Language Value
June 2020, Volume 12, Number 1 pp. 56-87
ISSN 1989-7103
EMI teacher training with a multimodal and interactive
approach: A new horizon for LSP specialists
Teresa Morell
Universitat d’Alacant, Spain
ABSTRACT
The growing use of English as the medium of Instruction (EMI) in non-Anglophone universities has
provided specialists in Languages for Specific Purposes (LSP) with a broader scope for research and
teaching. ESP experts are now called upon not only to carry out research to support EMI teacher training,
but also to be the teacher trainers. In this study, an ESP scholar explores what constitutes successful
interactive lecturing according to academics who have taken part in her interdisciplinary EMI teacher
training workshop. This was done by analyzing the engaging, verbal and non-verbal discourse of
participants‟ video recorded exemplary mini-lessons. It was found that the mini-lectures that had been
voted as successful made greater use of questions and had a higher concentration of verbal and nonverbal
modes of communication in comparison to the lesser effective ones. The findings lend support to EMI
training with an interactive and multimodal approach.
Keywords: English-medium instruction (EMI); Language for Specific Purposes (LSP); teacher training;
multimodality; interaction; discourse analysis
I. INTRODUCTION
The growing global phenomenon of English-medium instruction (EMI) (Dearden 2015)
in the broad range of disciplinary subjects of countless non-anglophone universities has
brought numerous challenges for stakeholders - policy makers, teachers and students.
Among these trials are those faced by teachers and researchers of languages for specific
purposes (LSP). The increasing number of content teachers who have switched from
using their mother tongue to English has had an effect on specialists of English for
specific purposes (ESP). As recent research has indicated (e.g. Aguilar 2018, Ball and
Lindsay 2012, Dafouz-Milne 2018, Morell 2018, Sánchez-García 2019, Sancho Guinda
2013), LSP specialists are needed to train content specialists and to do research to
support „best practice‟ in classrooms of the ever-increasing and diverse EMI scenarios.
In this study, an example of how LSP specialists can use their expertise to train EMI
instructors and carry out research to explore effective classroom discourse will be
provided. The training and the research take into account interaction and multimodality,
two essential competences for improving EMI classroom communication and learning.
Language Value, ISSN 1989-7103
56
EMI teacher training with a multimodal and interactive approach: A new horizon for LSP specialists
I.1. Interaction in EMI teacher training
Classroom interactional competence
(CIC),
“teachers and learners‟ ability to use
interaction as a tool for mediating and assisting learning” (Walsh 2011:158), has been
put at the forefront for effective teaching in EMI university contexts (Airey 2011,
Bjorkman 2010, 2011, Hellekjaer 2010, Klaasen 2001, Morell 2018, Suvinity 2012,
Tazl
2011). These studies claim that effective lecturing behavior is considered a
necessity for information processing in second language instructional contexts. Klassen
(2001), for example, asserted that good classroom teaching performances depend on
lecture structuring and the use of interaction supported by appropriate non-verbal
behavior and well-prepared visuals. In addition, she discovered that lecture quality had a
much greater effect on how students experienced lectures than the language used.
Similarly, Suviniitty (2012) found, in her doctoral study comparing Finnish university
students‟ outcomes in EMI and L1 classes, that students were better able to understand
lectures with a higher degree of interaction, regardless of the language of instruction.
The amount of classroom participation has much to do with the use of questions (Brock
1986, Chang 2012, Crawford Camiciottoli 2008, Fortanet-Gómez and Ruiz-Madrid
2014, Morell 2004, 2007, Sánchez-García 2019). According to these studies, classroom
questioning and negotiation of meaning
(i.e. comprehension checks, confirmation
checks and clarification requests) are potential enhancers of students‟ engagement. The
use of referential questions, those that ask for audience‟s contributions from their own
experiential knowledge or perspectives, have proven to promote more and longer
responses in language classrooms (Brock 1986) and in interactive lectures (Morell
2004).
In lecture discourse studies that have drawn from English L1 corpora (Chang 2012,
Crawford Camiciottoli 2008, Fortanet-Gómez and Ruiz-Madrid 2014), questions have
been classified as either audience-oriented, which elicit responses, or content-oriented,
which are often rhetorical questions. In addition, these studies have explored lecture
corpora to find out how many questions per 1000 words lecturers use in their discourse.
Chang (2012) found that L1 lecturers‟ questions in the Humanities, Social and
Technical Sciences had more similarities than differences and concluded that they are
not discipline specific, but lecture genre specific. This entails that questions and
Language Value 12 (1), 56-87
57
Teresa Morell
negotiation of meaning can be used to support students‟ understanding in lectures of any
discipline. In addition, they are precisely the types of interactive features acclaimed by
research on effective lecturing in English as a lingua franca (ELF) settings. In the words
of Bjorkman (2011: 196):
“ELF settings are by nature challenging settings for all speakers involved, and without
opportunities to negotiate meaning, there is an increased risk of disturbance in communication. It
is, therefore, highly recommended that lecturers in lingua franca settings create as many
opportunities as possible for the deployment of pragmatic strategies through which they can
increase interactivity in lectures”.
I.2. Multimodality in EMI teacher training
Multimodality, the representation and communication of meaning through a multiplicity
of modes, as defined by Gunther Kress et al. (2005, 2010) - the father of multimodal
studies- also plays a crucial role in EMI contexts. This is true in light of the fact that
content specialists are often not fully proficient in the language and need to rely on
written words, visual materials and body language in combination with their speech to
convey and elicit meaning (Morell 2018). Until recently, improving oral expression
constituted developing speakers‟ linguistic and communicative competences, that is,
their knowledge and use of the language. However, a broader view on language, and the
semiotic resources we use to communicate and represent meaning, calls for the
development of “multimodal competence”. This competence has been defined by Royce
(2002: 193) as “the ability to understand the combined potential of various modes for
making meaning so as to make sense of and construct texts”.
