Multiliteracies and Multimodalities in Flexible Learning Materials: A Quality Evaluation and Framework Development in Science Education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21057206Keywords:
FLMs, multimodality, multiliteracy, science education, M³‑CRAFT FrameworkAbstract
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, remote learning supplemented traditional face-to-face learning. Flexible learning materials (FLMs) mitigated its negative impact. In the new normal, FLMs continue to support in-person classes, especially during typhoons, high heat indices, and other environmental challenges. This study examined the integration of multiliteracies and multimodalities in FLMs used in science major courses at a Philippine teacher education institution. Employing a descriptive-correlational research design with 12 faculty respondents, the study used a validated survey instrument to assess the presence of visual, textual, and digital literacies, as well as visual, textual, and audio-visual modalities in FLMs. The quality of the materials was evaluated across content, instructional, and technical dimensions, and the relationships between faculty profile variables and quality assessments were analyzed using Spearman’s rho.The findings revealed that multiliteracies (WM= 4.53–4.85) and multimodalities (WM= 4.55–4.62) were evident in FLMs, indicating a strong integration of visual, textual, and digital elements. The FLMs were rated “very satisfactory” across content (WM= 3.88), instructional (WM= 3.93), and technical (WM= 3.79) quality. However, improvements were needed for clearer visual annotations, deeper textual explanations of complex concepts, enhanced learner control, improved accessibility, and more precise synchronization of audio-visual elements. Correlation analysis showed a moderately positive association between faculty members’ academic rank and teaching experience and their evaluation of content quality, but no significant association with instructional and technical quality. This suggests content evaluation is influenced by disciplinary expertise, while instructional and technical dimensions depend more on FLMs’ inherent quality.The M³‑CRAFT (Multiliteracies-Multimodal-Multilevel Co-Design Framework for Resilient, Adaptive, and Future-Ready Teacher Education) is proposed. It integrates faculty expertise, multiliteracy and multimodal principles, and quality assurance mechanisms to enhance FLMs. The proposed framework is designed to guide the development of inclusive, learner-centered, and resilient instructional materials. Empirical validation of its effectiveness in sustaining science education in flexible and disruption-prone learning environments is recommended for future research.
Downloads
References
Abisado, M. (2020). A Flexible Learning Framework Implementing Asynchronous Course Delivery for Philippine Local Colleges and Universities. International Journal of Advanced Trends in Computer Science and Engineering, 9, 413–421. https://doi.org/10.30534/ijatcse/2020/6591.32020
Absolor, J. L., Morla, E. L., Villanueva, G. M. C., Yacap, M. J., & Bueno, J. R. (2022). The Preparedness of a Philippine Higher Education Institution on the Implementation of Flexible Learning (FL). Technium Social Sciences Journal, 32, 102–125. https://doi.org/10.47577/tssj.v32i1.6685
Abuhassna, H., Al-Rahmi, W. M., Yahya, N., Zakaria, M. A. Z. M., Kosnin, A. M., & Darwish, M. (2020). Development of a new model on utilizing online learning platforms to improve students’ academic achievements and satisfaction. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00216-z
Amiti, F. (2020). SYNCHRONOUS AND ASYNCHRONOUS E-LEARNING. European Journal of Open Education and E-Learning Studies, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.46827/ejoe.v5i2.3313
Anderton, R. S., Vitali, J., Blackmore, C., & Bakeberg, M. C. (2021). Flexible Teaching and Learning Modalities in Undergraduate Science Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic. Frontiers in Education, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.609703
Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The Split-Attention Principle in Multimedia Learning. In Cambridge University Press eBooks (pp. 135–146). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511816819.009
Baldwin, S., Ching, Y., & Hsu, Y. (2017). Online Course Design in Higher Education: A Review of National and Statewide Evaluation Instruments. TechTrends, 62(1), 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0215-z
Barrot, J. S., Llenares, I. I., & Rosario, L. S. del. (2021). Students’ online learning challenges during the pandemic and how they cope with them: The case of the Philippines. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 7321–7338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10589-x
Boelens, R., Wever, B. D., & Voet, M. (2017). Four key challenges to the design of blended learning: A systematic literature review. Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University), 22, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.06.001
Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional Design: The ADDIE Approach. New York, NY: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09506-6
