More Related Content Similar to NIDA: Multilteracies and Multimodalities - Composite Working Paper (20) 2. ii
Executive Summary
1. Introduction
1.1 This report presents a synthesis of the proven impact, strengths and weaknesses of
multiliteracies and multimodalities in delivering science literacy.
1.2 This analysis is situated within the framework of a broader study of science literacy aimed to
establish what has been proven successful in the field; with the objective to promote and
adapt good practices and fill gaps in knowledge about ‘what works’.
1.3 The full study identified 42 single-mechanism approaches, 2 composite approaches and 1
related approach. ‘Multiliteracies’ and ‘Multimodalities’ are the two composite approaches
identified.
2. Methodology for resource discovery and analysis
2.1 From October 2017 to May 2018, the research team surveyed existing resources through
retrieval via research databases, subject databases, open access repositories and through
contact with interested organisations, institutions and individuals.
2.2 The resources were divided into impact assessments (IAs) and descriptive resources. For the
purposes of analysis, only those published during the years 2013 -2018 were utilised. Each
resource was read in detail, significant data was extracted and entered into a specifically
developed database. An example of the database mask is included in Appendix A.
2.3 Although the total number of resources located was not designed to be exhaustive or
definitive, the resources captured in this research are limited to those available in the
English language and to translations that had already been made from other languages into
English.
3. Overview of results
3.1 Over 2,100 IA studies and descriptive resources were identified in the full research process,
of which 13 relate specifically to ‘multiliteracies’ and 16 to ‘multimodalities’; of which 4 and
7 respectively were published between 2013-2018.
3.2 The subject coverage included science, astronomy, chemistry and, more broadly, science
education. The countries included in the studies were United States of America (4), but also
with examples from Australia (1), Cyprus (1), Finland (1), Singapore (1), South Korea (1),
Turkey (1) and United Kingdom (1).
3.3 The only delivery model involved was formal education and the target sectors were all in
education and training.
3.4 The approaches to conducting assessment within the resources were found to be primarily
mixed-method and qualitative, followed by qualitative. The most common data collection
approaches involved experiment (pre- and post- test).
3. iii
4. Discussion
4.1 Multimodal elements associated with multiliteracies have been identified as linguistic,
visual, audio, gestural, spatial, tactile, written, or any combination. Prompted by the
revolution in communication technologies, Multimodal literacy refers to the use of different
modalities to communicate an intended message, for instance through print, visual, audio
and electronic means.
4.2 In science literature and communication, multimodal representations are pervasive as texts,
figures, diagrams, tables, pictures, symbols, graphs and mathematical equations.
4.3 The lines between traditional literacy, multiliteracies and scientific literacy are blurring. The
multiliteracies framework reshapes traditional literacy practices to include an increased
emphasis on multimodality and linguistic/cultural diversity.
4.4 Evidence of multiliteracies in the classroom includes, but is not limited to, technology use,
collaboration with peers and others (e.g. teacher, parents, administration, community
members), problem-solving, visual literacy, or a combination of communication or text
modes (multimodality).
4.5 Multimodality in science teaching and learning occurs in a variety of ways: tools for
instruction, student interaction and the creation of artefacts, for example.
4.6 The literature developed around the concepts of multiliteracies and multimodalities is vast
but, for the purpose of this report, only a selection of resources was reviewed based on
relevance.
4.7 A number of studies have suggested approaches for the assessment of multiliteracies,
including frameworks for measuring individual achievement and instruments to assess
students’ multiliteracy skills and abilities.
4.8 This review surveys a number of studies with a clear focus on multiliteracy, including
examine learning experiences and outcomes specifically with educational contexts, ranging
from media-studies classrooms (in England), to a study on an instructional approach for
developing museum-school partnerships to empower the multiliteracy experiences of
students (in Cyprus), to studies on parents’ understanding and application of multiliteracy
practices (in Malaysia).
4.9 The reviewed studies that are more focused on multimodalities include investigations into
the impact of multimodal science writing and representation on various aspects of learning
and instruction in schools in Finland, England, Korea, Turkey, Australia as well as for
interdisciplinary modelling activities for Special Needs Students.
4.10 Studies have also been conducted in health literacy examining the impact of caregivers’
multilingual and multimodal literacy (in Hong Kong) as well as the effectiveness of
multimodal literacies to improve adolescent health literacy (in the United States).
4.11 Other resources revolving around the concept of multiliteracies and multimodalities in
science education include studies on the use of interactive whiteboard technologies, models
for working with multimodal texts across different cultural contexts, practices of physics and
chemistry instruction and multimodal representations for biological understanding in
secondary schools, demonstrating ecology feedback loops to elementary students, and the
use of multimodal informational texts to support field trips for promoting real-world
scientific literacy.
4. iv
4.12 Enhanced awareness, knowledge relating to scientific ideas, overall conceptual
understanding and improvement in the learning outcomes was reported by a number of
studies. Studies further reported increased use of academic vocabulary among students,
greater understanding of scientific concepts, collaborative work, and expanded repertoires
of literacy among students. Positive impacts were reported among teachers whose
knowledge of teaching and technology evolved through multiliteracy approaches.
4.13 The use of multimodal literacy was reported by some studies to stimulate engagement and
interest, which subsequently enhanced student learning.
4.14 Positive changes in attitude, as well as increased positive attitudes of students towards
science were reported by teachers using multiple modes of representation in non-traditional
writing tasks.
4.15 No specific behavioural changes were clearly reported in the studies analysed.
4.16 Through multiliteracy activities, particularly in the use of information technologies and
scientific practices, students developed skills and knowledge central to being scientifically
literate.
4.17 Other positive impacts include increased questioning by students, enhancement of student
voice and empowerment in the learning process, improved expression of scientific concepts
and broader integration, accuracy and emphasis in representing information.
4.18 Researchers contend that multiliteracies and scientific literacy are intertwined, and that it is
in fact impossible to be scientifically literate today without proficiency in multiliteracies,
though the development of multiliteracies can occur without the use of scientific practices
and knowledge of science content.
4.19 The teaching and learning of science and its practices for scientific literacy reinforced the
development of broader multiliteracies and, in turn, as science activities were enriched with
multiliteracies and scientific practices, students were engaged in developing skills and
knowledge central to being scientifically literate.
4.20 A weakness of a multimodal writing programme highlighted that the success of educational
programmes to help students understand the roles of alternate modes often necessitated
multiple lessons with focused lesson plans, as both teachers and students were equally
unprepared to benefit from alternative and unconventional writing approaches.
4.21 Effective multiliteracies and practices in science teaching are resource intensive and requires
effective technology integration skills for instructors, suggesting that these activities be
included in teacher professional development programs.
4.22 Analysis of makerspaces and videos as modes of delivery of scientific literacy conducted
within this broader study suggest that these modalities can support both educational and
non-formal contexts in implementing effective multiliteracy approaches.
4.23 Multimodal instruction in science requires that the traditionally emphasis on content, must
shift to an emphasis on process, practices and real-world applications, which in turn requires
teachers, administrators, and policy-makers to envision a new system of education in which
the primary goal should be to inspire a passion for learning, solving problems and asking
questions.
4.24 Further research is required to determine how to design more effective instruction in
multimodal writing as well as multimodal representations as scientific language and design
teaching strategies, as well as disseminating the associated benefits of these educational
strategies.
5. v
5. Conclusions
5.1 The advent of the internet has transformed the way people are able to read, write, and
communicate, spawning a new strand of literacy, multiliteracies, which includes multimodal
elements as a way to make and create meaning.
5.2 Multiliteracies also takes account the increasing cultural and linguistic diversity stimulated
through the global connectedness of modern society.
5.3 Evolving technologies and globalisation thus presents educators with the challenge of
preparing students who are multiliterate to operate successfully in dynamic information
paradigm and equipped with skills in multiple modalities of communication through
languages, symbols and technology.
5.4 These multiliterate learners are expected to integrate creativity, think independently,
collaborate, present diverse views; think and communicate in new ways; analyse and
construct meaning from information in a variety of media and circumstances.
5.5 Educational programmes underpinned by multiliteracy pedagogy supported by technology
can provide meaningful learning experiences for students whilst achieving focused learning
outcomes.
5.6 Teacher technology competencies and expertise, access and integration of technology,
facilitation of effective learning scaffolds, inquiry-based, collaborative and technology-rich
experiences need to be addressed.
6. vi
CONTENTS
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... ii
Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................... vii
Mechanisms, groups and approaches ........................................................................................ 4 1.
Methodology for resource discovery and analysis ..................................................................... 5 2.
Search method ....................................................................................................................... 5 2.1.
Data extraction for the analysis ............................................................................................. 6 2.2.
Limitations of the resource discovery .................................................................................... 6 2.3.
Overview of results ................................................................................................................... 6 3.
Total number of resources discovered .................................................................................. 6 3.1.
Scientific subjects .................................................................................................................. 7 3.2.
Countries involved in the studies ........................................................................................... 7 3.3.
Educational delivery models .................................................................................................. 8 3.4.
Target sectors ........................................................................................................................ 8 3.5.
Delivery institutions ............................................................................................................... 8 3.6.
Approach to data collection ................................................................................................... 8 3.7.
Sampling technique and sample size ..................................................................................... 9 3.8.
Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 9 4.
Contexts of use ...................................................................................................................... 9 4.1.
Impacts ................................................................................................................................ 12 4.2.
4.2.1. Awareness, knowledge or understanding ............................................................................ 12
4.2.2. Engagement or interest ........................................................................................................ 13
4.2.3. Attitude ................................................................................................................................ 13
4.2.4. Behaviour ............................................................................................................................. 13
4.2.5. Skills ...................................................................................................................................... 14
4.2.6. Others ................................................................................................................................... 14
Strengths .............................................................................................................................. 14 4.3.
Weaknesses ......................................................................................................................... 15 4.4.
Costs and feasibility ............................................................................................................. 16 4.5.
Suggestions for improved methodologies and for future studies ....................................... 16 4.6.
Conclusions and overview ........................................................................................................ 17 5.
APPENDIX A: Example of data input mask ..................................................................................... 18
APPENDIX B: Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 20
7. vii
Acronyms
APP assessing pupils’ progress
CLD culturally and linguistically diverse
COST cooperation in science and technology
DigiLitEY digital literacy and multimodal practices of young children
ELLs English language learners
ICT information communication technologies
IWB interactive whiteboard
LMP living museum partnership
MMLA multimodal learning analytics
MWM multiliteracies workshop model
TPACK technological pedagogical content knowledge
8. 4
Mechanisms, groups and approaches 1.
During the first part of the Desk Research phase of this project (i.e. Task 1), the research team
identified 42 single-mechanism approaches, 2 composite approaches and 1 related approach that
were relevant to the delivery and dissemination of scientific information. The list of single
mechanisms was further organised into 7 thematic groups, as presented in Table 1.
The subjects of this report are ‘Multiliteracies & Multimodalities’, included under the composite
approaches.
Single mechanism approach Group
Exhibitions, Expo, Festivals, Movies, Picnics,
Science Fairs, Seminars, Talks, TED Talks, Theatre,
Workshops
1. Events, meetings, performances
Colloquia, Courses, Curricula, E-learning, Webinars
2. Education and training – including online
Animations, Books, Brochures, Cartoons, Comics,
Games, Graphics, Posters, Publications, Radio,
Reports, TV, Videos
3. Traditional publishing and journalism –
print and broadcast
Competitions, Experiments, Makerspaces, Mobile
classrooms, Mobile laboratories
4. Activities and services
Blogs, E-books, E-zines, Mobile Apps, Podcasts, Social
media, Websites, Wikis
5. Online interactions
Composite approaches
Multiliteracies
Multimodalities
Related approach
Citizen Science
Table 1. Organisation of the delivery approaches of science literacy adopted in this research.
For the purposes of this study, the definition of ‘Multiliteracies’ refers to ‘an approach to literacy
theory and pedagogy which highlights two key aspects of literacy: linguistic diversity, and
multimodal forms of linguistic expression and representation’1
, while ‘Multimodalities’ describes
‘communication practices in terms of the textual, aural, linguistic, spatial, and visual resources - or
modes - used to compose messages’2
. More extensive definitions of both terms are presented in
chapter 4.1.
1
“Multiliteracies”, Wikipedia, Accessed December 13, 2018, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiliteracy
2
“Multimodality”, Wikipedia, Accessed December 13, 2018, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimodality
3
The research and analysis methodologies will, however, be available from NIDA in English, French and Spanish in order
that others may utilise and/or translate and adapt, replicate and extend the coverage.
2
“Multimodality”, Wikipedia, Accessed December 13, 2018, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimodality
9. 5
Methodology for resource discovery and analysis 2.
Search method 2.1.
From October 2017 to May 2018, the research team carried out an extensive process of resource
discovery to survey existing works and impact studies that could provide valuable evidence on the
impact of the identified science delivery approaches and mechanisms.
