Teaching information literacy and writing studies - Grace Veach 2018
Creating a multimodal argument
Classroom-Centered Approaches to Information Literacy
Interacting with the world has never happened in one mode, and it certainly does not now. Advertisements have words and images if they are in print, and television commercials include voice and music. MTV brought music and video together for the television audience. Even before mass media, orators combined text using language, an image of the speaker, voice and tone, and gestures.
Educators are realizing that composing in more than one mode is necessary. In 2016, the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) published its Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. The Framework emphasizes threshold concepts, or ideas that are central to understanding a discipline,1 and cross-modality creation and assessment. The Council of Writing Program Administrators, the National Council of Teachers of English, and the National Writing Project (2011) collaborated to publish the Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing, which emphasizes that writing is no longer dominated by pen and paper. Both guidelines are used by academic faculty, including teaching librarians, in addressing new forms of discourse in freshman composition.
Librarians are an integral part of any instruction team, and they should be involved specifically when addressing assignments that involve information literacy, visual literacy, multiliteracies, and copyright. Since students must rethink the meaning of reading and text, librarians must reevaluate how they conduct instruction for composition classes in both context (how they teach) and content (what they teach) by becoming co-instructors with faculty when a multimodal assignment appears in the curriculum. Composition programs are undergoing a pedagogical shift from emphasizing modes to writing for the public sphere, including multimodal texts for students to evaluate and create. Librarians are already well versed in many literacies, including information, visual, and media. In addition, they are familiar with the ethical issues related to using images, videos, and sound files in multimodal tools. Therefore, academic librarians should take the lead in collaborating with composition instructors to become the primary resource on campus for creating multimodal artifacts by teaching faculty and students to locate, evaluate, use ethically, and cite various modes.
BACKGROUND ON MULTIMODAL DISCOURSE
Multimodal discourse has been a major topic in composition studies for over 20 years, but the library literature has only taken it up recently. In the groundbreaking work “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures,” the New London Group (1996) emphasized the challenges students faced in interacting with the digital world, and they described future literacies. They specified several modes of meaning: visual, aural, gestural, special, and multimodal. Of the meaning-making modes, they stated:
The Multimodal is the most significant, as it relates all the other modes in quite remarkably dynamic relationships. For instance, mass media images relate the linguistic to the visual and to the gestural in intricately designed ways. Reading the mass media for its linguistic meanings alone is not enough. (p. 80)
Therefore, multimodality is not one way of reading, but it incorporates many “languages,” or, as Frank Serafin calls it, “Words married to images, sounds, the body, and experiences” (2014, p. xi).
Multimodality first appeared in the library literature in a 2009 talk at the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) World Congress in Milan, Italy. In his talk and consequent paper titled “Broad Horizons: The Role of Multimodal Literacy in 21st Century Library Instruction,” Sean Cordes (2009) emphasizes:
Although reading and writing are still the foundation of knowledge, literacy in this age means more than the ability to read and write; it requires a complex set of skills including: access analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and use of information in a variety of modes. (p. 1)
Cordes also describes multimodal literacy as requiring “in part a new sensibility, one that promotes a self responsibility for the acquisition and use of knowledge that is flexible, exploratory, and ethical” (p. 4). Cordes believes understanding many modes was important to library patrons because of information literacy’s role in lifelong learning. Technology both helped and hurt libraries and patrons, but, to Cordes, the crucial point was that library instruction would aid patrons in both understanding and creating knowledge. He emphasizes that reading and producing material with more than one design element could be complex, and he praises librarians for being both creators and those who enable innovation. He ends with a call for more research.
In A Writer’s Reference, Diana Hacker and Nancy Sommers (2016) describe multimodal “writings” as “those that draw on multiple (multi) modes of conveying information, including any combination of words, numbers, images, graphics, animations, translations, sounds (voice and music), and more” (p. MM-6). According to Serafin (2014) in Reading the Visual, multimodal “refers to texts that utilize a variety of modes to communicate or represent concepts and information” (p. 12). Both books use the term “modes.” Kress and Van Leeuwen (2001) define mode as “that material resource which is used in recognizably stable ways as a means of articulating discourse” (p. 25). In other words, modes are the resources, or tools, used.
