Visual and multimodal literacies in secondary education in Spain: voices from English language teachers
-
Victoria Pascual Bolívar
Abstract
In 2022, Spain’s educational reform introduced the term “multimodal texts” into the Secondary Education curriculum for foreign languages. To examine the relationship between current teaching practices and this new curriculum, this study explores the knowledge, practices, and beliefs of secondary English teachers regarding the use of visual and multimodal texts in the English classroom. A total of 36 EFL teachers in Spain participated anonymously in this study by completing a validated questionnaire consisting of 63 items. The findings reveal teachers’ positive perspectives on visual education and multimodal literacy, alongside the challenges they encounter. While teachers report a substantial understanding of visual and multimodal literacies, key difficulties emerged, particularly in the use of metalanguage and multimodal assessment, confirming the findings of previous studies. This study seeks to address a gap in the literature, as empirical research on Spanish secondary EFL teachers’ beliefs concerning visual and multimodal literacies remains limited. Ultimately, the goal is to support the succesful implementation of visual and multimodal literacies by providing valuable insights for policymakers and teacher educators. Additionally, these findings have broader implications for other educational systems aiming to integrate multimodal and visual literacies into their curricula.
Acknowledgments
This research has been carried out as part of the RACISMMAFF research project funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (MCIN) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). Award Number: PID2021-125327NB-I00. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the two anonymous reviewers for their careful and constructive feedback on the initial version of this article. Their insightful suggestions greatly contributed to its development and refinement.
Appendix 1. Section I: teacher knowledge about visual & multimodal literacies
| Item | Strongly disagree | Disagree | Agree | Strongly agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
A. What I know.
1. I am familiar with the notion of multimodal literacy in teaching English as a foreign language. |
5.6 % | 22.2 % | 38.9 % | 33.3 % |
| 2. I am familiar with the notion of visual literacy in teaching English as a foreign language. | 5.6 % | 25.0 % | 38.9 % | 30.6 % |
| 3. I am familiar with the different semiotic modes of communication. | 5.6 % | 27.8 % | 41.7 % | 25.0 % |
| 4. I know how to analyze images and visual texts multimodally. | 8.3 % | 27.8 % | 27.8 % | 36.1 % |
| 5. I am familiar with the concepts of viewing and representing for meaning making. | 2.8 % | 22.2 % | 41.7 % | 33.3 % |
| 6. I can use visual thinking and visual learning strategies in the classroom. | 0.0 % | 25.0 % | 33.3 % | 41.7 % |
| 8. I know how to assess multimodal texts. | 2.8 % | 38.9 % | 30.6 % | 27.8 % |
|
B. How I learned.
9. I have learned about multimodal and visual literacy through formal education in graduate or postgraduate courses. |
11.1 % | 47.2 % | 25.0 % | 16.7 % |
| 10. I have learned about multimodal and visual literacy through non-formal education in MOOCS, seminars, and professional training courses. | 30.6 % | 36.1 % | 25.0 % | 8.3 % |
| 11. I have learned about multimodal and visual literacy informally through others. | 27.8 % | 19.4 % | 38.9 % | 13.9 % |
| 12. I have learned about multimodal and visual literacy informally through my own study. | 8.3 % | 25.0 % | 41.7 % | 25.0 % |
|
C. Knowledge about the curriculum.
13. Multimodality is incorporated to the national English curriculum for secondary education in Spain. |
2.8 % | 41.7 % | 41.7 % | 13.9 % |
| 14. Multimodality is incorporated to the national English curriculum as a cross-curricular competence for secondary education in Spain. | 2.8 % | 41.7 % | 44.4 % | 11.1 % |
| 15. Visual literacy is incorporated to the national English curriculum for secondary education in Spain. | 5.6 % | 58.3 % | 27.8 % | 8.3 % |
| 16. Visual literacy should be incorporated to the national English curriculum as a cross-curricular competence for secondary education in Spain. | 8.3 % | 16.7 % | 41.7 % | 33.3 % |
| 17. The reception and production of multimodal texts is incorporated to the national English curriculum for secondary education in Spain. | 5.6 % | 41.7 % | 47.2 % | 5.6 % |
