This scoping review explores how multimodal approaches enhance critical analysis and argumentation skills in university students. It maps existing literature to identify the multimodal strategies used, their contexts, and their impact on students’ skills. After accessing 234 publications from Google Scholar and Scopus, 56 peer-reviewed English-language articles published between 2010 and 2023 were analyzed. Empirical studies and theoretical papers were included, while non-peer-reviewed publications, dissertations, conference abstracts, and unrelated articles were excluded. Through a rigorous screening process, the review assessed the quality and credibility of studies, offering valuable insights for educators and policymakers on effective multimodal techniques in higher education.
AndrewsR. (2010). Argumentation in higher education: Improving practice through theory and research. Routledge.
2.
BezemerJ.KressG. (2016). 21. The textbook in a changing multimodal landscape. Handbuch sprache im multimodalen kontext, 7, 476. 10.1515/9783110296099-022
BrunerJ. (1996). Frames for thinking. Modes of thought: Explorations in culture and cognition, 93–105. 10.1093/oso/9780195095975.003.0009
5.
BrookfieldS. D. (2012). Teaching for critical thinking: Tools and techniques to help students question their assumptions. Jossey-Bass.
6.
BuckinghamD. (2013). Media education: Literacy, learning and contemporary culture. Polity.
7.
CopeB.KalantzisM. (2015). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Learning by design. Palgrave Macmillan.
8.
CrantonP. (2016). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide to theory and practice. Stylus Publishing.
9.
DaltonB. (2012). Multimodal composition and the common core state standards. The Reading Teacher, 66(4), 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01128
10.
GattiL.ProcterC. (2013). Visual analysis and critical thinking: Teaching history to the millennial generation. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 22(2), 141–155.
11.
GrantM. J.BoothA. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
12.
HealeyM.JenkinsA. (2000). Kolb's experiential learning theory and its application in geography in higher education. Journal of Geography, 99(5), 185–195. 10.1080/00221340008978967
13.
HigginsJ. P. T.GreenS. (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 5.1.0)2 (2), 126-130. The Cochrane Collaboration. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.38
14.
HobbsR. (2010). Digital and media literacy: Connecting culture and classroom. Corwin Press.
15.
HogganC. (2016). Transformative learning as a metatheory: Definition, criteria, and typology. Adult Education Quarterly, 66(1), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713615611216
16.
JarvisP. (Ed.). (2006). The theory and practice of teaching (Vol. 272). London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203016442
17.
JewittC. (2013). Multimodal methods for researching digital technologies. The SAGE Handbook of Digital Technology Research, 250–265. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282229.n18
KressG. (2015). Semiotic work: Applied linguistics and a social semiotic account of multimodality. AILA review, 28(1), 49–71. 10.5860/choice.51-6875
20.
KolbD. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
21.
KolbD. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.
22.
KolbA. Y.KolbD. A. (2017). Experiential learning theory as a guide for experiential educators in higher education. Experiential Learning & Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 7–44.
23.
MertensD. M. (2014). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Sage Publications.
24.
MeyerA.RoseD. H.GordonD. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. CAST Professional Publishing.
25.
MerriamS. B.BieremaL. L. (2013). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. John Wiley & Sons. 10.1177/0741713615573979
26.
MezirowJ. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning.
27.
MezirowJ. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. Jossey-Bass.
28.
MiettinenR. (2000). The concept of experiential learning and John Dewey’s theory of reflective thought and action. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 19(1), 54–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/026013700293458
29.
MillsK. A. (2011). “I’m making it different to the book”: Transmediation in young children’s multimodal and digital texts. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(3), 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/183693911103600308
30.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
31.
MoonJ. A. (2013). Reflection in learning and professional development: Theory and practice. Routledge. 10.4324/9780203822296
32.
RowsellJ.WalshM. (2011). Rethinking literacy education in new times: Multimodality, multiliteracies, & new literacies. Brock Education: A Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 21(1), 53–62.
33.
SelwynN. (2016). Education and technology: Key issues and debates. Bloomsbury Publishing.
34.
SerafiniF. (2014). Reading the visual: An introduction to teaching multimodal literacy. Teachers College Press. 10.5860/choice.51-6875
35.
TangJ.HarrisonC. (2011). Investigating university tutor perceptions of assessment feedback: three types of tutor beliefs. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(5), 583–604. 10.1080/02602931003632340
36.
TaylorE. W.CrantonP. (2012). The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Jossey-Bass.
37.
VygotskyLev (1978). Lev Vygotsky. 10.5040/9781472541437.ch-001
38.
WingateU. (2012). Using Academic Literacies and genre-based models for academic writing instruction: A'literacy’ journey. Journal of English for academic purposes, 11(1), 26–37. 10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.006
