal composing into classrooms has the potential to create relevant and
equitable educational opportunities for all students. The research collected in this study will
contribute to the growing body of research in MMC and PST preparation that seeks to enhance
the curriculum in Teacher Education (TE) programs and promote equitable learning
environments for all students.
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
8
Background & Importance of the Problem
The trend towards less text and more image in learning resources has been growing for
decades, and yet, an understanding of the effects and affordances of different modes and media is
not widespread (Kress, 2005; Serafini, 2015). The implications of design and principles of
composition are central to unpacking contemporary forms of texts in a practical way. As such,
teacher preparation programs may need to prepare PSTs to identify the relation between semiotic
designs of multimodal learning resources in order to evaluate their potential for learning (Kress,
2005). If this shift is not addressed in TE programs, teachers will enter the field unprepared to
meet the needs of their students.
Literacy as a Social Practice
In order to recognize the value of preparing PSTs to use MMC in their future classroom
contexts, literacy is viewed as a social practice (The New London Group, 1996). Perry &
Purcell-Gates (2013) highlight the key role language plays in power relationships by examining
how urban middle school students in an alternative school for “problem kids” have access to
different discourses in their home, community and school. The middle school students
demonstrated covert resistance, or subtle forms of resistance in which language and literacy
practices are hidden from those in power (Perry & Purcell-Gates, 2013; Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
In an assignment that asked the students to compose an original poem, one participant
incorporated codes that did not align with the traditional language used in school so that others
would not be able to understand her meaning (Perry & Purcell-Gates, 2013). This covert choice
to resist the dominant language in the school context speaks to how minoritized students
recognize that they are part of a system that promotes hegemonic power structures and are
excluded from traditional literacies.
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
9
Furthermore, Perry & Purcell-Gates (2013) found that the students used practices that they
learned in school to participate in youth culture. For example, one student used a variety of
resources, included the Internet, to improve his performance in video games. Students’ ability to
transform skills to participate in home or community discourses that do not align with their
school discourse remains largely unacknowledged in formal school practices (Kim, 2011; Perry
& Purcell-Gates, 2013; Serafini, 2015). MMC has the potential to bridge that gap. If the codes
used by middle school students are included in an academic context, students’ access to the
content and potential to succeed is greatly improved (Kim, 2011; Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
An important construct for recognizing the value of preparing PSTs in MMC is highlighting
the need to develop PSTs critical literacy in their TE programs. Shor (1999) claims that ‘every
educator orients students toward certain values, actions, and language with implications for the
kind of society and people these behaviors will produce” (p.22). This immense responsibility
requires that TE programs develop PSTs’ critical literacy. Lee (2005) argues that the majority of
PSTs are Caucasian and were raised and educated in an environment with little diversity. As
such, they may need to become critically literate in their TE programs to recognize unequal
power relations as well as their own biases in order to transform student lives through literacy
education (Lee, 2005).
Composition and Communication
The form and format of learning resources reveal the dominant modes of representation
and processes for making meaning. Kress (2005) uses social semiotics theory to highlight the
fact that meanings always relate to specific societies and their cultures. The meaning-making
process that has dominated schools in the United States over the last 300 years is the mode of
writing with the medium of book and page (Kress, 2005). Within this alphabetic culture, the
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
10
readers’ task is to reproduce the meaning, which the author intended. With the shift to more
multimodal texts, the readers’ task has drastically changed. Now, they must design the order, and
consequently the meaning, of the texts for themselves (Kress, 2005). When the power does not
reside solely with the author, there is potential to challenge the existing configurations of power,
expose inequities and create more equitable learning experiences for students (Kress, 2005).
Rosenblatt (1969) further emphasizes the dynamic relationship between the text and the
reader. She argues that the students’ social, psychological, and cultural worlds impact their
literacy and demands that a teacher have interdisciplinary knowledge of social science to better
navigate the relationship between a text and a student. Her transactional theory of reading
requires that teachers investigate what happens in the act of reading (Rosenblatt, 1969). She
argues that a text exists in interaction with a specific student’s mind and the experience of
reading the text is unique to the student and his or her experiences. MMC has the potential to
expand a teacher’s ability to connect a student’s unique experience with the literacy practices in
a classroom.
In the multimodal landscape of communication, a teacher’s process for guiding students’
comprehension or creation of a text requires significant attention to choice regarding design. This
steps away from the traditional form of communication has proven challenging. Central to the
successful inclusion of MMC in teacher education programs is the understanding that images are
not a “simplified” alternative to writing, but rather offer distinctive epistemological affordances
that can empower students to participate more fully and equitably in society (Bezemer & Kress,
2005). In consideration of the fact that PSTs generally believe MMC oversimplifies complex
content, it is critical that TE programs clearly communicate the value of MMC as a rigorous
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
11
academic practice so that they enter the field with a clear understanding of its potential to create
equitable learning opportunities (Bezemer & Kress, 2005).
An Expanded View of Literacy
The segment of students who require literacy intervention is significant and reveals a
clear correlation between the dominant culture and success in school. Mancilla-Martinez and
Lesaux (2010) cite the National Center for Education Statistics (2007) to demonstrate the
disparity in student reading levels, half (50%) of Latino fourth-grade students scored at the
below-basic level in reading, compared with 22% of their White classmates scoring below-basic.
Additionally, Logan and Petscher (2010) cite The National Center for Educational Statistics
(NCES) report that in 2005, 4th-grade African American students scored 29 points lower on
average than Caucasian students in reading achievement based on a 500 point scale. Similarly,
Latino students scored 26 points lower than Caucasian students (Logan & Petscher, 2010). On
the California Achievement Test 32% of Latino students reach proficiency in 4
th
grade and 35%
of African Americans. The comparison is stark when contrasted with the 68% of Caucasian
students who reached proficiency (Logan & Petscher, 2010).
Because multimodal resources provide students with learning resources that extend
beyond traditional print texts, more accessible learning opportunities are created for students.
Research has demonstrated that English language learners (ELLs) and students not reading at
grade level, in particular, benefit from learning concepts through multiple forms of
representation (Proctor, Dalton & Grisham, 2007). In a 4-week study of the reading
comprehension of thirty 4
th
-grade students, Proctor, Dalton & Grisham (2007) found that
learning resources that included multimodal features, such as embedded vocabulary and
comprehension strategy supports, resulted in gains in student comprehension.
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
12
Furthermore, research has suggested that new media promotes student engagement and in
some cases fosters greater comprehension than traditional paper-based texts (Chandler-Olcott &
Mahar, 2003, Moje, 2009). Chandler-Olcott and Mahar (2003) demonstrated the power of
multiliteracy when they incorporated fanfiction into the literacy instruction of 7
th
grade students.
Fanfiction, defined by Jenkins (1992) as the use of mass culture as a starting point for personal
writing, relies on media texts to communicate an original story. Chander-Olcott and Mahar
(2003) discovered that the integration of prior knowledge, images, and verbal scaffolding in a
multimodal text allowed students to construct meaning in highly sophisticated ways. In
consideration of what initial research has revealed about the potential of MMC, it is critical to
examine how teacher education programs are preparing PSTs to implement MMC in their future
classroom contexts (Ball & Forzani, 2009; Forzani, 2014; Hundley & Holbrook, 2013).
Equity and Multimodal Composing
In today’s classrooms students whose strengths are not aligned with verbal or written
language are disadvantaged. Literacy skills that are critical to academic success are built upon
the foundations of White, middle-class, community-based norms (Kim, 2011; Logan & Petscher,
2010; McGee & Banks, 1995; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). As such, key structural advantages exist
for middle-class students whose school experience aligns with the funds of knowledge they bring
from their family- and community-based discourses (Moll, 1989; Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
Newfield (2011) demonstrates the impact of aligning academic practices with cultural norms
through the case study of one 13-year old student, Lungile, in South Africa who was tasked with
communicating a story. When Lungile used oral storytelling to communicate her message, she
used her body, eye movements, and specific linguistic click sounds to animate her meaning. Her
ability to tell a story so powerfully is a product of her exposure to oral storytelling practices in
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
13
her community. When the mode was limited to writing, her story was less descriptive and
simplified to only account the main events of the plot (Newfield, 2011). Without approaches that
honor literacies beyond traditional academic ones, students whose backgrounds do not align with
the cultural norms perpetuated in classrooms will continue to be marginalized.
MMC makes it possible to use the mode that is most appropriate for the audience and takes
into consideration the various cultural norms that students bring to the school setting (Kim, 2011;
Lang, 1999; Logan & Petscher, 20120; Kress, 2005; McGee & Banks, 1995; O’Byrne & Murrell,
2014). This is a powerful revolution in the way teachers are prepared for diverse school contexts
because if a PST is trained in how to design, produce and model MMC for students, they can
examine how social context and semiotic interpretation intersect to make meaning for a unique
group of students. The consideration of how to create equitable learning opportunities for
students through MMC is powerful because the dominant mode of writing and medium of book
or page is expanded to include the potential of alternative modes of communication and
representation in education (Chandler-Olcott & Mahar, 2003; Fisher etc al, 2015; Greene et. al,
2014; Kress, 2005; The New London Group, 1996; Wiseman et. al, 2016).
Bezemer and Kress (2008) purport that changes in media are always subject to social
disruption because the move of semiotic material from one mode to another, or transduction,
carries with it social, pedagogical, and epistemological implications (Bezemer & Kress, 2008). If
the shift is done purposefully, MMC has the potential to expand the representational possibilities
for students and ultimately create more opportunities to engage and comprehend information.
For example, Wiseman, Makinen, and Kupianinen (2015) found that incorporating various
multimodal and visual literacy in a third grade classroom, resulted in meaning-making and
representation that expanded and deepened all students’ learning.
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
14
MMC not only has the potential to provide a more equitable curriculum to students, but
also presents a unique opportunity to include students in the process of analyzing curriculum and
corresponding texts as social artifacts. Serafini (2015) recommends that teachers include students
in the analysis of learning resources by asking them to investigate the text’s sites of production
and sites of reception. In consideration of the research demonstrating the deeply personal
interaction students have with a text, positions them to control the meaning-making process is an
important shift to make in schools (Rosenblatt, 1969). By teaching students to recognize and
question stereotypical depictions through written or visual images, teachers give them the tools
to be active participants in their learning and develop academic vocabulary in a relevant setting.
As a result, students experience an equitable education that includes more than the dominant
curriculum that has existed for decades. When research has proved that PSTs are too often not
prepared to create the equity education that students demand, it requires a more thoughtful
approach to how we prepare PSTs for their future classroom contexts (Ball & Forzani, 2009;
Grossman & Hammer, 2009; Mehta, 2013; Milner, 2003).
Honoring diverse ethnic and racial literacy practices is crucial to developing equitable
learning experiences (Kim, 2011). For PSTs to recognize the value of MMC as a tool to create
accessible literacy instruction, explicit emphasis on multicultural education is required. Kim
(2011) cites the enrollment statistics as evidence of the need for more diverse representation, “In
1996, the enrollment in public schools consisted of 64% White, 17% Black, 14% Latino, 4%
Asian/Pacific Islander, and 1% American Indian. The teaching force in 1996 was about 87%
White. The demography has shown little change (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001)” (p. 2). Without a
multicultural focus in TE programs, white teachers enter the field without questioning their
privilege and the implications of American meritocracy on minority students (Kim, 2011).
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
15
Teacher candidates should leave teacher education programs with the ability to critically
reflect on their instructional choices in order to create more equitable learning resources for their
students, and utilize MMC as a tool to increase access to the curriculum. Larrivee (2000), Lee
(2011), Milner (2003), Perry & Purcell-Gates (2013), Rodgers (2002), and Shor (1999) highlight
the need for PSTs to develop a racial awareness and sensitivity in order to successful work with
an increasingly diverse student body. Because PSTs generally lack the skills and knowledge to
effectively reflect about race independently, teacher education programs need to imbed
opportunities to bring an individual’s values, biases and beliefs about race to a conscious level so
that they can compose more equitable learning resources in their classrooms (Milner, 2003). If
PSTs are armed with a multicultural lens, they can utilize MMC to meet the needs of a diverse
group of students.
Teacher Preparation
McGrail, Sachs, Many, Myrick, and Sackor (2011) found that pre-service teachers
consider the role of digital tools to be related to productivity and simplistic meaning making
rather than complex cognitive processes. Their study of teacher preparation programs revealed
that pre-service teachers were offered few opportunities to create multimodal texts for
themselves with relevant digital tools. Instead, they worked with traditional forms of technology,
like PowerPoint presentations, that tended to display information in more traditional texts and
forms (McGrail et. al., 2011; O’Halloran, 2004). When TE programs place more emphasis on
preparing PSTs’ to develop their own digital literacy through the composition of new
technology-mediated texts, PSTs can comfortably navigate and compose with digital tools within
their future classroom contexts. If focus is not placed on developing PSTs digital literacy,
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
16
outdated tools and instructional practices will continue to limit students’ potential to access the
affordances of new media literacy.
TE programs that focus on establishing a metalanguage develop pre-service teachers’
digital literacy and create shared language can be used to identify, describe, and interpret
multimodal resources (New London Group, 1996). This is particularly important when
considering teacher training because having a shared language to anchor their understanding of
multimodal resources is critical in order to communicate effectively with future students.