Bond, M. (2020). Facilitating student engagement through the flipped learning approach in K-12: A systematic review. UCL Discovery (University College London), 151, 103819–103819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103819
Capino, H. M., & Errabo, D. D. (2021). Development of e-modules for teaching monsoons in the context of disaster risk reduction. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on E-Education, E-Business, E-Management and E-Learning, 13–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3450148.3450158
Celeste, R. J., & Osias, N. (2024). Challenges and Implementation of Technology Integration: Basis for Enhanced Instructional Program. American Journal of Arts and Human Science, 3(2), 106–130. https://doi.org/10.54536/ajahs.v3i2.2656
Chang, C.-S., Shen, H.-Y., & Liu, Z. (2014). University faculty’s perspectives on the roles of e-instructors and their online instruction practice. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i3.1654
Chen, N., Ko, H., Kinshuk, K., & Lin, T. (2005). A model for synchronous learning using the Internet. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(2), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290500062599
Cheung, K. K. C., & Erduran, S. (2025). Designing an Analytical Framework to Investigate Students’ Multimodal Representations of Scientific Practices and Methods. Research in Science Education, 55(6), 1729–1756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-025-10248-y
Chou, C., & Zou, N.-B. (2020). An analysis of internal and external feedback in self-regulated learning activities mediated by self-regulated learning tools and open learner models. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00233-y
Cortes, S. (2020). Flexible Learning as an Instructional Modality in Environmental Science Course during COVID-19. Aquademia, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.29333/aquademia/8444
Dayagbil, F. T., Palompon, D. R., Garcia, L., & Olvido, M. M. J. (2021). Teaching and Learning Continuity Amid and Beyond the Pandemic. Frontiers in Education, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.678692
Dever, D. A., Wiedbusch, M., Romero, S. M., & Azevedo, R. (2024). Investigating pedagogical agents’ scaffolding of self‐regulated learning in relation to learners’ subgoals. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(4), 1290–1308. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13432
Edelsbrunner, P. A., Malone, S., Hofer, S., Küchemann, S., Kühn, J., Schmid, R., Altmeyer, K., Brünken, R., & Lichtenberger, A. (2023). The relation of representational competence and conceptual knowledge in female and male undergraduates. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 44–44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00435-6
Funa, A. A., & Talaue, F. (2021). Constructivist Learning Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic: Investigating Students’ Perceptions of Biology Self-Learning Modules. International Journal of Learning Teaching and Educational Research, 20(3), 250–264. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.3.15
Galano, S., Colantonio, A., Leccia, S., Marzoli, I., Puddu, E., & Testa, I. (2018). Developing the use of visual representations to explain basic astronomy phenomena. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.14.010145
GENÇ, H., & Kesım, M. (2023). Weaknesses in Emergency Remote Teaching in Higher Education Within the Context of the ODL Learning Component in Turkey. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 24(4), 252–269. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v24i4.7276
Gocotano, T. E., Jerodiaz, M. A. L., Banggay, J. C. P., Nasibog, H. B. R., & Go, M. B. (2021). Higher Education Students’ Challenges on Flexible Online Learning Implementation in the Rural Areas: A Philippine Case. International Journal of Learning Teaching and Educational Research, 20(7), 262–290. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.7.15
Gold, N. O., Coovadia, H., & Mahmood, T. (2025). Critical thinking development in a Quality Matters-based online learning: student insights from a South African higher education context. Frontiers in Education, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1642266
Gregory, R. L., Rockinson‐Szapkiw, A. J., & Cook, V. S. (2020). Community College Faculty Perceptions of the Quality MattersTM Rubric. Online Learning, 24(2). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i2.2052
Hung, H., Chiu, Y. J., & Yeh, H. (2012). Multimodal assessment of and for learning: A theory‐driven design rubric. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), 400–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01337.x
Hurley, Z. (2018). Book review: Introducing Multimodality (Jewitt, C., Bezemer, J. & O’Halloran, K. (2016) Routledge). Learning and Teaching in Higher Education Gulf Perspectives, 15(1), 91–95. https://doi.org/10.18538/lthe.v15.n1.299
Jaeger, A. J., & Fiorella, L. (2023). Metacognitive effects of instructional visuals: the role of cue use and judgment type. Metacognition and Learning, 19(1), 249–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-023-09370-x
