Professional Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/Analysing-Foreign-Language-Instructiona 👈

1. Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rlcc20
Language, Culture and Curriculum
ISSN: 0790-8318 (Print) 1747-7573 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rlcc20
Analysing foreign language instructional materials
through the lens of the multiliteracies framework
Mandy R. Menke & Kate Paesani
To cite this article: Mandy R. Menke & Kate Paesani (2018): Analysing foreign language
instructional materials through the lens of the multiliteracies framework, Language, Culture and
Curriculum, DOI: 10.1080/07908318.2018.1461898
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2018.1461898
Published online: 16 Apr 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data

2. Analysing foreign language instructional materials through
the lens of the multiliteracies framework
Mandy R. Menke a
and Kate Paesani b
a
Department of Spanish and Portuguese Studies, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA;
b
Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
MN, USA
ABSTRACT
Literacy, understood as a socially situated process of making
meaning from texts, has been offered as a conceptual solution to
collegiate foreign language curricular divisions, and multiliteracies
pedagogy as a means of implementing that solution. Within
multiliteracies pedagogy, the knowledge processes framework
[Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., Chan, E., & Dalley-Trim, L. (2016). Literacies
(2nd ed.). Melbourne: Cambridge University Press] facilitates
deep engagement with texts and development of advanced
language and literacy skills. As more programmes adopt this
conceptualisation of literacy as a programmatic goal, additional
research is needed to understand how this framework is applied
in materials design and implementation. In response, this article
documents the materials analysis of multiliteracies lesson plans
developed as part of a revised lower-level collegiate Spanish
curriculum. Using the knowledge process framework as an
analytical lens, study participants examined 25 lessons targeting
interpretive communication from two different courses. Results
reveal an overwhelming emphasis on the knowledge process of
experiencing; the knowledge processes of conceptualising,
analysing, and applying occur much less frequently. The authors
discuss conceptual and pedagogical factors contributing to the
findings and implications for teacher development and student
learning in collegiate foreign language contexts.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 19 August 2017
Accepted 20 March 2018
KEYWORDS
Literacy; multiliteracies
framework; materials
analysis; knowledge
processes; collegiate foreign
language
Introduction
Applied linguistics scholars have long lamented the language-content divide that
characterises many collegiate foreign language programmes in the United States
(e.g. Byrnes, 1998; Byrnes & Maxim, 2004; Kramsch, 1985; MLA, 2007). One of the
most pervasive problems typifying this divide is the dichotomous curricular and ped-
agogical foci in lower- versus advanced-level courses. In the former, the focus is on
developing students’ language competencies, usually through approaches grounded
in communicative language teaching (CLT); whereas in the latter, the focus is on
textual analysis, usually through an eclectic array of instructional approaches deter-
mined by individual instructors. One result of this dichotomy is that students
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT Mandy R. Menke menkem@umn.edu
LANGUAGE, CULTURE AND CURRICULUM, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2018.1461898

3. completing lower-level courses are often unprepared for the intellectually challenging
content they will face at more advanced levels and, perhaps more important, students
are not provided adequate opportunities to develop advanced language functions (e.g.
negotiation, extended discourse, elaborated responses) throughout the four-year
undergraduate curriculum (e.g. Darhower, 2014; Donato & Brooks, 2004; Polio &
Zyzik, 2009).
In response to this and other problems associated with the language-content divide,
the field has witnessed a paradigm shift toward foreign language literacy as an overarch-
ing curricular goal in collegiate programmes and multiliteracies pedagogy as a viable
approach for implementing that goal (Paesani & Allen, 2012). A literacy orientation empha-
sises students’ developing ability to critically interpret and transform written, audio, and
audiovisual texts of various genres; the interconnectedness of language and culture;
and the centrality of language in understanding diverse societies. Multiliteracies pedagogy
provides the instructional toolkit for developing learners’ literacy through activities
centred around four knowledge processes (experiencing, conceptualising, analysing,
applying) that integrate the study of language forms with authentic texts and align
with the practices and knowledge characterising Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001; Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956). This literacy orientation
therefore provides a means to bridge the language-content divide and create coherent,
well-articulated curricular and pedagogical experiences for undergraduate foreign
language students.
The effectiveness of a literacy orientation and multiliteracies pedagogy in collegiate
foreign language contexts is increasingly well documented, with empirical research focus-
ing on areas such as student learning outcomes, experiences, and perceptions (e.g. Byrnes,
Maxim, & Norris, 2010; Maxim, 2002; Paesani, 2016; Warner, 2014); pedagogical appli-
cations of the framework in various educational contexts (e.g. Kumagai, López-Sánchez,
& Wu, 2016; Paesani, Allen, & Dupuy, 2016; Redmann & Sederberg, 2017); and teacher
understandings of multiliteracies concepts (e.g. Allen, 2011; Allen & Dupuy, 2013;
Paesani, 2013). Nonetheless, in spite of growing interest in the multiliteracies framework,
research into this paradigm shift in collegiate foreign language programmes still has a
number of gaps, including investigations into how teachers apply the framework and
develop multiliteracies instructional materials.
This article begins to address this gap by documenting part of an ongoing process
of updating the Spanish curriculum at a large, public, research institution as it tran-
sitions from an exclusive focus on CLT toward text-based learning grounded in multi-
literacies pedagogy. Specifically, using Rowland, Canning, Faulhaber, Lingle, and
Redgrave’s (2014) knowledge processes framework tool, we analyse multiliteracies
lesson plans targeting interpretive communication that were developed as part of
the curriculum revision initiative in lower-level Spanish courses. Our goal is to under-
stand the present state of the revised curriculum and, through this understanding, to
inform ongoing curricular refinement and improvement of teacher professional devel-
opment efforts. We begin by introducing key concepts from the multiliteracies frame-
work and reviewing relevant empirical research. We then present the study and its
findings and conclude with a discussion of factors contributing to and implications
of these findings.
2 M. R. MENKE AND K. PAESANI

