As a result of digital, social, and cultural transformations, literacy practices today incorporate different semiotic modes, media, and spaces both inside and outside the school. However, language teaching in schools has mainly focused on learning decoding skills and verbal literacy. Although a multiliteracy pedagogy was proposed over a decade ago, limited research has been conducted about the benefits and challenges of implementing it in primary and secondary education. Therefore, this article presents a systematic review of research findings on multiliteracy practices in school contexts within the Language subject in the period 1996-2020. Through two database searches and a subsequent inductive analysis, 26 empirical studies were selected. Three themes to understand how multiliteracy has been addressed emerged from the article analysis: multimodal genres, pedagogy of multiliteracy and diversity recognition. The results highlight how pedagogical practices enable the incorporation of semiotic modes beyond the verbal to foster communication and drive changes toward more democratic, dialogical, and inclusive classroom dynamics.
Article Details
How to Cite
Báez-Bargellini, G., & Meneses-Arévalo, A. (2023). Multiliteracy in Language Subjects: A systematic literature review from 1996 to 2020. Ocnos. Journal of reading research, 22(2). https://doi.org/10.18239/ocnos_2023.22.2.346
Báez-Bargellini and Meneses-Arévalo: Multiliteracy in Language Subjects. A systematic literature review from 1996 to 2020
Introduction
Social practices undergo constant transformations, partially due to the digital tools
that have emerged and led to the construction of new labor and citizen logics (; ; ; ; ). In this context of change and growing uncertainty, schools, in their role as socializing
agents and promoters of culture, face the tension generated by the demand for an educational
approach that integrates digital media to foster the development of meanings and relationships
(; ; ). Elementary and secondary school students actively participate in discourses outside
of school that are composed of multiple languages through which they project identities
using various digital media (). This poses additional challenges for schools, not only in terms of pedagogical
practices, but also because of the heterogeneity of knowledge that students have about
digital literacy practices learned outside of school ().
On the other hand, the wide circulation of information through social networks requires
the school to teach the development of critical thinking skills and interpretation
of information in a way that transcends the verbal (; ). In digital contexts, multimodal discourses require critical readers capable of
drawing conclusions from a thorough analysis of the evidence presented (). Therefore, the promotion of critical thinking through these new modes and digital
media encourages students to question the information that is received, created, and
shared, a skill that is essential for a peaceful democracy, as students are taught
to reason, construct meaning and make informed decisions ().
Educational systems have responded rather slowly to the adoption of these modes and
means, which aim to foster more meaningful understandings among students (; ; ; ). Likewise, they have not yet sufficiently fostered the development of critical thinking
in students through these new languages (; ). The school continues to be a conservative space where the teaching of literacy
is mainly focused on decoding the written word, as well as the understanding and production
of written texts in an abstract and decontextualized way (; ; ; ). As a result, tension is observed between the teaching of literacy in school –restricted
to the formal, monolingual, monocultural and print-focused– and the multiliteracy
that circulates outside the school –open to the multimodal construction of meanings,
multilingual, multicultural and digital (; ; ). Although there seems to be a consensus regarding the need for literacy teaching
practices to change, conventional literacies still predominate within the school,
while the “new literacies” are created and recreated by students outside of formal
educational settings (; ). Added to this is the lack of knowledge regarding what type of digital reading and
writing activities would facilitate the development of students’ literacy () and how to develop critical thinking in this context (; ).
To contribute to knowledge about multiliteracy, a concept that encompasses both the
integration of various modes and means of communication, as well as the importance
of the growing linguistic and cultural diversity (; ), this study presents a systematic literature review that examines empirical studies
between 1996-2020 on classroom practices that have incorporated multiliteracy in the
subject of Language. This article focuses specifically on this area of the school
curriculum, since it is supposed to be more prone to integrate new teaching elements
related to different digital media and semiotic modes. However, both at the levels
of the school curriculum and teacher training, this discipline has mainly focused
on the description of grammar, the preservation of norms and the literary canon (; ).
