10.57647/jals.2025.0502.12

Integrating Multimodality into Teaching Speaking: Iranian Novice and Experienced English Teachers’ Perceptions and Practices

PDF
  • Maryam Vesal Azad1,
  • Fazlolah Samimi*2,
  • Shahram Afraz1,
  1. Department of ELT, Qe. C., Islamic Azad University, Qeshm, Iran
  2. Department of ELT, BA. C., Islamic Azad University, Bandar Abbas, Iran

Received: 2025-08-05

Revised: 2025-11-15

Accepted: 2025-11-30

Published in Issue 2025-12-30

Copyright (c) 2025 Maryam Vesal Azad, Fazlolah Samimi, Shahram Afraz (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Vesal Azad, M., Samimi, F., & Afraz, S. (2025). Integrating Multimodality into Teaching Speaking: Iranian Novice and Experienced English Teachers’ Perceptions and Practices. Journal of Applied Linguistics Studies, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.57647/jals.2025.0502.12
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 2

Abstract

There exists little systematic qualitative and exploratory research addressing the use of multimodality in Iranian EFL context, especially in the teaching of speaking skills. This study aimed to investigate the perception and experiences of Iranian high school English teachers with regard to multimodal teaching. To this end, the researchers collected data from 15 novice and 15 experienced English teachers through focus group interviews, face to face interviews, reflective journals, and classroom observations. The data were analyzed through content analysis, using MAXQDA software. Both novice and experiences English teachers believed that using multimodal teaching can increase students’ engagement, academic achievement, and motivation. They believed that multimodal teaching can create an engaging, interactive, and supportive atmosphere in which students thrive. Through using intercreative whiteboards, language learning apps, virtual reality, and audio-visual materials, teachers can implement task-based teaching, communicative language method, learner-centered approach, and differentiated instruction where students can experience real world tasks in simulated setting. Teachers can implement formative assessment, performance-based assessment, and rubrics and criteria for giving immediate feedback to the students during the course and for scoring their performances objectively. However, teachers might face difficulty in choosing the right multimodal tool and selecting the appropriate teaching method. Even worse, they experienced difficulties such as unequal access to technology for all students, any technological failure such as problems with internet connectivity or software glitches, and the wide range of digital literacy levels among students and teachers. Thus, ongoing professional development is essential for educators to remain knowledgeable about the most recent technology and methodologies.   

Keywords

  • Expert Teacher,
  • Multimodal Teaching,
  • Novice Teacher,
  • Perception,
  • Speaking Skill
PDF