Appendix 2. Section I: teachers’ responses to item 7
7. If the answer to the previous question is affirmative, please mention some examples.
| Respondent | Statement |
|---|---|
| T1 | Mind maps and infographics |
| T2 | Picture analysis, video production |
| T3 | Protypicallity, digital-based visual thinking, common ground standing visuals |
| T6 | Mindmaps, matching images and words |
| T8 | I use these strategies with interdisciplinary lessons and projects to summarize contents |
| T13 | Creating a mind-map, making references with pictures. |
| T14 | Time lines to explain some grammar aspects. |
| T16 | Mind maps |
| T18 | A comic, the making of a short film, an infograph |
| T20 | Mindmaps, videos (with and without captions), posters (on the walls of the classroom), jeopardy games online, board games. |
| T22 | Drawing a timeline on the board and setting different actions accross it to explain different verb tenses |
| T23 | Handling material to prepare cambridge speaking paper, but with smaller groups |
| T24 | On line exercises on the board or using their computers |
| T25 | Flashcards, graphs, charts |
| T27 | Brainstorming, creating mindmaps, using different colours and colour codes when summarizing… |
| T28 | Tools for formative assessment and active and interactive methodology: Padlet, socrative. Vertical learning (neuroeducation) |
| T31 | Asking students to imagine solutions to certain problems. Also using diagrams in teaching, colours too, and so on. |
| T33 | Using slide presentations, drawing activities, label the picture activities |
| T34 | One of the ways I implement visual learning is through the development of mind maps and conceptual maps of the different topics worked in class, this is especially useful when going through complex topics as Shakespeare’s life and work, or addressing English literature in class. With younger students, to work on their creativity and writing skills, we employ pictures for descriptive writing; students generate short stories or reviews based on details in the photos. One last activity we follow in many of the year groups is to employ graphic organizers for vocabulary building, which helps student visualize the entire unit vocabulary. |
| T35 | Using headings and small images to either anticipate the contents of a text or to remind one of the contents of a text (for revision purposes). |
Appendix 3. Section II: teacher visual & multimodal practices
| Item | Strongly disagree | Disagree | Agree | Strongly agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
A. What I teach.
1. I teach multimodal texts in the English classroom. |
5.6 % | 25.0 % | 50.0 % | 19.4 % |
| 2. I encourage students to use visuals – power point, graphic organizers, charts, graphs – in their work. | 0.0 % | 8.3 % | 27.8 % | 63.9 % |
| 3. I teach my students to present their ideas in ways other than formal essays – PowerPoint presentations, websites, visuals with explanation, videos, or other similar media. | 0.0 % | 16.7 % | 27.8 % | 55.6 % |
| 4. I teach students to locate or create visuals to enhance the message of their written texts. | 0.0 % | 13.9 % | 47.2 % | 38.9 % |
| 5. I teach my students to interpret and/or analyze visual images. | 0.0 % | 13.9 % | 61.1 % | 25.0 % |
| 6. I teach students about elements of visual and multimodal text design. | 2.8 % | 22.2 % | 50.0 % | 25.0 % |
| 7 I teach students visual multimodal metalanguage. B. How I teach. |
2.8 % | 50.0 % | 38.9 % | 8.3 % |
| 8. I do my best to foster students’ visual/multimodal literacy skills through visual/multimodal activities, materials, and assignments. | 2.8 % | 19.4 % | 52.8 % | 25.0 % |
| 9. I do my best to foster students’ visual/multimodal literacy skills through spontaneous discussions. | 0.0 % | 19.4 % | 44.4 % | 36.1 % |
| 10. I do my best to foster students’ visual/multimodal literacy skills through lectures and explanations. | 2.8 % | 27.8 % | 50.0 % | 19.4 % |
| 11. I do my best to foster students’ visual/multimodal literacy skills through media, computers, and the internet. C. How I assess. |
0.0 % | 19.4 % | 41.7 % | 38.9 % |
| 12. I use different methods to assess students’ visual literacy competences and the production of multimodal texts. | 2.8 % | 27.8 % | 44.4 % | 25.0 % |
| 13. I use rubrics to assess students’ visual literacy competences and the production of multimodal texts. | 8.3 % | 27.8 % | 33.3 % | 30.6 % |
| 14. I use formative assessment to assess students’ visual literacy competences and the production of multimodal texts. | 5.6 % | 33.3 % | 36.1 % | 25.0 % |
| 15. I use summative assessment to assess students’ visual literacy competences and the production of multimodal texts. | 2.8 % | 33.3 % | 44.4 % | 19.4 % |
