ENGLISH FRANCA: Academic Journal of English Language and Education Vol. 6, No. 1, 2022, IAIN Curup P-ISSN 2580-3670, E-ISSN 2580-3689 DOI: 10.29240/ef.v621.5242 Developing Students’ Multimodal Communicative Competence through Multiliteracies Pedagogy Prihantoro Institut Agama Islam Negeri (IAIN) Curup prihantoro@iain.ac.id Didi Suherdi Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia suherdi_d@upi.edu Ahmad Bukhori Muslim Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia abukhmuslim@upi.edu ABSTRACT This study aims to investigate the implementation of multiliteracies pedagogy in English language teaching in order to foster students' multimodal communicative competence. Twenty students from the English language department at IAIN Curup participated in this case study, which was of the qualitative variety. The data for the study were gathered through participant observation and interviewing, as well as the examination of artifacts created by the students. The information gathered from these tools was subjected to a qualitative analysis, during which thematic and categorical coding were utilized. The findings of this research indicate that the implementation of a multiliteracies-based pedagogy can foster the development of five competencies that are essential to multimodal communicative competence. These competencies are linguistic competence, sociocultural competence, interactional competence, discourse competence, and multimodal competence. Meanwhile, the other two competencies, strategic competence and formulaic competence, are somewhat hampered due to a lack of exposure to authentic English language. Keywords: Communicative Competence, Multimodal Communicative Competence; Multiliteracies Pedagogy mailto:prihantoro@iain.ac.id mailto:suherdi_d@upi.edu mailto:abukhmuslim@upi.edu 192 | ENGLISH FRANCA, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2022 INTRODUCTION The landscape of human life has been drastically altered as a result of the rise of globalization, digitization, and the emergence of the fourth industrial revolution (Cope & Kalantzis, 2015b; Fandiño, 2013; Gleason, 2018; Varis, 2007). At the moment, there are two crucial changes are going on. First, societies are becoming more and more globalized and getting more diverse in terms of culture and language. Therefore, the capacity to communicate effectively across cultural boundaries and in a variety of Englishes, as well as other languages, will be an important factor in determining effective citizenship and productive work.. Second, various text forms that correspond to ICT are growing massively and getting more and more multimodal. The meaning-making in these texts does not rely solely on the linguistic forms, but rather it combines both the linguistic mode of meaning-making with other modes such as visual, audio, oral, gestural, and spatial (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; Mills, 2010b, 2010a; New London Group, 1996). The interface among various modes in communication have led to changes in the way we look at language and literacy practices (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; Durrant & Green, 2000; Gee, 2000; Kress, 2003; Mills, 2010a; New London Group, 1996). Literacy instruction and literacy practice are both undergoing significant shifts as a direct result of cultural variations and the evolution of communication channels. The traditional understanding of literacy, which places a significant amount of emphasis on standardized, single-language, single-cultural, and rule-governed reading and writing, is not sufficient to meet the demand that is necessary to fully participate in public, community, and economic life (Cope & Mary Kalantzis, 2000). The conventional understanding of literacy has started to become less useful as a result of the proliferation of numerous texts within the mainstream media as well as on the World Wide Web and the force of globalization, both of which help to enable the formation of numerous meaning-making modes. The traditional approach to teaching reading and writing is incapable of adequately preparing children to engage actively in today's society. Under these conditions, a number of academics have argued that there is a pressing need to broaden both the concept of and the scope of literacy instruction and learning. The concept of literacy instruction needs to be expanded such that it includes teaching students the skills and knowledge necessary to grasp, produce, and communicate meaning in multimodal texts that are appropriate for a variety of sociocultural settings. (Cope & Kalantzis, 2015b; Kellner, 2001; Kress, 2003; Mills, 2010a; New London Group, 2000; Zammit, 2010; Zammit & Downes, 2002) Prihantoro, et.al: Developing Students’ Multimodal Communicative Competence through Multiliteracies Pedagogy-193 As a result, second and foreign language education must expand beyond a focus on acquiring grammatical competence and practical communication skills (Suherdi, 2012b, 2012a; Taylor, 2009). For example, in TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages), learners are expected to not only understand and write texts that are culturally and contextually relevant, but also use language effectively across a range of social contexts (Bianco, 2000; Royce, 2002, 2007; R. Stenglin & Iedema, 2001). Multimodal communicative competence (hereafter MCC), as argued by Royce (2007), should be a primary focus of language instruction in light of the proliferation of different types of multimodal texts. It is important to educate students with the expertise necessary to interpret, create, and convey meaning through multimodal literature. MCC highlights the importance of students’ analytical skills. Using these skills, students analyze and critically examine the features and the strategies used in the text to coherently convey meaning that is relevant in terms of culture and context. These skills help students understand the co-occurring nature of the interface between various modes and how they display their meaning in tandem. Students use their analytical skills to comprehend how the mixed meanings produced by diverse modes frequently result in a visual and verbal partnership, allowing for a greater and more full communication of meaning than would be feasible with simply one modality. Finally, the skills enable students to use, comprehend, and construct semiotic resources correctly and meaningfully (Coccetta, 2018; Ruiz-Madrid & Valeiras-Jurado, 2020). Multiliteracies pedagogy provides viable options in response to such issues (New London Group, 1996). It provides a more holistic view of literacy instruction by include consideration for linguistic and cultural diversity. Multiliteracies education encourages critical engagement and gives students access to the ever-evolving language of labor, power, and society, empowering them to define their social futures and find success through satisfying employment (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; New London Group, 1996). In foreign language learning, multiliteracies pedagogy addresses the broader concept of literacy to embrace the ability to use and to construe coherent and meaningful texts that are relevant to social purposes (Kern, 2000, p.6). Additionally, multiliteracies pedagogy prepares learners to participate actively in real-life contexts (Warner & Dupuy, 2018; Willis Allen & Paesani, 2010). Multiliteracies pedagogy offers the teaching devices to develop students’ literacy by incorporating four knowledge processes: (1) experiencing, (2) conceptualizing, (3) 194 | ENGLISH FRANCA, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2022 analyzing, and (4) applying. These knowledge processes integrate and align the learning of language forms with authentic texts (Anderson & Krathwol, 2001; Bloom et al., 1956). Multiliteracies pedagogy bridges language and content and provides a pedagogical experience that is coherent and well-articulated (Menke et al., 2018). In addition, there is substantial evidence supporting the usefulness of multiliteracies pedagogy and knowledge processes in a variety of linguistically and culturally diverse settings, including English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction (Burke & Hardware, 2015). Some studies have yielded empirical evidence of multiliteracies pedagogy implementation on various areas such as students’ experiences, students’ learning outcomes, and students’ perceptions (Byrnes et al., 2010; Paesani, 2016; Maxim, 2002), the implementation of the framework in numerous settings of education ( Redmann & Sederberg, 2017; Paesani et al., 2015), teacher perceptions and understandings of the framework (Paesani, 2013), the application of knowledge process in foreign language teaching (e.g. Bhooth, Azman, & Ismail, 2014; Michelson & Beatrice Dupuy, 2014), and material analysis using multiliteracies and knowledge process framework (e.g. Menke et al., 2018; Rowland et al., 2016). Other studies in the ESL context identify that the implementation of multiliteracies pedagogy can encourage students’ positive writing identity (Hughes & Morrison, 2014), and positive literate identity (Black, 2009; Thorne et al., 2009). The use of multimodal representation has been proven to improve communication (S. L. Cohen, 2011; Hughes & Morrison, 2014). In relation to the use of multiliteracies pedagogy in the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) environment in Indonesia, some research have been carried out to investigate the effects of applying multiliteracies pedagogy. (Nabhan, 2019; Hapsari, 2019; Ikasari et al.; Drajati et al., 2018, 2019; Januarty & Nima, 2018; Kustini, 2021; Nabhan & Hidayat, 2018; Nuryani et al., 2019; Suherdi, 2015 Cahyaningati & Lestari, 2018). For instance, Kustini's (2021) research on the application of multiliteracies pedagogy in an English for Specific Purposes classroom found that students exhibited positive engagement and motivation. The research also showed that the use of multiliteracies teaching in the classroom has the potential to enhance students' knowledge as well as their capacity to comprehend and produce multimodal texts. An especially fascinating finding from the research was that a student who had performed poorly academically was able to communicate her awareness of her improved English skills, as well as her confidence and drive in studying and utilizing English. (Kustini, 2021, p.174). Prihantoro, et.al: Developing Students’ Multimodal Communicative Competence through Multiliteracies Pedagogy-195 Even though there is more and more interest in the multiliteracies pedagogy framework, there are still some gaps in what we know about it in the EFL context. First, most of the research on how multiliteracies pedagogy is used has been done at the elementary and secondary school levels. Only a few studies at the college level have been done. Second, there have been many studies, but one important topic that hasn't been looked into much is how teachers use the framework to help students learn how to understand and create multimodal text. (Royce, 2002, 2007). Taking all of these things into account, as well as the need to give more systematic advice on how to implement multiliteracies pedagogy in ELT, this study looks into how multiliteracies pedagogy is used at the tertiary level. It goes into more detail about how the four pedagogical moves in Multiliteracies Pedagogy and Knowledge Process (New London Group, 1996; Cope & Kalantzis, 2015a) help students develop their multimodal communication skills. THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK The Pedagogy of Multiliteracies The New London Group, which consisted of several literacy scholars from different countries, met in New London in September 1994. The group met to discuss the current condition and the potential of literacy instructions. Their main focus was on how literacy instructions had to adapt to the society which was getting more and more globalized and getting more diverse in terms of culture and language, and various text forms that correspond to ICT which were growing massively and were getting more and more multimodal (Mills, 2010b, 2010a; Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; New London Group, 1996). This study looks at how multiliteracies pedagogy is used at the tertiary level. It takes all of these things into account, as well as the need to give more systematic advice on how to use multiliteracies pedagogy in ELT. It goes into more detail about how the four pedagogical moves in Multiliteracies Pedagogy and Knowledge Process (New London Group, 1996; Cope & Kalantzis, 2015a) help students improve their multimodal communication skills (New London Group, 1996). Literacy instruction in today's schools must cultivate students' multiliteracies and ensure that it can build students' capacity to become independent individuals who can successfully participate in a variety of settings throughout their lives (Anstey & Bull, 2018; New London Group, 2000). The New London Group proposed "multiliteracies pedagogy" as a reaction to the desire for expanding the scope of literacy instruction, and 196 | ENGLISH FRANCA, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2022 this background served as the impetus for the New London Group's advocacy of this approach. Literacy instruction, according to the pedagogy of multiliteracies, should take into account the diverse array of cultures and texts that are present in the modern, globalized world, which is becoming more multicultural and multilingual. In addition to this, it should take into account the growing number of text formats that are associated with ICT. This involves taking into consideration familiarity with and mastery of multimodal meaning-making and its applications. (New London Group, 2000; Cope & Kalantzis, 2015a). When it comes to the multiliteracies theory, the multimodality theory and the work done by Kress have made substantial contributions to the design concept that is at the heart of the multiliteracies approach. In addition to this, a number of studies have highlighted the significance of multimodal characteristics in multiliteracies. (Eteokleous et al., 2015; Hill, 2004; Kist & Pytash, 2015; Leu, 2000; Lynch, 2015; Mcnabb, 2006; O’Byrne et al., 2014; Rabadán, 2015). Situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing, and transformed practice are the four pedagogical components that make up the how of multiliteracies. These four pedagogical components allow the pedagogy of multiliteracies to accommodate the interconnections of the elements or modes of design (New London Group, 1996). Situated practice mentions that all learners' affective and sociocultural needs and identities should be considered in a pedagogy (New London Group, 1996, p.85). In this pedagogical move, according to their unique teaching situations and students' needs, teachers must develop a variety of teaching and learning approaches. In addition to this, teachers have the responsibility of guiding students in the process of drawing parallels between their academic and personal lives. Overt instruction is the second component, and it refers to the way in which teachers aid their students' learning through the delivery of direct and explicit lessons (New London Group, 1996). During over instruction, teachers provide students with several forms of scaffolding to help them achieve the aim of learning. The third part of this move is called critical framing. This component's goal is to aid students in the development of their critical thinking skills by assisting them in the recognition of the contexts of their learning and the connection of what they learn to wider contexts. Students use critical analysis, interpretation, deconstruction, and reconstruction to reconstruct their own body of knowledge and practices. The final component, transformed practice, involves students reflecting on prior knowledge and transforming it into a fresh design Prihantoro, et.al: Developing Students’ Multimodal Communicative Competence through Multiliteracies Pedagogy-197 informed by their own objectives and convictions. (New London Group, 1996). The multiliteracies pedagogical framework has undergone several iterations since it was initially introduced. The project's Learning by Design phase is one of the most crucial. Cope and Kalantzis reinterpret and transform the framework of the New London Groups into "a more productive, relevant, inventive, creative, and emancipatory education" (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009). (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009, p. 175). Knowledge Processes is their phrase for the pedagogical movements of experiencing (situated practice), conceptualizing (overt instruction), analyzing (critical framing), and applying (transformed practice). Experiencing comprises both the known and the new, thus students should consider their prior knowledge and experiences as well as participate in the new experiences they acquire when immersed in real-world situations. As regard to conceptualizing, it is possible to conceptualize through naming and theorizing, so students should be able to describe and categorize the knowledge and experiences they have had as well as be able to generalize and connect their conceptions with one another. In terms of analysing, students should be able to investigate logical connections and the function of meaning while also critically considering them. This is known as functional and critical analysis. Applying should be done properly and creatively, which calls for students to put their knowledge to use in the current world and creatively adapt it to other situations (Cope & Kalantzis, 2015b, 2015a). Teachers can rearrange and combine the moves as they see fit. They decide the best course of action based on how well the students performed in each previous move (Cope & Kalantzis, 2015b, 2015a). The four pedagogical components should not be treated as separate steps or used independently. Rather, there are intentional overlaps and connections between them, with some elements taking primacy at different periods (New London Group, 1996). Communicative Competence Chomsky's ideas on competence and performance form the basis for what we now call "communicative competence." Chomsky defines competence as the knowledge of language and performance as the ability to use the underlying system with interlocutors in real-world circumstances. (Chomsky, 1965). Hymes (1972) came up with the term "communicative competence" in response to Chomsky's claim that competence is different from performance. According to Hymes, making 198 | ENGLISH FRANCA, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2022 such distinction undermines the importance of language as a social activity. As a result, it places more emphasis on grammatical knowledge than on interpersonal skills and treats competence as a universal rather than a culturally specific concept (Hymes, 1972). Hymes suggests that consideration of sociocultural factors is essential to comprehending communicative competency. He thinks that the most important aspects of communicative competence are speakers' awareness of linguistic and sociolinguistic norms and their ability to apply this awareness in conversation (Hymes, 1972). Building on Hymes's work, Canale and Swain developed a complete model of communicative competence in 1980. (Canale & Swain, 1980). The theory of their communicative competence rests on three main pillars: grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, and strategic competence. To be grammatically proficient, one must be well- versed in a language's lexicon, as well as its grammar, syntax, morphology, and phonology. The second type of competence is known as "socio-linguistic competence," and it entails familiarity with both discourse norms and social customs. The ability to adapt one's verbal and nonverbal methods in the face of a communication failure is what we mean by "strategic competence." (Canale & Swain, 1980, p. 29-31). Three years after establishing their first model, Canale and Swain (1983) amended the model by adding discourse competence as a fourth component. This competency is demonstrated by formal cohesiveness and semantic coherence. Together, these two components create a coherent text (Canale, 1983, p.9). In the 1990s, as a continuation of Canale and Swain's approach, Celce-Murcia et al. proposed a new model of communicative competence (Eghtesadi & Beheshti, 2017). Five competencies are included in their model. (1) discourse competence, (2) language competence, (3) sociocultural competence, (4) strategic competence, and (5) actional competency (Celce-Murcia et al., 1995). This alternative paradigm positions actional competence, sociocultural competence, and linguistic competence as the three points of a triangle surrounding discourse competence, with all three being controlled and supported by strategic competence in the outer circle. In 2007, Celce-Murcia revised her model of communicative competency. The model incorporates six competencies: linguistic, discourse, formulaic, interactional, sociocultural, and strategic. Figure 2 is a schematic illustration of the revised model. The new model preserves the top-down nature of sociocultural competence with the addition of formulaic competence and the transformation of actional competence into interactional competence. This model demonstrates a dynamic Prihantoro, et.al: Developing Students’ Multimodal Communicative Competence through Multiliteracies Pedagogy-199 hierarchy between cultural instruction, discourse shaped by context, and a balance between language as a system and language as a form. Thus, the model emphasizes interaction and diverse strategies (Celce-Murcia, 2008). Sociocultural competence, located at the top of the diagram, is defined as the speaker's practical knowledge of how to effectively articulate messages within the entire social and cultural framework of communication. Discourse competence refers to the ability to produce coherent spoken messages through the selection, arrangement, and sequencing of words, structures, and utterances. The four major components of discourse competence are coherence, deixis, cohesion, and generic structure. Conventions regarding the use of reference, substitution, conjunction, and lexical chains constitute cohesion. Deixis is the situational grounding accomplished through the use of personal pronouns, special terms, temporal terns, and textual reference (Celce- Murcia, 2008). The following competency is linguistic proficiency. This includes phonological, lexical, morphological, and syntactic knowledg A new component, formulaic competence, is introduced in the revised model of Celce-Murcia. Different from linguistic competence, formulaic competence concerns with conventional linguistic and fixed expressions that are mostly used in daily interaction. Routines, collocations, idioms, and lexical frames all fall under the category of formulaic competence. Celce-Murcia argues that formulaic competence is an important component to include in communicative competence. As a matter of fact, formulaic expressions are frequently used by fluent speakers or native speakers of a language compare to systematic linguistic expressions when they take part in actual communication events (Celce-Murcia, 2008). Actional competence is transformed into interactional competence in the revised version of the Celce-Murcia model. This competency encompasses a total of three other competencies. There are three types of competence: conversational competence, nonverbal/paralinguistic competence, and actional competence. In conclusion, the updated model still possesses the same level of strategic competence. This competency includes some strategies that can be used in communication, such as strategies for achieving goals, strategies for stalling or gaining time, strategies for monitoring oneself, strategies for interacting with others, and social strategies. (Celce-Murcia, 2008). In the literature on communicative competence, other models that resemble "communicative competence," such as Bachman's language 200 | ENGLISH FRANCA, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2022 ability model, have been proposed. Instead of focusing on language teaching, these models are based on language assessment (Celce-Murcia, 2008). Thus, Canale and Swain's (l980) model, supported by elaborations of Canale's (l983) model, more frequently the issues to be discussed in communicative competence discourse as well as related issues in language pedagogy and applied linguistics (Celce-Murcia, 2008). However, in this current study, the formulation of multimodal communicative competence was based on Celce-model Murcia's of communicative competence (2007). Multimodal Communicative Competence Visuals have frequently been utilized as a foundation for many teaching strategies in the L2 setting, such as stimulating discussion, building vocabulary, or encouraging students to apply their social knowledge and develop predictions (Stenglin & Iedema, 2001). As something that is socially and culturally constructed as well as having its own grammar, visuals have not received much attention. Additionally, visuals are more often excluded from the concept of second language proficiency or communicative competence (Royce, 2002). According to Royce (2007), the goal of language instruction must be reconsidered in light of the proliferation of new forms of communication made possible by technological progress. Language education today should focus on enhancing students' ability to communicate effectively across a variety of media. It is important to equip students with the resources they need to cultivate their capacity for multimodal interpretation and meaning-making. Royce (2002) proposes the idea of MCC by reconsidering Hymes’ traditional view on communicative competence, which mainly focuses on linguistic aspects, and considers the need to include multimodal literacy. Comparable to the New