20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Paper
Children and Collection Objects in Museums: Emerging Multiliteracies and Open Futures.
Sandra Chistolini2, Konstantin Keidel1, Bernd Wagner1, Klaus-Christian Zehbe1
1Leipzig University, Germany; 2Università Roma Tre, Italy
Presenting Author: Chistolini, Sandra;
Wagner, Bernd
The paper answers the joint call by discussing “multiliteracies” (New London Group 2000) both from a conceptual as well as a methodological perspective in an innovative setting for cultural and intercultural learning. With reference to the Italian-German project “Historical learning processes of primary school children in museum collections” – funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) – we examine performatively emerging multiliteracies with a focus on historical learning of German and Italian primary school children in the pedagogical framework of social education in German and Italian primary schools.
Multiliteracies are key to prepare students for a successful life in rapidly changing social contexts (New London Group 2000) – particularly in their future “working, public and private lives” (ibid., 10–17). Educators consequently design educational activities for students to acquire multiliteracies and to help students in designing their own “social futures” through adapting to and critically examining existing social designs (ibid., 7). We extend this approach to primary school children (ages 8 to 11), whose lives are not yet as distinctly organized in social worlds of working, public and private lives as those of adults. However, children are constantly ‘listening in’ on adult worlds or are “participating peripherally” in them (Lave and Wenger 2011). Because of this, primary school education strives to systematize children’s often partial and random experiences into ‘literate’ and scientific experiences (Duncker and Popp 2003). We therefore call these multiliteracies of primary school children ‘emergent’. We argue that such multiliteracies can be conveyed by contact with collection objects in museums. Collection objects as part of a society’s cultural heritage can give children access to a society’s cultural codes and language (Wagner 2022). By laying open cultural codes for learners, greater social justice and inclusion can be achieved (Chistolini 2019). The examination of cultural codes through collection objects opens a methodological perspective on other intercultural settings.
Schwartz (2008) holds that museums are particularly suitable for teaching multiliteracies through the study of museum designs and the displays of objects in museums. However, scholarly literature has so far neither paid much attention to teaching multiliteracies in museums (ibid.), nor considered the untapped potentials of objects and object interactions in museums for interdisciplinary research (Barsch and van Norden 2020). While most studies in the field highlight the cultural meanings of collection objects and their multimodal encoding in museum displays (f. e. Kress 2000), they often do so without considering the visitors’ museum experience (Schwartz 2008). By emphasizing the cultural meanings of collection objects and displays, the inherent “obstinacy of things” (Hahn 2015) is not taken into account, i. e. the resistance of material objects to interpretive closure and the excess of meanings which cannot be easily subsumed under cultural meanings. Our project leverages the obstinacy of things by allowing children to make their own experiences with collection objects and their “affordances” (Norman 1999), i. e. the objects’ material properties offering clues as to how the object could or should be experienced. In doing so, we examine the potential of collection objects for primary school children’s learning of multiliteracies and cultural codes as well as asking pedagogical questions about ‘open futures’, i. e. futures which are shaped by the children and not by present social demands.
Because primary school children mostly experience objects through direct physical interaction, we created “contact zones” (Clifford 1997; Wagner 2010) in specifically designed exhibitions to give children access to historical objects – or their replicas – in two school-related collections: Schulmuseum –Werkstatt für Schulgeschichte (School Museum – Workshop for School History) in Leipzig, Germany and Fondo Pizzigoni (Pizzigoni Fund) in Rome, Italy.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe research project conducts qualitative-reconstructive empirical research on the affordances of historical collection objects with a special focus on the emergence of multiliteracies in historical learning of primary school children. In order to qualitatively reconstruct children’s experiences in school museums and their interactions with collection objects, ethnographic participant observation, ethnographic videography and subsequently qualitative focused group interviews are used. Specifically, participant observation and videography ensures that the researchers are immersed in the field and that their research perspective is reflectively sensitized to the multimodality of the ethnographic scene and the participating children’s perspectives and meanings within it. With reference to qualitative-reconstructive educational research, two sub-studies are conducted in the participating school-related museums in Germany and Italy.