Serafini (2015) argues that if teachers are expected to understand multimodal resources to
construct meaning, they also need knowledge of the meaning-making processes used in the
creation of multimodal resources. Despite being users of new media themselves, many teachers
have not considered how to integrate the technology into their teaching (Frey, Fisher & Lapp
2015). This reveals the need to more directly situate digital literacy within the greater context of
PSTs’ growth in teacher preparation programs so that it is seen as an effective pedagogical tool.
The prominent role technology plays in students’ lives in and out of the classroom
demands a careful consideration of how digital literacy links to student growth in order to
prepare pre-service teachers to create relevant and equitable learning opportunities. Greene, Yu,
and Copeland (2014) define digital literacy as “the cognitive processes that individuals partake in
during the utilization of computer-based, multimodal information” (pg. 55). Navigating through
the multimodal resources available online requires students to engage in advanced analysis and
self-regulation (Chandler-Olcott & Mahar, 2003; Fisher et. al, 2015; Greene, Yu & Copeland,
2014; Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
Digital media integrates images, symbols, video, music and animation as modes of
communication. Digital literacy requires a student to not only recognize the dominant forms of
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
17
communication, but also synthesize multiple modes to make meaning (Greene, Yu & Copeland,
2014). This complex cognitive process creates the opportunity for students to develop the
declarative, procedural and conceptual knowledge necessary to transfer their knowledge to new
contexts (Greene, Yu & Copeland, 2014). When left to navigate this meaning-making process
alone, cognitive overload and disorientation lead to a breakdown in a student’s knowledge
consumption (Greene, Yu & Copeland, 2014). Therefore, it is critical to train teachers to help
student navigate this complex process and develop students’ digital literacy.
Problematic Situation
The assumption that the use of image threatens literacy skill, coupled with the focus on
cultural ideals rather than the distinctive affordances of different modes and media has
constrained the development of MMC in the field of education (Doerr-Stevens, 2016; Kress,
2005). This is evidenced by the lack of a clear definition of MMC. In fact, as MMC is
developing, there are a number of frameworks emerging to explain how to comprehend the new
style of learning resources available to teachers and students (O’Halloran, 2004, Poyas & Eilam,
2010, Serafini, 2011). While the number of frameworks related to multimodal composing is
promising, the lack of a dominant lens through which researchers, educators, and ultimately
students can discuss MMC and corresponding learning resources poses a significant challenge
(Hundley & Holbrook, 2013; Kress, 2005; Shaw, 2014).
The lack of agreement in within the field of education surrounding MMC is evidence by
the weak implementation of MMC in teacher preparation programs. Learning resources are
changing to include modes other than text and if teachers are to be expected to have the
knowledge to support students’ interpretations of multimodal texts, this information must be
included in teacher education programs to prepare teachers effectively (Forzani, 2014; Hudley
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
18
&Holbrook, 2013; Serafini, 2015).
Statement of the Problem
The problem addressed in this study is the complex issue of why PSTs so often graduate
TE programs unprepared to implement MMC in meaningful and robust ways in ELA classrooms.
PSTs may lack a clear notion of how, why, when, or if they will implement MMC in their future
classroom contexts. Uncovering why PSTs graduate without a clear understanding of the purpose
of MMC is crucial because MMC creates engaging and academically rigorous content for
students. Furthermore, PST’s ability to design and produce multimodal learning resources
effectively has the potential to promote equitable learning environments, especially by designing
opportunities for minoritized learners to engage with complex content. Given the potential of
MMCs to increase engagement and access, preparing PSTs to effectively integrate in MMCs in
their classrooms is a critical area for continued research and further development (Moje 2009).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine how PSTs perceive their preparedness to
implement multimodal composing in their practice. Furthermore, the study aims to identify how
PSTs plan to use MMC to promote equity pedagogy. The research questions that will guide this
study are:
o How do pre-service secondary ELA teachers perceive their preparation to plan,
design and implement MMC in their practice?
o How do pre-service secondary ELA teachers perceive the relationship between
multimodal composing and equity in educational outcomes?
This study will utilize qualitative research to examine PSTs perception of their
preparedness to utilize MMC as a high leverage practice in their ELA classrooms (Creswell,
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
19
2014). This research approach will allow for analysis of how a PSTs experience in their TE
program prepared them to MMC as an instructional tool. Sociocultural learning theory provides a
framework through which the research will be conducted. The social and cultural factors that
influence behavior are pivotal to this study as it seeks to take what students are doing and bring it
into the academic setting, in this case, PSTs and their development of understanding for MMCs
as effective and important aspects of an ELA curriculum.
Significance of the Study
Equity pedagogy and technology integration are two prominent areas of research in
education. The goal of this study is to bridge the two domains within the PST context to uncover
how PSTs perceive their preparedness to integrate MMC in their future classroom contets.
McGrail, Sachs, Many, Myrick, and Sackor (2011) found that PSTs’ view the role of digital tools
as appropriate only for leading to simplistic meaning making rather than complex cognitive
processing. This oversimplification of the power of integrated technology highlights the need to
understand if PSTs feels they are prepared to implement MMCs in meaningful and robust ways.
This study uses MMC as a strategy through which digital tools can be utilized in cognitively
demanding and academically enriching ways that promote an equitable learning experience for
students.
Ball and Forzani (2011) highlight the unnatural elements of teaching as evidence for a
practice-based teacher preparation curriculum. They argue that part of what makes teaching so
unnatural is the purposeful suspension of self-interest in order to promote student learning (Ball
& Forzani, 2011). This intentional separation is critical to creating equitable learning experiences
for students from backgrounds different than that of the teacher. Arming PSTs will this critical
skill is complex. MMC presents an opportunity to operationalize how PSTs learn to suspend self-
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
20
interest to create equitable learning experiences. When teachers incorporate various modalities
into their instruction, they are creating a more inclusive classroom that values multiple ways of
learning (Chandler-Olcott & Mahar, 2003; Fisher etc al, 2015; Greene et. al, 2014; Kress, 2005;
The New London Group, 1996; Wiseman et. al, 2016). By uncovering PSTs’ perception of their
ability to use MMC in their classroom contexts, this study will establish how their TE program
impacted their preparedness to use MMC to create equitable learning environments.
Limitations
There are thousands of students enrolled in teacher education programs across the
country. This study focuses on one such program and within that program, a specific number of
PSTs enrolled in a credential program for English Language Arts. This produces a limited
sample size that may not be representative of PSTs enrolled in other teacher education programs
and the unique curriculum they encounter at different institutions. Additionally, the landscape of
multimodal resources is still developing. As such, there is not a dominant lens through which
researchers, educators, and ultimately students can discuss multimodal composing and
corresponding learning resources.
Delimitations
This study is not intended to be one of summative evaluation. A limitation of the study is
in the narrowing of the number of factors addressed. Student engagement, teacher influence, and
quality of curriculum, are important components of the large picture, but reside outside the scope
of this study.
Key Terms
Equity Pedagogy: “teaching strategies and classroom environments that help students from
diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural groups attain the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
21
function effectively within, and help create and perpetuate, a just, humane, and democratic
society” (McGee & Banks p. 153 1995).
High-Leverage Practices: address the fundamentals of teaching, “to help students master
academic knowledge and skill, and to support their social and emotional development” (Ball &
Forzani p. 3, 2010).
Multimodal Composing: the interaction and integration of specific semiotic resources co-
deployed across various modalities to communicate a coherent message (Lim et al, 2015).
Sociocultural Learning Theory: “learning is necessarily situated within and shaped by
consequential social, cultural, and historical contexts wherein artifacts and rules mediate
relations between learner and community as participants negotiate the distribution of tasks,
powers, and responsibilities” (Anderson & Stillman p. 5, 2013).
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
22
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
An evaluation of the historical perspective of teacher education programs reveals the link
between large-scale organizational systems and PSTs preparedness to implement MMC in their
future classroom contexts. The emerging field of MMC requires a clarification of the relative
terms and concepts associated with the discipline (Moje, 2009). Across the literature on MMC,
there is no standard definition. As such, untangling the complex nature of MMC is made more
difficult by a lack of a shared language (Moje, 2009). For the purpose of this research, MMC is
defined as the interaction and integration of specific semiotic resources co-deployed across
various modalities to communicate a coherent message (Lim et al, 2015). Although meaning can
and has been constructed and communicated multimodally without the inclusion of technology,
the goal of this study is to investigate how PSTs perceive their preparedness to implement MMC
and promote equity pedagogy in their practice. This study defines MMC as the coordination of
specific semiotic resources integrated across varied modalities to communicate a unified
message (Lim et al, 2015).
The Context of Pre-Service Teacher Education as it Related to MMC
The context within which pre-service teacher education exists does not consistently
produce teachers positioned to provide high quality instruction that utilizes MMC and other
pedagogical tools to engage diverse student populations in deep learning. Mehta (2013) points to
the bureaucratic organization of education as the cause for the underprofessionalization and weak
performance of teachers. Due to the top-down organization of the education system, there exists
strict outcome accountability without an investment in human capital to realistically meet the
expected goals. As such, teachers enter classroom practice with limited training and usable
knowledge to confront the complex contexts they enter (Mehta, 2013).
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
23
Further complicating the landscape of pre-service teacher education, the curricular divide
between foundations and methods courses in most TE programs has left teachers unprepared to
implement MMC in their classrooms. Grossman and Hammer (2009) argue that teacher
education programs need to undo a number of historical divisions that underlie the education of
teachers. The practice of dividing foundations and methods courses creates a disconnect between
theoretical knowledge and teachers’ practical work in the classroom. For teachers to utilize
MMC in a meaningful way, they will need to link the sociocultural and constructivist theory that
drives their composition of multimodal resources with specific pedagogical strategies. Due to the
organization of teacher education programs however, they are graduating unable to make these
critical connections and navigate the interplay between coursework and field placement, or
theory into practice (Ball & Forzani, 2014; Grossman & Hammer, 2009; Mehta, 2013).
The special knowledge, skills, and orientations that underlie and enable the execution of
MMC are not typically mere by-products of intelligence or of academic talent and success. As
Ball and Forzani (2009) suggest, the demanding and elaborate nature of professional teaching
depends on specialized training. Therefore, without deliberate coaching in the design and
implementation of MMC, teachers will not be prepared to focus on equity and culture in their
future classrooms (Ball & Forzani, 2009). When TE programs consider how to enable teachers to
successfully manage the multitude of demands required by teaching and reorganize the structure
and curriculum of programs to better prepare PSTs, they may be better positioned to support
PSTs in promoting equity.
Technologies as a Pedagogical Tool
Despite being users of the technology themselves, many teachers enter the field
unprepared to use MMC and other digital tools (Hixon & Buckenmeyer; Hundley & Holbrook,
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
24
2013; McGrail et. al, 2011; Phillips & Garcia, 2013). Hixon and Buckenmeyer (2009) found that
failure to implement technology is related to teachers’ core values about teaching and learning.
Their research revealed that fewer than half of 3,000 teachers surveyed reported using
technology often (Hixon & Buckenmeyer, 2009). This drastic underutilization of digital tools for
learning reveals a troubling reality about how teachers may value technology in the classroom. It
is essential that TE programs create opportunities for teachers to productively consider how to
integrate technology with their teaching to create more relevant and equitable classroom
contexts.
A lack of focus within both TE programs and alternate certification routes may contribute
to the gap in technology use demonstrated in classrooms today. Phillip and Garcia (2013) argue
against the assumption that the widespread use of mobile devices automatically prepares teachers
to integrated technology into the classroom-context. Instead, TE programs may purposefully
bridge classroom practice and social use of technologies and consider the implications of new
media in education (Hixon & Buckenmeyer; McGrail et. al, 2011; Phillip & Garcia, 2013).
Phillip and Garcia organize the intersection between the teacher and the role of technology
around three areas; text, tools, and talk. PSTs should be prepared to define the new texts, such as
MMC, that will be introduced by the inclusion of technology and consider how to use the
technology as a tool that contributes to student learning. Finally PSTs will likely need to have the
training to support classroom talk that leverages technology in a productive way (Phillip &
Garcia, 2013). If teachers are not armed with the knowledge and experience to navigate
technology integration effectively in their PE programs, it is unlikely that it will be incorporated
into their practice once they leave.
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
25
MMC as a Core Practice in TE Curriculum
Ball & Forzani (2009), Cochran-Smith & Lytle (2013), and Zeichner (2005) argue that
practice should be made the core of the curriculum in teacher education in order to prepare
teachers for the unnatural act of teaching in their future classroom contexts. The shift to practice-
based TE curriculum requires that PSTs graduate their programs having developed the essential
tasks and activities they need to deliver equitable and culturally responsible instruction (Ball &
Forzani, 2009). PSTs must understand how sociocultural theory drives practice to align students’
funds of knowledge with their school experience (Chandler-Olcott & Mahar, 2003; Fisher etc al,
2015; Greene et. al, 2014; Kress, 2005; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; The New London Group, 1996;
Wiseman et. al, 2016).