London Group's multiliteracies, Royce's concept of multimodal communicative competence is nonetheless tailored to the English as a Second Language (ESL) and English as a Foreign Language (EFL) settings. Royce believes that it is not enough to focus merely on language; hence, he incorporates visuals into the teaching of language. He maintains that in a language class, the teacher should develop the teaching of metalanguage that can help students develop their visual literacy. This literacy will help students to comprehend and produce texts that incorporate linguistic modes and visual or other modes. He also notes that adopting this strategy in the language classroom helps students better understand sociocultural and ideological aspects of the language being studied (Royce, 2007: 367). Prihantoro, et.al: Developing Students’ Multimodal Communicative Competence through Multiliteracies Pedagogy-201 This current study adopts the communicative competence framework proposed by Celce-Murcia’s model as its foundation. The model is enhanced by Royce's multimodal competence (Royce, 2007, 2013) to form a proposed model of multimodal communicative competence. Figure 1. Multimodal communicative competence model Celce-Murcias' framework of communicative competence is preserved in the proposed framework of multimodal communicative competence, with multimodal competence situated within the circle that encloses the other six competences. Each of the other communicative competences relies on more than one mode of meaning making, as indicated by multimodal competence's position at the center of the diagram. (Sukyadi et al., 2018). For instance, the application of linguistic competence in its intended context calls for the use of gestures or visual illustration. The necessity for students to deal with the various ways that each mode uniquely realizes its contextualized meanings is not the only aspect of multimodal communicative competence. Instead, it focuses on how students can develop their multimodal interpretation and meaning- construction skills in a variety of contexts. Students must therefore possess the knowledge and abilities necessary to analyze or create texts that coherently convey meaning that is relevant in terms of culture and context. Students should be aware that this will necessitate drawing on their understanding of what constitutes informational cohesion in a multimodal text. Students should also be able to apply their knowledge of how various modes can maintain the same forms of address to audiences or realize similar and opposing attitudes within the confines of a single text. Finally, students should be able to compose meanings in multimodal 202 | ENGLISH FRANCA, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2022 texts by comprehending how the verbal and visual modes can collaborate to create convincing meanings on the page or screen. Multimodal communicative competence focuses on the semantic interrelation between the two modes of communication on the page or screen. It highlights the importance of knowledge and skills to understand, produce, and communicate the incorporation of two modes into a single text. It focuses on the knowledge and abilities needed by both students and teachers to deal with the co-occurring nature of the two modes and how they display their meaning in tandem. It also involves the skills and understanding of how these mixed meanings frequently result in a visual and verbal partnership, allowing for a greater and more full communication of meaning than would be feasible with simply one modality. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The present study used a qualitative case study research design to answer the objectives and questions posed in the introduction. A qualitative case study research design may have been appropriate for this study for the following reasons: First, Researchers in this study zeroed in on a specific cohort of ESL students who had been exposed to multiliteracies pedagogy while learning English. (L. Cohen et al., 2007; Creswell, 2007; Creswell & Poth, 2018; Hancock & Bob Algozzine, 2006; Yin, 2003). Second, the case study provided readers with a compelling illustration of real people dealing with a specific challenge, which made it easier for them to comprehend the phenomenon in its natural context. (L. Cohen et al., 2007; Creswell, 2007; Creswell & Poth, 2018; Gering, 2007; Yin, 2003). Third, this research made use of a variety of evidence sources in order to perform triangulation, which makes it possible to comprehend the situation in its entirety. (Yin, 2003). A case study provides a detailed data collection taken from multiple sources to assist understanding and to make the analysis of individuals’ behaviour (Yin, 2018). Twenty individuals were used in this analysis. Bachelor's degree holders, they were second-semester student teachers. Students with at least one semester of experience with introductory-level English courses were prioritized in the selection process. As a result, they were classified as students with the potential to acquire functional English proficiency. Having a firm foundation in English could help them progress rapidly in their studies of the language. They also had some exposure to ICT in their early education, which contributed to their general acceptance as having a foundational understanding of computers and the internet. The researcher assumed that the study's English and technological literacy Prihantoro, et.al: Developing Students’ Multimodal Communicative Competence through Multiliteracies Pedagogy-203 tasks would be manageable for the participants. In addition, the next thing that was taken into consideration was the possibility that these student teachers will have a good opportunity in the not-too-distant future to utilize in their own teaching what they have experienced and learned while participating in this program. Classroom observation, student interviews, and student artifacts were the three different sources of data that were utilized in this current study. In this study, the triangulation of data was used, which requires these various sources of data in order for the researcher to have a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon being studied (Yin, 2003). In addition to that, it offered readers a wealth of perspectives on the phenomena that were the subject of this research (Cohen et al., 2007). RESULTS & DISCUSSION Results The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of a multiliteracies teaching program in assisting students in the development of their multimodal communicative competence. To portray the development of multimodal communicative competence, one diagnostic project and two digital projects were assigned. In each project, students were required to: (1) write a descriptive text; (2) produce a digital poster; and (3) produce a video. A rubric on multimodal communicative competence was used to evaluate students’ artefacts. The following table gives an overview of the projects' average scores: Table 1 Score on Students’ Project NO Average Score Diagnostic Project 2 Project3 Average Score 70.10 74.31 79.41 The table presented the students’ average score on the three projects assigned to them during the program. The data indicated that during the course of implementing multiliteracies pedagogy, students’ multimodal communicative competence developed. It was indicated by the improvement of the average score from the diagnostic project of 70.10 to the last project of 79.41 The rise in the mean score seemed to indicate that students' capability of understanding the combined potential of various modes for making meanings had gradually developed over time. This ability is 204 | ENGLISH FRANCA, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2022 required in order to make sense of texts and construct them. To put it another way, the application of various pedagogical maneuvers was successful in cultivating multimodal communicative competence in the students. In terms of linguistic competence, students' artefacts revealed a gradual development in their linguistic competence. The following evidence could be used to justify the improvement of students’ linguistic competence: First, their diagnostic to project 2 scores demonstrated progress. The results of the students' evaluation of their linguistic competence are provided in the table below. Table 2 Score on Linguistic Competence Project Score Diagnostic Project 1 Project 2 Descriptive Text (1 - 3) 2 2 3 Digital Poster (1 - 3) 2 3 3 Video Animation (1- 3) 2 3 3 It can be inferred from the table that, in general, students’ linguistic competence improved. It is indicated by the