The collections in Germany and Italy were chosen because they both focus on historical education and are thus connected to participating children’s experiences of school and schooling. Additionally, both collections house documents and historical objects of two educational reform traditions which highlighted child-object interactions for learning processes: those of Leipziger Lehrerverein (Leipzig Teachers’ Association, 1846–1933) and of the Italian educational reformer Giuseppina Pizzigoni (1870–1947).
In these museums, small exhibitions of collection objects were created. In order to allow children access to the objects in the exhibitions, “contact zones” (Clifford 1997; Wagner 2010) were set up, in which children can freely handle especially designed objects or replicas of originals. The contact zones were specifically designed to accommodate ethnographic videography. In this regard, two camera positions for an individual (close up) and a group perspective (wide angle) were foreseen. In doing so, both individual as well as group interactions and processes can be recorded. Video material is subsequently split up into sequences which serves – together with field memos of participant observation – as a basis for the reconstruction of children’s experiences following the Grounded Theory methodology (Corbin and Strauss 1996).
Memos, field notes and video material from Germany and Italy are analyzed, discussed and compared. Rich data is processed in detail according to previously established coding principles. Axial coding will in turn identify phenomena across video sequences. From this data, theories about children’s interests in collection objects and their historical learning processes are derived.
Data is discussed in light of the objects’ potential to initiate learning processes and how this can be related to the emergence of multiliteracies.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe interventions in the participating historic educational collections in Italy and Germany will provide important information on object-centred interactions and learning processes of primary school children. The bi-national research design offers the possibility to identify and comment on intercultural dimensions, such as different cultural preferences of children or cultural teaching and learning preferences in Germany and Italy. By comparing cultural preferences, underlying anthropological dimensions in children’s development and its connection to learning processes may be equally reconstructed.
Ethnographic participant observation as well as ethnographic videography in the participating museums will allow us to understand better, how children move through educational collections in Germany and Italy, how children approach collection objects and what kind of experiences they make in the process. Specifically, we will gain detailed insight into situated child-object interactions from which further hypotheses regarding historical and cultural learning processes will be derived. On the basis of the videographed interactions and subsequent interviews we will be able to reconstruct the children’s experiences with the objects and their connections to learning in schools. In turn, this will permit us to better understand the children’s approaches to historical objects and the cognitive and experiential horizons into which such approaches are embedded. This will contribute to identifying objects which are particularly conducive for children’s learning processes and help in designing more inclusive learning activities and environments for cultural and language learning for diverse abilities and backgrounds of children.
The project hereby extends the concept of multiliteracies to a very young age group and a context, which is so far under-researched. In light of contemporary and future challenges to societies – such as climate change, resource depletion, economic crises or war – historical multiliteracy may help to avoid shortfalls of the past and design more sustainable, equitable and inclusive social futures.
ReferencesBarsch, S. and van Norden, J. (eds.) (2020). Historisches Lernen und Materielle Kultur. Von Dingen und Objekten in der Geschichtsdidaktik [Historical learning and material culture: of things and objects in the didactics of history]. Transcript.
Clifford, J. (1997). Museums as Contact Zones. In id. (ed.) Routes: travel and translation in the late twentieth century (pp. 188–219). Harvard University Press.
Cope, B. and Kalantzis, M. (eds.) (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures. Routledge.
Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (1996). Grounded Theory: Grundlagen qualitativer Sozialforschung [Grounded Theory: basics of qualitative social research]. Beltz.
Chistolini, S. (ed.) (2019). Decoding the Disciplines in European Institutions of Higher Education: Intercultural and Interdisciplinary Approach to Teaching and Learning. Franco Angeli.
Duncker, L. and Popp, M. (eds.) (2003). Kind und Sache: Zur pädagogischen Grundlegung des Sachunterrichts [Child and thing: On the pedagogical foundation of social and science education in primary schools]. Beltz Juventa.
