Cultivating Students’ Text Creation

Abstract

Work with multimodal texts as described above is also relevant for students’ own text production.

Work with multimodal texts as described above is also relevant for students’ own text production. Furthermore, parallel to the importance of knowledge about multimodality in regard to students’ meaning-making with pedagogic texts, there is a need for an enhanced knowledge of multimodal writing practices, and how to support students in their writing development. Also, teachers need ways to assess students’ multimodal products in fair and relevant ways. Such questions have been discussed within the field of New Literacy Studies (e.g. Bearne 2009; Cope and Kalantzis 2000), though it appears as if teachers feel that they lack the tools for working with multimodality (Bearne 2009; Engblom 2011). Nurit Peled-Elhanan (2015) noted that teachers tended to see children’s use of images as “lack of capability, a transitory phase or waste of time” and she concluded that “[a]lthough most of the texts children read at school are multimodal they have no license to develop multimodality in their own texts” (Peled-Elhanan 2015, p. 275). Based on discussions in the field, we will give an example of how to use our model in relation to the students’ work with their own multimodal texts.

1 Writing Practices in Schools

In school, students are involved in a variety of writing practices. They might have learned that they can underline text or use other ways of highlighting important text passages, they make their own notes and drawings, or they take photos of the teachers’ written expositions. This is a kind of private writing, used for the student’s own thinking processes and seldom intended for anyone else than the student herself.

The log book is another form of writing which is something in between private reflections and the more official writing practices of the school as an institution. In the log book, private experiences from the teaching, perhaps including reflections on social aspects of the learning situation can be mixed with notes of direct relevance to the subject content.

Examples of more or less public and visible writing activities are experimental reports or other kinds of written presentations connected to the subject content (these reports can be presented through PowerPoint presentations, Internet pages, wall posters, etc.), essays, or compositions. Such writing activities are supposed to focus mainly on what is highlighted in relation to the subject content. Genres such as the experimental report are fairly standardized, while the essay gives room for more variation and personal comments.

One crucial question is what kind of writing best supports the understanding of subject content. It could be claimed that all kinds of writing are beneficial for students’ learning, no matter what it deals with or what kind of writing is involved. An argument against such a position is that too much emphasis on, for example, log books, can lead to a situation with many unstructured texts, something which can be counterproductive, considering the expectations on other texts, such as written reports. Therefore, teachers need to be explicit about the didactic function of the texts when students are asked to produce texts: is the text supposed to be a thinking tool, or will it be used for communication with others about the subject? For the latter type, explicit instruction and joint text construction (cf. Rose and Martin 2012) can harness the students’ writing process and their development of metatextual competencies. When working with texts intended to communicate with others, the natural starting point is the function of the text: why should it be produced, and who is supposed to make meaning from it? With such a starting point, a number of choices will need to be made concerning what aspects of the content to include, and how to express different aspects of the content (cf. the central questions of why, for whom, what, and how?). Also, anyone who produces a text can decide whether to “play it safe” and adhere to genre expectations, or whether to challenge them.¹ From a multimodal point of view, it is then important not “only” to focus on linguistic choices, as is often the case in, for instance, genre pedagogy where joint text construction is a central didactic tool. Instead, choices in regard to other modes should be equally focused. A central idea, then, is that every choice concerning how is always tightly connected to why and what, where why should always be the starting point (see Bergh Nestlog and Danielsson 2020).

2 Linear Writing and Multimodal Composition

In text traditions based on written language, you write, for instance, from left to right or from right to left (that is, in cultures based on such orthographies, such as English, Spanish, Hebrew, Arabic). One consequence of the written language bias is that the writing structures have evolved based on words, clauses, and text sections, with different kinds of punctuation or emphases. Writing in such cultures follows a kind of time line characterized by “first… and then” or thematic structures where the point of departure (the theme, or what is already known) in a clause is mentioned first, while new information is placed at the end of a clause (Halliday and Matthiessen 2014). If you state, for instance, that “Sarah and Kim have just bought a new house” you presume that Sarah and Kim are known to the reader or listener, while the fact that they have bought a new house is presumed to be new information. If we instead say that “The house was sold by Sarah and Kim”, we then have another perspective. Here it is presumed that the house is already known to the reader or listener, and perhaps also that fact that this house is about to be sold.

