Reading Multimodal Texts for Learning - a Model for Cultivating Multimodal Literacy

Oct 15, 2026

Re-conceptualisation of texts over recent decades, together with multimodal understanding of communication and representation, reshapes how students read and learn in educational settings. The article proposes an education-focused model that helps teachers and learners “unwrap” multimodal texts to develop deeper comprehension of information structures and knowledge organisation. It demonstrates mutual multimodal text analysis using Singaporean and Chilean science textbooks, covering structure, semiotic resources, their combinations and coherence, figurative language, and explicit or implicit values.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages12

Reading Time30 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction and background

Model for working with multimodal texts in education

Danielsson, K., & Selander, S (2016). Reading Multimodal Texts for Learning – a Model for Cultivating Multimodal Literacy. Designs for Learning, 8(1),25–36, DOI: [http://dx.doi.org/10.16993/dfl.72](http://dx.doi.org/10.16993/dfl.72) | RESEARCH
Reading Multimodal Texts for Learning – a Model for Cultivating Multimodal Literacy
Kristina Danielsson and Staffan Selander | | --- | | The re-conceptualisation of texts over the last 20 years, as well as the development of a multimodal understanding of communication and representation of knowledge, has profound consequences for the reading and understanding of multimodal texts, not least in educational contexts. However, if teachers and students are given tools to “unwrap” multimodal texts, they can develop a deeper understanding of texts, information structures, and the textual organisation of knowledge. This article presents a model for working with multimodal texts in education with the intention to highlight mutual multimodal text analysis in relation to the subject content. Examples are taken from a Singaporean science textbook as well as a Chilean science textbook, in order to demonstrate that the framework is versatile and applicable across different cultural contexts. The model takes into account the following aspects of texts: the general structure, how different semiotic resources operate, the ways in which different resources are combined (including coherence), the use of figurative language, and explicit/implicit values. Since learning operates on different dimensions – such as social and affective dimensions besides the cognitive ones – our inclusion of figurative language and values as components for textual analysis is a contribution to multimodal text analysis for learning. | | Keywords: multimodal text analysis; text model; learning resources; multimodal literacy; multimodality | Introduction and background Over the last few decades we have seen a growing consensus that becoming familiar with the discourse of the content area is at the core of meaning making and learning in any school subject or academic discipline (Halliday & Martin, 1993; Lemke, 1990; Norris & Phillips, 2003; Wellington & Osborne, 2001). Many descriptions of disciplinary (or subject) discourses have focused on the ways in which writing1 (e.g. terminology, phrases, and text structure), in particular, is used in different contexts (Halliday & Martin, 1993; Schleppegrell, 2004) . From such descriptions, frameworks for explicit focus on language and content in relation to written texts have been developed, some of which are more or less connected to genre based pedagogies developed in Australia (Christie & Derewianka, 2008; Gibbons, 2002; Martin & Rose, 2012) . Also, more general frameworks for scaffolding reading comprehension in school contexts have been developed, mainly to help students become active readers, capable of monitoring their reading (e.g. Questioning the author, Beck & McKeown, 2006, Reciprocal Teaching, Palincsar & Brown, 1984) . Stockholm University, SE Corresponding author: Kristina Danielsson ([kristina.danielsson@isd.su.se](kristina.danielsson@isd.su.se)) These models, and much of earlier analyses of disciplinary discourse as such, are more or less biased towards verbals (writing and speech) rather than seeing all meaning making as multimodal (see Kress, 2009, or Norris, 2011, for discussions) . However, multimodality is ubiquitous in any discipline as well as in learning resources at all levels, and a number of scholars have pointed out the challenges for students regarding the ways that different meaning making resources are used and combined (Danielsson, 2013; Danielsson, accepted; Kress et al., 2001; Kress et al., 2004; Lemke, 1998; Tang & Moje, 2010; Tang et al., 2014, Unsworth; 2001) . One example is chemistry texts, where the “same” scientific content such as ‘ionic bond’ is usually represented in different ways (through words, chemical symbols, images, etc.),

FAQs

What problem does the article address about reading multimodal texts?

Students may struggle to understand how different meaning-making resources are used and combined in multimodal texts, especially when instructional tools are not provided to unpack their textual organisation.

What is the article’s core contribution for education?

It presents a model for working with multimodal texts that supports mutual multimodal text analysis by considering text structure, semiotic resources, their combinations and coherence, figurative language, and values.

How does the model demonstrate versatility across contexts?

The model uses examples from both a Singaporean science textbook and a Chilean science textbook to show its applicability in different cultural settings.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by mieayamfan