MMC leverages multiple modes to connect with students whose cultural background
favors literacy other than traditional print formats (Doeer-Stevens, 2016; Kim, 2011). The
process of assigning MMC allows teachers to thoughtfully consider how to design instruction to
meet the unique learning needs of particular students (Chandler-Olcott & Mahar, 2003; Logan &
Petscher, 2010) Furthermore, as a student engages with MMC, he or she has the opportunity to
demonstrate their knowledge through a mode that best communicates their understanding of a
subject (McGee & Banks, 1995; Moje, 2009). Through MMC, teachers can responsibly adapt
instruction to deliver equitable and culturally responsible instruction. Given the significant
potential of MMC, it should be integrated into TE program’s curriculum in robust ways in order
to prepare PSTs to use it in their future classroom contexts (Chandler-Olcott& Mahar, 2003,
Moje, 2009, Proctor, Dalton & Grisham, 2007).
MMC has the potential to bridge the students’ everyday literacy practices to support
academic learning (Gee, 2001). Making meaning with MMC is similar to what students are
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
26
expected to do with traditional print resources in an academic setting. Therefore, TE programs
have the opportunity, through MMC, to expand from using traditional texts, like empirical
studies and practitioner guidelines, alone and ultimately create a more accessible and relevant
curriculum for students (Serafini, 2015).
Criticism of core practice has shown that this approach does not account for diversity and
may prohibit teachers from designing equitable learning opportunities for their students (Oakes
et al., 2018). Given that the inclusion of MMC in TE programs is to provide PSTs with
pedagogical tools to honor the diverse backgrounds of their students, this criticism of core
practice is significant. Careful consideration of the way in which MMC is integrated into the
curriculum of a TE program is critical to the successful implementation of MMC in PSTs’ future
classroom contexts.
Design in MMC
In order to use MMC effectively in their future classroom contexts, PSTs most likely
need explicit training on how to unpack the design of multimodal resources (Phillips & Garcia,
2013; Serafini, 2015). The first step is training PSTs to see multimodal texts as visual texts. In
order to do this, they should be able to grasp the composition of the resource. Rather than simply
identifying breaks between paragraphs and pages, PSTs now need the vocabulary to describe
borders, text-boxes, color palettes, orientation, and typography to have more sophisticated
conversations about the resources (Kress, 2005; New London Group, 1996; Serafini, 2015).
Equally important, PSTs may also need the vocabulary to move beyond what they see, in
order to discuss what they might mean. As an example, Serafini (2015) points out salience as a
key understanding for PSTs engaging with multimodal texts. When PSTs consider what is in the
foreground of a text and what is in the background, or how the relative size and position impact
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
27
the way the reader views the information, they can begin to analyze the way texts are composed
to distribute importance (Serafini, 2015). The analysis of the composition yields a deeper
understanding of multimodal texts and gives PSTs the tools they need to lead discussions with
their students effectively.
Kress & Selander (2011) suggest the Interaction Design Process to guide the user in their
understanding of the design of a multimodal product (Kress & Selander, 2011). This framework
asks that PSTs to evaluate the design of multimodal products in order to anticipate how it will
impact students’ learning process. Interaction Design Process requires that the intersection of the
student and the multimodal text be central to the instructional choices a teacher makes (Kress &
Selander, 2011). The attention to how students interpret a text, rather than an assumption that all
students will come to the same understanding, exemplifies the MMCs potential to create
equitable learning experiences for students (Chandler-Olcott& Mahar, 2003, Moje, 2009,
Proctor, Dalton & Grisham, 2007; The New London Group, 1996; Wiseman & Kupianinen,
2016).
The role of the teacher in this new landscape of multimodal resources is to make
available to students the knowledge that positions them to be active participants in society
(Bezemer & Kress, 2008; Hixon & Buckenmeyer, 2009; Kress & Selander, 2011; Phillip &
Garcia, 2013). Jocson (2015) demonstrates how MMC has the potential to teach students that
they are “members of society with the ability to produce knowledge, to use particular forms of
knowledge to challenge normalized ways of thinking and doing, and to be open to and informed
by multiple ways of knowing in recognition of possible entangled lives and experiences” (p. 46).
Through an inquiry-based social action project, students at a mid-west university were positioned
to question normalized discourses and using new media tools to promote social awareness and
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
28
civic dialogue (Jocson, 2015). The divergence from traditional print texts challenged students to
consider how modes can be selected to communicate a message. As a result of the project, one
student commented, “I now understand more concretely the importance of new media literacy ...
to strive to make education a means of improving the world around us” (Jocson p. 47, 2015).
MMC Production
As a result of new technology, many students arrive at school more skilled in multimodal
literacy than their teachers (Hixon & Buckenmeyer, 2009; Miller, 2007). Given the reliance on
text-based curriculum and the lack of training in multimodal literacy in TE programs today,
PSTs may not be prepared to bring student’s outside literacy skills into the classroom. Miller
(2007) argues that PSTs need to develop performance knowledge through design of multimodal
resources themselves in order to become “insiders” in multimodal design practices.
In partnership with Buffalo City School District, Miller (2007) created a Professional
Development focused on preparing urban teachers to use digital video (DV) design and
production as a literacy and learning tool for 5
th
-12
th
students. The goal of the PD is to engage
teachers in the purposeful orchestration of modes to create meaning so that they are prepared to
utilize multimodal literacy in their classrooms (Miller, 2007). Although teachers initially
struggled to view digital tools as meaningful learning resources, as a result of being engaged in
the production process, teachers started to view alternative visual, audio and video modes as
literacy practices. One participant, Dora, explained how the editing process resembled familiar
literacy practices:
“I needed an introduction, body and conclusion. I had to proofread and spellcheck, speed
up some footage, slow down some other. My process of creating a final product, asked
me to use a critical lens on myself, scrutinize my work, spatially, musically, socially,
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
29
emotionally, and technically. . . .[I remember] the absolute rapture, eyes fixated to our
computer screens. . . . The process of DV production is the same one we teach year after
year in its shadowy paper version” (Miller p. 70, 2007).
This experience in practice-based MMC curriculum was described as transformative.
Miller (2007) notes that Dora came to the PD on the first day frustrated by her inability to use
technology; in fact, she described herself as a “technophobe.” Over time however, she came to
see technology as a powerful instructional tool and successfully integrated DV design in her own
classroom. The practice-based focus demonstrated in Miller’s (2007) PD might serve as a
framework to examine the curriculum in TE programs today. When PSTs are provided with
opportunities to practice the skills associated with MMC, they enter the classroom more prepared
to implement it successfully
The Pedagogy of MMC
Curricular objectives about multimodal literacy should be explicit and accessible to PSTs
who are to implement them in their future classrooms (Lynde Tan, 2014). An examination of
current pedagogical practices in ELA classrooms provides a backdrop to consider how powerful
explicit PST training in MMC can be to creating equitable learning experiences for students.
Understanding MMC
Serafini (2015) argues that if teachers are expected to understand multimodal resources to
construct meaning, they also need knowledge of the meaning-making processes used in the
design and production of multimodal resources. To obtain that knowledge, PSTs need to share a
common language. In current theory-based TE programs, the lack of relative terms and
associations within the discipline makes it is difficult to adequately prepare PSTs with the
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
30
necessary knowledge (Ball & Forzani, 2009; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2013; Moje, 2009;
Zeichner, 2005).
Making a shift from a theory-based to a practice-based TE curriculum creates the
opportunities to establish a common language within the field of teaching (Ball & Forzani,
2009). Ball & Forzani (2009) highlight the experience of a PST who is provided with the
opportunity to practice reading aloud a storybook in preparation for the lesson she will teach to
students. As part of this practice-based training, the PST receives feedback and coaching on her
instruction. As specific moves and techniques are questioned, the PST is asked to explain and
refine her pedagogical choices. This practice-based training provides the unique opportunity to
develop a PST’s professional skill and define her instructional choices in order to establish a
shared language (Ball & Forzani, 2009). The opportunity to develop a common language through
practice-based curriculum is critical to the successful preparation of PSTs in MMC (Moje, 2009).
Suggested language to plan, design and implement MMC should be introduced to PSTs by their
professors throughout the TE program to exemplify how a common language promotes greater
understanding of MMC.
The New London Group (1996) suggests that pedagogy is a complex integration of four
factors: Situated Practice, Overt Instruction, Critical Framing and Transformed Practice. They
argue that these factors create more equity in student outcomes (The New London Group, 1996).
Situated Practice, uses sociocultural learning theory as students call upon prior knowledge and
collaborate with peers and teachers to explore their understanding of a skill or concept. Overt
Instruction requires purposeful scaffolding on the part of the teacher to make the content
accessible to the student. In MMC, Overt Instruction of the domain-specific vocabulary is critical
(The New London Group, 1996). Critical Framing addresses how to frame their understanding in
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
31
relation to historical, social, cultural, political and ideological forces in order to create more
equitable learning experiences. Newfield’s (2011) case-study of how Lungile, a 13 year old
student in South Africa, as well as Jocson’s (2005) inquiry-based, social action project
demonstrate how purposeful scaffolding of academic concepts through multiple modes creates
more equitable learning experiences for students. When they are awarded the opportunity to
align their learning with relevant modes, their ability to engage in learning is expanded
(Newfield, 2011; Joscon, 2005; The New London Group; 1996).
In Transformed Practice, students are offered the opportunity to apply and revise what they
have learned in an academic setting (The New London Group, 1996). Transformed practice
creates equitable learning opportunities that take into account a students’ funds of knowledge
and make them relevant in the academic setting (González et. al, 2006). Training PSTs to use
MMC as the vehicle to integrate the four factors of pedagogy creates the opportunity to establish
high and equitable expectations for students (The New London Group, 1996). Given the complex
nature of each of the four factors outline by The New London Group (1996), there remains some
uncertainty about the specific pedagogical practices required to teach MMC to PSTs effectively.
Distributed collaboration. DePalma and Alexander (2018) present a pedagogical approach,
distributed collaboration (DC), that utilizes collaboration among specialists with varied expertise
to complement teacher expertise and facilitate student writing knowledge and experience in
multimodal writing projects. In DC, the teacher takes on the role of both collaborator and
designer (DePalma & Alexander, 2018). As the collaborator, the teacher acts as an expert who
shares his or her knowledge to situate the student to successfully complete the task. In the role of
designer, the teacher designs the learning task, the desired outcomes as well as creates the
conditions required to promote learning (DePalma & Alexander, 2018).
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
32
When DC was used to design a multimodal project assigned to graduate students at Baylor
University, the teacher navigated his role of collaborator and designer to create the conditions
necessary to cultivate students’ MMC skills. In areas the teacher did not have the expertise or
experience needed to give students the support required, he facilitated collaboration among
specialists to strengthen his students’ multimodal literacy and the quality of their end product
(DePalma & Alexander, 2018).
English language learners (ELLs) in particular benefitted from the collaborative nature of
DC. By collaborating with experts like writing scholars, experienced student writers and
members of the community, ELLs are offered an authentic and equitable context to practice their
reading and writing skills with non-print texts through MMC (DePalma & Alexander, 2018). DC
allowed students to view writing as a social activity and recognize ways they contribute to the
collective knowledge of a group (DePalma & Alexander, 2018). The collaboration offered
through DC as a pedagogy for secondary ELA teachers has the potential to help create a learning
environment where students can learn from various experts to practice quality MMC.
Furthermore, the collaborative nature of DC promotes equitable learning experiences for students
who can not produce academic writing due to their language proficiency. The alternative modes
and accompany support available through DC allows for all students to demonstrate their
academic knowledge in relevant ways (DePalma & Alexander, 2018).
MMC to Critically Engage Students
MMC provides students the tools to communicate an argument effectively. Through
alternative modes to traditional text, students co-deploy specific semiotic resources across
various modalities to communicate a coherent message (Doerr-Stevens, 2016). Over a year-long
case study, Doerr-Stevens (2016) studied how MMC was used as a tool for communication at an
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
33
urban high school in the Midwestern region of the United States. The products the students
produced revealed how the selection and organization of modes communicate meaning to the
audience.
In one group’s composition of a radio documentary titled Prison of Possibilities, students
aimed to challenge negative portrayals of their school by the media (Doerr-Stevens, 2016).
Students identified quotes, recorded voice-overs and selected music and sound effects to
communicate their message. The design of the radio documentary was purposeful as students
remarked that they wanted to elicit an emotion that “brings out the passion” students have from
their school and the “anger” they felt at the statements in the quotes (Doerr-Stevens p. 343,
2016).
If the assignment had been limited to include traditional print-texts alone, the student
experience and product may have been much different. In consideration of how we prepare PSTs
to create authentic and accessible learning experience like the one above, it is important to
unpack the affordances of different modes. Hundley and Holbrook (2013) explain that without
explicit instruction, PSTs may not consider alternative ways of making meaning because the
conventional argumentative essay is so embedded in PSTs’ writing practices. Print literacy
practices do not automatically transfer to digital tools for learning and PSTs may require the time
and space to engage in MMC in order to use it effectively in future classroom contexts (Hundley
& Holbrook, 2013)
As part of PSTs critical literacy development, they likely need to expand their understanding
of how literacy is defined to be more inclusive. Lee (2005) argues that there are many
misconceptions about critical literacy including the misunderstanding that being literate means
proficiency in reading and writing alone. PSTs understanding of literacy should be expanded to
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
34
include multiple literacies that include art, music, movement, and visual text. The inclusion of
diverse social practices as measures of literacy has great potential for confronting hegemonic
power structures that exclude minoritized students (Lee, 2005; Logan & Petscher, 2010; McGee
& Banks, 1995; Milner, 2003; Perry & Purcell-Gates, 2013; Proctor et. al, 2007). MMC values
the different ways to communicate meaning.
