Title Unpacking the teachers’ multimodal pedagogies in the primary English

language classroom in Singapore

Author(s) Fei Victor Lim, Phillip A. Towndrow and Jia Min Tan

Copyright © 2021 SAGE Publications

This is the author’s accepted manuscript (post-print) and the final, definitive version of this
paper has been published in RELC Journal, May 2021.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882211011783 by SAGE publishing. All rights reserved.
Unpacking the Teachers’ Multimodal Pedagogies in
the Primary English Language Classroom in Singapore
Fei Victor Lim , Phillip A. Towndrow and Jia Min Tan

National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Abstract

The ‘multimodal turn’ has led many education systems around the world to incorporate
aspects of multimodality into their language curriculum as a response to the contemporary
communication environment and new literacy practices of students. In this article, we
present and examine findings from a study of the enactment of multimodal pedagogies by
two primary level English language teachers in Singapore. Classroom data were collected,
transcribed, and analysed in this case study research. We observed eight lessons by two
teachers where viewing and representing skills were taught and interviewed the teachers for
their reflections on their experience. The lessons were coded in terms of the classroom
practices, the knowledge focus, the types of knowledge representations present
(conventional or constructed), as well as the source of the knowledge representation (i.e.
whether the knowledge was teacher-constructed, student- constructed or jointly constructed
by both). Our findings indicate that there was a good balance between teacher and student
construction of knowledge. However, most of the knowledge represented in the lessons was
factual and procedural rather than conceptual. This suggests that students had few
opportunities to critically explore and challenge the knowledge taught and were not guided
sufficiently to interrogate the knowledge represented. Representing skills also received less
emphasis than viewing skills in the lessons. We discuss the implications of our observations
on teachers’ professional learning and advance the argument on the need to pay more
attention to multimodal pedagogies in literacy instruction given the incorporation of
multimodality in the curricula.

Keywords

Multimodal Literacy, Pedagogy, Multimodality, Primary School, Singapore

Multimodal Literacy and Multimodal Pedagogies

The ‘multimodal turn’ (Jewitt, 2009: 4) describes the nature of contemporary communication
and literacy practices that people are increasingly involved in. While multimodal meaning-
making is not a new phenomenon, the ‘multimodal turn’ signals a shift away from the
privileging of language towards the recognition of how new digital technologies have greatly
expanded the many ways in which meanings are expressed. In education, the ‘multimodal
turn’ was ushered in by the manifesto of the New London Group (1996: 62) on multiliteracies
in light of the ‘multiplicities of media and modes’ as well as ‘increasing local diversity and
global connectedness’. As a part of the multiliteracies movement, many educational systems
around the world have incorporated multimodality (Jewitt and Kress, 2003; Lim, 2021a; Van
Leeuwen, 2017) into their language curricula and assessments. Literacy is no longer a
question of reading and writing language-based texts; students also need to develop
multimodal literacy in response to the communicative demands of the digital age.

Multimodal literacy involves working with different types of texts (Kress et al., 2005). These
multimodal texts are created with a range of semiotic modes – for example, print, speech,
gestures, writing, media (video and audio), charts, graphs, pictures, realia – which are the
central elements of meaning-making. They can be used – either individually or together in
‘ensembles’ – in communicative (inter)actions to create links with other times, places and
modes (Jewitt et al., 2016). As such, multimodal literacy is about learning the knowledge and
skills in engaging with and creating multimodal texts (Lim, 2018) as well as developing a
sense of semiotic awareness (Towndrow et al., 2013) in contemporary communication.

Multimodal literacy has been codified as a set of pedagogic metalanguage (Anstey and Bull,
2018; Macken-Horarik et al., 2017) for different semiotic modes and intersemiotic relations,
such as print media (Lim and Tan, 2017), films (Lim and Tan, 2018), image-text relations
(Unsworth, 2006, 2017), and digital multimodal composing (Liang and Lim, 2020; Unsworth,
2014, Unsworth and Mills, 2020). Scholars have also produced various other frameworks
and models to facilitate the formal incorporation and teaching of multimodal literacy in the
classroom, such as the semiotic modes framework (Chia and Chan, 2017), as well as
Danielsson and Selander’s (2016) model for working with multimodal pedagogic text. While
the importance of multimodal literacy to prepare students for the new communication
environment is increasingly recognized and reflected in many literacy curriculum around the
world, the challenge remains for the teachers on how to design for students’ multimodal
literacy learning in the classroom.

In this article, we use the term ‘multimodal pedagogies’ to describe the ways in which the
teacher can design learning experiences that facilitate students’ development of multimodal
literacy in the classroom (Kress and Selander, 2012). Multimodal pedagogies involve
teachers making decisions about which modes of representation to use for particular
curricular content, and how these are to be arranged and sequenced. It also involves
designing opportunities for students to create multimodal compositions. The enactment of
multimodal pedagogies includes the weaving together of a series of representations and
commentary into a seamless whole (Bezemer and Kress, 2016) as well as an apt use of
meaning-making resources in the design of students’ learning experiences (Lim, 2021b).

