Now that it’s clear that we learn both explicitly and implicitly through exposure to lots of input, we can see that the more input the better, and similarly, the more variety of input the better. In fact, with more multimodal input, we have more chances to be exposed to the material and more chances to learn and express ourselves in a variety of ways.

What is multimodality?

Multimodality is “multiple forms of communication, such as images, words, and actions, all dependent on each other to create a holistic meaning” (Ting, 2013, p. 1). As humans, we have many means to communicate concepts that aren’t limited to language. When we want to communicate a concept, we have a plethora of modalities to choose from such as speech, manual signs, writing, imagery, symbols, physical enactment, and more. For example, think of the concept of a cat. You can communicate this concept to someone else in multiple, complementary ways. You could show a picture of a cat, make the meowing or purring sound of a cat, act like a cat, say or sign the word cat, write the word cat, gesture petting a cat, point to a real cat, and so on.  Each manner of describing the cat is different and conveys different important information, and the cat cannot be described in its entirety without each different mode being used. So, if objects or ideas can be conveyed in these different ways, can we exploit this for educational purposes?

Multimodality in the language classroom can look like a teacher combining different modalities to ensure learning. For example, the teacher could ask you to play the game Simon Says in your target language to reinforce command phrases (physical enactment), then study flashcards with words on one side (written language) and pictures on the other side (imagery) for a total of three different modalities. Diversifying the way we process information, whether through watching it, hearing it, or enacting it is beneficial to learners.

Learning Styles – Fact or Fiction?

Distinct ways to approach learning was captured in the idea of learning styles, which was popularized in education in the 1970s starting with the Dunn and Dunn model. The Dunn and Dunn model doesn’t focus on modalities but rather the preferences of the individual as they pertain to five different categories; environmental, emotional, sociological, physiological, and psychological stimuli. This could include preferences related to the time of day, ambient temperature, or noise level. This concept of learning preferences eventually evolved into the more well-known VARK model in 1987 by Neil Fleming. He created the model to follow his perception of learners as falling into one of four categories; Visual, Auditory, Reading/writing, or Kinesthetic (VARK).

People with a preference for auditory learning according to VARK are considered better learners if the material is presented in the form of a lecture, podcast, song, or any other possible auditory input. A proposed optimal educational style for them could involve maximizing the auditory input in a target language, like listening to the teacher or listening to music. Auditory learners are considered to learn better with few visual embellishments. Visual learners, however, are deemed naturally drawn towards learning that incorporates, well, visual elements. The claim is that they learn better seeing information laid out instead of hearing it explained. They might prefer watching videos or seeing charts or graphs about a certain subject. To people who claim to be visual learners, having visual stimuli leads to efficient learning.

The third and fourth styles are generally grouped into a ‘tactile’ category where students are deemed better learners through active engagement with the material. The reading and writing style is exactly what it sounds like. If you fell into this category, you could be told you would learn better if you took notes while reading your textbook or wrote essays (ok probably not whole essays) to help with comprehension. Lastly, the kinesthetic preference emphasizes that some students learn best through tactile projects, physical learning materials, and active learner contribution. This could look like creating a physical posterboard, constructing an art project, making food, or manipulating objects to learn and display knowledge.

While it can feel natural to categorize ourselves into learning styles, there is actually no research evidence that supports the claims that learning style are fixed traits (Kirschner, 2017). To be clear, students may have individual preferences in the forms of media they consume. Where one person might like reading better than watching movies, another person could prefer the opposite. While it is factual that people prefer different modes of media, “studies deny that students learn better through a self-reported learning style” (Yale Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning, 2017, para. 2). Even the prominent learning styles author Rebecca Oxford acknowledged, “Learning styles are not dichotomous” (Oxford, 2003). Oxford further cites Ehrman (1996) to say, “Few if any people could be classified as having all or nothing in any of these categories”.

The learning styles framework encourages a sort of ‘specialization’ if you will. Learning styles categorize learners into one style or another to the point that it doesn’t support branching out to using different modalities of input and output. Not only do they restrict students to a specific style, but research has shown that when learning styles are matched to students’ stated learning style preferences, it does not help students learn better. The following video by Veritasium explains the learning styles myth in more detail.

