P RESENTATION OF THE R ESEARCH P ROBLEM ON L EARNING

Learning, my primary topic, refers to the transformation of thinking and designing repre-sentations in multimodal texts, such as films. Learning is examined in the context of an

upper secondary school classroom in Copenhagen, encompassing 21 students (18 years old) who are attending a week-long workshop on animation filmmaking.

The research problem addresses how these students design meanings with signs and sym-bols: how they transform, or animate, symbols and signs, as well as how symbols and signs become “animated symbols” in the sense that symbols may seem to become more alive in an active process of design. This double process is referenced in the title of this dissertation as well as in the model Animating Symbols. I examine the processes of learning as inter-connected with processes of transformation; I draw mainly on social semiotics and pragma-tism to highlight the “double process” of transformation (Kress, 2003; Dewey, 1938). The term double refers to both the interaction of the signs and symbols that are transformed into texts, and the humans who transform signs and symbols in our thinking.

This study departs theoretically from the social semiotic tradition. I incorporate the prag-matic approach to learning to support my claims about learning, since social semiotics is not necessarily concerned with learning (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001). I draw my terminol-ogy from social semiotics, which I apply with related pragmatism-based learning theories on the relevance of designing or articulating meanings (Dewey, 1934, 1938) and a few no-tions on narratives and cognition (Bruner, 1994).

I also refer to cultural studies traditions that have been applied to art and media education for young people (Willis 1990, 2000; Buckingham et al., 1995). I aim to use the cultural per-spective to address the gaps in connecting learning and semiotics and to spark a dialogue with similar attempts at combining theoretical perspectives on learning and representation.

In order to more fully understand the data I derived from the students’ concrete actions of filmmaking, I apply the methodology of mediated discourse analysis (MDA) by linguists and ethnographers Ron Scollon and Suzie Wong Scollon, introduced in 1.5.2 and laid out in Chapter 5. MDA as a methodology refers largely to social semiotic theory and pragmatism;

it helps me integrate filmmaking with learning. MDA also refers to sociocultural theories of learning (Vygotsky, 1978, 1986; Wertsch, 1991, 1998, 2002), but I mainly use the notion of

“mediated action.”

My synthesis is discussed in Chapter 4 and in an ongoing fashion.

This study relates to other empirical studies that apply the social semiotic perspectives on films as texts (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001; Burn & Reid, 2001; Burn & Parker, 2003;

Frølunde et al., 2008). I discuss gaps and review influential work further in the literature review in 1.6.

1.2.1. Introduction to the main topics.

Learning relates to how humans develop through complex processes of communicating with one another, and we “learn” to use available signs and symbols to convey meaning.

Communication is a process of making meaning, or semiosis, that relates to processes of language development, as theorized in social semiotics (Halliday, 1993; Kress, 2003). This notion of language encompasses a wide range of human communication methods, includ-ing visuals, the written alphabet, and movement. Humans use all available resources to communicate, including the different specific communication modes such as speech, drawn figures, and so on.

The social semiotics approach is a synthesis of theories, including inspiration from the ho-listic, pragmatic view of learning developed by American educator, psychologist, and phi-losopher John Dewey (1859–1952). Dewey’s theories of experience, interaction, aesthetics, transformation, and reflection contribute to my central concepts of learning (Dewey, 1933, 1934, 1938) and have influenced many contemporary educational researchers (see Chapter 2). The pragmatic roots of social semiotics facilitate my understanding of the experiential learning process behind film design. Through Dewey’s pragmatic view of “art as experi-ence” (1934), and of uniting notions of doing and reflecting (1938), I find a way to concep-tualize concrete action and abstract thought as double processes that are inseparable in the realm of learning.

I frequently use two words to refer to a united, intertwined learning process: designing and reflecting. Designing is my preferred word for actions that refer to composing text, which is similar to the notion of writing (as in writing words in an essay). Reflecting is my preferred word for what is essentially thinking in regards to the meanings of texts; it is related to interpreting.

Designing involves the concrete act of choosing particular signs and symbols to represent an idea; for example, one of the study’s film groups represents meaning by using a laurel tree, a sign they intend to refer to an ancient Greek myth (Ovid, 2000/original 8). Based on this and other examples from my data, I question how the students use representations and how much they understand that all representations are designed with intent—by someone, for someone else, and for some purpose. The students’ work as designers involves design-ing-related actions that relate to “reflecting” on symbol systems in other texts. So learning is treated in two ways: how the hands-on experience of designing texts develops learning, and, dynamically, how reflecting as a thinking process develops through designing. The data presentation includes analyses of animated films as texts and of the process of design-ing the texts. Reflectdesign-ing includes actions of interpretdesign-ing, evaluatdesign-ing, alterdesign-ing, and discuss-ing texts, which I consider indicative of “thinkdiscuss-ing” processes (Dewey, 1938; Bruner, 1990).

Reflecting is a difficult notion to apply theoretically and methodologically because it is hypothetic; thinking is an internal, intangible process. In educational policy, reflection is often connected to the term competence, but it is highly complex theoretically. Understand-ing the reflective process is one of the problematic gaps in empirical research on learnUnderstand-ing (for example, see Rattleff, 2006). Devising a working notion of reflection poses many chal-lenges. In my attempt to address this gap, I rely on a model for understanding people’s

“thinking” processes when they design symbols. With reference to my model, I postulate about how the students are “thinking.” See further discussion in 1.3.4 and other conceptual models of reflection presented in Chapter 4.