The benefits of multimodal pedagogies in enriching classroom teaching and learning are
well-documented in Asia. Ganapathy and Seetharam (2016) reported that the use of
multimodal texts made English Language lessons more interesting and enhanced students’
levels of engagement, understanding, and retention of the knowledge taught. Similarly in
Singaporean secondary school, Anderson et al., (2017) argued that engaging in multimodal
text composition allowed low-progress students to develop higher order critical and
analytical skills, which the usual classroom literacy practices and activities did not offer.
Their findings are consistent with Ajayi’s (2008) earlier observations on the benefits of using
multimodal composing activities among high school ESL students who come from
marginalized and socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. Jiang and Gao (2020)
also observed that the inclusion of multimodal digital composition tasks contributed to the
development of digital empathy amongst Chinese EFL learners, and helped to increase their
motivation and confidence in expressing themselves in English. Likewise, Chen (2021)
reported that the teacher’s multimodal pedagogies in designing opportunities for students’
multimodal composing were well-received by the students, who appreciated the range of
meaning-making options.

Notwithstanding, despite these benefits promised by the implementation of multimodal

classroom approaches to teaching and learning, studies have reported the challenges in
enacting multimodal pedagogies. These include the receptiveness of teachers to engage
with multimodality as well as their readiness to teach multimodal literacy (Eilam and Poyas,
2012; Nabhan and Hidayat, 2018; Tan et al., 2019). The enactment of multimodal
pedagogies may also be influenced by the nature and focus of the assessment practices
(Unsworth et al., 2019). Heydon (2013) found that standardized literacy assessment
practices greatly limited the curriculum time and focus for teachers to engage in multimodal
pedagogies in the Canadian province of Ontario. Their instructional practices were often
influenced by the pressures to teach the ‘must-dos’ – narrowly focused on the language
skills which were assessed in standardized tests (Heydon, 2013: 492). A similar tension
between new multimodal pedagogies and old language-dominant assessment practices has
also been reported in Singapore. Tan et al., (2010: 14) documented a case study of how
they progressively transformed the pedagogical practices of a Singaporean high school
English Language teacher, where the ‘reading and designing of multimodal texts’ became
central, and students were introduced to other semiotic modes besides language. Despite
this, the teacher conceded that when confronted with the more pressing need of preparing
her students for the all-important year-end examinations, multimodal literacy was ‘good to
have’ but ‘not one of [the] top priorities’ in her teaching (Tan et al., 2010: 14).

In this article, we examine how two primary teachers in the English Language classroom in
Singapore teach multimodal literacy and reflect on their multimodal pedagogies. Our study is
guided by the research question, ‘What is the nature of the teacher’s multimodal pedagogies
in the primary English Language subject classroom?’ In particular, we analyse the teachers’
multimodal pedagogies in terms of their classroom practices, the knowledge focus and types
of knowledge representations, as well as the sources of knowledge representations by the
teachers and students during the lessons. Our research question on the nature of the
teacher’s multimodal pedagogies is set against the backdrop where multimodality was
introduced as part of the English Language curriculum a decade ago in 2010.

Multimodality in the Singaporean English Language Curriculum

The city-state of Singapore has progressively incorporated aspects of multimodality into the
language curriculum. Significantly, the English Language Syllabus 2010 broadened its focus
beyond the learning of language to developing multimodal literacy. Students are expected to
work with and analyse a variety of multimodal texts. Skills relating to viewing and
representing of multimodal texts are also to be ‘taught explicitly’ (Ministry of Education,
2008: 20).

The latest English Language Syllabus 2020 highlights the ‘expanded notions of literacy’ and
the ‘renewed emphasis’ on ‘viewing and representing even as the making and creation of
meaning are strengthened by rich multimodal perspectives related to different semiotic
modes in all areas of language learning’ (Ministry of Education, 2020a, 2020b: 16). The
policy intent and signal to teachers is clear in reflecting the shift from a language-based
English curriculum to one where multimodal literacy is now formally incorporated.

In light of the curriculum reforms, educational researchers and English teachers in

Singapore have been exploring ways in which multimodal pedagogies can be expressed in
classrooms. For example, Towndrow and Kogut (2021) explored how the creation of
multimodal representations can promote secondary students’ engagement with semiotic
work and a heightened sense of multimodal semiotic awareness. O’Halloran et al., (2017)
also introduced a pedagogical approach for applying multimodal analysis in critical thinking
through the use of a software for multimodal analysis. Other efforts focused on multimodal
pedagogies in Singaporean primary classrooms (Chan et al., 2017) and secondary
classrooms (Lim et al., 2015). The common goal was to develop multimodal pedagogies
which could offer opportunities for the students’ development of multimodal literacy.

Data and Methods

The study reported in this article is part of a larger ongoing multi-phased research project
that commenced in February 2019, focusing on the teaching of multimodal literacy in primary
and secondary school contexts in Singapore. Phase 1 in the main research project
(February to November 2019) involved working with nine teachers and their classes of 244
students from three secondary and two primary schools across Singapore. The objective in
Phase 1 of the study was to understand how the teachers were designing opportunities for
the students’ development of multimodal literacy (Lim, 2021a). Extending from the work in
Phase 1, this present article adopts a case study approach to offer a deeper, more focused
analysis of the nature of two primary English teachers’ multimodal pedagogies observed in
the same primary school (Casanave, 2010; Yin, 2014). This is done through an analysis of i)
the classroom practices, ii) the knowledge focus and types of knowledge representations, as
well as iii) the sources of knowledge representations by the teachers and students during the
lessons.

The data analysed in this case study comprises the classroom observations and interviews
with the teacher participants teaching Primary 5 English Language from Serenity Primary
School (anonymized). Serenity Primary School is a publicly funded school situated in a
neighbourhood with mostly public housing in the northern part of Singapore. Students take
the standard national curriculum and sit for the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE)
at the end of Year 6. Serenity Primary School has a keen interest in the teaching of
multimodal literacy and has made multimodal pedagogies in the English Language
classroom the school’s curriculum innovation. In Singapore, while the English Language
curriculum applies to all public schools, the teachers exercise autonomy over the
pedagogies that they adopt and may choose to use different resources to achieve the
curricular outcomes.

The two Primary 5 classes from Serenity Primary School comprised mixed ability students
aged 11 years-old on average, and were taught by Sura and Yun (pseudonyms), who at the
point of the study had 25 and 10 years of teaching experience respectively. There were 25
students in Sura’s class and 32 students in Yun’s class. The two teachers taught a
multimodal literacy lesson package using a picture book chosen by the English department,
titled The Colour of Home. This traces the experiences of its young Somalian protagonist,
who migrated to the UK with his family to escape war back home. As he takes his first
tentative steps settling into a new life, he learns to express himself through paintings, in
place of the as yet unfamiliar English language. The vivid and dramatic use of colours in the
book thus serve as an apt resource to develop a sensitivity to the meanings in colour.

We observed four lessons by each teacher in July 2019. To capture a holistic and thorough
record of these lessons and enable the triangulation of data, various pieces of classroom
data were collected from each lesson (Casanave, 2010). All lessons were video-recorded
and transcribed verbatim. Researchers sitting in for the lesson observations also made field
notes to contextualize and triangulate the observations made from the video analysis,
ultimately providing an alternative perspective on the lessons that complements the
teachers’ reflections in the subsequent interviews (Casanave, 2010). We interviewed the
teachers before and after the lessons and conducted a focus group discussion with students
from both classes. Students were also asked to complete a writ- ten questionnaire to
express their views on the efficacy of their multimodal literacy les- sons. In what follows, we
limit our discussion to the nature of classroom practices observed and the nature of
knowledge representations coded from the videos. Where relevant, we reference data from
the teacher interviews to explain our points.

We analysed the video-recorded lessons by segmenting them into three-minute phases

following Hogan et al.’s (2009) coding of the lesson phases for the knowledge focus –
factual, procedural or conceptual – as well as the types and sources of the knowledge
construction. We made a distinction between the source of knowledge representations
constructed by the teacher alone, students alone or jointly. We also categorized the types of
knowledge representations as either Conventional Representations or Constructed
Representations.
 • Conventional Representations – represent knowledge that derives from social-
historical debates on language. For instance, the system of writing (alphabetical
letters, punctuation and phonetic symbols) exemplifies conventional forms of
representation. Students must learn and use these representations as part of their
language learning. Conventional representations usually include textbooks, video
clips and workbooks.
• Constructed Representations – created by teachers and learners to understand
some aspect of language. Although constructed representations might be widely
used in classrooms, the rules governing their constructions tend to be less
prescriptive and there is a greater autonomy on the part of the agent to represent a
concept or problem situation. Constructed representations may also be more limited
in their use to solve or represent a restricted class of problems or concepts. For
example: mind- and concept-maps on a particular topic or theme, tables and charts,
numbered and bulleted lists.

Two researchers completed the coding of all data separately, before coming together for
discussions to resolve any differences in applying the coding scheme. The researchers were
able to reach a 100% agreement following the inter-rater discussions. The discussions about
the plot of The Colour of Home with reference to the text and images were coded under the
factual knowledge type, using conventional knowledge sources in the form of page-by-page
scans of the actual picture book projected on screen at the front of the classroom. When the
teachers explicitly guided students to utilize the semiotic modes to notice details from
multimodal texts, they were in effect teaching students the method of deconstructing
multimodal meanings by applying the semiotic modes. Such instances were coded as
procedural and teacher-constructed knowledge. In Sura’s lessons, when she instructed her
students to compare, contrast, and evaluate the impact and effectiveness of publicity
posters, her students actively volunteered their justifications, which led to a lively teacher-
whole class discussion and demonstrated students’ conceptual under- standing of what
makes an effective publicity poster. This was coded as conceptual knowledge that was co-
constructed by both teacher and students.