Developing students and teachers‟ multimodal competence has proven to be
instrumental for improving comprehension and expression in language (Choi and Yi
2016, Norte Fernández-Pacheco 2018, Sueyoshi and Hardison 2005) and content (Airey
and Linder 2009, Morell 2018, Morell and Pastor 2018, Tang, 2013) learning and
teaching contexts. Studies based on cognitive theories of learning that have examined
interactive multimodal learning environments (e.g. Moreno and Mayer 2007) claim that
student understanding can be enhanced by the addition of non-verbal knowledge
representations to verbal explanations. Ainsworth
(2006:
185), who asserts that
combinations of auditory and visual representations may complement, constrain or
Language Value 12 (1), 56-87
58
EMI teacher training with a multimodal and interactive approach: A new horizon for LSP specialists
construct learners‟ deeper understanding, states “it is not sufficient to consider each type
of representation in isolation - representations interact with one another in a form of
„representational chemistry”. Furthermore, Airey and Linder
(2009) suggest that
meaning is distributed across modes and that there is, therefore, a critical constellation
of modes that needs to be mastered by students for appropriate disciplinary
understanding. Thus, it follows that if lecturers are aware of the potential, or
affordances, of each individual representation (mode), they will be better able not only
to combine them so as to facilitate students‟ comprehension, but also to support
students‟ learning.
With regard to multimodality and university academic oral discourse, studies have
examined speakers‟ use and combination of semiotic resources in presentations and in
lectures (e.g. Crawford Camiciottoli and Fortanet-Gómez 2015, Morell 2015), but with
the exception of Morell (2018), very few studies if any have looked at the development
of EMI lecturers‟ interactive and multimodal competence.
I.3. An EMI teacher training workshop with a multimodal and interactive
approach
In the large public Spanish university, where this study took place, there has been a
continuous growth of EMI subjects in all disciplines and for the past decade lecturers
have been offered 20-hour EMI training workshops with a multimodal and interactive
approach. To date, 220 academics from a wide range of university departments have
voluntarily taken part in one of its 12 editions. In each of the sessions of the workshops
between 15 and 20 participants of a wide-range of disciplines work in pairs and in
groups to reflect on, become aware of and practice: a) verbal and non-verbal
communication, b) varying interactive teaching methodologies and c) planning a
multimodal and interactive mini-lecturei. In the final two sessions each participant puts
into practice what they have learned by carrying out a 10 to 20-minute mini-lesson on a
basic concept of their field of study. These mini-lessons, which are constructively co-
evaluated by workshop peers, using the criteria in Morell (2015), are video-recorded
and used for research purposes with the consent of the participants.
Language Value 12 (1), 56-87
59
Teresa Morell
The main objective of this mixed method study was to explore what constitutes
successful interactive lecturing, according to academics who have taken part in the
aforementioned interdisciplinary EMI teacher training workshops. This aim was
fulfilled by analyzing the video recorded interactive and multimodal discourse of
participants‟ exemplary mini-lessons.
II. METHODOLOGY AND MATERIALS
To determine what characterizes effective interactive lecturing according to experienced
academics, the participants of diverse editions of the EMI workshops, described above,
were asked to vote for what they considered to be the two most effective mini lectures
they had observed and participated in during their training sessions. The two most voted
for mini-lectures of three EMI workshop editions, i.e. a total of 6 highly rated video
recorded lessons, were the object of study.
As indicated in Table 1, the lecturers of these mini-lessons had varying degrees of
English competence level (from B1-B2 to C1), teaching experience in their mother
tongue (1 - 17 years), and only one had previous experience using EMI. In addition,
they each taught content subjects in a different field
(i.e. Chemical Engineering,
Business Administration, Architecture, Sociology, Mathematics and Biology).
Table 1. Description of EMI workshop participants‟ background and their mini-lectures‟ subject, topic,
duration and words per minute (wpm).
Duration
Teaching
Experience
English
mini
experience
in English
Mini-
Competence
Degree
Mini- lecture
lecture/
in higher
as a
lecture
Level
teaching in
topic
words per
education
Medium of
(CEFR)
minute
(yrs)
Instruction
(wpm)
1
B1-B2
7
No
Chemical
Management
11 min 59
engineering
Systems in
sec / 90
Chemical
wpm
Industry
2
B2-C1
17
No
Business
What is
17 min 08
Administration
Marketing?
sec / 99
wpm
Language Value 12 (1), 56-87
60
EMI teacher training with a multimodal and interactive approach: A new horizon for LSP specialists
3
C1
4
Yes
Architecture
Construction
20 min 33
of domestic
sec / 108
imaginaries
wpm
4
B2
10
No
Sociology
Survey
09 min 39
interpretations
sec / 143
wpm
5
B2-C1
1
No
Mathematics Applications of
15 min 07
derivatives and
sec /129
integrals
wpm
6
C1
2
No
Biology
Seafood: do
17 min 11
we know what
sec /125
we are eating?
wpm
These 6 samples of study, which together entail 1 hour, 31 minutes and 38 seconds of
video streaming and a total of 10, 448 words, were used to carry out the audio-visual
discourse analysis that was done in two phases. In the first phase, the spoken discourse
was transcribed verbatim and then tagged for questions to determine the quality and
quantity of interactive verbal discourse. In the second phase, the written (W), the non-
verbal materials (NVMs) and the body language (B) modes together with the spoken
language (S) were annotated with the support of ELANii (The European Distributed
Corpora Project - EUDICO Linguistic Annotator), a professional linguistic annotation
tool.
In the following results section, the verbal interactive and multimodal discourse analysis
of the 6 mini lessons is presented. Then, the combined audio-visual analysis of one of
the mini-lessons is illustrated. Finally, a comparison is made between the highly rated
mini lessons with 6 other less effective ones.
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
III.1. Results of the interactive discourse analysis
Language Value 12 (1), 56-87
61
Teresa Morell
The verbal
(auditory) discourse of the
6 video-recorded mini-lessons was first
transcribed verbatim and tagged for content and audience-oriented questions. As in
Chang (2012), the questions were categorized as content-oriented or audience-oriented.
The content-oriented questions are the rhetorical questions (i.e. responded to by the
teacher or used to structure the discourse), whereas the audience-oriented questions are
those that elicit a response. The audience-oriented questions (defined below) include
display and referential types, as well as the sub-questions for negotiation of meaning
(i.e. comprehension checks, confirmation checks and clarification requests), which
maintain the interaction initiated by previous questions (i.e. display or referential) and
ensure that the lecturer and the students share the same assumptions and identification
of referents (Morell 2000, Pica, Young and Doughty 1987).
- Display questions - check the audience‟s knowledge or familiarity (e.g. Do you
know what surveys are?)
- Referential questions
- ask for audience‟s contributions from their own
experiences or perspectives (e.g. When you go to the fish market, which do you
prefer, fish from aquaculture or fishing?)
- Sub-questions for negotiation of meaning:
o Comprehension checks - check for receivers‟ understanding of message
(e.g. Do you understand?
o Confirmation checks - ask to confirm previous message (e.g. Did you
say…?)
o Clarification requests
- seek understanding (e.g. I don’t understand,
Could you explain?).
