2012. Vol.3, No.4, 507-512
Published Online August 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ce) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.34077
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 507
Poetry Teaching and Multimodality: Theory into Practice
Department of English, Junior College, University of Malta, Msida, Malta
Received May 31st, 2012; revised June 30th, 2012; accepted July 11th, 2012
This article discusses the theoretical concepts underpinning a multimodal approach to poetry teaching and
considers a number of ways in which this can be adopted in practice. It discusses what is entailed by the
concept of multimodality and examines the claims made about the benefits of employing a multimodal
approach. It reviews the literature on multimodality and examines how teachers may blend a variety of
techniques and resources in order not just to engage their students with poetry but also to activate lan-
guage learning. In particular, this article examines how by tapping students’ visual and digital literacy
skills they are enabled to create video poems, podcasts, hypertexts and Wikis, all of which represent new
ways of using language and experiencing poetry. Through constant reference to the research carried out
so far, this article seeks to show how by means of a multimodal approach poetry can act as a springboard
for the development of students’ language proficiency and creative engagement.
Keywords: Poetry; Multimodality; Student Engagement; Digital Technology
In recent years one of the most influential approaches to the
teaching and learning of poetry is that emphasising multimo-
dality, which is increasingly renowned as an effective way of
enhancing students’ engagement. This is probably due to the
idea that “contemporary culture is marked by an intense plural-
ism and heterogeneity” and hence poetry can no longer be sim-
ply “evaluate[d]… in terms of its formal devices” but “an inter-
disciplinary outlook” is required (Gilbert, 2006: pp. 1-2). This
article examines the theoretical foundations of a multimodal
approach to poetry teaching and evaluates different ways in
which theory can be translated into practical applications. It is
because of the potential of digital tools as a means of engaging
students as well as an awareness of the possibility that in some
educational contexts students might not be availing themselves
fully of such potential, that ample room is given to a discussion
of the use of multimedia and hypermedia in the classroom.
Ultimately, the chief interest of this article is to show that by
means of a multimodal approach teachers can enable students
to enter a poem, play with the English language and transform
poetry into a performance.
Multimodality is defined as “the use of several semiotic
modes in the design of a semiotic product or event, together
with the particular way in which these modes are combined”
(Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2001: p. 20). For Dressman (2010) it is
“the crafted integration of two or more ways, or modes, of
communication, so that their combined meaning as a whole is
greater than either mode separately or their simple combina-
tion” (p. 71). This usually, but not exclusively, involves the use
of digital technology and it is this particular aspect of multi-
modality that I consider to be of pressing concern for the pur-
poses of this article.
Given the different and evolving ways of communication that
contemporary students can utilise to communicate meaning and
understand the world, a multimodal approach is necessary.
According to the New London Group (1996) “One of the key
ideas informing the notion of multiliteracies is the increasing
complexity and inter-relationship of different modes of mean-
ing” (p. 78). What relates different design elements (i.e. lin-
guistic, visual, audio, gestural and spatial) to each other are “the
Multimodal patterns of meaning”(New London Group, 1996: p.
65). Given that “all meaning-making is multimodal” the latter is
considered to be “the most significant, as it relates all the other
modes in quite remarkably dynamic relationships” (New Lon-
don Group, 1996: pp. 80-81). The “transformation” of texts that
is allowed by digital technology means that “as a way of re-
flecting on text, exploring and experimenting with it in a new
medium can offer insights into and shifts of meaning that can
well be characterized as refraction” (Tweddle et al., 1997: p.
54). Unsworth (2001) refers to “technoliteracies” and in his
opinion these will not supplant traditional literacies but com-
plement them, especially since “hard-copy forms of ‘linear’
texts will continue to co-exist with electronic hypertext for
some time” (p. 281). Hence “the work of the English teacher
clearly involves developing students” use of multiliteracies in
the composition and comprehension of texts in computer based
and “conventional formats” as well as “developing students”
meta-semiotic understanding and the associated meta-language’
(Unsworth, 2001: p. 282).
A multimodal approach presents students with different
potentials for engagement with a text: the point of entry,
the possible paths through a text and the potentials for
re-making it. In multimodal texts, each mode offers a dif-
ferent way into representation and focuses on different
aspects of meaning (Jewitt, 2005: p. 7).