In linear writing, a number of significant features have been developed in relation to different text types or genres: the structure of the short news item is different from that of the editorial, an explanation is different from a descriptive or narrative text, and so on (e.g. Martin and Rose 2006). Such recurring structures are taken into account in genre pedagogy. As opposed to linear writing, texts built on visual elements have a different structure, based on spatial orientation, where elements with a central placement or which are big in size or taken close-up receive greater weight than elements placed on the periphery, or viewed from a distance, where the choice of a schematized representation or a representation of higher fidelity can signal different levels of scientificness (see Kress and van Leeuwen 2006).

As we discussed Chap. 2, different kinds of resources or semiotic modes are better apt for different kinds of communication or ways of conveying knowledge, as is illustrated in an example reported by Kress (2010). After a visit to the British Museum in London, pupils were asked to use images and writing to make a text about their experiences. One boy gave a relatively detailed, temporally based, narrative about practical things like the fact that first they left their clothes in the cloakroom and later picked them up, that they used the elevator to get to the exhibition, and that they went home by tube and train. He used one sentence to report from the exhibition: “Then I went to see the mummies and all that stuff”. Thus, in writing, he described a lot of details in relation to the visit, but in his drawing he chose to portray the mummies. In this case, the image was used to focus on something the boy found quite spectacular, perhaps because the mummy trigged his engagement and fantasy in a way that he could not express in the narrative (Kress 2010, also see van Leeuwen 2000).

However, regardless of the actual reason why this boy chose to draw the mummy, in a classroom discussion, the teacher could discuss different things; for example what the boy had chosen to present through the different resources, what aspects of the mummy he found particularly interesting, or what details were especially salient. Here, the image, rather than the written narrative, would be the natural basis for assessing the boy’s knowledge about mummies, and consequently, his knowledge of ancient history.

3 Towards a New Understanding of Writing

In the multimodal text, the logic of writing is usually mixed with the spatial logic of the image. Different types of information are given through different resources. Hence, today, writing is a process of composing a text, combining different types of text resources to form a coherent text. Such a composing process will be different from composing a text entirely based on more traditional writing. Therefore, when composing a multimodal text, a number of choices are important. For example, it is important to decide what semiotic mode to use to express what aspects of the content, or if the content given through different text resources should complement, or overlap, each other. Apart from that, choices have to be made in relation to typeface, size, and colors in images or other visual resources, and where to place them in relation to each other. For anyone interested in reading more about multimodal composition, we refer to literature that can enhance the semiotic analysis (e.g. Kress 2010; van Leeuwen 2005, 2011).

In a text based on writing, we normally presume that the text is formulated by the author and if parts are taken from other sources, quotation marks should be used and the source needs to be stated. However, this has not always been the case. When the printing of books was developed, books could consist of compilations of a variety of texts, and thus, the role of the author was more of a “text compiler” than an author in a modern sense (Swann 2001/2010). A similar approach is today’s ways of handling digital texts, where compilations and combinations of texts are mixed with texts written by a sole author (for example the case of fan fiction which was mentioned above). Therefore, for teachers it is important to ponder over how to approach the use of different sources in students’ texts.

In Sect. 5.1 above, we mentioned that in the text traditions of (Western) schools, students in lower grades have been encouraged to combine writing with image. For the really young children, image is the main source of meaning, while the verbal text can be seen more as a backup or illustration (not seldom with a grown-up or older child who can act as the writer for a couple of words or sentences). Later we can note a shift, and in school the pattern is the reverse, with the function of the image being more of an illustration to the writing. In lower grades, this tradition is strong regarding both narrative and more expository texts. In higher grades, the image used as an illustration is of less and less importance. However, in natural sciences or the social sciences, for example, writing is often combined with graphs, tables, diagrams, or images that show various parts of experimental work. Thus, for students to create multimodal texts is by no means something new. What is new, though, is the availability of digital media in schools, which makes it possible to gain access to an infinite amount of data, and to communicate through and produce multimodal digital texts.

The digital world offers, apart from written texts, an enormous amount of images or film clips which are freely available for download. It is fairly easy to use images, and to combine image with writing, and to give information in images or series of images as well as through writing. However, it is not always straightforward to get information about where an image was originally created or by whom. For the teacher, it is somewhere along this line that the students’ understanding of content arise. These challenges can be dealt with in different ways. In some schools where they have chosen to invest in one-to-one projects (one computer or tablet for each student), students are encouraged to work with subject content through digital technology, while test situations are traditional, based on pen and paper (Åkerfeldt et al. 2013). A question that arises in relation to such practices is whether they really imply an understanding of the students’ knowledge, or if this way of working only rewards a type of knowledge and representations of knowledge that is best shown through verbals (writing or perhaps speech). These kinds of questions are even more prominent when the next generation of digital projects become more common in schools, such as in one-to-many-projects, where the students themselves can choose what digital resources to work with.

Hence, the multimodal text world offers both new possibilities for communication, and new challenges regarding the texts produced. Texts are redesigned and composed in new ways, and one more complicating factor is that texts that are produced in school do not stay just there. An increasing amount of texts are made available on the Internet. Thus, there could be one culture in the school in relation to school assessement, and another one outside of school, based on the student’s individual interests. Examples are Internet communities for fan fiction or sites like www.poetry.com where one of the incentives for publishing appears to be the—often very positive—assessment from other members of the community. This in turn implies that new criteria for cultures of assessment need to be developed, based on the communicative situation in which the text is created and used (cf. Kalantzis and Cope 2000; Kress and Selander 2012).

4 Supporting Students’ Work with Multimodal Texts

With minor modifications, our model for multimodal text analysis presented above can be used for supporting students’ text creation from a multimodal perspective, both paper-based texts and those created through digital media. To support students’ composing of such texts entails supporting both their content knowledge and their abilities regarding the use of different resources for meaning-making and communication.

We think that some aspects are especially central: the general structure, choice of semiotic mode in relation to the content, and the interplay between different text resources. These aspects are connected to General structure and Interaction between parts of the text in our model. These different aspects of the text must here be related to both the function of the text, including the intended reader, and the content. A text created mainly for the teacher, with the intention to show one’s understanding of a specific content in relation to the curriculum, or other explicit objectives of a course, has to meet other demands than a text created with, for example a fellow student as the intended reader.

Our model makes it possible to go deeply into, among other things, different aspects of multimodal texts presented by Eve Bearne (2009). Her model for assessement includes the choice of semiotic mode in relation to text function, intended reader, text structure, and the use of different (technical) resources for communicative effects.

Another aspect, according to Bearne, is connected to an overall meta-reflective ability in relation to texts and multimodality. In this case it concerns the students’ ability to reflect upon and enhance their own competence in handling multimodal texts. We claim that conscious work with text based on our model can contribute to the development of students’ meta-reflective abilities.

In the following discussion of the development of multimodal abilities, we proceed from the various parts of our model, using a student text (Fig. 5.1) as an example. This student text is taken from a book on text work by Liberg and colleagues (Liberg et al. 2010, p. 16) and it was created in relation to experimental activities in a science classroom. Liberg and colleagues do not comment on the student text as such; instead it is used as an example of a text created in science classrooms. We also relate our discussion to the student text from grade 2 which is shown in Fig. 3.2, Sect. 3.3, above.