Hahn, H. P. (2015). Der Eigensinn der Dinge – Einleitung [The obstinacy of things – introduction]. In id. (ed.) Vom Eigensinn der Dinge: Für eine neue Perspektive auf die Welt des Materiellen [On the obstinacy of things: for a new perspective on the material world]. Neofelis.
Kress, G. (2000). Multimodality. In B. Cope and M. Kalantzis (eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures (pp. 182–202). Routledge.
Lave J. and Wenger, E. (2011) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press.
New London Group (2000 [1996]). A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures. In B. Cope and M. Kalantzis (eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures (pp. 9–37). Routledge.
Norman, D. (1999). Affordance, Conventions, and Design. Interactions 6(3), 38–43.
Schwartz, J. P. (2008). Object Lessons: Teaching Multiliteracies through the Museum. College English, 71(1), 27–47.
Wagner, B. (2010). Kontaktzonen im Museum: Kindergruppen in der Ausstellung Indianer Nordamerikas [Contact Zones in Museums: Groups of Children in the Exhibition American Indians of North America]. Paragrana 19(2), 192–203.
Wagner, B. (2022). Kulturelle Bildung im Museum: Sprachhandeln in Lernumgebungen zu Sammlungsobjekten [Cultural education in museums: doing language in learning environments with collection objects]. In: A. Scheunpflug, C. Wulf and I. Züchner (eds.) Kulturelle Bildung [Cultural Education]. Edition ZfE, vol 12. Springer VS.
20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Paper
Arts-based Practices with Young People at the Edge: Reconnecting Young People with the Worlds of Learning and Work
Deborah Price, Jenni Carter, Belinda MacGill
University of South Australia, Australia
Presenting Author: Price, Deborah
This presentation draws on an extensive collection of research: Arts-based Practices with Young People at the Edge (Price, MacGill & Carter, 2023), evidencing the affordances of a range of community initiatives applying arts-based approaches designed to reconnect young people with the worlds of learning and work, thus facilitating re-engagement and productive identity shifts.
Globally, young people are encountering and navigating multiple social, cultural, relational, economic and educational forces that challenge traditional understandings and possibilities of being successful in school, and the life trajectories that should follow. This research highlights the value of promoting diversity within educational research through the arts, by creating practices for young people to imagine new and multiple ways of being in the world and to provide personal and collective resources and repertoires to create stories that value their life-worlds and experiences.
Contributors to this project have long histories of working and researching in out-of-school programs for young people and youth who are living in high poverty communities, are unemployed or underemployed and many have not completed a formal qualification at school or beyond. Central to this research are the range of arts-based approaches and methodologies that were developed in collaboration with young people and the affordances of the material and philosophical production of making in the arts, diverging from exploring the intrinsic and instrumental benefits of the arts. This research highlights the transformational practices of making that occurs where youth identity intersects at site specific moments. Thereby, this presentation points to the affordances of youth participation in co-designing sustainable creative learning opportunities to develop alternative learner identities.
Underpinned by social justice and intercultural understanding, this research questions the deficit positioning of young people and their engagement with formal education systems. The presentation will draw attention to the complexity of systemic issues around youth disengagement and the possibilities of collective creativity to navigate these broken systems and inform new and sustainable futures. It identifies key challenges young people face in contemporary post-industrial societies in finding work and meaning and details some hopeful sites of practice in a range of diverse contexts.
In advancing opportunities for engaging young people in multiple modes of meaning, new modalities and innovative learning environments, identities and biographies of multilinguals, digital media, and (multi)literacy practices, these Arts-Based Practices showcase the divergent global practices of youth arts organisations and creative methodologies mobilised across creative projects that promote assets-based approaches towards young people.
