MEANING-MAKING AND COMMUNICATION IN ... - Projekt GNU

EDULEARN14 Proceedings, 6th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies Barcelona 7-9 July 2014

MEANING-MAKING AND COMMUNICATION IN VIRTUAL NORDIC CLASSROOMS: TRANSMEDIATION IN CROSS-BORDER UNDERSTANDING Sylvana Sofkova Hashemi1 1

Department of Social and Behavioural Studies, University West (SWEDEN) [email protected]

Abstract The increasing digitalization of print engages students in multiple modalities of communication raising questions about the ways students are socialised in textual practices. This study explores the design and development of cross-border meaning-making practices in the context of inter-Scandinavian comprehension between Danish, Norwegian and Swedish students collaborating in virtual classrooms. Subject content and students’ interpretation and shifts across signs systems (words, images, sound) were studied combining ethnographic methods with multimodal semiotic analysis of transmediation. The cross-border Nordic education proved to provide space for students to engage in motivating, technology-enhanced composing and communication developing linguistic, cultural, critical and digital competences through multimodal productions, collaborative sharing of knowledge and real-time meetings. In the inter-Scandinavian comprehension practices, semiotic signs became tools for thinking through parallel designing and transmediation of linguistic and semiotic choices. Students discovered meaning potentials in conscious decision of gains and losses in print and screen representations, translating in degrees between semiotic systems, dividing responsibilities and applying their own informal media competences. Keywords: language comprehension, multimodality, digital composing, reflective learning

1

INTRODUCTION

The increased digitalisation and globalized exchange of information in society imply changes in learning and knowledge formation. Learning today is increasingly dependent on collaboration and sharing of information and ambitions to develop creativity, innovation, problem solving and risk taking ([1], [2], [3]). Digital technology offers opportunities for active, participatory and creative learning, and particularly contributes to the development of an increasingly multiliterate world. In the GNU-project, abbreviation for Gränsöverskridande Nordisk Undervisning (Cross-Border Nordic Education) innovative cross-border teaching models are being developed by the means of user-driven and co-design approaches. This longitudinal EU-funded project initiated in August 2011 involves Danish, Norwegian and Swedish students, teachers and researchers in collaborative pedagogical approaches using digital technology in the school-subjects native language, mathematics, natural and social sciences. Focusing on native language classes, this study explores the design and development of students’ meaning-making practices and communicative strategies with focus on semiotic shifts of modes in the context of acquiring skills and knowledge in inter-Scandinavian comprehension. Engagement in digital and multimodal composing processes, integrating images, sound, music, text and speech, raises questions about the student´s awareness of the translation of semiotic content across signs (i.e. transmediation; see [4]). Applying ethnographic methods of participatory video-recorded classroom observations, interviews and analysis of multimodal and shared-space products, this study examines: 1. What cross-border practices occur and how they develop over time? 2. What transmediation processes and semiotic shifts across modes are in particular foregrounded in the language comprehension and cultural awareness practices?