Assessing MMC
While the field of education has made some progress in embedding MMC into the K-12
curriculum, the inclusion of assessments that move beyond print are in still very rare (McGrail &
Behizabeh, 2017). This is problematic because assessments should include ways to evaluate
multimodal and collaborative compositions. Adsanathan (2012) offers an approach that invites
students to generate grading criteria for new media assignments. The collaboration with students
on evaluation criteria resulted in students becoming “more informed and critical readers and
authors of multimodal rhetoric” (Adsanathan, 2012). Within this framework of student-teacher
partnership, the evaluation criteria are flexible and frequently revised to remain relevant and
dynamic (Adsanathan, 2012). Furthermore, the process of assessment should encourage
reflection throughout the process. Asandathan (2012) found that,
“reading student reflections and blogs can help us better evaluation students’ learning and
understand to the rhetorical decisions and thinking behind their projects, information that
cannot be obtained from the final videos alone” (Adsanathan p. 170 2012).
Moving the focus on assessment from a summative evaluation to a more frequent and flexible
one is a significant shift in how the field of education considers evaluation and should be
explored further to align to the new field of MMC.
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
35
Eidman-Aadahl et al. (2013) presents the work completed by The National Writing
Project (NWP) to identify how multimodal forms of writing can be assessed.
Called the Multimodal Assessment Project (MAP), the group of teachers and researchers
identified five domains to guide the assessment of MMC. The MAP group argues that the five
domains of (1) artifact, the finished product, (2) context, the context that shapes the artifact, (3)
substance, the content and quality of ideas presented, (4) process management and technique, the
skills and processes associated with MMC, and (5) habits of mind form the language, the
patterns or behaviors that move beyond the artifact, the field of education needs to assess
students’ growth as digital writers (Eidman-Aadahl et al., 2013). They argue that the five
domains link the language of assessing MMC with acts that drive the creation of reception of
digital texts.
In a ninth grade American Studies classroom, students demonstrated their understanding
of characters from The Things They Carried using the MAP assessment strategy. Students were
asked to use twitter to make short, frequent posts on a social media site, or microblog, in
character as they listened to an expert from The Things They Carried (Eidman-Aadahl et al.,
2013). The culminating assignment required students to build off of their microblogs and write a
poem to express how a soldier might feel in combat. Eidman-Aadahl (2013) found that the
record of learning lived in the microblogging activity, not the culminating assignment. It was in
the concise statements, collected as tweets, students revealed their understanding of The Things
They Carried. As such, the flexibility to include their microblogs as a criterion in the assessment
of their composition of a complete poem is critical to an accurate assessment of their growth as
digital writers (Eidman-Aadahl et al., 2013).
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
36
Shipka (2009) presents a framework for assessing MMC that offers a manageable way to
account for the wide range of dissimilar texts that students may choose to use in their production
of MMC. Rather than limiting the modes a student can engage with, Shipak (2009) suggests that
students are empowered to define the “communicative strategies they employ in their work along
with their understandings of the work’s purposes, potentials, consequences” (p. 364). Students
are required to produce detailed statement of goals and choices (SOGC) for each MMC text they
produce in order to to mediate the assessor’s interaction with their MMC text, The following set
of core questions guide a students’ SOGC:
1. What, specifically, is this piece trying to accomplish—above and beyond satisfying
the basic requirements outlined in the task description? In other words, what work does,
or might, this piece do? For whom? In what contexts?
2. What specific rhetorical, material, methodological, and technological choices did you
make in service of accomplishing the goal(s) articulated above? Catalog, as well, choices
that you might not have consciously made, those that were made for you when you opted
to work with certain genres, materials, and technologies.
3. Why did you end up pursuing this plan as opposed to the others you came up with?
How did the various choices listed above allow you to accomplish things that other sets
or combinations of choices would not have?
4. Who and what played a role in accomplishing these goals? (Shipka, p. 354, 2009).
The SOGC is much more complex than a simple description of the work a student
produced. Rather, it asks the student to uncover the dynamics of communication and teach
students to consider the ways the texts are being consumed by their audience (Shipka, 2009).
Shipka’s (2009) SOGC assessment framework considers students’ backgrounds and ultimately
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
37
creates a equitable evaluation of a students’ knowledge because both the modes used by the
student and their explanation of their selection of those modes have the flexibility to align with
their unique background.
Sociocultural Learning Theory and MMC
Sociocultural learning theory provides the framework through which to examine the
potential of MMC in PST preparation. Sociocultural learning theory argues that “learning is
necessarily situated within and shaped by consequential social, cultural, and historical contexts
wherein artifacts and rules mediate relations between learner and community as participants
negotiate the distribution of tasks, powers, and responsibilities” (Anderson & Stillman p. 5,
2013). This deliberate attention to the factors that shape learning is ideal when examining PSTs
perception of how well prepared they are to use MMC in the classroom because it highlights the
complex nature of learners and learning (Anderson & Stillman, 2013).
The intricacy of learning is further revealed in Gee’s (1999) examination of how one
learns to read a particular type of text in a particular way. Sociocultural learning theory suggests
that the acquisition of reading a certain way is a result of one’s membership to a social group
where people read, talk, evaluate and interact with the text in the same manner (Gee, 1999).
Given this socially constructed view of literacy, the reading and writing valued in school may not
align with the cultural literacy a student brings from home. This discrepancy between home and
school learning creates an inequality in education that positions minoritized students at a
significant disadvantage (Gee, 1999).
If human learning is largely a social practice, then PSTs benefit from recognizing how a
student’s culturally constructed ways of knowing create a major source of difference in how
people learn how to think (Smagorinsky, 2013). Smagorinsky (2013) highlights the fact that
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
38
schools do not accommodate students of diverse cultural backgrounds. Instead, schools favor
White, middle-class values and norms that can be alienating for minoritized students. As such,
PSTs may need to learn instructional strategies that create learning spaces that value diverse
ways of knowing (Smagorinsky, 2013). MMC is an ideal practice because it includes a wider
range of art and communication forms, and has the capacity to honor the personal identity of all
students.
Choudhury & Share (2005) demonstrate the power of taking a sociocultural approach in
their study of one teacher’s unit that challenged students to question the social construction of
messages. In this sixth grade ESL class, questioning how messages are created helped students
learn about different types of codes and languages, such as visuals, sounds, and multimedia
(Choudhury & Share, 2005). At the end of the year, the teacher noted many positive effects,
including increased self-esteem, greater interest in school, and deeper levels of critical thinking.
The academic gains the students demonstrated were also substantial, “at the beginning of the
school year, 64% of Mohammed’s students were at the “far below basic” (FBB) level, but by the
end of the year, only 21% of the students remained at the FBB level” (Choudhury & Share p. 43,
2005). Furthermore, more than half of his students, 47 out of 72 (65.3%), were reclassified as
English-Fluent-Proficient and returned to mainstream content courses (Choudhury & Share,
2005).
Adopting a sociocultural approach created the space for multiple ways of knowing to be
valued in the school setting. The impact is significant for a student who’s cultural and social
backgrounds conflicted with the expectations of a traditional school setting. Preparing PSTs in
MMC has the potential to ensure that all teachers enter the classroom with the skills and
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
39
strategies to develop similar equitable lessons in their classrooms. If MMC is included
effectively in TE program curriculum, the potential impact on student learning is significant.
The following framework will guide this study:
Figure 1: Framework of the Study
The PST and TE program were the primary factors that influence the outcome of the
study. The criteria, as identified by sociocultural learning theory, impact the desired outcomes of
this research. How the PST perceives their opportunity to learn, practice MMC and reflect on
their own positionality will dictate their perceived preparedness to implement MMC and create
equitable learning environments. Additionally, the PSTs perception of the TE program’s
curricular focus and classroom context will be considered.
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
40
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Qualitative research methods were most appropriate for this study because the focus was
on understanding the experience of PSTs in a TE program (Creswell, 2014). Given the
complexity of the research questions, the inquiry was inductive (Creswell, 2014). By gathering
data from PSTs about their perception to utilize MMC in their future classrooms as well as their
understanding of the relationship between MMC and equity through interviews and artifacts, it
was possible to generate a theory about the effectiveness of the TE program to prepare PSTs to
use MMC.
Site and Sample Selection
In order to successfully examine PST’s perception of how prepared they were to use
MMC in their future classroom contexts, the site and sample selection was purposeful (Creswell,
2014). The site must include a TE program with curriculum that includes MMC and highlights
equity as a tenant of their programmatic focus. Participants must be PSTs who have completed
coursework in the TE program that included explicit instruction in MMC and provided
opportunities to implement MMC in a classroom context.
Site
An established and accredited TE program in Southern California served as the site for
research. The TE program was offered in two formats – online and on ground. The university’s
website read that the program’s “emphasis on high needs schools prepare educators to address
complex education and social issues in any environment” (“Curriculum,” 2019). The curriculum
overview provided on the university’s site noted theory, application and mastery as the three
pillars of the program’s curriculum. Although MMC was not mentioned, the program highlighted
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
41
“blend[ing] instructional technology into powerful learning experiences for k-12 learners” as a
key component of the program (“Curriculum,” 2019).
The program required a minimum of 28 units and could be completed in fifteen months,
across 3 semesters. PST’s fieldwork was integrated with coursework so that a student’s teaching
responsibility progressed over his or her time in the program. In the first semester, the student
focused exclusively on coursework as he or she was enrolled in 10 units. In the second semester,
PSTs “plan, rehearse and practice pedagogy both in a virtual setting as well as a real classroom”
(“Fieldwork,” 2019). During this time, the PST was concurrently enrolled in another 10 units. In
the third and final semester, students planned, practiced and developed sophistication in [their]
pedagogy in a real classroom and planned and delivered lessons by week two” (“Fieldwork,”
2019). While the PST was completing fieldwork, they were also enrolled in 8 units.
This study focused on the Single Subject English concentration with a specific lens on a
required course for PSTs, which focused on applications of curriculum and pedagogy. The
course was taken during the second semester of the TE program and aimed to “apply content-
area knowledge utilizing a repertoire of pedagogical practices responsive to the needs and
interests on diverse learners” (“Course Schedule,” 2019). PSTs were separated into their
respective concentrations, so all students in the course shared an ELA focus. The University
“completely revamped in 2017 to meet new Credential Program Standards and Teaching
Performance Expectations set by the California Commission of Teacher Credentialing (CTC)”
(“Curriculum,” 2019). However, the curriculum and pedagogy course, as well as the topics
covered within the course, did not change significantly.
As part of the course that focused on applications of curriculum and pedagogy, PSTs
were introduced to MMC in week 5 of a 16-week course through a unit focused on critical
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
42
approaches to teaching and learning. Within this class session, students reviewed mentor texts of
MMCs and collaboratively developed a definition for MMC. To anchor the work they did during
class, PSTs focused on themes related to critical literacy, new literacies and project based
learning through the literature assigned in the first 9 weeks. In week 10, PSTs were asked to
develop a response to literature assessment using MMC. In week 13, PSTs were asked to
develop another MMC as they created a digital poster or infographic on effective feedback for
student writing. Although students were involved in their fieldwork classroom during the course,
and encourage to apply MMC in their fieldwork classrooms, it was not part of the course
requirements.
Sample
Purposeful, convenience sampling was used to select participants for this study (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). The participants were PSTs enrolled, or recently graduated, from the TE
program that served as the site for this research. Participants had to have been enrolled in the
ELA concentration and completed the curriculum and pedagogy course within the last two years.
Over ten students were contacted through e-mail and asked to participate in the study. Although
potential participants were contacted multiple times through email, only two students agreed to
be interviewed.
Participant A, James, was in his final year of the TE program. At the time of the
interview, he was completing his first of two 15-week semesters of student teaching. James was
enrolled in the online version of the TE program. All of his courses were conducted through
Adobe Classroom and the TE program’s learning management system.
Participant B, Jill, completed the program one month prior to being interviewed. Jill was
enrolled in the on-campus version of the program and met in person with her professors and
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
43
peers. The juxtaposition of the two participants placement in the program offered a lens through
which to analyze how format and completion impacts PST’s perceived preparedness to
implement MMC.
Because the outreach to PST participants did not yield significant return, a part-time
professor of the curriculum and pedagogy course was contacted and invited to participate in the
study. The criteria for the third participant was experience teaching the curriculum and pedagogy
within the ELA concentration. The third participant, Kate, was contacted through email and
agreed to be interviewed for the study. Kate has been a professor with the TE program since
2014 and primarily taught the ELA pedagogy courses online. Kate was Participant A’s, James’,
professor in the term prior to the interview.
Data Collection
A combination of interviews, artifacts and observations served as the tools for data
collection in this study. Due to unexpected complication with organizing observations and
accessing recordings, the researcher’s access to observation data was limited.