The research provides many lists of modes. The book Writer/Designer: A Guide to Making Multimodal Projects lists five:
✵Linguistic
✵Visual
✵Aural
✵Spatial
✵Gestural (Arola, Sheppard, & Ball, 2014)
According to Cordes (2009), a literacy framework includes the modes of
✵Linguistic (oral and written)
✵Visual
✵Audio
✵Gestural
✵Spatial
✵Cultural
✵Multimodal
In the library literature, understanding modes is often referred to as metaliteracy. In their seminal article in College and Research Libraries, “Reframing Information Literacy as a Metaliteracy,” Mackey and Jacobson (2011) list six frameworks that contribute to a literacy for addressing all student needs:
✵Information Literacy
✵Media Literacy
✵Digital Literacy
✵Visual Literacy
✵Cyber Literacy
✵Information Fluency (pp. 63—67)
For the purposes of this chapter, the primary modes that will be covered are linguistic (words), visual (images), technology (tools and media), aural (voice and music), and spatial (organization).
At its core, “multimodal” is about communication. It is another way to communicate with others and relay information. It is also a way to interpret meaning. It relies on hybridity, or the ways that different modes interact, and intertextuality, or how the container changes the meaning. Multimodality allows its users to communicate across cultures and languages, thus making people multilingual. Multimodal also includes an aspect of creation that may not be present in the other literacies; it not only involves interpreting the data in the form of letters, number, images, or symbols, but creating it using the various modes.
Students are already creating these texts without giving it a name. When they send an instant message with a selfie that they have modified using stickers, they are using their multimodal skills to convey a particular meaning to the receiver. The speed at which information is delivered and seen means that lifelong learning literacy outcomes must address multimodal skills such as evaluating news videos on Facebook or creating presentations. Librarians and instructors need to help students understand that the same set of skills they already use can be adapted to create academic multimodal artifacts.
LITERATURE REVIEW OF CURRENT RESEARCH
As stated earlier, the first article to address multimodal instruction as it relates to information literacy was a presentation given by Cordes at IFLA. Most of the literature on multimodal literacy, new literacy, multiliteracy, transliteracy, multimodal discourse, or Web 2.0 literacies does not involve library instruction.
The greatest number of works on multimodal composition come from the writing discipline, and authors view multiple literacies as important in a writer’s arsenal (D. Anderson et al., 2006; Archer, 2006; Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; Eyman, 2015; Fraiberg, 2010; Jewitt, 2005; Mikulecky, St. Clair, & Kerka, 2003; Vasudevan, 2013). Takayoshi and Selfe (2007) address composition teachers who might question whether they are actually teaching rhetoric and composition when they concentrate on multimodal texts. They state that multimodality has existed for a while and is not a creation of the 21st century so, yes, teaching multimodality is teaching composition (pp. 7—8).
Authors recognize the changed, and changing, nature of literacy and communication (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2001; Walsh, 2009). Writing in many modes, because it can be read not just by those in the language of creation, has become a skill for political purposes (J. Anderson, 2006).
Library literature centered on the academic library’s role in multimodal discourse has emphasized the importance of librarians being well versed in various literacies (Berndston, 2010; Hattwig, Bussert, Medaille, & Burgess, 2013; Koltay 2011; Lippincott, 2007; Mackey & Jacobson, 2014; Marcum, 2002). In fact, Marcum (2002) states, “The profession must expand its definitions of librarianship to include new forms of expertise … and must recast the model of information literacy to embrace multiple literacies and sociotechnical competencies” (p. 202). Koltay, Spiranec, and Karvalics (2015) believe the shift in information literacy “enable[s] researchers to create, annotate, review, re-use and represent information in new ways and make possible a wider promotion of innovations in the communication practices of research” (p. 89).
Visual literacy is viewed as a vital literacy, whether taught by the school or by the library (Avgerinou, 2009; Harris, 2010; Hattwig et al., 2013; Spalter & Van Dam, 2008; Thomas et al., 2007). The Association for College and Research Libraries (2011) has set forth a set of competency standards for visual literacy in higher education, the ACRL Visual Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. These standards include the skills of finding, interpreting, evaluating, using, and creating images.
While much has been written about multimodal composition, little has been written about the academic library’s role in supporting this modality. The traditional academic reference librarian has evolved into a teacher librarian, collaborating with professors on assignments and assessment. ACRL’s Standards for Proficiencies for Instruction Librarians and Coordinators was updated in 2017 to the Roles and Strengths of Teaching Librarians in Higher Education (2017). The document states, “Teaching librarians have many opportunities to collaborate in different instructional settings with teaching faculty … [and] these relationships aspire to be partnerships rather than support services” (Teaching Partner). Therefore, librarians are not solely at the university to support others’ teaching, but to actually teach students, themselves.
WAYS LIBRARIANS CAN COLLABORATE WITH WRITING PROFESSORS
The ACRL Visual Literacy Competency Standards (2011) coupled with the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education (2016) place librarians at the center of multimodal instruction. Due to these two documents, librarians are in the unique position of being knowledgeable about and having the professional guidelines to be fluent in, and recognize the fluidity of, multiliteracies. Librarians easily navigate the literacy worlds, jumping from one participatory skill to another, able to distinguish the differences yet also able to see the connections and translate them between the modalities.
Information literacy is a way of reading the world, evaluating in context the messages and discourses going on around us, and contributing to these conversations. It was originally codified in ACRL’s Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (2000) but was superseded by ACRL’s Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education (2016). Information literacy’s most basic (and most used) definition is that it is the ability to recognize an information need and then locate, evaluate, and use that information effectively and ethically. With the Framework, information literacy still respects its foundations, but the definition has been expanded to be based “on a cluster of interconnected core concepts … rather than on a set of standards or learning outcomes or any prescriptive enumeration of skills” (Introduction). In part, it was created because “Students have a greater role and responsibility in creating new knowledge, in understanding the contours and the changing dynamics of the world of information, and in using information, data, and scholarship ethically” (Introduction). At various points in the Framework, the frames refer to formats besides print, such as “a short blog post,” “all media types,” “in any format,” “dimensions of value,” and “an appropriate level, such as local online community” (Authority Is Constructed and Contextual; Information Creation as a Process; Information Has Value; Scholarship as Conversation). Even using the term “creators” rather than “authors” implies that different modes can be used or valued depending on the context.
In addition to initiating and perfecting information literacy, librarians have been at the forefront of classifying and cataloging visual literacy outcomes. According to Hattwig and colleagues (2013):
The Visual Literacy Standards are the first of their kind to describe interdisciplinary visual literacy performance indicators and learning outcomes. These learning outcomes provide a framework for student visual literacy learning and offer guidance for librarians, faculty, and other academic professionals in teaching and assessing visual literacy. (p. 62)
Visual literacy is similar to information literacy in that it asks the user to determine a need, locate material, and then interpret, analyze, and use it effectively and ethically. The Visual Literacy Standards extend information literacy’s traditional definition to include the ability to “understand and analyze the contextual, cultural, ethical, aesthetic, intellectual, and technical components involved in the production and use of visual materials” (Visual Literacy Defined). With the visual literacy standards, established information literacy outcomes are extended to images.
Thomas Mackey and Trudi Jacobson (2011) expand on the different literacies defined in both the library and other literatures. They recommend combining all literacies into one metaliteracy that encompasses them all, but they see the single metaliteracy based in information literacy. They state, “Information literacy is the metaliteracy for a digital age because it provides the higher order thinking required to engage with multiple document types through various media formats in collaborative environments” (p. 70). They emphasize that information literacy “prepares individuals to adapt to shifting information environments,” helps them learn how to learn, and allows them to apply the information they learn from all sources and modalities to become “participatory learners” (p. 70). Mackey and Jacobson recognize that information is not static and that learners must be able to adapt to current and future technologies.
While the literature of rhetoric and composition has focused on composing in many modes, librarians are uniquely equipped not only to teach these modalities, but to evaluate and assist with multimodal creation. Librarians have been working with formalized information literacies for 17 years, and the Visual Literacy Standards (2011) and the Framework for Information Literacy (2016) have only solidified their position as the leader in understanding various literacies and modalities and being able to convey this information to students and faculty. Librarians understand that multimodal instruction does not just mean finding an image and using it, but it involves learner-centered production coupled with conscious and thoughtful evaluation.