Youth arts organisations and youth arts projects reveal the local and specific contexts of sites where young people, arts organisations and researchers co-design creative projects. At the centre of these projects, diverse examples are provided to highlight how creative young people involved in youth arts projects have shaped and directed the creative actions and outcomes of the projects. There are multiple examples of non-formal learning; youth arts projects where learning occurs not just for the sake of learning, but where art teaches us to sit in relation to the world (Biesta, 2017).
Creating art works offers opportunities for unearthing blocked emotions and resistance. It is the combination of working with resistant and unruly materials when making art that enacts or parallels the often-uncharted internal conflicts one carries unconsciously. The young participants’ art experiences are varied but they all include making art―such as drawing, sculpture―or co-designing art works. Through the art-making process there is also exploration of ideas and emotions that emerge. These opportunities inform relational aesthetic practices (Bourriaud, 2002) that form the basis of unearthing new ways of seeing, new conversations and new ways of being in the world. In this way, art teaches us to re-read the world (Biesta, 2017).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedDrawing upon Participatory Action Research projects, this presentation provides a snapshot of two themes. The first focuses on Enacting Arts-based Methodologies with Young People at the Edge through Codesign, through the project Media Arts in Anangu Education: A Culturally Responsive Approach for Developing Digital and Media Literacies (MacGill & Unsworth, 2023). The study took place in a remote Anangu school community located in Central Australia with a significant number of students reported to be mostly disengaged from schooling. Applying arts-informed methodologies, students learnt two immersive virtual reality (iVR) technologies. Media arts conventions and practices along with aesthetic and affective frameworks were used, relying on students’ skills and imagination to build iVR tours of their school (Franks et al., 2014; Greene, 1995). As a community of learners, students, teachers, researchers and Aboriginal Education Worker (AEW) collaboratively developed the project, and co-designed an iVR artefact that was culturally, linguistically, and socially contextualised. The learning design included Creative Body-based Learning (CBL) involving ‘dialogic meaning making’ in Pitjantjatjara and English, ‘co-construction’ and ‘role-play’ using a virtual reality (VR) game, contributing to affective engagement of all participants (Dawson & Kiger Lee, 2018; Garrett & MacGill, 2021).
Arguably, arts-based methodologies, including New Media, encourage students to co-create and co-design in ways that inform a pluralist world view that is anchored in the local and specific contexts of their worlds (Kraehe & Brown, 2011). Language and local knowledge played key roles in building a culturally responsive approach whilst developing skills in iVR as a New Media.
The second theme, Reflecting on Arts-Based Practice at the Edge is shared through the study, ‘It’s not my story’: Revitalising Young People’s Learning Lives (Channing, Kerkham & Comber, 2023). An alternative education ten-week accredited filmmaking programme engaged four unemployed young people who had left school early and living in a low socio-economic area in South Australia. The goal was to revitalise (Boldt, 2020) young people’s learning and sense of possibility and capability through opportunities to achieve; lifting self-esteem, giving reasons to be learners, and to celebrate their creativity. Video production facilitated imagining new ways of being in the world as they collectively created stories that valued their lifeworlds and experiences.
The students and teacher reflected on experiences as collaborators and mentors, and the working relationships and friendships that emerged through engaging in film production. They shared accomplishments, yet the notion of ‘authentic’ youth voice was critiqued, discussing tensions around its goals.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe encounters with art represented in this presentation show us how art, in combination with Participatory Action Research projects, offers fruitful insights into the lives of young people at the edge, and how they navigate the multi-barriered world. The findings presented reveal how young people are navigating the world politically, collectively and individually (Ferreira, 2016). Storying one’s lived reality through art informs political action and renews an agentive and transformative engagement with the world.