Johnson, L. (2013). Bridging the Gap: Transcending Multimodal Pedagogies Used in Composition Courses to Teach Literature. https://commons.nmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1459&context=theses
Kats, N., Rubtsova, А., & Aitov, V. (2024). Multimodal text as the basis of instructional material design in an academic digital environment. Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta, 504, 156–163. https://doi.org/10.17223/15617793/504/17
Konstantinidou, A., & Nisiforou, E. (2022). Assuring the quality of online learning in higher education: Adaptations in design and implementation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), 127–142. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7910
Kress, G. R. (2009). Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203970034
Laer, S. V., & Elen, J. (2016). In search of attributes that support self-regulation in blended learning environments. Education and Information Technologies, 22(4), 1395–1454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9505-x
Luo, R., & Wang, Y. (2023). Enjoyment, boredom, and perceived effectiveness of learners in language MOOCs: the mediating effect of self-regulated learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1145773–1145773. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1145773
Mamun, M. A. A., & Lawrie, G. (2023). Student-content interactions: Exploring behavioural engagement with self-regulated inquiry-based online learning modules. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-022-00221-x
Martínez-Sánchez, Á., Arranz, G., & Lozano-Durán, A. (2024). Decomposing causality into its synergistic, unique, and redundant components. Nature Communications, 15(1), 9296–9296. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-53373-4
Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.187
McElhaney, K. W., Chang, H., Chiu, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (2014). Evidence for effective uses of dynamic visualisations in science curriculum materials. Studies in Science Education, 51(1), 49–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2014.984506
McTigue, E. M., & Flowers, A. C. (2011). Science visual literacy. Reading Teacher, 64(8), 578–589.
Moreno, R. (2006). Does the modality principle hold for different media? A test of the method‐affects‐learning hypothesis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(3), 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00170.x
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358–368. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.91.2.358
Mulenga, R., & Shilongo, H. (2024). Hybrid and Blended Learning Models: Innovations, Challenges, and Future Directions in Education. Acta Pedagogia Asiana, 4(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.53623/apga.v4i1.495
Müller, C., Mildenberger, T., & Steingruber, D. (2023). Learning effectiveness of a flexible learning study programme in a blended learning design: why are some courses more effective than others? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 10–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00379-x
Navehebrahim, M. (2011). Multiliteracies Approach to Empower Learning and Teaching Engagement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 863–868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.315
Oben, A. I., & Xu, H. (2025). The Future of Higher Education: A Call for Radical Pedagogical Innovation in Post-Pandemic Times. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 19(2), 205–211. https://doi.org/10.22329/jtl.v19i2.9710
Onah, D. F. O., Pang, E. L. L., & Sinclair, J. (2022). An investigation of self-regulated learning in a novel MOOC platform. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 36(1), 57–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-022-09346-x
Özkan, Â., Çevi̇k, İ., Saylan, E., & Çakıroğlu, Ü. (2025). The Past and Present of Instructional Design in Online Learning: Trends and Emerging Directions. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 26(3), 126–148. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v26i3.8507
Plander, K., Hathaway, R., & Maeder, D. (2025). Examining Faculty Perceptions of Distance Course Quality Review Feedback. Online Learning, 29(2). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v29i2.4436
Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2006). An Exploratory Study of Teachers’ and Students’ Use of Multi‐modal Representations of Concepts in Primary Science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1843–1866. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600718294
Prain, V., Xu, L., & Speldewinde, C. (2022). Guiding Science and Mathematics Learning when Students Construct Representations. Research in Science Education, 53(2), 445–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-022-10063-9
Putrawan, R., & Nadira, N. (2026). Multimodal Semiotic Resources in Online Learning Environments: Meaning-Making From an Applied Linguistics Perspective. LIER Language Inquiry & Exploration Review, 3(1), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.71435/688516
Sankey, M., Birch, D., & Gardiner, M. (2010). Engaging students through multimodal learning environments: The journey continues. University of Southern Queensland ePrints (University of Southern Queensland), 2010(1), 852–863.