Fig. 5.1

Experimental report from a science classroom in secondary school, written by hand (Liberg et al. 2010, p. 16, with permission from the authors)

When discussing student texts, it is important to consider the situation and the conditions prevailing in relation to the production of the text. If students in a chemistry classroom are told to write an experimental report without having worked with such texts before, one cannot expect all students to be able to handle the different genre-specific requirements that could be expected in this kind of text, neither in relation to text structure and word choice, nor regarding the use of other text resources such as images, symbols, etc. One example from the text in Fig. 5.1 is the text under the heading “Result” (Sw. Resultat) where the student has written “I think that the experiment was fun, and I think that it all went well”. This is an adequate way of formulating the results, at least for students who might be familiar with log-book writing with self-assessment and reflections about their own achievements. Yet this comment says nothing about the understanding of the results in the experiment regarding chemical reactions and so forth.

We have only limited knowledge about the context in which the text in Fig. 5.1 was produced. In regard to the text in Fig. 3.2, however, we know that the text was written after an excursion to the seaside. When the students came back to school, they were asked to write a text about the excursion, and as a kind of inspiration, the teacher had brought some examples of animals that could be found by the sea, and put them into an aquarium. We do not know, however, anything about the extent to which the students in this class had focused on the ways in which writing and images can be combined, but from Sjøhelle’s (2013) description, our impression is that this was not the case.

Thus, regarding the experimental report, we do not know much about the situation in which the text was produced, but from our general knowledge about teaching in science classrooms we can mention a couple of relevant aspects to have in mind in the following. First, science classrooms are highly multimodal learning environments, containing subject-specific artifacts such as three-dimensional models of atoms and molecules, charts of the system of elements which combine writing with symbolic language, and so on. (e.g. Lemke 1998). Furthermore—as in the situation in which this student text has been produced—experimental work is quite frequent, and during such activities experimental equipment, such as Bunsen burners, test tubes, tripods, tongs, and evaporation bowls are used. Also, the experiment is often preceded—or succeeded—by a theoretical exposition through writing, teacher talk, gestures, blackboard notes, and more (e.g. Danielsson 2016).

Experimental reports written in schools have been described repeatedly (e.g. Knain 2005; Kress 2003) and in many science classrooms students receive some kind of text model to use when writing such texts, at least proceeding from a number of more or less logical headings. Examples are Hypothesis, Procedure, Equipment, and Conclusions. If we look at the text in Fig. 5.1, it seems as if this student uses such headings, and we can assume that the teacher has provided the students with them. It is also common for students to be expected to combine writing with images in their reports, for instance to visualize how the experiment was performed.

From a multimodal perspective, it is relevant to take a closer look at the choices regarding what to present through what semiotic mode. This is specifically interesting in regard to how subject content is handled through the different modes, and how the text as a whole reflects the understanding of content. The shift in modes from the hands-on activity (the actual experiment) to a written report is an example of transduction (Kress 2003). This means a transformation of content from one semiotic mode to another (in this case from a hands-on activity to image or writing; in other cases transduction could involve spoken verbals and writing, or images and writing). When, on the other hand, the shift is made within the same semiotic mode, for example when students are expected to “use their own words” when writing a new text, for example from a text on the Internet, this is an instance of transformation (e.g. Kress 2003). These types of shifts can be quite challenging for students, and anyone who creates a text needs to be conscious of the different affordances (or possibilities and limitations) of modes to be able to make well-balanced choices.

4.1 General Structure and Setting

Regarding the choice of semiotic mode and content, the author of a text has to make a number of choices about what content is best expressed through what semiotic mode or resource. These choices are made in regard to the available modes, which in turn depends on factors such as whether the text is paper-based or digital, but also in relation to how well you can handle the medium or resource in question (in Sect. 3.2, “What semiotic modes ‘count’”?, we described how a young student made a spelling mistake to make an image appear in the right place of the page).

The examination of choices of semiotic modes is connected to the affordance, or meaning potential, of resources (see Sect. 3.3, above) and to the choice that may be best in relation to the function of the text and the (intended) reader.