2 2.1

RESEARCH BACKGROUND Nordic languages and digital media in the policy documents

The mainland Scandinavian languages, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian, are part of the North Germanic languages, sometimes referred to as the Nordic languages. Danes, Swedes and Norwegians can understand each other in their native language with relatively little effort ([5]). The degree of inter-Scandinavian intelligibility rests upon the linguistic distances in vocabulary, phonetics and syntax, as well as non-linguistics issues such as attitudes towards the language or previous experiences in other languages ([6]). The linguistic differences are roughly that Norwegian and Danish have similarities in the vocabulary, while Norwegian shares major parts of the sound system with Swedish. Inter-Scandinavian communication is characterised by a relatively high level of conversational repair, extended use of gestures, accommodation strategies and attempts to adjust ways of expression to the lowest common denominator ([7]). Nordic languages has been a subject in Scandinavia, since the 1850s with the goal to make students able to communicate in their own languages ([8]). Studies on inter-Scandinavian comprehension among high school students show that Norwegian students manage comprehension tests much better and Danes manage reading comprehension better than listening comprehension ([9], [10]). Furthermore, students who received some degree of instruction in the neighbouring languages passed the tests with better results. Swedish high school students receive less instruction in the neighbouring languages ([10]). A review of the current curricula in the three Scandinavian countries shows a general ambition for inclusion of the Nordic languages in education. The Nordic aspect is a specific objective with the goal to make the students acquainted with the neighbouring Nordic languages. Essentially, three content areas can be identified with relevance to virtual inter-Scandinavian instruction: 1. Language use, society and culture in the Nordic countries 2. Digital texts and media 3. Critical and aesthetic attitude to texts and information Overall, the subject of mother tongue education is similarly defined in terms of language and communication, reading and writing as part of the students' identity development. However, there is a slight difference concerning the spoken language, as the Danish and Norwegian curricula have the imperative on listening and reading comprehension in the neighbouring languages. Further, there are overlaps in how digital composing and media is focused on defining processing of various kinds of texts adapted to their structure and linguistic features as well as creation of texts where words, images and sound interact. Finally, critical literacy is concerned with the students developing skills in information retrieval and the reliability of sources.

2.2

Technology-mediated composing and multimodality

The increasing digitalization of print engaging students in multiple modalities of communication transforms the ways students are socialised in textual practices ([11]). The availability of digital media in the classroom invites students to create screen-based texts with ease combining words with images, sound effects, music, video-clips and other semiotic representations. Representing knowledge solely in words and print-based, linguistic modes of communication (writing and speaking), which long time dominated the teaching and instruction in western education, also means ignoring the contribution of all elements students acquire in these texts to convey meaning ([12], [13], [14]). The incorporation of technology-mediated composing in the teaching practice impacts on the form of meaning-making and raises questions about understanding these knowledge generating processes and invites for changes to pedagogies (e.g. [11], [15], [16], [17], [2]). Grounded in the sociocultural understanding of meaning-making as a multimodal and socially constituted practice ([11]), social semiotics is occupied with the conceptualization and analysis of contributions of the representational and communicational resources (modes) to the construction of meaning ([18], [19], [20], [21]). Studies of this kind examine multimodality at the micro-textual level in completed texts for available resources, meta-functions, representations as hierarchical organization of semiotic components and modal affordances ([22]). In the sociocultural and critical approach to diversities in situated literacy practices (e.g. [23]), the ‘New Literacy Studies’ integrates ethnographic and textual analysis focusing on the interactions, texts, and artefacts that mediate these practices (e.g. [24]).


Understanding the potential digital mediation has on the construction of meaning means reaching a more nuanced understanding of multimodal meaning-making and observing the handling of semiotic signs in the meaning-making process ([25]). Studies on students’ multimodal and digital composing practices extend the findings on semiotic shifts in print-based writing with studies on media as compositional elements in writing (e.g. [26], [27], [28], [29]), in digital storytelling (e.g. [30], [4], [31]), on webpages, blogs and wikis (e.g. [32], [33], [34]) and in filmmaking (e.g. [35]). In general, arguments for technology-mediated instruction are mainly based on results showing the students' increased motivation and engagement, active participation and co-creation as key success factors for learning. Innovative pedagogical approaches with active and experience-based learning using information and communication technology (ICT) provide opportunities for more varied and individualized teaching ([36], [37]). However, recent studies, especially on laptop computers in teaching, point more towards a skill focus with less room for dialogue, reflection and deeper learning. Students’ individual work increases, tasks are designed with vague or too comprehensive instructions, presentation format (i.e. fancy PowerPoint images) tend to take over the subject content ([38], [39]).