It is important to highlight that display questions, those that ask for students‟ recall of
factual information at a low cognitive level, have been found to be more often used in
classrooms than referential questions, those that ask for students‟ evaluation, judgement
or offering of new ideas at a higher cognitive level. In addition, referential questions
have been proven to promote more and longer responses with more complex syntax
(Brock 1986, Lendenmeyer 1990, Morell 2004). Furthermore, episodes of interaction
usually initiated by either display or referential questions are often followed by
Language Value 12 (1), 56-87
62
EMI teacher training with a multimodal and interactive approach: A new horizon for LSP specialists
comprehension or confirmation checks and sometimes clarification requests
(See
section III.3).
The number of specific questions, instances of negotiation of meaning
(i.e.
comprehension checks, confirmation checks and clarification requests) and the total
number of questions (Qs) per 1000 words of each mini lesson can be found in Table 2.
Table 2. Questions, and negotiation of meaning in mini-lessons 1-6 (T= Teacher, S= Student).
Audience-oriented questions
Content-oriented
Negotiation of meaning
Total
Qs per
Mini-
Rhetorical
Display
Referential
Comprehension
Confirmation
Clarification
questions
1000ws
lesson
questions
questions
questions
checks
checks
requests
1
5
5
10
2
1T; 2S
0
25
23
2
3
10
10
0
2T; 2S
1T
28
16.5
3
0
6
2
0
0T; 3S
1T; 1S
13
5.8
4
1
3
4
0
4T
0
12
8.8
5
7
6
6
11
3T; 1S
2T; 1S
37
19
6
4
1
10
3
4T; 2S
5S
39
13.6
Total
20
31
42
16
14T; 10S
4T; 7S
154
Avg
14.6
In each case, the lecturers made greater use of audience-oriented than content-oriented
questions. The most often used questions were the referential ones, those that elicit
students‟ contributions based on their own experiential or logical representation of the
world and that contain more features characteristic of genuine communication. Here are
examples of referential questions taken from the mini-lessons that ask students to
evaluate (d), judge (a, f) or offer new information (b, c, e):
a. What is the first thing that I can do with all these belts? What do you think?
(Mini-lecture 1)
b. Have you studied marketing before? (Mini-lecture 2)
c. What does this photograph communicate to you? (Mini-lecture 3)
d. What do you think this person would feel about it? Good? Bad? (Mini-lecture 4)
e. Have you ever seen a derivative in real life? (Mini-lecture 5)
Language Value 12 (1), 56-87
63
Teresa Morell
f.
When you go to the fish market, which do you prefer, fish from aquaculture or
fishing? (Mini-lecture 6)
It is also interesting to note that the negotiation of meaning or sub-questions that served
to check or confirm comprehension and to clarify meaning, which occurred after the
teachers‟ display or referential questions, was carried out by both the teachers (T) and
the students (S).
Although referential questions have proven to be the most effective, in so far as
promoting more and longer students‟ responses (Morell 2004, Brock 1986), there is no
specific mention of them in other studies that have focused on questions in lectures (e.g.
Crawford-Camiociottoli 2008 and Chang 2012). Chang (2012: 106) describes eliciting
response questions as those that “invite students to supply a piece of information related
to the course content” and gives two examples of what has been referred to as display
questions (those that check what students know). The fact that no distinction is made
between display and referential questions in lecture discourse studies may be an
indication of the lack, or limited degree, of overt student participation found in the
lecture corpora studied.
Another distinguishing characteristic of these effective mini-lectures is that they have a
greater number of questions per 1000 words (14.45) than the L1 Physical Science (9.9)
and Social Science (8.6) lectures analyzed in Chang (2012), which also indicates a
higher degree of interactivity in the samples studied.
The degree of interactivity (Table 3) in this study was estimated by calculating the
number of tokens used to engage in the questions and negotiation of meaning. Thus, the
percentage of interactive discourse is the estimation of the tokens used by both the
lecturer and the participants while asking and responding to or elaborating on the
audience-oriented questions
(i.e. display and referential questions, comprehension
checks, confirmation checks and clarification requests) divided by the total number of
verbal discourse tokens and multiplied by 100.
Table 3. The degree of interactivity in mini-lessons 1-6.
Mini-
Interactive discourse
Verbal discourse
Percentage interactive
lecture
tokens
tokens
discourse
1
496
1090
45%
Language Value 12 (1), 56-87
64
EMI teacher training with a multimodal and interactive approach: A new horizon for LSP specialists
2
762
1698
45%
3
442
2225
19%
4
171
1365
13%
5
440
1940
23%
6
804
2130
38%
The verbal discourse analysis of the mini-lessons revealed a relatively high usage of
audience-oriented questions and, thus, an overall high percentage of interactive
discourse. Mini-lessons 1 and 2 that made greater use of referential questions had a
greater degree of interaction. In both cases, nearly half the time was spent in
collaborative discourse. It is also interesting to note that these two mini-lectures had the
lowest rate of words per minute. As is indicated in Table 3, mini-lecture 1 had 90 words
per minute and mini-lecture 2 had 99 words per minute. These rates of words per
minute in lecture discourse are considered slower than normal according to Tauroza and
Allison (1990: 102). Consequently, it seems that more interactivity implies more time or
pauses, which have been claimed favorable for facilitating comprehension (Griffiths
1990: 311). This raises the question on the amount of content that can be delivered and
the amount that can be understood by learners during a lecture session. Apparently, the
extra time spent in interaction will reduce the quantity of material covered, but will
provide students with the time needed for comprehension.
III.2. Results of the multimodal discourse analysis
The multimodal discourse (auditory + visual) was analyzed with ELAN. This tool
allows users to analyze the orchestration of modes in captured digitalized audiovisual
data by making linguistic annotations in tiers to describe the performance of modes
during specific times. A 5 tier template was designed with the transcribed spoken
discourse (S) in the first tier, and the linguistic annotations of the written (W), non-
verbal materials (N), body language (B) and their multimodal combinations in the
subsequent tiers (see Figure 1).
Language Value 12 (1), 56-87
65
Teresa Morell
Figure 1. Sample ELAN window with 5 tiers
The main characteristics of the teachers‟ use of each mode and their combinations is
found in Table
4. Besides the aforementioned common use of audience-oriented
questions in the spoken discourse, the mini-lessons also shared the following
characteristics:
- Stressed key words and simple syntactic structures through the spoken and
written modes,
- Implemented illustrative non-verbal materials (realia, images, diagrams, tables,
or charts) on the screen,
- Made use of eye contact, body and facial gestures to accompany speech, written
and non-verbal materials (NVMs), and
- Combined 4 modes (Sp + W + NVMs + B) throughout the greater part of the
lessons.
