Context: Disciplines and Assessment

This study was conducted in Ontario, Canada. Detailed below is the purpose and

definitions associated with the three disciplines the study explored as they are outlined in the Ontario programmatic curriculum documents Language (OME, 2006), Mathematics (OME, 2005), and Social Studies (OME, 2013a). Each of the documents are organized according to grade with different specific and overall expectations for grades one through eight. These specific and overall expectations indicate knowledge and understanding students should have when they complete that grade.

These expectations are subsequently divided into strands which cover specific content areas. For example, in the Language document, there are specific and overall

expectations for oral literacy, reading, writing, and media literacy. In the Mathematics document, expectations are divided into number sense and numeration, measurement, geometry and spatial sense, patterning and algebra, and data management and probability. Social Studies, which is only taught from grades one through six,5 has two strands:

5 _{The Social Studies (OME, 2013a) curriculum is for grades 1-6. History and Geography is for grades 7}

heritage and identity, and people and environments. Each document also includes information about the overall disciplinary aims in terms of knowledge, understanding, and skills students may develop. I first explain each discipline’s aim to contextualize the three documents, and then I provide an in-depth analysis of the specific and overall objectives for each grade under study (grades one and five). Since the grade five classroom involved collecting data from the Language discipline only, grade five expectations are presented from the Language document only, rather than the Mathematics and Social Studies document explored for the grade 1 classroom.

The Social Studies (OME, 2013a) curriculum document emphasized students

“becom(ing) responsible, active citizens within the diverse communities to which they belong” (p. 6). The document mandates that students are involved “in aspects of

communication” using an “inquiry process” and “student’s learning style and strengths” (p. 23) where they “develop the ability to use the ‘concepts of disciplinary thinking’ to investigate issues, events, and developments” (p. 6) in each grade. The document focuses on developing disciplinary thinking. This thinking is responsive to student experiences and interests, similar to multimodal pedagogy as outlined by Stein and Newfield (2007).

Likewise, various types of literacy are outlined as integral to the discipline. It is written within the document “students develop a wide range of literacy, mathematical literacy, and inquiry skills” (p. 48). Developing “literacy skills” (p. 48) includes exploring various modes. For example, the written mode (NLG, 1996) is included using “reading” or

“analysing various texts” (p. 48). It is written students will “use language with care and precision to communicate effectively” (p. 48). Therefore, there is a need to examine how children are supported to meet semiotic demands placed on them to determine how they may be provided opportunities to create meaningful multimodal texts.

In comparison, the Mathematics (2005) document is framed within a “problem-solving context” (p. 12). The overall and specific objectives require students to develop a

new document which was implemented in September 2018, please see http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/sshg.html

mathematical metalanguage through the use of representations. For example, “including the use of mathematical symbols and terms” (p. 12) to develop “the symbolic language of mathematics” (p. 12). Mathematical literacy in this document is thus framed within being literate in mathematical representations (e.g., symbols). In the Mathematics curriculum, students were/are assessed in terms of how they communicate mathematical knowledge, which included “The conveying of meaning through various oral, written, and visual forms” (p. 20). In comparison, the Social Studies (OME, 2013a) and Language (2006) provide a definition including “The conveying of meaning through various forms” (OME, 2006, p.21; OME, 2013a, p. 32). Documenting instances of modal expectations in the programmatic curricula is thus necessary to determine if the

multimodal pedagogy being employed by the educators (the classroom curricula) is similarly reflected (endorsed) in the programmatic curricula. How these representations are designed means the need to consider the modes being provided to students within the classroom curricula.

The Language (2006) document detailed that it “is based upon the belief that literacy is critical to responsible and productive citizenship, and that all students can become literate” (p. 4). Language as a discipline is considered cross-curricular, although the document was established “to provide students with the knowledge and skills that they need” (p. 4) for literacy. There are principles which are foundational to this document, which described what “Successful language learners” (p. 4) were able to demonstrate. For example, that students are able to “make meaningful connections between

themselves, what they encounter in texts, and the world around them” (p. 4).

Literacy within this document is also defined outside of traditional definitions, as it is “about more than reading or writing- it is about how we communicate in society” (UNESCO, Statement for the United Nations Literacy Decade, 2003–2012 as cited by Ontario Ministry of Education, 2006, p. 3). Like social semiotics (Halliday, 1978), language development was/is considered to be “about social practices and relationships, about knowledge, language and culture” (OME, 2006, p. 3). How students explore literacy, was offered through multiple avenues- “listening and speaking, reading, writing, and viewing and representing” (OME, 2006, p. 3). These various forms of literacy may

be considered modes, which may suggest the curriculum document advocates for student awareness of the many forms language takes, like Mathematics (OME, 2005). Due to this potential advocacy, exploring multimodal pedagogy becomes fundamentally important, to understand how students can develop a multimodal literacy facility within these disciplines.

The media literacy strand within the Language document lent itself to multimodal pedagogy explicitly, requiring educators to provide modal opportunities to students. Expectations within this strand focused on students

1. understanding…a variety of media texts;

2. Identify(ing) some media forms and explain(ing) how the conventions and techniques associated with them are used to create meaning;

3. Creat(ing) a variety of media texts for different purposes and audiences… 4. Reflect(ing) on and identify(ing) their strengths, areas for improvement, and

the strategies they found most helpful in understanding and creating media texts. (OME, 2006, p. 14)

Here, students were invited to comprehend as well as design media texts to “create meaning” (p. 14), explicitly. This section outlined what can count for literacy is

dependent upon the strand expectations. A “Media text” considered “the construction of meaning through the combination of several media “languages”- images, sounds,

graphics, and words” (p. 14), which this study calls modes. In this particular area of Language, designing texts and exploring their modal meaning and affordances was a key feature of this strand. Thus, this strand provided/s examples of the ideas and foundations behind multimodal literacy. It was here where perhaps one of the most direct examples of multimodal literacy development was evident.