Findings

In the interview before the first lesson in the lesson package, both teachers shared that they
had previously introduced multimodal literacy to their students. Building on the students’
familiarity, both teachers started the first lesson with similar lesson designs that guided the
students in discussing the different ways in which meanings were made in the picture book.

From the second lesson onwards, Sura and Yun diverged in their selection of learning
activities and objectives. Sura guided students in learning how descriptive language can be
used to describe emotions in narrative writing, and how publicity posters are used to convey
meaning through the use of words, images and colours. Yun continued using the picture
book as the main learning resource for the remaining lessons. She conducted learning
activities, such as role-playing and hot-seating to guide her students in the character
analyses from the book.
Table 1: Classroom Practices Observed

Classroom Practices No. of Proportion

lessons
(Out of 8
Lessons)
With multimodal texts 5 62.5%
With slides and visualisers 8 100%
With online digital resources 1 12.5%
With students’ viewing multimodal texts 5 62.5%
With students’ representing multimodal texts 2 25%

In her first lesson, Sura introduced The Colour of Home and guided students in viewing the
images and understanding the plot. In her second lesson, she explored how gestures make
meanings using a series of images to teach how different emotions could be portrayed
through body language and facial expressions. This was followed by the third lesson on
descriptive language and writing, where Sura introduced phrases for describing body
language and facial expressions that depicted various emotions. Examples of such phrases
included ‘stood rooted to the ground’ and ‘shaking like a leaf’. In the fourth lesson, Sura
taught how images and text could be used together to convey the messages in print
advertisements and to persuade the viewer. After this, the students worked in groups to
create their own posters about Singapore (this activity was conducted around the time of
Singapore’s National Day).

Yun spent the first two lessons going through the story and images from the book. She
organized her students to work in groups to come up with questions on the story and invited
other groups to take turns to answer these questions. In the third lesson, Yun got her
students – again working in groups – to video record themselves performing a short skit
based on a scene from the book. This exercise served to reinforce their awareness of body
language and facial expressions in conveying emotions. In the fourth lesson, Yun moved on
to a character analysis of the protagonist from The Colour of Home. Through a hot-seating
activity, she asked her students to imagine themselves as the protagonist and answer
questions about the protagonist’s experiences from his perspective.

Sura and Yun’s lessons were examined from the perspective of the research question – that
is to understand the nature of the teachers’ multimodal pedagogies in the classroom. The
nature of the teachers’ multimodal pedagogies is revealed through an analysis to i) identify
the classroom practices observed, ii) code the knowledge focus and types of knowledge
representations, as well as iii) identify the sources of knowledge representations during the
lessons. Each aspect of the teachers’ multimodal pedagogies is described in the following
sections.

Classroom Practices

Both Sura and Yun used multimodal resources, such as photographs, video clips and
digitized pages of the picture book, during five of the eight lessons (Table 1). The three
lessons where multimodal resources were not used included Sura’s third lesson, where
purely written texts were used to teach descriptive writing, as well as Yun’s third and fourth
lessons, where the class activities centred on role play and hot seating.

The teachers used simple technologies, such as slideshows and visualizers in all the
lessons. Online digital resources were rarely used, including the use of the Internet for the
search and retrieval of information during the lesson. This is with the exception of Yun who
used Google Earth in her first lesson to show Somalia’s location on the map and in relation
to Singapore.

Five of the eight lessons involved engaging students in the viewing of the multimodal texts.
The teachers reminded students how these modes work to create meanings and used
questions to direct attention to specific meanings made multimodally. They also used group
discussions to have students identify the modes and meanings. Yun explained during the
interview that the school’s English department chose The Colour of Home as an instructional
text in addition to the regular reading texts prescribed in the syllabus, ‘because the book is
richer in terms of illustrations and pictures, whereas the [regular prescribed texts are] quite
limited to text’. Selecting an authentic picture book allowed the students to become ‘more
familiar with the different semiotic modes’. As Sura shared in the interview, reading The
Colour of Home was a different experience for her students compared to reading other texts.
The Colour of Home ‘has really nice pictures’ and was ‘on a different conceptual level
altogether – we’re not just looking at words; we’re looking at the message that the author
and illustrator are working together to deliver’.

To enrich students’ understanding of the book, Sura asked questions that directed students’
appreciation of the pictures, colours, use of space and facial expressions. Yun also guided
her students to ‘delve deeper’, ‘to take note of the details in the picture’, ‘to notice certain
things’ and to ‘read between the lines’. Beyond The Colour of Home, Sura also used
‘advertisements that are very colour-based’ for her fourth lesson, to reinforce her students’
understanding of the visual mode.

