Multimodala bedömningspraktiker och lärares lärande

Abstract

The article reports on a study where teachers in early primary school were presented to tools to approach texts and meaning-­making from a multimodal perspective. The study aims to develop knowledge of enabling and constraining factors for the development of a multimodal assessment practice. To do so, we examine how teachers’ understanding of quality in students’ multimodal texts is manifested in assessments, and how this relates to available tools. The findings are discussed with the help of Bernstein's (1990; 2000) theoretical framework and focus on the conditions for teachers' work and learning. The study demonstrates teachers’ attention to multimodal text quality as ability to follow writing conventions, organize text and communicate content with several interacting resources. Available tools shape and broaden what is noticed. However, to give content to the metalanguage further knowledge on the use of different semiotic resources is needed. The study hereby raises the importance of interdisciplinary perspective on multimodal assessment.

Understanding L1 and L2 teachers’ talk about ‘digitalisation’

“…Ahlbäck, 2018;Tallvid, 2015;Willermark, 2018), conclude that the complexity of teaching increases with the demands of digital technology, that teachers' digital competencies differ and that the use of digital technology in school challenges the teaching profession both subject-wise and pedagogically. A study by Erixon (2015) on the incorporation of digital technology in Swedish as L1 results in similar conclusions and a study by Cederlund and Sofkova Hashemi (2018) shows how teachers find it difficult to widen the subject of Swedish to contain multimodal and digital aspects. Teachers themselves stress the importance of educational programs for the development of their competencies.…”

“…The fact that 'digitalisation' is given actorship and demands change that is questioned by the teachers point to the integration of digital technology as something new in the knowledge base for teachers of Swedish as L1 and L2, drawing on Cochran-Smith and Fries (2005) (cf. Cederlund & Sofkova Hashemi, 2018). This can be seen in the discussions on challenges with assessment in discussions D2 and D3.…”

Multimodality in Language Education – Implications for Teaching

“…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).…”

‘You’re meant to read the writing?’: Young pupils negotiating meaning from digitally mediated multimodal texts

“…Previous research indicates not only a lack of meta-textual and digital awareness in the classroom, but also strategies with which to design texts based on the communicative potential of semiotic content and affordances in the technology used (for example, Unsworth 2006;Towndrow, Nelson & Yusuf 2013;Sofkova Hashemi 2014;Godhe & Lindström 2014;Lyngfelt et al 2017). Although teachers and pupils use digital media in the classroom to represent meaning multi-modally on-screen (by combining signs such as images, sound effects, music, and animations), teaching and assessment practice usually focuses on the written or spoken message, disregarding the other modal resources (Godhe & Lindström 2014;Öman & Sofkova Hashemi 2015;Cederlund & Sofkova Hashemi 2018). The traditions of teaching and subject cultures have been shown to influence the ways and extent to which digital technology and media are embedded in classroom practice (for example, Karaseva et al 2013).…”