The search was carried out by retrieving documents and articles from a wide range of sources,
including research databases, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, subject databases and open access
repositories. The use of non-boolean keyword combinations returned a consistent number of
relevant results from prominent academic journals and online library databases (e.g. ERIC, Frontiers,
JCOM, MedLine/PubMed, Nature, NCBI, Wiley Online Library, PLOS, SAGE, ScienceDirect, Springer,
Web of Science). Moreover, the findings were complemented by relevant resources such as theses
and manuscripts retrieved from university repositories, reports and case studies from different
organisations and NGOs. In addition, contact was made with researchers via the ResearchGate
community and single individuals from NIDA’s Facebook and LinkedIn pages who expressed interest
in the research and directly contributed by providing annotated bibliographies for their fields of
expertise.
The resource discovery was performed by combining the mechanism name with 1 of the 5
keywords/synonyms for ‘impact’ and 1 of the 10 literacies and sub-sector literacies identified by the
Team, one combination at a time. The search strategy is exemplified in Table 2.
Approach Terms for impact Literacy and sub-sector literacies
[mechanism name]
e.g. theatre
Impact
Impact assessment
Assessment
Performance measurement
Outcomes
Agricultural Literacy
Chemistry Literacy
Climate Literacy
Computer Literacy
Earth Science Literacy
Food safety Literacy
Health Literacy
Nutrition Literacy
Science Literacy
Statistical Literacy
Table 2. Search strategy using keywords combinations.
This method generated a total number of 50-word combinations (to illustrate one single
example: ‘theatre impact science literacy’) for each of the science delivery mechanisms investigated.
The articles and materials selected for the analysis span between 2013 and 2018 and were
initially sorted into two main groups: one containing impact assessments that provide a qualitative,
quantitative or mixed method (both qualitative and quantitative) research approaches to data
collection; and a second including different typologies of descriptive resources, e.g. reviews, guides,
handbooks, reports. Resources were organised by mechanism and principal metadata (e.g. title,
author, date, scientific subject) saved on a Microsoft Excel® spreadsheet prior to database import.
10. 6
Data extraction for the analysis 2.2.
The identified impact assessments were subsequently uploaded to a Microsoft Access® database,
developed by the Team to collect relevant information from each study. An example of the database
mask for data entry is included in Appendix A. Each article was read in detail, and significant data
were extracted, entered into the database and used as core information to carry out the analysis.
Limitations of the resource discovery 2.3.
The resource discovery was limited to resources available in English language, and studies in other
languages were only included where translations had already been made to English3
. Another
intrinsic limitation may lie within the search methodology, particularly on the keyword
combinations, and may explain a low number of articles for some of the mechanisms investigated.
Moreover, the total number of resources located is not meant to be exhaustive or definitive, it is
work in progress that attempts to offer a synthesis of examples spanning different literacies and sub-
sector literacies, with no geographical limitations, with the aim to contribute to the understanding of
science, its applications, and to the promotion of science literacy.
Overview of results 3.
Total number of resources discovered 3.1.
Over 2,100 impact assessment studies and descriptive resources were identified in the full research
process, of which 13 relate specifically to ‘Multiliteracies’ and 16 to ‘Multimodalities’. However, for
the purposes of analysis a decision was taken to concentrate on those published between 2013-
2018, as presented in Table 3, to provide more current information for analysis. All the articles
containing examples of impact assessment are analysed in the following paragraphs and in Chapter
4, together with all relevant information offered by the descriptive documents that were used to
consolidate and complement the findings.
Resources (2013-2018) Number
Impact assessments
Multiliteracies
Multimodalities
4
7
Descriptive resources
Multiliteracies
Multimodalities
12
8
Total no. of resources analysed 31
Table 3. Total number of resources analysed.
3
The research and analysis methodologies will, however, be available from NIDA in English, French and Spanish in order
that others may utilise and/or translate and adapt, replicate and extend the coverage.
11. 7
Scientific subjects 3.2.
The main subjects of the impact assessments are synthesized in Table 4. The systematic
categorisation of science branches was retrieved from Wikipedia4
and customised for the purpose of
the research.
Main subject area Detailed subject References
General
Nam and Cho 2016; Tolppanen,
Rantaniitty, and Aksela 2016; Cho and
Nam 2017; Gillies and Baffour 2017
Physical
Astronomy Kim 2017
Chemistry Gunel, Kingir, and Aydemir 2016
Social Science education
5
Bavonese 2014; Allison 2015; Savva
2016; Allison and Goldston 2018;
Townsend, Brock, and Morrison 2018
Table 4. Main scientific subjects of the resources analysed.
Countries involved in the studies 3.3.
The countries where the studies have taken place are listed in Table 5 and can be visualized on the
world map in Figure 1.
Countries No. of studies for each country
United States of America (US) 4
Australia, Cyprus, Finland, Singapore, South Korea,
Turkey, United Kingdom
1
Table 5. Number of impact assessment studies for each country.
Figure 1. Geographic distribution of the impact assessment studies [Map generated with amcharts.com].
4
“Branches of science”, Wikipedia, Accessed January 26, 2018, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_science
5
Including assessment methodologies in makerspaces.
12. 8
Educational delivery models 3.4.
The principal educational delivery model employed in all the studies analysed was formal education.
Only one study (Savva 2016) included both formal and non-formal educational models.
Target sectors 3.5.
The target sector(s) addressed by each individual study is presented in Table 6. The categorisation
used was drawn from the ILO (International Labour Organisation) Taxonomy6
list, which was reduced
and simplified. Some articles were attributed to more than one target sector.
Main target sector Sub-divided target sector References
Education & Training
(11) 100 %
Primary education
Allison 2015; Nam and Cho 2016; Savva
2016; Allison and Goldston 2018
Secondary education
Gunel, Kingir, and Aydemir 2016; Nam and
Cho 2016; Tolppanen, Rantaniitty, and
Aksela 2016; Cho and Nam 2017; Gillies
and Baffour 2017; Kim 2017; Townsend,
Brock, and Morrison 2018
Bachelor’s or equivalent level Bavonese 2014
Table 6. Target sectors and relative percentage over the total number of instances.
Delivery institutions 3.6.
The main delivery institution promoting research about ‘Multiliteracies’ or ‘Multimodalities’ in all
the studies analysed were universities.
Approach to data collection 3.7.
Of the 11 impact assessment studies, 6 used a mixed-method approach, 3 were primarily qualitative
and 2 were quantitative.
For these studies, data collection approaches involved experiments (7 studies), observation (6),
focus groups/discussion groups (4), interviews (4), case studies (2), and written or online surveys (2).