In order for librarians to have a framework for teaching multimodal texts and combining multiple literacies, I refer to Kress and Van Leeuwen’s (2001) four “strata,” or the “four domains of practice in which meanings are dominantly made” (p. 4). The four strata, with no hierarchy, are discussed below (pp. 4—8).
Discourse. Discourse is a “socially constructed knowledge of some aspect of realty” (p. 4). Socially constructed contexts relate to the group as a universe of discourse, and no one can know everything in any universe. Discourse is independent of genres but not of the audience’s knowledge and experiences.
Design. Design is “[use of] semiotic resources, in all semiotic modes and combination of semiotic modes” (p. 5). It changes “socially constructed knowledge into social (inter-) action” (p. 5). Therefore, with design, communication becomes a conversation with rather than at.
Production. Production is creation. It is the “organization of the expression, to the actual material production of the semiotic artefact” (p. 6). Production involves tool skills, or the ability to manipulate the medium.
Distribution. Distribution facilitates “the pragmatic functions of preservation and distribution” (p. 7). Distribution is dissemination.
Kress and Van Leeuwen’s strata work very well as a model for multimodal communication. They break down each part of a multimodal assignment into its respective parts, each with its own decisions to be made. It can be difficult for students to understand multiple layers of meaning, but hopefully Kress and Van Leeuwen’s strata can help (see Figure 15.1).
Figure 15.1 Strata for multimodal communication.
In this model for multimodal composition, the same four strata are used but the content is specialized to library instruction to support multimodal creation in composition. Composing with multimodal texts has the same outcome as composing solely in print, because “composing has always served to capture, save, and deliver ideas, messages, and meanings” (Hacker & Sommers, 2016, p. MM-7). The format is different, and this model can help students walk through the process of thinking about and creating multimodal texts.
Discourse
While discourse is socially constructed, in the library instruction and freshman composition context discourse refers to students’ topics and arguments. Hopefully students have written a paper or created the text of their discourse, but sometimes they have not. If they have not, the librarian must make sure that the students have a clear view of their topics and have researched all viewpoints in order to create a well-versed multimodal composition. The Framework for Information Literacy (2016) emphasizes that searching is strategic and scholarship is a conversation, so students must look for the debate and not just one side; students must find what has been argued on a topic and realize that their viewpoints can impact the search. If the audience is not aware of the context, it is the student’s responsibility to make sure that the audience understands it. The discourse will also guide students in determining what type of image to use (ACRL Visual Literacy Competency Standards, Standard One). If the student is not aware of the debate, then that person also does not have the ability to decide what type of visual will advance the argument, so a useless or ineffective image may be used. A good argument can put the reader and the writer in the same place of empathy and understanding.
Design
Design is the “language” the student will use to communicate the argument or point. Design may be the use of colors, music, images, video clips, or other modes, and it is important because it lays out the tone of the presentation. Librarians can assist students with locating and evaluating these modes, or they can help students with citing and using them ethically and effectively.
Librarians can use search tools that emphasize open access materials. The Creative Commons search (https://search.creativecommons.org) allows students to search for materials that are covered under a Creative Commons license for sharing and adapting. Rather than having students search for any image on a topic, the librarian can use worksheets that make students contemplate their potential images. For example, if a student was attempting to locate an image to describe how global warming affects emperor penguins in Antarctica, using a worksheet and thinking about the image can prevent the student from choosing an image of any penguin floating on a piece of ice anywhere in the world. Requiring students to think strategically about the type of image, music, or font they want to use also makes them approach their multimodal design with the same methodology they use for research (looking at a topic, choosing keywords, searching those keywords, and either using what they find or modifying the search). The Framework (2016) addresses multimodal design in the disposition for Information Creation as a Process: The learner will “value the process of matching an information need with an appropriate product.” The product can be of any design as long as considerable thought has been given to what the product should be. Visual Literacy Competency Standards (2011) Five and Six provide visual literacy instruction outcomes: The visually literate student “uses images and visual media effectively” (Standard Five) and “designs and creates meaningful images and visual media” (Standard Six). Librarians can accomplish these outcomes by utilizing the aforementioned worksheet to ask students to think about the most effective mode for their argument. The book Visual Literacy for Libraries: A Practical, Standards-Based Guide (Brown, Bussert, Hattwig, & Medaille, 2016) has some excellent activities that can be used as-is or modified to a specific assignment.