References

  1. Abrams, S. S. (2015). Integrating virtual and traditional learning in 6–12 classrooms: A layered literacies approach to multimodal meaning-making. Routledge.
  2. Albelihi, H. H. M. (2022). Intermediate English as a Foreign Language learners' formulaic language speaking proficiency: Where does the teaching of lexical chunks figure? Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 949675. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.949675
  3. Allan, B. (2007). Blended learning: Tools for teaching and training. Facet Publishing.
  4. Al-Lawati, M. (1995). A diagnostic study of the difficulties encountered by Omani secondary school students in their oral production of English (Unpublished master’s thesis). ELT Curriculum and Methodology, College of Education, Sultan Qaboos University.
  5. AlLawati, N. (2002). Washback effect of secondary certificate English examination on teaching and learning processes (Unpublished master's thesis). ELT Curriculum and Methodology, College of Education, Sultan Qaboos University.
  6. Andenoro, A. C., Brown, D., Cerialo, K., & McManus, R. M. (2023). Fostering leadership learning for applied problem-solving: Navigating the crossroads of the sustainable development goals and immersive experiential learning. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2023(179), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20569
  7. Bagheri Masoudzde, A. (2021). Enhancement of reading comprehension skill in a collaborative setting. Seagull Journals: A Peer Reviewed International Multidisciplinary Research, 1(1), 1-20.
  8. Bagheri Masoudzadeh, A., & Hashemi Lahijani, R. (2021). Communicative language teaching method (CLT) and final examination of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Language and Translation Research, 1(3),71-90.
  9. Bagheri Masoudzde, A., Rostami Abousaeedi, A., & Afraz, S. (2020). Perceptions of English language learners about teaching of reading comprehension skills: A view of task-based language teaching method. Journal of Language and Translation, 10(2),.135-151.
  10. Baker, C., & Lutz, A. (2021). Teaching EFL Speaking Skills: The Role of Teacher Expertise. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 12(3), 4562.
  11. Beatty, K. (2013). Teaching & Researching: Computer-assisted language learning. Routledge.
  12. Bing, W. (2019). The application of multimodal discourse analysis theory in the college English teaching. Sino-US English Teaching 16(4). DOI:10.17265/1539-8072/2019.04.004
  13. Black, A., & Tokuda, K. (2005, September). The Blizzard Challenge 2005: Evaluating corpus-based speech synthesis on common databases. In Proceedings of Inter speech (pp. 7780).
  14. Blattner, G., & Fiori, M. (2011). Virtual social network communities: An investigation of language learners' development of sociopragmatic awareness and multiliteracy skills. CALICO Journal, 29(1), 2443. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.29.1.2443
  15. Bogaerds-Hazenberg, S. T. M., Evers-Vermeul, J., & van den Bergh, H. (2021). A Meta-Analysis on the Effects of Text Structure Instruction on Reading Comprehension in the Upper Elementary Grades. Reading Research Quarterly, 56, 435-462.
  16. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.311
  17. Byerly, L. K., Floren, L. C., & Yukawa, M. (2020). Fostering interprofessional geriatric patient care skills for health professions students through a nursing facility-based immersion rotation. MedEdPORTAL: The Journal of Teaching and Learning Resources, 16, 11059. https://doi.org/10.15766/mep_23748265.11059
  18. Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2016). A review of the quantitative measures of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). In Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for Educators (pp. 87106).
  19. Chapelle, C. A. (2003). English language learning and technology: Lectures on applied linguistics in the age of information and communication technology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  20. Chen, M., & Li, W. (2022). The influence of form-focused instruction on the L2 Chinese oral production of Korean native speakers. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 790424. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.790424
  21. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). "Multiliteracies": New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3), 164195. https://doi.org/10.1080/15544800903076044
  22. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
  23. Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advance mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Sage.
  24. Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. ASCD.
  25. Deng, L., Zhang, L. J., & Mohamed, N. (2023). Exploring native and non-native English speaker teachers' perceptions of English teacher qualities and their student’s responses. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1175379. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1175379
  26. Ellis, R. (2003). Task‐based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  27. Erben, T. (2004). Emerging research and practices in immersion teacher education. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 320338.
  28. Farnia, M., & Gerami, S. (2019). A comparative study of reading comprehension texts in Touchstone series: A social semiotic perspective. Research in English Language Pedagogy, 7(2), 313335. https://doi.org/10.30486/RELP.2019.665891
  29. Flores, M. A. (2019). Learning to be a teacher: Mentoring, collaboration and professional practice. European Journal of Teacher Education, 42(5), 535538. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2019.1680207
  30. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
  31. Gee, J. P. (2008). Gamelike learning: An example of situated learning and implications for the opportunity to learn. Assessment, Equity, and Opportunity to Learn, 200, 221.
  32. Godhe, A. L., & Magnusson, P. (2017). Multimodality in language education: Exploring the boundaries of digital texts. In The 25th International Conference on Computers in Education. New Zealand: Asia Pacific Society for Computers in Education.