Among the data collection tools or scales employed there were tests (4 studies), Likert scales (1)
and questionnaires (1).
The statistical approaches used involved hypothesis testing such as t-tests (4 studies), ANOVA (2)
and MANOVA (1). Some studies specified the software tool or app used for analysis: SPSS 18 (3) or
Atlas.it (2).
6
“ILO Taxonomy”, Accessed January 26, 2018,
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/taxonomy/taxmain.showSet?p_lang=en&p_set=1
13. 9
Sampling technique and sample size 3.8.
Among the reviewed studies, the sampling techniques employed included convenience sampling (10
studies) and random sampling (3).
Sample sizes ranged from 15 to 214 (71 mean; 57 median), 8 studies had a sample size under 100
participants and 2 did not specify the sample size.
Discussion 4.
Contexts of use 4.1.
The term “multiliteracies” was coined in 1994 by the New London Group, a group of educators from
a variety of different nations and backgrounds, to describe the “multiplicity of communications
channels and media [and] the increasing salience of cultural and linguistic diversity” (Allison 2015).
This underlined an early discussion to redefine the traditional view of literacy to reflect a
changing and globalised world and particularly, the ways information is communicated and
represented (Allison 2015; Allison and Goldston 2018).
The suffix “multi” of “multiliteracies” emerged from two views of literacy as “multiple”: first,
since innovations in technology changed the use of text and communication in a variety of ways that
expanded beyond traditional literacy skills; and second, because societies are now more linguistically
and culturally diverse (Allison 2015). Therefore, literacy in its broadest sense must be viewed as
multimodal, multilingual and multicultural (Allison and Goldston 2018).
Multimodal elements associated with multiliteracies have been identified as linguistic, visual,
audio, gestural, spatial, tactile, written, as well as combinations of any. Multimodal communication
increased through technological means, especially since the emergence of Information
Communication Technologies (ICTs) and the Internet have shifted the emphasis of literacy away
from paper, pencil and books to other modalities (Bavonese 2014).
Multimodal literacy, therefore, refers to the use of different modalities to communicate an
intended message, for instance through print, visual, audio and electronic means (Jackson-Howard
2015).
In science literature and communication, multimodal representations are pervasive as texts,
figures, diagrams, tables, pictures, symbols, graphs and mathematical equations, to cite some
examples (Gunel, Kingir, and Aydemir 2016; Cho and Nam 2017).
Scientific literacy, cultivated through student communication and collaboration, according to
Allison (2015), is a multiliteracy that has not been considered in the literature but that should be an
integral component of overall individual literacy in the 21st century.
In the constantly evolving view of literacy, in fact, the lines between traditional literacy,
multiliteracies and scientific literacy blur and the multiliteracies framework reshapes traditional
literacy practices to include an increased emphasis on multimodality and linguistic/cultural diversity
(Allison and Goldston 2018).
Evidence of multiliteracies in the classroom includes, but is not limited to, technology use,
collaboration with peers and others (e.g. teacher, parents, administration, community members),
problem-solving, visual literacy, or a combination of communication or text modes (multimodality)
(Allison 2015). Multimodality in science teaching and learning occurs in a variety of ways: tools for
14. 10
instruction, student interaction and the creation of artefacts (Allison 2015; Allison and Goldston
2018).
Transmitting academic information effectively to students requires different types of
communicative systems or modes and multimodal literacy is one such system. The new literacy skills
that students need to become proficient in reading, interpreting, responding to, and viewing
multimodal digital texts requires teachers to understand and be aware of the ways that multimodal
literacies are structured and understood (Jackson-Howard 2015).
Selected studies with a clear focus on multiliteracy include the works of Bavonese (2014); Allison
(2015); Savva (2016) and Allison and Goldston (2018).
The study by Bavonese (2014) examined the impact of a multiliteracies workshop on
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) learning in a sample of American preservice
teachers. The aim was to shed light on teachers’ understanding of the relationships between
traditional literacy, pedagogy, content knowledge, technology and multiliteracies.
Within the context of teaching and learning in 4th
and 5th
grade American science classrooms,
Allison (2015) explored issues of multiliteracies and student voice. Briefly, student's voice is defined
as the communication and/or ideas, knowledge and feelings of students, not limited to strictly oral
communication, that can be expressed through dialogue, written work, illustrations, other
multimodal means, or even through silence. The study explored multiliteracies as they influenced
student voice and social processes associated with the teaching and learning of science and scientific
practices in the classrooms.
Based on this research (Allison 2015), Allison and Goldston (2018) presented a case study with
the focus on the investigation of the convergence of multiliteracies and scientific practices in a 5th
grade American classroom; while Savva (2016) explored the potential of an instructional approach
for developing museum-school partnerships to empower the multiliteracy experiences of students.
The study is based on an improvement of an environmental education curriculum in Cypriot primary
schools, with a special focus on the engagement of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD)
students.
The reviewed studies that are more focused on multimodalities include those by Gunel, Kingir,
and Aydemir (2016); Nam and Cho (2016); Tolppanen, Rantaniitty, and Aksela (2016); Cho and Nam
(2017); Gillies and Baffour (2017); Kim (2017); and Townsend, Brock, and Morrison (2018).
Tolppanen, Rantaniitty, and Aksela (2016) sought to explore Finnish student learning from a
single multimodal science writing lesson by focusing on how they chose to represent their ideas
multimodally, similar to the study by Cho and Nam (2017), which examined English students’ use of
multimodal representations in science. In the Cho and Nam (2017) study, secondary school students
were asked to explain their understanding of scientific concepts and presentation of the multimodal
representations in a science Assessing Pupils’ Progress (APP) task.
In a previous study, Nam and Cho (2016) attempted to develop and implement instruction aimed
at helping Korean students to better embed multimodal representations in their science writing and
thus help them to improve their understanding of science.
The purpose of the research presented by Gunel, Kingir, and Aydemir (2016) aimed to investigate
the impact of embedding multiple modes in text on Turkish student learning in electrochemistry and
the effect of writing-to-learn activities embedded with multiple modes of representation.
15. 11
Kim (2017) drew attention to the exploration of interdisciplinary multimodal modelling activities
for developing a participatory learning environment in an informal workshop for Special Needs
Students in Singapore. The study aimed to examine how students constructed and appropriated
multimodal models to develop a deeper understanding of an astronomical concept.
