Socio-semiotic patterns in digital meaning-making: semiotic choice as indicator of communicative experience

Design and recognition of multimodal texts: selection of digital tools and modes on the basis of social and material premises?

“…However, in the supervision of log texts, speech was an auditory resource complex uses of modes, and they developed personal voices and something interesting by their own choices. This result confirms previous research (Kjällander 2011;Ö man 2015;Sofkova Hashemi 2017) that multimodal texts production may emerge implicitly through meaningful participation and not primarily through a teacher-led instruction. The multimodal texts production, within the oral presentations, can be seen as a purpose-driven activity, where the complex usage of modes and media is a part of an already acknowledged and appreciated literacy practice.…”

“…We hope that this study can be used as an example of how this framework (cf. Selander and Kress 2010; New London group 2000; Hung et al, 2013;Sofkova Hashemi 2017;Huang and Archer 2017) can be used as a metalanguage for detecting and viewing design approaches to multimodal writing and assessment of multimodal texts in schools.…”

“…There are several research studies that highlight how texts are influenced by new digital media (MacArthur 2006;Gee 2007;Ö man and Sofkova 2015;Sofkova Hashemi 2017). These studies show that the design of text is becoming a more complex, multimodal means of communication, representing a shift from a traditional way of using printed text to more multimodal use of texts.…”

Multimodality in Language Education – Implications for Teaching

“…2005), closely relating to research on multimodality in language education. Studies following those by Kenner (2004), Kress (2003) and Kress et al (2004) has shown how both learners of their first language (L1) and their second language (L2), are supported in their literacy development by a multimodal framework (Adoniou, 2013;Early and Marshall, 2008;Potts and Moran, 2013;Sofkova Hashemi, 2017). Smith's (2014) review on L2 education and multimodal approaches to writing showed that a multimodal approach to teaching in L2 was beneficial to student learning in a number of areas, including academic writing, when combined with explicit instruction.…”

“…Smith's (2014) review on L2 education and multimodal approaches to writing showed that a multimodal approach to teaching in L2 was beneficial to student learning in a number of areas, including academic writing, when combined with explicit instruction. Research on L1 supports the benefits of multimodality for developing writing and reading both in early L1 education (Mackenzie and Veresov, 2013;Sofkova Hashemi, 2017) and throughout the school years (Oldham, 2005;Pantaleo, 2012;Svärdemo Åberg and Åkerfeldt, 2017). There are also studies which report on how a multimodal approach is difficult to enact in the classroom due to issues related to school traditions, teachers' competence, the challenges of power relations in the classroom and even the students' resistance (Aagard and Silseth, 2017; Cederlund and Sofkova Hashemi, 2018;Gilje, 2010;Godhe, 2014;Olin-Scheller, 2006).…”