In Alvermann’s (2009) opinion “reaching and teaching ado-
lescents in currently changing times will require a healthy re-
spect for their past, present, and future literacies” (p. 105). This
issue is particularly significant given the fact that most con-
temporary English syllabi might not yet make any reference to
multimodal texts or to any conjunctive literacies.
Digital Technology in the Classroom
Tweddle et al. (1997) emphasise the fact that “the changes
enabled and driven by technology have become so far-reaching
that for English teachers to ignore them would prove ultimately
irresponsible” (p. 6). In Malta, for example, the process of
training teachers to teach by means of ICT has been going on
since 1998 and the government admits to investing heavily in
ICT training for teachers (Galea, 2001; Zammit, 2004; Ministry
for Infrastructure, Transport and Communications, n.d.). How-
ever, Zammit and Mifsud (2003) report that computer assisted
learning influences teaching least as a pedagogical approach in
the foreign language classroom in Malta (p. 145). Despite its
ever growing accessibility, Unsworth et al. (2005) generalize by
saying that “the majority of teachers… are in need of guidance”
(p. 1) when it comes to using ICT in an effective manner in the
classroom. This is something that a number of sources also call
for (NATE, 2007; Azzopardi, 2008; Ćukušić et al., 2008; Gra-
nić et al., 2009). For example, the Institute for Learning (2010)
notes that “the evidence collected from learners suggested that
only a very few teachers are using technology in the most ef-
fective way” (p. 11) while an EU research report states that
“personal and pedagogic digital competence need to become a
priority in both ITT and CPD, because lack of ICT skills and
understanding of its benefits is a major obstacle for many
teachers” (Cachia et al., 2010, p. 47).
Unsworth et al. (2005) believe that “the use of computers in
English teaching can enhance and extend the engagement of
computer-age children with the enchantment of the possible
worlds of literary narratives” (p. 1), what Burn and Durran
(2007) call “pleasure and critical engagement” (p. 12). Mc-
Verry (2007) believes that ‘In order to construct knowledge in
today’s world students must be fluent with multimodal text’ (p.
51) while Bennett et al. (2008) postulate that “Education may
be under challenge to change” (p. 783) in order to meet the
needs of digital natives. Hughes (2009) maintains that “Ignor-
ing this phenomenon in our classrooms would be a mistake. If
we do so, we run the risk of losing touch and school may be-
come boring and irrelevant for students as a result” (p. 18).
That is why “A common justification for using digital technol-
ogy in the classroom is its potential for interactivity” (Hughes,
2009: p. 185), which thus makes it highly relevant to this arti-
cle’s concern with poetry pedagogy. In Miller’s (2010) opinion
this entails revaluating teacher education: “Preparing teachers
for the 21st-century digital world… requires teacher educators
to take up the pressing issue of effective pedagogical frame-
works for multimodal composing”, with the ultimate aim being
‘to engage millennial students in school’ (p. 198). This is con-
firmed by Cachia et al. (2010) who indicate that “Teachers…
should receive more support in integrating technology into their
teaching” so that “students can express their creativity and in-
novation with technologies” (p. 47).
Despite all its apparent benefits, the multimodal approach
must not be deemed to be some kind of magical remedy. Sys-
tematic reviews conducted by the English Review Group within
the EPPI-Centre sought to ascertain whether the supposed
benefits of ICT on literacy learning could be verified by the
literature and thus whether policy-makers’ investment in ICT is
warranted. They found that even though most studies assume
that networked ICT has a positive impact on students’ literacy,
ICT needs to be considered one of many tools that can improve
and support literacy learning (Andrews et al., 2002). In fact,
another review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of ICT on
literacy found that most small-scale studies yielded minimal
evidence of benefit (Torgerson & Zhu, 2003). This indicates the
need to avoid reaching conclusions based on little scientific
proof. For example, a Maltese study on ICT as a literacy aid for
students reports that teachers and parents are under the impres-
sion that digital technology has a positive impact on children’s
literacy, however, this study merely describes perceptions and
does not present any evidence to corroborate such perceptions
After reviewing studies focusing on the impact of ICT on lit-
erature-related literacies, the English Review Group found that
teachers mediate impact and hence they can be considered to be
more significant than technology (Locke & Andrews, 2004).