increase in the average score of the three projects. For example, students’ average score in descriptive text exceeds from 2 in diagnostic to 3 in task 2. The score in digital poster improved from 2 in diagnostic project to in project 1 and project 2. The score in video animation project progressed from 2 in diagnostic project to 3 in project 1 and project 2. The score may indicate that students have developed their linguistic competence. Second, a qualitative analysis of student artifacts revealed that the quality of students' projects was improving in terms of syntactic, phonological, morphological, orthographic, and lexical features. Following the application of multiliteracies pedagogy, Students can display good command and usage of grammatical structures such as phrase structure, word order, various sorts of sentences, sentence special construction, modifier use, coordination, subordination, and embedding. They also have the potential to assist in the correction of grammatical errors. They made effective use of both content and function words, as well as accurate use of grammatical inflection, productive derivational processes, and parts of speech. Students were able to articulate the pronunciation of vowels, consonants, and syllables, as well as the use of prominence, intonation, stress, and rhythm. In terms of phonological Prihantoro, et.al: Developing Students’ Multimodal Communicative Competence through Multiliteracies Pedagogy-205 features, students were able to articulate these aspects of speech. Additionally, the projects highlighted the students' mastery of orthographic variables. They exhibited correct letter usage, phoneme- grapheme relationships, spelling norms, mechanical conventions, and punctuation, among other things. The result of the students’ project supports the indication that students have developed their awareness of the sociocultural aspect of communication. The following table shows the result. Table 3 Average Score on Sociocultural Competence Project Average Score Diagnostic Project 1 Project 2 Descriptive Text (1 - 3) 1.25 1.3 1.95 Digital Poster (1 - 3) 1.25 1.6 1.95 Video Animation (1- 3) 1.25 1.3 2 The table displays the average communication competence score of students. The diagnostic score for the video animation project is 1.25, while the scores for projects 1 and 2 are 1.3 and 2, respectively. The application of multiliteracies instruction has increased students' awareness of culture and norms, which govern the use of dialects or varieties, registers, natural or idiomatic expressions, cultural references, and figurative language. After completing the multiliteracies program, students were able to articulate task-appropriate communication objectives. They presented pertinent, supporting, and completely convincing arguments in support of the communication objectives. In addition, they have a solid command of the appropriate word register and social awareness for the circumstance. Students’ development of formulaic competence can be seen from the improvement of their project score. The table below shows students’ average score on formulaic competence. Table 4 Average Score on Formulaic competence Project Average Score Diagnostic Project 1 Project 2 Descriptive Text (1 - 3) 1.25 1.3 1.9 Digital Poster (1 - 3) 1.25 1.75 2.1 Video Animation (1 - 3) 1.55 1.85 2.55 206 | ENGLISH FRANCA, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2022 In general, students’ formulaic scores progress in the three projects. For example, in the video animation project, students’ scores for the diagnostic test are 1.55, which improves to 2.55 in task 2. It implies that there is improvement in the students’ formulaic competence. The score on formulaic competence is also supported by data from descriptive text, video projects, and their interaction during the communicative activities. Routines, fixed phrases, collocations, idioms, and lexical frames are found in those activities. However, not all of the students could develop their formulaic competence. The data from students’ project and the classroom interaction indicated that limited user students did not experience progress in this area. The pedagogical move of transformed practice facilitated the development of students' interactional competence. When students engage in communicative activities, their interactional competence grows. They can effectively exchange information, perform speech acts, and employ nonverbal communication skills. Students' communicative activities provided evidence of their interactional competence. Throughout pair work, group work, role play, and simulations, the researcher attempted to identify interaction competence's articulation. The table below displays the students' interactional competence knowledge and skills. Table 5 Score on Students’ Interactional Competence Interactional Competence Score Actional Competence (1 - 3) 2 Conversational Competence (1 - 3) 2.5 Para Linguistic Competence (1 – 3) 2.5 The score demonstrates that the students have developed their interactional competence. For instance, in paralinguistic competence, students received a maximum score of 2.5 out of 5 points. It may indicate that students are aware of how to use non-verbal cues to enhance communication effectiveness. During the communicative activities, Student demonstrated her ability to use common speech acts and speech act sets in the target language for interactions involving information exchanges, interpersonal exchanges, expression of opinions and feelings (complaining, blaming, Prihantoro, et.al: Developing Students’ Multimodal Communicative Competence through Multiliteracies Pedagogy-207 regretting, apologizing, etc.), suasion (suggesting, requesting, advising, persuading, asking for, etc.), and future scenarios (hopes, goals, promises, predictions, etc.). In addition, they were able to implement turn-taking systems, such as how to initiate a conversation, how to establish and change topics, how to interrupt, how to collaborate, how to assess comprehension, etc. Students' descriptive texts reveal that the implementation of multiliteracies pedagogy has facilitated the growth of their discourse competence. Students are able to produce text that is coherent and unified, making full and appropriate use of a variety of organizational patterns and a vast array of cohesive devices. They can also use the conventions of the text type in question with sufficient flexibility to effectively communicate complex ideas, while holding the reader's attention and achieving all communication goals. It is also supported by the improvement of students’ average score on discourse competence, as it is presented in the table below. Table 6 Average score on Discourse Competence Project Average Score Diagnostic Project 1 Project 2 Descriptive Text (2 - 6) 1.25 1.8 4.25 Digital Poster (1 - 3) 1.25 3.95 2.1 Video Animation (1- 3) 1.25 1.85 2.1 The development of students’ discourse competence can be seen from the improvement of students’ average score. For example, students’ scores in descriptive text improved from 3.5 to 4.25. This indicates that the implementation of multiliteracies pedagogy can improve students. Discourse competence Since the beginning of the program, there had been an overall improvement in the level of discourse competence development among the students. Within the scope of their initial undertaking, the mode of expression was utilized effectively and was pertinent to the communication objective. They were also able to correctly use a variety of textual features and contribute to the coherence of the text. Alongside the implementation of multiliteracies pedagogy, students gradually improved her ability to use cohesion devices such as references, substitution, conjunction, and parallel structure. These devices were effective in preserving the text's coherence and were used by the student 208 | ENGLISH FRANCA, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2022 to enhance her ability to use cohesion devices. In addition to this, their capacity to acquire situational anchoring through personal, spatial, temporal, and textual deixis was improved. The coherence of their texts was accomplished by articulating the appropriate content schemata, managing old and new material, thematization, maintaining temporal continuity, and utilizing various organizational schemata. These are all methods that are generally recognized as being effective. It is particularly interesting to note that not all students were able to cultivate their strategic competence in relation to communication strategies. Some of the students were able to improve their skills in the various strategies, including achievement