The focus on representing skills was less prevalent than viewing skills in the lessons
observed. Two of the eight lessons had opportunities for the students to create multi- modal
compositions. These referred to Sura’s fourth lesson on poster-making and Yun’s third
lesson on play-acting and skits. The field notes also reported that little guidance was given
by the teachers to the students in the design and development of the artefacts. The reasons
for these instructional decisions were revealed by the teachers in the interview. Sura pointed
out that ‘[representing skill] doesn’t show up in the exams at all’ and this lack of attention to
representing skills in the formal assessments has in turn influenced teaching practices. Sura
felt that in contrast to teaching representing skills, more curriculum time should be dedicated
to ‘enrich[ing] [students’] language learning’ and ‘beef[ing] up their writing’.

Knowledge Focus and Types of Knowledge Representation

Table 2 displays the correspondence analysis of knowledge representations by three

illustrative types of knowledge foci at the phasal level – factual (e.g. dates, facts, names,
definitions), procedural (how to undertake a particular task or solve a problem, rule- based
grammar, the structure of texts and methods of inquiry) and conceptual (meaning- making,
the relationships between concepts, patterns and understandings). We calculated the
percentages in Table 2 by dividing the total number of coded phases for a particular
correspondence within lessons by the total number of phases across all coded lessons (i.e.
165 phases). The same representation could appear across multiple phases within and
across lessons, and more than one representation could appear within a single three-
minute lesson phase, e.g. within the same three-minute phase, both conventional factual
and teacher-constructed factual knowledge could be present.
Table 2: Knowledge Representations by Knowledge Focus

Knowledge Focus—Phasal Level

Factual Procedural Conceptual
N N N
(%) (%) (%)
Type / Source
80 0 0
Conventional Representations
(48.5%) (0%) (0%)
Constructed Representations (Teacher 37 10 9
+ Students) (22.4%) (6.1%) (5.5%)
26 41 1
Constructed Representations (Teacher)
(15.8%) (24.9%) (0.6%)
38 35 17
Constructed Representations (Students)
(23.0%) (21.2%) (10.3%)

The main knowledge focus in the lessons was factual in nature with a much lower presence
of procedural knowledge and even lower conceptual knowledge focus. An example of factual
knowledge focus is using conventional representations, such as showing a documentary
video clip on the plight of Syrian migrants to the students. Factual knowledge was expressed
through constructed representations when Sura taught the students about the differences in
meaning and grammatical parts of speech for the words ‘refuge’ and ‘refugee’ using
PowerPoint slides that she had prepared.

Procedural knowledge focus was expressed when the teachers guided students on how they
could apply their knowledge of the semiotic modes in the viewing of the multimodal aspects
of the book. The presence of procedural knowledge reflected the intent of the teachers in
guiding students on the viewing of the multimodal texts by discussing the meanings made
through the different semiotic modes.

Conceptual knowledge, where associations are drawn and relationships are made between
pieces of knowledge, was less commonly present in both teachers’ lessons. An exception
was in Sura’s third and fourth lessons when the students voiced their arguments and
justifications for what they thought to be an effectively written piece of narrative writing (third
lesson) and an effectively designed tourism publicity poster (fourth lesson). In these
discussions, students not only had to know what a narrative or a publicity poster was, they
also had to exercise their judgement and develop their explanations for why they had
evaluated one narrative to be better written than another, or why one publicity poster might
be more effective in getting its message across than another.

Sources of Knowledge Representation

Table 3 reports the types and sources of knowledge representations. The total number of
phases for Sura was 78, while that for Yun was 87. In total, there were 165 phases coded for
both teachers across all eight lessons. Table 3 indicates the proportion of knowledge
representations by source per lesson. Like in Table 2, we arrived at our calculations by
dividing the total number of coded phases across lessons where a particular type of
knowledge representation was present by the total number of phases across all coded
lessons (i.e. 165 phases). The same type of knowledge representation could appear across
multiple phases in a single lesson, and more than one type of knowledge representation
could appear within a single three-minute lesson phase. For example, within the same three-
minute phase, both conventional and teacher-constructed representations could be present.
The total number of phases coded for the four types of knowledge representations therefore
exceeds the total number of phases constituting the eight lessons.

Table 3: Knowledge Representation

Average Proportion
of Phases per
KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION
lesson
(%) (165 Phases)
Type / Source
48%
Conventional Representations
(80)
32%
Constructed Representations (Teacher + Students)
(52)
39%
Constructed Representations (Teacher)
(64)
32%
Constructed Representations (Students)
(52)

While conventional representations were used most often (48%), constructed

representations were also used (32%). Examples of such conventional sources of
knowledge used in Sura and Yun’s lessons included picture books, publicity posters and
advertisements, videos, as well as web applications like Google Earth and online
dictionaries. The range of conventional knowledge sources observed in Sura and Yun’s
classes suggests that both teachers introduced authentic materials into their classrooms as
teaching and learning resources instead of simply relying on teacher-constructed sources of
knowledge, such as in the form of the teacher writing on the whiteboard or teaching from a
deck of PowerPoint slides.