  33. Gong, W. (2023). Enhancing ESL learner's literacy by peer assisted learning strategy of online English news. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1172099. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1172099
  34. Green, T., & Carter, D. (2022). Novice Teachers and Technology in EFL: Opportunities and Challenges. TESOL Quarterly, 56(1), 134153.
  35. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 381391. https://doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512
  36. Hale, A. J., Freed, J., Ricotta, D., Farris, G., & Smith, C. C. (2017). Twelve tips for effective body language for medical educators. Medical Teacher, 39(9), 914–919. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2017.1324140
  37. Han, R., Alibakhshi, G., Lu, L., & Labbafi, A. (2024). Digital communication activities and EFL learners' willingness to communicate and engagement: Exploring the intermediate language learners' perceptions. Heliyon, 10(3), e25213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25213
  38. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. Teachers College Press.
  39. Hattie, J. (2009). The black box of tertiary assessment: An impending revolution. In Tertiary assessment & higher education student outcomes: Policy, practice & research (pp. 259275).
  40. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
  41. Haverback, H. (2009). Facebook: Uncharted territory in a reading education classroom. Reading Today, 27(2), 34
  42. Heacox, D. (2012). Differentiating instruction in the regular classroom: How to reach and teach all learners (Updated anniversary edition). Free Spirit Publishing.
  43. Hemati, Z., Abbasi, S., Paki, S., & Kiani, D. (2017). The effect of happiness training based on the Fordyce model on perceived stress in the mothers of children with cleft lip and palate. Journal of Caring Sciences, 6(2), 173.
  44. Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S. U. E. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject teaching: Commitment, constraints, caution, and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(2), 155192. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027032000276961
  45. Herrington, A., & Herrington, J. (2007). Authentic mobile learning in higher education. In AARE 2007 International Educational Research Conference. Association for Research in Education.
  46. IoratimUba, G. (2019). Datasets evidencing research on classroom practice in L2 disciplinary writing. Data in Brief, 25, 104222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2019.104222
  47. Isaías, P., Spector, J. M., Ifenthaler, D., & Sampson, D. G. (Eds.). (2015). eLearning systems, environments and approaches: Theory and implementation. Springer International Publishing.
  48. Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 241267. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07310586
  49. Kim, D. (2020). Learning language, learning culture: Teaching language to the whole student. ECNU Review of Education, 3(3), 519541.
  50. Kinzer, C. K., Leu, D. J., & Peters, M. A. (2017). New literacies and new literacies within changing digital environments. In Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory. Singapore: Springer.
  51. Kwon, J., & Iedema, A. (2022). Body and the senses in spatial experience: The implications of kinesthetic and synesthetic perceptions for design thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 864009. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.864009
  52. Lee, S. W. (2019). The impact of a pedagogy course on the teaching beliefs of inexperienced graduate teaching assistants. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(1), ar5. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18070137
  53. Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., & Kennedy, C. (2015). Income inequality and the online reading gap: Teaching our way to success with online research and comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 68(6), 422427. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1328
  54. Li, Y. (2023). The effect of online collaborative writing instruction on enhancing writing performance, writing motivation, and writing self-efficacy of Chinese EFL learners. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1165221. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1165221
  55. Li, M.J., & Lu, A. (2018). Analysis of educational setting based on “Structure-Behavioral-Performance” paradigm. Wool Spinning Technology, 2(2), 81-86.
  56. Liu, D. (2013). Describing and explaining grammar and vocabulary in ELT: Key theories and effective practices. Sciences Education,2(2), 22-38. doi:10.4324/9780203085608
  57. Majid, A. H. A., Stapa, H. S., & Keong, C. Y. (2012). Scaffolding through the blended approach: Improving the writing process and performance using Facebook. American Journal of Social Issues and Humanities, 2(5), 336342.
  58. Marzano, R. J. (2007). Using action research and local models of instruction to enhance teaching. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 20(3), 117128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1109200890587
  59. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Constructivism as a theory of learning versus constructivism as a prescription for instruction. In Constructivist instruction (pp. 196212). Routledge.
  60. Mediouni, M., Schlatterer, D. R., & Khoury, A. (2019). Revisiting an old strategy: Cartoons in medical education. Journal of Visual Communication in Medicine, 42(1), 26–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453054.2018.1553503
  61. Miller, K. A., Keeney, T., Fialkowski, A., Srinivasan, S., Singh, T. A., Kesselheim, J., Farrell, S., Cooper, C., & Royce, C. S. (2021). Leveraging podcasts to introduce medical students to the broader community of healthcare professionals. MedEdPORTAL: The Journal of Teaching and Learning Resources, 17, 11191. https://doi.org/10.15766/mep_23748265.11191
  62. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
  63. Nowak, G., Speed, O., & Vuk, J. (2023). Microlearning activities improve student comprehension of difficult concepts and performance in a biochemistry course. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching & Learning, 15(1), 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2023.02.010