3 3.1

RESEARCH CONTEXT Theoretical perspective

Exploring the design and development of students’ meaning-making practices in inter-Scandinavian comprehension with focus on semiotic shifts across modes, the study rests upon theories of sociocultural construction of meaning and transmediation of semiotic content across sign-systems as a central process of knowledge generation. Multimodality as the interrelation of two or more modes (or sign-systems) in the communication of meaning generally requires an interpretation of the contribution of semiotic representations to the construction of meaning, i.e. regardless if the practices are print-based or digital. The representational and communicational resources of semiotic signs contribute to the construction of meaning in different ways providing often complex ways in which image, gesture, gaze, writing, and speech interrelate ([20], [21]). Students as sign-makers bring signs as elements of meaning together in a relation motivated by the interest of the sign-maker. The process of sign-making is always subject to the situated practice and availability of semiotic resources, i.e. the observable actions and objects part of communication ([40]). Distinguishing between different modes of communication, the emphasis of the analysis lies in the “design” as a central concept in multimodal composing, i.e. the production and presentation of a multimodal constellation of linguistic, visual, spatial, gestural and auditory features ([20], [41]). In order to understand how students work within and across modes in their composing practices that is focus of the present study, the construction of meaning is further understood as a transformation of available resources into a recreation and reproduction in new designs, recontextualizing across contexts ([40]). Translating semiotic content across sign-systems and shifting ‘semiotic material’ expressed in one or more modes into new shapes and designs in accordance with the affordances of different modes, is concerned as fundamental to meaning-making within a social semiotic account of learning ([19], [20], [42] [4]). In an analysis of multimodal and digital meaning-making among eightyear-old children, Mills ([4]) demonstrates that the process of crossing modes is a reflective process and not only about reproducing semiotic content. She further argues that knowledge transformation occurs in “varying degrees” in accordance with potentials and limitations in sign systems.

3.2

Empirical data and methodology

The present study was conducted within the frames of the GNU-project (see Introduction) gathering Danish, Swedish and Norwegian students, teachers and school managers from 18 classes at 13 primary schools from 7 different municipalities in the development of innovative cross-border teaching models by means of user-driven and co-design processes between practitioners and researchers ([43]). The project, initiated in 2011 and ending in 2014, combines methods of design-based research ([44]) and action research ([45]) in the development of cross-border teaching models that are cocreated, tested and evaluated applying iterative processes in the collaborative pedagogical approaches in the school-subjects native language, mathematics, natural and social sciences.


The present study concerns the work of native language classes in particular. The three Scandinavian countries cooperated in three-part or two-part class-matches in virtual classrooms, planning and conducting collaborative tasks mediated by technology. In the native language classes, five crossborder class-projects have been conducted at most since the start in 2011, depending on when the class and the teacher initiated their work in the GNU-project. Table 1 gives an overview of the topics, grades and digital media in use in the cross-border projects where Swedish classes were involved. The class-match projects have been analysed in respect to the curricula goals and the subject content in Nordic languages education. In the semiotic analysis of transmediation, the focus is on one of the cross-border projects (bold face in Table 1) examining inter-Scandinavian comprehension where Norwegian and Swedish students in grade 5 (12-years old) create and interpret descriptions of a house and its surroundings in print, drawings and 3D-respresentations. During a period of four weeks, the classes engaged in cross-border practices finding similarities and differences in the neighbouring languages by composing a description of a setting that students in the other country should interpret by building it up in MinecraftEdu (minecraftedu.com). Minecraft is an open world video game with players building constructions out of cubes in a 3-dimensional world, analogous to Lego-building ([46]). MinecraftEdu provides instructors with a certain degree of control of the game. However, the synchronization of the software between classes failed at first glance with Norway not being able to 1 use it in class. The students were then about to draw up their descriptions on paper, but were inventive and used their private applications of Minecraft. “They worked together to solve the problem, they were creative and took the initiative.” are the teacher’s words. Table 1: Overview of the cross-border projects in the subject of mother tongue education

PERIOD TOPIC

GRADE DIGITAL MEDIA IN USE

SPRING Self-presentation 2012 Everyday life in North Presenting the School

7 6 7

Google+; Skype Voicethread, Skype Present.me, Skype

AUTUMN Short story relay 2012 Prose Newspaper articles Comics

8 8 8 5

Google docs, Adobe Connect Wiki, Skype Google docs, email Pixton, wiki, Adobe Connect

SPRING Newspaper articles 2013 Youth writers Poems

8 8 5

Wiki, Google docs, Adobe Connect Wiki, Google docs, Adobe Connect Wiki, Adobe Connect

