Multimodality, ethnography and education in south america

SYMPOSIUM ABSTRACTS

Multimodal ethnography – understanding meaning making in practices and across contexts

Multimodal ethnography brings together social semiotics and ethnography. In this perspective, researchers are in particular concerned with: ‘accounts of cultural and social practices through prolonged fieldwork in a particular setting’ (Jewitt, Bezemer, & O'Halloran, 2016, p. 118).

Consequently, two things characterize this approach. First, the research emphasis on everyday practices and contexts, and second, the ethnographer documents these practices by collecting artefacts, writing field notes.

The question about the relationship between multimodality and ethnography has been raised a number of times during the last two decades (Dicks, Flewitt, Lancaster, Pahl, & Kress, 2011; Flewitt, 2011). Gunther Kress claimed that ethnography and social semiotics should be brought together to ‘mutual advantage’ in the article: ‘partnership in research’: multimodality and ethnography (2011). Here, he argued that social semiotics emphasizes ‘the ceaseless social (re) making of a set of cultural resources (Kress, 2011, p. 242 italics in original text). Kress argues that ethnography has the task to provide us with information about the setting that surrounds the social interaction. Also from a multimodal ethnographic perspective, other researchers have paid attention to materiality and multimodality (Pahl & Rowsell, 2010), as well as literacy practices in diverse contexts (Pahl & Rowsell, 2005).

This symposium brings together three papers that discuss and develop multimodal ethnography.

Eva Insulander presents and discusses examples of how methods from the field of ethnography were used within the frames of a research project on learning and designs for learning. Øystein Gilje's paper focuses on values of ethnographic fieldwork in relation to analyses of meaning-making practices across sites and contexts by following the individual learner or/and a semiotic artefact. Fredrik Lindstrand uses examples from two projects to suggest how ethnographical approaches can be used to encompass a focus on both functional/social and systemic aspects of semiosis in multimodal research.

Discussant: Professor Anders Björkvall, Örebro Universitet. [e-mail]

References

Anderson, K. T. (2013). Contrasting Systemic Functional Linguistic and Situated Literacies Approaches to Multimodality in Literacy and Writing Studies. Written Communication, 30(3), 276-299. doi: 10.1177/0741088313488073

Bateman, J., & Schmidt, K.-F. (2012). Multimodal film analysis: how films mean. New York: Routledge.
Boeriis, M. (2009). Multimodal Socialsemiotik & Levende Billeder. (PhD thesis Ph D), Faculty of Humanities, SDU, Syddansk Universitet.
Flewitt, R. (2011) Bringing ethnography to a multimodal investigation of early literacy in a digital age. Qualitative research 11(3), 293-310)
Gilje, Ø. (2010a). Mode, mediation and moving images: an inquiry of digital editing practices in media education. (Ph D collection of articles), University of Oslo, Oslo.
Gilje, Ø. (2010b). Multimodal Redesign in Filmmaking Practices: An Inquiry of Young Filmmakers’ Deployment of Semiotic Tools in Their Filmmaking Practice. Written Communication, 27(4), 494.
Jewitt, C., Bezemer, J., & O'Halloran, K. (2016). Introducing multimodality: Routledge.
Kress, G. (2011). ‘Partnerships in research’: multimodality and ethnography. Qualitative Research, 11(3), 239-260. doi: 10.1177/1468794111399836
Lindstrand, F. (2006). Att göra skillnad: Representation, identitet och lärande i ungdomars arbete och berättande med film [Making difference. Representation, identity and learning in teenagers' work and communication with film]. . . (PhD), Stockholm: HLS Förlag.
Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (2005). Literacy and education: understanding the new literacy studies in the classroom. London: Paul Chapman.
Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (2010). Artefactual literacies: Every object tells a story: Teachers College Press.

Follow the signmaker – a multimodal lens on ethnographic fieldwork across contexts

Associate professor Øystein Gilje

Faculty of Education, University of Oslo, Norway
[e-mail]

This paper presents and discusses a multimodal perspective on ethnographic fieldwork, which is carried out in various contexts over time. By discussing what it means to follow 'the learner’ or ‘the semiotic artefact’ the paper discusses how sign makers are remixing and reconfiguring their semiotic work according to the diverse cultural and social practices that are negotiated and valued in each context.

A central debate in field of ethnography is the move from studies of a social phenomenon by focusing on one particular site to the understanding of meaning making across sites. George E. Marcus multi-sited ethnography (1995), highlights the importance of following the agent, or the (semiotic) artefact, among six perspectives on ‘what’ to follow across sites. This multi-sited ethnography also relates to the interest in new modes of online communication, and raises questions of ‘where’ the research takes place, a debate that has been fueled in the last decade in virtual ethnography (Hine, 2000; 2015) and digital anthropology (Horst & Miller, 2012) .

Building on two collaborative research projects and ethnographies, Learning Lives (Erstad, Gilje, Sefton-Green, & Arnseth, 2016) and Knowledge in Motion (Erstad & Smette, 2017; Gilje & Erstad, 2014; Silseth & Gilje, 2017) this presentation give examples of how to ‘follow’ sign makers in informal and formal learning contexts, and how semiotic artefacts are made and remade across these contexts.

The analysis pays attention to how we can follow the semiotic artefact (Gilje & Erstad, 2016) and the signmaker. In doing this, the presentation gives examples of how to explore the complexity of following the learners and the semiotic artefacts, and see how they redesign (transduct and translate (Bezemer & Kress, 2008)) their semiotic work from one context to another.

References

Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2008). Writing in multimodal texts: A social semiotic account of designs for learning. Written Communication, 25(2), 166.

Dicks, B., Flewitt, R., Lancaster, L., Pahl, K., & Kress, G. (2011). ‘Partnerships in research’: multimodality and ethnography. Qualitative Research, 11(3), 239-260. doi: 10.1177/1468794111399836
Erstad, O., Gilje, Ø., Sefton-Green, J., & Arnseth, H. C. (2016). Learning Identities, Education and Community: Young Lives in the Cosmopolitan City: Cambridge University Press.
Erstad, O., & Smette, I. (Eds.). (2017). Ungdomsskole og ungdomsliv : læring i skole, hjem og fritid. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
Flewitt, R. (2011). Bringing ethnography to a multimodal investigation of early literacy in a digital age. Qualitative Research, 11(3), 293-310.
Gilje, Ø., & Erstad, O. (2014). Tracing Learning Across Contexts. In G. B. Gudmondsdottir & K. Vasbø (Eds.), Methodological Challenges When Exploring Digital Learning Spaces in Education (pp. 135-149). Rotterdam: Sense.
Gilje, Ø., & Erstad, O. (2016). Authenticity, agency and enterprise education studying learning in and out of school. International Journal of Educational Research, 12. doi: http://dx.doi.orgdx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.05.012
Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. London: Sage.
Hine, C. (2015). Ethnography for the Internet: Embedded, Embodied and Everyday: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Horst, H. A., & Miller, D. (2012). Digital anthropology. London: Berg.
Jewitt, C., Bezemer, J., & O'Halloran, K. (2016). Introducing multimodality: Routledge.
Kress, G. (2011). ‘Partnerships in research’: multimodality and ethnography. Qualitative Research, 11(3), 239-260. doi: 10.1177/1468794111399836
Marcus, G. E. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system: the emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual review of anthropology, 95-117.
Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (2005). Literacy and education: understanding the new literacy studies in the classroom. London: Paul Chapman.
Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (2010). Artefactual literacies: Every object tells a story: Teachers College Press.
Silseth, K., & Gilje, Ø. (2017). Multimodal composition and assessment: a sociocultural perspective. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 1-17. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2017.1297292

Multimodal ethnography in educational research: examining the middle ages as a knowledge domain

Associate professor Eva Insulander

Stockholm University, Sweden
[e-mail]

This paper presents and discusses an approach to multimodal ethnography that was used in a project called REMAKE. Representation, resources and meaning-making. The Middle Ages as a knowledge domain in different learning environments. The project examined representations of the Middle Ages in different learning environments, and how these representations were interpreted, transformed and re-designed by the participants (eg. Insulander, 2017; Insulander, Lindstrand & Selander, 2017; Insulander, Lindstrand & Selander, 2016).

The methodology involved observations during recurring visits to two classes in compulsory schools, and one class in upper secondary school. The researcher attended a series of lessons, starting from the introduction of the unit and continuing until its finish, a total of 5-10 lessons for each class. The empirical material consisted of video recordings of classroom interaction and visits to museums, a compilation of educational material as well as texts created by pupils. As a way to obtain information about summative assessment, short interviews were conducted with the participating teachers.

Our intent was not to make a detailed multimodal analysis of human interaction, but rather to study transformative processes and instances where modes and media were used by teachers and students. Thus, based on our objective, the approach did not involve detailed transcriptions of interaction. Our aim was to draw conclusions of the participants’ meaningmaking in relation to conditions of the particular setting. This involved a critical approach towards the situated cultures of recognition, attending to the agency of teachers and students (Bezemer & Kress, 2016).

Ideas about ethnography have changed over time. The term “ethnography” is in this case used to refer to a study which included some participant observation and unstructured interviews. The fieldwork lasted for a few weeks rather than for years or months. Video was used for documentation instead of making fieldnotes (cf. Hammersley, 2005). Our multimodal analysis illustrates how different learning designs produce different images of a knowledge area and create different opportunities for learning and assessment. Our approach may be described as being situated within a social semiotic approach to multimodality associated with the work of Gunther Kress, Theo van Leeuwen, Carey Jewitt and Jeff Bezemer (see eg. Jewitt, 2014).

References

Bezemer, J. & Kress, G. (2016). Multimodality, learning and communication. A social semiotic frame. London & New York: Routledge.

Hammersley, M. (2005) Ethnography and discourse analysis: incompatible or complementary? Polifonia, (10), 1-20.

Insulander, E., Lindstrand, F. & Selander, S. (2017). The Design of Knowledge Representations in Different Multimodal Texts about the Middle Ages. Journal of Educational Media, Memory and Society, 9(2), 1-14.

Insulander, E. (2017). Representations of the Black Death: multimodality and assessment in the history classroom. Multimodal communication. 6(2), 129-141.

Insulander, E., Lindstrand, F., & Selander, S. (2016). Designing the Middle Ages: Knowledge emphasis and designs for learning in the history classroom. Historical Encounters: A journal of historical consciousness, historical cultures, and history education, 3(1), 31-42.

Jewitt, C. (ed.) (2014) The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. 2^nd ed. London: Routledge.
Grasping action in multimodal transformative processes

Professor Fredrik Lindstrand

Konstfack University College of Arts, Crafts and Design, Stockholm, Sweden
[e-mail]

A multimodal and social semiotic (Hodge & Kress, 1988) approach to learning, focusing on semiosis and semiotic change, provides an important contrast to the fields of research that currently inform political discourse on education and learning. By conceptualising learning as socially situated processes of sign-making and approaching learners as meaning-makers engaged in semiotic work (Kress, 2003; 2010), social semiotics affords valuable possibilities to grasp the social and epistemological complexities of learning and education (Insulander & Lindstrand, 2013; Insulander, Kjällander et al., 2017). In a world of instability and change, this seems as crucial as ever (cf. Kress, 2008).

However, approaching learning in ways that utilise the potentials of social semiotic theory calls for a research design that opens not only for analyses of signs and resources, but also for grasping sign-making as a process of decision making in situ over time (cf. van Leeuwen, 2005; Lindstrand, 2010). Differently put, it is a matter of balancing the two sides of social semiotics: the functional/social and the systemic parts of semiosis (Machin, 2016).

Building on examples from two research projects, the paper suggests that ethnographical approaches may offer ways to orchestrate this in practice (see also Dicks, Soyinka & Caffrey, 2006; Dicks, Flewitt et al., 2011). One of the projects, Making difference (Lindstrand, 2006; 2009) used ethnographic approaches to show how understandings of aspects related to ideational, interpersonal and textual features of communication with moving images were construed gradually in the transition between different phases, modes and media in collaborative filmmaking processes. The other project, The Mission (Lindstrand, 2016), used ethnographic approaches to track how various elements from a convergent learning process about WW2 were used as resources in the collaborative production of a written fictive story.

References

Dicks, B., Soyinka, B. & Coffey, A. (2006) Multimodal Ethnography. Qualitative Research 6(1), 77-96.

Dicks, B., Flewitt, R., Lancaster, L. & Pahl, K. (2011) Multimodality and ethnography: working at the intersection. Qualitative Research 11(3), 227-237.
Hodge, R. & Kress, G. (1988) Social semiotics. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Insulander, E., Kjällander, S., Lindstrand, F. & Åkerfeldt, A. (eds.)(2017) Didaktik i omvandlingens tid. Text, representation, design. [Didactics in times of transformation. Text, representation, design]. Stockholm: Liber.
Insulander, E. & Lindstrand, F. (2013) “Towards a social and ethical view of semiosis. Examples from the museum”. In Böck, M. & Pachler, N. (red.) Multimodality and Social Semiosis: Communication, Meaning-making, and Learning in the Work of Gunther Kress. New York: Routledge. 225-236.
Kress G. (2003) Literacy in the New Media Age. London: Routledge.
Kress, G. (2008) Meaning and learning in a world of instability and multiplicity. Studies in Philosophy and Education 27(4), 253- 266.
Kress, G. (2010) Multimodality. A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.
Lindstrand, F. (2006) Att göra skillnad. Representation, identitet och lärande i ungdomars arbete och berättande med film [Making difference. Representation, identity and learning in teenagers' work and communication with film]. Diss. Stockholm University. Stockholm: HLS Förlag.
Lindstrand, F. (2009) "Lärprocesser i den rörliga bildens gränsland" [Learning processes in the marches of filmmaking], in Lindstrand, F. & Selander, S. (eds.). Estetiska Lärprocesser – upplevelser, praktiker och kunskapsformer [Aesthetic Learning Processes - Experiences, Practices and Forms of Knowledge]. Lund: Studentlitteratur. 153-174.
Lindstrand, F. (2010) Interview with Theo van Leeuwen. Designs for Learning 3:1-2, 84-90.
Lindstrand, F. (2016) Med berättelsen och berättandet som mål och medel i en gränsöverskridande lärprocess kring andra världskriget. [Story and storytelling as target and means in a cross-boundry learning process about WW2]. Project report. Sandviken: Litteraturhuset Trampolin.
Machin, D. (2016) The need for a social and affordance-driven multimodal critical discourse studies. Discourse & Society 27:3, 322-334.
van Leeuwen, T. (2005) Introducing Social Semiotics. London: Routledge.