Citing and using images and other modes effectively at the point of design can emphasize to students the importance of attribution. Copyright and attribution are two different issues; being able to use an image is one matter while attribution is needed whether copyright is in place or not. Both the Information Literacy Framework (2016) and the Visual Literacy Competency Standards (2011) emphasize the importance of attribution. Phrasing citation and the ethical use of images in the students’ language can help explain attribution and copyright; for example, if the librarian asks students whether they want someone to use the item they are working on without giving them credit, they will usually reply in the negative. Using citation in their multimodal essay allows students to recognize that a creation belongs to someone and thus has value.
Production
Production involves the tools that are used. An audience may react positively or negatively to the same message depending on the tool. There is meaning in meaning; each discourse and design has multiple layers. For example, if the tool is PowerPoint (one mode of communication with meaning), there are other choices in design such as colors, fonts, images, and the inclusion of any sound, that also convey meaning. Communication does not happen in a bubble; there must be a communicator with a message and a receiver—articulation and interpretation. When the message is received, it is translated through the receiver’s mind of biases, background, and other filters. Kress and Van Leeuwen (2001) emphasize, “We constantly import signs from other contexts (another era, social group, culture) into the context in which we are now making a new sign, in order to signify ideas which are associated with that other context by those who import the sign” (p. 10). In the Framework (2016), Information Creation as a Process asks that students recognize “an understanding that their choices impact the purposes for which the information product will be used and the message it conveys.”
Matching the right tool to the right job may sound easy, but the student must take into account the message, the audience, the message’s tone, any software or hardware issues, whether the information dissemination will be in real-time or asynchronous, and any costs to use the tool. The Visual Literacy Competency Standards (2011) lists performance indicators of “uses technology effectively to work with images” including using “appropriate editing, presentation, communication, storage, and media tools and applications” and “Edits … as appropriate for quality” (Standard 5). The librarian can help the student choose the tool based on some short questions, or the librarian can help the instructor by creating a list of student-friendly tools.
Distribution
Distribution, in multimodal composition, is simply how the final assignment will be disseminated to the audience. The Framework (2016) underscores audience and distribution in several of its frames. Authority Is Constructed and Contextual asks students to “understand the increasing social nature of the information ecosystem”; Information Creation as a Process asks students to “understand that different methods of information dissemination with different purposes are available for their use”; and Scholarship as Conversation states that students should “contribute to scholarly conversation[s] at an appropriate level, such as local online community, guided discussion, undergraduate research journal, [or] conference presentation/poster session.” The Framework clearly emphasizes that information-literate students should know how and where to deliver their message.
Some questions for the student, professor, and librarian to consider when deciding on message distribution are: Will the student be present or will the assignment have to stand on its own without the student? Will sound be available? If this is being presented at a meeting, will the software/hardware requirements be available? Students even need to think about poster presentations, such as whether the poster will have a stand.
ACTIVITIES
The following activities are ways for librarians to insert themselves into multimodal instruction. They were created with a 50-minute class in mind. They touch on various aspects of the Framework for Information Literacy.
Audience + Tone = Tool
This activity has two parts. First, the librarian chooses two similar Web pages for different audiences. For example, the librarian would show the “about us” page for a more conservative clothing store and for a trendy clothing store. The audience and librarian discuss the design of each page and how the images, fonts, texts, and even layout set a certain tone and appeal to their audiences. This activity can be a starting point for the students thinking about the tools they will use in their composition.
For part two of this activity, the librarian and students brainstorm a chart for some of the tools they would use with different audiences. The librarian then shows students some of the free online tools available to them (Figure 15.2).
Figure 15.2 Audience, tone, and tool chart.
Multimodal Toolkit
The instruction librarian creates a guide (or toolkit) with some of the resources students can use for their multimodal assignment. Possible tools for creating sound and image files are word clouds, infographic tools, charts, timelines, cartoons and animations, presentation software, and sound, image, and video editors and manipulators. This toolkit should also point to information on citing material such as images, music, videos, and infographics. Purdue’s Online Writing Lab (OWL) has a page of resources for citing electronic sources (https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/08/).
