This article features a case study of the written and illustrative text produced by one Grade 7 student, Stefinia, and discusses the metaleptic transgressions evident in the book she created as the culminating activity of a research project. Stefinia was a participant in a classroom-based study that explored how developing students’ knowledge of literary and illustrative elements affects their understanding, interpretation, and analysis of picturebooks and graphic novels, and the subsequent creation of their own print, multimodal texts. As well as being informed by narrative theory and metafiction, the research was framed by an ecological perspective on teaching and learning in classrooms. During a 10-week period, Stefinia participated in interdependent activities that offered her opportunities to learn about metafictive devices, some art elements, and a few compositional principles of graphic novels. Stefinia read and wrote responses to several picturebooks and four graphic novels; engaged in small group, peer-led discussions about the literature; and received explicit instruction about particular literary, illustrative, and compositional devices and techniques. She had the opportunity to apply and represent her learning by creating her own multimodal print text as the culminating activity of the study. The content analysis of Stefinia’s written and illustrative text focuses on her use of various metafictive devices that disrupted narrative structures or ontological boundaries in her multimodal book. The findings reveal how Stefinia’s participation and engagement in a particular classroom community of practice affected her learning of the content and concepts under study.
AlbersP. (2008). Theorizing visual representation in children’s literature. Journal of Literacy Research, 40(2), 163-200.
2.
AllenG. (2000). Intertextuality. New York, NY: Routledge.
3.
AnsteyM. (2002). “It’s not all black and white”: Postmodern picture books and new literacies. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 45(6), 444-457.
BangM. (2000). Picture this: How pictures work. San Francisco, CA: SeaStar Books.
6.
BanyaiI. (1995). Re-Zoom. New York, NY: Puffin Books.
7.
BarthesR. (1970). S/Z: An essay. New York, NY: Hill and Wang.
8.
BartonD.HamiltonM. (2000). Literacy practices. In BartonD.HamiltonM.IvanicR. (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 7-15). London, UK: Routledge.
9.
BearneE. (2009). Multimodality, literacy and texts: Developing a discourse. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 9(2), 156-187.
10.
BezemerJ.KressK. (2008). Writing in multimodal texts: A social semiotic account of designs for learning. Written Communication, 25(2), 166-195.
11.
BloomeD.Egan-RobertsonA. (1993). The social construction of intertextuality in classroom reading and writing lessons. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(4), 305-332.
12.
British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2009). BC performance standards: Reading revised 2009. Victoria, Canada: Author.
13.
BrowneA. (1997). Willy the dreamer. Cambridge, MA: Candlewick Press.
14.
BrowneA. (1998). Voices in the park. London, UK: Picture Corgi Books.
15.
CairneyT. (1990). Intertextuality: Infectious echoes from the past. The Reading Teacher, 43(7), 478-484.
16.
CairneyT. (1992). Fostering and building students’ intertextual histories. Language Arts, 69(7), 502-507.
17.
ChenF. (2008). From hypotyposis to metalepsis: Narrative devices in contemporary fantastic fiction. Forum for Modern Language Studies, 44(4), 394-411.
18.
CuddonJ. A. (1999). The Penguin dictionary of literary terms and literary theory (4th ed.). New York, NY: Penguin Books.
19.
CullerJ. (1980). Literary competence. In TompkinsJ. (Ed.), Reader-response criticism: From formalism to post-structuralism (pp. 101-117). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
20.
DahlR. (1953). The wish. In Someone like you (pp. 167-172). New York, NY: Alfred Knopf.
21.
DresangE. (1999). Radical change: Books for youth in a digital age. New York, NY: H. W. Wilson.
22.
DresselJ. H. (1990). The effects of listening to and discussing different qualities of children’s literature on the narrative writing of fifth graders. Research in the Teaching of English, 24(11), 397-444.
23.
DysonA. H. (1989). Multiple worlds of child writers: Friends learning to write. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
24.
DysonA. H. (1993). Social worlds of children learning to write in an urban primary school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
25.
DysonA. H. (1997). Writing superheroes: Contemporary childhood, popular culture, and classroom literacy. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
26.
DysonA. H. (2001). Introduction . . . and a warning. Elementary School Journal, 101(4), 379-383.
27.
DysonA. H. (2003a). The brothers and sisters learn to write: Popular literacies in childhood and school cultures. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
28.
DysonA. H. (2003b). Writing and children’s symbolic repertoires: Development unhinged. In NeumanS.DickinsonD. (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 126-141). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
29.
FarnanN.DahlK. (2003). Children’s writing: Research and practice. In FloodJ.LappD.SquireJ.JensenJ. (Eds.) Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 993-1007). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30.
FludernikM. (2003). Scene shift, metalepsis, and the metaleptic mode. Style, 37(4), 382-400.
31.
GaimanN.McKeanD. (2003). The wolves in the walls. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
32.
GaimanN.RussellP. C. (2008). Coraline. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
33.
GenetteG. (1980). Narrative discourse: An essay in method (LewinJ., Trans.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
MalinaD. (2002). Breaking the frame: Metalepsis and the construction of the subject. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.
53.
McCabeA. (1997). Cultural background and storytelling: A review and implications for schooling. Elementary School Journal, 97(5), 453-473.
54.
