Gesture and Gaze as Embodied Communicative Modes in EFL Classroom Interaction: A Multimodal Discourse Analysis

Authors

  • Ika Rakhmadani Master’s Program in English Education, Faculty of Tarbiyah Science and Teacher Training, State Islamic University of North Sumatra Medan, Indonesia, Indonesia
  • Maslathif Dwi Purnomo Master’s Program in English Education, Faculty of Tarbiyah Science and Teacher Training, State Islamic University of North Sumatra Medan, Indonesia, Indonesia
  • Sholihatul Hamidah Daulay Master’s Program in English Education, Faculty of Tarbiyah Science and Teacher Training, State Islamic University of North Sumatra Medan, Indonesia, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24256/ideas.v14i2.12051

Keywords:

embodied communicative modes; gesture; gaze; multimodal interaction analysis; EFL classroom; multimodal discourse analysis

Abstract

This study investigates how gesture and gaze operate as embodied communicative modes in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom interaction. Drawing on Sigrid Norris’ Multimodal Interaction Analysis (MIA) framework, the study examines the question: How do gesture and gaze function as embodied communicative modes in EFL classroom interaction? Using video-recorded data from naturally occurring classroom instruction at a senior high school in Medan, Indonesia, this qualitative study employs multimodal transcript analysis to identify lower-level actions and higher-level pedagogical activities in which gesture and gaze are deployed. Six interaction episodes were selected and analyzed in detail with reference to their temporal positions and interactional contexts. Findings reveal that gesture functions to demonstrate bodily knowledge, affirm student performance, regulate participation, and scaffold comprehension, while gaze serves primarily to monitor engagement and direct attention. Both modes operate dynamically within higher-level instructional actions and exhibit varying degrees of modal density depending on pedagogical purpose. The study contributes empirical evidence to the growing body of multimodal research in language education and underscores the need to treat gesture and gaze as indispensable semiotic resources in EFL pedagogy.

References

Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of

Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489–1522. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X

Gullberg, M. (2006). Handling discourse: Gestures, reference tracking, and communication

strategies in early L2. Language Learning, 56(1), 155–196.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2006.00344.x

Haddington, P. (2006). The organization of gaze and assessments as resources for stance

taking. Text & Talk, 26(3), 281–328. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.012

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language

and meaning. Edward Arnold.

Indrapuri, R., & Perdana, D. (2021). Multimodal discourse analysis for video of learning.

Journal of Teaching and Education, 2(1), 45–56.

Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in

Education, 32(1), 241–267. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07310586

Jewitt, C. (Ed.). (2009). The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. Routledge.

Jewitt, C. (2013). Multimodality and digital technologies in the classroom. In I. de Saint-Georges & J.-J. Weber (Eds.), Multilingualism and multimodality (pp. 141–152). Sense Publishers.

Kääntä, L. (2010). Teacher turn-allocation and repair practices in classroom interaction: A multisemiotic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(4), 1004–1023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.005

Kang, H., Windschitl, M., Stroupe, D., & Thompson, J. (2018). Exploring emergent features of student interaction within an embodied science learning simulation. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 2(3), 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti2030039

Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge University Press.

Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge.

Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. Arnold.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.

McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. University of Chicago Press.

McNeill, D. (2005). Gesture and thought. University of Chicago Press.

Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing multimodal interaction: A methodological framework. Routledge.

Norris, S. (2011). Identity in (inter)action: Introducing multimodal (inter)action analysis. De Gruyter Mouton.

Querol-Julián, M. (2022). Multimodal interaction in English-medium instruction: How does lecturer promote and enhance students’ participation in a live online lecture? Linguistics and Education, 68, 101014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2021.101014

Roth, W.-M. (2001). Gestures: Their role in teaching and learning. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 365–392. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071003365

Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. Routledge.

Wilmes, S. E. D., & Siry, C. (2021). Multimodal interaction analysis: A powerful tool for examining plurilingual students’ engagement in science practices. Research in Science Education, 51, 29–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09876-x

Downloads

Published

2026-08-17

Citation Check