Shumba, T., & Munkuli, T. (2023). Synchronous Learning in Institutions of Higher Learning during COVID-19: Lessons from Developing Countries. In Contact-less Assessment of In-vivo Body Signals Using Microwave Doppler Radar (InTech). Intech (Slovakia). https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109414
Souza, P. V. S., Silva, L. V., Dutra, R. de S., & Monteiro, F. F. (2026). Scientific literacy through an inquiry-based multimodal teaching: outcomes from a classroom study. Frontiers in Education, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2026.1726851
Sweller, J. (2023). The Development of Cognitive Load Theory: Replication Crises and Incorporation of Other Theories Can Lead to Theory Expansion. Educational Psychology Review, 35(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09817-2
Tang, K., Delgado, C., & Moje, E. B. (2014). An Integrative Framework for the Analysis of Multiple and Multimodal Representations for Meaning‐Making in Science Education. Deep Blue (University of Michigan), 98(2), 305–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21099
The New London Group. (1996). A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–93. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u
Tria, J. Z. (2024). Transactional distance in a flexible learning environment: Scale development and validation in the Philippine context. Knowledge Management & E-Learning An International Journal, 88–109. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2024.16.004
Tyrer, C. (2021). The voice, text, and the visual as semiotic companions: an analysis of the materiality and meaning potential of multimodal screen feedback. Education and Information Technologies, 26(4), 4241–4260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10455-w
Tytler, R., Prain, V., Kirk, M., Mulligan, J., Nielsen, C., Speldewinde, C., White, P., & Xu, L. (2022). Characterising a Representation Construction Pedagogy for Integrating Science and Mathematics in the Primary School. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 21(4), 1153–1175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10284-4
Unsworth, L., Tytler, R., Fenwick, L., Humphrey, S., Chandler, P., Herrington, M., & Pham, L. (2021). Multimodal Literacy in School Science. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003150718
Valencia, R. A. M., Reyes, M. E. N., Puelles, E. Y. L., & Valdiviezo, J. M. S. (2023). Effectiveness Associated With Learning With Video and Multimedia Content in Engineering Students’ Classroom Sessions. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 23(19). https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v23i19.6738
Vlachopoulos, D. (2016). Assuring Quality in E-Learning Course Design: The Roadmap. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(6). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i6.2784
Ward, M. E., Peters, G., & Shelley, K. (2010). Student and faculty perceptions of the quality of online learning experiences. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(3), 57–57. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v11i3.867
Webb, B., Brotto, G., Dinnen, M., & Voss, B. (2023). The Holodeck model, learning environments, and resilience in higher education. ASCILITE Publications, 593–598. https://doi.org/10.14742/apubs.2023.527
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2e). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Yuan, N., Yu, Q., & Liu, W. (2025). The impact of digital literacy on learning outcomes among college students: the mediating effect of digital atmosphere, self-efficacy for digital technology and digital learning. Frontiers in Education, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1641687
Zhang, Z., Nagle, J., McKishnie, B. C., Lin, Z., & Li, W. (2018). Scientific strengths and reported effectiveness: a systematic review of multiliteracies studies. Pedagogies An International Journal, 14(1), 33–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480x.2018.1537188
Zheng, R. Z., Cordner, H., & Spears, J. (2022). The impact of annotation on concrete and abstract visual representations in science education: testing the expertise reversal effect. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-022-00194-y
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
