CONNECTING MULTILITERACIES AND WRITING PEDAGOGY FOR 21 CENTURY ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS: KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR TEACHER EDUCATION IN SINGAPORE AND BEYOND

Background and Purpose: Given the dynamic, global and multimodal character of English in the 21 century, it should be reasonable to expect English language (EL) teaching to accommodate the influences of media and technology on modern communication practices. In Singapore, education policy therefore highlights multiliteracies as one of three foci for the EL classroom. Yet, scant attention has been paid in research and practice to the impact of technology-mediated communication on writing pedagogy. This paper presents the findings of an extensive multiple-case study research project which sought to establish how multiliteracies pedagogy was being utilized in Singaporean secondary teachers’ classrooms and the significant internal and external factors that contributed to classroom practice. Methodology: The research explored six EL teachers’ practices within one unit of work, focusing on writing skills. Data were gathered through video recorded lesson observations, preand post-lesson interviews to explore rationales and justifications for planning and implementation, and focus group discussions to establish common practices, values and beliefs towards writing pedagogy. Journal of Nusantara Studies 2020, Vol 5(2) 192-214 ISSN 0127-9386 (Online) http://dx.doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol5iss2pp192-214 193 Findings: The study found that although teachers were aware of and trained in multiliteracy practices, they dominantly addressed writing as a monomodal form of communication, limited student autonomy and critical development, and neglected culture in their instruction. Contributions: We argue that writing instruction must be socially situated and multimodal and teacher education must prepare practitioners to empower learners to become critical and effective writers. We also assert that examination-oriented practices make writing in the classroom inauthentic and largely incomprehensible, despite belief that the opposite is true.

(Ho, Alviar-Martin, Sim, & Yap, 2011) and the vehicle for communicating common values and beliefs that transcend highly sensitive racial and religious divides (Wong, 2014). It is also a language that privileges some and marginalises others.
The growing affluence of Singapore society has seen the steady rise in the number of English-speaking homes, but also, at the same time, great social inequality (Teo, 2019). An increasing majority of students now come from economically prosperous, English-speaking families and are effectively first language learners comparable to their counterparts in the West.
However, a still significant minority communicate in their mother tongues at home. These second language learners are typically less wealthy than their English-speaking counterparts. Furthermore, there are also recent immigrants from the region, hailing mainly from South East Asia and China, to whom English is a foreign language. Such diverse student profiles create very obvious and difficult to resolve classroom problems for our teachers and a very real challenge to the implementation of new EL policies.
For nearly two decades, preservice EL education offered by the National Institute of Education (NIE), Singapore's sole teacher training institute, has continued to advocate for an increasingly progressive vision of the subject in line with the demands of both national syllabus and multicultural classrooms. After all, it is vital that Singapore teachers 'move away from the notion of literacy as a narrow, singular standard, authoritatively taught, to one which exposes their students to, and enables them to select judiciously between, a range of repertoires, genres and modes of communication' (Kramer-Dahl, 2008, p. 85). At NIE, student teachers are taught extensively about the integration of rich and multimodal texts into their teaching and the NLG's (1996) original paper on multiliteracies has long been required reading. Yet, it is difficult to see much change in actual classrooms. Traditional teaching practices driven by pragmatism, instrumentalism and teacher talk doggedly persist as many teachers still view them as vital for maintaining examination performance, especially when it comes to writing (Kiss & Mizusawa, 2018).
The divide between the intentions of teacher education and the actions of teachers once in the classroom is one that needs to be urgently addressed if we are ever to make real progress in EL teaching. After all, 'it is important to continue to strive in a multiliteracies direction in … teacher education' if we are to develop future-ready teachers who can teach effectively in diverse 21 st century classrooms (Rowsell, Kosnik, & Beck, 2008, p. 121). Otherwise, they would not be in a 198 position to reverse current trends in student apathy and/or underachievement that greatly undermine active learning in many classrooms (O'Byrne & Smith, 2015). Pursuing multiliteracies is not an option, but a necessity. It is a means of promoting plurality and participation in meaningful and authentic ways: 'The affordances of technology provide a new window for new forms of pedagogy that are more empowering and democratic in orientation' (Robertson & Hughes, 2012, p. 76). However, teachers may not be adequately prepared to teach multiliteracies even though they may understand its importance (Macken-Horarik & Horarik, 2019). With this in mind, we asked two Research Questions (RQs): (1) To what extent are the principles of the NLG's pedagogy of multiliteracies implemented in the Singapore secondary school writing instruction?
(2) What external and internal factors have a key role in shaping writing instruction in the Singapore secondary school context?

RESEARCH DESIGN
Six EL teachers from three Singapore secondary schools participated in our multiple-case study project. We identified two experienced and capable teachers from each school, who could design and implement an original series of lessons (a unit) on writing. All the teachers had at least three years of teaching experience and were no longer considered beginning teachers by the system.
Five of the participants were female and one was male, a gender imbalance which is not uncommon in the teaching profession here. They were all in their 20s or 30s, which is also quite typical. All had completed their preservice education at NIE as that is a condition of their employment. They have thus entered the profession having learned the same principles and theories, which should, in theory, inform their practice in similar ways. We have employed pseudonyms (Kate, Bill, Emma, Pam, Gayle and Helen) to protect their identities and hide their ethnicity. Their participation in the project was voluntary and the data collection was approved by NIE's official ethics review process.
All schools in this study qualify as 'neighbourhood schools', which in Singapore refer to government schools that cater predominantly to students living in nearby public housing estates.
These students generally share the same socioeconomic background and come from lower and middle income families. Academically, these students are of below average to average abilities whose home language and cultural identity may be quite diverse; those of higher ability tend to