This systematic literature review sought to answer two questions:
(1)
What areas of multiliteracy have been considered in Language teaching in empirical
articles published between 1996 and 2020?
(2)
What lessons have been drawn from the incorporation of multiliteracy in Language teaching
in the reviewed articles?
Towards a definition of multiliteracy
Various theorists have addressed the phenomenon of current literacies, as well as
the new forms used to construct meanings in different social spaces through various
means and semiotic modes to achieve various communicative purposes (; ; ; ). However, the concept of multiliteracy has been specifically used to establish a
pedagogical perspective that addresses these new ways of constructing meanings.
The term multiliteracy was coined by the New London Group in 1996 in response to the changes in the globalized world and the new ways and means
of communication (; O’Rourke, 2005). This concept encompasses two fundamental aspects. On the one hand,
it recognizes the interaction of multiple semiotic modes in the creation of meanings,
and, on the other hand, it highlights the situated character of meanings that circulate
in different contexts. In this sense, local differences are valued in a global context
as a way of promoting the inclusion of cultural diversity (; ; ).
Despite the numerous didactic proposals, it is still not understood why multiliteracy
has not managed to permeate formal learning spaces. As point out, despite declaring the importance of new literacies in education, curricular
reforms and standardized assessments tend to favour command of the verbal language
and comprehension of printed texts. Thus, there is a lack of consistency between what
is declared relevant in curriculum frameworks and what is assessed on standardized
tests (). Although the pedagogy of multiliteracy has been proposed for more than two decades
(), there are still not enough empirical studies on how this conceptual framework can
be translated into an effective pedagogy for classroom teaching, especially in the
area of Language ().
Pedagogy of multiliteracy
Multiliteracy proposes a multisystemic pedagogy that involves the construction of
meaning through situated practices, the integration of different semiotic modes, and
a technology-focused approach (; ). How can you promote multiliteracy with a humanistic perspective in which students
become informed questioners of digital tools? (; ). In this sense, how can the approach be extended beyond the technical domain of
technology and promote a perspective that incorporates critical thinking?
The pedagogy of multiliteracy proposes that knowledge and meanings are historically
and socially situated and constructed (). In this conceptualization, three phases are proposed in the process of meaning
construction: available design, design process, and redesign. Available design refers
to the resources that already exist for the creation of meaning in a particular context;
the design process involves planning and creating new texts to construct meaning by
recontextualizing available designs, experimentation, and thoughtful decision-making;
and redesign is the result of the design considering the resources that have been
produced and transformed (; ).
As proposed by the New London Group, multiliteracy pedagogy is based on a complex integration of four factors: (1) situated
practice involving immersive experiences and construction of meaning based on the
students’ lives by using simulations of public spaces and workplaces to create meaning
in authentic contexts; (2) open teaching that fosters systematic, analytical, and
conscious understanding of meaning-making processes, which promotes the use of explicit
metalanguage in the design; (3) critical frameworks that promote student reflection
to interpret the social and cultural context; and (4) transformation practices for
the modification of existing meanings and the construction of new meanings (; ).
Teachers adopting this approach need to develop a pedagogy that combines traditional
aspects of literacy with multiliteracy competencies, as students will require these
to function in today’s society (). The implementation of a multiliteracy pedagogy requires changes in both teaching
practices and educational systems. In order to explore this topic more profoundly,
this systematic review analyses the empirical findings to characterize the pedagogical
practices focused on multiliteracy and to organize the most frequently used approaches
for further study. The objective is to understand how this pedagogy is empirically
adopted to contribute to future pedagogical practices in language instruction, focusing
on multiple literacies according to the demands of the 21st century.
