Welcome to the January/February edition of TLT Interviews! In this issue, we feature an interview with professors Sy-Ying Lee and Fei Victor Lim. Professor Sy-Ying Lee, of the National Taiwan University of Science and Technology (NTUST), is Head of the Center for General Education. Her research focuses on second language and literacy acquisition, extensive reading, digital and oral storytelling, blogging, and multimodal multiliteracies. She has contributed to national and international journals, aiming to enhance EFL teaching across age groups. In addition to her academic work, she frequently presents at global conferences and conducts workshops for preservice and in-service teachers, researchers, and graduate students, fostering professional development and pedagogical innovation.
Professor Fei Victor Lim is Associate Professor and Deputy Head (Research) of English Language and Literature at Nanyang Technological University’s National Institute of Education, Singapore. He researches and teaches on multiliteracies, multimodal discourse analyses, and digital learning. He is an editor of Multimodality and Society and an associate editor of Computers and Composition and Designs for Learning. He is recognised as the top two percent of scientists worldwide in the field of education for 2023 and 2024 in a study by Stanford University and has received awards for his excellence in research, teaching, and service.
The interview was conducted by Thomas Amundrud, Associate Professor of English Education at Nara University of Education. His work, which mainly uses the lens of systemic functional multimodal discourse analysis (SFMDA), involves the examination and exploration of how teachers mean in the classroom texts they create, as well as how teachers scaffold student meaning through multiple modes. He is currently interested in extending these insights further in the Japanese EFL context at all levels. In so doing, he is committed to expanding justice in language education and beyond. He is also an officer in the JALT Kyoto chapter. Without further ado, to the interview!
Thomas Amundrud: So, what is multiliteracies?
Fei Victor Lim: Multiliteracies broadens literacy beyond language learning to include other ways of communication, such as images, animation, sound, and music (Cazden et al., 1996) and engages with our students based on their experience beyond as well as inside the classroom.
Sy-Ying Lee: I would add that multiliteracies actually redefine language and literacy learning since print alone no longer meets today’s communication needs. To that end, students and teachers co-construct knowledge, and teachers co-design the curriculum to aid learning by, for instance, using scaffolds that help students achieve meaning-making via multiple modes.
Before we get to some examples, another term that commonly accompanies “multiliteracies” is “multimodality.” Now, multimodality refers to highlighting “that the meaning work we do at all times exploits various semiotics” (Iedema, 2003, p. 39), including image, gesture, and gaze, for instance, and that these semiotics occur alongside, and may even displace language in use. So, how is multimodality important for developing multiliteracies?
FVL: The “multi-” in “multiliteracies” stands for the “enormous and significant differences in contexts and patterns of communication … and the ‘multi-’ of multimodality” (Cope & Kalantzis, 2015, p. 3). Multimodality is thus central in multiliteracies. A multiliteracies classroom will focus on not just the learning of language but will also give attention to how meanings are made multimodally. Examples of multiliteracies in the English language classroom can include the teachers guiding students in how to view or use multimodal texts by, for instance, modelling analysis or having students make sense of and critically discuss the meanings of these texts for themselves.
What are some examples of student activities or texts that demonstrate a pedagogy infusing multiliteracies and multimodality?
FVL: For instance, students can bring texts and practices from their lived experience and have teachers work on these texts with them in their learning. This will help the students see the value and relevance of what they are learning in class to what they experience out of school. It also shows the value of the literacy practices they engage in beyond the classroom.
Other examples include having different ways for students to express their learning and understanding beyond traditional essays. Students can create various artefacts, like collages, memes, posters, digital stories, videos, and websites. Through these activities, students are guided to develop a semiotic awareness of how meanings are made multimodally. This is multimodality as learning (Lim, 2024), where multimodal literacy is explicated as the learning outcome.
SYL: In many language classrooms in Taiwan, multiliteracies are often practiced through problem-based learning (PBL) projects addressing social issues, promoting collaboration, and problem-solving. Likewise, in English as a medium of instruction (EMI) settings across disciplines such as education, engineering, business, and the sustainable development goals (SDGs) offer meaningful themes for developing multimodal multiliteracies. These projects not only require practice in storytelling, professional knowledge, and digital skills for social good, but also foster learning by design (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005), which aligns with Victor’s idea of multimodality for learning.
How is multiliteracies important for foreign language learners?
FVL: Multiliteracies is important for foreign language learners because it encourages the intentional use of multimodal resources to support language learning. Enhancing language learning through multimodality entails recognising how foundational skills such as reading, writing, listening, and speaking can be enriched through the deliberate integration of multimodal resources. This multimodality for learning (Lim, 2024) has been seen where multimodal resources support the learning of language for foreign language learners in Indonesia, for example (Nabhan & Hidayat, 2018).