Language Value 12 (1), 56-87
66
EMI teacher training with a multimodal and interactive approach: A new horizon for LSP specialists
Table 4. Multimodal discourse description of mini-lessons 1-6.
Body language
Multimodal
Non-verbal
Mini-
(B)
combinations
Spoken (Sp)
Written (W)
materials
lessons
(percentage of
(NVMs)
time)
1
Simple
key words and
Images,
Eye contact and
Sp + B - 10%
syntactic
simple syntactic
diagrams, tables
gaze towards
Sp + B + NVMs
structures,
structures on
on slides and
audience, screen
Sp + B + W -
stressed key
slides and board
realia
and realia, Hand
13%
words, some
accompanying
accompanying
gestures and
linguistic
speech
speech
body movements
Sp + W +
inaccuracies
referring to
NVMs + B -
content and
67%
realia
2
Combinations
key words and
Images and
Eye contact and
Sp
+ W + B
of simple and
simple syntactic
diagrams
gaze towards
Sp + W + NVMs
complex
structures on
accompanying
audience, screen
W + NVMs + B
syntactic
slides and board
and before
and board. Hand
-10%
structures,
accompanying,
speech
gestures, body
stressed key
before and after
movements, and
Sp
+ W
+
words, accurate
speech
shifting
NVMs
+ B
-
speech
positions Walks
90%
around class to
ensure students‟
participation
3
Combinations
key words and
Many images
Eye contact and
Sp + NVMs + B-
of simple and
simple syntactic
on slides
gaze towards
1%
complex
structures on
accompanying
audience, screen
syntactic
slides and board
speech at all
and board. Hand
Sp + W +
structures,
accompanying
times
gestures and
NVMs + B -
stressed key
speech
facial
99%
words, accurate
expressions to
speech
emphasize ideas
and express
opinions.
4
Combinations
key words and
Images and
Eye contact and
Sp + W + B
of simple and
simple syntactic
tables on slides
gaze towards
Sp + W + NVMs
complex
structures on
accompanying
audience and
- 25%
Language Value 12 (1), 56-87
67
Teresa Morell
syntactic
slides
speech
screen.
structures,
accompanying
Continuous hand
Sp + W +
stressed key
speech
and arm
NVMs + B -
words, accurate
movements.
75%
speech
5
Simple
key words and
Images, graphs
Eye contact and
syntactic
simple syntactic
and tables
gaze towards
structures, some
structures on
accompanying
audience, screen
linguistic
slides and board
speech
and board.
inaccuracies
accompanying
Facial gestures
speech
6
Simple
key words and
Images,
Eye contact and
W - 4%
syntactic
simple syntactic
diagrams,
gaze towards
W + NVMs
structures,
structures on
graphs, tables
audience and
Sp + W
stressed key
slides
and charts
screen.
Sp + B - 13%
words, some
accompanying,
accompanying
Continuous body
Sp + W + NVMs
linguistic
before and after
and before
movements.
Sp + W + B -
innacuracies
speech
speech
30%
Sp + W +
NVMs + B -
53%
As is indicated in the last column of Table 4, the multimodal combinations or ensembles
that included the four modes were prevalent throughout each of the mini lessons. In
fact, the percentage of time in which the teachers combined the spoken, written, non-
verbal materials and body language modes together to communicate, ranged from 53%
in mini-lesson 6 to 99% in mini-lesson 3. Nevertheless, a closer look at how the
speakers orchestrated the modes (Kress 2010: 162), moment by moment, to create the
specific multimodal ensembles reveals that they were arranged either simultaneously or
consecutively. For example, the lecturer in mini-lesson 2 (see Table 5) at times used the
written slides or the ones with NVMs at the same time as he spoke, but at other
moments he either spoke before or after having shown the written or NVMs. In other
words, teachers can choose to use other modes at the same time as they are speaking or
to use them before or after having spoken. Consequently, we may state that the 6 mini-
Language Value 12 (1), 56-87
68
EMI teacher training with a multimodal and interactive approach: A new horizon for LSP specialists
lessons coincide in so far as the tendency to use 4 mode ensembles, but not in their
orchestrations or organization of modes.
Another distinguishing characteristic of the mini-lessons worth-mentioning, which is
positively influenced by the use of multimodal ensembles, is the spoken linguistic
inaccuracies and complexities. In mini-lessons
1,
5 and 6 a number of linguistic
inaccuracies concerning pronunciation, intonation and syntactic structures were found.
In contrast, some complex syntactic structures were used in mini-lessons 2, 3, and 4.
Nevertheless, the spoken inaccuracies and complexities were nearly all accompanied by
clarifying written or non-verbal materials. Thus, the co-occurring reiteration of meaning
through visual modes allowed the audience, with varying degrees of proficiency, to
understand what the speaker was trying to convey despite the inaccuracies or
complexities.
III.3. A sample multimodal interactive discourse analysis of a mini-lecture
Now that the mini-lessons have been examined, we will have a closer look at the verbal
and visual transcription of mini-lesson
2 (see Table
5), the most interactive and
multimodal of the six lessons explored (as indicated in Tables 2, 3 and 4). The aim of
this lesson was to introduce Marketing and it was given by a lecturer of the Department
of Business Administration, who had between a B2 and a C1 English proficiency level
and had never used EMI in his 17 years of teaching experience. In this lesson, as in
most of the others analyzed, the instructor began by greeting and then attempting to
attract the students‟ attention. This was done by projecting images of controversial
marketing campaigns and asking if they were familiar with them. Then, the participants
were asked to work in pairs for 2 minutes to discuss and define marketing. The
instructions were given verbally and also projected on the screen. While the pairs were
working, the instructor went around monitoring the discussions. Once the time was up,
each pair was encouraged to contribute their definitions, whose keywords were written
on the board by the teacher. The given responses led to a series of interactions, or
instances of negotiation of meaning, that allowed several students to bring their
experience and perspective to the class. The remaining part of the mini-lesson was
dedicated to the interpretation of a published definition on marketing. The definition
Language Value 12 (1), 56-87
69
Teresa Morell
was projected on the screen and visually supported by gradually highlighting key points
in red, which were illustrated through images of marketing campaigns and a final mind
map.
The three columns of Table 5 illustrate how this lecturer combined verbal and visual
modes to carry out pedagogical interpersonal functions in the first 13 minutes of this 17
minute long mini-lesson. The first column indicates the interpersonal pedagogical
function carried out during each of the timed frames. The second column contains a
snapshot taken during the performance of the pedagogical function that allows us to
observe the lecturer‟s constantly changing body language and use of slides and
blackboard. The third one permits us to read the spoken discourse and to take note of
the labeled questions and negotiation of meaning highlighted in boldface. A combined
view of columns 2 and 3, that is of the visual and the verbal, for each of the frames
(rows), where students are given opportunities to participate (see frames 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and
9), reaffirms the multimodal and interactive characteristics of classroom interpersonal
communication.
On the one hand, if we explore this mini-lecture from a visual multimodal perspective
by having a close look at the lecturer‟s use of body language, non-verbal materials and
written content, it becomes apparent that this instructor uses many more semiotic
resources besides the spoken in his performance. Each of the interpersonal pedagogical
functions is realized through the orchestration of facial gestures, arm-hand movements,
changing body positions, writing on board and specific slides that contain concise
written texts or illustrative images together with the verbal discourse. On the other
hand, if we examine it from the verbal discourse perspective, we note that the mini-
lecture starts with interactive discourse during the first
13 minutes and ends with
expository discourse in the remaining 4 minutes. The interactive discourse consists of a
number of questions, or elicitation markers, that entail a broad range of interpersonal
pedagogical functions such as:
- greeting (i.e. How are you doing today?),
- announcing objectives (i.e. What is exactly marketing?),
- attracting attention (e.g. Have you ever seen this picture before?)
Language Value 12 (1), 56-87
70
EMI teacher training with a multimodal and interactive approach: A new horizon for LSP specialists
- setting up activity (e.g. Working in pairs . . . two minutes maximum, what is
marketing for you?
- eliciting information (When you don’t know the meaning of a word, what do you
do?).
All the questions in this mini-lesson (10 referential and 10 display questions) were
answered by the students. Consequently, we can claim that this instructor has been
successful in engaging the students in co-creating the discourse of this multimodal
interactive mini-lecture.
Table 5. Verbal and visual transcription of Mini-lesson 2.
Interpersonal
Visual representation
Verbal representation (spoken
Pedagogical
(body language, writing on slides
interactive and expository discourse)
Functions
and board, and images)
question types: d=display,
(Time Sequence)
r=referential, rh=rhetorical
negotiation of meaning:
conf=confirmation check,
comp=comprehension check,
clar=clarification request
1. Greets &
T- Well, good morning everybody. How
announces topic
are you doing today?(R)
SS- Fine, thank you.
T- Well, today, this morning we are
going to talk about what is
0-0.35”
marketing?(D)
2. Projects (on slide),
First, the main goal of this subject, of
announces &
this mini lesson is to understand what is
reformulates
exactly
marketing, what does
objective
marketing means? (D) And the second
objective of this mini lesson is that you
Announces show of
are able to answer the question to:
images
which is the scope or what is the scope
of marketing? (D)
First of all, I would like you to see some
Language Value 12 (1), 56-87
71
Teresa Morell
images that perhaps you have seen
0.35-1.06”
before and think about about them.
3. Motivates by
Have you ever seen this picture
showing 3
before?(R)
controversial images
SS- No.
of marketing
T- Is a marketing campaign from
campaigns and asks
Benetton. You know this brand?(R)
students if they are
SS- Yes.
familiar with them
T- Very controversial. Have you ever
seen this picture before?(R)
SS- Yes. No.
1.06-2.02
T- Is also a brand. It‟s a clothes' brand,
textile brand.
And the last one, another
marketing campaign from Dolce &
Gabbana. Have you seen this picture
before?(R)
SS- Yes. No.
T- Some common marketing campaigns
that arrived to the mass media because
they
are very controversial and many people
breaks their beliefs when they see this
images
4a. Gives assignment
Well, after that, I would like you to work
on slide. Asks to
in pairs and from your previous
work in pairs
experience I would like you to, working
in pairs, to try to define, one minute, one
minute and a half, two minutes
4b. Writes outline on
maximum, what is marketing for you?
board
(R) What do you think marketing is
from your previous experience? (R)
4c. Circulates among
SS- Inaud SS (Working in pairs)
pairs
Language Value 12 (1), 56-87
72
EMI teacher training with a multimodal and interactive approach: A new horizon for LSP specialists
2.02-5.00
5a. Elicits
T- You have a limited time, so I would
information from
like to continue, please. Well, what is
students through
marketing for you? What do you think
questions
marketing is? (R)Which is the main
activity marketing does?(D)
S1- The main objective is to sell.
T- To sell. Yes. Everybody and I was
sure that most of you, in your definitions
is to sell, money, profits, inaud T And I
was sure that most of you, in your
definitions have a word... like this.
S2- We defined like the process that you
can sell your best image of your
company or our professional project, in
global.
Negotiates meaning
T- In global, but to sell your image?
5b.fills-in outline on
(Clar)
board according to
S2- To sell everything that you have.
students‟ responses
Your structure, your quality, for your
global service, everything that you have.
5c. Evaluates
No, No... at the end no is for... the
student‟s response
activity is not to sell something by
money. Maybe, I don't know...
5d. Praises student‟s
T- That‟s a very accurate definition of
comments
marketing, but who does this
activity?(D)
Who
applies
marketing?(D)
S3- But, I'm… I not agree with this
definition. Why? And the section what?
Sometimes when the government want
change something or sell, not sell
exactly,
“sell” a project, they use
Language Value 12 (1), 56-87
73
Teresa Morell
marketing.
5e. Reformulates to
T- Yes.
elicit classifying
S3- For example, Hacienda somos
term
todos, I think is marketing
100%.
(laughter)
T- Have you studied
marketing
5f. Shows activity
before?
(R) Or you have read
slide with keywords
something about marketing before?
filled-in
(R)
S3- No, nothing.
T- No? Hacienda somos todos and the
campaigns we saw before, which is,
which is the technique employed
here? (D)
S4- Visual? Visual impact.
5.00-7.49
T- Visual impact, but the technique,
how do we call... which is the name of
this...? (D)
S5- Pictures?
T- Pictures? (Conf) No, yes they are
pictures but...
S6- Advertisement.
T- Advertisement. Promotion. Publicity.
Promotion. Most people relate
advertisement, publicity, promotion,
commercial adds as an activity, as a
marketing activity, no? And who does
this activity?
(D) Who applies
marketing? (D)
S7- Companies.
T- Companies, firms.
S1- Institutions, public institutions,
States,
governments.
Sometimes,
individuals.
T- Individuals, you can also apply
marketing. Most of people when try to
think about marketing and try to define
marketing, employ this words in their
Language Value 12 (1), 56-87
74
EMI teacher training with a multimodal and interactive approach: A new horizon for LSP specialists
definitions: promotion, advertisement,
firms, also companies, institutions, and
most people think or believe that the
main objective of marketing is to
improve the sales, the revenue of firms
to earn money. This is a very applied
definition of marketing, but this is
marketing as was understood in the
sixties. And today, as I have realized,
you have a good idea of what marketing
is. The scope of marketing is larger, and
this is very narrow definition of what
marketing is. At the present, nowadays,
marketing has two main problems. First,
is that marketing has become a very
popular term, and this is a problem.
6. Shows Google
Most people when try to know what is
search of marketing
marketing, go to the Google search
engine, and
write the term marketing, and marketing
7.49-8.55
gives us on this search engine up to five
hundred
millions of web pages talking about
marketing. And most of them make a
bad connotation
of marketing and don't employ the term
marketing in a proper way.
7. Uses humor to
The second problem with marketing is
demonstrate
that has become very popular, especially
popularity & elicit
due to the digital environment, and most
what is done to find
people when applies or try to know what
definitions
marketing is, begin as Homer Simpson
does, (laughter) with the most advanced
techniques, and forget the basics, and
forget the basics. They want to know the
most updated techniques, and forget the
basics of marketing. When you don't
know the meaning of a word, what do
Language Value 12 (1), 56-87
75
Teresa Morell
8.55-9.32
you do? (D)
S5- To go to the dictionary.
8. Shows and reads
T- You go to the dictionary and this is
definition of
what I did, go to the dictionary and read
marketing
the definition of marketing. I did not go
to any dictionary, but the dictionary of
the American Marketing Academy.
(laughter) This is a best dictionary in
9.32-10.22
marketing field. And this is the
definition that the American Marketing
Association, which is also a definition
adopted by the European Marketing
Academy. This is how this association
defines what marketing is. In this
definition as we can read, marketing is a
process, is a process, as you stated, very
well, of planning and executing the
conception, pricing, promotion and
distribution of ideas, goods and services
to create exchanges that satisfy
individual
needs,
organizational
objectives and society at large. This is
the
mostup-today
definition
of
marketing.
9a. Highlights the
From this definition, I would like to
keypoints in
highlight three points. First, which is the
definition
goal of marketing and who does
marketing? (D) If we carefully read this
9b. Elicits example
definition, the goal of marketing is to
of commercial and
create exchange. If we think in
non-commercial
exchange, we can have, of course,
exchange
commercial exchange. An example of
commercial exchange?(R)
9c. Relates present
S8- When you go to a shop. inaud ST
teaching activity
T- When you go to a shop and buy a
with „exchange‟
mobile phone. But we can also have
non-commercial
exchange.
Any
10.22-11.25
example
of
non-commercial
Language Value 12 (1), 56-87
76
EMI teacher training with a multimodal and interactive approach: A new horizon for LSP specialists
exchange? (R) You said it before.
S1- When you try to change the way of
thinking of some person or….
T- For example, now. Teaching, the
teacher and the students. There is an
exchange, and I am trying to transmit
my knowledge, I am trying that you
learn, and you are here making an effort
to hear me. So, wherever there is a
exchange, marketing can be applied.
Wherever there is a exchange, marketing
can be applied. In this definition, we
don't have the word firm, we don't have
the word company, we don't have the
word enterprise. We have the word
exchange, and wherever there is
exchange,
commercial
or
non-
commercial, we can apply the word
marketing.
10. Illustrates
As Pablo said very well before,
political marketing
politicians can apply marketing. Most
people agree that when Barack Obama
won or became president of the United
States of America, it employed or he
11.25-12.45
employed marketing techniques very
well. It is a branch of marketing which is
called political marketing. There is a
exchange, he is a politician, people who
vote him, and they want to make an
exchange. I am inaud T your vote, and I
tell you what I say if you vote me. There
is an exchange of marketing can be
applied.
11. Highlights the
Which is the second idea I would like
goal of marketing
to highlight from this definition? (RH)
Why people or why organizations can
apply and which is the goal of
marketing. (Rh) The goal of marketing
Language Value 12 (1), 56-87
77
Teresa Morell
12.45-13.20
is
to
satisfy
individual
needs,
organizational objectives, and society at
large. Nowadays, because of the media,
most people have a bad connotation of
marketing,
because
the
most
controversial
marketing campaigns
arrive to the media, and this is what
most people can see on TV related to
marketing. But marketing should also
take care about society, and most firms
that apply marketing strategies take into
account this concern.
12. Illustrates cause-
For example, we have here a marketing
related marketing
campaign which is a cause-related
marketing campaign. In this case, one
firm, Kentucky Fried Chicken concerns
13.20-14.12
about breast cancer, and every time they
make an exchange with the consumer,
every time we buy a chicken bucket,
they give an amount of money to
research against this breast cancer.
Because marketing also concerns about
the society and that. Of course, they
want to earn money, but they can't
forget that the consumers could ever
have a problem like this, and they
concern about the individual needs with
which they relate.
13. Highlights what
And the last point I would like to
marketing does
highlight from my definition, well, not
my definition, from the American
Marketing
Academy Association
14.12-15.05
definition is what marketing does.
Marketing has a lot of techniques, a lot
of variables, and most people think that
only promotion is a variable that
marketing can be applied, and, we can
see, sorry, in this definition there are
Language Value 12 (1), 56-87
78
EMI teacher training with a multimodal and interactive approach: A new horizon for LSP specialists
four marketing variables which are
employed to define the marketing
strategy of a firm, of an organization,
which are: the conception of the product,
the idea, good or service; the price; the
promotion; and distribution.
14. Explains and
When we think in a marketing strategy,
illustrates 4 main
when we think about marketing, we
points involved in
should think in the four variables all
marketing
together. Maybe, the most non variable
is promotion, but before to promote you
need the product. You have to put the
product available to the consumer, and
15.05-16.43
then you have to price the product.
Because in the exchange, you give the
product and obtain the price. And also
you have to consider this variable when
you define your marketing strategy. To
think that marketing is promotion, is a
very narrow definition of marketing. Of
course, promotion is a variable of
marketing, but is not the only, and is not
the most important variable.
15a. Reviews
And this is what marketing is.
definition
I hope that after this class, you have a
15b. Ends with final
better knowledge of what marketing is,
message
and I hope that the next time you think
about marketing you forget the bad
connotations that usually marketing has
for most of the consumers. And thank
16.43-17.08
you very much.
III.4. A comparison of the more and less effective lessons
Besides exploring the common interactive and multimodal aspects of the 6 highly
rated mini-lessons, 6 other recordings that had not been selected as effective were also
reviewed to determine if they had similar characteristics. It was found that in most cases
Language Value 12 (1), 56-87
79
Teresa Morell
these lecturers used a limited number of questions and that little or no negotiation of
meaning occurred. Concerning their use and combination of modes, they shared some
similar aspects, especially in terms of the written and non-verbal materials, with the
ones that had been voted for as being effective. The written mode on their slides also
made use of key words and simple syntactic structures. Similarly, their non-verbal
materials consisted of illustrative images, tables and diagrams, though they were used to
a lesser extent. Unlike the highly rated lessons, these less effective ones foregrounded
speech throughout a greater part of the session and had much lower percentages of time
in which 3 or 4 modes were combined to represent and communicate meaning. In
summary, the less effective ones were not as interactive or as multimodal as the more
effective ones.
IV. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
The main objective of this study was to explore the characteristics of lessons considered
to be effective according to trained EMI instructors. This was achieved by carrying out
a verbal and multimodal analysis of 6 highly rated mini-lectures, then having a closer
look at one of them, and finally comparing the more effective with the lesser ones. What
follows is a summary of the findings and their pedagogical implications.
The verbal interactive discourse analysis revealed that the more highly evaluated
lessons had a greater use of audience than of content-oriented questions. In addition,
there were more referential than display questions, both of which were in many cases
followed by instances of negotiation of meaning (i.e. comprehension and confirmation
checks) initiated by teachers and students. These lessons had more questions per 1000
words and higher percentages of interactive discourse in comparison to those in other
corpora (e.g. Chang, 2012). It was also found that these lessons had lower rates of
words per minute than other less interactive lectures. Thus, in terms of training EMI
instructors in the use of verbal interactive discourse, the study points to the need to a)
teach the differences among types of questions, b) practice formulating referential type
questions, and c) encourage and give students time to negotiate meaning.
The multimodal discourse analysis of the chosen lessons showed that the EMI
instructors‟ spoken and written language was made up of stressed key words and simple
Language Value 12 (1), 56-87
80
EMI teacher training with a multimodal and interactive approach: A new horizon for LSP specialists
syntactic structures. They each made use of diverse non-verbal materials that illustrated
concepts. In all cases, the speech, writing and NVMs were accompanied by eye contact
and gestures. In fact, the 6 mini-lessons were highly multimodal because they made use
of four modes (i.e. speech, writing, NVMs and body language) throughout most of the
lessons, unlike 6 other mini-lessons that had not been selected and that foregrounded
speech and accompanying body language most of the time. The findings of the
multimodal analysis highlight the importance of raising awareness among EMI
instructors of modal and multimodal affordances. In other words, EMI trainers should
dedicate time with their trainees to make clear how modes or semiotic resources can be
used and combined to facilitate students‟ comprehension.
The combined verbal interactive and multimodal discourse analysis of mini-lesson 2,
represented in Table 5, gives further support to the benefits of instructors‟ conscious use
of interactive and multimodal discourse. In this exemplary lesson, the instructor‟s use of
audience-oriented questions and combinations of varied semiotic resources allowed him
to carry out interpersonal pedagogical functions that engaged the audience. Detailed
analysis, as this one, of other successful EMI lessons in diverse fields should not only
be object of study for ESP specialists, but also a resource for their teacher training
In general terms, a number of implications emerge with regard to training lecturers who
switch from teaching in their L1 to English. First, in line with Morell (2004) and (2007),
audience-oriented questions, especially referential questions, will enhance interaction
that will not only promote students‟ engagement, but also allow for negotiation of
meaning. Second, in line with Morell (2015) and Norte Fernández Pacheco (2018), co-
occurring reiteration of meaning through visual modes allows the audience, with
varying degrees of proficiency, to understand what the speaker is trying to convey
despite linguistic inaccuracies or complexities. Finally, it is important to point out, in
line with Klaassen (2001), Hellekjaer, (2010) and Bjorkman, (2011), that effective
lecturing skills are not directly proportional with high linguistic proficiency.
As far as research to improve EMI classroom instruction is concerned, there is much to
be done to begin to determine „best practices‟ and to ensure quality in EMI teaching
contexts of diverse disciplines. Here I have only explored the discourse of 6 well-rated
mini-lectures, albeit of distinct fields, and I have found that they all have a high degree
Language Value 12 (1), 56-87
81
Teresa Morell
of interactivity and multimodality. Through this study as in others cited, it seems quite
clear that effective EMI instruction involves students in the language and the content.
And, in terms of the verbal mode we know that this is done through a deployment of
engaging questions and negotiation of meaning. However, in terms of the visual modes
and their combinations, it is not so clear. In line with Ainsworth (2006), it is not enough
to consider each representation
(mode) in isolation, we need to explore how
representations interact to form “chemical representations”. In other words, research
needs to look into how EMI instructors of specific disciplines use multimodal
ensembles to effectively represent and communicate the particular inherent meanings of
their fields. Consequently, to start to corroborate best practices in each of the many
fields that have adapted EMI, LSP specialists need to analyze characteristic multimodal
ensembles found in larger lecture corpora.
In this study, I have provided an example of how LSP specialists can use their expertise
to train teachers and to do research in EMI. However, and more importantly, this study
provides further evidence of the many new teaching and research avenues open to the
specialists of languages for specific purposes as a consequence of the ever-increasing
university EMI scenarios.
Notes
i In this paper the term „interactive mini-lecture‟ is used interchangeably with „mini-lesson‟ and it refers
to a short university classroom session that incorporates student overt participation by means of engaging
activities such as group brainstorming, pair work or debates.
REFERENCES
Aguilar, M. 2018. Integrating intercultural competence in ESP and EMI: From theory
to
practice.
ESP
Today,
6
(1),
25-43.
Ainsworth, S. 2006. “DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with
multiple representations”. Learning and Instruction,
16
(3),
183-198.