Evaluating Infographics
Infographics can be an exciting and eye-catching way to express data. Nevertheless, the information in an infographic needs to be evaluated just like any Web page or print set of statistics. Using one of the major infographic sites (visual.ly: http://visual.ly/view; Infographic of the Day: http://visual.ly/view; Knowledge is Beautiful: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net), the librarian locates an interesting infographic on a topic the students are researching and discusses the author, sources, and argument. The librarian should remind students that just because information is pretty does not mean it is any more valid than if it is in spreadsheet or paragraph form.
Finding Relevant Images
This activity is adapted from one in the book Visual Literacy for Libraries: A Practical, Standards-Based Guide (2016).
The librarian provides students with a worksheet to help them locate an image for their multimodal essay. The image should relate to their topics in as many ways as possible. For example, if students are creating multimodal presentations on poverty in the United States, they should not be using an image of poverty in India (unless they are drawing a similarity between the two countries).
This activity is best done in class rather than as a homework assignment. If the students have also completed a similar worksheet to brainstorm research terms for a database search, they can easily see the similarities of research for any format material.
The worksheet can ask the following questions:
✵What is your topic?
✵Why are you looking for an image (what is your purpose)?
✵Brainstorm some words related to your topic.
✵Circle the words that best describe your topic.
✵Search for those words in the Creative Commons.
✵Did you find an image or video?
✵If not, what terms could broaden or narrow your search?
✵Does your image or video have:
○Meaning?
○Clarity?
○Layout?
○Style?
○What is the overall design?
The worksheet should also include a fill-in-the-blank section noting what information students will need for citing; students will be more likely to cite correctly if they have a model to follow.
Evaluating Advertisements
Students should locate an advertisement to evaluate. The librarian can provide a list of websites that have vintage and modern images (a list is available at http://guides.library.uab.edu/English101/findingimage). The students research how the image illustrates an idea from its cultural or intellectual context and how the image is persuading a specific audience. This activity requires students to think about and research culture at the time the advertisement was created (the historical mindset) and the advertisement’s audience. The research causes students to think outside of their own universe to see how the argument was made.
CONCLUSION
As students advance in their university careers, they will continue to create presentations, posters, and other visual material. After they leave college, they will use visual literacy skills in their work. Not only does multimodal instruction early in their college careers help them with upcoming assignments, but it also contributes to their information literacy lifelong learning. The one consistent, unifying force in students’ university careers is the librarian. Whether students are sending a tweet or giving a presentation at a large sales meeting, multimodal literacy matters. Instruction on information and other literacies led by a librarian in collaboration with a composition instructor can lead to critical-thinking students and future leaders who can create meaning successfully.
NOTE
1.For more information on threshold concepts, see the chapter “Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge: An Introduction” (Meyer & Land, 2006).
REFERENCES
Anderson, D., Atkins, A., Ball, C., Millar, K. H., Selfe, C., & Selfe, R. (2006). Integrating multimodality into composition curricula: Survey methodology and results from a CCC research grant. Composition Studies, 34(2), 59—84.
Anderson, J. (2006). The public sphere and discursive activities: Information literacy as sociopolitical skills. Journal of Documentation, 62, 213—228. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410610653307
Archer, A. (2006). A multimodal approach to academic “literacies”: Problematising the visual/verbal divide. Language and Education, 20, 449—462. https://doi.org/10.2167/le677.0
Arola, K. L., Sheppard, J., & Ball, C. E. (2014). Writer/designer: A guide to making multimodal projects. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Association of College and Research Libraries. (2000). Information literacy competency standards for higher education. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency
Association of College and Research Libraries, (2011, October). ACRL visual literacy competency standards for higher education. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/visualliteracy
Association of College and Research Libraries. (2016, January 11). Framework for information literacy for higher education. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework
Association of College and Research Libraries. (2017, April 28). Roles and strengths of teaching librarians. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/teachinglibrarians
Avgerinou, M. D. (2009). Re-viewing visual literacy in the “Bain d’ Images” era. TechTrends, 53, 28—34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-009—0264-z
Berndston, M. (2010, August 14). Libraries promoting multimodal literacy in an intercultural society. Paper presented at 76th IFLA General Conference and Assembly: Open Access to Knowledge, Gothenburg, Sweden. Retrieved from http://www.ifla.org/en/ifla76
Brown, N. E., Bussert, K., Hattwig, D., & Medaille, A. (2016). Visual literacy for libraries: A practical, standards-based guide. Chicago, IL: ALA.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An International JournaI, 4, 164—195. https://doi.org/10.1080/15544800903076044
Cordes, S. (2009, August 24). Broad horizons: The role of multimodal literacy in 21st century library instruction. Paper presented at 75th IFLA General Conference and Assembly: Libraries Create Futures: Building on Cultural Heritage, Milan, Italy. Retrieved from http://conference.ifla.org/past-wlic/2009/94-cordes-en.pdf
Council of Writing Program Administrators, National Council of Teachers of English, National Writing Project. (2011, January). Framework for success in postsecondary writing. Retrieved from http://wpacouncil.org/framework
Eyman, D. (2015). Digital rhetoric: Theory, method, practice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Fraiberg, S. (2010, September). Composition 2.0: Toward a multilingual and multimodal framework. College Composition and Communication, 62, 100—126.
Hacker, D., & Sommers, N. (2016). A writer’s reference for the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Harris, B. R. (2010). Blurring borders, visualizing connections: Aligning information and visual literacy learning outcomes. Reference Services Review, 38, 523—535. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907321011090700
Hattwig, D., Bussert, K., Medaille, A., & Burgess, J. (2013). Visual literacy standards in higher education: New opportunities for libraries and student learning. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 13, 61—89. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2013.0008
Jewitt, C. (2005). Multimodality, “reading,” and “writing” for the 21st century. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 26, 315—331.
Koltay, T. (2011). The media and the literacies: Media literacy, information literacy, digital literacy. Media Culture, 33, 211—221.
Koltay, T, Spiranec, S., & Karvalics, L. Z (2015). The shift of information literacy towards research 2.0. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41, 87—93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.11.001
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London, UK: Arnold.
Lippincott, J. K. (2007, November/December). Student content creators: Convergence of literacies. Educause Review, 42(6), 16—17.
Mackey, T. P., & Jacobson, T. E. (2011). Reframing information literacy as a metaliteracy. College and Research Libraries, 72(1), 62—78.
Mackey, T. P., & Jacobson, T. E. (2014). Metaliteracy: Reinventing information literacy to empower learners. Chicago, IL: American Library Association.
Marcum, J. W. (2002, April). Beyond visual culture: The challenge of visual ecology. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 2, 189—206. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2002.0038
Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2006). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: An introduction. In J. H. F. Meyer & R. Land (Eds.), Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (pp. 3—18). London, UK: Routledge.
Mikulecky, L., St. Clair, R., & Kerka, S. (2003). Multiple literacies. A compilation for adult educators. Columbus: Ohio State University Center on Education and Training for Employment. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED482361
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60—92. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u
Serafin, F. (2014). Reading the visual: An introduction to teaching multimodal literacy. New York, NY: Teachers College.
Spalter, A. M., & Van Dam, A. (2008). Digital visual literacy. Theory into Practice, 47, 93—101. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840801992256
Takayoshi, P., & Selfe, C. L. (2007). Thinking about multimodality. In C. L. Selfe (Ed.), Multimodal composition: Resources for teachers (pp. 1—12). Cresskill, NY: Hampton Press.
Thomas, S., Joseph, C., Laccetti, J., Mason, B., Mills, S., Perril, S., & Pullinger, K. (2007). Transliteracy: Crossing divides. First Monday, 12(12). Retrieved from http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/frn/article/view/2060/1908/
Vasudevan, L. (2013). Literacies in a participatory, multimodal world: The arts and aesthetics of web 2.0. Language Arts, 88, 137—154.
Walsh, M. (2009). Pedagogic potentials of multimodal literacy. In L. T. Hin & R. Subramaniam (Eds.), Handbook of research on new media literacy at the K—12 level: Issues and challenges (pp. 32—47). Hershey, PA: IGI Global/Information Science Reference.