In Australia, Gillies and Baffour (2017) sought to determine the effects of teacher-introduced
multimodal representations and discourse on students’ task engagement and scientific language
during cooperative, inquiry-based science; while, in the United States, Townsend, Brock, and
Morrison (2018) investigated middle school students’ growth in scientific academic vocabulary as it
related to their teacher’s instructional practices that supported academic language development.
The research and theory of the study were based on effective academic vocabulary instruction and
instruction in multiple modalities.
The literature developed around the concepts of multiliteracies and multimodalities is vast but,
for the purpose of this report, only a selection of resources was reviewed based on relevance.
Two studies (Naylor 2015; Palsa and Ruokamo 2015) took an approach around the term
“multiliteracies”: Naylor (2015) focused on the concept and evolution of the term “multiliteracies”
through a primary focus on five seminal papers and with secondary references to the more general
multiliteracies literature; and Palsa and Ruokamo (2015) examined the research literature on media
literacy and multiliteracies, analysing and comparing the nature of knowledge constructed, the
varying definitions of the two concepts and how the Finnish core curriculum defined them with
respect to research literature.
With a more specific focus in educational contexts: Cooper, Lockyer, and Brown (2013)
conducted an investigation on the learning experiences and multiliteracy outcomes of a sample of
English students engaged in an educational programme with a media-studies focus; Boivin and
colleagues (2014) aimed to assess Malaysian parents’ understanding of literacy practices, including
emergent, social and multiliteracy practices applied at home, providing examples of parent-teacher
collaborations to increase social literacy practices towards student success in school; Greco (2015)
presented an analytical review of four case studies and explored the construct of multiliteracy in the
hope of discovering how to help students become multiliterate and learn the many literacies
important in today’s world; and Sang (2017) conceptualized two expanded perspectives of literacy,
‘New Literacies’ and ‘Multiliteracies’, to understand literacy and literacy education in modern society
and provide theories and frameworks for scholars, educators, and practitioners in the field of
education.
A collection of contributions on the application of the pedagogy of multiliteracies was also
presented in the book edited by Cope and Kalantzis (2015), who are two of the original members of
the New London Group that coined the term “multiliteracies”.
Pereira, Ramos, and Marsh (2016) presented trainees’ research papers and essays of a Training
School held as part of a European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) action called “The
Digital Literacy and Multimodal Practices of Young Children (DigiLitEY)”. DigiLitEY is a
multidisciplinary European research network aiming to examine how children’s literacy experiences
and learning for 0-8 year olds are being shaped by changes brought about by the digitisation of
communication.
On the aspect of assessment approaches and tools, Jacobs (2013) presented suggestions for the
design and integration of a multiliteracies approach to assessment; Dawson and Siemens (2014)
proposed a conceptual framework for how learning analytics could assist in measuring individual
16. 12
achievement of multiliteracies; while Buckley-Walker and colleagues (2017) developed and validated
an instrument (the online multiliteracy assessment, o-Mlit) which used a variety of modes to assess
students’ multiliteracy skills and abilities to make meaning from text, sound, image and video in an
online environment.
In terms of implications for health literacy, Parthasarathy and others (2014) examined caregivers’
multilingual and multimodal literacy and its relation to children’s oral health in Hong Kong; whereas
Jackson-Howard (2015) investigated teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of multimodal
literacies on adolescents’ overall health literacy via the introduction of health literacy programmes
into an urban middle school curriculum in the United States. The study also focused on the potential
role of middle school teachers by identifying their perspectives on the efficacy of multimodal
literacies to improve adolescent health literacy.
Other resources revolving around the concept of multiliteracies and multimodalities in science
education include Murcia (2014), who explored and documented teacher and student use of
interactive whiteboard (IWB) technology in two Australian primary science classrooms; Danielsson
and Selander (2016), who presented a model for working with multimodal texts in education using
examples taken from Singaporean and Chilean science textbooks in order to demonstrate the
versatility and applicability of the framework across different cultural contexts; Tang (2016) reported
on a case study of classroom practices of physics and chemistry teachers in Singapore to better
understand how disciplinary literacy is currently addressed in the teaching of secondary school
science; Van Rooy and Chan (2016) investigated the use of multimodal representations to assess
biological understanding in the final senior secondary school public examination in Australia; Zhang
(2016) reported the results of an ethnographic study about multimodal science discourse in a
sheltered classroom in the United States involving English Language Learners (ELLs); Andrade (2017)
showed how multimodal learning analytics (MMLA) could help understand how elementary students
explore the ecology concept of feedback loops using an embodied simulation; and Buchholz and
Gibbons Pyles (2018), reported a practical case of teachers integrating an authentic, multimodal
informational text before, during, and after a field trip to the zoo as a way of promoting real-world
scientific literacy with young students.
Impacts 4.2.
The impacts identified in the studies were organised using impact categories proposed by the
evaluation framework of the National Science Foundation7
.
4.2.1. Awareness, knowledge or understanding
In the research by Gunel, Kingir, and Aydemir (2016) the authors observed an enhanced awareness
about communicating scientific ideas and improvement in the learning outcomes of Turkish students
who received additional multimodal instructional lessons, thus supporting the idea that when
7
Friedman, AJ, Allen, S, Campbell, PB, Dierking, LD, Flagg, BN, Garibay, C, Korn, R, Silverstein, G and Ucko, DA. “Framework
for evaluating impacts of informal science education projects. Report from a National Science Foundation Workshop”
(2008): 114. http://www.informalscience.org/sites/default/files/Eval_Framework.pdf
17. 13
students’ understanding, awareness and ability to effectively use multimodal representations were
built, their conceptual understanding of targeted concepts improved.
Similarly, results of the study by Gillies and Baffour (2017) in Australia revealed that students in
the very effective teachers’ classes spent significantly more time-on-task and used significantly more
relevant basic and scientific language to explain the phenomena they were investigating in
comparison to their peers in the effective teachers’ classes. These behaviours and language were
associated, according to the researchers, with successful learning in science.
Other positive effects were observed by Townsend, Brock, and Morrison (2018), Cho and Nam
(2017) and Savva (2016). The first team of researchers noticed that American middle students
increased their knowledge of academic vocabulary supported by the teacher’s intentional use of
multimodal resources; the second team identified that multimodal representations encouraging
lessons had a significant and positive effect on English students' understanding of scientific concepts;
whereas the Savva (2016) study observed improved conceptual understanding, collaborative work
and expanded repertoires of literacy in the majority of Cypriot students involved.
Savva (2016) also reported improvement in terms of students’ learning and effective outcomes,
since the use of both print and multimodal modes of literacy stimulated student awareness and
curiosity, and student understanding was enhanced through reflective self-evaluation of their work
and performance (Savva 2016).
Bavonese (2014) observed that teachers participating in the multiliteracies workshop had an
increase in knowledge and, in particular, their knowledge of teaching and technology evolved. A
proposed reason behind this observation was that the preservice teachers who participated in the
workshop began to conceptualize the TPACK relationship and moved toward its application, thereby
having a positive impact on the rating of their knowledge of teaching and technology.
4.2.2. Engagement or interest
The case study by Allison (2015) in the United States revealed that students participating in visual
literacy practices, collaborative exercises, investigative activities and technology use reported feeling
more engaged and empowered with what and how they were learning.
The Living Museum Partnership (LMP) programme in Cyprus (Savva 2016) reported that the
systematic use of multimodal literacy modes resulted in increasing students’ interest to participate
in the proposed activities. Moreover, students engaged with museum multiliteracy-based activities
in meaningful ways which, subsequently, enhanced their learning.
4.2.3. Attitude
Teachers participating in the museum-school programme in Cyprus (Savva 2016) perceived positive
changes in their student’s attitudes; whereas using multiple modes of representation within the text
in a non-traditional writing task resulted, among other outcomes, in positive attitudes of Turkish
students toward science (Gunel, Kingir, and Aydemir 2016).
4.2.4. Behaviour
No behavioural changes were clearly reported in the studies analysed.
18. 14
4.2.5. Skills
As the science activities were enriched with multiliteracies, particularly in the use of information
technologies, and scientific practices, American students were engaged in developing skills and
knowledge central to being scientifically literate (Allison and Goldston 2018). Likewise, improved
science literacy skills were also observed in Turkish students as a result of the embedded multimodal
representations (Gunel, Kingir, and Aydemir 2016).
4.2.6. Others
Results from the research by Allison (2015) in an American science classroom reported that, among
other aspects, students’ level of questioning was heightened and that they reported feeling a sense
of ownership of their learning. Moreover, the classrooms involved in the study were enriched with
multiliteracies that served, metaphorically, as breeding grounds for student voice.
Savva (2016) observed that the use of hands-on activities and flexibility in undertaking tasks
provided Cypriot students with a dynamic role as they had opportunities for active involvement in
the development of conceptual understanding. Students also felt empowered as they contributed to
the learning process, for instance, through interaction with their teachers, materials and their peers.
In the study in England by Cho and Nam (2017), students that received instruction encouraging
the using of multimodal representations performed better than the ones that received instruction
with traditional teaching methods, and moreover expressed scientific concepts better and
spontaneously utilized a broader integration, accuracy and emphasis in representing information.
Furthermore, it was observed that student presentations were not simply listed scientific concepts,
but rather showed concepts through big ideas.
In a previous study, Nam and Cho (2016) reported similar results, where learning using multiple
modes for representing science information was found to be beneficial for conceptual
understanding by Korean students and that students were better at utilizing multimodal
representations in their written products. Students that received instruction encouraging the use of
multimodal representations extended the writing task to include a much broader representational
emphasis, and a much higher level of cohesion and connection than between alternative modes of
representing information through writing.
Strengths 4.3.
Allison (2015) stated that multiliteracies and scientific literacy are intertwined. According to the
researcher, in fact, it is impossible to be scientifically literate today without proficiency in
multiliteracies, though the development of multiliteracies can occur without the use of scientific
practices and knowledge of science content. In her study, teacher and student perceptions of the
interdependence between multiliteracies and scientific literacy promoted the notion that
multiliteracies were supported and developed through problem and inquiry-based science activities
that utilized scientific practices.
This aspect was also prevalent in another study, that of Allison and Goldston (2018) who stressed
the concept that characteristics of scientific literacy, by their intent and purpose, are a form of
multiliteracy in elementary classrooms. The teaching and learning of science and its practices for
19. 15
scientific literacy reinforced the development of broader multiliteracies and, in turn, as science
activities were enriched with multiliteracies and scientific practices, students were engaged in
developing skills and knowledge central to being scientifically literate.
The study by Nam and Cho (2016) reported that involvement of students in multimodal tasks
helped them construct a richer and stronger scientific understanding. In particular, when students
effectively embedded multiple modes with text and organized their own explanation by using
scientific language, they were more likely to engage in a beneficial cognitive process in which they
more deeply and accurately assessed their own understanding of a concept before they determined
how to best represent this concept to an outside audience (e.g. other students) (Nam and Cho 2016;
Cho and Nam 2017). The activity associated with effectively embedding multiple modes of
representation in text in fact encouraged a process in which students translated the information
dealt with in class into an appropriate “language” for their own understanding, then again into an
appropriate “language” to display this understanding in a multimodal representation through a
writing task (Nam and Cho 2016).
Similarly, encouraging students to understand and translate modal representations in chemistry
and using them to communicate scaffolded conceptual understanding helped their comprehension
of a topic (Gunel, Kingir, and Aydemir 2016).
Integrating writing-to-learn strategies with multimodal representations could provide key
opportunities for students to translate between different modes in representing scientific concepts
as well as between scientific and everyday language. Writing allows students to move between
different modes to articulate meaning through their own language. As students move between this
scientific and everyday language, they re-represent the concepts using multiple modes (Gunel,
Kingir, and Aydemir 2016).
According to the main findings of a case study presented by Kim (2017), the central benefits of
interdisciplinary multimodal modelling activities with special need students were twofold. Firstly,
they promoted multiliteracies development using digital and multimodal resources for supporting
the emotional and social experiences in developing learners’ astronomical understanding and, in
addition, they integrated learners’ everyday experiences with scientific astronomical understanding
for the development of higher cognitive functions.
Weaknesses 4.4.
One study in particular (Tolppanen, Rantaniitty, and Aksela 2016) offered multiple considerations on
multimodalities.
In their study, the researchers observed that, although a single lesson on multimodal writing
helped students understand its importance, it was not enough for students to fully develop an
understanding of how alternative modes should be integrated in a way that leads to deeper
understanding (Tolppanen, Rantaniitty, and Aksela 2016). Moreover, the lesson on multimodal
writing, while encouraging the use of more modes, did not encourage their more effective use and
integration with text. Therefore, further research on how to emphasize the importance of effectively
combining text and alternative modes was encouraged.
Implementing multimodal writing into several lessons could help students to understand the role
of the alternative modes, but also lesson plans should be modified to examine which teaching
techniques work best to promote this.
20. 16
Although non-traditional writing and modal representations were said to provide benefits in
science education and science literacy, they seem to have limited implementation in educational
settings. From a Turkish educational perspective, the use of non-traditional writing tasks is not
common for several reasons, including the lack of understanding, information and guidance about
how to effectively implement them. Contrary to traditional writing, teachers and students are in fact
not familiar with the purposes and potential benefit of alternative writing tasks. Therefore, teachers
have a tendency to focus on drill and practice approaches, placing too much emphasis on problem-
solving. Broadening the teachers’ pedagogical repertoire with non-traditional writing and
multimodal representations may not only improve test performance but also build the science
literacy skills of the students (Tolppanen, Rantaniitty, and Aksela 2016).
Costs and feasibility 4.5.
Barriers to integrating multiliteracies and scientific practices into science teaching include time,
increased standards accountability and lack of comfort with the effective integration of technology
(Allison 2015). Allison and Goldston (2018) recommended that teachers (in-service and pre-service)
receive meaningful and practical professional development in the areas of scientific literacy and
multiliteracies and their intersection with readily accessible technologies.
As a result of the experience gathered through the process of analysis of several mechanisms of
delivery in this current research, the positive evaluation of e.g. makerspace and videos in science
literacy might assist both educational and non-formal contexts in more effectively implementing
multiliteracy approaches.
Suggestions for improved methodologies and for future studies 4.6.
Introducing modal representations with popular articles, assigning homework such as writing tasks
and holding in-class discussions about the function and use of modal representations were found to
generate a positive impact on the learning process and the perceptions of students. Therefore,
multimodal instruction could be an appropriate way for teachers to improve pedagogical
implementation (Gunel, Kingir, and Aydemir 2016).
Educational practices should keep pace with student access to information and the evolving
world around them. The primary emphasis in science, traditionally being placed on content, must
shift to an emphasis on process, practices and real-world applications (Allison 2015). Allison (2015)
additionally suggested that the challenge does not lie in convincing students to explore science in a
new way, but on encouraging teachers, administrators, and policy-makers to envision a new system
of education where content is one goal, but not the primary goal. The primary goal should be to
inspire a passion for learning, solving problems and asking questions; this requires interacting with a
vast array of resources including peers, technological tools, community members and the natural
world.
Further research on the link between students’ writing skills and the use of alternative modes will
be required to determine how to design more effectively instruction that encourages effective
multimodal writing for students of differing writing ability levels (Tolppanen, Rantaniitty, and Aksela
2016), as well as the investigation on multimodal representations as scientific language and design
teaching strategies (Cho and Nam 2017).
21. 17
Finally, Tolppanen, Rantaniitty, and Aksela (2016) highlighted how crucial it is to disseminate
information about the associated benefits of multimodal writing such as skills development and
science learning outcomes in high-stake test-based educational settings, such as the system in
Turkey, since academic test performance is the driving force for in-class implementation and
pedagogical approaches in such systems.
Conclusions and overview 5.
Innovations in technology have made the world globally connected, while at the same time locally
diverse (Allison 2015) and have changed the way people are able to read, write, and communicate
(Bavonese 2014). As a result, a new strand of literacy, multiliteracies, includes multimodal elements
as a way to make and create meaning of communication from a variety of modes (Bavonese 2014;
Buckley-Walker et al. 2017). Multiliteracies also takes account of the increasing cultural and linguistic
diversity (Allison 2015; Allison and Goldston 2018).
Evolving technologies and globalisation present educators with the challenge of creating learning
experiences to help students develop competencies to enable them to function successfully in a
dynamic society (Cooper, Lockyer, and Brown 2013).
Instead of traditional teacher-centred classrooms and alphabet-based literacy learning,
multiliteracies are associated with a participatory culture that engages readers and writers in
multimodalities along with available languages, symbols and technology.
While the fundamentals of reading and writing did not change, multiliteracies brought about
modes of composing and reading that are different from paper-based mediums (Bavonese 2014).
Although technology is more influential in classrooms, multiliteracies are not limited to merely
the use of technological tools, but rather the skills in communication and thinking that are necessary
because of the increasing use of new technologies (Allison 2015).
Today’s learner is expected to be multiliterate, able to integrate creativity, think independently,
collaborate, present diverse views; think and communicate in new ways; analyse and construct
meaning from information in a variety of media and circumstances (Cooper, Lockyer, and Brown
2013; Allison 2015).
In elementary science education, multiliteracies play an increasingly important role by enabling
new ways for students to interact not only with science content and scientific practices, but with
each other, the teacher, and the larger global community (Allison 2015).
Educational programmes underpinned by multiliteracy pedagogy supported by technology can
provide meaningful learning experiences for students whilst achieving focused learning outcomes.
For this to occur, important factors such as teacher technology competencies and expertise, access
and integration of technology, facilitation of effective learning scaffolds (Cooper, Lockyer, and Brown
2013), inquiry-based, collaborative and technology-rich experiences (Allison 2015) need to be
addressed.
24. 20
APPENDIX B: Bibliography
Impact assessments
Allison, Elizabeth Rowland. “Exploring Multiliteracies, Student Voice, and Scientific Practices in Two
Elementary Classrooms.” PhD thesis, The University of Alabama, 2015.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PhDT.......104A.
Allison, Elizabeth, and M. Jenice Goldston. “Modern Scientific Literacy: A Case Study of
Multiliteracies and Scientific Practices in a Fifth Grade Classroom.” Journal of Science Education
and Technology 27, no. 3 (June 2018): 270–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9723-z.
Bavonese, Janet Leigh. “Determining the Impact of a Multiliteracies Workshop on TPACK Knowledge
of Elementary Preservice Teachers.” Master’s thesis, University of Alabama Libraries, 2014.
http://ir.ua.edu/handle/123456789/2155.
Cho, Hye Sook, and Jeonghee Nam. “Analysis of Students Use of Multimodal Representations in a
Science Formative Assessment (Assessing Pupils’ Progress, APP) Task in the UK.” Journal of the
Korean Chemical Society 61, no. 4 (2017): 211–17.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2017.61.4.211.
Gillies, Robyn M., and Bernard Baffour. “The Effects of Teacher-Introduced Multimodal
Representations and Discourse on Students’ Task Engagement and Scientific Language during
Cooperative, Inquiry-Based Science.” Instructional Science 45, no. 4 (August 2017): 493–513.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9414-4.
Gunel, Murat, Sevgi Kingir, and Nurdane Aydemir. “The Effect of Embedding Multimodal
Representation in Non-Traditional Writing Task on Students’ Learning in Electrochemistry.” In
Using Multimodal Representations to Support Learning in the Science Classroom, edited by Brian
Hand, Mark McDermott, and Vaughan Prain, 59–75. Cham: Springer International Publishing,
2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16450-2_4.