McCafferyL. (1995). The art of metafiction. In CurrieM. (Ed.), Metafiction (pp. 181-193). London, UK: Longman Group Limited.
55.
McCallumR. (2004). Metafictions and experimental work. In HuntP. (Ed.), International companion encyclopedia of children’s literature (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp. 587-598). New York, NY: Routledge.
56.
McCloudS. (2006). Making comics: Storytelling secrets of comics, manga and graphic novels. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
57.
McHaleB. (1987). Postmodernist fiction. New York, NY: Methuen.
58.
MeekM. (1988). How texts teach what readers learn. Stroud, UK: Thimble Press.
59.
NellesW. (2002). Stories within stories: Narrative levels and embedded narratives. In RichardsonB. (Ed.), Narrative dynamics: Essays on time, plot, closure, and frames (pp. 339-353). Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.
60.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.
61.
NikolajevaM. (2004). Narrative theory and children’s literature. In HuntP. (Ed.), International companion encyclopedia of children’s literature (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp 167-178). New York, NY: Routledge.
62.
NikolajevaM.ScottC. (2001). How picturebooks work. New York, NY: Garland.
63.
NöthW. (2007). Narrative self-reference in a literary comic: M.-A. Mathieu’s L’Origine. Semiotica, 2007(165), 173-190.
64.
O’NeillP. (2005). Narrative structure. In HermanD.JahnM.RyanM.-L. (Eds.), Routledge encyclopedia of narrative theory (pp. 366-370). London, UK: Routledge.
65.
OylerC.BarryA. (1996). Intertextual connections in read-alouds of information books. Language Arts, 73(5), 324-329.
66.
PantaleoS. (2006a). Postmodernism, metafiction and Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Book?Journal of Children’s Literature Studies, 3(1), 26-39.
67.
PantaleoS. (2006b). Readers and writers as intertexts: Exploring the intertextualities in student writing. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 29(2), 163-181.
68.
PantaleoS. (2007). Exploring the metafictive in elementary students’ writing. Changing English, 14(1), 61-76.
69.
PantaleoS. (2008a). Ed Vere’s The Getaway: Starring a postmodern cheese thief. In SipeL.PantaleoS. (Eds.), Postmodern picturebooks: Play, parody, and self-referentiality (pp. 238-255). New York, NY: Routledge.
70.
PantaleoS. (2008b). Exploring student response to contemporary picturebooks. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
71.
PantaleoS. (2009a). An ecological perspective on the socially embedded nature of reading and writing. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 9(1), 75-99.
72.
PantaleoS. (2009b). The influence of postmodern picturebooks on three boys’ narrative competence. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 32(3), 191-210.
73.
PantaleoS. (2010). Developing narrative competence through reading and writing metafictive texts. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49(3), 264-281.
74.
PierJ. (2005). Metalepsis. In HermanD.JahnM.RyanM.-L. (Eds.), Routledge encyclopedia of narrative theory (pp. 303-304). London, UK: Routledge.
75.
PrinceG. (2003). Dictionary of narratology (Rev. ed.). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
PriorP. (2006). A sociocultural theory of writing. In MacArthurC.GrahamS.FitzgeraldJ. (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 54-66). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
78.
ProppV. (1958). Morphology of the folktale. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minneapolis Press.
79.
RosenblattL. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
80.
RosenblattL. (1994). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In RuddellR.RuddellM.SingerH. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 1057-1092). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
81.
RoweD. (2008). Social contracts for writing: Negotiating shared understandings about text in the preschool years. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(1), 66-95.
82.
RubikM. (2005). Provocative and unforgettable: Peter Carey’s short fiction. A cognitive approach. European Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 169-184.
SchultzK. (2006). Qualitative research on writing. In MacArthurC.GrahamS.FitzgeraldJ. (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 357-373). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
86.
SipeL. (2008). Storytime: Young children’s literary understanding in the classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
87.
SpiroR.CoulsonR.FeltovichP.AndersonD. (2004). Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In RuddellR.UnrauN. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 640-653). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
88.
StonehillB. (1988). The self-conscious novel: Artifice in fiction from Joyce to Pynchon. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
89.
TanS. (2001). The red tree. Melbourne, Australia: Lothian.
90.
TanS. (2006). The arrival. Melbourne, Australia: Arthur A. Levine Books.
91.
ThompsonC.LissiatA. (2005). The short and incredibly happy life of Riley. Melbourne, Australia: Lothian.
92.
ThompsonT. (2008). Adventures in graphica: Using comics and graphic novels to teach comprehension, 2-6. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
93.
UnsworthL.ThomasA.SimpsonA.AshaJ. (2005). Children’s literature and computer based teaching. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
94.
WatsonK. (2004). The postmodern picture book in the secondary classroom. English in Australia, 140, 55-57.
95.
WattM. (2007). Chester. Toronto, Canada: Kids Can Press.
96.
WaughP. (1984). Metafiction: The theory and practice of self-conscious fiction. New York, NY: Methuen.
97.
WiesnerD. (1991). Tuesday. New York, NY: Clarion Books.
98.
WiesnerD. (2001). The three pigs. New York, NY: Clarion Books.
99.
YoreL.RossmanG. (2009). Case-to-case synthesis. In MillsA. J.DureposG.WeibeE. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 129-134). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