SYL: If multiliteracies are considered competencies, I’d say they are equally important for both L1 and L2 learners. Pioneering educators/researchers (e.g., Cazden et al., 1996) have emphasized since the 1990s that these are essential literacy skills for the 21st century. For example, Lee and Nguyen (2025) illustrate how Taiwanese high school students explored and expressed their identities through digital storytelling, showcasing the profound impact of embodied learning. In this study, the foundational literacy skills of reading (viewing) and writing in English served as the starting point for brainstorming the content and deciding on the forms in which they would present their project outcomes. Embracing the principles of design thinking, students were encouraged to integrate multiple semiotic resources, using technologies such as smartphones, camcorders, and computer software. This approach ensured their stories were not only presentable and comprehensible, but also relatable to their audience. Decision-making played an important role throughout the project. Every semiotic choice carried meaningful ideological representations, and each revision was carefully reasoned. Furthermore, the collaborative discussions throughout the process, which involved active listening, speaking, debating, and negotiating, created an authentic context for language acquisition. In some cases, students extended their learning beyond the classroom through field trips, physically visiting the spaces they were exploring to collect materials, and deepening their understanding (Lo, et.al, 2020). This exemplifies what I refer to as embodied learning, where students expand their learning spaces (e.g., stepping outside the classroom), engage in hands-on experiences (e.g., collecting, creating, and orchestrating materials), and confidently claim authorship of their project outcomes. This notion of embodied learning highlights the experiential and interactive processes in practicing multimodal multiliteracies in either L1 or foreign language situations.
Some EFL teachers might feel that focusing on students’ use of other modes and their literacy in doing so is extraneous since their students are still in the process of developing the more traditional literacy skills of simply being able to read and write to a certain degree of fluency and accuracy. How would you respond to such concerns?
FVL: If we adopt the perspective of multimodality for language learning (Lim, 2024), the use of multimodal resources strategically can be viewed as a means to the ends of language learning. For example, in a study we did in Singapore, we used multimodal resources, such as drawing pictures in a comic strip and making crafts, to support struggling students in how to write a composition with confidence and clarity (Lim & Tay, 2025).
SYL: Krashen’s (1982) theory reminds us that forced output can hinder learning by increasing anxiety. This may lead to over-reliance on AI tools. But Krashen (2016) also emphasizes that self-selected reading and problem-solving in areas of personal interest are crucial for both literacy and cognitive growth. This perspective affirms the value of multiliteracies as a pathway to language acquisition and multimodal competence. I see that when students take the lead in designing multimodal projects, they become more engaged. They choose meaningful topics, explore the self-selected materials, and become more careful in language use. Their ideas evolve through brainstorming, communication, and feedback, culminating in thoughtful, well-revised presentations supported by teachers’ step-by-step scaffolding that facilitates learner autonomy and confidence.
A major concern regarding multiliteracies as a teaching practice must be: How do you evaluate student work, especially across different modes?
FVL: A satisfactory answer regarding how to assess multimodal literacy remains elusive, and I opine that the assessment of multimodality is a crucial area to be addressed in the next decade. Development in technologies today allows us to pay attention to both the product of learning (the multimodal artefact) and the process of learning in digital multimodal composing.
SYL: The interplay among language, visuals, and sounds is socially and contextually complex. I often question my own qualifications as a language instructor to assess such work. The current reality is that multimodality may still be new to many teachers, and our students, and the digital natives nowadays, maybe more fluent in navigating multimodal semiotics and tools. Rather than trying to master everything myself, I see my role as helping students channel their digital skills to support language learning and expand their expressive range. So, I invite visual experts, such as filmmakers and photographers, to share how meaning is crafted in storytelling. Some also serve as external judges, offering valuable feedback. My graduate-level TAs and I then assess based on students’ narrative and multimodal effectiveness.
Finally, what do you think are the challenges and opportunities of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) for teachers in scaffolding the multiliterate capabilities of our students?
FVL: A challenge GenAI brings to teaching and learning is for teachers to navigate the dynamics within literacy education in an era where GenAI has made text production cheap (Araújo et al., 2024). There are also concerns that the use of GenAI tools may cause students to be less cognitively engaged (Kosmyna et al., 2025). The increase of AI-generated content means students must be equipped to analyze and evaluate texts, discerning their quality, truthfulness, and underlying values. As such, multimodal literacy has become all the more important.
Another more fundamental challenge is for researchers and teachers to reimagine teaching, learning, and—most critical—assessment in light of GenAI tools. These tools are now widely accessible, and their use by students is inevitable. Workplaces will also likely require employees to possess the knowledge and skills to effectively engage with GenAI. As such, it becomes imperative for teachers to reconsider what constitutes signs of learning within our courses, especially given the likelihood that students will utilize GenAI in their academic work.
A key opportunity presented by AI lies in its capacity to facilitate personalized learning. Through learning analytics and adaptive systems, AI can offer tailored feedback and recommendations that address individual learners’ specific strengths and areas for improvement. This enables students to learn at their own pace, time, and place, thus fostering deeper engagement.
