The construction of interactive and multimodal reading in school—a performative, collaborative and dynamic reading

References

• Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrienko, G., Andrienko, N., Keim, D., MacEachren, A. M., & Wrobel, S. (2011). Challenging problems of geospatial visual analytics. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 22(4), 251–256.
   Google Scholar
• Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) (2011). ACRL visual literacy competency standards for higher education. American Library Association. http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/visualliteracyp
   Google Scholar
• Avgerinou, M. D., & Pettersson, R. (2011). Toward a cohesive theory of visual literacy. Journal of Visual Literacy, 30(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/23796529.2011.11674687
   Google Scholar
• Bamford, A. (2003). The visual literacy white paper (p. 7). A Report Commissioned for Adobe Systems Pty Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Bearne, E. (2003). Rethinking literacy: Communication, representation and text. Reading, 37(3), 98–103.
   Google Scholar
• Bearne, E. (2009). Multimodality, literacy and texts: Developing a discourse. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 9(2), 156–187.
   Google Scholar
• Bizzochi, J. (2001). Ceremony of innocence: A case study in the emergent poetics of interactive narrative [Doctoral dissertation]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Bodén, U., & Stenliden, L. (2019). Emerging visual literacy through enactments by visual analytics and students. Designs for Learning, 11(1), 40–51. https://doi.org/10.16993/dfl.108
   Google Scholar
• Bodén, U., Stenliden, L., & Nissen, J. (2022). Students’ insights from interactive visualizations arranged multimodally in knowledge visualizations. Educare-vetenskapliga skrifter, 1, 32–70.
   Google Scholar
• Bowen, G. M., & Roth, W. M. (2005). Data and graph interpretation practices among preservice science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(10), 1063–1088. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20086
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bresciani, S., & Eppler, M. J. (2009). The risks of visualization: A classification of disadvantages associated with graphic representations of information. In P. J. Schulz, U. Hartung, & S. Keller (Ed.), Identität und vielfalt der kommunikations-wissenschaft. UVK Verlagsgesellschaft mbH.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, S. (2016). Young learners’ transactions with interactive digital texts using e-readers. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 30(1), 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2015.1105887
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burmark, L. (2002). Visual literacy: Learn to see, see to learn. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
   Google Scholar
• Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action, and belief: A new sociology of knowledge (pp. 196–233). Routledge & Kegan Paul.
   Google Scholar
• Cho, B. Y., & Afflerbach, P. (2017). An evolving perspective of constructively responsive reading comprehension strategies in multilayered digital text environments. In S. E. Israel (Ed.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 109–134). The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clinton-Lisell, V., Seipel, B., Gilpin, S., & Litzinger, C. (2021). Interactive features of E-texts’ effects on learning: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1943453
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coiro, J. (2003). Exploring literacy on the Internet. The Reading Teacher, 56(5), 458–464.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coiro, J. (2014). Online reading comprehension: Challenges and opportunities. Texto Livre: Linguagem e Tecnologia, 7(2), 30–43.
   Google Scholar
• Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2006). From literacy to ‘multiliteracies’: Learning to mean in the new communications environment. English Studies in Africa, 49(1), 23–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2010). New media, new learning. In D. R. Cole & D. L. Pullen (Eds.), Multiliteracies in motion (pp. 87–104). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2015). The things you do to know: An introduction to the pedagogy of multiliteracies. In A pedagogy of multiliteracies (pp. 1–36). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Easterday, M. W., Rees Lewis, D. G., & Gerber, E. M. (2017). The logic of design research. Research and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2017.1286367
   Google Scholar
• Elkins, J. (2008). Introduction: The concept of visual literacy and its limitations. In J Elkins (ed.), Visual Literacy (pp. 1–9). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Elley, W. B. (1992). How in the world do students read? IEA study of reading literacy. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).
   Google Scholar
• Eppler, M. J. (2013). What is an effective knowledge visualization? Insights from a review of seminal concepts. In Knowledge visualization currents (pp. 3–12). Springer. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4303-1_1
   Google Scholar
• Felten, P. (2008). Visual literacy. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 40(6), 60–64.