In the student text presented in Fig. 3.2 (Sect. 3.3), a primary school student chose to draw a crab, but he used words to report that it moved sideways (furthermore, through his words he made a general statement: “crabs move sideways”). These are well-balanced choices in relation to the meaning potential of semiotic modes. Also, the teacher has good reason to utilize this, perhaps implicit, knowledge in future text discussions on the choice of semiotic mode (expressed in other words, of course) with this student. Here we want to comment on the fact that the student actually colored the crab red, which cannot be shown in the black-and-white reprint. It is most likely that the crab that they found during the excursion was gray/black rather than red. The fact that the boy colored it red—which is the color of a cooked crab—can perhaps be explained by the fact that crabs in children’s books and animated films are usually red, or the boy might have eaten crab at home. It could also be the case that the crab that he depicted was actually red. According to the description of the context in which the text was created, the teacher had put a number of things in an aquarium as a kind of inspiration. It might be that this was a red toy.

When writing an experimental report, there are also reasons to combine image and words. Images can illustrate what kind of equipment was used, or how an onion that was used for dissection looks in a microscope (e.g. Kress 2003).² Hypothesis, results, and the procedure around the experiment can then be expressed in words.

In the experimental report shown in Fig. 5.1, the student has used a variety of sign systems: chemical symbols, a drawn illustration also including figures and words (in a caption), writing in the form of body text which has been organized in a kind of bullet structure.

If we look at the text in Fig. 5.1 in regard to general structure and sequencing, the text appears to be in line with the experimental report as a school genre. The combinations of sign systems (chemical symbols, image, writing) is typical of the genre, and the overall impression is that this is a fairly well-structured text.

A next step in the process is to take a closer look at what is offered through the different visual resources, or what content is given through the resources and how they are used. On the top of the text, the student has used chemical symbols to write a chemical equation. The use of such symbols is typical of the disciplinary discourse, where chemical symbols are used to express how substances and different compounds react, and what new subjects or compounds are formed during the reaction process.

Below the chemical equation, the student has drawn an image of the equipment that was used during the experiment, and how the different parts were put together. Here we can see a tripod with something that looks like a test tube (marked “1”) which is fixed to the pipe through a clip. Beside the tripod is a bowl (marked “2”). Between the test tube and the bowl is some kind of pipe. The drawing, too, gives the impression of being in line with the genre of experimental report. The writing has been sequenced in sections according to (presumably) given headings, such as “The task” (Sw. uppgiften), “Hypothesis” (Sw. hypotes), and “Conclusion” (Sw. slutsats), which of course is in line with what can be expected, given the genre.

As a whole, the examination of the general structure of this student’s experimental report, gives the impression that the student has created a text that is in line with what can be expected of the genre in a general sense, for example through the use of different semiotic modes such as chemical symbols, image, and writing. The writing is also presented in line with genre conventions, with headings, text in bullets, and a caption below the drawing.

4.2 Interaction Between Text Resources

Apart from examining the interaction between the different textual resources, we have elected to include the choice of resource in relation to subject content and intended reader. Such considerations could also have been remarked on under the previous heading, general structure, where we commented on what content different text resources offer the reader.

Among other things, we here look at the coherence between content given through the different resources and how they complement or overlap each other. If we return to the student text in Fig. 3.2, we can note that, apart from describing different aspects of the crab through image, and words, the student has used images and words to describe the bad weather during the excursion (a drawing of a sad sun combined with the words “grumpy wind and waves” (No. “sur vin og bølge”); here the student has also used arrows to mark the change in weather when the sun is disappearing and the clouds are coming into the picture). Apart from that, images are used to show what the pupils found during the excursion, while in words commenting on things such as the fact that a snail stuck to everything (“I have found a snail which stuck to everything” No. “Jeg har funet en snegle som sugde sig fast på alt”). Such information is hard to give through the image.