Moreover, despite a number of reported benefits, such as an
improvement in writing skills, increased collaboration, lesson
enjoyment and motivation, the English Review Group could not
identify clear and definite evidence of the impact of ICT on the
literacy of students for whom English is a second or additional
language (Low & Beverton, 2004). Another review investigat-
ing the impact of ICT on students’ moving image literacy in
English found that to some extent the use of moving image
media can lead to improved literacy and an increase in motiva-
tion (Burn & Leach, 2004). Andrews (2004) sums up the find-
ings of the English Review Group by saying that “Teachers
should be aware that there is no evidence that non-ICT methods
of instruction and non-ICT resources are inferior to the use of
ICT to promote literacy learning” (p. 210). However, he does
concede that “ICT can help create more motivated ESL/EAL
learners” (Andrews, 2004: p. 210). Hence what this seems to
suggest is that despite the supposed benefits of ICT, it must not
be deemed a panacea for all literacy and student engagement
In fact, while underscoring the need for teachers to incorpo-
rate digital technology in their English lessons, a National As-
sociation for the Teaching of English (NATE, 2007) position
paper calls for a “truly broad and balanced curriculum” and
thus “celebrates all that writing in its many forms has to of-
fer” and “espouses the value of just learning to read, of en-
joying reading for the sake of our imaginations and creativity
and what this offers to our ability to create, generate and com-
municate ideas” (p. 5). Such prudence is also characteristic of a
NATE (2009) entitlement document, in which it is stated that
ICT “has unique potential to extend and enhance students”
learning in English. Used appropriately and imaginatively, “it
provides possibilities, insights and efficiencies that are difficult
to achieve in other ways’ (p. 1). Such a balanced outlook is
what informs this article’s inquiry into the role that multimo-
dality plays in the teaching of poetry.
Multimodal Teaching and Learning
The notion of multimodality redefines pedagogy because
learning itself is reconceptualised, partly because of the impact
of new technologies. For example, Kress (2003) argues that
“the increasingly and insistently more multimodal forms of
Copyright © 2012 SciRes.
contemporary texts make it essential to rethink our notions of
what reading is” (p. 141). This is partly because “the demands
on readers, and the demands of reading, will if anything be
greater, and they will certainly be different” (Kress, 2003: p.
167). In the USA the National Council of Teachers of English
(NCTE) indicates that the definition of literacy for 21st century
classrooms goes beyond the traditional ability to read and write
print texts but also incorporates the sense of reading and writing
multimodal texts (NCTE, 2005, 2008).
McBride (2004) feels that those who teach the humanities
need to “reconceptualise the intersections between the humani-
ties classroom and visual rhetoric” (p. xix). This is important
because just like language and literature, “film is a signifying
practice through which students make meaning”; its use in the
classroom leads to “active and engaged viewers who must par-
ticipate in the viewing experience in order to create meaning”
(McBride, 2004, p. xiii). According to Jewitt (2005) “The mul-
timodal character of new technologies requires a re-thinking of
learning as a linguistic accomplishment” (p. 8). In her opinion
“The almost habitual conjunction of ‘language’, speech and
writing, with learning is… especially paradoxical in relation to
technology-mediated learning” given that speech and writing
are “a small part of a multimodal ensemble” (Jewitt, 2005: p. 2).
For Kress et al. (2005) “A multimodal approach is one where
attention is given to all the culturally shaped resources that are
available” (p. 2). They consider it “essential” due to “the ways
in which it creates new kinds of identity for students and teach-
ers” (Kress et al., 2005: p. 14). It may actually lead to a re-
evaluation of the teacher/learner hierarchy: “changing learners
in changing times may eventually alter how we, as teachers and
teacher educators, view the expert/novice relationship” (Alver-
mann, 2009: p. 102). This is particularly significant when one
takes into consideration the traditional role of poetry teachers as
gatekeepers to a poem’s meaning.
The adoption of a multimodal approach has implications for
the teaching and learning of writing in particular. Kress (2010)
claims that “Writing, previously the canonical text par excel-
lence, is giving way to image” (p. 133). Genres have become
“fluid and insecure; representation, understood now as multi-
modal, is no longer dependably canonical. There is choice.
What genre to use; how to reshape it; what modes to use for
what purpose and for which audience” (Kress, 2010: p. 132).
Archer (2010) feels that “understanding how language and
images interact to create meaning is crucial for reconceptualis-
ing writing pedagogy from a multimodal perspective” (p. 209).
In her opinion “We need to redefine writing pedagogy through
the development of metalanguages that will facilitate awareness
and analysis of multimodal textual construction” (Archer, 2010,
p. 212). Edwards-Groves (2010) argues that the act of recon-
ceptualising “writing and text construction as the multimodal
writing process… balances the more dominant written-linguis-
tic modes of text construction… with dynamic elements of de-
sign” (p. 63). She urges teachers to “step slowly with their stu-
dents in learning to write multimodally and adjust pedagogical
practices” (Edwards-Groves, 2010: p. 63). This is especially
pertinent to educational contexts in which an inordinate amount
of emphasis is placed on traditional writing practices.
A Multimodal Approach to Poetry Teaching
A multimodal poetry teaching methodology is seen as having
the potential to be effective in boosting students’ engagement.
Dymoke and Hughes (2009) are convinced of “the powerful,
dynamic and multimodal nature of poetry which is… a key
justification for its inclusion in a 21st-century curriculum” (p.
93). They remind us of the fact that the word text originates
from the Latin verb texere, meaning to weave, and highlight the
example of “a digital space” within which “a multimodal text
can be woven by many makers who are also users/readers of
that text” (Dymoke & Hughes, 2009: p. 93). Hughes (2009)
thinks that “we have suppressed poetry’s multimodal nature too
long within the confines of the print text… Students are im-
mersed daily in new media, the cultural tools of their time, and
we must redefine our literacy practices in order to stay rele-
vant” (p. 230). According to Blake (2009) a multimodal ap-
proach helps teachers to “develop an engaged enjoyment and
appreciation of poetry” as well as “creative and critical think-
ing” (p. 28) during their lessons. Dymoke (2009) argues that
“poetry is a playful, multimodal medium rather than one des-
tined to be stranded for ever on the printed page” and she urges
teachers to do their utmost to keep it so:
If you leave poetry on the page in your classroom you will
be in danger of sounding its death knell: it is an organic,
enriching communication tool, which taps into all our
senses and is constantly renewing and reinventing itself to
afford us new ways to express ourselves… If poetry is to
flourish in any future English curriculum and in your
classroom and if you are to flourish as a creative poetry
teacher, then you should embrace the multimodal experi-
ences poetry can offer (pp. 80-81).
Snapper (2009) agrees with this and claims that “Teachers
also know that poetry can be “brought to life” for students by
translating it from the printed page to other media” (p. 2). The
benefits of this seem to be clearly evident in the classroom as
attested by an Ofsted (2009) report that describes how amongst
a number of lessons deemed “fun” by students, one particular
poetry lesson was observed to make use of “a range of media to
stimulate imagination” (p. 12). This approach was “particularly
suited to a class where English was not most students’ first
language” (Ofsted, 2009, p. 12), a characteristic of most con-
temporary international English learning contexts.
Blending Visual and Print Media
The blending of visual and print media is perhaps the most
popular form of multimodality. Albers (2006) describes a mul-
timodal approach to teaching poetry in which “the visual mode
may support students’ initial learning of concepts and ap-
proaches to analysis, followed then by the written mode, or the
poem” (p. 87). In McVerry’s (2007) opinion “The nature of
poetry as a genre, with its reliance on imagery offers a wonder-
ful opportunity to develop awareness in students about the role
of multimedia in meaning making” (p. 53).
The visual is given a lot of importance by the literature on
pedagogy and some consider it to be the key to student en-
gagement (Kress, 2003). For example, in my experience video
poems do make a difference to student engagement; the oppor-
tunities they afford for discussion, critical thinking and col-
laboration mean that students are not only honing their linguis-
tic skills but a host of other literacies as well. This seems to
tally with research conducted in the USA and in the UK with
ESL students, which identified a number of benefits to the act
of using video poems in the classroom. These benefits are not
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 509
solely of a linguistic nature even though video poems can pro-
vide students with a means of developing their language profi-
ciency and making them more active readers.
Miller (2007) affirms that as soon as digital video composing
is practised in the classroom “what can happen is startling:
merging curriculum with student lifeworlds, democratizing
media production, repositioning students as competent, bridg-
ing from multimodal to academic and critical literacies” (p. 79).
She reports that the results of one particular digital video pro-
ject show how students developed into “more active readers
and composers as they pursued their own understandings
through digital video composing. In orchestrating the visual,
music, and narrative for a poetry video…the teachers and their
students performed their knowing; it was dynamic, evolving,
and constructed” (Miller, 2007: p. 71). Comparably, McVee et
al. (2008) describe how:
As students began to think about how a poem could be
represented visually, aurally, or through on-screen move-
ment, they focused on how to communicate the meanings
that they wanted others to experience. This moved them
away from fears that they would not produce a “correct”
interpretation. Instead, they were intent on exploring
various modalities to communicate meanings they were
discovering (p. 132).
The above is in concordance with the idea that “A poem ac-
companied by visual images can be seen as a new text, a dif-
ferent way of performing the poem” (Hughes, 2009: p. 204).
Moreover, visual poetry is considered an effective means of
encouraging students to enjoy the reading and discussion of
poetry (Templer, 2009).
The NATE (2008) project report entitled “Making hard top-
ics in English easier with ICT” contains a number of case stud-
ies that specifically deal with the teaching of poetry in a multi-
modal manner, especially through the incorporation of visual
technology. For example, Mortlock (2008) discovered that low-
achieving students’ “motivation, self-esteem and understanding
of the poetry was improved by their use of Movie Maker to
create short videos about poems they were studying” (p. 33).
Similarly, Charles (2008), using Movie Maker with students
whose first language was not English, realized that “his stu-
dents gave much more spontaneous responses than in the nor-
mal classroom situation and gained confidence in expressing
their own opinions” (p. 39). These students not only ‘used the
poetry to expand and explore their own views of the world’ but
their “use and knowledge of the English language increased”
(Charles, 2008: p. 41). Moreover, “poetry in the curriculum
could be explored in an engaging and entertaining manner”
(Charles, 2008: p. 41). Tippings (2008) “had previously found
that students in her school, particularly the boys, were resistant
to poetry”, however, the act of presenting poetry in a visual
manner through the use of ICT “resulted in increased engage-
ment and sustained interest through a series of lessons” (p. 45).
Reviving the Aural Tradition
Audio recordings of poetry have of course long existed and
thus there is nothing really new about poets recording their
poems. However, the Internet has allowed teachers and students
to gain access to a huge amount of poetry recordings and to use
them during their English lessons. Both poetryarchive.org and
poets.org are highly popular collections of such recordings and
they have the added advantage of offering teachers a wealth of
teaching ideas. Talking about how teachers may adopt a multi-
modal approach to the teaching of poetry by using the resources
of the Poetry Archive, Blake (2008) says that:
The recordings of poets reading their own work make po-
etry a more magical and swirling matter of expression and
interpretation, something linked to real people and their
individual voices and not the nigh-on-impossible Enigma
code-breaking activity that it often seems to get repre-
sented as in the daily workings of School English (p. 28).
Sprackland (2008) agrees with this and claims that by listen-
ing to a poet reciting a poem, students are provided with “a
powerful source of insight, understanding and enjoyment” (p. 30).
Even though audio recordings of poetry have long been in
existence, some teachers have taken this a step further and are
asking students to produce their own recordings by means of
digital technology, which helps make the whole process more
powerful and accessible. Digital technology makes it easier for
students not only to record their own poems or thoughts about
poetry but also to publish these online in the form of podcasts,
thus motivating students by providing them with a real audi-
ence. The poetryfoundation.org serves as a good model of how
to go about it while there exist a variety of websites that allow
students to create podcasts and publish them online and thus
reach a wider audience.
Research seems to suggest that students not only develop a
strong engagement with poetry by means of podcasts but they
also enhance a variety of language skills, especially speaking
and listening. Murphy (2008), for example, encouraged her
students to analyse the language of poetry by collaboratively
producing podcasts and found that they “developed speaking
and listening skills, learnt new ICT skills, really engaged with
the poems they were studying—and perhaps most importantly
seemed to be having fun” (p. 107). In a similar fashion McMil-
lan used podcasting to improve students’ close analysis of the
language in poetry and “results appear to show pupils talking
engagingly, enjoyably and knowledgeably about poetry—often
with [an] increased awareness of language” (p. 113). One of the
reasons for this is that “students regard speaking for a real au-
dience as motivating” (McMillan, 2008: p. 117). The Internet is
partly what provides students with such an audience and it
forms an integral part of a teacher’s multimodal approach be-
cause it “is making it possible to revive the aural tradition and
restore to us the imaginative joys of listening. Real, concen-
trated listening is a creative as well as an interpretive experi-
ence” (Sprackland, 2009: p. 22).