The researchers, artists, activists and youth organisations represented in this collaborative project, also highlight new creative methodologies that build on agentive possibilities with young people. Historically, young people at the edge have been positioned as either invisible or hyper-visible. Marginalised youth are defined and positioned in policy as the ‘problem’, without considerations of structural inequality. Civic responsibility is deferred by this positioning and yet the sub-text of responsibility is contradictory where structural inequalities formed through multi-barriers are not ameliorated by the State. Those working with young people navigate these contradictions as activists to disrupt the misrepresentation and invisibility of young people at the edge. Whilst the State may defer responsibility, the examples in this publication highlight ways in which young people are navigating their lives out of these locked trajectories in collaboration with those who listen deeply as allies in their journey of re-presenting themselves to the world. Creative solutions to structural inequality outlined in these approaches, are reconsidered anew in collaboration with young people.\
These creative methodologies draw out affective and creative assemblages as conceptual frameworks that shift the insider/outsider positioning. This is accompanied by critical examination of discourses of disadvantage and acknowledgement of the lived reality of young people’s feelings of being pushed to the edges of society. Importantly, this presentation provides opportunities for transformation, grounded in the existential act of co-creating artwork.
ReferencesBiesta, G. (2017). Letting art teach. ArtEZ Press.
Boldt, G. (2020). Theorizing vitality in the literacy classroom. Reading Research Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.307
Bourriaud, N. (2002). Relational aesthetics. Les Presses du Réel (original French publication 1998).
Channing, D., Kerkham, L., & Comber, B. (2023). ‘It’s Not My Story’: Revitalising Young People’s Learning Lives (Chapter 8, 147-163). In Price, D., MacGill, B., & Carter, J. (Eds.) (2023): Arts-based Practices with Young People at the Edge, Springer Nature.
Dawson, K., & Kiger Lee, B. (2018). Drama-based pedagogy: Activating learning across the curriculum. Chicago University Press & Intellect Ltd.
Ferreira, V. S. (2016). Aesthetics of youth scenes: From arts of resistance to arts of existence. Young, 24(1), 66–81.
Franks, A., Thomson, P., Hall, C., & Jones, K. (2014). Teachers, arts practice and pedagogy. Changing English, 21(2), 171–181.
Garrett, R., & MacGill, B. (2021). Fostering inclusion in school through creative and body-based learning. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25(11), 1221–1235. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1606349
Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change. Jossey-Bass.
Kennelly, J. (2011). Citizen youth: Culture, activism and agency in a neoliberal era. Palgrave Macmillan.
Kraehe, A. M., & Brown, K. D. (2011). Awakening teachers’ capacities for social justice with/in arts-based inquiries. Equity & Excellence in Education, 44(4), 488–511.
MacGill, B. & Unsworth, P. (2023). Media Arts in Anangu Education: A Culturally Responsive Approach for Developing Digital and Media Literacies (Chapter 6, 107-124). In Price, D., MacGill, B., & Carter, J. (Eds.) (2023): Arts-based Practices with Young People at the Edge, Springer Nature.
Price, D., MacGill, B., & Carter, J. (Eds.) (2023): Arts-based Practices with Young People at the Edge, Springer Nature.
20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Paper
Multiliteracies in the Making: Co-creating a Storybook with Multilingual Families in a Participatory Visual-methods Project
Nikolett Szelei
KU Leuven, Belgium
Presenting Author: Szelei, Nikolett
Today, even though many children are multilingual, pedagogical resources in schools across Europe continue to reflect monolingualism and monoculturalism as a norm (Adams, 2021; Adam & Barratt-Pugh, 2021; Suuriniemi & Katokangas, 2020). Furthermore, when pedagogies are developed without students’ direct participation, even ‘well-intended’ practices may stereotype cultural and linguistic minority students (Szelei et al., 2019).
Research shows that using pedagogical resources (e.g. picturebooks) that mobilise students’ multiliteracy skills may help learning about diverse students in the classroom (Sanchez, 2009), affirming multilingual students in educational activities (McGilp, 2014; Pietikäinen & Pitkänen-Huhta, 2013), initiating discussions of equity and justice (Clarke & Broders, 2022), and foster critical thinking (Dolan, 2014). Consequently, there is a need to develop pedagogical resources and practices through participatory action with students and families (Sanchez, 2009; Szelei et al., 2019), in order to challenge monolingual norms in schools, and provide opportunities for intercultural and multilingual learning for the whole educational community (Heggernes, 2021).
Co-creative methods have been long seen as potential ways to increase students’ participation and to address educational injustice in policy, practice and research (Mitchell et al, 2017; Van Praag, 2019). In this vein, we initiated a participatory visual-methods project (Mitchell et al., 2017) with multilingual families in Belgium to create a storybook. Through participatory and multimodal action, we intended to center the real-life experiences of multilingual children, as well as their multiliteracy skills when creating a pedagogical resource. This book is currently being finalised and will then be piloted in primary schools in Belgium. In order to authentically represent the experiences and knowledges of multilingual families, we opted for a book concept that embraced the features of multimodality. This included the principles of: text reflecting meaning through typset, interactive narration, images expanding meaning and applying multiple perspectives (Hasset & Curwood, 2009, p. 274). We also actively valued and displayed the many languages participants used in real life (McGilp, 2014).
Co-creating a ‘product’ enables scientific inquiry, and it also results in an actual output for participants and the wider community (Mitchell et al., 2017, p. 32). However, the many challenges of participatory production are also well-known. Constraints in time, funding, the structures, and unequal relationships between participants and researchers are highlighted (Fritz & Binder, 2018). Moreover, products resulting from participatory visual-methods research are also shaped by participants’ understandings, motives and actions regarding which target groups they would like to potentially have an influence on (Mitchell et al., 2017). To our knowledge, there is little knowledge on how participatory visual-methods projects with multilingual families challenge monolingual language ideologies in schools, and what specific processes, roles and motivations are involved in such projects.
Therefore, we analyse the processes and the product of a participatory visual-methods project that aimed to mobilise the experience of multilingualism as told by multilingualism in pedagogical practice. Specifically, we here pay attention to how research participants drew on or limited their own multiliteracy repertoires (text production in multiple languages and visual production) when creating a storybook intended for pedagogical use, as well as readership beyond the family context. We asked: How did participants mobilise their multiliteracy repertoires during the co-creation process? How did the original verbal and visual narratives of multilingualism change for fictional stories in the storybook? What were the underlying reasons of these changes?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis project is part of a larger EU-funded project that aimed to better understand multilingualism at home and at school, and to develop a storybook to support bridging families and schools. We here present outcomes of a substudy that involved 10 multilingual families (10 parents, 20 children (age 5-14)) in the creation of a storybook. A multilingual family was identified as a family where two or more languages were actively used in everyday family life (Grosjean, 2013). The sample of families was highly heterogeneous: altogether 9 languages were spoken and parents represented 14 different nationalities. While the families had different family language policies, they all actively used two or more languages in everyday family life, and parents actively promoted children’s multilingual development.
The research involved two steps in a sequential order:
1) Collecting real-life narratives of multilingualism from parents and children: We conducted in-depth interviews with parents, and visual-narrative interviews with children. The aim here was to understand family members’ experiences of multilingualism in the family, and how they positioned themselves when facing different language policies at school and at home. During the children interviews, children narrated their own drawings of family multilingualism, and/or photos of family life taken by parents.
2) Co-creating a storybook: Based on the verbal and visual narratives collected in Step 1, a storybook was produced. This process involved a discussion between participants and researchers about questions such as which elements of their stories may be part of the fictional stories in the book, or which of their drawings/photos should be the base for the book’s illustrations. Then the lead researcher wrote a story for each family case, and a professional illustrator drew illustrations. The stories were fictional but based on participants’ own narratives. Changes were made in order to create a coherent storyline and narration style adequate for a children’s book, and to protect the anonymity of research participants. When the stories were ready, feedback session were organised with each family. These feedback sessions were registered in fieldnotes.
For the sake of this presentation, we focus on describing the research process between steps 1 and 2. We analyse data resulting from the feedback sessions with parents and children, as well communications between the researchers, participants and the illustrator. Data is analysed thematically (Attride-Stirling, 2001), identifying main themes and the network of underlying concepts that respond to the research questions.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsPreliminary results show the complex and at times contradictory ways participants mobilised their multiliteracy repertoires. All families saw the benefit of the book project as a means to prioritise and transmit the experiences of multilingual children and families, that they experienced as lacking in many schools in Belgium. However, parents and children took different dispositions related to how own stories resembled to the real-life-inspired fictional stories in the book, and in terms of communicating stories multilingually in written text. Most families highly appreciated the fictional stories’ closeness to real-life experience and positioned own experience in the book as part of a collective of multilingual families. Most families also particularly felt that actively using their own languages in written text was a novel approach that accurately represented the way multilingual children spoke, and that could stimulate multilingual learning or multilingual awareness in wider audiences too. However, and interestingly, four out of ten families initially hesitated about or directly opposed the appropriateness of multilingual text display when aiming to making an impact on a wider, predominantly monolingual audience. Our findings show that participatory projects that aim to challenge monolingual norms cannot start with naïve assumptions that participants share transformatory and egalitarian visions simply due to being multilingual. Among other issues, deeply rooted sentiments of monolingual normalcy that underpins even multilingual family life (e.g. Surrain, 2021), audiencing, and critical reflection both among researchers and participants (Mitchell et al., 2017) should seriously be addressed.
ReferencesAdam, H., & Barratt-Pugh, C. (2020). The challenge of monoculturalism: what books are educators sharing with children and what messages do they send?. The Australian Educational Researcher, 47(5), 815-836.
Adam, H. (2021). When authenticity goes missing: How monocultural children’s literature is silencing the voices and contributing to invisibility of children from minority backgrounds. Education Sciences, 11(1), 32.
Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative research, 1(3), 385-405.
Clarke, C., & Broders, J. A. (2022). The benefits of using picture books in high school classrooms: a study in two Canadian schools. Teachers and Teaching, 28(2), 149-163.
Dolan, A. (2014). Intercultural education, picturebooks and refugees: Approaches for language teachers. CLELE Journal, 2(1), 92-109.
Grosjean, F. (2013). Bilingualism: A short introduction. In P. Grosjean and P. Li (Eds.), The psycholinguistics of bilingualism (pp. 5-21). Chichester: Blackwell Publishing.
Heggernes, S. L. (2021). A critical review of the role of texts in fostering Intercultural Communicative competence in the English Language classroom. Educational Research Review, 33, 100390.
Hassett, D. D., & Curwood, J. S. (2009). Theories and practices of multimodal education: The instructional dynamics of picture books and primary classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 63(4), 270-282.
McGilp, E. (2014) From picturebook to multilingual collage. CLELE journal, 31-49.
Fritz, L., & Binder, C. R. (2018). Participation as relational space: A critical approach to analysing participation in sustainability research. Sustainability, 10(8), 2853.
Mitchell, C., De Lange, N., & Moletsane, R. (2017). Participatory visual methodologies : Social change, community and policy. SAGE: Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington, Melbourne.
Pietikäinen, S., & Pitkänen-Huhta, A. (2013). Multimodal literacy practices in the indigenous Sámi classroom: Children navigating in a complex multilingual setting. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 12(4), 230-247.
Sanchez, C. (2009). Learning about students’ culture and language through family stories elicited by dichos. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(2), 161-169.
Suuriniemi, S. M., & Satokangas, H. (2021). Linguistic landscape of Finnish school textbooks. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1-19. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2021.1950726
Szelei, N., Tinoca, L., & Pinho, A. S. (2019). Rethinking ‘cultural activities’: An examination of how teachers utilised student voice as a pedagogical tool in multicultural schools. Teaching and teacher education, 79, 176-187.
Van Praag, L. (2021). Co-creation in migration studies: The use of co-creative methods to study migrant integration across European Societies. Leuven University Press.
|