In both Sura and Yun’s lessons, emphasis was given to both the teachers’ and the students’
constructed representations at 39% for teachers and 32% for students respectively.
Examples of constructed representations observed in the lessons included teacher
explanations of the semiotic modes, student group discussions on character analysis, and
teacher-led whole class discussions on what constitutes an effective piece of descriptive
writing (as in Sura’s third lesson) or poster (Sura’s fourth lesson). The amount of time which
students were actively involved in constructed representations suggests that they were not
positioned entirely as passive knowledge receptacles in a teacher-dominated classroom. In
the lessons, students were involved in a range of collaborative learning tasks which was
followed by opportunities for them to present their work and for the teachers to comment on
and critique it. Both teachers also seemed to value the students’ contributions as indicated
by them frequently inviting students to speak up during the lessons, and building on their
responses to co-construct knowledge.

Discussion

The nature of multimodal pedagogies demonstrated by the two teachers reveal an

intentionality in the development of multimodal literacy in the students. Similar to findings of
studies in Asia, such as Ganapathy and Seetharam (2016), Anderson et al. (2017), and
Chen (2021), the teachers demonstrated competence in designing learning experiences that
facilitated students’ development of multimodal literacy in the classroom through the adept
use of multimodal representations (Bezemer and Kress, 2016).

In terms of classroom practices, both teachers made clear efforts to use multimodal texts as
well as simple digital technologies as resources for learning. The practice of including
materials from the students’ lifeworlds (New London Group, 1996) in teaching and learning
helps students to connect what they have learnt in the classrooms with their out-of-school
experiences, thereby increasing the relevance and relatability of classroom learning.

However, the low presence of representing activities during the lessons, in the form of
opportunities for the students’ creation of multimodal compositions, can be of concern. The
absence was attributed to the fact that representing skills were not assessed in the national
examinations. As Heydon (2013) and Tan et al. (2010) highlighted, what is and is not
assessed in national examinations plays a significant role in shaping pedagogical practices
and curriculum coverage in the classroom. This again is reflected in our study and points to
the need for assessment reforms and to better align curriculum and assessment foci
(Unsworth et al., 2019).

Our analysis of the knowledge focus also shows that the knowledge focus in the les- sons of
both teachers was more factual and procedural than conceptual in nature. This means the
students had fewer opportunities to view knowledge as meaning-making and explore the
relationships between concepts, patterns and understandings from various perspectives.
This is consistent with what has often been associated with Singapore’s education system
(Hogan, 2014: 1), where ‘the transmission of factual and procedural knowledge’ is cited as a
common trait. This can be of concern because the dominance of factual and procedural
knowledge in the lessons could discourage students from challenging the knowledge they
are taught and students may also not be guided to interrogate the knowledge represented
during the lesson (Hogan, 2014). As such, a shift in multi- modal pedagogies towards
guiding students in critical analysis of multimodal texts (O’Halloran et al., 2017) and in
providing them with a set of metalanguage for multi- modal meaning-making (Lim and Tan,
2017; Lim, 2018; Macken-Horarik et al., 2017; Unsworth, 2006; Unsworth, 2014) could be
empowering.

The teachers were intentional in using a blend of conventional and constructed

representations and both teachers and students had opportunities to construct knowledge
representations. One way this could be done is to allow students opportunities to connect
concepts introduced in the classroom using a range of multimodal representations that they
design for themselves. This is an area for future investigation in a variety of literacy
instruction contexts. Providing opportunities for multimodal meaning-making is important as
it can bring about positive washback on students’ learning of criticality, empathy, and even
confidence (Jiang and Guo, 2020).

Admittedly, Sura and Yun are unique in that they teach in a school that has a keen interest
in teaching multimodal literacy and has made multimodal pedagogies in the English
Language classroom the school’s curriculum innovation. As such, their proficiencies in
multimodal pedagogies cannot be generalizable to all teachers in Singapore schools. This is
not the objective of the study. Rather, the objective of this case study research is to unpack
the nature of multimodal pedagogies of a teacher in a primary English Language classroom,
thereby creating a critical and dialogical space for readers to consider the ways in which the
case of two teachers could or could not be applied to their own teaching circumstances.
Instead of imposing what and how the multimodal pedagogies should look like, Sura and
Yun demonstrated how multimodal pedagogies can look in the primary English Language
classroom. In this, our study advances our understanding of multimodal pedagogies and
how they can be practically enacted in the English Language classroom. While what Sura
and Yun have shown may not be the idealized nature of multimodal pedagogies, they offer a
realistic snapshot of what is presently achievable. Further research could be undertaken to
explore the nature of the teachers’ multimodal pedagogies across a wider range of schools,
both in Singapore, and around the world.