Interviews
Qualitative Interviewing served as an ideal data collection method because it revealed a
person’s perception, and how he or she interpreted his or her perceptions (Weiss, 1994). For the
purpose of this study, two PSTs were interviewed to ascertain their perceived preparedness to
implement MMC in their classrooms. Additionally, the interview included questions to uncover
what the PSTs’ perceived the relationship between multimodal composing and equity in
educational outcome to be. The third participant, a professor of the curriculum and pedagogy
course, was also interviewed in order to understand the role of MMC in the curriculum of the
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
44
course as well as her own perception of her students’ ability to utilize MMC in their future
classroom contexts.
A semi-structured interview was used in this study. The researcher relied on an interview
guide to highlight the topics that were pertinent to the research question, and asked probing
questions specific to each participant’s experience. Several different types of questions were
used to draw out the most valid information. Hypothetical questions were used to prompt
descriptions of the participant’s experience using MMC (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). These
questions were particularly helpful in seeking out features of MMC and how they perceived they,
or their students, were able to implement MMC in their classrooms. Ideal position questions
were utilized to verify participants’ perceptions of MMC.
Devil’s advocate questions were particularly helpful in the interviews because they
broached some controversial topics without compromising the participants’ comfort in revealing
concerns and challenges they faced when discussing their perceptions of MMC (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). To clarify responses and prompt further discussion, interpretive questions were
also used. This style of questions helped to keep the topics focused and the descriptions rich.
The interviews were conducted over the phone in order to accommodate the participant’s
schedules. The interviews were scheduled in a one-to-one format in order to extract important
information from the individual participant (Creswell, 2014). Participants were asked to provide
consent to be interviewed and agreed to contribute to the study. They were also asked permission
to audiotape the interviews. Following the interview, all data were transcribed using the
transcribeme.com so that it could be further analyzed by the researcher.
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
45
Artifacts
The syllabus served as the primary artifact in the study. The syllabus outlined what the
learning outcomes were for the course. This was critical to the study as it revealed how the
course took up MMC as well as the expected outcomes for PSTs as a result of their coursework.
Paricipant A, James, was enrolled in the curriculum and pedagogy course before it was updated
as part of the university’s curriculum enhancement. Participant B, Jill, was enrolled in the course
after it was updated. Although the course title changed, the content and focus on MMC remained
consistent.
The layering of the interview data with the information presented in the syllabus will
allow for triangulation of data (Creswell, 2014). The interview data will reveal how PSTs
perception of their ability to use MMC aligns with the expected learning objectives. Similarly,
their perception of how MMC was introduced within the TE program was compared against the
information presented in the course syllabi. As the data were analyzed, themes emerged that
revealed how PSTs’ experience in their PST program prepared them, or failed to prepare them,
to use MMC.
Observations
Qualitative observations were an ideal source of information because they could
triangulate the data provided in the interviews and artifacts (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). By using
observation in conjunction with the interview, the researcher could determine if what participants
said in the interview aligned with what they were doing in the classroom.
Participant B, Jill’s, curriculum and pedagogy course was observed prior to the official
launch of the study as part of an informational visit by the researcher. The focus of the course
session observed was on creating a rubric to assess MMCs. Notes from the observation were
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
46
included in the study, but no recording was available. Because the course was complete by the
time of the data collection, there was not an opportunity for further observation.
Similarly, Participant A, James, had completed his curriculum and pedagogy course at
the time of the data collection. Although recordings of the course were available because it was
conducted online, the information pertinent to this study, was conducted in break out groups that
were not recorded due to the capabilities of the software used by the university to conduct online
sessions.
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
47
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
Given the potential of Multimodal Composition (MMC) to create relevant and equitable
learning opportunities for students, preparing Pre-Service Teachers (PSTs) to utilize MMC in
meaningful ways should be a critical component of Teacher Education (TE) programs. However,
research suggests that novice teachers are not graduating with a clear understanding of how, why
or when to employ MMC (Hundley & Holbrook, 2013; Kress, 2005; Shaw, 2014). In order to
reconcile this issue, this study aimed to understand how PSTs perceive their own preparedness to
implement MMC and use MMC to promote equity pedagogy in their future ELA classrooms.
Context
The site and participants included in this study were selected with purpose (Creswell,
2014). Despite the varied backgrounds of the participants, the information gathered through
interviews and observations revealed important themes about PSTs perceived preparedness to
implement MMC in their future classroom contexts.
Site
An establish TE program in Southern California served as the site for the research. The
program’s curriculum was aligned to the Credential Program Standards and Teacher
Performance Expectations set by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC).
The TE program focused on educational equity in urban settings and was grounded in a focus on
theory, practice and application. The Single Subject English was the credential concentration
focused on in this study.
During the third semester in the TE program, PSTs were required to enroll in a course
with a focus in the application of curriculum and pedagogy. This course was designed to prepare
PSTs to apply curricular principles to lesson development and determine how content should be
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
48
delivered to maximize learning. MMC was included in the curriculum of the course and as
evidenced by the course syllabus, PSTs engaged in learning activities that involved MMC at
least three times throughout the semester.
Participants
The participants in this study, although all affiliated with the same TE programs, had
distinct experiences in the program. Participants shared their experience within the TE program
as it relates to MMC.
James and Jill. Two participants were enrolled in the TE program as PSTs. Both
participants shared a concentration in ELA and had completed the curriculum and pedagogy
course. Participant A, James, was in his final year of the TE program at the time of the interview.
All of his courses were conducted through Adobe Classroom and the TE program’s learning
management system. Participant B, Jill, completed the program one month prior to being
interviewed and was enrolled in the on-campus version of the program.
Kate. To triangulate the data, a third participant, Kate, a professor with the TE program,
was also interviewed. Kate has been a professor with the TE program since 2014 and primarily
taught online courses. Kate was Participant A’s, James, professor in the term prior to the
interview.
MMC Awareness
Serafini (2015) argues that if teachers are expected to understand MMC to construct
meaning, they require knowledge of the meaning-making processes used in the design and
production of MMC. Although MMC was introduced as part of the coursework required within
the Single Subject English concentration, the impact of the coursework on PSTs’ ability to
understand MMC to construct meaning was not clear through the syllabus alone.
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
49
Perception of MMC in Curriculum
As evidenced by the course syllabus, PSTs engaged in at least three opportunities to
create and discuss MMC as part of their coursework. In addition, no less than 10 required articles
educated PSTs on MMC. To better understand how participants perceived MMC as a focus on
the TE programs, they were asked to explain their engagement with MMC within the TE
program.
Jill. When asked what preparation Jill received in MMC as part of the teacher education
program, she confirmed it was included as part of her pedagogy course. She explained, “we
talked about what multimodal composition is and how it could be used through examples and
then we did it ourselves, like. we would try exercises ourselves” (Jill, Interview, January 14,
2019). Jill’s examples were very general and suggested that her exposure to MMC within her TE
program might have lacked some depth.
To clarify further, she was asked to provide an example of practicing MMC in her
pedagogy course. She shared an experience viewing an MMC before the class had defined what
MMC was. She described, “I remember clearly we were shown… an ad or the cover of the
magazine of something and then it had graphics and texts and superimposed images and we're
supposed to kind of infer what it all meant.” She continues to explain, “before we had a
definition of what MMC is” and that “after we were introduced [to the definition] it was
interesting because [I understood] that’s what MMC is… and we knew how the elements work
together” (Jill, Interview, January 14, 2019). This example of her practice with MMC
highlighted the importance of understanding the definition of MMC in order to unpack its
meaning. Her response, however, lacked the academic language required to describe MMC
clearly. This breakdown in academic language suggests she might lack a deep understanding of
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
50
MMC and how to discuss it in a future classroom context. Moje (2009) argues that TE programs
need to provide PSTs with the opportunity to develop a common language through
practice-based curriculum in order to effectively prepare them for their future classroom
contexts. Given that this was the example Jill decided to share when prompted to reflect on her
exposure to MMC in her TE program, it begs the question about the impact of the activities
included in the curriculum.
Jack. When Jack was asked to describe how his TE program prepared him to utilize
MMC, he tried to recall which semester he learned about MMC. He explained, “about two
semesters ago, maybe… who knows… two semesters ago I think… “ (Jack, Interview, January
26, 2019). Given that Jack was in his final semester of the TE program at the time of the
interview, he would have learned about MMC within the last year. His inability to remember
when and in which course it was covered suggests that it was not a particularly memorable focus
of his coursework. The difference between Jill and Jack’s response might be attributed to the
difference in their TE program format. As Jack was enrolled in the online TE program, it is
possible the virtual classroom setting impacted his experience in MMC learning activities
outlined in the syllabus.
Kate. Despite the generality of Jill’s response and confusion within Jack’s answer, both
participants confirmed that MMC was a part of their TE program’s curriculum. When Kate, who
taught the curriculum and pedagogy course, was asked about how MMC was integrated into the
TE program’s curriculum, she explained that the focus on MMC had grown in recent years,
“[MMC] has become absolutely, like, more of a focused than it was when I started. So,
you know, it became an assessment, it wasn't always used as an assessment. Then theory
became more present working through and being more explicit about the components of
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
51
it, you know, it became more accessible. So, yeah, absolutely become more integral to
the to the curriculum” (Kate, Interview, January 23, 2019).
Kate’s response suggests that the TE program’s curriculum had changed to include a greater
focus on MMC and better reflect the change in the way students consume, consider and
communicate information (Kress & Selander, 2012). Her description of MMC becoming an
assessment indicated that the TE program intended to include more application of MMC in the
curriculum rather than just theory. Despite that intention, the structure of the TE program likely
precluded the amount of application of MMC available to Kate’s students.
The design of the pedagogy course revealed how the TE program’s structure might have
impacted PSTs’ perceived preparedness to implement MMC. When PSTs were enrolled in their
curriculum and pedagogy course, their fieldwork was limited. Given that PSTs were not student
teaching at the time of the course, amount of authentic application available to PSTs was
restricted. Phillips and Garcia (2013) and Serafini (2015) argue that PSTs most likely need
explicit training on how to unpack the design of multimodal resources in order to use MMC
effectively in their future classroom contexts. The limited awareness presented in Jack and Jill’s
responses suggest that the organization and/or timing of the course may not be explicit enough
for it to be effective.
Defining MMC
Across participants, there was an inability to clearly articulate MMC. Specifically, when
asked to define MMC, all three participants struggled to concisely explain what it was. For
comparison, this study defines MMC as the interaction and integration of specific semiotic
resources co-deployed across various modalities to communicate a coherent message (Lim et al,
2015).
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
52
Kate and James
Kate was James’s professor for the curriculum and pedagogy course. As such, a
juxtaposition of their responses to questions asked in the interview was particularly illuminating
as it showed how a professor’s introduction of MMC and the language used to describe it
impacted a PST’s understanding of MMC and perceived preparedness to use it in their future
classroom contexts.
Kate. Research suggests that teachers need to be able to identify, describe, and interpret
multimodal resources in order to teach MMC to students (New London Group, 1996). Kate, a
professor of the pedagogy course that introduced PSTs to MMC might have lacked the
metalanguage required to communicate clearly. Kate commented, “you know” 11 times
throughout her definition of MMC. Her definition in full was,
“Um, you know, my understanding of multimodal composition is that you know, it is it is
not print form, right, it is taking various components, composing them together in order
to, you know, in order to synthesize, or in order to, you know, create an argument or, you
know, whatever the final kind of learning goal or outcome will be. You know,
multimodal composition absolutely has, you know, a chance to be more like part of
participatory culture. It gives new possibilities and ways to demonstrate understanding,
you know, taking multiple components, whether it be music, visual components, and
literature, I'm sorry, not literature, but language, you know, and infusing that together.
So, it doesn't have to look like one thing, you know, there's many different ways to
compose and facilitate and layer, and juxtapose and hyperlink and you know, sound
video, etc, you know, so many components can come together” (Kate, Interview, January
23, 2019).
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
53
If Kate’s definition was broken down, it would reveal an understanding of MMC. She could have
responded with just, “taking various components in order to synthesize or create an argument”
(Kate, Interview, January, 23, 2019). When this succinct sentence was extracted from her
response and compared to the definition of MMC used in this study, it demonstrated an
alignment in understanding of MMC.
This study defines MMC as the interaction and integration of specific semiotic resources
co-deployed across various modalities to communicate a coherent message (Lim et al, 2015).
Because Kate’s response was not concise, and she questioned “you know” so frequently
throughout her response, it suggested she might not be confident in her own definition of MMC.
Kate’s position as a female leader may also have been a factor in the language she used.
Lankoff’s (1973) research suggests that for women, expression of uncertainty is favored in the
workplace as gender is linguistically contextualized. Whether Kate’s language is a result of a
lack of understanding or a conditioned response, her inability to explain it clearly might have
impacted her students’ understanding of MMC.
James. James struggled to concisely define MMC and demonstrated a lack of clarity on
the overarching purpose of MMC. When James, a student of Kate’s, was asked to share his
understanding of MMC he responded with “That's the question. That's difficult question.” Before
taking a moment and continuing, “well, from my personal [view]; from what I took away”
(James, Interview, January 26, 2019). The fact that James began his definition by clarifying that
this was his personal understanding suggests that he has did arrive at an agreed upon definition
as part of his TE program. Considering this was outlined as a key activity in the syllabus, his
response indicated the activity was not powerful enough to resonate with James.
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
54
James continued by explaining in MMC “you have to include technology… like audio
[and] visual” in order to “interact with whatever it is in multiple ways” (James, Interview,
January 26, 2019). Here, James kept his response very general, which indicated he was not clear
on the purpose of MMC to communicate a coherent message.
James did use language that suggested he understood MMC could be used as a tool to
promote equity when he mentioned using MMC “for the purpose of… teaching students more
about whatever subject they’re [learning]… at varying levels and have a library of perspectives”
(James, Interview, January 26, 2019). The recognition of MMC as a tool to promote equity was
promising, but his continual lack of specificity as it relates to the English Language Arts (ELA)
discipline was problematic. Furthermore, his acknowledgement of equity in such general terms
may indicate that he had a mainstream, rather than critical, view of equity.
Without the focus on tools specific to ELA, he referred back to technology as a key
driver of MMC as he explained that it “helps the students get more comfortable with the
technology and hopefully allows them to learn how to use the technology” (James, Interview,
January 26, 2019). Given that this was what he ended his definition with, it suggested he may
value MMC as a tool to introduce technology over a tool to effectively communicate. This
oversimplification of the role technology plays in student learning was problematic because it
suggests that James’s TE programs did not bridge classroom practice and social use of
technologies to prepare him to utilize new media in his future classroom contexts purposefully
(Hixon & Buckenmeyer; McGrail et. al, 2011; Phillip & Garcia, 2013).
A similar trend emerged within Kate and James’s responses. The rambling nature of their
explanation suggested a lack of confidence regarding how to specifically define MMC. The
literature tells us that this is not unique to just Kate and James. Rather, across the literature on
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
55
MMC, there is no standard definition. As such, untangling the complex nature of MMC is made
more difficult by a lack of a shared language (Moje, 2009). Furthermore, James’s
acknowledgement that explaining MMC was “difficult” had greater implications for PSTs
perception of their ability, or in this case perceived inability, to utilize MMC in their future
classroom contexts.
Jill
Jill, who was enrolled in the on ground TE program, was also asked to define MMC. Her
response demonstrated a strong understanding as she explained, “I think multimodal composition
is the coming together of different modes of communication to convey, like, one unified
message” (Jill, Interview, January 14, 2019). Her initial response was succinct and demonstrated
a clear understanding of MMC, however she did not end her response there. She continued to
describe the elements of MMC in greater detail and lacked her initial clarity. When describing
the types of modes that may make up a MMC she said,
“so texts and images and maybe symbols, colors, placement angles, all of those
characteristics of what makes a visual piece more than just, maybe, I call it two-
dimensional. When there’s only the text the color and the image it is just more than that
because maybe a symbol or placement” (Jill, Interview, January 14, 2019).
Jill’s struggle in further defining different modes and how they convey a message was
unprompted. It suggested that although she had an understanding of what MMC was, she might
struggle with application of MMC. As she listed the potential modes and the difference between
an MMC and other more traditional forms of communication, she demonstrated the rambling
tone that was evident in Kate and James’s responses. Considering James and Jill were enrolled in
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
56
different cohorts, there were many factors that may have influenced this difference, including
their professor and their program format.
Observation. Six months prior to the interview, Jill’s pedagogy course was observed as
part of this study. The class session observed reveals how an oversimplification of MMC might
have contributed to her inability to explain MMC in a clear and robust way.
During the observation, PSTs were asked to create a rubric that could be used to assess a
future student’s MMC. The activity reflects Kress and Selander’s (2001) Interaction Design
Process as it asked that PSTs create a rubric that would evaluate the design of multimodal
products in order to anticipate how it will impact students’ learning process. In this group
activity PSTs struggled to define the modes students may use in their MMCs. They began with a
simple criterion description:
Element Point Feedback
Uses multiple modes to communicate
This led to a discussion about how to grade students who used fewer than two modes. The group
decided that they needed to identify the modes as part of the rubric. Which led them to add:
Element Point Feedback
Uses multiple modes such as images, text,
color, borders, graphs, charts, lines, shapes
and patterns
When one PST suggested that borders, graphs and charts were not modes the group reevaluated
including that level of detail in the rubric. Following a lengthy discussion, the PSTs failed to
reach a consensus. One PST in the course commented that the process of designing the rubric
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
57
was “overwhelming.” The group did not reach an understanding about how to categorize color,
border, graphs, charts, lines, shapes and patterns, but they did agree to modify the rubric:
Element Point Feedback
Uses multiple modes such as images, text,
design
The discussion, and observable uncertainty about how elements like boarders, graphs, charts,
shapes & patterns contribute to the quality of a student’s MMC was evident in Jill’s response to
the interview question six months later. She struggled to explain the different modes that may be
used to communicate a message, “So text and images and maybe symbol, colors, placement
angles, that all of those characteristics of what makes a visual piece more than just, maybe, I call
it two-dimensional.” Her definition during the interview lacked the same clarity that challenged
her class when designing a rubric to assess MMC.
Research suggests that part of preparing PSTs to utilize MMC in their future classroom
contexts is to teach them how to see multimodal texts as visual texts (Phillips & Garcia, 2013;
Serafini, 2015). In order to do this, PSTs need the vocabulary to describe borders, text-boxes,
color palettes, orientation, and typography to have more sophisticated conversations about the
resources (Kress, 2005; New London Group, 1996; Serafini, 2015). The conversation observed
in the classroom does not reach the level of complexity that may be required to prepare PSTs to
feel confident using MMC in their future classroom contexts.
PSTs Perceived Preparedness
As part of the interview process, both Jill and James were asked how they perceive their
ability to utilize MMC with students. A clear theme emerged in their responses. They
communicated a desire for additional practice to truly feel prepared to implement MMC.
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
58
PSTs Feel Unprepared to Utilize MMC
James, who at the time of the interview still had a semester of student teaching ahead,
was honest about his unease with implementing MMC. He explained his answer as yes and no,
“I would say absolutely yes [I feel comfortable utilizing MMC] because I know that as I
use [MMC] I'm going to see the effect and I'm going to do the research on how I could
have made that better and harder and this or that. And then I would say no because I
definitely haven't had enough experimentation with it just yet but there's only one way to
get more” (James, Interview, January 26, 2019).
His internal conflict between wanting to try MMC and feeling like he needed more practice
before using MMC in the classroom setting was echoed by Jill. She responded that she feels
“somewhat” prepared to utilize MMC in her future classes. She explained, “I've always been a
little bit hesitant because I don't know too much about… I feel like I don't know enough” (Jill,
Interview, January 14, 2019). When pushed to explain what would have allowed her to feel more
prepared implementing MMC, she said,
“I think just having like more like applications to the classroom… like how can we really
teach [students] the connection between the pieces and how it's supposed to be a whole
and I don't know, like, like the deeper part of multimodal composition rather than like
this, putting together the things that may look like [MMC] but are not [MMC]” (Jill,
Interview, January 14, 2019).
Jill’s response suggests she was fearful of navigating the creation process with students. She
demonstrated the same hesitation in her definition of MMC. Although her understanding of what
MMC is, and is not, was strong, her lack of confidence to enact that understanding herself or
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
59
with her students indicates it may be unlikely she will attempt to integrate MMC into her
instruction..
James’s apprehension to state he felt prepared to utilize MMC in his future classes might
not come as a surprise to his professor, Kate. When asked if she felt her PSTs were prepared to
utilize MMC in their future classrooms, Kate responded,
“Um I think, I would say there’s probably a range. I would say that some of them
probably do feel prepared. I would say all of them, probably like the idea of it and could
see, you know, how, you know, it had that it is important that it does provide, you know,
an equitable learning opportunity that it that it would be engaging to the students that it is
important, but whether or not all of them feel comfortable to facilitate it. I’m not sure you
know, I think they perhaps want more practice with it. So, outside of just perhaps they
don’t quite sure that they’ve had enough practice to use it in their classroom” (Kate,
Interview, January 23, 2019).
Kate’s response mirrored the same issue reflected in James and Jill’s responses. The lack of
confidence in enacting MMC was prohibiting them from utilizing MMC in their fieldwork and
future classrooms.
The Relationship Between Practice and Preparation
The common thread across all three responses was a desire for more time to practice
MMC. This may be attributed to the current landscape of TE programs and the curricular divide
between foundations and methods courses. Grossman and Hammer (2009) argue that the practice
of dividing foundations and methods courses creates a disconnect between theoretical knowledge
and teachers’ practical work in the classroom. This disconnect was evident in James and Jill’s
perceived perception of their ability to utilize MMC.
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
60
Due to the organization of the pedagogy course in this TE program, PSTs including Jill
and James were likely graduating, unable to make these critical connections and navigate the
interplay between coursework and field placement, or theory into practice (Ball & Forzani, 2014;
Grossman & Hammer, 2009; Mehta, 2013). For PSTs to utilize MMC in a meaningful way, they
will need to understand what theory means in practice and what it might look like in practice.
Kate provides further insight into just how little PSTs were able to practice MMC in their
pedagogy course. Because the program was organized so that students take the applications of
curriculum and pedagogy course prior to the majority of their fieldwork, it limited the amount of
authentic application PSTs were able to practice. When asked if she had the opportunity to
observe PSTs using MMC in their fieldwork classroom, she responded, “I have not seen it yet.”
In fact, the only fieldwork practice Kate observed from her PSTs was “one 10 minute clip of
them doing a practice lesson.” (Kate, Interview, January 23, 2019). Given that at the time of the
course, students were only teaching specific lessons and not fully engrossed in their student
teaching, they were not given the opportunity to practice the pedagogical practices introduced in
their academic course and Kate was unable to observe how PSTs apply the concepts included in
the curriculum of the course.
The demanding and elaborate nature of teaching demands deliberate coaching in the
design and implementation of pedagogical strategies, like MMC (Ball & Forzani, 2009). In the
design of the pedagogy course included in this study, it was not clear that PSTs were provided
with that intentional training. Jill, who had already completed the TE program noted that MMC
was “mainly the focus of my pedagogy course, I would say it was the main one was [the course
mentioned in this study]” it was unlikely PSTs were explicitly taught MMC throughout the rest
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
61
of their coursework and consequently not provided the space and support to apply MMC in their
fieldwork classes in the following semesters.
MMC as a Tool to Promote Equity
The recognition of MMC as a tool to promote equity emerged in the interview process.
When asked to consider how MMC is distinguished from traditional forms of English response
to literature essays in ELA, both Jill and James acknowledged the value of honoring alternative
forms of communication to demonstrate a student’s understanding, but failed to see MMC as a
tool for a critique of the sociopolitical context or as a form of social action.
Jill’s Recognition of MMC as Tool to Promote Equity
When asked about the relationship between MMC and Equity, Jill described the potential
to honor alternative forms of communication. Jill said that MMC,
“[brings the] discipline of English alive for a lot of [students] because many students are
into photography, or the arts or visual. And so being able to tell a story through
[alternative forms of communication] it just gives an avenue to explain how English or
show them so they do it that English is relevant” (Jill, Interview, January 14, 2019).
She shared how introducing a graphic novel to teach Romeo and Juliet promoted equity in her
student teaching classroom by making the novel
“less daunting… or boring it was more like we could really get into the comprehension
first, like, do we understand what's going on? Then talk about like, the deeper meanings
and be able to actually have a conversation about the play because with the language
being so tricky and with ELs in the classroom too, it was, it would have been really hard
to just like talk about okay, this is what the text says, this is a translation. It would even
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
62
dilute it that way. With the graphic novel I felt like it came alive, maybe even allowed
each of them to capture that [understanding] themselves.”
Jill’s ability to identify a multimodal resource to support her student’s understanding of a
complex text suggests that she recognized the value of MMC to create equitable learning
opportunities, but her description of how to use MMC revealed a deficit mindset, as she does not
acknowledge EL students’ background linguistic knowledge. Instead she focuses on MMC as a
tool to mitigate their lack of academic English.
Jill mentioned that part of her hesitation in utilizing MMC with her students was that she
“doesn’t know enough” (Jill, Interview, January 14, 2019). If Jill had the support of practice in
MMC as part of her fieldwork, she’d have the opportunity to clarify and seek answers for what
she doesn’t already understand and recognize MMC as a tool to mitigate the sociopolitical
context of literacy. Because she was not provided that opportunity while developing her craft in
the TE program, she entered the field still not feeling that her knowledge was adequate, and now,
possibly without the support in place to feel confident designing equitable learning opportunities
for her students.
James’s Oversimplification of MMC as a Tool to Promote Equity
Similarly, James spoke to the potential of MMC to offer a solution to students whose
strength might not align with academic reading and writing literacy expectations. He explained,
“some people are bad at writing, some people are good at writing, love it or hate it, and
multimodal composition is great for students I know that struggle to read that a great with
technology.” James’s acknowledgement of how MMC could be used as an alternative form of
communication was important, but his oversimplification of MMC as a way to appease student’s
preferences suggests he had not fully grasped MMC’s potential. James does not appear to
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
63
recognize MMC as form of social action capable of building community and home knowledge.
Additionally, when asked to share the practices he had implemented in his fieldwork to support
equity, he said,
“I like to engage [students] in a variety of topics and discussion… I was just doing a
lesson plan right now about social inequality, and just trying to just, I'm just trying to
make students more knowledgeable about things when it comes to equity, because I feel
like that's something that is an absolute one of the out of the main things students need to
take away from the school. That's, that's, that's one of them. It's like a mandatory thing, in
my opinion.”