   Google Scholar
• Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2010). Actor-network theory in education. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Glazer, N. (2011). Challenges with graph interpretation: A review of the literature. Studies in Science Education, 47(2), 183–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2011.605307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godhe, A.-L. (2014). Creating and assessing multimodal texts, negotiations at the boundary [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Gothenburg.
   Google Scholar
• Hamat, A., Nor, N. F. M., Azman, H., Bakar, N. A., & Noor, N. M. (2010). I-ELLS: A research-based design for an online interactive literacy system. Education and Information Technologies, 4(3), 165–173.
   Google Scholar
• Hayles, N. K. (1999). How we became posthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics. The University of Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Ho, Q., Lundblad, P., Åström, T., & Jern, M. (2011). A web-enabled visualization toolkit for geovisual analytics, 2011. In Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering: SPIE: Electronic Imaging Science and Technology, Visualization and Data Analysis, 78680R-78680R-12. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.872250
   Google Scholar
• Iedema, R. (2003). Multimodality, resemiotization extending the analysis of discourse as multi-semiotic practice. Visual Communication, 2, 29–57.
   Google Scholar
• Jewitt, C. (2002). The move from page to screen: The multimodal reshaping of school English. Visual Communication, 1(2), 171–195.
   Google Scholar
• Jewitt, C. (2005). Multimodality, “reading”, and “writing” for the 21st century. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 26(3), 315–331.
   Google Scholar
• Jin, S. H. (2013). Visual design guidelines for improving learning from dynamic and interactive digital text. Computers & Education, 63, 248–258.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kędra, J. (2018). What does it mean to be visually literate? Examination of visual literacy definitions in a context of higher education. Journal of Visual Literacy, 37(2), 67–84.
   Google Scholar
• Kelley, E. S., & Kinney, K. (2017). Word learning and story comprehension from digital storybooks: Does interaction make a difference? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(3), 410–428.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. Edward Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2006). The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). Routledge. Taylor Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kucirkova, N. (2017). An integrative framework for studying, designing and conceptualising interactivity in children’s digital books. British Educational Research Journal, 43(6), 1168–1185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kucirkova, N. (2021). Socio-material directions for developing empirical research on children’s e-reading: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of the literature across disciplines. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 21(1), 148–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kümmerling-Meibauer, B. (2015). From baby books to picturebooks for adults: European picture books in the new millennium. Word & Image, 31(3), 249–264.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies: Everyday practices and social learning: Everyday practices and social learning. McGraw-Hill Education.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (1998). From the World of Science to the World of Research?. Science, 280(5361), 208–209. 10.1126/science.280.5361.208
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Law, J. After method: mess in social science research. Routledge, London (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Law, J., & Hassard, J. (1999). Actor network theory and after. Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Law, J. (1987). Technology and heterogeneous engineering: The case of Portuguese expansion. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 111–134). MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Law, J. (2008). Actor-network theory and material semiotics. In B. S. Turner (Ed.), The new Blackwell companion to social theory (3rd ed., pp. 141–158). Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Leu, D., Everett-Cacopardo, H., Zawilinski, L., Mcverry, G., & O’Byrne, W. I. (2012). New literacies of online reading comprehension. In The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0865
   Google Scholar
• Lundblad, P., & Jern, M. (2012). Visual storytelling in education applied to spatial-temporal multivariate statistics data. In Expanding the frontiers of visual analytics and visualization (pp. 175–193). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Lundblad, P. (2013). Applied geovisual analytics and storytelling. Department of Science and Technology, Linköping University.
   Google Scholar
• Mackey, M. (2016). Literacy as material engagement: The abstract, tangible and mundane ingredients of childhood reading. Literacy, 50(3), 166–172.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marr, B. (2015). Big data: using smart big data, analytics and metrics to make better decisions and improve performance. [Books24 × 7 version]. http://common.books24x7.com.e.bibl.liu.se/toc.aspx?bookid=80814
   Google Scholar
• Massumi, B. (2002). Parables for the virtual: Movement, affect, sensation. Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mediratta, A. (2015). Big data: Terms, definitions, and applications. EMC Corporation. https://education.dellemc.com/content/dam/dell-emc/documents/en-us/2015KS_Mediratta-Big_Data_Terms,_Definitions_and_Applications.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Metros, S. E. (2008). The educator’s role in preparing visually literate learners. Theory into Practice, 47(2), 102–109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 309–326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mullis, I. V., & Martin, M. O. (Eds) (2019). PIRLS 2021 Assessment Frameworks. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
   Google Scholar
• Nissen, J., & Stenliden, L. (2020). Visualized statistics and students’ reasoning processes in a post-truth era. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 31(1), 49–76.