Conclusion

While multimodal curricula modifications and evolution are necessary, they are not sufficient
to ensure deep instructional change over time. As many studies around Asia such as
Bautista and Gutierrez (2020), Nabhan and Hidayat (2019), and Tan et al., (2019) have
highlighted, teachers’ professional development remains key to enacting the curricular
changes. An approach towards teacher-change, as part of the broader research project from
which the present study is drawn, is described in (Lim and Nguyen, in press). Design-based
research focusing on co-creation and transfer of expertise amongst educational researchers,
curriculum specialists, and teacher practitioners is adopted to build up teacher leaders who
will be change agents in their schools and lead subsequent communities of practice across
schools. Teachers could be encouraged to develop communities of practice as they innovate
and experiment with a repertoire of multimodal pedagogies as well as share lesson ideas
and resources as a fraternity (Pang et al., 2015; Sharari et al., 2018). This, coupled with
professional learning sessions through regular in-service workshops, as well as courses on
multimodal literacy for pre-service teachers, can build teachers’ capacity in multimodal
pedagogies.

In light of the importance and urgency of diversifying and enriching literacy practices, we
advance the argument that teachers must create opportunities for students’ meaning-making
practices that acknowledge the rich multimodal textual world we live in. We argue that a
crucial shift in the teachers’ multimodal pedagogies would be a move towards designing
more opportunities for students’ making of multimodal knowledge representations that draw
on their prior knowledge and experience, and connect what they learn in school with what
they experience out of school.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Thi Thu Ha Nguyen for her assistance in the data collection and coding.
They also thank the participating school and teachers for their contribution to this study.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/ or publication of this article: The data for this paper are from the study
“Integrating Multiliteracies into the English Language Classroom: Developing an Instructional
Approach to Teach Multimodal Literacy (Critical Viewing and Effective Representing of
Multimodal Texts) (DEV 01/18 VL)” funded by Singapore Ministry of Education (MOE) under
the Education Research Funding Programme (DEV 01/18 VL) and administered by National
Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Any opinions,
findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Singapore MOE and NIE. This
research has received clearance from the NTU-Institutional Review Board [IRB-2019-2-038].

References

Ajayi L (2008) Meaning making, multimodal representation and transformative pedagogy: an

exploration of meaning construction instructional practices in an ESL high school classroom. Journal
of Language, Identity and Education 7(3–4): 206–29.

Anderson KT, Stewart OG and Kachorsky D (2017) Seeing academically marginalised students’
multimodal designs from a position of strength. Written Communication 34(2): 104–34. Anstey M, Bull
G (2018) Foundations of Multiliteracies: Reading, Writing and Talking in the 21st Century. Abingdon,
New York: Routledge.

Bautista JC, Gutierrez MRM (2020) A grounded theory on the comprehension processing of teachers
as ESL readers of multimodal still visuals. RELC Journal. Epub ahead of print 15 September 2020.
DOI: 10.1177/0033688220943250.

Bezemer J, Kress G (2016) Multimodality, Learning and Communication: A Social Semiotic Frame.
Abingdon, New York: Routledge.

Casanave CP (2010) Case studies. In: Paltridge B, Phakiti A (eds) Continuum Companion to
Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. London: Continuum, 66–79.

Chan C, Chia A and Choo S (2017) Understanding multiliteracies and assessing multimodal texts in
the English curriculum. The English Teacher 46(2): 73–87.

Chia A, Chan C (2017) Re-defining ‘reading’ in the 21st Century. Beyond Words: A Journal on
Applied Linguistics and Language Education 5(2): 98–105.

Chen CW-y (2021) Composing print essays versus composing across modes: students’ multimodal
choices and overall preferences. Literacy 55(1): 25–38.

Danielsson K, Selander S (2016) Reading multimodal texts for learning – a model for cultivating
multimodal literacy. Designs for Learning 8(1): 25–36.

Eilam B, Poyas Y (2012) Teachers’ interpretations of texts-image juxtapositions in textbooks: from the
concrete to the abstract. Journal of Curriculum Studies 44(2): 265–97.

Ganapathy M, Seetharam S (2016) The effects of using multimodal approaches in meaning-making of

21st Century literacy texts among ESL students in a private school in Malaysia. Advances in
Language and Literary Studies 7(2): 143–55.

Heydon R (2013) Learning opportunities: the production and practice of kindergarten literacy curricula
in an era of change. Journal of Curriculum Studies 45(4): 481–510.

Hogan D (2014) Why is Singapore’s school system so successful, and is it a model for the West? The
Conversation, 12 February. Available at: https://theconversation.com/why-is-singapores- school-
system-so-successful-and-is-it-a-model-for-the-west-22917 (accessed 4 November 2020).

Hogan DJ, et al. (2009) Core 2 Research Programme: Pedagogy and Assessment. Unpublished
Research Grant Proposal, Nanyang Technological University, National Institute of Education,
Singapore.
Jewitt C (2009) The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. London, New York: Routledge.
Jewitt C, Bezemer J and O’Halloran KL (2016) Introducing Multimodality. Abingdon, New York:
Routledge.

Jewitt C, Kress G (2003) Multimodal Literacy. New York: Peter Lang.

Jiang L, Gao J (2020) Fostering EFL learners’ digital empathy through multimodal composing. RELC
Journal 51(1): 70–85.

Kress G (2003) Literacy in the New Media Age. London: Routledge.

Kress G, Jewitt C, Bourne J, et al. (2005) English in Urban Classrooms: A Multimodal Perspective on
Teaching and Learning. Abingdon, New York: Routledge.