The creation of hypertexts is another means of using a mul-
timodal approach to poetry teaching. A hypertext is, simply put,
a text that is linked to other texts by means of hyperlinks. It
allows students to create dynamic texts that in a way cease
being linear. When a traditional print poem is transformed into
a hypertext or when students write a hypertext poem the latter
is opened up by means of a number of hyperlinks that illustrate
how the students have interpreted the imagery and diction in the
poem while engaging in textual and linguistic experimentation.
Thus the resulting poem does not have a definite sense of direc-
tion. It can be read in a variety of ways and readers can choose
where they want to go. According to recent research this ele-
Copyright © 2012 SciRes.
ment of reader empowerment is the main value of hypertext
A hypertext not only allows students to read poetry in a dy-
namic and non-linear manner but it also allows them to be crea-
tive and engaged writers of poetry (Kendall, 1998). Hughes
(2009) explains that:
With the use of hypertext, new possibilities exist that al-
low students more power over their own texts and those
of others. They can explore and create their own texts in
multi-sequential ways… The hyperlinks also encourage
readers to shape their involvement with the poem, to de-
cide what to read and how to read it (p. 188).
However, even though a medium like hypertext has “a sig-
nificant impact on teaching literature” it does not “relieve us of
the duties of teaching reading, writing, and critical thinking”
(Browner et al., 2000: p. 130).
Wikis, a series of web pages that can be edited through a
browser, are a great way of encouraging students to collaborate
in writing and editing poetry. There exists a number of very
popular poetry Wikis that are specifically aimed at ESL stu-
dents and some of them are characterised by the fact that they
devote a substantial amount of room to what students can gain
in linguistic terms from the reading of poetry. It is relatively
easy for a teacher to set up a poetry Wiki and by reserving a
section of the Wiki to language games students can be encour-
aged to develop an increased awareness of language while
reading, writing and discussing poetry.
Studies show that Wikis not only help students to bolster
their language skills but they also make teachers more confi-
dent writers. Dymoke and Hughes (2009) emphasise the idea
that by using a digital tool like a Wiki, teachers not only “gain
confidence in their ability to write poetry and to reflect on
themselves as writers” but can also learn to “exploit the multi-
modal affordances of the Wiki for composing and teaching poe-
try more fully” (pp. 101-102). Richardson (2008) found that
using a Wiki for poetry teaching purposes facilitated “conver-
sations about poetry” between different groups and “gave all
students, no matter what ability, a voice and enabled them to
ask questions themselves and interrogate texts naturally” (p. 65).
Other Forms of Multimodality
Besides the different digital media discussed above, teachers
can also emphasise poetry’s multimodal nature by means of
activities like poetry slams, during which students compete at
performing published or original poetry and which are some-
times modelled on popular TV talent shows (The Guardian,
2009). These “help young people to gain confidence through a
dynamic engagement with the written and spoken word” (Dy-
moke, 2009: p. 81). By being “both inclusive and challenging’
such activities allow students “to gain a much greater under-
standing and appreciation of how language and structure create
effects and convey meanings” (Dymoke, 2009: p. 82).
The focus of this article has mostly extended to the use of
digital media because this particular aspect of multimodality is
a key priority for all those teachers hoping to engage digital
natives with the reading of poetry. As Hughes (2009) points out
“Immersing students in a digital environment that serves as a
model for their own digital performances views performance as
a purposeful and creative process interwoven with other literacy
events” (p. 228). Multimodality allows teachers to harness po-
etry’s communicative potential, however, despite all the advan-
tages of a multimodal approach, teachers are still the most sig-
nificant factor when it comes to inspiring students’ reading
habits. Digital technology has the potential of making the
learning experience a more engaging one and of lifting a poem
off the printed page but it is certainly not the panacea for all the
challenges that teachers face when attempting to engage stu-
dents with poetry.
Albers, P. (2006). Imagining the possibilities in multimodal curriculum
design. English Education, 38, 75-101.
Alvermann, D. E. (2009). Reaching/teaching adolescents: Literacies
with a history. In J. V. Hoffman, & Y. M. Goodman (Eds.), Chang-
ing literacies for changing times: An historical perspective on the
future of reading research, public policy, and classroom practices
(pp. 98-107). New York: Routledge.
Andrews, R. (2004). Conclusion. In R. Andrews (Ed.), The impact of
ICT on literacy education (pp. 202-214). London: Routledge Falmer.
Andrews, R., Burn, A., Leach, J., Locke, T., Low, G., & Torgerson, C.
(2002). A systematic review of the impact of networked ICT on 5 - 16
year olds’ literacy in English. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science
Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
Archer, A. (2010). Multimodal texts in Higher Education and the im-
plications for writing pedagogy. English in Education, 4 4, 201-213.
Azzopardi, M. (2008). Perceptions about the use of computers as liter-
acy aids for young learners. B.Ed. Dissertation, Malta: University of
Bennett, S., Matton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The “digital natives” de-
bate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educa-
tional Technology, 39, 775-786.
Blake, J. (2008). The magpie teacher on poetry and storytelling. NATE
Classroom, 4, 27-29.
Blake, J. (2009). Using the Poetry Archive in the English classroom.
English Drama Media, 13, 24-28.
Browner, S., Pulsford, S., & Sears, R. (2000). Literature and the Inter-
net. New York: Garland Publishing.
Burn, A., & Durran, J. (2007). Media literacy in schools: Practice,
production and pro gressi on . London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Burn, A., & Leach, J. (2004). A systematic review of the impact of ICT
on the learning of literacies associated with moving image texts in
English, 5-16. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit,
Institute of Education, University of London.
Cachia, R., Ferrari, A., Ala-Mutka, K., & Punie, Y. (2010). Creative
learning and innovative teaching: Final report on the study on crea-
tivity and innovation in education in the EU member states. Luxem-
bourg: European Union.
Charles, T. (2008). Poetry for SEN and EAL students. In Making hard
topics in English easier with ICT (pp. 39-44). Sheffield: NATE. URL
(last checked 27 March 2012).
Ćukušić, M., Granić, A., Mifsud, C., & Zammit, M. (2008). A best
practice approach to the enhancement of the learning experience. In
D. Remenyi (Ed.), The proceedings of the 7th European conference
on e-learning (Vol. 1, pp. 253-263). Reading: Academic Publishing.
Dressman, M. (2010). Let’s poem: The essential guide to teaching
poetry in a high-stakes, multimodal world. New York: Teachers
Dymoke, S. (2009). Te a c h in g English texts 11-18. London: Continuum.
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 511
Copyright © 2012 SciRes.
Dymoke, S., & Hughes, J. (2009). Using a poetry Wiki: How can the
medium support pre-service teachers of English in their professional
learning about writing poetry and teaching poetry writing in a digital
age? English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 8, 91-106.
Edwards-Groves, C. J. (2010). The multimodal writing process: Chang-
ing practices in contemporary classrooms. Language and Education,
25, 49-64. doi:10.1080/09500782.2010.523468
Galea, L. (2001). Creating new leaders for e-culture: Keynote address
by the Maltese minister of education. Ministry of Education, Em-
ployment and the Family. URL (last checked 9 February 2012).
Gilbert, A. (2006). Another future: Poetry and art in a postmodern twi-
light. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
Granić, A., Mifsud, C., & Ćukušić, M. (2009). Design, implementation
and validation of a Europe-wide pedagogical framework for e-Learn-
ing. Computers & Education, 53, 1052-1081.
Hughes, J. (2009). Poets, poetry and new media: Attending to the
teaching and learning of po et r y. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.
Jewitt, C. (2005). Technology, literacy and learning: A multimodal ap-
proach. London: Routledge.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contem-
porary communication. Abingdon: Routledge.
Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Bourne, J., Franks, A., Hardcastle, J., Jones, K., &
Reid, E. (2005). English in urban classrooms: A multimodal per-
spective on teaching and learning. Abingdon: RoutledgeFalmer.
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The
modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold
Locke, T., & Andrews, R. (2004). A systematic review of the impact of
ICT on literature-related literacies in English 5-16. London: EPPI-
Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, Uni-
versity of London.
Low, G., & Beverton, S. (2004). A systematic review of the impact of
ICT on literacy learning in English of learners between 5 and 16, for
whom English is a second or additional language. London: EPPI-
Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, Uni-
versity of London.
McBride, K.D. (2004). Introduction. In K. D. McBride (Ed.), Visual
media and the humanities: A pedagogy of representation (pp. xi-xix).
Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.
McMillan, C. (2008). Using podcasting to improve close analysis of
language in poetry. In Making hard topics in English easier with ICT
(pp. 113-130). Sheffield: NATE. URL (last checked 27 March 2012).
McVee, M. B., Bailey, N. M., & Shanahan, L. E. (2008). Using digital
media to interpret poetry: Spiderman meets Walt Whitman. Research
in the Teaching of English, 4 3 , 112-143.
McVerry, J. G. (2007). Power of posting poetry: Teaching new litera-
cies. Language Arts Journal of Michigan , 23, 51-56.
Miller, S. M. (2007). English teacher learning for new times: Digital
video composing as multimodal literacy practice. English Education,
Miller, S. M. (2010). Reframing multimodal composing for student
learning: Lessons on purpose from the Buffalo DV project. Contem-
porary Issues in Technolo g y and Teacher Education, 10, 197-219.
Ministry for Infrastructure, Transport and Communications. (n.d.). The
smart island: The national ICT strategy for Malta 2008-2010. URL
(last checked 9 February 2012).
Mortlock, C. (2008). Engaging with poetry. In Making hard topics in
English easier with ICT (pp. 33-38). Sheffield: NATE. URL (last
checked 27 March 2012).
Murphy, K. (2008). Analysing the language of poetry through podcasts.
In Making hard topics in English easier with ICT (pp. 107-112).
Sheffield: NATE. URL (last checked 27 March 2012).
National Association for the Teaching of English (2007). ICT in Eng-
lish: A NATE position paper. URL (last checked 8 February 2012).
National Association for the Teaching of English (2008). Making hard
topics in English easier with ICT. Sheffield: NATE. URL (last checked
27 March 2012).
National Association for the Teaching of English (2009). Entitlement to
ICT in secondary English. URL (last checked 10 February 2012).
National Council of Teachers of English (2005). NCTE position state-
ment: On multimodal literacies. URL (last checked 26 March 2012).
National Council of Teachers of English (2008). NCTE position state-
ment: Definition of 21st-century literacies. URL (last checked 26
New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing
social futures. Harvard Educational Revi ew , 6 6 , 60-92.
Ofsted. (2009). English at the crossroads: An evaluation of English in
primary and secondary schools , 2005/08. London: Ofsted.
Richardson, A. (2008). Building learning power with wikis. In Making
hard topics in English easier with ICT (pp. 65-74). Sheffield: NATE.
URL (last checked 27 March 2012).
Snapper, G. (2009). Editorial. English Dr am a Me di a, 13, 2-3.
Sprackland, J. (2008). The poetry archive. NATE Classroom, 4, 30.
Sprackland, J. (2009). The ear is the best reader. English Drama Media,
Templer, B. (2009). Poetry in motion: A multimodal teaching tool. Hu-
manising Language Teaching, 11. URL (last checked 4 April 2012).
The Guardian (2009). Who’s got the P factor? URL (last checked 21
Tippings, L. (2008). Enlivening the study of poetry with Year 8. In
Making hard topics in English easier with ICT (pp. 45-47). Sheffield:
NATE. URL (last checked 27 March 2012).
Torgerson, C., & Zhu, D. (2003). A systematic review and meta-analy-
sis of the effectiveness of ICT on literacy learning in English, 5-16.
London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of
Education, University of London.
Tweddle, S., Adams, A., Clarke, S., Scrimshaw, P., & Walton, S. (1997).
English for tomorrow. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum:
Changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. Buck-
ingham: Open University Press.
Unsworth, L., Thomas, A., Simpson, A., & Asha, J. (2005). Children’s
literature and computer based teaching. Maidenhead: Open Univer-
Zammit, L. (2004). ICT literacy and education in Malta. Department of
Technology in Education. URL (last checked 11 February 2012).
Zammit, M., & Mifsud, C. (2003). Language learning and teaching in
Malta. In D. Newby (Ed.), Mediating between theory and practice in
the context of different learning cultures and languages (pp. 137-
148). Graz: Council of Europe.