
Multimodality and multiliteracies in English language education
Dear valued readers and contributors,
Namaste!
We are sixteen! It gives us immense pleasure to release the sixteenth-anniversary issue of ELT Choutari. This relentless journey wouldn’t have been possible without your support, contribution, and affection. We are thankful to our readers, contributors, friends, and critics for everything they have contributed thus far.
This issue on multimodality and multiliteracies in English language education not only presents blog posts and conversations across multiple modalities but also captures educators’ practices of integrating multimodality and multiliteracies in their classes.
This issue transcends traditional modes of composition and publications. We have moved beyond the written mode to include video, visual and oral modes in this issue. It aligns with The New London Group’s (2000) conceptualization of multimodality, which recognizes changing landscape of communication by incorporating modes such as texts, visuals, audio, gestures, and spatial elements. Expanding this, Cope and Kalantzis (2013) added tactile mode into communication and meaning making as well as distinguished written mode from oral. The ability to communicate and construct meaning out of those modes are generally referred to as multiliteracies. Based on the authors’ contributions and the classroom practices in this issue, educators and students in Nepal’s classrooms are incorporating multimodality in English language teaching and learning to the extent possible. To further advance it, curricula, and pre-service/in-service teacher preparation programs must deliberately cultivate the knowledge and skills of teachers and students to effectively integrate multimodality and multiliteracies for equitable learning opportunities.
This issue is also notably remarkable for transcending across languages, leveraging the strength of bilingualism and it breaks the traditional hierarchy between authors and reviewers. In this issue we have gone bilingual, switching between languages, to recognize contributors’ linguistic repertoire and reflect their natural communication practices. It thus provides insights for educators of multilingual students about the possibilities of incorporating asset-based pedagogies such as translanguaging (García & Kleyn 2016). Similarly, we have pushed the hierarchy and boundary between authors and reviewers. Based on our years of experience supporting emerging authors and educators to write and publish, we have found that they thrive when offered mentorship support, rather than simply having their contributions accepted or rejected based on blind review. This issue further affirms the value of mentorship for emerging authors. Touching on the process in this issue, we invited interested authors to participate in a series of group and one-on-one workshop sessions, leading to the creation of first drafts. Feedback to their drafts were provided through face-to-face one-on-one sessions, which were proved very effective as it avoided confusion and miscommunication between the authors and reviewers. The orientation of these mentoring sessions was geared towards helping them articulate their ideas effectively and recognize suitable modes of composition. As a result, Choutari successfully welcomed two additional first-time authors through the mentorship sessions, a feat that would not have been achievable through the traditional blind review process alone.
We also celebrate the diversity in contents and modalities of presentation. In the blogs, we have covered teachers’ good practices, such as incorporating activities that promote multimodality and multiliteracies, implementing project-based learning in under-resourced classrooms, integrating ICT in classrooms including the use of social media for building virtual communities to scaffold each other. In conversation with teachers and teacher educators, the interview has dived deep into Nepal’s English language curricula, materials and pedagogy. In terms of modality, the blogs and conversations range from visual essays, audio-visual narratives, podcasts to video conversations. Let’s hear from the authors:
Here is the link of blogs, interview and a bonus content:
- Interview on Nepal’s School-level English Curricula and Materials: Authenticity, Agency and Local Ecology
- Multimodality and Multiliteracy Approach to Teaching Poetry in English Language Classroom: From Experience to Exploration by Dasarath Rai
- Project Based Learning in Rural English Language Classrooms: A Podcast by Jham Bahadur Thapa
- Exploring the Transformative Impact of Technology on Language Teaching and Cross-cultural Understanding across Borders by Bibas Thapa
- Experiences of Flipped Teaching Through Messenger Group: A Teacher’s Reflection by Baburam Shrestha
- Editor’s choice: A video on Multiliteracies Framework for Language Teaching by ACTEL Membership
Finally, we would like to thank our reviewers Nanibabu Ghimire, Puskar Chaudhary, Karuna Nepal, Sagar Poudel, Jnanu Raj Paudel and Mohan Singh Saud, for their valuable contribution.
If you enjoy the multimodal publications in this issue, please feel free to share them in your circle and leave comments and questions for the contributors.
Meanwhile, we encourage you to contribute to our next issue (July- September) and send blog pieces and reflections to 2elt.choutari@gmail.com.
Happy exploring!


References
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2013). “Multiliteracies”: New Literacies, New Learning. In M. R. Hawkins (Ed.), In Framing languages and literacies (pp. 105–135). Routledge.
García, O., & Kleyn, T. (Eds.). (2016). Translanguaging with multilingual students: Learning from classroom moments. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
The New London Group. (2000). A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures (First). Routledge.
























In my perspective one of the most important factors contributing for ineffective in-service teacher training is the attitude of teachers. Most teachers (not all because few are active and work hard) do not feel such training as an opportunity for their professional development, whereas they feel it as a chance to earn extra money. It is a tragedy that we are yet unable to make them feel the importance of it. Therefore, teachers need to change their attitude and apply the skills learnt in training in their classroom. I think a possible solution for this problem can be a good head teacher. If a head teacher has positive attitude towards training and encourages his teachers to apply new ideas in classroom, teachers cannot afford to be reluctant to transfer the skills in the classrooms.
A few classroom visits in Nepal can tell us how ineffective the impact of the government-run in-service training has been. When I ask my graduate students why such a wastage of resources, they say the training does not directly link to the real classrooms, ignores local contexts, and does not address trainees’ mental constructs, their needs and expectations. I fully agree with them. However, for me the main culprits for the ineffective teacher training are the trainers. You may ask why. No trainer has been trained to be a teacher trainer. Each of them has a degree on pedagogy not on andragogy. They do not have a faintest idea of adult learning. Because the trainers in the government system have a permanent position, they do not bother for their own development. And they pass on their attitude to the teachers who they train.
The in-service teachers should count themselves fortunate for getting the opportunity to learn and to teach at the same time. Also, they should be gratitude to the concerned authority for providing them with such opportunity. However, it is a sad fact that take away from the training session is less and its translation into the actual classroom teaching is even lesser. There could be multitude of causes behind this ranging from training policy to classroom pedagogy. Since the limited space prevents me from digging depth into the issue, I point out two areas of training drawing on my own experience of teacher and teacher educator both. The first is attitudes. It is not uncommon to hear in the training the participant teachers saying, “It only works here in the training hall, not in our schools”. Most participants have this ‘it doesn’t work’ attitude. First, the training should aim at inculcating positive attitudes in teachers. Only the positive beginning can lead us to the positive ending. Here I am reminded of Thomas Friedman’s famous saying, “If it is not happening, it is because you are not doing it”.
NCED conducts many in-service teacher trainings out of them TPD is the nationwide training program. These trainings actually implemented by Educational Training Centres (ETC), LRCs and RCs under the guideline developed by NCED. Except TPD, other several training programs like CAS training, MLE training, MGML training, training for the teachers using English as MoI etc.
As a resource person, I see there are a couple of reasons why in-service teacher training is not helping to improve the pedagogy in classroom. First of all, the student-teacher ratio in some school is very high. In few schools there are up to 120 students in a single class! Therefore, it is quite challenging to make classroom interactive. When a teacher tries to do something new in group/peers classroom goes out of control and hence they return to old method. Besides, teachers also have to teach more than usual number of periods because of lack of teachers. Therefore, they are not encouraged to try something new because of more work load.
First of all, I am quite convinced that in-service teacher-training programs can never be ineffective because they definitely provide some visions and frames for teaching. A trained teacher approaches to the students with some sort of framework, philosophy and guidelines; he or she could deal with students even on the way or on a bus far better than untrained ones.
The government has envisioned the provision in-service teacher training for the community school teachers for the efficiency and efficacy of teaching methodology exploited while conducting classroom lessons. The considerable amount of national budget allocated in the education sector has been separated for this purpose. Every year such trainings are conducted in RCs, LRCs and educational training centers on need based. It should have resulted in the tremendous improvement in the educational sector of the nation by now but the reality is something beyond our imagination. That is to say, the in-service teacher training does not have tangible impact on the teacher’s educational pedagogy. There can be several factors behind it. Some of the factors that bring about this gap might subsume:
Every year, the government invests a good amount of budget to provide in-service and refresher training to in-service teacher aiming to increase educational quality of the nation. In spite of having such efforts, there is still not much visible improvement in the pedagogy in the classroom. Some prominent causes behind the present situation can be as follows: