Digital multimodal texts and their role in project work: Opportunities and dilemmas

Technology, Pedagogy and Education

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 225-235

  Wikan, Gerd ^a   Mølster, Terje ^a   Faugli, Bjørn ^a   Hope, Rafael ^a  

^a INLAND NORWAY UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES   (Norway)

Author keywords

Multimodal text; Project work; Secondary school learners

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954432646     PISSN: 1475939X     EISSN: 17475139     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/1475939X.2010.491233     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Barak, M. (2006). Instructional principals for fostering learning with ICT: Teachers' perspectives as learners and instructors. Education and Information Technologies, 11(2), 121-135.
2. Deaney, R., Ruthven. K., & Hennessy, S. (2006). Teachers developing 'practical theories' of the contribution of information and communication technologies to subject teaching and learning: An analysis of cases from English secondary schools. British Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 459-480.
3. Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2003). Strategies of qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
4. Dons, C.F., & Bakken, M. (2003). IKT som mediator for kunnskapsproduksjon [ICT as mediator for knowledge production]. Oslo: Forsknings-og kompetansenettverk for IT i utdanning, Universitetet i Oslo.
5. Fernández-Cárdenas, J.M., & Silveyra-De La Garza, M.L. (2010). Disciplinary knowledge and gesturing in communicative events: A comparative study between lessons using interactive whiteboards and traditional whiteboards in Mexican schools. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 173-193.
6. Fried-Booth, D. (2002). Project work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7. Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1991). Constructionism: Research reports and essays, 1985-1990. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Epistemology & Learning Research Group.
8. Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspective on integrating ICT into subject teaching: Commitment, constraints, caution, and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(2), 155-192.
9. Hølleland, K. (2007). På vei mot Kunnskapsløftet: begrunnelser, løsninger og utfordringer [Knowledge in focus: Challenges, solutions and motivations]. Oslo: Capplen.
10. Illeris, K. (1981). Modkvalifiseringens pædagogik [Alternative pedagogy]. Unge Pædagogers serie B 28. Copenhagen.
11. Ludvigsen, S.R., Rasmussen, I., & Solheim, I. (2001). Multimedier og prosjektarbeid [Multimedia and project work]. In S.H. Hovdenak (Ed.), Perspektiver på reform 97, 35-48. Oslo: Gyldendal.
12. Ministry of Education and Research. (2003-2004). White Paper. Report no. 30 to the Norwegian Storting, Culture for learning. Retrieved from http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/kd/Documents/Brochures-and-handbooks/2004/Report-no-30-to-the-Storting-2003-2004.html?id=419442.
13. Passey, D. (2006). Technology enhancing learning: Analyzing uses of information and communications technologies by primary and secondary school pupils with learning frameworks. The Curriculum Journal, 17(2), 139-166.
14. Postholm, M.B., Pettersson, T., Flem, A., & Gudmundsdottir, S. (2004). The need for structure and guidance when ICT is used in Project Work. Mind, Culture and Activity, 11(3), 178-201.
15. Rasmussen, I. (2005). Project work and ICT. Studying learning as participation trajectories (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Faculty of Education, University of Oslo.
16. Rojas-Drummond, S.M., Albarran, C.D., & Littleton, K.S. (2008). Collaboration, creativity and the co-construction of oral and written texts. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3, 177-191.
17. Rønning, W. (2003). Tema-og prosjektarbeid og bruka av lokalt lærestoff etter L97 [The local context used in crosscurriculum work and project work. Evaluation of reform 97]. In K.J. Solstad (Ed.), Likeverdig skole i praksis, 122-144. Bodø: Nordlandsforskning.
18. Ryen, S.A., & Simonsen, P.A. (2004). Mellom tradisjon og ny teknologi. ITU, Rapport No. 20, Oslo.
19. Salomon, G. (1992). Effects with and of computers and the study of computer-based learning environments. In E. DeCorte, M.C. Linn, H. Mandl, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Computer- based environments and problem solving (pp. 249-265). AST Series, NATO. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
20. Sølvberg, A.M. (2004). Forskningsfeltet 'teknologi og læring' [The research field: Technology and learning]. In H. Sigmundson & F. Bolstad (Eds.), Læring. Grunnbok I læring, teknologi og samfunn, 111-135. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
21. Twiner, A., Coffin, C., Littleton, K., & Whitelock, D. (2010). Multimodality, orchestration and participation in the context of classroom use of the interactive whiteboard: A discussion. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 211-223.
22. Wikan, G., Faugli, B., Mølster, T., & Hope, R. (2010). Does MS Photo Story 3 make a difference? The views and experience of a group of Norwegian secondary-school teachers. Seminarnett.