The second opportunity is to harness AI to provide insights into students’ learning processes, not just their products. This aligns with Kress and Selander’s (2012) notion of learning as design, as opposed to learning as competence (Adami et al, 2022), so the process of meaning-making becomes as important as, if not more important than, the final outcome. By capturing data on students’ struggles, decision-making, and resource engagement, educators are better positioned to support their learning.
SYL: Coming back to teaching English writing last semester, I was struck by the student writings that exhibited vocabulary mismatched with their proficiency levels and paragraphs, lacking in narrative coherence. I was initially frustrated by the lack of depth and originality in student narratives and quickly realized that the following action was necessary. When I shifted my focus away from minor grammar and vocabulary issues, it became easier to identify genuine heartfelt stories. I then carefully annotated student drafts, modeling effective feedback by prioritizing content and structure before mechanics, and I conducted individual conferencing so I could offer empathy and guide them in enriching their writing.
Teacher feedback should retain a “human touch” that AI cannot replicate. I subsequently guided the class through peer review sessions for their first drafts. After they had developed confidence in peer assessment, I introduced ChatGPT as a supplementary feedback tool. Given the evolving role of AI, I believe each educator should explore ways to integrate AI responsibly, creatively, and ethically. To ensure that students engaged actively with feedback, I required them to submit each draft alongside a revision table. This table documented their responses to feedback from three sources: peers (first draft), ChatGPT (second draft), and instructor feedback (final version). By tracking their learning process, I observed how students used AI as a learning partner rather than a content generator. The table also revealed their decision-making processes, allowing them to articulate the rationale behind accepting or rejecting specific suggestions.
Finally, when the class proceeded to the last part—transforming their written narratives into multimodal digital stories—they followed a similar revision process. However, unlike concerns about AI-generated text, teaching about metafunctions in multimodal discourse, especially for issue-based or community-based projects, encouraged the creation of original materials, minimizing their reliance on AI-generated semiotic elements. I believe co-creating content with AI has happened in many classrooms, with AI serving as a supporting tool in their meaning-making process. Instead of replacing creativity, it may reinforce even stronger student agency in their work.
Challenges in education will never end, but how to harness the opportunities to grow from them is a treasure for both the instructor and students. A great lesson for myself after 30 years of teaching EFL!
References
Adami, E., Diamantopoulou, S., & Lim, F. V. (2022). Design in Gunther Kress’s social semiotics. London Review of Education, 20(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.14324/LRE.20.1.41
Araújo, A. D., Gualberto, C., & Pinheiro, M. S. (2024). Multimodality, AI, and education: An interview with Professor Fei Victor Lim. Linguagem em Foco, 16(2), 174–178. https://doi.org/10.46230/lef.v16i2.13856
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2015). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Learning by design. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137539724
Cazden, B., Cope, B., Fairclough, N., Gee, J., Kalantzis, M., Kress, G., Luke, A., Luke, C., Michaels, S., & Nakata, M. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u
Iedema, R. (2003). Multimodality, resemiotization: Extending the analysis of discourse as multi-semiotic practice. Visual Communication, 2(1), 29–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357203002001751
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2005). Learning by design. Common Ground.
Kosmyna, N., Hauptmann, E., Yuan, Y. T., Situ, J., Liao, X. H., Beresnitzky, A. V., Braunstein, I., & Maes, P. (2025). Your brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of cognitive debt when using an AI assistant for essay writing task (arXiv:2506.08872v1). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.08872
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press
Krashen, S. (2016). Compelling reading and problem-solving: The easy way (and the only way) to high levels of language, literacy and life competence. In Y. N. Leung (Ed.), Epoch making in English language teaching and learning. Twenty-fifth international symposium on English teaching (pp. 115- 125).
Kress, G., & Selander, S. (2012). Multimodal design, learning and cultures of recognition. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(4). 265–268, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.12.003
Lee, S.-Y., & Nguyen, T.-S. P. (2025). Digital storytelling and identity expression: A multimodal analysis of videos created by Taiwanese high school students. In F. V. Lim & J. Pun (Eds.). Designing learning with multimodality in English medium of education (EME) classrooms across Asia (pp. 121–142). Bloomsbury. http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781350358294.ch-005
Lim, F. V. (2024). Multimodality and learning: Desiderata for designing social futures. In V. Tavares. (Ed.). Empowering language learners in a changing world through pedagogies of multiliteracies (pp. 21–39). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51889-8
Lim, F. V. & Tay, M. Y. (2025). Multiliteracies and multimodality: A classroom inquiry study in Singapore. In F. V. Lim & J. Pun (Eds.). Designing learning with multimodality in English medium of education (EME) classrooms across Asia (pp. 31–46). Bloomsbury. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350358294.ch-001
Lo, Y.-H. G., Tien, W.-C. F., & Lee, S.-Y. (2020). Transforming a magazine into a video involving a target audience: A multiliteracies case study in an EFL context. Educational Technology & Society, 23(3), 27–39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26926424
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 Literary Studies, 9(6), 192–199. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.9n.6p.192