   Google Scholar
• O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Allen Lane.
   Google Scholar
• Olin-Scheller, C., & Wikström, P. (2010). Literary prosumers: Young people’s reading and writing in a new media landscape. In: Education Inquiry, 1(1), 41–56.
   Google Scholar
• Pennycook, A. Language as a local practice. Routledge (2010). 1st ed
   Google Scholar
• Pennycook, A. (2018). Posthumanist applied linguistics. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Pettersson, R. (2019). Information design, volume 3: Image design [electronic resource]. International Institute for Information Design. Wien. https://www.iiid.net/PublicLibrary/Pettersson-Rune-ID3-Image-Design.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Purchase, H. C. (2014). Twelve years of diagrams research. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 25(2), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvlc.2013.11.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, S., & Philip, R. (2006). The grammar of visual design. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(2), 209–228. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1299
   Google Scholar
• Rowsell, J., & Walsh, M. (2011). Rethinking literacy education in new times: Multimodality, multiliteracies & new literacies. Brock Education. A Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 21(1), 53–62.
   Google Scholar
• Samara, T. (2007). Design elements: A graphic style manual. Rockport publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Serafini, F. (2010). Reading Multimodal Texts: Perceptual, Structural and Ideological Perspectives. Children's Literature in Education, 41(2), 85–104. 10.1007/s10583-010-9100-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serafini, F. (2011). Expanding perspectives for comprehending visual images in multimodal texts. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(5), 342–350.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serafini, F. (2012). Reading multimodal texts in the 21st century. Research in the Schools, 19(1), 26–32.
   Google Scholar
• Serafini, F. (2014). Reading the visual: An introduction to teaching multimodal literacy. Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Serafini, F. (2017). Visual literacy. In Oxford research encyclopedia of education. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.19
   Google Scholar
• Shipka, J. (2011). Toward a composition made whole. University of Pittsburgh. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt5hjqkk
   Google Scholar
• Simpson, A., Walsh, M., & Rowsell, J. (2013). The digital reading path: Researching modes and multidirectionality with iPads. Literacy, 47(3), 123–130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stafford, B., & Terpak, F. (2001). Revealing technologies/magical domains in a box to images on a screen. In B. Stafford & F. Terpak (Eds.), Devices of wonder: From the world in a box to images on a screen (pp. 1–109). Getty Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Stenliden, L., & Nissen, J. (2022). Students’ multimodal knowledge sharing in school: Spatial repertoires and semiotic assemblages. Education and Information Technologies, 27(4), 5665–5688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10837-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strathern, M. (1996). Cutting the network. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 2(3), 517–535.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundin, O. (2015). Invisible search: Information literacy in the Swedish curriculum for compulsory schools. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 10(4), 193–209.
   Google Scholar
• Takacs, Z. K., Swart, E. K., & Bus, A. G. (2015). Benefits and pitfalls of multimedia and interactive features in technology-enhanced storybooks: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 698–739. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314566989
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unsworth, L., & Cléirigh, C. (2009). Multimodality and reading: The construction of meaning through image-text interaction. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Walsh, M. (2008). Worlds have collided and modes have merged: classroom evidence of changed literacy practices. Literacy, 42(2), 101–108. 10.1111/j.1741-4369.2008.00495.x
   Google Scholar
• Walsh, M. (2006). The'textual shift': Examining the reading process with print, visual and multimodal texts. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 29(1), 24–37.
   Google Scholar
• Walsh, M. (2010). Multimodal literacy: What does it mean for classroom practice? Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 33(3), 211–239.
   Google Scholar
• Watzman, S. (2003). Visual design principles for usable interfaces. In J. A. Jacko, & A. Sears (Eds.), The human-computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies, and emerging applications (pp. 263–285). Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar