Multiliteracies theory redefines what it means to be a literate, learned person by transferring the focus from a shared knowledge of Standard English to the ability to engage in creative cultural critique. Multiliteracies theory has implications for how educators identify and teach students gifted in language arts. This article describes how multiliteracies theorists have redefined literacy as being multimodal, situated, and having a social purpose. It further explores the four elements of multiliteracies pedagogy (situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing, and transformed practice) as these relate to gifted education in the language arts through curriculum units at the high school, middle school, and elementary school level.
AldrichC. (2005). Learning by doing: A comprehensive guide to simulations, computer games, and pedagogy in e-Learning and other educational experiences. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
2.
AndroutsopoulosJ. (2006). Introduction: Sociolinguistics and computer-mediated communication. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10, 419-438.
3.
BarabS.PluckerJ. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning. Educational Psychologist, 37, 165-182.
4.
BruceB. C. (1997). New literacies. In BruceB.C. (Ed.), Literacy in the information age: Inquiries into meaning making with new technologies (pp. 14-19). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
CopeB.KalantzisM. (1999). Multiliteracies: The beginning of an idea. In CopeB.KalantzisM. (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 3-9). London, England: Routledge.
7.
CraftonL. K.BrennanM.SilversP. (2007). Critical inquiry and multiliteracies in a first-grade classroom. Language Arts, 84, 510-518.
8.
GeeJ. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. New York, NY: Routledge.
9.
GeeJ. P. (2007). Social linguistics and literacies. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
10.
GiampapaF. (2010). Multiliteracies, pedagogy and identities: Teacher and student voices from a Toronto elementary school. Canadian Journal of Education, 33, 407-431.
11.
KalantzisM.CopeB. (1999). A multiliteracies pedagogy: A pedagogical supplement. In CopeB.KalantzisM. (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 9-37). London, England: Routledge.
12.
KistW. (2002). Finding “new literacy” in action: An interdisciplinary high school western civilization class. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45, 368-377.
13.
LamW. S. E. (2009). Multiliteracies on instant messaging in negotiating local, translocal, and transnational affiliations: A case of an adolescent immigrant. Reading Research Quarterly, 44, 377-397.
14.
LaveJ. (1996). Teaching as learning in practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3, 149-164.
15.
LenhartA.LewisO.RainieL. (2001). Teenage life online: The rise of the instant-message generation and the Internet’s impact on friendships and family relationships. Available from http://www.Pewinternet.org/
16.
LenhartA.MaddenM.SmithA.MacgillA. (2007). Teens and social media. Available from http://www.Pewinternet.org/
17.
LukeA. (2002).What happens to literacies old and new when they’re turned into policy. In AlvermannD. (Ed.), Adolescents and literacies in a digital world (New Literacies and Digital Epistemologies, Vol. 7, pp. 186-204). New York: NY. Peter Lang.
PluckerJ.BarabS. (2005). The importance of contexts in theories of giftedness. In SternbergR.DavidsonJ. (Eds.) Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 201-216). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
20.
RenzulliJ. (2005). The three ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In SterrnbergR. J.DavidsonJ. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 246-279). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
21.
ShoffnerM.De OliveiraL.AngusR. (2010). Multiliteracies in the secondary English classroom: Becoming literate in the 21st century. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 9, 75-89.
22.
SiegleD. (2004). The merging of literacy and technology in the 21st century: A bonus for gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 27(2), 32-35.
23.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 3-54.
24.
TanJ.McWilliamE. (2009). From literacy to multiliteracies: Diverse learners and pedagogical practice. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4, 213-225.
25.
ThomasW. P.CollierV. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement (Final reports). Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.
26.
YoungE.AdamsonR.HirtzW. (1992). Seven blind mice. New York, NY: Philomel Books.
