Literacy and multimodality in english teaching: Practices in technical and technological courses

Authors

  • Carla Luciane Klos Schöninger

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21814/diacritica.4959

Keywords:

Literacy, Multimodality, Semiotic, Teaching Practices, English

Abstract

This article aims to show teaching practices in English classes developed in technical and technological courses, to later discuss concepts of literacy and multimodality. The theoretical approaches regard Greimas e Courtés (2008), Dionísio (2006), Kern (2000), Kress (2010) e Kress e Leeuwen(1996) perspectives. Activities were developed in English classes of Chemistry Technical Course and Systems for Internet. For that, many reading strategies in different supports and modes were used, also video production with software, apps, and internet tools, containing subtitle in English and audio recorded by the students. The results were significant because besides showing skills with technological tools, the students used the written text, image, graphical elements, sound and speech. Therefore, from reception practices involvingliteracy, there were productions that constituted a multimodal semiotic system.

References

Dionísio, A. (2006). Gêneros multimodais e multiletramento. In A.M. Karwoskiam, B. Gaydeczka & K. S. Brito (Eds.), Gêneros textuais, reflexões e ensino. Rio de Janeiro: Lucerna.

Greimas, A. & Courtés, J. (2008).

Dicionário de Semiótica. São Paulo: Editora Contexto.

Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and Language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: a social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. New York: Routledge.

Kress, G. & Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading Images: the grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.

Soares, M. (1999). Letramento: um tema em três gêneros. São Paulo: Autêntica.

Published

2020-04-03

How to Cite

Schöninger, C. L. K. (2020). Literacy and multimodality in english teaching: Practices in technical and technological courses. Diacrítica, 34(1), 58–69. https://doi.org/10.21814/diacritica.4959