www.ijcrsee.com

217

Bekturova M. et al. (2025).

Examining Multimodal Literacy Skills Among EMI Teachers in Kazakhstan

, International

Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(1), 217-222.

Original scientific paper

Received: February 25, 2025.

Revised: April 11, 2025.

Accepted: April 13, 2025.

UDC:

37.091.12:005.962.131(574)

005.963.5:378-051

10.23947/2334-8496-2025-13-1-217-222

Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Corresponding author: mb.bekturova@gmail.com

Abstract: The integration of English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) in Kazakhstani universities necessitates effective

multimodal communication in teaching. However, limited research has explored EMI instructors’ multimodal literacy—their ability to

utilize verbal, visual, and textual elements to enhance instruction. This study investigates the relationship between EMI instructors’

ability to express and interpret multimodal content and their preference for multimodal communication in teaching at a Kazakhstani

university. A quantitative research design was employed, utilizing a validated survey instrument to assess 120 teachers’ multimodal

literacy levels in one Kazakhstani university. The collected data underwent reliability analysis, descriptive statistics, and Pearson

correlation analysis to examine the relationships among multimodal expression, interpretation, and preference. The results indicate

that while teachers acknowledge the value of multimodal approaches, they encounter significant challenges in integrating them

effectively. Variations in internal consistency suggest that certain aspects of multimodal communication remain difficult to master.

Additionally, the findings reveal that teachers who demonstrate strong multimodal interpretation skills do not necessarily prefer

using such methods in teaching. These findings suggest a gap between EMI instructors’ multimodal literacy and their instructional

preferences, highlighting the need for targeted faculty development programs that enhance multimodal teaching strategies.

Keywords: English as a medium of instruction, Multimodal Literacy Scale, higher education, multimodal training,

university teachers.

Madina Bekturova

, Davronzhon Gaipov

, Gergana Hristova Dyankova

, Saule Tulepova

SDU University, Faculty of Education and Humanities, Language Education Department, Kaskelen, Kazakhstan,

e-mail: mb.bekturova@gmail.com, davronzhon.gaipov@sdu.edu.kz, saule.tulepova@sdu.edu.kz

South-West University “Neofit Rilski”, Faculty of Pedagogy, Department of Preschool and Primary School Education,

Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria, e-mail: diankova_g@swu.bg

Examining Multimodal Literacy Skills Among EMI Teachers in

Kazakhstan

Introduction

In recent years, English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) has gained significant traction in higher

education institutions worldwide, particularly in non-Anglophone countries (Dearden, 2015). Kazakhstan,

as part of its educational reform initiatives, has increasingly adopted EMI to enhance global competitive-

ness and academic integration (Kaiypova and Kim, 2024). Since the adoption of the EMI format for deliv-

ering courses in non-linguistic majors, Kazakhstani higher education institutions have begun formulating

relevant policies, creating and introducing numerous English-taught academic programs, and developing

diverse methodologies to ensure effective implementation (Tulepova et al., 2024:434). However, ensuring

effective communication and knowledge transfer in multilingual and multicultural classrooms still requires

educators to develop multimodal literacy skills.

Multimodal literacy refers to the ability to interpret, express, and engage with meaning through mul-

tiple modes of communication, such as visual, auditory, gestural, and textual elements (Walsh, 2010).

Given the diverse nature of modern classrooms and the increasing reliance on digital technologies in

teaching and learning, EMI teachers must be adept at utilizing multimodal resources to enhance student

engagement and comprehension (Morell, 2018). According to Custodio-Espinar and López-Hernández,

“multimodality can be useful in EMI contexts to measure and evaluate different ways of meaning-making

produced by students” (2023, p.7). Despite its importance, there is limited empirical research on EMI

teachers’ multimodal literacy skills, particularly in Kazakhstan. Understanding their competencies and

www.ijcrsee.com

218

Bekturova M. et al. (2025).

Examining Multimodal Literacy Skills Among EMI Teachers in Kazakhstan

, International

Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(1), 217-222.

preferences regarding multimodal communication is crucial for addressing potential challenges, for mas-

tering “behavioral strategies that form a concrete benefit related to good organization, control, and re-

sponsibility of participants in the educational process” (Tasevska and Ivanov, 2022:47) and for informing

professional development programs (Sutrisno et al., 2023). Thus, this study seeks to bridge this gap by

examining the multimodal literacy skills of EMI teachers at a private university in Kazakhstan. Specifically,

it investigates teachers’ ability to express themselves using multimodal structures, their interpretation of

multimodal content, and their preferences for multimodal communication in the classroom using a validat-

ed survey instrument developed by Bulut et al. (2015). Therefore, the research question was formulated

as follows: How do EMI teachers in Kazakhstan demonstrate multimodal literacy skills, and what is

the relationship between their ability to express and interpret multimodal content and their prefer-

ence for multimodal communication in the classroom

Theoretical framework

This study adopts Multimodal Social Semiotics (Kress, 2009) as its theoretical lens to explore

EMI teachers’ multimodal literacy skills. Multimodal Social Semiotics posits that meaning-making occurs

through multiple modes - such as speech, writing, images, and gestures - each with distinct affordances

that contribute to communication and knowledge construction. This presupposes a “meaning-centered

management of the educational environment that provides conditions for maximum personalization of the

learning process by transforming the traditional process of transmitting educational communication into

an organic and authentic dialogue“ (Dermendjieva et al, 2020:77). In the context of EMI, where linguistic

barriers may exist, effective teaching relies not only on verbal proficiency but also on the strategic integra-

tion of multimodal resources to facilitate understanding (Morell, 2020). This may be due to the fact that

since content specialists are not always fully proficient in the language, they often rely on a combination

of written text, visual aids, body language, and speech to convey and elicit meaning (Morell, 2018).

Within EMI classrooms, multimodal literacy enables teachers to scaffold content, clarify complex

concepts, and engage students through diverse semiotic modes (Tai and Wei, 2024). This study focuses

on three key dimensions of multimodal literacy: expression, referring to teachers’ ability to convey mean-

ing using multimodal strategies; interpretation, involving their ability to decode and analyze multimodal

content; and preference, reflecting their inclination towards using multimodal communication in instruc-

tional settings, defined by Bulut et al. (2015). By applying Multimodal Literacy Scale, this research aims to

uncover how EMI teachers navigate and utilize multimodal resources to enhance teaching effectiveness

in a multilingual academic environment.

Materials and Methods

This study employed a quantitative research design employing a validated survey instrument de-

signed by Bulut, Ulu and Kan (2015). Data collection was conducted via an online Google Forms survey

platform. Participants completed the questionnaire anonymously. Data were screened for missing re-

sponses and outliers before proceeding to analysis via SPSS version 30.

The survey was conducted among 120 EMI teachers at one private Kazakhstani university. The re-

spondents were recruited using a convenience sampling approach. Participants provided informed consent

before completing the questionnaire. The gender distribution of the participants was 75% female (n = 90)

and 25% male (n = 30). The participants’ ages ranged from 21 to 35, with the largest group being 22-year-

olds (70.9%). A smaller proportion of respondents were aged between 23 - 35, each making up between

4.2% and 8.3% of the total sample. Regarding teaching experience, the majority (58.3%) had been teaching

for about a year or less, while 25% had between two and five years of experience. The remaining 16.7%

reported having between six and ten years of teaching experience. These demographics suggest that the

sample primarily consists of young and relatively inexperienced EMI teachers, which may have implications

for their familiarity with multimodal literacy practices and the challenges they face in EMI instruction.

www.ijcrsee.com

219

Bekturova M. et al. (2025).

Examining Multimodal Literacy Skills Among EMI Teachers in Kazakhstan

, International

Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(1), 217-222.

Results

This section presents the findings of the study, focusing on the reliability of the multimodal literacy

scale, descriptive statistics of teachers’ responses, and the relationships among the three multimodal

literacy factors. First, the internal consistency of the scale was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coef-

ficients, revealing varying levels of reliability across the three subscales. Next, descriptive statistics illus-

trate teachers’ levels of agreement with statements related to expressing themselves using multimodal

structures, interpreting multimodal content, and their preference for multimodal communication. Finally,

Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to explore relationships between these dimensions, shed-

ding light on how teachers’ ability to express and interpret multimodal content relates to their preferences

for using such methods in the classroom.

Table 1. Reliability results

Factors Number of items Cronbach’s alpha coefficient values

Expressing Oneself Using Multimodal Structure 5 .648

Interpretation of the Contents Presented in Multimodal Structure 7 .731

Preferring Multimodal Structure 5 .815

In Table 1 above, the reliability of the scale used to measure multimodal literacy was assessed using

Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. The internal consistency of the three subscales varied, with “Preferring

Multimodal Structure” showing the highest reliability (α = 0.815), indicating strong internal consistency

among the five items measuring teachers’ preferences for multimodal content. The “Interpretation of the

Contents Presented in Multimodal Structure” subscale demonstrated acceptable reliability (α = 0.731),

suggesting that the seven items in this factor are relatively consistent in measuring how well teachers in-

terpret multimodal content. However, the “Expressing Oneself Using Multimodal Structure” subscale had

a lower reliability score (α = 0.648), which suggests that the five items in this factor may not be fully co-

hesive or may require revision to enhance their consistency. Nevertheless, following Hair et al. (2009) on

the development of new scales, we also kept the construct despite its’ Cronbach’s (1951) alpha of 0.648.

The descriptive statistics presented in Table 2 below indicate varying levels of agreement across

the three categories. In the Expressing Oneself Using Multimodal Structure category, teachers gener-

ally showed moderate agreement, with mean scores ranging from 3.46 to 3.63, suggesting that they

somewhat integrate visuals, music, and interactive elements into their presentations and writing. The

Interpretation of the Contents Presented in the Multimodal Structure category displayed a similar trend,

with most items scoring between 3.04 and 4.04. Notably, participants reported the highest agreement

with recognizing how visual, auditory, and written elements influence individuals (M = 4.04, SD = 0.679)

and using body language effectively (M = 3.96, SD = 0.679), while their ability to assess media content

credibility scored the lowest (M = 3.04, SD = 0.938). In contrast, the Preferring Multimodal Structure

category showed overall disagreement, as all mean scores were below 3.00. The lowest agreement was

with the statement that multimodal elements lead to laziness (M = 2.21, SD = 1.044) and that multimodal

communication is boring (M = 2.00, SD = 1.045), indicating that teachers generally do not find multimodal

elements disengaging. However, a relatively higher score for being distracted in electronic multimodal

environments (M = 2.92, SD = 1.157) suggests that some teachers may struggle with digital multimodal

formats. Overall, the results imply that while EMI teachers recognise the value of multimodal communica-

tion and incorporate it into their teaching, they may still face challenges in fully embracing and effectively

evaluating multimodal content.

www.ijcrsee.com

220

Bekturova M. et al. (2025).

Examining Multimodal Literacy Skills Among EMI Teachers in Kazakhstan

, International

Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(1), 217-222.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics

Category Items* Mean Standard Deviation

Expressing Oneself Us-

ing Multimodal Structure

I organize my thoughts systematically in my presenta-

tions thanks to various visual elements (such as tables

and graphics).

3.58 1.081

I prepare an interactive presentation making use of

music, visuals, and animations

3.50 1.004

Using various elements (such as music and images) in

my presentations makes it easier to make my point.

3.46 1.229

I use visuals such as graphics, tables, pictures, and

photographs in my writings.

3.63 .908

I express myself more explicitly in environments in which

writing, sound, and images exist together

3.54 1.044

Interpretation of the

Contents Presented in

Multimodal Structure

I relate various visual and verbal information on various

media tools to each other.

3.50 .820

I interpret the information that I gather from numerous

resources

3.42 1.001

I can decide whether or not content presented on various

media (newspaper, TV, social media, etc.) is true

3.04 .938

I relate the information to which I have access using

visual and auditory elements.

3.29 .844

I pay attention to the body language of the individuals I

am listening to

3.67 .947

I use body language that is in harmony with the words I

choose when speaking.

3.96 .679

I can realize how visual, auditory, and written elements

influence individuals.

4.04 .679

Preferring Multimodal

Structure

I get bored in communication in which written, auditory,

and visual elements are used together

2.00 1.045

I get distracted in electronic environments in which visual,

auditory, and written elements are used together.

2.92 1.157

The use of visual, auditory, and written elements together

leads to laziness of the mind.

2.21 1.044

I do not like trying to interpret images, sounds, graphics,

and writings simultaneously

2.50 1.195

I only believe in the power of verbal expression when

sharing my thoughts.

2.71 1.141

*Multimodal Literacy Scale items designed by Bulut et al. (2015)

Further, in Table 3 below, we attempted to calculate the Pearson correlation in order to examine

relationships between the three multimodal literacy factors. A moderate positive correlation was found be-

tween “Interpretation of the Contents Presented in Multimodal Structure” and “Expressing Oneself Using

Multimodal Structure” (r = 0.439, p < 0.001). This suggests that teachers who are skilled at interpreting

multimodal content are also more likely to express themselves effectively using multimodal formats. The

strong statistical significance of this relationship (p < 0.001) indicates that this is a meaningful connection

and not a random occurrence.

On the other hand, a weak negative correlation was found between “Expressing Oneself Using Mul-

timodal Structure” and “Preferring Multimodal Structure” (r = -0.234). This suggests that teachers who are

proficient in using multimodal approaches to express themselves may not necessarily prefer multimodal

teaching strategies. Although the correlation is not strong, it indicates that teachers’ ability to express ideas

multimodally does not always align with their preference for using such methods in the classroom.

Similarly, a weak but statistically significant negative correlation was observed between “Interpreta-

tion of the Contents Presented in Multimodal Structure” and “Preferring Multimodal Structure” (r = -0.197,

p = 0.031). This implies that teachers who are good at understanding multimodal content may not always

prefer to use multimodal teaching methods. The statistical significance (p = 0.031) suggests that while the

effect size is small, there is still a meaningful relationship worth exploring further.

www.ijcrsee.com

221

Bekturova M. et al. (2025).

Examining Multimodal Literacy Skills Among EMI Teachers in Kazakhstan

, International

Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(1), 217-222.

Table 3. Pearson correlation analysis results

Pearson correlation

Expressing Oneself Using

Multimodal Structure

Preferring Multimodal Structure

Preferring Multimodal Structure -0.234478759326225

Sig.(2-tailed)

Interpretation of the Contents Presented in

Multimodal Structure

0.43881599930589 -0.197132062504617

Sig.(2-tailed) 5.3489E-7 0.030920485150535

Discussion

The findings of this study highlight the crucial role of multimodal literacy in EMI instruction and the

varying degrees to which teachers employ multimodal strategies in their teaching. The results indicate

that EMI teachers in Kazakhstan demonstrate moderate competency in expressing themselves through

multimodal structures and interpreting multimodal content. However, their preference for multimodal com-

munication in the classroom remains relatively low, which may suggest limited pedagogical training in

utilizing multimodal approaches effectively. These findings align with Morell (2018), who emphasized that

while multimodal literacy is essential in EMI settings, teachers often lack the necessary skills and confi-

dence to integrate various semiotic resources optimally.

Notably, our study found that while teachers acknowledge the importance of multimodal communica-

tion, they do not overwhelmingly prefer its use. This finding is consistent with Sutrisno et al. (2023), who

argued that despite recognizing the benefits of multimodal literacy, EMI educators may be constrained

by traditional teaching norms, limited institutional support, and a lack of formal training in multimodal

pedagogy. Moreover, the lowest agreement scores were observed in statements related to evaluating

media credibility, which suggests a need for enhanced critical multimodal literacy skills—an aspect also

underscored by Walsh (2010).

These results have significant implications for EMI implementation in Kazakhstan. Given that the

majority of respondents were young and relatively inexperienced, it is possible that their limited teaching

experience may contribute to their underutilization of multimodal strategies. Similar to the findings by

Morell (2020), our study underscores the necessity of equipping EMI teachers with structured training that

fosters multimodal literacy development. Professional development programs should incorporate hands-

on training in designing and implementing multimodal instructional strategies to enhance both compre-

hension and engagement in multilingual classrooms.

Conclusions

In conclusion, this study contributes to the growing body of research on multimodal literacy in EMI by

providing empirical evidence from the Kazakhstani context. While EMI teachers demonstrate moderate

competence in multimodal literacy, their limited preference for multimodal communication and challenges

in digital environments suggest that further pedagogical training is necessary. Future research should

explore the impact of targeted multimodal literacy interventions on EMI teaching effectiveness and inves-

tigate how institutional policies can support multimodal integration in higher education.

Additionally, we believe that the findings underscore the need for systematic faculty development initia-

tives that equip instructors with practical strategies for integrating multimodal resources into their teaching.

Universities should consider implementing structured training programs that focus on enhancing both theo-

retical knowledge and hands-on application of multimodal techniques. Furthermore, given the observed dis-

crepancies between instructors’ multimodal interpretation skills and their teaching preferences, future stud-

ies should examine the underlying factors influencing teachers’ reluctance to adopt multimodal strategies.

This study provides valuable insights for policymakers, educators, and researchers interested in advancing

EMI pedagogy through multimodal approaches. Addressing the identified challenges can contribute to the

development of more inclusive and effective teaching strategies in multilingual higher education contexts.

www.ijcrsee.com

222

Bekturova M. et al. (2025).

Examining Multimodal Literacy Skills Among EMI Teachers in Kazakhstan

, International

Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(1), 217-222.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This research project is funded by the Ministry of Higher Education and Science of the Republic of

Kazakhstan under “IRN AP 19676131” state funding grant.

Conflict of interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author Contributions

G.D.: conceptualization, revision, supervision, writing – review and editing; B.M: methodology, writing

- original draft preparation, data analysis; T.S.: conceptualization, data collection, writing – review and

editing; D.G.: writing – review and editing, supervision.

All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

References

Bulut, B., Ulu, H. & Kan, A. (2015). Multimodal literacy scale: A study of validity and reliability. Eurasian Journal of Educational

Research, 61, 45-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2015.61.3

Dearden, J. (2015). English as a Medium of Instuction: A growing global phenomenon. British Council Report. https://www.

britishcouncil.org/education/ihe/knowledge-centre/english-language-higher-education/report-english-medium-instruction

Dermendjieva, S., Stošić, L., Dyankova, G. (2020) Meaning-centered management of the virtual educational environment in

the academic training of pedagogical specialists. Yearbook of Pedagogy, (1) 73-80. Niš: Faculty of Philosophy. https://

doi.org/10.46630/gped.1.2020.05

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefcient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3):297-334.

Custodio-Espinar, M. & López-Hernández, A. (2023). Beyond Written-Linguistic Modes of Meanings: Multimodal Representa-

tions to Extend the Range of Literacy Learning in EMI Students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 14 (1),

6-19. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1401.02

Hair, J. F., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pear-

son/Prentice Hall.

Kaiypova, F., & Kim, T.Y. (2024). Recent Advancements in English Education in the Multilingual Context of Kazakhstan. Korea

Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 24, 934-952. https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.24..202409.934

Kress, G. (2009). Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.

org/10.4324/9780203970034

Morell, T. (2018). Multimodal competence and effective interactive EMI lecturing. System, 77, 70–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

system.2017.12.006.

Morell, T. (2020). EMI teacher training with a multimodal and interactive approach: A new horizon for LSP specialists. Language

Value, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.6035/LanguageV.2020.12.4

Sutrisno, D., Abidin N.A.Z., P., Pambudi. N., Adyawati., Sallu, S (2023). Exploring The Benets of Multimodal Literacy in English

Teaching: Engaging Students Through Visual, Auditory, And Digital Modes. Global Synthesis in Education Journal, (2),

1-10. https://doi.org/10.61667/xh184f41

Tai, K. W. H., & Wei, L. (2024). Mobilising multilingual and multimodal resources for facilitating knowledge construction: im-

plications for researching translanguaging and multimodality in CLIL classroom context. Journal of Multilingual and

Multicultural Development, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2024.2442525

Tasevska, D., Ivanov, I. (2022). Prouchvane na naglasite za obrazovatelno vzaimodestvie v digitalna sreda v situatsiya na CO-

VID-19. [Study of Attitudes for Educational Interaction in a Digital Environment in a COVID-19 Situation]. Psychological

Thought, (15)1, 29-52. https://doi.org/10.37708/psyct.v15i1.610

Tulepova, S., Bekturova, M., Gaipov, D., Butt, S. (2024) Investigating English medium instruction provision in a Kazakhstani

university: the ideals and realities of EMI learning. Journal of Teaching English for Specic and Academic Purposes,

12(2), pp. 433-444. https://doi.org/10.22190/JTESAP240428035T

Walsh, M. (2010). Multimodal literacy: What does it mean for classroom practice? Australian Journal of Language and Literacy,

33(3), 211-239.