4. Background
Theoretical framework
The multiliteracies framework (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; New London Group, 1996), a theor-
etical approach reflecting ideological, socially oriented models of literacy, was initially con-
ceived as a novel approach to first language literacy pedagogy. The framework has since
been applied across K-16 contexts and disciplines, including English composition, math-
ematics, science, music, and foreign languages. Kern (2000), in applying the multiliteracies
framework to the specific context of collegiate foreign language programmes, defined lit-
eracy as
the use of socially-, historically-, and culturally-situated practices of creating and interpreting
meaning through texts. It entails at least tacit awareness of the relationships between textual
conventions and their contexts of use and, ideally, the ability to reflect critically on those
relationships. Because it is purpose-sensitive, literacy is dynamic—not static—and variable
across and within discourse communities and cultures. It draws on a wide range of cognitive
abilities, on knowledge of written and spoken language, on knowledge of genres, and on cul-
tural knowledge. (p. 16)
This definition of literacy highlights three dimensions: (1) the linguistic dimension involves
understanding language forms and conventions and how they are used to convey
meaning; (2) the cognitive dimension includes the ability to make inferences, think criti-
cally, and reflect on one’s learning; and (3) the sociocultural dimension entails awareness
of the socially and culturally situated nature of language and communication (Kucer,
2009). In addition, seven literacy principles – language use, cultural knowledge, conven-
tions, interpretation, collaboration, problem solving, and reflection – define the content
and learning practices contributing to literacy development (Kern, 2000). This conceptual-
isation of literacy therefore provides a much broader view of language and content than is
common in undergraduate foreign language programmes, and can serve as an overarch-
ing curricular goal.
Multiliteracies pedagogy is one approach for putting this definition of literacy into prac-
tice and is comprised of four knowledge processes that represent the ‘things you do to
know’ (Kalantzis, Cope, Chan, & Dalley-Trim, 2016, p. 67). The knowledge processes (KP)
framework – formulated and reframed from the four curricular components or pedagogi-
cal acts of situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing, and transformed practice
(Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; New London Group, 1996) – provides a structure for planning
instruction and a nuanced view into how students engage with authentic texts to interpret
and transform meaning. Each of the four knowledge processes is divided into two subpro-
cesses; these pairs of subprocesses ‘stem from the same main knowledge process and
neither subprocess is deemed more important than the other, yet they each represent
unique meaning-making opportunities for literacy learners’ (Rowland et al., 2014,
p. 141). These processes and subprocesses are neither hierarchical nor sequential; rather
they form part ‘of a complete pedagogy that may be implemented in whatever order
best meets students’ literacy needs’ (Paesani et al., 2016, p. 42). Indeed, as Kalantzis
et al. (2016) suggested, applying multiliteracies pedagogy entails ‘a careful process of
choosing a suitable mix of ways of knowing and purposeful weaving between these differ-
ent kinds of knowing’ (p. 80).
LANGUAGE, CULTURE AND CURRICULUM 3

5. The first knowledge process, experiencing, involves spontaneous, immersive learning
without conscious reflection. When experiencing the known, learners express their personal
opinions and thoughts about familiar, lived experiences; examples include brainstorming
and describing past experiences.1
When experiencing the new, students reflect on original
ideas or unfamiliar texts in tasks such as identifying unfamiliar vocabulary or completing a
text reaction guide. In an effort to connect the KP framework to Bloom’s taxonomy of edu-
cational objectives, Kalantzis et al. (2016) relate experiencing the known and experiencing
the new to the cognitive objectives of remembering and experiencing, respectively.
Conceptualising is where explicit instruction or practice of the skills and knowledge
needed for competent participation in communication activities takes place; through con-
ceptualising, students unpack the language forms, conventions, organisational features,
and form-meaning relationships that characterise texts. Conceptualising by naming
involves classifying, defining, or categorising textual design elements; tasks include match-
ing video captions with still images or classifying words into conceptual groupings. In con-
ceptualising with theory tasks like deductive reasoning or mind mapping, learners make
generalisations about textual design elements by identifying relationships, connecting
concepts, or developing theories. Both of these subprocesses are related to Bloom’s cog-
nitive objective of understanding.
The third knowledge process of analysing entails relating textual meaning to social, cul-
tural, historical, or ideological contexts and purposes as well as questioning the meaning,
importance, and consequences of what is learned through texts. Learners explain and cri-
tique the various ways that texts convey meaning through analysing functionally tasks
such as evaluating word choices or analysing images. Whereas this subprocess is
related to Bloom’s cognitive objective of analysing, analysing critically, or evaluating
one’s own or another’s perspectives, interests, and motives, is related to evaluating.
Tasks requiring students to analyse critically include debates and discussing an author’s
perspective.
Finally, students use new understandings and skills and produce language in conven-
tional or creative ways during applying tasks. Applying appropriately allows students to try
out their knowledge to solve problems or produce traditional text types; examples include
writing a song verse or delivering a presentation using the conventions of that genre. Stu-
dents use their knowledge in innovative and creative ways to produce hybrid or original
text types in applying creatively tasks such as inventing an object or conducting an action
research project. In relation to Bloom’s taxonomy, applying appropriately is similar to
applying and applying creatively is similar to creating (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; Kalantzis
et al., 2016).
The knowledge processes: empirical research
A handful of empirical studies have investigated applications of the KP framework in col-
legiate foreign language contexts; the foci of this research range from student percep-
tions, practices, and learning to instructor learning to materials analysis. For instance, in
a survey of Yemeni EFL university students’ use of reading practices, Bhooth, Azman,
and Ismail (2015) found that practices reflecting experiencing, conceptualising, and apply-
ing fell within the medium use range, whereas those reflecting analysing fell within the
low use range. These results suggest that not only are students failing to draw upon all
4 M. R. MENKE AND K. PAESANI

6. resources available to them when engaging with texts, but the practices in which they
typically engage are fairly traditional. The authors therefore conclude that students
require further instruction and support in using a range of practices that lead to higher
literacy skills and deeper textual analysis.
Two studies report on applications of multiliteracies and genre-based pedagogy in col-
legiate French courses and students’ perceptions of the learning activities in which they
engaged. Michelson and Dupuy (2014) examined how a multiliteracies global simulation
approach applied to a fourth-semester French course contributed to students’ awareness
of interrelationships between language and social identities, their understanding of how
textual resources contribute to meaning making, and their perceptions about language
and language learning. Qualitative and quantitative analyses showed that although stu-
dents were aware of relationships between the identity of their global simulation character
and choices about register and tone, they were not always aware of relationships between
character identity and choices about specific language forms. As a result, the authors
argued that experiencing tasks focusing on the what and how of texts are not sufficient;
instead, they suggested incorporating analysing activities from the beginning of language
study ‘to help learners situate textual practices and literacy events in terms of author,
speaker, and audience’ (pp. 43–44). Focusing on a third-year French culture course,
Allen and Goodspeed (in press) investigated students’ use of model text resources in
writing activities and their perceptions of multiliteracies and genre-based writing peda-
gogy. Qualitative analyses revealed that in their writing assignments, students incorpor-
ated a majority of the model text features introduced during conceptualising and
analysing activities. Moreover, students’ post-writing reflections pinpointed the usefulness
of these tasks for understanding the stylistic, rhetorical, and organisational features of the
texts they read and using those features in their writing. The authors therefore concluded
that conceptualising and analysing are essential for student uptake of a range of textual
features and for raising their awareness of the complexity of communication through
writing and of lexico-grammatical accuracy as only one factor contributing to writing
competence.
Focusing on instructor understandings of multiliteracies pedagogy rather than on
student learning, practices, and perceptions, Menke (in press) analysed transcripts of pro-
fessional learning circle (PLC) meetings with experienced collegiate Spanish instructors
during which they discussed readings and sample lesson plans related to multiliteracies
pedagogy. Although her analysis did not specifically target the KP framework, Menke
found that the linguistic dimension of literacy and, by extension, the knowledge
process of conceptualising, were absent from instructors’ discussions about literacy and
multiliteracies pedagogy. Indeed, ‘the specific ways in which language encodes culture
and communicates meaning elude [study participants] who continue to separate
language and content’ (p. 26). Connecting this finding to previous research on teacher
learning within literacy- and content-based teaching approaches (e.g. Allen & Dupuy,
2013; Bigelow, 2010; Cammarata & Tedick, 2012), the author concluded that study partici-
pants saw content and language forms to be in competition with one another, in spite of
the integrated language-content approach reflected throughout the multiliteracies
framework.
A final empirical study applied the KP framework as a tool to analyse English language
teaching materials used at a Japanese university (Rowland et al., 2014). The motivation for
LANGUAGE, CULTURE AND CURRICULUM 5

7. the study was to evaluate existing, instructor-created materials centred around authentic
texts in order to understand the current emphases in the EFL programme and to inform
design of new materials for a revised multiliteracies curriculum. Based on analysis of
167 teacher-generated reading and writing materials, the researchers found that overall,
65% focused on experiencing activities and another 21% focused on applying; conceptua-
lising and analysing represented only 9% and 5% of materials, respectively. Within each
knowledge process, certain subprocesses were more prevalent than others: There were
higher numbers of experiencing the known, conceptualising by naming, analysing func-
tionally, and applying appropriately materials than their counterparts. In addition, concep-
tualising with theory and analysing critically represented only 1% each of all materials, and
applying creatively represented 5% of all materials. Based on these results, Rowland et al.
stated that within their programme, ‘there appears to be an emphasis on the students and
their experiences and less of a concern with the structures and functions of texts or the
motivations and intentions of text producers’ (p. 147). Despite this unequal representation
of knowledge processes, the authors concluded that materials analysis using the KP frame-
work tool is invaluable for programmes moving toward multiliteracies-based curriculum
and instruction.
Taken together, this small body of research on multiliteracies pedagogy and the knowl-
edge processes shows that experiencing predominates in both instructional activities and
student learning practices; however, experiencing alone is insufficient to facilitate stu-
dents’ deep engagement with texts and advanced literacy development. Indeed, in
spite of their lower frequency in instruction, several studies emphasised the importance
of analysing and conceptualising in helping students and teachers understand form-
meaning connections and author intent and apply those understandings through
textual interpretation and creation. The abstract nature of multiliteracies pedagogy,
together with the extended time needed to appropriate and apply its core concepts,
may stymie its effective implementation, underscoring the need, identified in the
studies cited herein, to support students and teachers in effectively adopting multilitera-
cies pedagogy.
The current study takes this previous research as a starting point and contributes to
understandings of the nature of multiliteracies instructional materials. To do this, we
build on Rowland et al.’s (2014) study and analyse multiliteracies lesson plans devel-
oped as part of a large-scale curricular revision of a lower-level Spanish programme.
Our study differs from Rowland et al., however, in several ways. First, we analyse
materials developed according to principles of multiliteracies pedagogy, including the
KP framework. Next, the materials were created by curriculum developers who had
been participating in a year-long PLC that involved reading research on the multilitera-
cies framework and discussing sample multiliteracies lesson plans. Finally, our study
investigates materials designed to develop students’ interpersonal communication at
two levels (first and second year) of the Spanish curriculum. We apply Rowland
et al.’s (2014) KP framework tool to conduct this analysis and in so doing answer the
following research questions:
1. What knowledge processes characterise multiliteracies instructional materials?
2. Does the distribution of knowledge processes vary according to level?
3. Are some knowledge processes emphasised more than others?
6 M. R. MENKE AND K. PAESANI

8. Research design
Study context
Findings reported in this article are part of a larger study into the processes, mechanisms,
and conditions that characterise instructors’ understandings and implementation of lit-
eracy-based pedagogy in collegiate foreign language courses. This portion of the study
focuses on instructional materials created with the multiliteracies framework in mind
and identifies the knowledge processes addressed by tasks within lesson plans targeting
interpretive communication. The study was carried out in a lower-level Spanish pro-
gramme at a large, public, research university in the Midwestern United States. The pro-
gramme is comprised of four courses that seek to advance students’ Spanish
proficiency, critical thinking skills, and understanding of the interconnectedness of com-
munities. Each multi-section course shares a common syllabus and textbook, administers
common assessments and assignments, and is taught by a team of experienced, non-
tenure track faculty and graduate student teaching assistants.
At the time of the study, the programme was in the early stages of a transition from an
approach grounded in CLT to one grounded in literacy and multiliteracies pedagogy. Prior
to and during the study, a group of faculty members participated in a monthly PLC to
explore these topics; out of this work, curriculum developers designed materials to be
used across sections of courses within the lower-level Spanish programme. The first
phase of curriculum development, which is the focus of the current study, centred on
the incorporation of authentic written, audio, and audiovisual texts into the curriculum
and the development of students’ interpretive communication abilities. Instructional
materials were developed for one first-year and one second-year course in the Spanish
programme. As five-credit courses, both meet face-to-face four days a week for 50-
minutes and have an additional fifth credit hour of online instruction.
Corpus
Given the programmatic focus on developing interpretive competencies, the analysed
materials included lesson plans to guide students’ interpretation of authentic and text-
book-produced audio, audiovisual, and written texts. These lessons were provided by
the curriculum developers involved in the study. The final corpus included 11 lessons
from the first-year course and 14 lessons from the second-year course; these comprised
22% and 35% of instructional days, respectively, based on the assumption that one
lesson constituted the entirety of a 50-minute class period. An overview of the corpus
of materials is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of corpus of analysed materials.
Course No. of lessons
Average tasks
per lesson
Targeted modality Nature of text
Reading Listening Viewing Authentica
Commercially-produced
First-year 11 6
range: 2–10
45.4% 9.1% 45.4% 63.6% 36.4%
Second-year 14 6.29
range: 2–11
35.7%b
64.3%b
50%b
71.4% 28.6%
a
Some authentic texts were included in textbook content; others were identified by programme participants.
b
In five of the second-year course lessons, multiple modalities were targeted. For example, students might read song lyrics
and then view the related music video. All modalities targeted were identified; as such, the percentages exceed 100%.
LANGUAGE, CULTURE AND CURRICULUM 7

9. Methodology
Materials analysis seeks to objectively describe the nature of instructional materials by
answering questions related to their content and objectives as well as what they ask
learners to do (Littlejohn, 2011; Tomlinson, 1999, 2003). Through materials analysis, it is
possible to discern potential ‘implications that use of a set of materials may have for
classroom work’ (Littlejohn, 2011, p. 180). A variety of criteria have been employed
to analyse foreign language materials, among them the KP framework (Rowland
et al., 2014).
The materials analysis project was carried out by four individuals – two Spanish curri-
culum developers and the two researchers – and was comprised of four phases: (1) collec-
tion of interpretive multiliteracies lesson plans and identification of tasks for analysis; (2)
development of a common understanding of the knowledge processes among the four
participants; (3) independent coding of tasks; and (4) consensus.
Upon receipt of the lesson plans for analysis, the researchers collaboratively identified
the tasks comprising each one. For the purposes of this study, we did not adopt the defi-
nition of task in the literature on Task-Based Language Teaching, which focuses on the
work of meaning making for real world (or authentic) purposes (e.g. Ellis, 2003). Instead,
we defined tasks as ‘any proposal contained within the materials for action to be under-
taken by the learners, which has the direct aim of bringing about the learning of the
foreign language’ (Littlejohn, 2011, p. 188). The decision to use the task as the unit of
analysis, as opposed to the lesson as in Rowland et al. (2014), was made to recognise
the varied steps, or epistemic moves, of a lesson. Through this finer-grained analysis we
hoped to gain deeper insight into the distribution of knowledge processes within a
lesson and potentially uncover a greater presence of conceptualising and analysing
than previously reported.
Following this first phase, participants gathered to ensure common understanding of
each knowledge process and associated subprocesses based on their reading of Kalantzis
et al. (2016). As part of this work, participants examined sample tasks for each subprocess
and collaboratively analysed four tasks from the corpus. Common understanding was
facilitated by a researcher-created coding tool, which expanded on Rowland et al.’s
(2014) tool to include keywords and example tasks (see Appendix).
After this initial two-hour session, participants independently analysed each task over a
seven-week period via Qualtrics. Participants reached complete consensus on 12.3% of
tasks and were within the same knowledge process (but different subprocesses) on an
additional 11%. Ratings spanned two knowledge processes for 59.7% of tasks, three for
15.6%, and four for 1.3%. During phase four of the project, participants met to reach con-
sensus on all tasks.
Results
A total of 154 tasks were included in the data set. Of these, 20 were eliminated because
they either fell outside the KP framework (n = 9) or addressed two different knowledge
processes (n = 11). Tasks that the participants agreed were outside the KP framework
included reading aloud, singing, and mechanical form-focused exercises not grounded
in textual content (e.g. completing a sentence with a correct verb form). Additionally,
8 M. R. MENKE AND K. PAESANI

10. 11 tasks that addressed more than one knowledge process were eliminated to avoid
giving certain tasks more weight than others and potentially skewing the results. Data
are summarised in Table 2 and presented visually in Figure 1.
Tasks overwhelmingly targeted the subprocess of experiencing the new, with experien-
cing the known as the second most frequently targeted subprocess. As such, experiencing
comprised more than 75% of all tasks, far exceeding the other knowledge processes in fre-
quency. This finding applies to the combined data sample as well as to the individual
courses.
The subprocess of conceptualising with theory was never targeted in lesson plan tasks,
and applying creatively, conceptualising by naming, and analysing functionally were rarely
targeted. The remaining two subprocesses, analysing critically and applying appropriately,
were each targeted in 8.2% of tasks, with the relative frequency reversed across the two
courses: First-year tasks included analysing more often, while second-year tasks involved
greater application.
The eleven tasks eliminated because they targeted more than one knowledge process
are summarised in Table 3. Consistent with the trends noted above, experiencing occurred
most frequently, comprising one of the two knowledge processes for all but one task, and
in three cases, both experiencing the known and experiencing the new were addressed by
a single task. Tasks that involved a knowledge process other than experiencing tended to
target analysing (n = 8) over applying (n = 1) or conceptualising (n = 1).
Overall, the distribution of knowledge processes and subprocesses across the two
courses is similar. Statistical analyses confirm this observation as differences do not reach
Table 2. Distribution of knowledge processes across tasks.
Experiencing Conceptualising Analysing Applying
The known The new By naming With theory Functionally Critically Appropriately Creatively
First-year n = 57 8.8% 68.4% 1.8% 0% 3.5% 10.5% 7.0% 0%
Second-year n = 77 11.7% 63.6% 5.2% 0% 1.3% 6.5% 9.1% 2.6%
Overall n = 134 10.4% 65.7% 3.7% 0% 2.2% 8.2% 8.2% 1.5%
Figure 1. Distribution of knowledge processes across tasks.
LANGUAGE, CULTURE AND CURRICULUM 9

11. significance, neither when each subprocess is considered individually (χ2
(6) = 3.365, p = .762)
nor when grouped into the general knowledge process (χ2
(3) = 1.347, p = .718).
Discussion
This study sought to describe the nature of multiliteracies lesson plans focused on inter-
pretive communication by identifying the knowledge processes they target. While all four
knowledge processes are addressed within the materials analysed, their distribution is
uneven. Most striking is that experiencing is approximately seven times more common
than any other knowledge process; conceptualising is the least common knowledge
process. These tendencies are evidenced in both first- and second-year course materials,
indicating that the distribution of knowledge processes does not vary according to level.
This study’s findings align with previous analyses of materials using the KP framework
(Rowland et al., 2014), as well as with reports of student practices when reading in a
foreign language (Bhooth et al., 2015). Despite evidence of the positive impact of concep-
tualising and analysing tasks on student learning (Allen & Goodspeed, in press) and
repeated calls for applications of multiliteracies pedagogy that include an appropriate
mix of knowledge processes (e.g. Kalantzis et al., 2016; Michelson & Dupuy, 2014;
Rowland et al., 2014), instruction continues to emphasise traditional literacy practices.
A narrow focus on certain aspects of multiliteracies pedagogy inhibits development of
the full range of competencies needed for advanced language functions and deep
engagement with texts, and can ‘detract from the literacy teaching/learning experience’
(Rowland et al., 2014, p. 14). For instance, an overreliance on experiencing, to the near
exclusion of conceptualising, does not promote the level of textual interpretation and
problem solving necessary to identify form-meaning relationships or author intent
(Michelson & Dupuy, 2014). Moreover, when instruction fails to expand the semiotic
resources and practices students bring to texts, students may be unsuccessful in
meeting the communicative demands of the twenty-first century (Bhooth et al., 2015).
This study’s findings further highlight the narrow representation of knowledge processes
in multiliteracies instructional materials, and we focus our discussion on three possible
explanations: the complex nature of literacy and its associated pedagogies; the strong
CLT tradition in foreign language education; and the difficulty of connecting form and
meaning through texts.
As the description of the theoretical framework shaping this study shows, the concept
of literacy and multiliteracies pedagogy are multifaceted. Literacy involves three dimen-
sions and seven principles that define the knowledge, content, and learning practices con-
tributing to foreign language literacy development; multiliteracies pedagogy includes four
knowledge processes and eight subprocesses that define the types of activities framing
instruction. This complexity was underscored in a study that operationalised the
concept of literacy through eight distinct factors (Barrette & Paesani, in press). The
researchers emphasised the challenge of clearly identifying and delineating abstract
Table 3. Knowledge process distribution across excluded tasks.
Experiencing Conceptualising Analysing Applying
The known The new By naming With theory Functionally Critically Appropriately Creatively
5 7 1 0 4 4 1 0
10 M. R. MENKE AND K. PAESANI

12. literacy factors and then applying them to the analysis of foreign language programme
learning objectives and mission statements. Likewise, research on conceptual develop-
ment shows that teachers often struggle to construct a complete picture of the concept
of literacy and to apply it through multiliteracies pedagogy (e.g. Allen, 2011; Allen &
Dupuy, 2013; Paesani, 2013). The curriculum developers who participated in this study
may have been facing similar struggles, thus providing a partial explanation for why
experiencing tasks, which most closely resemble the interpretive communication activities
typical of lower-level foreign language textbooks, predominated. Instructor beliefs about
the cognitive demands they can place on lower-proficiency foreign language students
may reinforce this pedagogical practice. Discussions with participants as we worked to
reach consensus on task ratings suggest that this may have been the case in our study.
Several times, they referenced the more demanding nature of analysis and application
tasks, claiming that engaging in these processes would become easier as students’ profi-
ciency developed throughout the Spanish curriculum. Guided by the belief that lower pro-
ficiency impedes engagement in cognitively-demanding tasks, foreign language
instructors may thus be less inclined to expose students to knowledge processes other
than experiencing. This belief persists in teacher discourse (e.g. Nauman, 2011), and
implies that instructors see the KP framework as hierarchical in the same way as
Bloom’s taxonomy. Yet Kalantzis et al. (2016) emphasised that the knowledge processes
are not a sequenced hierarchy; instead they require that ‘teachers reflect purposefully
on the mix and order of the epistemic moves they make in their classrooms and are
able to justify their pedagogical choices on the bases of learning goals and outcomes
for individuals and groups’ (p. 75). Study participants also pointed to the important link
between the KP framework and course- and lesson-level goals and objectives. In a focus
group following the materials analysis, one participant reported that it ‘could be easy to
say every unit/lesson needs to have these eight elements of the [KP] framework, but
what’s needed is “how does applying the framework help us reach particular goals?”’
This qualitative finding suggests that teachers must first craft appropriate learning objec-
tives and then decide how these align with specific knowledge processes and classroom
practices. For instance, when objectives place equal emphasis on the various components
of literacy, classroom practices should reflect this through implementation of a range of
knowledge processes. The emphasis on experiencing activities in the analysed lessons
may thus be indicative of narrowly conceived literacy objectives or that the curriculum
developers ‘have been unreflectively caught in a rut, using a narrow range of processes’
(Kalantzis et al., 2016, p. 80).
A second explanation for the predominance of some knowledge processes over others
in the data relates to the challenges of transitioning a large, multi-section Spanish pro-
gramme from an exclusive focus on CLT toward text-based learning grounded in multili-
teracies pedagogy. Given its emphasis on real-world situations and functional,
interpersonal communication, CLT aligns most closely with the knowledge process of
experiencing. As such, immersing students in a text and connecting textual content to stu-
dents’ experiences is familiar to foreign language instructors. Moreover, reading instruc-
tion within CLT focuses on discrete skills and strategies, such as reading for the gist or
identifying cognates, both of which immerse students in texts without explicitly connect-
ing forms and meanings or critically relating meaning to various contexts, purposes, or
consequences. Rowland et al. (2014) claimed that the integration of conceptualising
LANGUAGE, CULTURE AND CURRICULUM 11

13. tasks, and to a lesser degree, analysing tasks, may be ‘anathema’ (p. 147) to CLT prac-
titioners, particularly those who have applied the approach for many years. These chal-
lenges suggest the need for coherent and sustained teacher professional development
rather than the frontloading model of pre-service orientation workshops followed by a
single methods course common in collegiate foreign language programmes (Allen &
Negueruela-Azarola, 2010). Indeed, Menke (in press) highlighted the need for teachers
to distinguish CLT and multiliteracies pedagogies and questioned whether localised pro-
fessional development efforts offer sufficient ‘opportunities for learning or clarification
during moments of cognitive or emotional dissonance’ (p. 25).
Finally, this study’s findings point to curriculum developers’ difficulty in connecting
language forms to their meanings through text-based teaching practices. Simultaneously
attending to form and meaning is demanding for teachers trained in CLT and new to mul-
tiliteracies pedagogy: It requires theoretical and experiential knowledge, as well as peda-
gogical skill (Bigelow, 2010). In many post-secondary CLT foreign language classrooms,
grammar is treated as a stand-alone topic, as evidenced in the organisation of numerous
lower-level textbooks, and as such is not regularly incorporated into interpretive tasks
focused on meaning making and textual analysis. Research on content-based language
teachers has repeatedly documented this difficulty (e.g. Bigelow, 2010; Cammarata &
Tedick, 2012); similarly, research from literacy-based classrooms suggests that language
and content are often perceived as dichotomous, and that instructors grapple with how
to bring the two together (e.g. Allen & Dupuy, 2013; Menke, in press). Maxim (2014) attrib-
uted this division to disciplinary practices, arguing that university foreign language instruc-
tors ‘have not thought about how the texts we engage could be models for our students’
language development or how language functions to make content meaningful – we have
been socialised to divide these language acquisition imperatives, not to teach them holi-
stically’ (p. 93). Although the materials analysed in our study do not provide insight into
curriculum developers’ understandings of the role of language in multiliteracies peda-
gogy, the absence of conceptualising tasks may indicate their underlying struggle to
relate forms and meanings.
Conclusions
The value of materials analysis is in its potential to impact instruction and learning. Follow-
ing objective analysis, stakeholders can evaluate the appropriateness of materials to
‘target situations of use,’ which can lead to adopting, rejecting, adapting, or supplement-
ing materials to meet desired outcomes (Littlejohn, 2011, p. 202). Although the goal of this
study was to understand materials developed for a specific instructional context, the find-
ings have implications for a range of programmes implementing multiliteracies pedagogy.
Most important is expanding the resources and practices a learner brings to a text through
instruction that moves beyond experiencing to include conceptualising and analysing.
Without instruction that guides students to deconstruct and compare textual features,
identify audience or author intent, or connect ideas in a text to larger purposes and con-
texts, students will struggle to develop advanced language abilities and literacy skills.
Moreover, multiliteracies pedagogy that engages learners in all four knowledge processes
creates opportunities to explore the human experience through different cultural lenses
and to understand the socially situated nature of language. This focus not only responds
12 M. R. MENKE AND K. PAESANI

14. to calls for curricular change in foreign language programmes (e.g. MLA, 2007), but also
has the potential to change students’ perceptions of what language learning entails.
To move toward more varied applications of multiliteracies pedagogy, two strands of
future research are necessary. The first is related to instructional materials and practices:
To gain a fuller picture of the knowledge processes that characterise multiliteracies
lesson plans, analysis of interpersonal and presentational tasks is needed. In addition,
observation of instructor implementation of multiliteracies lessons will provide a more
nuanced understanding of how the KP framework is instantiated in teaching. The
second strand of future research must focus on teacher learning and professional devel-
opment experiences. It is particularly important to investigate instructors’ understandings
of literacy, multiliteracies pedagogy, and form-meaning connections, and then to create
tools, resources, and professional development experiences (e.g. checklist of essential fea-
tures of multiliteracies lessons; typology of multiliteracies activity types; peer mentoring)
that enhance those understandings and facilitate classroom application.
Findings from this study highlight the narrow range of textual engagement oppor-
tunities provided in multiliteracies instructional materials. Although this study did not
investigate the impact of instruction on students’ literacy development, previous
reports suggest that students’ strategies for interacting with texts reflect the instruction
received (Bhooth et al., 2015). The complexities of literacy and multiliteracies pedagogy,
entrenched beliefs and practices from previous teaching approaches, and challenges in
establishing form-meaning connections likely contribute to the current state of multili-
teracies instructional materials. Yet for significant curricular and instructional reform to
take place, the ways in which we engage students with texts must be expanded. As
Kalantzis et al. (2016) argued, ‘teachers and learners … may find that powerful learning
arises as they weave between a more varied mix of knowledge processes in a carefully
planned way’ (p. 86). Armed with the understanding of how foreign language instruc-
tors plan interpretive communication lessons, the profession can move closer to achiev-
ing this goal.
Note
1. Nearly all example tasks come from this study’s corpus.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Cathy Barrette and Chantelle Warner for their helpful feedback on previous ver-
sions of this manuscript and to Russ Simonsen for his careful bibliographic work.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Mandy R. Menke http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7938-8823
Kate Paesani http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3697-8863
LANGUAGE, CULTURE AND CURRICULUM 13

15. References
Allen, H. W. (2011). Embracing literacy-based teaching: A longitudinal study of the conceptual devel-
opment of novice foreign language teachers. In K. E. Johnson & P. E. Golombek (Eds.), Sociocultural
research on second language teacher education: Exploring the complexities of professional develop-
ment (pp. 86–101). New York, NY: Routledge.
Allen, H. W., & Dupuy, B. (2013). Evolving notions of literacy-based language teaching: A qualitative
study of graduate student instructors. In H. W. Allen & H. H. Maxim (Eds.), Educating the future
foreign language professoriate for the 21st century (pp. 171–191). Boston, MA: Heinle.
Allen, H. W., & Goodspeed, L. (in press). Intertextuality, genre-based pedagogy, and advanced collegi-
ate learners of French. L2 Journal, 10.
Allen, H. W., & Negueruela-Azarola, E. (2010). The professional development of future professors of
foreign languages: Looking back, looking forward. The Modern Language Journal, 94, 377–395.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01056.x
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). 2001. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A
revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
Barrette, C. M., & Paesani, K. (in press). Conceptualizing cultural literacy through student learning out-
comes assessment. Foreign Language Annals, 51(2).
Bhooth, A. M., Azman, H., & Ismail, K. (2015). Investigating the reading practices of EFL Yemeni stu-
dents using the learning by design framework. TESOL Journal, 6, 418–446. doi:10.1002/tesj.148
Bigelow, M. (2010). Learning to plan for a focus on form in CBI: The role of teacher knowledge and
teaching context. In J. F. Davis (Ed.), World language teacher education: Transitions and challenges in
the twenty-first century (pp. 35–56). New York, NY: Information Age Publishing.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational
objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay.
Byrnes, H. (1998). Constructing curricula in collegiate foreign language departments. In H. Byrnes
(Ed.), Learning foreign and second languages (pp. 262–295). New York, NY: The Modern
Language Association of America.
Byrnes, H., & Maxim, H. H. (2004). Advanced foreign language learning: A challenge to college programs.
Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Byrnes, H., Maxim, H. H., & Norris, J. (2010). Realizing advanced foreign language writing developing
in collegiate education: Curricular design, pedagogy, assessment. The Modern Language Journal,
94(Suppl.), 1–202.
Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. J. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience
of immersion teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 251–269. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.
01330.x
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An
International Journal, 4, 164–195. doi:10.1080/15544800903076044
Darhower, M. A. (2014). Literary discussions and advanced-superior speaking functions in the under-
graduate language program. Hispania (Madrid, Spain), 97, 396–412. doi:10.1353/hpn.2014.0081
Donato, R., & Brooks, F. B. (2004). Literary discussions and advanced speaking functions: Researching
the (dis)connection. ForeignLanguage Annals, 37, 183–199. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2004.tb02192.x
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (n.d.). The knowledge processes. New learning: Transformational designs for
pedagogy and assessment. Retrieved from http://newlearningonline.com/learning-by-design/the-
knowledge-processes
Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., Chan, E., & Dalley-Trim, L. (2016). Literacies (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Cambridge
University Press.
Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kramsch, C. (1985). Literary texts in the classroom: A discourse. Modern Language Journal, 69, 356–366.
Kucer, S. B. (2009). Dimensions of literacy: A conceptual base for teaching reading and writing in school
settings. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kumagai, Y., López-Sánchez, A., & Wu, S. (Eds.). 2016. Multiliteracies in world language education.
New York, NY: Routledge.
14 M. R. MENKE AND K. PAESANI

16. Littlejohn, A. (2011). The analysis of language teaching materials: Inside the Trojan horse. In B.
Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development for language teaching (pp. 179–211). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Maxim, H. H. (2002). A study into the feasibility and effects of reading extended authentic discourse
in the beginning German language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 20–35. doi:10.
1111/1540-4781.00134
Maxim, H. H. (2014). Curricular integration and faculty development: Teaching language-based
content across the foreign language curriculum. In J. Swaffar & P. Urlaub (Eds.), Transforming post-
secondary foreign language teaching in the United States (pp. 79–101). Dordrecht: Springer.
Menke, M. R. (in press). Literacy-based curricula in university foreign language instruction:
Perceptions from Non-tenure-track faculty. L2 Journal, 10.
Michelson, K., & Dupuy, B. (2014). Multi-storied lives: Global simulation as an approach to developing
multiliteracies in an intermediate French course. L2 Journal, 6(1), 21–49.
MLA Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages. (2007). Foreign languages and higher education:
New structures for a changed world. Profession, 234–245.
Nauman, G. (2011). Synthesizing the academic and the everyday. A Chinese teacher’s developing
conceptualization of literacy. In K. E. Johnson & P. R. Golombek (Eds.), Research on second language
teacher education. A sociocultural perspective on professional development (pp. 102–117). New York,
NY: Routledge.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard
Educational Review, 66, 60–93. doi:10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u
Paesani, K. (2013). A literacy-based approach to foreign language teacher development. In H. W. Allen
& H. H. Maxim (Eds.), Educating the future foreign language professoriate for the 21st century (pp. 60–
81). Boston, MA: Heinle.
Paesani, K. (2016). Investigating connections among reading, writing, and language development: A
multiliteracies perspective. Reading in a Foreign Language, 28, 266–289.
Paesani, K., & Allen, H. W. (2012). Beyond the language-content divide: Research on advanced foreign
language instruction at the postsecondary level. Foreign Language Annals, 45(s1), s54–s75. doi:10.
1111/j.1944-9720.2012.01179.x
Paesani, K., Allen, H. W., & Dupuy, B. (2016). A multiliteracies framework for collegiate foreign language
teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Polio, C., & Zyzik, E. (2009). Don Quixote meets ser and estar: Multiple perspectives on language learn-
ing in Spanish literature classes. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 550–569. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
4781.2009.00930.x
Redmann, J., & Sederberg, K. (2017). The first world War in the literacy-focused classroom: Teaching
German through cultural themes. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 50, 45–66. doi:10.1111/
tger.12021
Rowland, L., Canning, N., Faulhaber, D., Lingle, W., & Redgrave, A. (2014). A multiliteracies approach to
materials analysis. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 27, 136–150. doi:10.1080/07908318.2014.
927883
Tomlinson, B. (1999). Developing criteria for materials evaluation. IATEFL Issues, 147, 10–13.
Tomlinson, B. (2003). Materials evaluation. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language
teaching (pp. 15–36). London: Continuum.
Warner, C. (2014). Mapping new classrooms in literacy-oriented teaching and learning: The role of the
reading experience. In J. Swaffar & P. Urlaub (Eds.), Transforming postsecondary foreign language
teaching in the United States (pp. 157–175). Dordrecht: Springer.
LANGUAGE, CULTURE AND CURRICULUM 15

17. Appendix
EXPERIENCING
Keywords: describe, examine, explore, imagine, immerse, observe, record, respond, survey
Experiencing the Known
= draw upon and articulate personal opinions and
familiar, lived experiences
e.g. bring in, show, or talk about something/somewhere
familiar or ‘easy’
Experiencing the New
= work with and reflect upon new situations, ideas, or
texts
e.g. introduce/immerse students in something new or
unfamiliar
CONCEPTUALISING
Keywords: clarify, deduce, define, extrapolate, generalise, identify, recognise, solve, sort
Conceptualising by naming
= classify the individual design elements of texts
e.g. define terms, make a glossary, label a diagram, sort
or categorise like and unlike things, etc.
Conceptualising with theory
= outline schematic relationships between the design
elements of texts
e.g. make generalisations by connecting concepts and
developing theories (e.g. concept map, summary,
diagram)
ANALYSING
Keywords: assess, conclude, connect, critique, evaluate, interpret, judge, justify, synthesise
Analysing functionally
= account for the various ways a text works to convey
meaning
e.g. analyse logical connections, cause and effect,
structure and function (e.g. explain, create a flow chart,
make a model)
Analysing critically
= account for the perspectives, interests, and motives of
producers of texts
e.g. evaluate own and other’s perspectives, interests, and
motives (e.g. identify gaps, discuss consequences, hold a
debate)
APPLYING
Keywords: compose, create, demonstrate, design, personalise, plan, produce, synthesise, use
Applying appropriately
= use accepted text conventions to produce a traditional
text type
e.g. try knowledge in real-world or simulated situations;
write, draw, act out in the ‘correct way’, solve a
problem, etc.
Applying creatively
= innovatively recombine text conventions to produce a
hybrid or transgressive text type
e.g. use knowledge in an innovative, creative way; express
one’s own voice; transfer knowledge to a different
context
Sources: Kalantzis et al. (2016); Kalantzis and Cope (n.d.); Rowland et al. (2014).
16 M. R. MENKE AND K. PAESANI