Method
To carry out this systematic literature review, two consecutive searches were performed
in the Web of Science (WOS) database. The following concepts were used in the first
exploratory search: (TS= multiliteracies) OR (TS= multiliteracy) AND (TS= educati* OR TS=school*). A broad search was chosen starting from the year 1996, as that was the year the
New London Group coined the term. In this initial phase, a total of 182 articles were obtained. For
the selection of articles, the following inclusion criteria were established: (1)
published empirical articles; (2) explicit incorporation of the words multiliteracy or multiliteracies; (3) studies in primary or secondary education; (4) investigations carried out in
the classroom or within the school. Regarding the exclusion criteria, the following
studies were discarded: (1) theoretical reviews; (2) studies in preschool, higher
or adult education; (3) investigations performed outside of the school context; (4)
studies focused on the use of technology; (5) studies related to standardized assessments;
(6) studies of artistic and scientific subjects such as Music, Biology, Chemistry
or Physics; (7) studies not accessible through the databases; (8) early access studies.
A review of titles, abstracts and keywords was performed. As a result, 13 articles
that met the established criteria were selected.
A second search was carried out in order to focus on language instruction. The same
search criteria were maintained and the terms referring to Language as a subject (TS=
language OR TS= language arts) were added. As a result, a total of 95 articles were
found. In addition to the above criteria, the following inclusion criteria were added:
(1) articles with clearly defined sections; (2) in Language subjects; (3) focused
on students and/or teachers. Excluded were (1) research involving trainee teachers
and teacher perceptions; (2) articles already included in the exploratory search.
After applying these criteria, 13 new articles were selected from the 95 obtained.
In total, 26 publications written in English were examined. The articles were analysed
inductively through a detailed reading, paying attention to the incorporation of multiliteracy
in pedagogical practices. For this, categories of analysis related to different elements
of multiliteracy in the various pedagogical experiences considered were established
to identify the relationships between these elements and the findings reported in
the studies. These categories emerged from the approaches or perspectives adopted
by studies to address the concept of multiliteracy. Thus, the articles were classified
considering the following categories: (1) multimodal genres; (2) pedagogy of multiliteracy;
and (3) recognition of diversity.
Results
Of the 26 selected articles, 73% (19) were published in or after 2015 and were concentrated
in English-speaking countries such as the United States (9), Australia (4) or Canada
(3), and in multilingual countries such as Singapore (3).
Multimodal genres in language teaching
Most of the reviewed studies (69%) focused on the analysis of multimodal genres for
teaching in the subject of Language. The multimodal genre is understood as a situated
communication practice that integrates more than one semiotic mode (verbal, visual,
gestural, among others) for the construction of meanings (). Within this category, a distinction was made between studies focused on multimodal
genres of production and interpretation.
Regarding multimodal production practices, 15 of the 26 articles reviewed (table 1) incorporated the use of different semiotic modes for the creation of meanings. The
results pertaining to multimodal production mainly revealed changes in the environment
and the interaction dynamics of classroom learning (; ; ; ; ; ). observed that the incorporation of multimodal digital practices generated an ideological
conflict between a traditional class structure and the inclusion of multimodal modes
of learning, which was reflected in a readjustment of roles, with a greater emphasis
on horizontal collaboration and leadership changes. Similar findings were noted by
, who observed that by allowing student experimentation and decision-making in multimodal
writing, changes in power dynamics and a greater capacity for agency on the part of
the students were generated in contrast to traditional practices, where the teacher
leads the pedagogical acts.
On the other hand, the findings of studies focused on the interpretation of multimodal
genres offer evidence on the use of semiotic resources for the development of critical
thinking and the response of students to their sociocultural context (; ; ). concluded that picture books turn out to be effective artifacts to promote both cognitive
and sociocultural literacy, although no further details were provided to support this
claim. For his part, highlighted that students interpret the videos based on their knowledge of the world
and their understanding of reality, which means that the interpretations of multimodal
genres depend on the culture and society in which they are immersed.
Pedagogy of multiliteracy
The articles classified in this category used the multiliteracy pedagogy framework
for two purposes: as a guiding axis for the implementation of classroom practices
(; ; ; Tan & Guo, 2014) and as a framework of analysis for the experiences developed ().
