1

Critical Learning Task #3 – Annotated Bibliography – Multiliteracies, Multimodalities,

and Differentiation

Danielle H. Lusk

Department of Educational Technology, University of British Colombia

ETEC 565S 66B: Makerspace and Inclusive Implementation

June 29, 2022

 2

Annotated Bibliography

Ferrara, F., Robutti, O., & Edwards, L.D. (2014). An exploratory study of multimodalities in the

mathematics classroom. In L.D. Edwards, F. Farrara, & D. Moore-Russo, Emerging

perspectives on gestures and embodiment in mathematics (pp. 105-124). Washington,

DC: Library of Congress.

This article examines how multiple modalities interact with mathematical meanings

within classrooms and in analyzing students’ multimodal communication, therefore,

informs the various modalities expressed through mathematical thinking. Thorough

explanation of background knowledge regarding multimodality, gestures within the

psychology framework, and mathematics education set the foundation for the

exploratory study. With a qualitative approach, the researchers observe a student solving

a mathematical problem and, in explaining their ideas, demonstrate the modalities of

speech and gesture, which are then analyzed to inform the identified theory. Through

observation of a student, the authors argue that the student's various modalities are

working together to express the same meaning as “simultaneously multimodal

expressivity”. The student demonstrates their explanation orally, and in observation, the

researcher notices how the gestures and motions of their head reinforce meaning and

communication. The author exemplifies the relationship of these multimodalities and

reinforces the connectedness of the students' senses and their subsequent mathematical

understandings highlighting the communication process. The researchers address how

crucial this relationship is by suggesting that with the potential disregard for one modality

within the observation, the observer would not be able to thoroughly understand the

student's rationale for how they solved a mathematics question. Therefore,

 3

reinforcing the idea that modalities cannot be understood in isolation. To this end, the

researchers neglect the opportunity to highlight gestures or additional modalities that

have the potential to relate to a lack of understanding when explaining mathematical

reasoning. If this research study intended to analyze how multimodalities convey

mathematical comprehension, the researchers would have strengthened their argument if

there was also the inclusion of an observation of a student unable to explain their

reasoning or demonstrating an inadequate knowledge in approaching a mathematical

problem. Moreover, a more convincing conclusion of the study would have included

suggestions for future research and implications within a mathematics classroom.

Vartiainen, J. & Kumpulainen, K. (2020). Makerspaces, multiliteracies and early science

education: The Finnish approach. Enhancing Digital Literacy and Creativity:

Makerspaces in the Early Years Makerspaces in the Early Years. Routledge (pp. 98-142).

This article assesses various gaps in research that relate to the intersection of scientific

and everyday literacies and how “playfulness” enhances the understanding of such

literacies. The authors identify the importance of ‘playing with science’ and its ability to

support the enhancement and engagement of science literacy within the act of making.

Sociocultural theories support the idea that play is a crucial characteristic of meaning-

making and is fundamental for imagination. Furthermore, the authors describe how the

act of meaning-making for children informs the elements of playfulness and imagination,

thus being the conceptual basis for the authors’ further investigation into maker activities.

For this qualitative study, the authors utilized the following methods: observations, video

recordings, and the collection of artifacts made by children. In identifying various

scientific literacy goals, the authors worked through a ‘Poetry Science’ approach that
 4

supports a ‘maker philosophy’ that encourages creativity and innovation. The evidence

indicates that through playful meaning-making, the children developed an understanding

of various scientific literacies while connecting to their own culture. While the authors

argue that a playful approach to science develops the skills required by a multiliterate

individual, they neglect to recognize their limitations within their study. In identifying an

interest in science education and makerspaces in Finland within early childhood

education (ECE), the authors then situate their research within a Finnish ECE that

maintains a curriculum framework that already has a significant focus on multimodal,

play, and STEAM. The carefully chosen research participants previously exposed to

various activities that juxtapose science and play, therefore challenging the reliability of

the research when considering other settings that do not reflect the same fundamental

characteristics as noted in ECE. Furthermore, the authors fail to acknowledge how their

findings contribute to future research, nor do they provide suggestions for future

implications.