AUTUMN Poems 2013 Poems Character sketches Setting sketches

9 9 7 5

Wiki, Google docs, Adobe Connect Wiki, Google docs, Adobe Connect Paper, film, Facebook Wiki, Minecraft, paper, Adobe Connect

SPRING Tell through a movie 2014 Human rights Language differences

9 7 5

Wiki, YouTube, Adobe Connect Facebook, Adobe Connect Twitter, Google docs, Adobe Connect

The class-match project was initiated in a joint whole-class meeting in a digital system supporting communication in video, voice and text (Adobe Connect, AC) with the classes and teachers presenting themselves. The students were then divided into eleven cross-groups of two or three students in each country and started to compose descriptions of a house with a garden in their native language. They prepared by reading and analysing fictional texts, selecting key words related to descriptions of places and settings in vivid ways and with all senses: What do you see or hear? How does it smell? What do you feel? What taste do you feel? etc. The students also engaged in related assignments prepared by the teacher consisting of up-to-date materials, films, web games and other pages on the Internet to get oriented in the subject. The final house-descriptions were then presented on each group's Wiki Space page along with an audio recording of the students reading their texts. During two subsequent weeks, the students interpreted the counterpart’s description in the Scandinavian language, working with the 1

Practical issues of this organizational and technical character have been revealed as barriers for the virtual classes right from the first year of the GNU-project ([43]).


written texts, drawing sketches on paper and creating 3D-representations in Minecraft. They uploaded their drawings and screenshots of the digital representations on the shared space on wiki, and then they met over AC and discussed the similarities and differences in their interpretations. The empirical material consists of the students’ compositions of house-descriptions in written, audio and visual formats (visual in print and on screen), primary to the analysis of remediation across signsystems. The multimodal semiotic analysis was used to compare meanings across multiple corresponding texts from the students’ compositions in writing, drawing and digital composing. In addition, the data consists of video-recordings and field notes from classroom observations, videouptakes from student real-time interaction in AC-meetings, semi-structured interviews with the teacher and five of the student groups in Sweden.

4 4.1

RESEARCH FINDINGS Nature and development of cross-border education in the subject

Class projects with a focus on mother tongue education clearly follow the curriculum content and goals. The majority of the implemented projects have focused on language and literature - see the overview in Table 1. At the same time, the topics of the individual projects signal an expansion towards other text genres beyond storytelling and poetry. Here mainly informational texts in the newspaper genre, or other factual texts integrating related subjects emerge. Regarding the digital resources, generally tools and programs that offer production of multimodal texts (Voicethread, Present.me, Pixton, Minecraft), collaborative spaces (Google docs, wikis) and tools for communication and synchronous meetings (Skype, Adobe Connect, Google+, Facebook, Twitter) have been employed. In addition, students often take help from other resources such as dictionaries and translation tools available on the Internet. In terms of subject matter and the development of awareness of the language, culture and history in the Scandinavian countries, there is a development in the class-matches from speaking in the mother tongue and listening to the neighbouring languages to explicitly read poems and fiction in the Scandinavian languages. The work is also about clarifying ones native language by for example reading a composed text and sharing audio recordings of the reading. The initial class-match projects in spring 2012 emphasised on understanding the similarities and differences in the Nordic languages, school culture and activities and hobbies during leisure time. Then the practices evolved from writing, speaking, listening and whole-class conversations across borders towards local talks and activities in cross-groups with access to shared online spaces and learning with more focus on reading, translation and interpretation of languages as well as communication in synchronous, real-time meetings (see Table 2). Table 2: Development of cross-border practices

INITIAL PHASE • • •

•

4.2

writing, speaking, listening translating single words understanding the similarities and differences in languages, school culture and hobbies whole class conversations

DEVELOPMENT TOWARDS • • •

• • •

writing, speaking, listening reading, translating, interpreting texts understanding the similarities and differences in languages and culture through the subject content local cross-border talks cross-group work shared spaces

Meaning-making and semiotic interpretation across borders

In this section, the students’ designs and shifts across sign systems in inter-Scandinavian comprehension in one of the cross-border projects are presented. The goal of this cross-border project between Norwegian and Swedish students in grade 5 (12 years old) was to compose descriptions of a setting with intelligible content, functioning structure and linguistic variation in their native language,


which the students in the collaborating country then would interpret in drawing a sketch of it. The assignment was presented as drawing and describing in detail a house with a garden, explaining for example where it is located, what it is built of, how many windows and doors it has, the size and colour, if it has a chimney, if there are flowers, plants or animals in the garden and so on. Working locally in groups of two to three students, the students initiated their house-descriptions in their native language, composing mind-maps of key-elements describing the house and, in parallel, drawing a sketch on a sheet of paper. In this parallel designing in words and drawings, the students discussed materials, shapes, sizes and colours: wood or brick on the house, colour of the roof, stone or grass in the garden, football field in pink synthetic grass, how high and wide, how many windows and so on. Quite soon some students also started to sketch their descriptions as 3D-representations in the world-building game of Minecraft. At the end of the lecture, all eleven groups had created several representations of their house-descriptions: a mind-map, a sketch on paper, a 3D-sketch on computer, and they initiated their text in writing. The work continued on two subsequent occasions with focus on finishing the written descriptions. The students uploaded the final written descriptions of their settings at the cross-group’s shared Wiki Space page along with an audio recording of the students reading their texts. In the interpretation phase of the assignment, the students started reading the written descriptions composed by the Norwegian peers in the cross-group. They read and reread the text several times, discussed the meanings, listened to the audio-recordings of the reading and underlined words and phrases to look up using free translating tools online – see Fig. 1. The house-descriptions were far more detailed and also described the interior of the house with different rooms (e.g. bedroom, kitchen, bathroom, cinema room, wine cellar) and how they were furnished. In the visualization process, translating the written text into sketches, the students had to make choices and select which parts to represent, due to the richness in detail in the house-descriptions. Some groups selected the items to represent in the visual representations by underlining words and phrases in the house-description on paper. Discovering also that different visual aspects can be expressed in different formats, the students made decisions about what part of the description should appear on paper and what part would be more suitable for the 3D-drawings: “We draw the garden here. Then inside the house we draw with minecraft.” The majority of the groups divided the representations in the initial phase in this manner, drawing the exterior of the house by hand on paper and the interior in 3D on computer. At the end of the assignment, many of the groups also visualized the exterior as a 3D-representation (see Fig. 1). A quote from a female student: “I drew the garden and he did inside the house.” reveals that the division of labour in the groups was, not always, however, often gender-defined. The majority of the female students made the print-based drawings, whereas the male students, as skilled minecraftusers, produced the digital sketches in the 3D-worlds. In the interviews, the students signify this fact as a reason for effectiveness and a good solution in the present assignment, or also as a reason due to constraints in the medium, as explained in this quote from one of the groups: − I don’t know, but it was kind of on time or something weird, so it would have disappeared if we did not rush, so it was better that I also drew. It disappears when you log out of minecraft. Much time and effort was also devoted to the choices of materials, forms and colours in the worldbuilding of Minecraft, such as how to shape a TV and the best place to place it on the wall. The students generally felt that the descriptions were challenging with a lot of things to draw. Here is an example: Katie: They require a lot. There would be a pool inside, a pool outside, there would be two bathrooms, two floors, a trampoline, a kitchen ... I do not know why. David: I do not understand the trampoline. Should we, because they never said trampoline on the ground or trampoline in the water. Katie: Because it can be a kind of bouncing-mat they mean, but it may also be kind of the one that you jump into the water, so I made one in the water. As the above dialogue reveals, they also faced situations where linguistic choices had to be made. In the dialogue above, the students use the Norwegian word for trampoline demonstrating their uncertainty about the correspondent word in their native language and have to make decisions in the interpretation.


Fig. 1: Examples of house-descriptions in the interpretation phase: text with underlining, sketch on paper and 3D-sketches of interior and exterior Other occasions relating to linguistic choices were connected to the translation tools in use. Although the online translation was generally conceived as an easy-access and immediate aid in the interpretation process, several of the groups mention incidents where they experienced difficulties. There were cases where no translation appeared or where the words were homographs in Swedish and Norwegian, i.e. they had the same spelling but different meanings. The students also experienced confusing suggestions when a space between the words was inserted or not, e.g. ‘kinorom’ as ‘theatre room’ and ‘kino rom’ with space between words as ‘cinema room’. As concerns the audio-recordings of the readings of the peers’ text in cross-group, some of the students used the audio-recordings for clarification, whereas others indicated that the counterparty talked very fast, as directed to native speakers: “You hear what they say, you can read the text and follow the text, but still it sounds like they are saying something completely different.” The students indicate an awareness of the audience, being critical to peers reading aloud and also expressing the importance of being clear and reading slowly in their own recordings. The students were generally motivated and expressed that the work was different from previous work on writing and searching for facts about the Scandinavian countries, and it was more oriented towards solving problems. It was fun learning new words and also discovering different letters: − It has been fun, and it is great to find fun words … and they have a strange letter instead of e, it looks like an a and an e stuck together. − It was fun! You had to solve the problems in the text and that was enough, build a little and draw and create their environment ... things you did not understand properly you had to figure out what it means In addition, the teacher confirms the atmosphere in the class, experiencing joy and a sense of reality in the students: “I got the feeling that they felt that this was for real!” She expressed that the students were inventive and full of initiatives; they collaborated to solve problems and they were creative.

5

DISCUSSION

The examination of the nature of cross-border practices in the native language classes in the GNUproject reveals a general development from practices of understanding the similarities and differences in languages, school culture, etc. through writing, speaking, listening and classroom-talks towards


close-talks and cross-group work with access to shared spaces and learning focusing on reading, translation and interpretation of neighbouring languages and communication in real-time meetings. In the inter-Scandinavian comprehension and cultural awareness practices in one of the class-match projects, the gains of semiotic transmediation across modes for learning could be demonstrated. Reinterpreting texts through connections between multiple modes facilitated an interpretation of meaning between the language systems of the Scandinavian languages and the symbol systems of semiotic signs. The students developed awareness of language, cultural identity as well as reflective thinking in the semiotic choices. Generating visual texts that interact with the words in the original house-descriptions, the students mapped the content of one sign system (writing) onto visual expressions of image in their drawings and 3D-productions. Consequently, there were three representations of the intended setting: in words, visually in print and visually on screen. The compositions displayed both similarities and differences in the interpretation of language and signs, involving the students in evaluative processes of thinking. In the process of transforming across sign systems, the students evaluated the gains and losses in their representations, revising and modifying their representations in accordance with what they understood from the languages, as well as with the medium ([40]). Transformation between semiotic representations of meaning occurred with varying degrees (see [4]) based on a combination of three factors: 1) linguistic choices 2) the affordances and constraints of the semiotic systems and 3) the type of division of labour. Reading and listening to the neighbouring language have been key ingredients in the inter-Scandinavian comprehension in the GNU-project. The engagement in representing understanding visually involved the students in more elaborate and reflective interpretation processes where linguistic and semiotic choices have to be made in parallel. Through the heterogeneity of modes making the transmediation possible, the students adapted to the affordances and constraints of the print and screen. This was realised in the conscious decision of composing certain parts of the written text visually on paper and other parts as 3D-representations. Furthermore, working with peers required decisions about distribution and responsibility of tasks. The division of labour was made based on effectiveness and skills. The opportunity to work with a medium familiar from outside the school engaged the students who master the technique. Bringing together school and home in the composing practices has been proved to have a positive impact, particularly on boys’ motivation, making learning authentic and relevant to their lives (e.g. [47], [48]). Their digital skills developed at home assist the classroom learning. However, issues of equity remain. Consequently, boys possessing the digital knowledge are able to name and handle the mediating resources, while the girls who were not as digitally aware lack, for example, the terms and jargon.