strategies, strategies for stalling or gaining time, strategies for self-monitoring, strategies for interacting with others, and social strategies. However, some students had trouble improving their communication strategies despite their best efforts. Students' multimodal competence has improved to some degree as a direct consequence of the implementation of multiliteracies pedagogy in the classroom. Students have the ability to thoughtfully design the use of color and typography to reflect the chosen visual theme, as well as to make meaningful use of available visual elements, such as graphics, in order to construct meaning in a manner that is consistent throughout. In addition, students have the ability to make use of any animated elements or special effects in order to design dynamic sequencing of the content in a way that is purposeful and meaningful in order to complement or supplement the other design modes for meaning construction in a manner that is cohesive. This evidence of students’ multimodal competence is also indicated by the improvement of students’ scores. Table 7 Multimodal Competence Average Score Project Average Score Diagnostic Project 1 Project 2 Digital Poster (3 - 9) 4.55 6.9 7.35 Video Animation (3 – 9 4.55 6.45 7.05 The score on both digital poster and video animation project improves. For example, in the digital poster, the diagnostic score is 4.55 and it improves in task 2 by a score of 7.35. The improvement in the score Prihantoro, et.al: Developing Students’ Multimodal Communicative Competence through Multiliteracies Pedagogy-209 indicates that the enactment of multiliteracies pedagogy can, to some extent, develop students’ multimodal competence. Along with the implementation of multiliteracies pedagogical moves, students gradually improved their ability to understand and design multimodal text. After experiencing multiliteracies learning, they started to improve their ability to design multimodal text by making use of colour and typography. In addition, they demonstrated the ability to use selected visual themes and make effective use of available visual elements, such as graphics, to create a unified message. Students honed their ability to use any animated element design purposefully and meaningfully to supplement the other design modes for cohesion in meaning construction. Students could utilize any auditory elements, such as music, sound effects, or narration, in their video projects with purpose and significance. Students improved their compositional skills by adopting a specific layout to structure design elements and by utilizing text alignment and margins as design elements for cohesive meaning construction. DISCUSSION This study reveals that multiliteracies pedagogy combined with communicative activities increased students' multimodal communicative competence in speaking courses. The students excelled in their learning by actively participating in class activities and completing their assigned projects. A number of factors have proven the favourable results of teaching program implementation in this study: (1) the use of explicit teaching or direct instruction; (2) the use of transformed practice or application; (3) the use of multimodal authentic materials; and (4) the use of communicative activities. First, the use of explicit instruction in this study has the potential to improve students' knowledge of concepts and aspects of texts, allowing them to gain conscious awareness and control over what they learn during the teaching program. Direct instruction also helps students build their skills in using explicit metalanguage to express the processes and ingredients that produce meaning. This study confirms the claim that direct instruction on the nature of multimodal texts and multimodal communicative competence helps students develop their understanding of semiotics systems: linguistics (oral and written language); visual (still and moving images); auditory (music and sound effects); gestural (facial expression and body language); and special (layout and organization) (Anstey & Bull, 2018; New London Group, 1996). 210 | ENGLISH FRANCA, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2022 Second, the use of transformed practice in this study allows students to put what they've learned in prior moves into practice. As a result, students' communication skills can improve. Students reflect on existing knowledge and convert it into a new design inspired by their own objectives and convictions through transformed practice. Students' knowledge and skills from situated practice, overt instruction, and critical framing will be used in real-world contexts outside of the classroom. This study confirms the proposition that by enabling students to relate their learning to their cultural experiences and vice versa, transformed practice leads to some degree of creative change (Mills, 2006a, 2007). Third, in this study, the usage of multimodal authentic texts benefits students in two ways. First, authentic texts assist students in developing their ability to critically engage with multimodal texts, allowing them to comprehend how language (and other semiotic modes) are bound. Second, authentic resources expose students not only to new language but also to fresh textual messages and ideas conveyed in unfamiliar language. Fourth, the use of communicative activities in this study is useful foster students’ multimodal communicative competence. Communicative activities in this study facilitate students’ multimodal communicative development in several ways. First, communicative activities facilitate the implementation of multimodal communicative competence components. Second, the language techniques in communicative activities enable students to engage learners in the pragmatic, authentic, functional use of language for meaningful purpose. Third, by implementing communicative activities students can use the language, productively and receptively, in unrehearsed context outside the classroom. Fourth, communicative activities provide students opportunities to focus on their own learning process through an understanding of their own styles of learning and through the development of appropriate strategies for autonomous learning. This study confirms the claim that communicative activities can improve students’ ability to convey their ideas in the target language communicatively (Widdowson, 1978; Breen and Candlin, 1980; Savignon 1983; Nunan, 1991; Lee & Van Vatten, 1995; Richard-Amato, 1996; Brown, 2000). CONCLUSIONS This study's findings indicate that adopting a multiliteracies pedagogy in English language instruction can enhance students' multimodal communicative competence. In terms of linguistic competence, the implementation of multiliteracies pedagogy can improve Prihantoro, et.al: Developing Students’ Multimodal Communicative Competence through Multiliteracies Pedagogy-211 students' knowledge and skill in all of its components. There is also evidence that students' sociocultural competence increased as a result of the implementation of multiliteracies pedagogy. Regarding formulaic competence, some students demonstrate growth in this area. However, some individuals do not make progress. The limited exposure of students to authentic material outside of the classroom has hindered their progress. The findings also indicate that students' interactional competence improves in general. Students can also improve their text organization knowledge and skills. In accordance with the implementation of multiliteracies pedagogy, the findings reveal that students' discourse competence grows. The findings regarding students' strategic competence, as opposed to their discourse competence, paint a different picture of their development. There does not appear to be any improvement among the limited users. The strategic competence of competent and intermediate users, however, can be enhanced. In accordance with the implementation of multiliteracies pedagogy, multimodal competence develops among students, according to this study's findings. Furthermore, they must be able to comprehend and produce texts in multimodal ways that are culturally and contextually significant (Bianco, 2000; Royce, 2002, 2007; R. Stenglin & Iedema, 2001). REFERENCES Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2018). Foundations of multiliteracies: Reading, writing and talking in the 21st century. In Foundations of Multiliteracies: Reading, Writing and Talking in the 21st Century. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315114194 Archer, A. (2000). Communicative competence expanded: A ‘multiliteracies’ approach to English Additional Language teaching. English Academy Review, 17(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10131750085310101 Bhooth, A. M., Azman, H., & Ismail, K. (2014). Investigating the Reading Practices of EFL Yemeni Students Using the Learning by Design Framework. TESOL Journal, 6(3), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.148 Bianco, J. Lo. (2000). Multiliteracies and Multiligualism. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Future (1st ed., pp. 89–102). Routledge. Black, R. W. (2009). English-Language Learners, Fan Communities, and 21st-Century Skills 688. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 212 | ENGLISH FRANCA, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2022 52(MAy), 688–697. https://doi.org/10.1598/JA Burke, A., & Hardware, S. (2015). Honouring ESL students’ lived experiences in school learning with multiliteracies pedagogy. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(2), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2015.1027214 Byrnes, H., Maxim, H. H., Norris, J. M., Maxim, H. H., & Byrnes, H. (2010). Realizing Advanced Foreign Language Writing Development in Collegiate Education: Curricular Design,. The Modern Language Journa, 94. https://doi.org/10.2307/40985261 Cahyaningati, D. T., & Lestari, L. A. (2018). The use of multimodal text in enhancing engineering students’ reading skill. International Journal of Language Education, 2(2), 65–73. https://doi.org/10.26858/ijole.v2i2.6360 Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Languae and Communication (1st ed., pp. 2–27). Routledge. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/I.1.1 Celce-Murcia, M. (2008). Rethinking the role of communicative competence in language teaching. In E. A. Soler & M. P. S. Jordà (Eds.), Intercultural Language Use and Language Learning (1st ed., pp. 41– 57). Springer. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1- 4020-5639-0 Celce-Murcia, M., Dornyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative Competence: A Pedagogically Motivated Model with Content Specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 5–35. https://doi.org/10.5070/l462005216 Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. THE M.I.T. Press. Coccetta, F. (2018). Developing university students’ multimodal communicative competence: Field research into multimodal text studies in English. System, 77, 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.01.004 Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education. In Research Methods in Education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203029053-23 Cohen, S. L. (2011). Making Room for Identity in Second-Language Writing: The Promise and Possibilities of Dual Language Identity Texts. Writing & Pedagogy, 3(2), 217–239. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v3i2.217 Cooper, N., Lockyer, L., & Brown, I. (2013). Developing multiliteracies in a Prihantoro, et.al: Developing Students’ Multimodal Communicative Competence through Multiliteracies Pedagogy-213 technology-mediated environment. Educational Media International, 50(2), 93–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2013.795350 Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). Multiliteracies ”: New Literacies , New Learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3), 164–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/15544800903076044 Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2015a). A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Learning by Design (B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (eds.)). Palgrave Macmilan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137539724 Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2015b). The Things You Do to Know: An introduction to the Pedagogy of Multiliteracies. In B. Cope & M. Kalntzis (Eds.), A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Learning by Design (1st ed., pp. 1–36). Palgrave Macmilan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137539724 Cope, B., & Mary Kalantzis. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and The Design of Social Futures (B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (eds.)). Routkedge. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiriy and Research Design Choosing among Five Approaches (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design Choosing Among Five Approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc. Drajati, N. A., Tan, L., Haryati, S., Rochsantiningsih, D., & Zainnuri, H. (2018). Investigating English Language Teachers in Developing. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(3), 575–582. Durrant, C., & Green, B. (2000). Literacy and the new technologies in school education: Meeting the l(IT)eracy challenge? Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 23(2), 89–108. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292005643_Literacy_a nd_the_new_technologies_in_school_education_Meeting_the_lITerac y_challenge Eghtesadi, A. R., & Beheshti, S. (2017). Models of Communicative Competence: Implications for Language Teachers and Teacher Educators Knowledge Improvement. Roshd Flt, 31(3). Eteokleous, N., Pavlou, V., & Tsolakidis, S. (2015). Integrating the multimedia builder software as an education tool to deliver fairy tales: Promoting multiliteracies and multimodality. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 26(1), 65–88. Fandiño, Y. J. (2013). 21st century skills and the English foreign language classroom: A Call for more awareness in Colombia. Gist Education and Learning Research Journal, 7(7), 190–208. Gee, P. (2000). The New Literacy Studies: From “Socially Situated” to the 214 | ENGLISH FRANCA, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2022 Work of the Social. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivanič (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context. Routkedge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315717647-11 Gering, J. (2007). Case Study Research Principles and Practices. Cambridge University Press. Gleason, N. W. (2018). Higher Education in the Era of the Fourth Industrial (N. W. Gleason (ed.)). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007 Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). Language as social semiotic The social interpretation of language and meaning. Edward Arnold. Hancock, D. R., & Bob Algozzine. (2006). Doing Case Study Research. In Dalton Transactions. Teachers College Press. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8dt02254b Hapsari, A. (2019). Implementasi Pendekatan Multiliterasi untuk Pengajaran Membaca dan Menulis Berbahasa Inggris di Matakuliah Reading and Writing for Occupational Purposes. Refleksi Pembelajaran Inovatif, 1(1), 49–66. https://doi.org/10.20885/rpi.vol1.iss1.art5 Healey, A. (2016). Transforming pedagogy with multiliteracies in the English classroom. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 24(1), 7. Hill, S. (2004). Mapping multiliteracies: Children of the new millennium. Hughes, J. M., & Morrison, L. (2014). The Impact of Social Networking and a Multiliteracies Pedagogy on English Language Learners’ Writer Identities. Writing & Pedagogy, 6(3), 607–631. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v6i3.607 Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence sociolinguistics. In J. B. Pride & J. Homes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings (pp. 269– 293). Penguin. http://smjegupr.net/wp- content/uploads/2012/05/ESPA-3246-On-Communicative- Competence-p-53-73.pdf Ikasari, B., Drajati, N. A., & Sumardi, S. (2019). The Use of Multi-modal Texts in An English Classroom of Hard-of- Hearing Learners. Pedagogy : Journal of English Language Teaching, 7(2), 95. https://doi.org/10.32332/pedagogy.v7i2.1661 Januarty, R., & Nima, H. N. A. (2018). Energizing students’ reading comprehension through multimodal texts. International Journal of Language Education, 2(2), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.26858/ijole.v2i2.4347 Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32, 241–267. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07310586 Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2012). Literacies (1st ed.). Cambridge University Prihantoro, et.al: Developing Students’ Multimodal Communicative Competence through Multiliteracies Pedagogy-215 Press. Kellner, D. (2001). New technologies/new literacies: Reconstructing education for the new millennium. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011270402858 Kist, W., & Pytash, K. E. (2015). “I Love to Flip the Pages”: Preservice teachers and new literacies within a field experience. English Education, 47(2), 131–167. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in New Media Age (I. Snyder (ed.)). Routledge. Kumagai, Y., Lopez-Sanchez, A., & Wu, S. (2016). Multiliteracies in world language education. Routkedge. Kustini, S. (2021). Implementing Multiliteracies Pedagogy to Foster Students’ Multimodal Literacy in A Technology Supported ESP Course : A Case Study in An Indonesia Polytechnic Classroom. Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia. Leu, D. J. (2000). Our children’s future: Changing the focus of literacy and literacy. The Reading Teacher, 53(5), 424–429. Luke, A., Freebody, P., Cazden, C., & Lin, A. (2004). The Singapore Classroom Coding Scheme, Technical Report. https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/50359332/singapor e-pedagogy-coding-scheme-nie-digital-repository Lynch, T. L. (2015). Where the machine stops: Software as reader and the rise of new literatures. Research in the Teaching of English, 49(3), 297–304. Maxim, H. H. (2002). A Study into the Feasibility and Effects of Reading Extended Authentic Discourse in the Beginning German Language Classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 20–35. Mcnabb, M. (2006). Navigating the Maze of Hypertext. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 76–79. Menke, M. R., Paesani, K., & Menke, M. R. (2018). Analysing foreign language instructional materials through the lens of the multiliteracies framework the lens of the multiliteracies framework. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 0(0), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2018.1461898 Michelson, K., & Beatrice Dupuy. (2014). Multi-storied Lives : Global Simulation as an Approach to Developing Multiliteracies in an Intermediate French Course. L2 Journal, 6, 21–49. https://doi.org/10.5070/L26119613 Mills, K. (2006). Multiliteracies: A critical ethnography: Pedagogy, power, discourse and access to multiliteracies [Quensland University of 216 | ENGLISH FRANCA, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2022 TEchnology]. In Faculty of Education: Vol. Doctor of (Issue July). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4366.0648 Mills, K. (2010a). A Review of the “Digital Turn” in the New Literacy Studies. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 246–271. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310364401 Mills, K. (2010b). The multiliteracies classroom. In The Multiliteracies Classroom. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2012.718645 Nabhan, S. (2019). Bringing multiliteracies into process writing approach in ELT classroom: Implementation and reflection. EduLite: Journal of English Education, Literature and Culture, 4(2), 156. https://doi.org/10.30659/e.4.2.156-170 Nabhan, S., & Hidayat, R. (2018). Investigating Literacy Practices in a University EFL Context from Multiliteracies and Multimodal Perspective: A Case Study. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 9(6), 192. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.9n.6p.192 New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies : Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60. New London Group. (2000). A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies Designing Social Feature. In B. Cope & Mary kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Future (1st ed., pp. 9–37). Routledge. Nuryani, P., Abidin, Y., & Herlambang, Y. T. (2019). Model Pedagogik Multiliterasi Dalam Mengembangkan Keterampilan Berpikir Abad Ke-21. EduHumaniora | Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar Kampus Cibiru, 11(2), 117–126. https://doi.org/10.17509/eh.v11i2.18821 O’Byrne, I., Roberts, V., Labonte, R., & Graham, L. (2014). Teaching, learning, and sharing openly online. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 58(4), 277–280. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.365 Paesani, K. (2013). A literacy-based approach to foreign language teacher development. In H. Willis Allen & H. H. Maxim (Eds.), Educating the future foreign language professoriate for the 21st century (pp. 60–81). Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Paesani, K. (2016). Investigating connections among reading , writing , and language development : A multiliteracies perspective. 28(2), 266–289. Paesani, K., Dupuy, B., & Allen, H. W. (2015). A multiliteracies framework for collegiate foreign language teaching. Pearson Education. Rabadán, A. V. (2015). Media Literacy through photography and participation. A conceptual approach. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 4(1), 32–39. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2015.1.96 Redmann, J., & Sederberg, K. (2017). The First World War in the Literacy- Prihantoro, et.al: Developing Students’ Multimodal Communicative Competence through Multiliteracies Pedagogy-217 Focused Classroom : Teaching German through Cultural Themes. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 50, 45–66. Rowland, L., Canning, N., Faulhaber, D., Lingle, W., Rowland, L., Canning, N., Faulhaber, D., Lingle, W., Rowland, L., Canning, N., Faulhaber, D., Lingle, W., & Redgrave, A. (2016). A multiliteracies approach to materials analysis. 8318(August). https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.927883 Royce, T. D. (2002). Multimodality in the TESOL Classroom: Exploring Visual-Verbal Synergy. Tesol Quarterly, 36(2), 191–205. Royce, T. D. (2007). Multimodal Communicative Competence in Second Language Contexts. In T. D. Royce & W. L. Bowcher (Eds.), New Directions in the Analysis of Multimodal Discourse (pp. 361–390). Lawrence Erlbaum. Royce, T. D. (2013). Intersemiotic complementarity: A framework for multimodal discourse analysis. New Directions in the Analysis of Multimodal Discourse, 63–109. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203357774 Ruiz-Madrid, N., & Valeiras-Jurado, J. (2020). Developing multimodal communicative competence in emerging academic and professional genres. International Journal of English Studies, 20(1), 27–50. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes.401481 Stenglin, M., & Iedema, R. (2001). Analysing English in a global context. In Anne Burns & C. Coffin (Eds.), How to analyse visual images: A guide for TESOL Teachers (pp. 194–208). Rotledge. Stenglin, R., & Iedema, M. (2001). How to analyse visual images: A guide for TESOL Teachers. In Ann Burns & C. Coffin (Eds.), Analysing English in a global context (pp. 194–208). Routledge. Suherdi, D. (2012a). Rekonstruksi Pendidikan Bahasa Sebuah Keniscayaan Bagi Keunggulan Bangsa (D. Harini (ed.); 1st ed.). Celtics Press. Suherdi, D. (2012b). Towards the 21st Century English Teacher Education: An Indonesian Perspective (1st ed.). Celtics Press. Suherdi, D. (2015). Multimodal Pedagogy in TEFLIN Contexts. PROCEEDING The 62 Nd TEFLIN International Conference 2015. Sukyadi, D., Hermawan, B., & Rakhmawati, S. S. (2018). Urgensi Pengembangan Model Kompetensi Komuniaktif Multimodal dalam Menyiapkan keterampilan Abad 21. In Multimodalitas Dalam Pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris (p. 18). UPI Press. Tan, J. P.-L., & McWilliam, E. (2009). From Literacy to Multiliteracies: Diverse Learners and Pedagogical Practice. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3), 213–225. 218 | ENGLISH FRANCA, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2022 https://doi.org/10.1080/15544800903076119 Taylor, F. (2009). Authentic Internet in the EF L class. Modern English Teacher, 18(1), 5–9. Thorne, S. L., Black, R. W., & Sykes, J. M. (2009). Second language use, socialization, and learning in internet interest communities and online gaming. Modern Language Journal, 93(Focus Issue), 802–821. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00974.x Varis, T. (2007). New technologies and innovation in higher education and regional development. In Universities and Regional Development: the challenge in the era of the globalisation of higher education (Vol. 4, pp. 16–24). Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research Design and Methods (Vol. 5). Sage Publications, Inc. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. In Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research (6th ed., Vol. 53, Issue 5). Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1177/109634809702100108 Zammit, K. P. (2010). The new learning environments framework: Scaffolding the development of multiliterate students. Pedagogies, 5(4), 325–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2010.509479 Zammit, K. P., & Downes, T. I. (2002). New learning environments and the multiliterate individual: A framework for educators. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 25(2), 25–36.