  64. O'Bannon, B. W., & Thomas, K. M. (2015). Mobile phones in the classroom: Preservice teachers answer the call. Computers & Education, 85, 110122.
  65. Ojeh, N., SobersGrannum, N., Gaur, U., Udupa, A., & Majumder, M. A. A. (2017). Learning style preferences: A study of preclinical medical students in Barbados. Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism, 5(4), 185–194.
  66. Pang, Y. (2022). The role of web-based flipped learning in EFL learners' critical thinking and learner engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1008257. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1008257
  67. Quick, N., & Erickson, K. (2018). A multilinguistic approach to evaluating student spelling in writing samples. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 49(3), 509–523. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS170095
  68. Quintero, L. M. (2008). Blogging: A way to foster EFL writing. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 10, 749.
  69. Reddy, L. A., Shernoff, E., & Lekwa, A. (2021). A randomized controlled trial of instructional coaching in high-poverty urban schools: Examining teacher practices and student outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 86, 151168.
  70. Rice, M. F., & Bailon, M. (2023). A qualitative analysis of publicly available standards and guidance about digital literacies in U.S. states. Education and Information Technologies, 28(6), 6927–6946. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1063902211482x
  71. Robin, B. R. (2008). Digital storytelling: A powerful technology tool for the 21st-century classroom. Theory into Practice, 47(3), 220–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802153916
  72. Samah, E., & Saka, M. (2016). The relationship between listening comprehension problems and strategy usage among advanced EFL learners. Cogent Psychology, 6(1), 1–19.
  73. Shayesteh, S., Pishghadam, R., & Khodaverdi, A. (2020). FN400 and LPC responses to different degrees of sensory involvement: A study of sentence comprehension. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 16(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.5709/acp02836
  74. Shih, R. C. (2011). Can Web 2.0 assist college students in learning English writing? Integrating Facebook and peer assessment with blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(5), 829845. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.934
  75. Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765–781. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012840
  76. Smith, J., & Doe, A. (2020). Engagement and Learning in Multimodal EFL Classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 104(2), 328345.
  77. Stockwell, G. (2007). Vocabulary on the move: Investigating an intelligent mobile phone-based vocabulary tutor. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(4), 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220701745817
  78. Sun, W. (2023). The impact of automatic speech recognition technology on second language pronunciation and speaking skills of EFL learners: A mixed methods investigation. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1210187. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1210187
  79. Takeda, T., Zhang, D., Wada, S., Nakagawa, A., Sugimoto, K., Manabe, S., & Matsumura, Y. (2019). The acquisition of structured clinical data from a document-based electronic medical record system. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 264, 1600–1601. https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI190554
  80. Ten Cate, O. T. J., Kusurkar, R. A., & Williams, G. C. (2011). How self-determination theory can assist our understanding of the teaching and learning processes in medical education. AMEE Guide No. 59. Medical Teacher, 33(12), 961973. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.595435
  81. Tomlinson, B. (2014). Teacher growth through materials development. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 3(2), 89107.
  82. Tsunemoto, A., & McDonough, K. (2021). Exploring Japanese EFL learners' attitudes toward English pronunciation and its relationship to perceived accentedness. Language and Speech, 64(1), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830919900372
  83. Warschauer, M. (2002). A developmental perspective on technology in language education. TESOL Quarterly, 36(3), 453475. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588421
  84. Warschauer, M., Grant, D., Del Real, G., & Rousseau, M. (2004). Promoting academic literacy with technology: Successful laptop programs in K12 schools. System, 32(4), 525537.
  85. Wei, L. (2023). Artificial intelligence in language instruction: Impact on English learning achievement, L2 motivation, and self-regulated learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1261955. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1261955
  86. Wu, S. (2024). Application of multimedia technology to innovative vocational education on learning satisfaction in China. PloS One, 19(2), e0298861. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0298861
  87. Ye, W., & Liu, J. (2023). Exploring and modeling the reading-writing connection in EFL integrated writing. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1161272. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1161272
  88. Zarei, G. R., Pourghasemian, H., & Jalali, H. (2017). Language learners' writing task representation and its effect on written performance in an EFL context. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46(3), 567–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1093601694520
  89. Zhou, Z., Ye, L., Cai, L., Wang, L., Wang, Y., Wang, Y., Chen, W., & Wang, Y. (2024). Concept Thread: Visualizing threaded concepts in MOOC videos. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2024.3361001
  90. Zhu, B., Chau, K., Mokmin, N., & Wu, L. (2023). Using multimedia technology to improve English comprehensive ability. Language Related Research, 14(5), 109-139. https://doi.org/10.29252/LRR.14.5.5