6

CONCLUSIONS

The cross-border Nordic education proved to provide space for students to engage in motivating, technology-enhanced composing and communication developing linguistic, cultural, critical and digital competences through multimodal productions, collaborative sharing of knowledge and real-time meetings. In the inter-Scandinavian comprehension practices, semiotic signs became tools for thinking through parallel designing and transmediation of linguistic and semiotic choices. Students discovered meaning potentials in conscious decision of gains and losses in print and screen representations translating in degrees between semiotic systems, dividing responsibilities and applying their own informal media competences.

ACKOWLEDGEMENTS The GNU-project has received support from the European Regional Development Fund through the Interreg IVA Öresund-Kattegat-Skagerrak.

REFERENCES [1]

Kalantzis, M., Cope, B. & Harvey, A. (2003). Assessing Multiliteracies and the New Basics. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 10(1), pp. 15-26.

[2]

Cope, B., Kalantzis, M., McCarthey, S., Vojak, C. & Kline, S. (2011). Technology-Mediated Writing Assessments: Principles and Processes. Computers and Composition 28, pp. 79–96.

[3]

OECD (2013). Trends Shaping Education 2013, OECD Publishing.


[4]

Mills, K. A. (2011). 'I’m making it different to the book’: Transmediation in young children’s multimodal and digital texts. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 36(3), pp. 56-65.

[5]

Karker, A. (1997). Nordens språk. Novus forlag. Oslo.

[6]

Gooskens, C. & Haug Hilton, N. (2013). The effect of social factors on the comprehension of a closely related language. Reports and Studies in Education, Humanities and Theology 5, pp. 201-210.

[7]

Börestam Uhlmann, U. (1994). Skandinaver samtalar. Språkliga och interaktionella strategier i samtal mellan danskar, norrmän och svenskar. Institutionen för nordiska språk, Uppsala universitet.

[8]

Rekdal, O. (2002). Norsk som nabospråk. Håndbok for deg som er svensk og vil laere mer om norsk språk og kultur. Hallgren & Fallgren, Uppsala.

[9]

Maurud, Ø. (1976). Nabospråksforståelse i Skandinavia. En undersøkelse om gjensidig forståelse av tale- og skriftspråk i Danmark, Norge og Sverige. Nordisk utredningsserie 13. Nordiska rådet, Stockholm.

[10]

Delsing, L-O. & Åkesson Lundin, K. (2005). Håller språket ihop norden? En forskningsrapport om ungdomars förståelse av danska, svenska och norska. Nordiska Ministerrådet. Köpenhamn.

[11]

New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harward Educational Review 66(1), pp. 60-92.

[12]

Bearne, E. (2009). Multimodality, literacy and texts: Developing a discourse. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 9(2), pp. 156–187.

[13]

Jewitt, C., Bezemer, J., Jones, K. E. N., & Kress, G. (2009). Changing English? The impact of technology and policy on a school subject in the 21st century. English Teaching: Practice & Critique 8(3), pp. 8-20.

[14]

Flewitt, R. (2011). Bringing ethnography to a multimodal investigation of early literacy in a digital age. Qualitative Research 11(3), pp. 293–310.

[15]

Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

[16]

Merchant, G. (2008). Digital Writing in the Early Years. In Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C. & Leu, D.J. (eds) Handbook of Research on New Literacies, New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[17]

Anstey, M. & Bull, G. (2006). Teaching and learning multiliteracies: Changing times, changing literacies, IRA, Delaware, USA.

[18]

Hodge, B., & Kress, G. (1988). Social semiotics. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

[19]

Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.

[20]

Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. 2nd edn. London: Routledge.

[21]

Jewitt, C. (2008). Technology, Literacy & Learning. A Multimodal Approach. London: Routledge.

[22]

Anderson, K. T. (2013). Contrasting Systemic Functional Linguistic and Situated Literacies Approaches to Multimodality in Literacy and Writing Studies. Written Communication 30(3), pp. 276-299

[23]

Street, B.V. (1984). Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[24]

Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2003). Discourses in place: Language in the material world. London: Routledge.

[25]

Towndrow, P. A., Nelson, M. E. & Wan Fareed, B. M. Y. (2013). Squaring Literacy Assessment With Multimodal Design: An Analytic Case for Semiotic Awareness. Journal of Literacy Research 45(4), pp. 327-355.