Kress G, Selander S (2012) Multimodal design, learning and cultures of recognition. The Internet and
Higher Education 15(4): 265–68.

Liang WJ, Lim FV (2020) A pedagogical framework for digital multimodal authoring in the English
Language classroom. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching. Epub ahead of print 30July
2020. DOI: 10.1080/17501229.2020.1800709.

Lim FV (2018) Developing a systemic functional approach to teach multimodal literacy. Functional
Linguistics 5(13). DOI: 10.1186/s40554-018-0066-8.

Lim FV (2021a) Towards education 4.0: an agenda for teaching multiliteracies in the English language
classroom. In: Hamied FA (ed.) Literacies, Culture, and Society towards Industrial Revolution 4.0:
Reviewing Policies, Expanding Research, Enriching Practices in Asia. New York: Nova Science, 11–
30.

Lim FV (2021b) Designing Learning with Embodied Teaching. Perspectives from Multimodality.
London & New York: Routledge.

Lim FV, Nguyen TTH (in press) A design-based research approach towards teacher learning. ELT
Journal.

Lim FV, O’Halloran KL, Tan S, et al. (2015) Teaching visual texts with multimodal analysis soft- ware.
Educational Technology Research and Development 63(6): 915–935.

Lim FV, Tan KYS (2017) Multimodal translational research: teaching visual texts. In: Seizov O and
Wildfeuer J (eds) New Studies in Multimodality: Conceptual and Methodological Elaborations. London
& New York: Bloomsbury, 175–199.

Lim FV, Tan KYS (2018) Developing multimodal literacy through teaching the critical viewing of films
in Singapore. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 63(3): 291–300.

Macken-Horarik M, Love K, Sandiford C, et al. (2017) Functional Grammatics: Re-conceptualising

Knowledge about Language and Image for School English. London: Routledge.

Ministry of Education (MOE), Singapore (2008) English Language Syllabus 2010 – Primary &
Secondary (Express/Normal [Academic]). Singapore: Ministry of Education.

Ministry of Education (MOE), Singapore (2020a) English Language Teaching and Learning Syllabus
2020 – Primary. Singapore: Ministry of Education.

Ministry of Education (MOE), Singapore (2020b) English Language Teaching and Learning Syllabus
2020 – Secondary [Express Course & Normal (Academic) Course]. Singapore: Ministry of Education.
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 Literacy Studies
9(6): 192–99.

New London Group (1996) A pedagogy of multiliteracies: designing social futures. Harvard
Educational Review 66(1): 60–92.

O’Halloran KL, Tan S and Marissa KLE (2017) Multimodal analysis for critical thinking. Learning,
Media and Technology 42(2): 147–70.

Pang ES, Lim FV, Choe KC, et al. (2015) System scaling in Singapore: the STELLAR story. In: Looi
CK and Teh L (eds) Scaling Educational Innovations. Education Innovation Series. Singapore:
Springer.

Sharari BHI, Lim FV, Hung D, et al. (2018) Cultivating sustained professional learning within a
centralised education system. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 29(1): 22–42.

Tan L, Bopry J and Guo L (2010) Portraits of new literacies in two Singapore classrooms. RELC
Journal 41(1): 5–17.

Tan L, Chai CS, Deng F, et al. (2019) Examining pre-service teachers’ knowledge of teaching
multimodal literacies: a validation of a TPACK survey. Educational Media International 56(4): 285–99.

Towndrow PA, Kogut G (2021) Digital Storytelling for Educative Purposes: Providing an Evidence-
Base for Classroom Practice. Singapore: Springer.

Towndrow PA, Nelson ME and Yusuf WFBM (2013) Squaring literacy assessment with multi- modal
design: an analytic case for semiotic awareness. Journal of Literacy Research 45(4): 327–355.

Unsworth L (2006) Towards a metalanguage for multiliteracies education: describing the meaning-
making resources of language-image interaction. English Teaching: Practice and Critique 5(1): 55–76.

Unsworth L (2014) Towards a metalanguage for multimedia narrative interpretation and authoring
pedagogy. In: Unsworth L, Thomas A (eds) English Teaching and New Literacies Pedagogy:
Interpreting and Authoring Digital Multimedia Narratives. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1–22.

Unsworth L (2017) Image-language interaction in text comprehension: reading reality and national
reading tests. In: Ng C, Bartlett B (eds) Improving Reading and Reading Engagement in the 21st
Century: International Research and Innovation. Singapore: Springer, 99–118.

Unsworth L, Cope J, and Nicholls L (2019) Multimodal literacy and large-scale literacy tests:
curriculum relevance and responsibility. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 42(2): 128–39.

Unsworth L, Mills KA (2020) English language teaching of attitude and emotion in digital multi- modal
composition. Journal of Second Language Writing 47: 100712.

Van Leeuwen T (2017) Multimodal literacy. mETAphor 4: 17–23.

Yin RK (2014) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.