| 16. I use students’ self-assessment to reflect on their visual literacy competences and the production of multimodal texts. | 5.6 % | 33.3 % | 41.7 % | 19.4 % |
Appendix 4. Section III: teachers’ beliefs on visual and multimodal literacies
| Survey | Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither agree nor disagree | Agree | Strongly agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
A. Beliefs about VL
1. Visual literacy gives English teachers different pedagogical options in their teaching. |
0.0 % | 0.0 % | 13.9 % | 27.8 % | 58.3 % |
| 2. Visual literacy instruction should receive as much time as instruction in traditional literacy. | 0.0 % | 0.0 % | 19.4 % | 44.4 % | 36.1 % |
| 3. Viewing should be considered a receptive skill together with reading and listening. | 0.0 % | 2.8 % | 22.2 % | 33.3 % | 41.7 % |
| 4. Producing visual materials should be considered a production skill together with writing and speaking. | 0.0 % | 2.8 % | 25.0 % | 33.3 % | 38.9 % |
| 5. Visual literacy facilitates the process of language learning. | 0.0 % | 2.8 % | 8.3 % | 33.3 % | 61.1 % |
| 6. Visual literacy can be used to develop and learn different language skills. | 0.0 % | 0.0 % | 5.6 % | 27.8 % | 66.7 % |
| 7. Visual literacy pursues the development of integrated skills in the English classroom. | 0.0 % | 2.8 % | 5.6 % | 38.9 % | 52.8 % |
| 8. Visual literacy can be used to help students decode a text in a story. | 0.0 % | 0.0 % | 2.8 % | 30.6 % | 66.7 % |
| 9. Visual literacy promotes learners’ interests, confidence, and motivation. | 0.0 % | 2.8 % | 0.0 % | 41.7 % | 55.6 % |
| 10. Visual literacy promotes critical thinking. | 0.0 % | 5.6 % | 5.6 % | 30.6 % | 58.3 % |
| 11. Visual literacy promotes socio emotional learning. | 0.0 % | 2.8 % | 11.1 % | 33.3 % | 52.8 % |
| 12. Visual literacy should be included in the secondary education curriculum for English. B. Challenges teaching VL and MM |
0.0 % | 0.0 % | 13.9 % | 44.4 % | 41.7 % |
| 13. Teachers do not teach visual/multimodal literacy concepts because of lack of proper training. | 0.0 % | 11.1 % | 25.0 % | 36.1 % | 27.8 % |
| 14. Teachers do not teach visual/multimodal literacy concepts because of the difficulties of assessment. | 0.0 % | 16.7 % | 25.0 % | 44.4 % | 27.8 % |
| 15. Teachers do not teach visual/multimodal literacy concepts because it is energy and time consuming. | 0.0 % | 19.4 % | 22.2 % | 38.9 % | 13.9 % |
| 16. Teachers do not teach visual/multimodal literacy concepts because of lack of time. | 0.0 % | 13.9 % | 13.9 % | 47.2 % | 25.0 % |
| 17. Teachers do not teach visual/multimodal literacy concepts because of lack of materials and equipment. | 0.0 % | 11.1 % | 30.6 % | 36.1 % | 22.2 % |
| 18. Teachers do not teach visual/multimodal literacy concepts because it does not make sense with the actual assessment system based on print paper. | 8.3 % | 11.1 % | 27.8 % | 41.7 % | 11.1 % |
| 19. I would teach visual/multimodal literacy concepts if I had the training. | 0.0 % | 0.0 % | 25.0 % | 47.2 % | 27.8 % |
| 20. I would teach visual/multimodal literacy concepts if I had enough time. | 0.0 % | 0.0 % | 25.0 % | 41.7 % | 33.3 % |
| 21. I would teach visual/multimodal literacy concepts if I had necessary materials and equipment. | 0.0 % | 0.0 % | 19.4 % | 41.7 % | 38.9 % |
| 22. I would like to take a training course in visual/multimodal literacy. | 0.0 % | 0.0 % | 25.0 % | 38.9 % | 36.1 % |
|
C. General beliefs about VL instruction
23. Teachers should be encouraged to teach visual literacy. |
0.0 % | 2.8 % | 22.2 % | 47.2 % | 27.8 % |
| 24. Teachers should use visual materials in their instruction. | 0.0 % | 0.0 % | 8.3 % | 38.9 % | 52.8 % |
| 25. Teachers should teach students how to interpret/understand visual materials. | 0.0 % | 0.0 % | 8.3 % | 50.0 % | 41.7 % |
| 26. Teachers should teach students how to present/produce visual materials. | 0.0 % | 0.0 % | 5.6 % | 52.8 % | 41.7 % |
| 27. Teachers should teach visual literacy metalanguage in secondary English classrooms. | 0.0 % | 0.0 % | 27.8 % | 44.4 % | 27.8 % |
| 28. Teachers should be trained in visual literacy and multimodality. | 0.0 % | 0.0 % | 13.9 % | 36.1 % | 50.0 % |
References
Alabau, Rivas E. 2018. The development of a multiliteracy-based approach in language learning: engaging students in aesthetic reading. Anuario de Investigación en Literatura Infantil y Juvenil 16. 9–24.Suche in Google Scholar
Aliagas-Marin, C., et al.. 2024. Digital fiction in literary education: What do secondary school teachers think about this multimodal artform as a pedagogical resource? L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature 24(3). 1–27. https://doi.org/10.21248/l1esll.2024.24.3.594.Suche in Google Scholar