Language Value 12 (1), 56-87
82
EMI teacher training with a multimodal and interactive approach: A new horizon for LSP specialists
Airey, J. and Linder, C. 2009. “A disciplinary discourse perspective on university
science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of
modes”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
46
(1),
27-49.
Airey, J.
2011. “Talking about teaching in English: Swedish university lecturers‟
experiences of changing teaching language”. Ibérica, 22, 35-54.
Ball, P. and Lindsay, D. 2012. “Language demands and support for English medium
instruction in tertiary education. Learning from a specific context”. In Doiz, A.,
D. Lasagabaster and J. M. Sierra
(Eds.), English medium instruction at
universities: Global challenges, 44-64. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Bjorkman, B. 2010. “So You Think You Can ELF: English as a Lingua Franca as the
Medium of Instruction”. Hermes - Journal of Language and Communication
45-bj%C3%B6rkman.pdf.
— 2011. “Pragmatic strategies in English as an academic lingua franca: Ways of
achieving communicative effectiveness?” Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 950-964.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.033.
Brock, C. 1986. “The effects of referential questions on ESL classroom discourse”.
Chang, Y.-Y. 2012. “The use of questions in lectures given in English: Influences of
disciplinary cultures”. English for Specific Purposes,
31,
103-116.
Choi, J. and Yi, Y. 2016. “Teachers‟ integration of multimodality into classroom
practices for English language learners”. TESOL Journal,
7 (2),
304-327.
Crawford Camiciottoli, B. 2008. “Interaction in academic lectures vs written text
materials: the case of questions”. Journal of Pragmatics, 40 (7), 1216-1231
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.08.007.
Crawford Camiciottoli, B. and Fortanet-Gómez, I. 2015. Multimodal Analysis in
Academic Settings. New York, NY: Routledge.
Language Value 12 (1), 56-87
83
Teresa Morell
Dafouz-Milne, E.
2018.
“English-medium instruction and teacher education
programmes in higher education: ideological forces and imagined identities at
work”. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21 (5),
Dearden, J.
2015.
“English as a Medium of Instuction: A growing global
phenomenon”.
British
Council
Report.
ELAN, Version
5.2
(April
2008). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for
Fortanet-Gómez, I. and Ruíz-Madrid, N. 2014. “Multimodality for comprehensive
communication in the classroom: Questions in guests lectures”. Ibérica, 28,
203-224.
Griffiths, R. 1990. “Speech rate and NNS comprehension: A preliminary study in time-
benefit analysis”. Language Learning, 40 (3), 345-364.
Hellekjaer, G. O.
2010.
“Lecture comprehension in English-medium higher
education”. Hermes- Journal of Language Communication, 45, 11-28.
Klaassen, R. 2001. The international university curriculum: Challenges in English-
medium engineering education: Doctoral Thesis. Department of Communication
and Education, Delft University of Technology: Delft, The Netherlands.
Kress, G.
2010. Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary
communication. London: Routledge.
Kress G., Jewitt C., Bourne J., Franks A., Hardcastle J., Jones K. and Reid E.
2005. A multimodal perspective on teaching and learning. London: Routledge.
Lendenmeyer, S. 1990. “Study of referential and display questions and their responses
in adult ESL reading classes”. Dissertations and Theses. Paper
4070.
Language Value 12 (1), 56-87
84
EMI teacher training with a multimodal and interactive approach: A new horizon for LSP specialists
Morell, T. 2000. “EFL Content Lectures. A Discourse Analysis of an Interactive and a
Non-Interactive Style”. Working Papers 7. Alicante, Spain: Departamento de
Filología Inglesa, Universidad de Alicante.
— 2004. “Interactive discourse for university EFL students”. English for Specific
— 2007. What enhances EFL students‟ participation in lecture discourse? Student,
lecturer and discourse perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,
— 2015. International paper conference presentations: A multimodal analysis to
determine effectiveness. English for Specific Purposes, 37,
137-150.
— 2018. “Multimodal competence and effective interactive EMI lecturing”. System, 77,
Morell, T. and Pastor Cesteros, S.
2018.
“Multimodal communication in oral
academic presentations by L2 Spanish students”. Spanish Language Teaching, 5
(2), 125-138.
Moreno, R. and Mayer, R. 2007. “Interactive multimodal learning environments”.
Norte Fernández-Pacheco, N. 2018. “The Impact of Multimodal Ensembles onAudio-
Visual Comprehension: Implementing Vodcasts in EFL Contexts”. Multimodal
Pica, T., Young, R. and Doughty, C.
1987.
“The impact of interaction on
comprehension”. TESOL Quarterly, 21 (4), 737-758.
Royce, T. 2002. “Multimodality in the TESOL classroom: Exploring visual-verbal
Sánchez-García, D. 2019. “„I can‟t find the words now‟: Teacher discourse strategies
and their communicative potential in Spanish and English-medium instruction in
Language Value 12 (1), 56-87
85
Teresa Morell
higher education”. CLIL. Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual
and Pluricultural Education, 2 (2), 43-55.
Sancho Guinda, C. 2013. ―Teacher Targets: A model for CLIL and ELF teacher
education in polytechnic settings”. Language Value,
5
(1),
76-106.
Seoyoshi, A. and Hardison, D.M. 2005. “The Role of Gestures and Facial Cues in
Second Language Listening Comprehension”. Language Learning, 55 (4), 661-
699.
Suviniitty, J. 2012. Lectures in English as a Lingua Franca: Interactional features.
Doctoral thesis. University of Helsinki.
Tang, K.-S. 2013. “Instantiation of multimodal semiotic systems in science classroom
discourse”. Language Sciences,
37,
Tauroza, S. and Allison, D.
1990.
“Speech rates in British English”. Applied
Linguistics 11 (1), 90-105.
Tazl, D. 2011. “English-medium masters‟ programmes at an Austrian university of
applied sciences: Attitudes, experiences and challenges”. Journal of English for
Walsh, S.
2011. Exploring Classroom Discourse Language in Action. London:
Routledge.
Received: 08 November 2019
Accepted: 23 May 2020
Language Value 12 (1), 56-87
86
EMI teacher training with a multimodal and interactive approach: A new horizon for LSP specialists
Cite this article as:
Morell, Teresa. 2020. “EMI teacher training with a multimodal and interactive approach: A new
horizon for LSP specialists”. Language Value, 12 (1), 56-87. Jaume I University ePress: Castelló,
Spain. http://www.languagevalue.uji.es.
ISSN 1989-7103
Language Value 12 (1), 56-87
87