Kim, Mi Song. “Multimodal Modeling Activities with Special Needs Students in an Informal Learning
Context: Vygotsky Revisited.” Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology
Education 13, no. 6 (June 15, 2017): 2133–54. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.01218a.
Nam, Jeonghee, and Hyesook Cho. “Examining the Impact of Multimodal Representation Instruction
on Students’ Learning of Science.” In Using Multimodal Representations to Support Learning in
the Science Classroom, edited by Brian Hand, Mark McDermott, and Vaughan Prain, 117–33.
Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16450-2_7.
Savva, Stefania. “The Potential of a Museum-School Partnership to Support Diversity and
Multiliteracies-Based Pedagogy for the 21st Century.” PhD thesis, University of Leicester, 2016.
https://lra.le.ac.uk/handle/2381/38818.
Tolppanen, Sakari, Toni Rantaniitty, and Maija Aksela. “Effectiveness of a Lesson on Multimodal
Writing.” In Using Multimodal Representations to Support Learning in the Science Classroom,
edited by Brian Hand, Mark McDermott, and Vaughan Prain, 39–57. Cham: Springer
International Publishing, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16450-2_3.
Townsend, Dianna, Cynthia Brock, and Jennifer D. Morrison. “Engaging in Vocabulary Learning in
Science: The Promise of Multimodal Instruction.” International Journal of Science Education 40,
no. 3 (February 11, 2018): 328–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1420267.
25. 21
Descriptive resources
Andrade, Alejandro. “Understanding Student Learning Trajectories Using Multimodal Learning
Analytics within an Embodied-Interaction Learning Environment.” In Proceedings of the Seventh
International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference on - LAK ’17, 70–79. Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada: ACM Press, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1145/3027385.3027429.
Boivin, Nettie, Rozanna Noraini Albakri, Zuraiyah Bt Mohd Yunus, Hendon Mohammed, and Nirmala
Muniandy. “Assessing Emergent, Social, and Multiliteracy Practices in Urban Malaysian Homes.”
Malaysian Journal of ELT Research 10, no. 2 (October 30, 2016): 21.
Buchholz, Beth A., and Damiana Gibbons Pyles. “Scientific Literacy in the Wild: Using Multimodal
Texts in and out of School.” Reading Teacher 72, no. 1 (2018): 61–70.
https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1678.
Buckley-Walker, Kellie, Jim Tognolini, Lori Lockyer, Ian Brown, and Peter Caputi. “Evaluating the
Validity of the Online Multiliteracy Assessment Tool.” Australian Journal of Education 61, no. 3
(November 2017): 305–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944117729056.
Cooper, Natalie, Lori Lockyer, and Ian Brown. “Developing Multiliteracies in a Technology-Mediated
Environment.” Educational Media International 50, no. 2 (June 2013): 93–107.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2013.795350.
Cope, Bill, and Mary Kalantzis. A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Learning by Design. Springer, 2016.
Danielsson, Kristina, and Staffan Selander. “Reading Multimodal Texts for Learning – a Model for
Cultivating Multimodal Literacy.” Designs for Learning 8, no. 1 (August 17, 2016): 25–36.
https://doi.org/10.16993/dfl.72.
Dawson, Shane, and George Siemens. “Analytics to Literacies: The Development of a Learning
Analytics Framework for Multiliteracies Assessment.” International Review of Research in Open
and Distance Learning 15, no. 4 (September 2014): 284–305.
Greco, Daniel C. “Multiliteracies: Bringing Multimodality into Schools.” Master’s thesis, The College
at Brockport: State University of New York, 2015.
https://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/ehd_theses/630.
Jackson-Howard, Cynthia Darlene. “Teachers’ Perceptions of Multimodal Literacies in Middle School
Health Literacy Programs.” PhD thesis, Walden University, 2015.
https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/322.
Jacobs, Gloria E. “Designing Assessments: A Multiliteracies Approach.” Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy 56, no. 8 (May 2013): 623–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.189.
Murcia, Karen. “Interactive and Multimodal Pedagogy: A Case Study of How Teachers and Students
Use Interactive Whiteboard Technology in Primary Science.” Australian Journal of Education 58,
no. 1 (April 2014): 74–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944113517834.
Naylor, Charlie. “Understanding the Concept and Evolution of the Multiliteracies Literature since
1996, with a Consideration of Its Relevance to a Canadian Teacher Union Engaged in a
Multiliteracies Collaborative Research Project.” British Columbia Teachers’ Federation,
September 26, 2015, 24.
26. 22
Palsa, Lauri, and Heli Ruokamo. “Behind the Concepts of Multiliteracies and Media Literacy in the
Renewed Finnish Core Curriculum: A Systematic Literature Review of Peer-Reviewed Research.”
Seminar.Net 11, no. 2 (November 7, 2015): 19.
Parthasarathy, Divya S., Susan M. Bridges, Colman Patrick Joseph McGrath, Terry Kf Au, Hai Ming
Wong, and Cynthia Kar Yung Yiu. “The Relation Between Caregivers’ Multiliterate Reading
Habits and Their Children’s Oral Health Status.” Interactive Journal of Medical Research 3, no. 3
(2014): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.2196/ijmr.3210.
Pereira, Iris Susana Pires, Altina Ramos, and Jackie Marsh. “The Digital Literacy and Multimodal
Practices of Young Children: Engaging with Emergent Research: Proceedings of the First Training
School of COST Action IS1410, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal, 6th-8th June, 2016.” In
Proceedings of the First Training School of COST Action IS1410, 1–247. University of Minho,
Braga, Portugal, 2016.
https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.660127!/file/1st_TrainingSchool.pdf.
Sang, Yuan. “Expanded Territories of ‘Literacy’: New Literacies and Multiliteracies.” Journal of
Education and Practice 8, no. 8 (2017): 16–19.
Tang, Kok-Sing. “How Is Disciplinary Literacy Addressed in the Science Classrooms? A Singaporean
Case Study.” Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 39, no. 3 (2016): 220–32.
Van Rooy, Wilhelmina Sabina, and Eveline Chan. “Multimodal Representations in Senior Biology
Assessments: A Case Study of NSW Australia.” International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education 15, no. 7 (October 2017): 1237–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9741-y.
Zhang, Ying. “Multimodal Teacher Input and Science Learning in a Middle School Sheltered
Classroom.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 53, no. 1 (January 2016): 7–30.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21295.