James’s passion for exposing students to topics related to social inequality was admirable, but his
response did not include insight into how he created learning opportunities that were equitable in
design and practice. It was not clear from James’s response that he had considered how the
dominant mode of writing and medium of book or page could be expanded to include the
potential of alternative modes of communication and representation in education (Chandler-
Olcott & Mahar, 2003; Fisher etc al, 2015; Greene et. al, 2014; Kress, 2005; The New London
Group, 1996; Wiseman et. al, 2016). This mainstream view of equity limits James’s potential to
utilize MMC as an effective way to acknowledge all students’ background linguistic knowledge.
James might be more novice in his understanding of MMC as a tool to promote equity as
a consequence of his place in the program at the time of the interview. While James had started
student teaching when he was interviewed, he was not far into his field placement. The
difference between Jill and James’s grasp of MMC as a tool to promote equity reveals the
importance of providing PSTs with opportunities to practice.
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
64
Summary
The data collected in this study uncovered how the participants perceived their own
preparedness to implement MMC and use MMC to promote equity pedagogy in their future ELA
classrooms. Through observation and interview responses, it was clear that PSTs lacked the
language to describe MMC effectively. Furthermore, the participants communicated a desire for
more practice with MMC. The combination of barriers to describe MMC and limited practice to
develop the required language resulted in PSTs feeling unprepared to use MMC. The data also
revealed that PSTs understood that there was a relationship between equity and MMC, but not
how to use MMC to promote equitable learning experiences for their future students or critique
literacy as a social practice.
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
65
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Pre-Service Teachers (PSTs) are graduating Teacher Education (TE) programs
unprepared to manage the competing demands of their future classroom contexts (Ladson-
Billings, 1995; Ball & Forzani, 2009). The research collected in this study contributes to the
growing body of research in PST preparation that seeks to enhance TE programs so that PSTs
enter classrooms prepared to provide equitable learning experiences to all students. Multimodal
Composition (MMC) has the potential to create equitable education for all students and serves as
the focal point for this research. The study’s aim was to uncover how pre-service secondary ELA
teachers perceived their preparedness to implement MMC in their practice as well as how those
PSTs perceived the relationship between MMC and equity in educational outcomes.
Two PSTs were interviewed in order to understand how they perceive their understanding
of MMC. Interviews were conducted with the PSTs to gain an understanding of their perceived
preparedness. These PSTs were selected as participants because they had either recently
graduated or were soon-to-be graduates of a TE program in Southern California. A third
participant was interviewed to provider further insight into PST’s preparedness. The third
participant, a professor from the TE program, contributed to the data analyzed in this study. In
addition, course syllabi from the TE program’s curriculum and a course observation were also
studied to better understand how MMC was included throughout PST’s coursework and
fieldwork.
Findings
The data collected through interviews and a key document answered the study’s research
questions. Pre-service secondary ELA teachers did not feel prepared to implement MMC in their
future classroom contexts as a result of their coursework in the TE program. However, they did
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
66
recognize that MMC could be used as a tool to promote equity and demonstrate genuine interest
in additional practice to increase their perceived preparedness.
Perceived Preparedness
Neither participant answered, “yes” when asked if they felt prepared to implement MMC
in their future classrooms. Additionally, the third participant, a professor in the TE program,
could not confirm that PSTs were prepared. She explained, “whether or not all of [the PSTs] feel
comfortable to facilitate [MMC]… I'm not sure.” (Kate, Interview, January 23, 2019). The lack
of confidence in PST’s perceived ability to implement MMC is significant because if they
graduate without feeling prepared to utilize MMC, it is unlikely they will use it in their future
classrooms. This hesitancy in PST’s perceived preparedness to implement MMC is consistent
with research in the field that suggests TE programs are not creating teachers equipped to deliver
effective instruction (Ball & Forzani, 2009; Grossman & Hammer, 2009; Mehta, 2013; Milner,
2003). The lack of a shared language and limited practice in pedagogical strategies contributed to
the lack of PST’s perceived preparedness.
Shared Language. The data collected in this study revealed a significant lack of shared
language when defining and describing MMC. This is significant because if PSTs are graduating
TE programs unable to explain what MMC is, it impacts their ability to effectively utilize it as a
tool in their future classroom contexts. This finding is consistent with New London Group’s
(1996) research suggesting TE programs need to focus on establishing a metalanguage to
develop PSTs’ digital literacy and create shared language can be used to identify, describe, and
interpret multimodal resources. Having the language to describe MMC is significant because in
order to use MMC effectively in their future classroom contexts, PSTs most likely need explicit
training on how to unpack the design of multimodal resources (Phillips & Garcia, 2013; Serafini,
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
67
2015). Although Kate demonstrated a more developed definition of MMC than James, there is
not enough information to determine if the program format, on ground rather than online,
directly contributed to this difference.
Practice. All three participants demonstrated a desire for more practice in MMC in their
TE program. Captured clearly by Jill, the participant who recently graduated the TE program,
she explained she needed “more applications to the classroom” to feel comfortable using MMC
(Jill, Interview, January 14, 2019). She questioned, “how can we really teach [students] the
connection between the pieces and how it's supposed to be a whole” (Jill, Interview, January 14,
2019). Given that MMC was defined as the interaction and integration of “pieces” to
communicate a coherent message, or “whole” this explained need for more practice is significant
and suggests that there is a gap between theory and practice impacting PST’s perceived
preparedness (Lim et al, 2015). This historical divide between foundations and methods courses
is prevalent through teacher preparation research. Grossman and Hammer (2009) argue the
practice of dividing foundations and methods courses creates disconnect between theoretical
knowledge and teachers’ practical work in the classroom.
For PSTs to utilize MMC in a meaningful way, they will need to link the sociocultural
and constructivist theory that drives their composition of multimodal resources with specific
pedagogical strategies. What was evident in the participant’s responses was an inability to make
critical connections between the theory that drove coursework and pedagogical strategies that
define fieldwork (Ball & Forzani, 2014; Grossman & Hammer, 2009; Mehta, 2013).
Consequently, PSTs required more practice in pedagogical strategies to feel confident utilizing
MMC in their future classroom contexts.
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
68
Gap in Perception Between Equity Discourse and Pedagogy
The participants in this study acknowledged the value of honoring alternative forms of
communication to demonstrate a student’s understanding whose strength might not align with
academic reading and writing literacy expectations. However, their responses throughout the
interview process suggested that they do not demonstrate a critical view of equity and do not feel
prepared to use MMC as a tool to responsibly respond to the racial awareness they’ve developed
as a result of their TE program.
View of Equity. Both PST participants demonstrated an understanding of the need to
include alternative forms of communication, but failed to acknowledge how MMC could be used
to critique dominant forms of literacy and honor students’ diverse linguistic knowledge. One
participant explained that alternative forms of communication “give [students] an avenue to
explain how… that English [Language Arts] is relevant” (Jill, Interview, January 14, 2019).
Similarly, the other PST participant shared that he looked for opportunities to discuss social
justice in his classes to “make students more knowledgeable about things when it comes to
equity” (James, Interview, January 26, 2019). Their mainstream view of equity does not include
recognition of how MMC could be used to critique the sociopolitical context of academic
literacy.
The PSTs’ lack of a critical view of equity was significant because research has found
that without a multicultural focus in TE programs, teachers enter the field without questioning
their privilege and the implications of American meritocracy on minority students (Kim, 2011).
Larrivee (2000), Lee (2011), Milner (2003), Perry & Purcell-Gates (2013), Rodgers (2002), and
Shor (1999) all highlight the need for PSTs to develop a racial awareness and sensitivity in order
to successful work with an increasingly diverse student body. Both PSTs interviewed in this
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
69
study demonstrated a mainstream view of equity, which suggests that more work must be done to
prepare PSTs to enter the field and serve a diverse student population.
Equity Discourse and Practice. Although the participants recognized the need to
promote equity in their future classroom contexts, they were not as clear when discussing their
perceived preparedness to use MMC in their plans to create equitable learning environments.
Hundley and Holbrook (2013) explain that without explicit instruction, PSTs might not consider
alternative ways of making meaning because the conventional argumentative essay was so
embedded in PSTs’ writing practices. This potential oversight of MMC as a equally valuable tool
is significant as it suggests PSTs need to practice using MMC as a tool to promote equity rather
than just understanding it exists in theory (Ball & Forzani, 2014; Grossman & Hammer, 2009;
Mehta, 2013). The research collected in this study supports the claim that print literacy practices
do not automatically transfer to digital tools for learning and PSTs may require the time and
space to engage in MMC in order to use it effectively in future classroom contexts (Hundley &
Holbrook, 2013).
Implications
The findings from this study reveal the urgent need to reexamine how TE programs are
organized to best prepare PSTs for their future classroom contexts. Until TE programs are
structured to create the opportunity for PSTs to connect the theory that drives coursework and
pedagogical strategies that define fieldwork, PSTs will continue to graduate their TE programs
feeling unprepared for the demands of their future profession Ball & Forzani, 2014; Grossman &
Hammer, 2009; Mehta, 2013). Based on the findings from this study, there are several places for
TE programs to begin to shift their structure.
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
70
Practice-based Curriculum
Ball & Forzani (2009) argue that making a shift from a theory-based to a practice-based
TE curriculum creates the opportunities to establish a common language within the field of
teaching. The lack of a shared language was a clear barrier to PSTs’ perceived preparedness. The
PSTs’ desire for more practice is aligned with what research suggests they need to gain a firmer
grip on the professional language in pedagogical strategies like MMC. Practice-based training
provides the time and space to develop a PST’s professional skill and define her instructional
choices in order to establish a shared language (Ball & Forzani, 2009).
The New London Group’s (1996) framework for pedagogy as a complex integration of
four factors: Situated Practice, Overt Instruction, Critical Framing and Transformed Practice,
serves as an example of how a TE program may redesign curriculum to be more practice based.
Training PSTs to use MMC as the vehicle to integrate the four factors of pedagogy creates the
opportunity to establish high and equitable expectations for students while also providing the
language to describe the pedagogy in transferrable terms (The New London Group, 1996).
Although core practices were introduced as a potential resolve for adequately preparing
PSTs to enter their future classroom contexts, the data collected in this study do not support core
practice as a potential resolution. For one, participants were so varied in their views that core
practice would not account for how their unique perspectives inform their future instruction.
Similarly, the contexts of their fieldwork classrooms were diverse. As such, they need to be
nimble in their application of MMC as a tool to create equitable learning opportunities and
systematizing MMC as a core practice may limit the potential of PSTs to effectively use it as a
tool to promote equity (Oakes et al., 2018).
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
71
Fieldwork Placement
The TE program that serves as the site for this study organizes fieldwork so that it was a
gradual increase in responsibility for the PST. As a result, at the time of their pedagogy course,
the students have limited opportunity to plan, rehearse and practice pedagogy. Furthermore, as
the professor participant explained, the students were only responsible for submitting a 10-
minute video of their instruction. This limited integration of coursework and fieldwork siloed the
work the PST was doing in their courses from the pedagogical practice they were experiencing in
their student teaching.
As Ball and Forzani (2009) suggest, the demanding and elaborate nature of professional
teaching depends on specialized training. Therefore, without deliberate coaching in the design
and implementation of MMC, teachers will not be prepared to focus on equity and culture in
their future classrooms (Ball & Forzani, 2009). The specialized knowledge and skills that dictate
the execution of MMC are not by-products of intelligence or of academic talent and success, so
PSTs require the specialized training and coaching that comes from the guidance of a professor.
However, the way the TE program was designed limited a professor’s ability to coach his or her
PSTs. Consequently, TE programs should ensure that pedagogical coursework is supported by
concurrent involvement in fieldwork so that PST has the opportunity to make the critical
connections they need to integrate pedagogical strategies for future classroom contexts.
TE programs may look to DePalma and Alexander’s (2018) pedagogical approach
distributed collaboration (DC) as a framework to develop PSTs’ perceived preparedness to
implement MMC in their fieldwork. Because DC utilizes collaboration among specialists with
varied expertise, through this approach, PSTs would have the opportunity to learn from the
expertise of their fieldwork teacher, TE program professor and others while simultaneously
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
72
practicing MMC with students. This opportunity to receive the deliberate coaching Ball and
Forzani (2009) call for, has the potential to better position PSTs to graduate their TE program
prepared to enter the field.
Assessment
As part of the shift to an organization that better connects theory and practice, TE
programs must also consider the role of assessment and how it serves as an opportunity to model
and practice MMC as a tool to promote equity (Adsanathan, 2012; Eidman-Aadahl et al., 2013;
Shipka,2009). Moving the focus on assessment from a summative evaluation to a more frequent
and flexible one is a significant shift in how the field of education considers evaluation and
should be integrated into the structure of TE programs to align to the new field of MMC.
Shipka’s (2009) statement of goals and choices (SOGC) assessment framework considers
students’ backgrounds and ultimately creates a equitable evaluation of a students’ knowledge
because both the modes used by the student and their explanation of their selection of those
modes have the flexibility to align with their unique background. Given how the participants
struggled to articulate how MMC could actually be used as a tool to promote equity, more
explicit training and practice is Shipka’s (2009) SOGC assessment framework may be a effective
way to ground their understanding of the equity theory to equity pedagogy (Kim, 2011; Larrivee,
2000; Lee, 2011; Milner, 2003; Perry & Purcell-Gates, 2013, Rodgers, 2002; Shor, 1999).
Recommendations Research
Given the narrow scope of this study, there are many opportunities for further research to
better understand what impacts PSTs’ perceived preparedness to implement MMC and use it as a
tool to promote equity. The three outlined below are identified as priority based on the findings
presented above.
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
73
Fieldwork Observations
Given the structure and timeframe of this study, observations of PSTs’ fieldwork were
not possible. However, collected data through observations of PSTs’ instruction in their student
teaching classroom would further triangulate the information provided through observations.
Sample Size
The number of participants included in this study was limited. In order to better grasp
how many PSTs feel unprepared to utilize MMC in their future classroom contexts, the scope of
the study would need to expand to include more participants.
Professional Work
The PSTs included in this study shared a desire to try MMC in their future classroom
contexts. Following the participants to their first teaching positions and conducting observations
and additional interviews to understand if they actually use MMC would help to substantiate the
findings in this study.
Critical Literacy
This study focused on how PSTs perceive the relationship between equity and MMC.
Based on the findings, PSTs may lack a critical view of literacy. Therefore, a deeper
investigation into their understanding of critical literacy as it relates to MMC would further
validate the implications on the curriculum and structure of TE programs.
Credential Requirements
The structure of one TE program in Southern California served as the site for this study
and revealed possible opportunities to strengthen the curriculum to better prepare PSTs for their
future classroom contexts. In order to better understand the context of the TE program, further
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
74
research on the requirements, as set by the state of California, would highlight the demands TE
programs must meet to satisfy requirements outside of their control.
Conclusion
Teachers play a hugely significant role in shaping a student’s educational experience
(McCaffrey, Lockwood, Koretz, & Hamilton, 2003). Research suggests that the professional
training of teachers before they enter the field impacts their ability to provide an effective and
equitable education to their students (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Ball & Forzani, 2009). Therefore,
TE programs have the responsibility to design their curriculum and fieldwork structures to best
serve their PSTs. The data collected in this study provides great hope – PSTs were eager to
practice pedagogical strategies to be better prepared to utilize them in their classrooms and
understand the implications on their instructional choices to create equitable learning
opportunities to their students. TE programs then, need to rise to the occasion and better prepare
their PSTs. MMC is a pedagogical tool with the potential to integrate theory with practice to
honor the request of the PSTs to enter their classroom contexts with confidence.
As a former English teacher, I left the field after feeling frustrated by the lack of
preparation I received and limited opportunities to further develop my professional skills once I
entered the classroom. I believe teachers enroll in TE programs to deliver stellar educational
experiences to their students. And yet, novice teachers often fail to uphold their expectations
after graduation or, like me, seek out other professional opportunities. This research allowed me
to investigate why that happens through the lens of MMC. At the conclusion of my research I am
more motivated than ever to contribute to the field of education in order to develop PSTs
prepared to serve all students. TE programs are capable of better curriculum, better structures,
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
75
and better development after graduation. I hope this research helps motivate TE programs to
better prepare PSTs to enter their classroom contexts.
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
76
References
Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher
education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497-511.
Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2008). Writing in multimodal texts. Written Communication, 25(2),
166.
Chandler-Olcott, K., & Mahar, D. (2003). Adolescents' anime-inspired" fanfictions": An
exploration of multiliteracies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46(7), 556-566.
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Choudhury, M., & Share, J. (2012). Critical media literacy: A pedagogy for new literacies and
urban youth. Voices from the Middle, 19(4), 39-44.
Depalma, & Alexander. (2018). Harnessing writers' potential through distributed collaboration:
A pedagogical approach for supporting student learning in multimodal composition.
Doerr-Stevens, C. (2016). Drawing near and pushing away: critical positioning in multimodal
composition. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 11(4), 335-353.
Feiman-Nemser, S., Cochran-Smith, M., McIntyre, D. J., & Demers, K. E. (2008). Handbook of
research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts. Routledge.
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Lapp, D. (2015). Learning Cycles That Deepen Students' Interactions
with Text. Voices From the Middle, 22(4), 15-19.
Forzani, F. M. (2014). Understanding "core practices" and "practice-based" teacher education:
learning from the past. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 357+. Retrieved from
http://link.galegroup.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/apps/doc/A380142694/BIC?u=usocal_main
&sid=BIC&xid=91c25b0d
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
77
Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (2001). Evaluating the evidence on teacher certification: A
rejoinder. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(1), 79-86.
Greene, Yu, & Copeland. (2014). Measuring critical components of digital literacy and their
relationships with learning. Computers & Education, 76, 55-69.
Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re-imagining
teacher education. Teachers and Teaching, 15(2), 273-289.
Hixon, E., & Buckenmeyer, J. (2009). Revisiting technology integration in schools: Implications
for professional development. Computers in the Schools, 26(2), 130-146.
Hundley, Melanie, & Holbrook, Terri. (2013). Set in Stone or Set in Motion? Multimodal and
Digital Writing with Preservice English teachers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 56(6), 500-509.
Kim, E. (2011). Conceptions, critiques, and challenges in multicultural education: Informing
teacher education reform in the US. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 8(2).
Kress, G. (2005). Gains and losses: New forms of texts, knowledge, and learning. Computers and
Composition, 22(1), 5-22. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2004.12.004
Kress, G., Selander, S., Institutionen för pedagogik och didaktik, Stockholms universitet, &
Samhällsvetenskapliga fakulteten. (2012). Multimodal design, learning and cultures of
recognition. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(4), 265-268.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.12.003
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
educational research journal, 32(3), 465-491.
Lange, D. (1999). GEE, JAMES PAUL. "Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in
Discourses." 2nd ed. Modern Language Journal, 83(2), 298.
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
78
Lee, C. J. (2011). Myths about critical literacy: What teachers need to unlearn. Journal of
Language and Literacy Education [Online], 7 (1), 95-102.
Logan, & Petscher. (2010). School profiles of at-risk student concentration: Differential growth
in oral reading fluency. Journal of School Psychology, 48(2), 163-186
Louise J Shaw. (2014). Breaking with tradition: Multimodal literacy learning. New England
Reading Association Journal, 50(1), 19. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1640577946
Mancilla-Martinez, J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2010). Predictors of reading comprehension for
struggling readers: The case of spanish-speaking language minority learners. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 102(3), 701-711.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1037/a0019135
McCaffrey, J. R., Lockwood, D. F., Koretz, D. M., & Hamilton, L. S. (2003). Evaluating value
added models for teacher accountability [Monograph]. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Corporation.
McGee Banks, C. A., & Banks, J. A. (1995). Equity pedagogy: An essential component of
multicultural education. Theory into practice, 34(3), 152-158.
McGrail, E., Tinker Sachs, G., Many, J., Myrick, C., & Sackor, S. (2011). Technology use in
middle-grades teacher preparation programs. Action in Teacher Education, 33(1), 63-80.
McKee, H. A., & DeVoss, D. N. (Eds.). (2013). Developing domains for multimodal writing
assessment in Digital writing assessment & evaluation .Logan, UT: Computers and
Composition Digital Press/Utah State University Press.
Mehta, J. (2013). From Bureaucracy to profession: Remaking the educational sector for the
twenty-first century. Harvard Educational Review, 83(3), 463-486
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
79
Milner, R. M. (2003). Reflection, racial competence, and critical pedagogy: How do we prepare
pre-service teachers to pose tough questions? Race Ethnicity and Education, 6(2), 193-
208.
Moje, E. (2009). A Call for New Research on New and Multi-Literacies. Research in the
Teaching of English, 43(4), 348-362.
Newfield, D. et al. (2010). ‘No number can describe how good it was’: Assessment issues in the
multimodal classroom. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 10(1),
61- 81.
Oakes, J., Lipton, M., Anderson, L., & Stillman, J. (2018). Teaching to Change the World,
5/e.New York: Routledge.
O'Halloran, K. (Ed.). (2004). Multimodal discourse analysis: Systemic functional perspectives.
A&C Black.
Perry, K., & Purcell-Gates, V. (2013). Resistance and appropriation: Literacy practices as
agency within hegemonic contexts. pp. 2-27.
Philip, Thomas M., & Garcia, Antero D. (2013). The Importance of Still Teaching the
iGeneration: New Technologies and the Centrality of Pedagogy. Harvard Educational
Review, 83(2), 300-319.
Poyas, Y., & Eilam, B. (2012). Construction of common interpretive spaces through intertextual
loops - how teachers interpret multimodal learning materials. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 28(1), 89. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.08.002
Proctor, C. P., Dalton, B., & Grisham, D. L. (2007). Scaffolding English language learners and
struggling readers in a universal literacy environment with embedded strategy instruction
and vocabulary support. Journal of Literacy research, 39(1), 71-93.
Running head: MMC and Teacher Preparation
80
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1969). Towards a transactional theory of reading. Journal of Reading
Behavior, 1(1), 31-49.
Serafini, F. (2011). Expanding perspectives for comprehending visual images in multimodal
texts. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(5), 342-350. doi:10.1598/JAAL.54.5.4
Serafini, F. (2015). Multimodal literacy: From theories to practices. Language Arts, 92(6), 412.
Shor, I. (1999). What is critical literacy?. Journal of Pedagogy, Pluralism and Practice, 1(4), 1.
Stanton-Salazar, R. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of
racial minority children and youths. Harvard educational review, 67(1), 1-41.
The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social
futures. Harvard educational review, 66(1), 60-93.
Wiseman, A. M., Mäkinen, M., & Kupiainen, R. (2016). Literacy through photography:
Multimodal and visual literacy in a third grade classroom. Early Childhood Education
Journal, 44(5), 537-544. doi:10.1007/s10643-015-0739-9
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study utilizes sociocultural learning theory to examine how pre-service secondary English Language Arts Teachers perceive their preparedness to implement multimodal composing (MMC) in their practice. Furthermore, the study aims to identify how pre-service teachers (PSTs) plan to use MMC to promote equity pedagogy. Three participants informed this study. Two participants were PSTs from a competitive TE program in Southern California. The third was a professor from the TE program. Given the complexity of the research questions, the inquiry was inductive. By gathering data from PSTs about their perception to utilize MMC in their future classrooms, as well as their understanding of the relationship between MMC and equity through semi-structured interviews, observation and collection of artifacts, it was possible to generate a theory about the effectiveness of the TE program to prepare PSTs to use MMC. The study found that PSTs do not feel prepared to utilize MMC in their future classroom contexts and while they acknowledge the relationship between equity and MMC, do not have the confidence to implement equitable learning opportunities using MMC with students. The findings suggest that an examination of TE program’s structure may be required to more clearly connect theory with practice in order to better prepare PSTs for their future classroom contexts.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Reflective practice and pre-service language teacher preparation
PDF
A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers’ perceptions and impact in their dual immersion classrooms
PDF
A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers' perceptions and impact in their dual language immersion classroom
PDF
The opportunity gap: culturally relevant pedagogy in high school English classes
PDF
Blended learning: a look into teachers’ perceptions on their role in a 21st century classroom
PDF
Transformative justice in California’s public schools: decreasing the education debt owed to California’s Latino students through collaboratively-developed professional learning for secondary teachers
PDF
Latina/o pre-service teachers: a community's cultural wealth overlooked
PDF
How are teachers being prepared to integrate technology into their lessons?
PDF
The role of teachers in academic discussion
PDF
Culturally relevant pedagogy strategies for preservice teachers in urban classrooms
PDF
Leveraging social-emotional learning to improve school climate, mental health, and student achievement in K-12 student populations
PDF
Changing nature of preservice teacher concerns in an accelerated, graduate-level teacher education program
PDF
Pre-service teacher educator perceptions on preparing novice teachers for high quality teaching of K–12 students
PDF
Enacting ideology: an examination of the connections between teacher ideology, classroom climate, and teacher interpretation of student behavior
PDF
An examination of a social justice teacher cohort and its capacity to support transformational professional learning
PDF
The intersections of culturally responsive pedagogy and authentic teacher care in creating meaningful academic learning opportunities for students of color
PDF
Teachers’ knowledge of gifted students and their perceptions of gifted services in public elementary schooling
PDF
Examining elementary school teachers’ beliefs and pedagogy with students from low socioeconomic status and historically marginalized communities
PDF
Preservice teacher preparation for engineering integration in K-5
PDF
Teachers' experiences implementing social and emotional learning in the elementary classroom
Asset Metadata
Creator
Hatten, Kimberly McCutchan
(author)
Core Title
Multimodal composing and teacher preparation
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
07/25/2019
Defense Date
06/19/2019
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
equity pedagogy,multimodal composing,OAI-PMH Harvest,pre-service teachers,sociocultural learning theory
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Carbone, Paula (
committee chair
), Beltramo, John (
committee member
), Crawford, Jenifer (
committee member
)
Creator Email
kimberlymccutchan@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-190951
Unique identifier
UC11663133
Identifier
etd-HattenKimb-7610.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-190951 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-HattenKimb-7610.pdf
Dmrecord
190951
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Hatten, Kimberly McCutchan
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
equity pedagogy
multimodal composing
pre-service teachers
sociocultural learning theory