I next discuss culture, a secondary topic of this thesis. I see the students’ films and film-making as influenced by their culture and as examples of learning how to communicate.

My cultural position is rooted in my interest in the current shifting in forms of communica-tion in everyday life. A mainly monomodal form of text (i.e., the written text) has had im-portance in school, but is now challenged by the rise of multimodal forms of texts in society at large (for instance, communication via the internet). As a result, I look broadly at school-ing practices within the overall culture of school and take a social and cultural approach to school as an institution. In other words, in the foreground are the students’ everyday cul-ture and learning, especially relating to the arts and mass media; schooling as an institution is in the background.

This positioning highlights questions about learning in relation to everyday communica-tion practices and youth culture outside of school, such as participacommunica-tion in online games or other online communities. The rise of visual modes of communication can affect how young people use the Internet, including social software or Web 2.0 tools such as Facebook and YouTube. I focus on particular young people from my study and how they design with the different language modes in light of the visual, iconic turn. I explore whether these 18-year-olds, representative of their generation, are experienced, active designers of multimo-dal texts and question whether they have previous experience with filmmaking. I examine how they bring their experience into school in the framework of this one-week animation workshop.

The idea of a generation as homogeneous, especially the so-called “digital generation”

(Buckingham & Willett, 2006) or “millennials” (Pedró, 2006), is worth questioning. Many researchers discuss not only the notion of a generation (Buckingham & Willett, 2006) but also question that a whole generation can have special abilities, such as abilities with using various forms of mass media. The generation born in the 1980s is the first to grow up sur-rounded by visual, digital media. But while it is well documented that this young digital generation in the Western world consumes large quantities of digital mass media, it is also

clear that the generation is heterogeneous in their abilities with digital media (European perspective discussed in Pedró, 2006).

In my case study, I examine how five selected students, through their attempts at designing and critiquing films, reflect on themselves and our shared cultural narratives. The students’

animated films are examples of “shared cultural narratives,” to use American cultural psy-chologist Jerome Bruner’s phrase (1994). I attempt to position everyday culture in relation to the themes in the students’ animated films and to the process of composing those themes. Furthermore, I relate the students’ everyday culture to their past experiences with designing art and media, and connect their personal understanding of art, culture, and history to their design of animated films in the classroom.

Technology is the last issue that I introduce here that relates to the main topic of learning.

Technology impacts our communication resources: for example, the telephone allows us to talk to someone who is far away. New technologies allow us to use our communication modes in new and different ways. In my view, technologies are not neutral; rather, they affect how people use resources for communication. Seen across history, social and techno-logical changes impact our use of modes and our various texts, including our mass media.

I explore the idea of invention briefly in the example of films and filmmaking. Consider that in 1895 films were silent, but in the late 1920s, “talkies” became technologically and economically viable. In a similar vein, the digital technologies for producing animation are changing rapidly, especially with the advent of three-dimensional (3D)

computer-generated imagery (CGI). Animation is increasingly used in mass media representations; it allows for the visualization of alternative spaces, including special effects and fantasy worlds—such as in the popular animated full-length film series Shrek (by DreamWorks Animation), made entirely with CGI. Our technologies offer more and different resources for designing in different modes of representation. Filmmaking is changing due to new digital technologies, and this change impacts who is making films, an idea that is debated widely in media and education research (for example, Loveless, 2007). Today, even ama-teurs, such as the students in this study, may have animation software and sophisticated cameras. Filmmaking equipment is now affordable and accessible for amateurs, and films can be distributed on the Internet. The rise of visual modes in our mass media is partially due to the rise of digital formats that can handle moving visual images and sound, both of which require great capacity for storage and transportation. Technical advances such as improved Internet bandwidth now make it possible to produce and send images and sound relatively easily.

Ultimately, I view technology and social changes as being dynamically connected through-out history, from the invention of the wheel to the many advances of today; this idea is

shared by many media researchers (such as Manovich, 2001). I do not see technologies as a driving force; instead, my perspective relies on the double process of how texts and agents transform through communicative practices (including interacting with one another). Digi-tal technologies are not a primary optic, but I do consider how technologies impact re-sources for representation, exemplified in the students’ use of animation software, analyzed in Chapter 8.

1.2.2. The formulation of the research question.

Given the broad shifts in learning and culture in relation to young people, mass media, and technology, I will now narrow in on my focus for this study.

The research problem is an exploration of two aspects of filmmaking in regards to learning:

designing and reflecting. Designing is explored by studying the students’ concrete actions ofdesigning films. These actions are observable. Reflecting is explored by applying a model for understanding the internal thinking of the students as filmmakers. This thinking hypothetically occurs while the filmmakers are making films, as well as afterward, when they reflect back on the experience and integrate it. The notion of experience is applied to the students’ previous experience, especially regarding designing and interpreting complex multimodal texts such as films.

The research problem refers to learning as the representation of meaning and aligns with the social and cultural orientation toward learning issues in some of the literature on social semiotics (for example, Kress, 2003).

1.3. The Central Hypothesis, the Research