From Unimodal to Multimodal

Yet there is valuable information that educators and students alike can take from the learning styles framework. It helps us become aware that different ways of approaching information exist (visually, aurally, physically,…), and thus that these are all possibilities for learning. In other words, we have multiple options for learning, and we don’t need to restrict ourselves to only one, even if we think we prefer it. In fact, research shows us that using multiple modalities in learning is far more effective than only using one.

As one example of such a study, Gould-Yakovleva (2023) followed two groups of people with ranging educational backgrounds, from high school graduates to people with postgraduate degrees, all of which were English language learners. An important note is that the students also had different ethnic backgrounds, with the primary groups being Latin American, Middle Eastern/Mediterranean, and East Asian. The researcher wanted to see if a multimodal approach to a lesson about Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet Act I Scene V would prove more effective than a unimodal approach. Students in group 1 (unimodel) only read the text, whereas students in group 2 (multimodal) read the text and also viewed a theatrical performance of the text. Even though group 1 had a higher self-reported English proficiency on average, group 2 scored an average of 79% compared to group 1’s 74% on a post-lesson quiz. The students in group 2 said that the combination of modalities helped them interpret the text in a more profound way.

Comprehension methods were also monitored closely, and there were 11 self-reported strategies used to analyze the text in group 1 compared to 20 strategies in group 2. When more modalities were used, more strategies were possible. Multimodality opens up opportunities for a diversity of strategies, and not only that, but inherently encourages using a wider variety of strategies.

In fact, certain materials or activities actually require specific modalities and encourage distinct strategies. For example, when we are building a physical model of something, we are required to use tactile, kinesthetic strategies instead of only looking at or reading about the model. We have to use our hands or tools to interact with it. Similarly, if we are learning to speak a language, we need to develop our auditory skills and use strategies related to listening. If we are reading in a language, we need to be able to process written language and use strategies related to reading. In a nutshell, we should be comfortable in multiple modalities to have access to multiple kinds of materials and activities.

Multimodality is not just effective for understanding concepts and processing input in different ways. It is also helpful for when you are trying to communication your own ideas. As we showed in Chapter 1, communication is not limited to language! We can use gestures, facial expressions, pointing to objects or images, tone of voice, touch, proxemics, or even use of time or silence to communicate beyond linguistic means such as speech or sign language. We can see multimodality in both comprehension and production in this video by the Center for Applied Second Language Studies (CASLS).

So, is multimodality an effective approach to learning languages?

Admittedly, we set you up for the answer. Yes, it is.

Multimodality opens our brain to access different trains of thought, different ideas, and different perspectives simply by presenting information in a different manner. So, when you are studying for your next test, don’t just read your textbook, try watching videos about the material too! Don’t just talk with your friends in your target language, write a journal too! Incorporating too many modalities at once has the possibility of leading to cognitive overload, but with proper preparation and spacing out, multimodal learning can help you understand material in many ways, not just one.

References 

Bouzayenne, A. (2023). Learners’ language learning style preferences, class level, gender, and using mobile apps for EFL learning among Tunisian university students. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 127-149. https://doi.org/10.18196/ftl.v8i2.18133

Dressman, M. (2020). Multimodality and language learning. In M. Dressman, & R. W. Sadler (Eds.), The handbook of informal language learning (pp. 39–55). John Wiley & Sons.

Gould-Yakovleva, O. (2023). Seeking remedy for improving international college students’ reading comprehension: A qualitative case study on using multimodality for English language learning. International Journal of Higher Education Pedagogies, 4(4), 33-54. https://doi.org/10.33422/ijhep.v4i4.599

Kirschner, P. A. (2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers & Education, 106, 166-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.006

Marchetti, E., & Valente, A. (2018). Interactivity and multimodality in language learning: the untapped potential of audiobooks. Universal Access in the Information Society, 17(2), 257-274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-017-0549-5

Montero-SaizAja, A. (2022). Perceptual learning style preferences of monolingual and bilingual EFL learners. LFE. Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos, 28(1), 207–227. http://hdl.handle.net/10553/115573

Ting, K. (2013). Input in multimodality for language learning. The International Journal of Literacies, 19(1), 47-55. https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-0136/CGP/v19i01/48795