Exploring Teachers’ Perspectives on Multimodal Phonics Instruction and Jolly Phonics Practices in Early Childhood Education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65405/444bwz68Keywords:
Multimodal discourse analysis, Early childhood Education, Teacher Interaction, Teacher Prospective, Gestures, Visual Materials, Phoneme LearningAbstract
Jolly Phonics is a widely implemented synthetic phonics program in contemporary early childhood education globally. Many studies have shown that it has improved children’s literacy skills and classroom communication across different teaching methods and countries. This study was conducted in Libya and supports these results. It applies multimodal discourse analysis (MDA) to examine how teachers coordinate different resources, including gesture, vocalization, visual materials movement, and rhythm, to support phoneme learning and learners’ engagement within a theoretical perspective from social semiotics, cultural historical activity theory, and embodied cognition. The study argues that literacy learning in Jolly Phonics classrooms emerges through the systematic coordination of multiple communicative modes rather than language itself. The findings highlight the importance of gesture, effective discourse, and embodied interaction in supporting speech sound understanding. This research contributes to linguistics and early childhood education by demonstrating the value of multimodal phonemic teaching and campaign teaching practices.
Downloads
References
[1] Bruner, J. S. (1983). Child’s talk: Learning to use language. Oxford University Press.
[2] Lloyd, S. (1992). The Phonics Handbook. Jolly Learning Ltd.
[3] Al-Mansoori, N., Ogdon, R., & Alenezi, A. (2024). The impact of integrating Jolly Phonics lesson applications into English literacy instruction on UAE preschoolers’ phonics skills. Journal of Childhood, Education & Society, 5(1), 41‒60.
[4] Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. Arnold.
[5] Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge.
[6] Arati, N. P. P., Dewi, N. N. P., & Sanjaya, I. W. (2018). Jolly Phonics: An effective strategy for enhancing children’s English literacy. SHS Web of Conferences, 42, 00032.
[7] Widyana, R. (2020). The effectiveness of Jolly Phonics and multisensory learning methods to improve pre-reading ability. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 11(8), 1‒15.
[8] Ling, H. M., & Mohamed, F. S. (2018). Reading skills in English using Jolly Phonics at a Chinese primary school. Journal of Cognitive Sciences and Human Development, 4(1), 1‒12.
[9] Cowan, K. (2014). Multimodal transcription of video: Examining interaction in Early Years classrooms. Classroom Discourse, 5(2), 117‒135.
[10] Wohlwend, K. E. (2011). Mediated Discourse Analysis: Researching young children’s nonverbal interactions as social practice. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 9(3), 1‒15.
[11] Björk, O. (2025). Towards a multimodal dialogic understanding of early writing development in school. Language and Education, 40(1), 40‒60.
[12] Anatoli, O. (2025). Multimodality, embodiment, and language learning in bilingual early childhood education: Enskilment practices in a Swedish‒English preschool. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 50, 100879.
[13] Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
[14] van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. Routledge.
[15] Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 241‒267.
[16] Goodwin, C. (2018). Co-operative action. Cambridge University Press.
[17] Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. Routledge.
[18] Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. (1984). Language acquisition and socialization: Three developmental stories. Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self, and Emotion, 276‒320.
[19] Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2004). Nexus analysis: Discourse and the emerging internet. Routledge.
[20] Leont’ev, A. N. (1977). Activity and consciousness. Prentice Hall.
[21] Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Edward Arnold.
[22] Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2009). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. Routledge.
[23] Mills, K. A., Unsworth, L., & Exley, B. (2023). Multimodal literacy in the classroom: Exploring contemporary research and practice. Literacy, 57(2), 89‒104.
[24] Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing multimodal interaction: A methodological framework. Routledge.
[25] Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (2nd ed.). Routledge.
[26] Cekaite, A., & Evaldsson, A. C. (2017). Embodied learning in peer cultures. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 12, 451‒464.
[27] de León, L. (2017). The grammar of everydayness: Embodied actions and language learning. Routledge.
[28] Marsh, J. (2016). Researching young children’s literacy practices. Early Years, 36(1), 1‒4.
[29] Hadaga, H. M. S. (2026). Exploring Libyan EFL Teachers' Views towards Using Artificial Intelligence Tools in Teaching English Language Translation: A Study at the Department of Translation at the Faculty of Languages within the University of Benghazi. Al-Farooq Journal of Sciences, 2(3), 351-360.
[30] Alimrani, S. M. (2026). The Double-Edge Sword: A Critical Discourse Analysis of UNESCO’s framing of AI in Education (2025-2026). مجلة العلوم الشاملة, 11(41), 614-625.
[31] Al-Souri, L. M., Abuadla, A. M., Mubarak, J. R., Al-Qablawi, S. S. K., & Makari, I. M. (2026). