Factors leading to effective multimodal authoring

3D digital multimodal authoring To start with... Teachers and students had only very limited knowledge of multimodal authoring at the outset Living in a multimodal world does not implicitly lead to either understanding or metalanguage Sustained attention to all design elements is challenging Students find the more specific semiotic devices more difficult to work with Upper primary children are capable of producing multimodal texts of high quality High quality work can be identified in a range of classroom environments "High achieving" and "low achieving" classes can be identified

3D digital multimodal authoring An approach Software use (‘how’) Design elements (‘what’ and ‘why’) Integrate the teaching of these

3D digital multimodal authoring Pedagogical Approach

3D digital multimodal authoring A waterfall model

3D digital multimodal authoring Text conceptualisation and construction An ‘idea in the head’ of what we want to say (plot, characterisation, meanings) Design elements to communicate these Ability to produce those Minimal technical failures Where we ‘fall’ naturally from one to the next the result seems to be good

3D digital multimodal authoring Text conceptualisation and construction An ‘idea in the head’ of what we want to say (plot, characterisation, meanings) Design elements to communicate these Ability to produce those Minimal technical failures As yet unclear: What the planning processes and ‘objects’ are to most effectively nurture ‘stories worth telling’

3D digital multimodal authoring Text conceptualisation and construction An ‘idea in the head’ of what we want to say (plot, characterisation, meanings) Design elements to communicate these Ability to produce those Minimal technical failures As yet unclear: How interaction with the software can contribute to nurturing ‘stories worth telling’

3D digital multimodal authoring A good place to look for quality Teacher technological know-how is important Teacher knowledge of literacy practices is important High familiarity with the software is important Intellectual maturity and experience (ie year 6 vs year 5) seems to be a important Pair-constructed texts are less likely to be high quality than solo efforts Multimodal texts (viewing/reading along with writing/creating) already embedded as an integral part of classroom life

3D digital multimodal authoring High quality classes … Engagement of the teacher with the work of the students is critical Capacity of the teacher to help the student produce a manageable outcome is critical Long-term exposure seems quite important so that concepts are understood, rehearsed and incorporated into students' thinking A classroom learning culture of persistence and completion is important

3D digital multimodal authoring For the future Embedding multimodal literacies (viewing/reading along with writing/creating) as part of the normal teaching/learning practice of classrooms Developing teachers’ knowledge of multimodal texts Developing units of work in multimodal text creation which are scalable to classroom realities and linked through a multi-year scope and sequence Greater understanding of the ‘mental processes’ for text conceptualisation and construction Work with genres other than narrative Collaborative and "Web 2.0" practices