In relation to studies that used the pedagogy framework as a guiding axis in classroom
practices, Tan and Guo (2014) incorporated multiliteracy pedagogies into the Language
curriculum with adolescent students. This research highlighted the importance of including
students’ vernacular literacy practices in the classroom and highlights the fundamental
role of the teacher as a key agent for innovation and achieving sustainable change
in the classroom. On the other hand, the case study carried out by showed how a teacher intentionally implemented different aspects of the multiliteracy
pedagogy with her students of English as a second language. Through the creation of
digital compositions, a transformative learning experience in which a reflective critique
of the contents that made up the projects was conducted. In both articles, the researcher’s
voice reconstructed the study experience by creating narratives based on their observations.
The study by incorporated the pedagogy of multiliteracy as a guiding axis in classroom practices
through a computer-assisted program for teaching English as a foreign language. Although
the article focused mainly on describing the intervention in detail rather than the
learning outcomes, the authors highlighted that by using a multiliteracy pedagogy,
students were able to increase and deepen their understanding of culture beyond theoretical
knowledge. On the other hand, the study by focused on the analysis of the pedagogical challenges faced by Korean teachers and
students in the subject of English as a foreign language. The results point to pedagogical,
social, and cultural challenges, including the high costs of implementing intercultural
experiences, as well as inequities in students’ cultural capital and unequal formation
of their linguistic identities.
Regarding the pedagogy of multiliteracy as a framework of analysis, the study by examined the pedagogical implementation of an English didactic unit with eighth grade
students. Although the learning outcomes were not described in the study, the analysis
of the pedagogical experience highlighted benefits such as the authentic and situated
use of digital tools, the promotion of autonomous learning, the transfer of decision-making
to students and the development of critical analysis in various learning contexts.
In summary, several studies in this category (; ; ; Tan & Guo, 2014; ) adopted a testimonial approach in which researchers constructed findings from detailed
descriptions of observed experiences () and did not prioritize the analysis of learning outcomes using quantitative approaches.
Recognition of diversity
Another key aspect of the concept of multiliteracy that emerged from the analysis
of the articles is the recognition and visibility of minorities. In this category,
a multiliteracy approach that embraces local differences as a way of promoting the
inclusion of cultural diversity prevails (; ). Thus, the articles included in this section are divided into cultural minorities
and minorities from vulnerable contexts.
Articles related to cultural minorities focused mainly on migrant students (; ; ; ) and intercultural populations (). Studies on migrant students often addressed issues of identity and language use
in bilingual contexts. reported on the experience of a personal journal for migrant students to share their
stories through comics. This project fostered the development of identity, promoted
multiculturalism, and built spaces of trust among adolescents.
For their part, the case studies with migrant minorities delved into the development
of communication skills for social adaptation in different contexts. investigated the changes in the language and literacy practices of an adolescent
during her transnational experience between two countries. The findings revealed that
the student experienced changes in her multiliteracy practices and in the use of interconnected
languages, which facilitated her understanding and allowed her to function in a transnational
life. observed two bilingual migrant Mexican students to learn about their research skills
and how these impacted their writing process in the English subject. The results revealed
that the linguistic minorities possessed research skills and wrote using academic
English, with uses that differed from monolingual students. However, these abilities
tended to be imperceptible to their teachers, revealing the existence of hidden literacy.
Another study focused on intercultural contexts, with a focus on cultural minorities,
investigated the behaviour of teachers in an intervention that promoted multiliteracy
and intercultural citizenship. The results showed that the understanding of the native
language and multiliteracy did not receive the required support from teachers to promote
literacy development and academic success. However, the project succeeded in strengthening
awareness of cultural and linguistic diversity in schools ().
