An empty systematic review of the ‘pedagogy of multiliteracies’ in K‐12 since 1996: a generation later, evidence it improves literacy outcomes is lacking from (quasi‐)experimental classroom interventions

One of the most influential articles in the history of literacy education has been ‘A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures’ co-written by the New London Group in 1996. This seminal article introduced multiliteracies pedagogy, developed the theoretical framework for why it was needed, and outlined how teachers, curriculum planners and policy makers should implement the pedagogy. The article called for classroom-based research to establish the evidence, lacking at the time, to support that the pedagogy of multiliteracies improves student literacy outcomes. Recent reviews claim that the generation of research following the foundational article produced evidence that multiliteracies pedagogy improves several literacy outcomes. However, existing reviews have not followed systematic review protocols typically required for concluding that a pedagogy is evidence-based, so it remains unclear what evidence exists from (quasi-)experimental classroom research. This paper reports on a systematic review of 20,581 studies published since 1996 with the aim of clarifying the extent to which multiliteracies interventions have reported positive effects on any literacy outcome (K-12), in any country, through experimental/quasi-experimental research designs that measured outcomes against control/comparison groups. The result is an ‘empty review’, meaning no studies were found. These results point to an important limitation on claims about the pedagogical value of multiliteracies in raising literacy outcomes. With recent movements toward evidence-based practices, this study points toward opportunities for (quasi-)experimental studies to be conducted that can provide teachers with a more robust evidence base and clarity around which aspects of multiliteracies pedagogy improve which literacy outcomes.