[26]

Dyson, A. H. (2001). Donkey Kong in Little Bear Country: A first grader’s composing development in the media spotlight. The Elementary School Journal 101(4), pp. 417–433.


[27]

Ranker, J. (2007). Designing meaning with multiple media sources: A case study of an eightyear-old student’s writing processes. Research in the Teaching of English 41(4), pp. 402– 434.

[28]

Tardy, Christine M. (2005). Expressions of disciplinarity and individuality in a multimodal genre. Computers and Composition 22(3), pp. 319–336.

[29]

Levy, M. & Kimber, K. (2009). Developing an approach for comparing students’ multimodal text creations: A case study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 25(4), pp. 489-508.

[30]

Nelson, M. & Hull, G. (2009). Self-presentation through multimedia: A Bakhtinian perspective on digital storytelling. In K. Lundby (Ed.), Digital storytelling, mediatized stories: Self-representation in new media. New York: Peter Lang.

[31]

Yang, Y. (2012). Multimodal Composing in Digital Storytelling. Computers and Composition 29(3), pp. 221–238.

[32]

Shin, D,, & Cimasko, T. (2008). Multimodal composition in a college ESL class: New tools, traditional norms. Computers and Composition 25(4), pp. 376–395.

[33]

Ducate, Lara C., & Lomicka, Lara L. (2008). Adventures in the blogosphere: From blog readers to blog writers. Computer Assisted Language Learning 21(1), pp. 9–28.

[34]

Sofkova Hashemi, S. (2011). Text Competencies and Interaction in Technology-Enhanced Classrooms. Enriching and Developing Subject-Didactics with Interactive Whiteboard in Focus. Report Nordic Smart School Project, University West.

[35]

Gilje, O. (2010). Multimodal redesign in filmmaking practices: An inquiry of young filmmakers’ deployment of semiotic tools in their filmmaking practice. Written Communication 27(4), pp. 494–522.

[36]

EACEA/Eurydice (2011). Key Data on Learning and Innovation through ICT at school in Europe. Brussels: EACEA P9 Eurydice. http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/key_data_en.php

[37]

Passey, D., Rogers, C., Machell, J., McHugh, G. & Allaway, D. (2003). The Motivational Effect of ICT on Pupils. London: Department for Education and Skills.

[38]

Grönlund, H., Englund, T., Andersson, A., Wiklund, M., Norén, I., & Hatakka, M. (2011). Årsrapport Unosuno 2011. Örebro universitet.

[39]

Fleischer, H. (2011). What is our current understanding of one-to-one computer projects: A systematic narrative research review. Educational Research Review 7(2), pp. 107–122.

[40]

Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2008). Writing in multimodal texts: A social semiotic account of designs for learning. Written Communication 25, pp. 165-195.

[41]

Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures. London: Routledge.

[42]

Siegel, M. (2006). Rereading the signs: Multimodal transformations in the field of literacy education. Language Arts 84(1), pp. 65–77.

[43]

Lundh Snis, U., Nilsson, L., Nilsson, A., Pareto, L., Petersen, A.-L., Sofkova Hashemi, S., Spante, M. & Wicke, K. (2012). Nordic Innovation Networks in Education: Dealing with Educational Challenges with Cross Boarder Collaboration and User Driven Design. In Uddevalla Symposium 2012: Entrepreneurship and Innovation Networks, Portugal, pp. 553-571.

[44]

Kelly, A. E., Lesh, R. A. & Baek, J. Y. (2008). Handbook of Design Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge.

[45]

Adelman, C. (1993). Kurt Lewin and the Origins of Action Research. Educational Action Research 1 (1), pp. 7-24.

[46]

Short, D. (2012). Teaching Scientific Concepts using a Virtual World – Minecraft. Teaching Science 58(3), pp. 55-58.

[47]

Robledo, J. (2011). Mobile Devices for Learning: What You Need To Know. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/mobile-devices-learning-resource-guide.

[48]

Carroll, J. (2013). Engaging and Authentic Technology Use for Literacy Learning in the Middle Years. Literacy Learning: the Middle Years 21 (2), pp. 7-17.