In the experimental report, the chemical formula that is written on top of the page is only implicitly connected to other parts of the content. Anyone who knows chemistry knows that “Mg” corresponds to the word magnesium which is given further down in the text, under the heading “The task” (Sw. Uppgiften), and that “HCL” (the gas hydrogen chloride) in this case must correspond to “an acid” (Sw. en syra) (HCl) in the same section. Furthermore, subject knowledge in the area of chemistry is also needed to be able to grasp that the formula only concerns one of the acids that are mentioned under “We need” (Sw. Vi behöver), here the solution hydrochloric acid (Sw. saltsyra) which corresponds to the chemical bond hydrogen chloride dissolved in water. The fact that the image is probably linked to the formula is not made clear (the formula should be the theoretical connection to the actual experiment). Hence, there is some degree of correspondence between the different resources, though on the whole this correspondence is only implicit.

Below the image of the experimental equipment, the text says “This is what we did:” (Sw. Så här gjorde vi) with an arrow pointing towards the drawing. The information given through writing here implies a description of a process. However, the drawing is implicit as to how the experiment was actually performed, and only a person who was present during the experimental work (or who knows how this kind of experiment is normally performed) will be able to understand what was done. On the other hand, the drawing works fairly well to illustrate what equipment was used, and how the different parts of the equipment were connected.

Thus, the drawing works well in relation to its potential for meaning-making, or affordance, in this case to illustrate spatial relations and to depict concrete objects. On the other hand, the caption “This is what we did” implies a description of a procedure, something which would have been easier to express through writing. Further down in the written text, under the heading “We need” (Sw. Vi behöver), some of the equipment depicted in the drawing is mentioned: “test tube”, “burner”, etc. Figures 5.1 and 5.2 in the drawing are not explained, and they do not appear in writing. Hence, we note that there is some coherence in the text, but the connection between the content given through the different resources is implicit.

Since we do not know the context in which the experimental report was produced, we do not know for sure who the intended reader of the text is. Presumably, it is written for the student himself, and if so, most likely to be used in preparations for a final test. Or perhaps it is supposed to be handed in to the teacher for assessment; or possibly a combination of the two.

Regarding the use of chemical symbols, the text is problematic if it is intended to be used as a basis for understanding the content area, since the chemical formula is not explicitly explained. For the same reasons, its usefulness can be doubted, if the text is intended to be used for assessing the student’s content knowledge.

Regarding the image in relation to other resources, the text can perhaps be used to remember how the experiment was performed (however, here it is unclear what the numbers 1 and 2 stand for). If used as an assessment of how the experiment was performed, or as an instruction to someone else who is about to perform an equivalent experiment, it is less functional.

Furthermore, the written text presented in bullets is not unproblematic either, as regards content or genre expectations. What is given under the heading “Results” (Sw. Resultat) is expected to be connected to the actual experiment, for example, “there was a strong reaction in which oxyhydrogen was formed”. Instead, the student wrote “I thought that the experiment was fun, and it went well”. However, under the heading “Conclusion” (Sw. Slutsats), the student states that “the reaction between magnesium and the oxygen in the air is very explosive”, which is more in line with what we can expect from the genre.

4.3 Figurative Language and Values

In this particular text, an analysis of figurative language or values is irrelevant. Regarding figurative language, we may note that such expressions are not used (in words or images), and values are hardly expected in an experimental report. Yet, values are relevant in science, too, for example in relation to the use of natural resources or if it is reasonable to kill animals in order to use them for dissection in the classroom.

In analyses that have previously been performed on student texts from chemistry classrooms (Danielsson 2011) and in lower school grades (e.g. Kress 2003), the use of figurative language has been noted. In those cases, the figurative language, such as “Noble gases are contented” or “the structure of the cells in the onion is similar to that of a brick wall” were inspired by the teachers’ oral expositions. If figurative language is used in class, it is important to evaluate whether the metaphors used are in line with the metaphors used in the disciplinary discourse, as well as whether an analogy seems to be both relevant and transparent.

4.4 The Subject Content

From the perspective of the school subject, the subject content given in texts is central, and it is therefore natural to focus particularly on content when working with text creation in different subjects. In the experimental report, we have noted that many resources have been used in adequate ways, for example regarding genre expectations. Yet we still cannot be sure whether the student possesses the content knowledge that the teaching and learning activities staged by the teacher probably aimed at. The fact that the chemical symbols are used in line with subject conventions does not automatically imply that the student also knows the content behind the symbols.