On the other hand, other multiliteracy studies focused on minorities from academically
vulnerable contexts, such as students with low academic performance (; ) or from low income backgrounds (). emphasized the significance of recognizing the creative potential in the multimodal
design of persuasive texts for high school students. The results highlight the positions
of the authors and the rhetorical force of their multimodal creations, which suggests
that the adoption of multimodal tasks could generate a drastic change in classroom
dynamics and the students’ knowledge, identity, and actions, compared to more traditional
forms of the text. On the other hand, the study carried out by showed that when evaluating different news sources, students questioned the media’s
narrative and the evidence presented, and finally built their own narrative from knowledge
of the news event. These studies adopted a multiliteracy pedagogy and observed classroom
dynamics that differed from traditional ones, as academically marginalized students
were able to engage in learning, develop their voice, and assume a more active role.
Regarding the studies with low-income students that incorporated multiliteracy practices,
analysed the construction of students’ knowledge through multimodal texts and the
integration of information and communication technologies (ICT) with authentic purposes.
The results highlight a greater participation and involvement of students in the learning
process, as well as the development of new literacy practices. In addition, the students
recognized the school as a space of significant belonging.
In summary, the findings indicate that the integration of multiliteracy in pedagogical
practices aimed at socially or culturally marginalized groups, or those in a vulnerable
situation, favours greater student commitment to the learning process.
Table 1.Summary of articles by category of analysis
Categories
Subcategories
Multimodal generes
Production
Interpretation
Pedagogy of multiliteracy
Guiding axis
Tan & Guo, 2014
Analysis of the experience
Diversity recognition
Cultural minoritiesMigrant studentsIntercultural populations
Minorities from vulnerable contextsAcademicallyLow-income
Discussion and conclusions
This systematic literature review sought to contribute to the construction of a comprehensive
vision regarding classroom experiences that have incorporated multiliteracy in Language
subjects in primary and secondary education. Most of the studies on multiliteracy
in Language subjects carried out between 1996-2020 were concentrated in the second
part of the 2010s (16 articles) and were carried out in countries where English is
the official language (19 articles). This could indicate that the study of multiliteracy
is a relatively new area of interest, particularly in English-speaking countries.
After analysing the 26 articles, three thematic areas were identified: multimodal
genres, pedagogy of multiliteracy and diversity recognition. These areas represent
the perspectives from which the articles approached the concept of multiliteracy in
their research. The lessons extracted from the articles regarding the incorporation
of multiliteracy in Language teaching include changes in the classroom environment
and dynamics (; ; ; ; ; ), a greater understanding of other cultures and the conceptualization of writing
focused on collaborative and multimodal practices (), as well as the promotion of identity and multiculturalism ().
Based on the characteristics of the 26 articles included, it can be seen that the
inclusion of multiliteracy in the classroom generates positive changes in classroom
dynamics and student roles (; ; ; ; ; ), which translates into more participatory classrooms, changes in leadership and
increased horizontal collaboration among the participants. This influences the disposition
of students towards learning, which is manifested in attitudes of greater commitment
and agency. Therefore, it can be empirically concluded that a teaching approach based
on multiliteracy differs from traditional education, where students have little room
for decision-making in aspects such as study methods, topics to be addressed and classroom
dynamics during literacy tasks. In this way, pedagogical practices that include multimodal
production and interpretation could allow development in two areas: on the one hand,
in the initiation and adoption of other semiotic modes to communicate and, on the
other hand, changes toward a more democratic and dialogic classroom environment.
Despite the aforementioned strengths, the implementation of a multiliteracy pedagogy
also presents challenges related to the availability of resources and the paradigm
shift by teachers towards a more dialogic education that focuses on the needs and
interests of students and meets the demands of the 21st century. Although only the
study by mentions the high costs of implementing intercultural experiences in the classroom,
it is evident that the inclusion of new educational perspectives will require the
use of technological tools that facilitate the teaching and learning processes.
The most relevant challenge is likely the paradigm shift for Language teachers. A
multiliteracy pedagogy implies a broad vision of communication, which translates into
multimodal practices, as well as the recognition of inclusive and diverse literacies
(; ). As reported by Tan and Guo (2014), the incorporation of multiliteracy practices
in the classroom requires teachers be willing to adopt lasting changes in their practices,
as well as to appropriate the theory to exercise a practice consistent with this perspective
(). Therefore, putting these themes into practice and appropriating them implies a
higher level of teaching competence, although the concept of multiliteracy encompasses
areas such as minorities and their different linguistic identities, multimodal communication,
and cultural and linguistic diversities in intercultural spaces.
Among the articles analyzed, qualitative approaches with detailed descriptions of
the experiences predominate (; ; ; ; ; ; Tan & Guo, 2014). Indeed, experiences prevail in classroom interventions, where
the voice of the authors narrates the events, which refers to as “testimonial articles.” Therefore, future research could expand and
diversify the production and analysis methodologies used, incorporating quantitative
and mixed designs to understand the relationship between experiences and learning
outcomes. The results obtained from the systematic literature review highlight how
multiliteracy pedagogical practices facilitate the inclusion of other semiotic modes,
beyond verbal language, to promote communication in authentic and local contexts,
and generate transformations towards more democratic, dialogical, and inclusive classroom
dynamics.
References
1
Abdullah, A. G., Adriany, V., & Abdullah, C. U. (2020). Borderless education as a challenge in the 5.0 society: Proceedings of the 3rd International
Conference on Educational Sciences (ICES 2019), November 7, 2019, Bandung, Indonesia. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003107279
2
Ajayi, L. (2011). A multiliteracies pedagogy: Exploring semiotic possibilities of
a Disney video in a third grade diverse classroom. Urban Review, 43(3), 396-413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-010-0151-0
3
Allison, E., & Goldston, M. J. (2018). Modern scientific literacy: A case study of
multiliteracies and scientific practices in a fifth grade classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(3), 270–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9723-z
4
Anderson, K. T., Stewart, O. G., & Kachorsky, D. (2017). Seeing academically marginalized
students’ multimodal designs from a position of strength. Written Communication, 34(2), 104–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088317699897
Beach, R. (2012). Uses of digital tools and literacies in the English language arts
classroom. Research in the Schools, 19(1).
7
Beetham, H., McGill, L., & Littlejohn, A. (2009). Thriving in the 21st century: Report of the learning literacies in a digital age project. JISC.
8
Burke, A., & Hardware, S. (2015). Honouring ESL students’ lived experiences in school
learning with multiliteracies pedagogy. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(2), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2015.1027214
9
Burnett, C., & Merchant, G. (2013). Learning, literacies and new technologies: the current context and future possibilities (2nd edition). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446247518.n32
10
Burnett, C., & Merchant, G. (2015). The challenge of 21st‐century literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(3), 271–274. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.482
11
Callow, J. (2006). Images, politics and multiliteracies: Using a visual metalanguage.
Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 29(1), 7–23.
12
Castellví, J. (2020). Leer, interpretar y actuar en un mundo digital: Literacidad crítica digital en educación
primaria, 19, 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1344/ECCSS2020.19.3
13
Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. J. (Ed.). (2008). Handbook of research on new literacies. Routledge.
14
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and design of social futures (B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (eds.)). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203979402
15
Cordero, K., Nussbaum, M., Ibaseta, V., Oteíza, M. J., & Chiuminatto, P. (2018). Read,
write, touch: Co-construction and multiliteracies in a third-grade digital writing
exercise. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(2), 162–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12224
16
Damasceno, C. S. (2021). Multiliteracies for combating information disorder and fostering
civic dialogue. In Social Media and Society, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120984444
17
Danzak, R. L. (2011). Defining identities through multiliteracies: El teens narrate
their immigration experiences as graphic stories. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 55(3), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.00024
18
Faulkner, J. (2003). Book Review: Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum:
changing contexts text and image in classroom practice. Australian Journal of Education, 47(3), 303–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/000494410304700308
19
Gainer, J. (2012). Critical thinking: Foundational for digital literacies and democracy.
Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 56(1), 14–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.00096
20
García-Martín, J., Merchant, G., & García-Sánchez, J.-N. (2016). Preparing to teach
21st century literacies. Building Bridges, 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-491-6_4
Goggin, M. D. (1994). The shaping of a discipline: An historical study of the authorizing role of professional
journals in rhetoric and composition, 1950-1990. Carnegie Mellon University.
Gregori-Signes, C. (2014). Digital storytelling and multimodal literacy in education.
Porta Linguarum, 22, 237–250. https//doi.org/10.30827/digibug.53745
26
Guo, L., Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). Multiliteracies: Introduction to the Special
Issue. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3), 159–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/15544800903075939
27
Howell, E., Butler, T., & Reinking, D. (2017). Integrating multimodal arguments into
high school writing instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 49(2), 181–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X17700456
Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., & Zapata, G. C. (2020). Las alfabetizaciones múltiples: Teoría y práctica. Ediciones Octaedro.
30
Kesler, T., Tinio, P. P., & Nolan, B. T. (2016). What’s our position? A critical media
literacy study of popular culture websites with eighth-grade special education students.
Reading and Writing Quarterly, 32(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2013.857976
Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2014). Studying new literacies. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 58(2), 97–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.314
33
Kohnen, A. M., & Lacy, A. (2018). “They don’t see us otherwise”: A discourse analysis
of marginalized students critiquing the local news. Linguistics and Education, 46, 102–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2018.07.002
34
Krulatz, A., Steen-Olsen, T., & Torgersen, E. (2018). Towards critical cultural and
linguistic awareness in language classrooms in Norway: Fostering respect for diversity
through identity texts. Language Teaching Research, 22(5), 552–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817718572
35
Lee, K. (2018). Implementing computer-mediated intercultural communication in English
education: A critical reflection on its pedagogical challenges. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(6), 673–687. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12275
36
Lee, K, Ardeshiri, M., & Cummins, J. (2016). A computer-assisted multiliteracies programme
as an alternative approach to EFL instruction. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(5), 595–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2015.1118403
37
Martínez-Bahena, E., Campos-Perez, A., & Escamilla-Regis, D. (2019). Industry 4.0 and the digital transformation... A new challenge for higher education.
ECORFAN Journal-Republic of Paraguay, 5(9), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.35429/EJROP.2019.9.5.13.19
Mills, K. A., & Exley, B. (2014). Time, space, and text in the elementary school digital
writing classroom. Written Communication, 31(4), 434–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088314542757
Monfort, S., & Hurtado, M. (2013, July 1-6). Los códigos lingüísticos de las nuevas tecnologías [Paper presentation]. En X Jornadas de Sociología. Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad de Buenos Aires,
Argentina.
42
Ntelioglou, B. Y., Fannin, J., Montanera, M., & Cummins, J. (2014). A multilingual
and multimodal approach to literacy teaching and learning in urban education: A collaborative
inquiry project in an inner city elementary school. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00533
43
O’Brien, D., & Scharber, C. (2008). Digital literacies go to school: Potholes and
possibilities. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(1), 66–68. https://doi.org/10.1598/jaal.52.1.7
44
O’Halloran, K. L., Tan, S., & E, M. K. L. (2017). Multimodal analysis for critical
thinking. Learning, Media and Technology, 42(2), 147–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2016.1101003
Pérez, A. (2012). Educarse en la era digital. Ediciones Morata.
47
Reyes-Torres, A., & Raga, M. (2020). A Multimodal approach to foster the multiliteracies
pedagogy in the teaching of EFL through picturebooks: The Snow Lion. Atlantis. Journal of the Spanish Association for Anglo-American Studies, 42(1), 94–119. https://doi.org/10.28914/Atlantis-2020-42.1.06
48
Seglem, R., & Garcia, A. (2018). Changing literacies and civic pathways: Multiliteracies
in inquiry-driven classrooms. Theory into Practice, 57(1), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2017.1390335
49
Selber, S. (2004). Multiliteracies for a digital age. SIU Press.
50
Silverblatt, A. (2018). Media literacy and critical thinking. International Journal of Media and Information Literacy, 3(2), 66–71. https://doi.org/10.13187/ijmil.2018.2.66
51
Skerrett, A. (2012). Languages and literacies in yranslocation: Experiences and perspectives
of a transnational youth. Journal of Literacy Research, 44(4), 364–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296x12459511
52
Smith, B. E. (2016). Composing across modes: a comparative analysis of adolescents’
multimodal composing processes. Learning, Media and Technology, 42(3), 259–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2016.1182924
53
Sofkova Hashemi, S. (2017). Socio-semiotic patterns in digital meaning-making: semiotic
choice as indicator of communicative experience. Language and Education, 31(5), 432–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2017.1305396
54
Sotomayor, C., Parodi, G., Coloma, C., Ibáñez, R., & Cavada, P. (2011). La formación
inicial de docentes de Educación General Básica en Chile ¿Qué se espera que aprendan
los futuros profesores en el área de Lenguaje y Comunicación? Pensamiento Educativo: Revista de Investigación Educacional Latinoamericana, 48(1), 28–42. https://doi.org/10.7764/pel.48.1.2011.3
55
Stromquist, N. P. (2017). Las pruebas estandarizadas y la promesa del progreso académico
Key words. Revista de la Asociación de Sociología de la Educación (RASE), 102, 115–127. https://doi.org/10.7203/RASE.10.2.10058
56
Tan, L., & Guo, L. (2013). Multiliteracies in an outcome-driven curriculum: Where
is its fit? Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 23(1), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0082-0
57
Thibaut, P., & Curwood, J. S. (2017). Multiliteracies in practice: Integrating multimodal
production across the curriculum. Theory into Practice, 57(1), 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2017.1392202
58
Toohey, K., Dagenais, D., Fodor, A., Hof, L., Nuñez, O., Singh, A., & Schulze, L.
(2015). That sounds so cooool: Entanglements of children, digital tools, and literacy
practices. TESOL Quarterly, 49(3), 461–485. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.236
59
Towndrow, P. A., Nelson, M. E., & Yusuf, W. F. B. M. (2013). Squaring literacy assessment
with multimodal design: An analytic case for semiotic awareness. Journal of Literacy Research, 45(4), 327–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X13504155
60
Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum. Buckingham: Open University Press.
61
Unsworth, L. (2002). Changing dimensions of school literacies. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 6(1), 62–77.
62
Unsworth, L. (2014). Multiliteracies and metalanguage: Describing image/text relations
as a resource for negotiating multimodal texts. Handbook of Research on New Literacies. 377–406. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410618894
63
Vandommele, G., Van den Branden, K., Van Gorp, K., & De Maeyer, S. (2017). In-school
and out-of-school multimodal writing as an L2 writing resource for beginner learners
of Dutch. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.05.010
64
Vera, O. G., & Palma, O. A. V. (2008). Crisis y temporalidad en la formacion inicial
de profesores de lenguaje y comunicacion. Estudios Pedagogicos, 34(2), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-07052008000200005
65
Villalva, K. E. (2006). Hidden literacies and Inquiry Approaches of Bilingual High
School Writers. Written Communication, 23(2), 91–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883052839
66
Yelland, N. J. (2018). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Young children and multimodal
learning with tablets. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(5), 847–858. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12635
67
Yi, Y., Shin, D., & Cimasko, T. (2019). Multimodal literacies in teaching and learning
English in and outside of school. The Handbook of TESOL in K-12, 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119421702.ch11
68
Zammit, K. P. (2011). Connecting multiliteracies and engagement of students from low
socio-economic backgrounds: Using Bernstein’s pedagogic discourse as a bridge. Language and Education, 25(3), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2011.560945