Association of College and Research Libraries. 2022. ACRL Framework for Visual Literacy in Higher Education, a Companion Document to the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. American Library Association. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.18772.88960.Suche in Google Scholar
Avgerinou, M. 2009. Re-viewing visual literacy in the “Bain d’Images” era. TechTrends 53(2). 28–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-009-0264-z.Suche in Google Scholar
Avgerinou, M. & R. Pettersson. 2011. Toward a cohesive theory of visual literacy. Journal of Visual Literacy 30. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/23796529.2011.11674687.Suche in Google Scholar
Bamford, A. 2003. The visual literacy white paper. Uxbridge: Commissioned by Adobe Systems Pty Ltd.Suche in Google Scholar
Bobkina, J., E. Domínguez Romero & S. Sastre-Merino. 2021. Literature and language education: Exploring teachers’ views on teaching foreign language through literature in bilingual secondary schools in Madrid (Spain). AILA Review 34(2). 145–186.10.1075/aila.21003.bobSuche in Google Scholar
Borg, M. 2001. Key concepts in ELT. Teachers’ beliefs. ELT Journal 55. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/55.2.186.Suche in Google Scholar
Borg, S. 2003. Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and Do. Language Teaching 36(2). 81–109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444803001903.Suche in Google Scholar
Borg, S. 2006. Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Suche in Google Scholar
Brown, Cecilie Waallann. 2021. Taking action through redesign: Norwegian EFL learners engaging in critical visual literacy practices. Journal of Visual Literacy 41(2). 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/1051144X.2021.1994732.Suche in Google Scholar
Cope, B. & M. Kalantzis. 2009. Multiliteracies: New literacies, new learning, pedagogies. International Journal 4. 164–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/15544800903076044.Suche in Google Scholar
Council of Europe. 2001. Common European framework of reference for languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Council of Europe. 2020. Common european framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Available at: www.coe.int/lang-cefr.Suche in Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W. 2019. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Suche in Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W. & J. D. Creswell. 2017. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles: Sage publications.Suche in Google Scholar
Datnow, A. & M. Castellano. 2000. Teachers’ responses to success for all: How beliefs, experiences, and adaptations shape implementation. American Educational Research Journal - AMER EDUC RES 37. 775–799. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037003775.Suche in Google Scholar
Domínguez Romero, E. & J. Bobkina. 2023a. Art and technology for listening comprehension: A multimodal framework for classroom implementation of self-created videos. In Rethinking multimodal literacy in theory and practice: Berlin: Peter Lang, 141–162.10.3726/b20792Suche in Google Scholar
Domínguez Romero, E. & J. Bobkina. 2023b. Including diversity through cinema-based affective literacy practices: A case study with EFL/ESL pre-service teachers. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 17(4). 859–871. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2023.2168007.Suche in Google Scholar
Goodwin, M. 2019. 11. An analysis of the success of the ‘Cultural Topic’ at A level through the study of Spanish film directors. In C. Herrero & I. Vanderschelden (eds.), Using film and media in the language classroom: Reflections on research-led teaching, 157–169. Bristol: Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781788924498-014Suche in Google Scholar
Hung, Hsiu-Ting, Yi-Ching Chiu & Hui-Chin Yeh. 2013. Multimodal assessment of and for learning: A theory-driven design rubric. British Journal of Educational Technology 44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01337.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Jewitt, C. 2006. Technology, literacy and learning: A multimodal approach. London: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar
Jewitt, C. 2009. An introduction to multimodality. The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis, 14–27. London: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar
Jewitt, C. & G. Kress. 2003. Multimodal literacy. Peter Lang Publishing.Suche in Google Scholar
Kędra, J. & R. Žakevičiūtė. 2019. Visual literacy practices in higher education: What, why and how? Journal of Visual Literacy 38(1-2). 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/1051144X.2019.1580438.Suche in Google Scholar
Kress, G. 2003. Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203299234Suche in Google Scholar
Kress, G. 2004. Reading images: Multimodality, representation and new media. Information Design Journal 12. 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1075/idjdd.12.2.03kre.Suche in Google Scholar
Kress, G. 2010. Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar
Kress, G. & T. van 2006. Reading images: The grammar of visual design, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203619728Suche in Google Scholar
Kress, G. & T. van Leeuwen. 2001. Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold Publishers.Suche in Google Scholar
Lim, F., A. Chia & T. Nguyen. 2022b. “From The Beginning, I Think It Was A Stretch” – Teachers’ perceptions and practices in teaching multiliteracies. English Teaching: Practice and Critique 21. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-04-2021-0025.Suche in Google Scholar
Lim, F. V., C. Weninger, A. Chia, T. T. H. Nguyen, J. M. Tan, J. L. Adams, L. Tan-Chia, C. M. Peters, P. A. Towndrow & L. Unsworth. 2022a. Multiliteracies in the Singapore English language classroom: Perceptions and practices (report no. DEV 01/18 VL). National institute of education. Singapore: Nanyang Technological University.Suche in Google Scholar
Liu, J. E. & F. V. Lim. 2024. Educational context and teacher beliefs matter: Multimodal literacy in the greater Bay area of China. RELC Journal, 00336882241304136. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882241304136.Suche in Google Scholar
López Pena, Zósimo. 2020. El análisis multimodal del anuncio publicitario audiovisual para el aula de Lengua Castellana y Literatura en Educación Secundaria y Bachillerato. Educação & Formação 5. https://doi.org/10.25053/redufor.v5i15set/dez.2839.Suche in Google Scholar
López Pena, Zósimo. 2022. Una propuesta multimodal para la lectura de textos digitales en el contexto de la asignatura Lengua Castellana y Literatura en Enseñanza Secundaria. A Multimodal Proposal for Reading Digital Texts in the Context of Spanish Language and Literature in Secondary EducationInvestigaciones Sobre. Lectura. 21–39. https://doi.org/10.24310/isl.vi17.14475.Suche in Google Scholar
López Pena, Zósimo. 2024. El tratamiento de la Multimodalidad en la Educación Infantil y Primaria. El caso español bajo el currículum LOMLOE. Didáctica. Lengua y Literatura 36. 111–121. https://doi.org/10.5209/dill.98415.Suche in Google Scholar
Martínez-Carratalá, Francisco, Sebastián Miras & José Rovira Collado. 2024. Desarrollo de la alfabetización multimodal mediante álbumes sin palabras en el alumnado en formación docente en Educación Primaria. Revista de Investigación Educativa 42. https://doi.org/10.6018/rie.563971.Suche in Google Scholar
Mendioroz, Lacambra A. M. & Ansorena A. Asiáin. 2017. Empleo de la fotografía para desarrollar la alfabetización multimodal. Propuesta de análisis. Didácticas Específicas 16. 80–95. https://doi.org/10.15366/didacticas2017.16.005.Suche in Google Scholar
Metros, S. 2008. The educator’s role in preparing visually literate learners. Theory and Practice 47(2). 102–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840801992264.Suche in Google Scholar
Mills, K. A. & L. Unsworth. 2017. Multimodal Literacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.232Suche in Google Scholar
Mostafa, A. 2011. An exploration of teachers’ integration of visual literacy in the Egyptian secondary English language classrooms. African Journal of Teacher Education 1. https://doi.org/10.21083/ajote.v1i1.1583.Suche in Google Scholar
New London Group. 1996. A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review 66(1). 60–92. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u.Suche in Google Scholar
Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric Theory, 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.Suche in Google Scholar
Ørevik, S. 2023. Assessing Students’ Multimodal Texts in the Subject of English: Synthesising Peers’ and Teachers’ recognition of semiotic work. Designs for Learning 15(1). 44–57. https://doi.org/10.16993/dfl.216.Suche in Google Scholar
Organic Law 3/2020, 29th December. Boletín Oficial del Estado. 122868–122953. https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2020/12/30/pdfs/BOE-A-2020-17264.pdf.340Suche in Google Scholar
Pajares, M. F. 1992. Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research 62(3). 307–332. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307.Suche in Google Scholar
Richards, J. C. & C. Lockhart. 1996. Interaction in the second language classroom. Readings in Methodology 66. Royal Decree 217/2022, 29th March https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2022-4975.Suche in Google Scholar
Serafini, F. 2010. Reading multimodal texts: Perceptual, structural, and ideological perspectives. Children’s Literature in Education 41(1). 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10583-010-9100-5.Suche in Google Scholar