Under the heading “The task” (Sw. Uppgiften), the student has written “What happens when an acid reacts with magnesium?” (Sw. “Vad händer när en syra reagerar med magnesium”), which is most likely the same expression as was used for this particular task. If connected to the use of chemical symbols, it could very well be that the student knows that “HCL” (correctly written: HCl) is an acid (probably the solution, if taken into account what is written under “We need”, since hydrogen chloride, Sw. väteklorid, is a gas). But from the text it is not clear what acid “HCL” corresponds to (three different acids are mentioned in writing). Also, someone who knows chemistry can conclude that the chemical equation on top of the page is not balanced. The formula does not reveal how the sulfur ion was formed, or what happened to the chloride.

4.5 Developing Multimodal Text Competence

The analysis of the student text in Fig. 5.1 reveals that this student possesses a good knowledge of the structure of the experimental (school) report at a general level. When working with the development of this student’s multimodal competence, this knowledge would be a natural point of departure.

A subsequent step could be to discuss in more detail what semiotic mode or specific text resource is best fit to express different aspects of the task at hand. One example could be to ask the student to reflect upon the use of a single image to describe the process “this is what we did”. In this case, some information would clearly be needed to be given through words. Also, the text could be used as a basis for pondering on ways of making the text even clearer regarding the ways in which different text resources interact. One such example could be to complete the chemical equation with a description of what it shows, given through words. Here it is important to discuss different choices as to semiotic mode, or as to details of the text resource chosen in relation to the function of the text, and in relation to the intended reader. If discussing multimodal aspects of texts in such ways, the student will get tools to enhance the text in ways that will better show the teacher his understanding of content, as well as for himself when producing texts that can be used for developing his subject knowledge.

When using the student’s text to discuss the content, it will most likely be evident to both the teacher and the student in what ways the student might need to develop his content knowledge in relation to the experiment, and to what extent he “just” needs to develop his multimodal text competence. Hence, these two aspects are interdependent. In classrooms practices where teachers support meaning-making in relation to multimodal texts, students will be supported in their development of content knowledge at the same time.

5 Summary

The multimodal text perspective has a direct relevance for students’ own text production. Just as we need a deeper understanding of the ways in which students interpret multimodal texts, there is a need for a deepened understanding of multimodal writing practices and how students can be supported in their own writing development in relation to multimodality.

In schools numerous writing activities take place, such as memos, lab reports, logs, PowerPoint presentations, web pages, posters, and essays. These writing activities are related to subject content and the different genres or text types in the area. The lab report is usually relatively standardized, while other types of presentations of subject content, or the essay, can be more varied and contain personal reflections.

In the multimodal text the temporality of the verbal text is mixed with the spatiality of the image. Therefore, different kinds of information are given through different resources, and to compose a multimodal text thus implies something other than composing a verbal text.

By using our text model for analyzing and discussing an experimental report created by a student, we have seen that the student masters the genre at a general level. From a superficial point of view, the text looks like the way we are used to see such reports. However, by looking closely at the ways in which the student has used different semiotic modes and resources and how they interplay, potential obstacles for the student were revealed. We suggest that teachers proceed from what the student masters when discussing student texts. From there, they can discuss how the different semiotic resources are used (images, chemical language, verbal language, etc.) and why. With such a discussion, focusing on text and content, possible challenges for the student regarding the content can be revealed at the same time as the student’s multimodal competence can be enhanced.

The ways of producing and handling texts in the digital world brings other aspects to the fore, as when other texts, images, or films are merged in new texts. As a teacher, you need to consider how to deal with references to other sources. Such questions will be even more important when new ways of using computers in schools become increasingly common, for instance in so-called “one-to-many” projects, where the students themselves can choose what digital resources to use to meet the standards in school.