Serafini, F. 2014. Reading the visual: An introduction to teaching multimodal literacy. New York: Teachers College Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Sindoni, M. G., E. Adami, S. Karatza, I. Marenzi, I. Moschini, S. Petroni & M. Rocc. 2019. The common framework of reference for intercultural digital literacies. A comprehensive set of guidelines of proficiency and intercultural awareness in multimodal digital literacies.. cfridil-framework-linked-fin1.pdf (eumade4ll.eu).Suche in Google Scholar
Unsworth, L. 2006. Towards A metalanguage for multiliteracies education: Describing the meaning-making resources of language-image interaction. English Teaching: Practice and Critique 5. 55–76.Suche in Google Scholar
Unsworth, L. 2014. Multiliteracies and metalanguage: Describing image/text relations as a resource for negotiating multimodal texts. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear & D. J. Leu (eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies, 379–408. New York: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, T. 2015. Multimodality in education: Some directions and some questions. Tesol Quarterly 49. 582–589. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.242.Suche in Google Scholar
Wagner, E. & D. Schönau. 2016. The European framework of reference for visual literacy - Concepts and competence model (ENViL framework). New York: Waxmann. https://envil.eu/.Suche in Google Scholar
Walsh, M. 2008. Worlds have collided and modes have merged: Classroom evidence of changed literacy practices. Literacy 42. 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-4369.2008.00495.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Walsh, M. 2010. Multimodal literacy: What does it mean for classroom practice? Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 33(3). 211–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03651836.Suche in Google Scholar
Yi, Y. & T. Angay‐Crowder. 2016. Multimodal pedagogies for teacher education in TESOL. Tesol Quarterly 50(4). 988–998. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.326. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44984730.Suche in Google Scholar
Yi, Y. & J. Choi. 2015. Teachers’ views of multimodal practices in K-12 classrooms: Voices from teachers in the United States. Tesol Quarterly 49(4). 838–847. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.219.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Use of inscribed objects in roleplay training sessions at a Japanese insurance company
- Visual and multimodal literacies in secondary education in Spain: voices from English language teachers
- The marketization of higher education in China: a comparative multimodal genre analysis between top-public and international universities
- Sustainability as an element of corporate identity: multimodal analysis of an Italian coffee company’s website
- Communicating political achievements: a semiotic analysis of political posters in the linguistic landscape of Tanzania
- From aspiring to authentic engineers: prioritizing real people and real problems in engineering through service design methodology
- Whoosh! visual depictions of direction, speed, and temporality: a corpus analysis of motion events in global comics
- Sharing experience or selling service?: a multimodal critical discourse analysis of self-proclaimed Hong Kong female PhD student identity in Xiaohongshu (Little Red Book)
- Professors’ perception of body language in the aftermath of the Covid-19 online teaching period
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Use of inscribed objects in roleplay training sessions at a Japanese insurance company
- Visual and multimodal literacies in secondary education in Spain: voices from English language teachers
- The marketization of higher education in China: a comparative multimodal genre analysis between top-public and international universities
- Sustainability as an element of corporate identity: multimodal analysis of an Italian coffee company’s website
- Communicating political achievements: a semiotic analysis of political posters in the linguistic landscape of Tanzania
- From aspiring to authentic engineers: prioritizing real people and real problems in engineering through service design methodology
- Whoosh! visual depictions of direction, speed, and temporality: a corpus analysis of motion events in global comics
- Sharing experience or selling service?: a multimodal critical discourse analysis of self-proclaimed Hong Kong female PhD student identity in Xiaohongshu (Little Red Book)
- Professors’ perception of body language in the aftermath of the Covid-19 online teaching period
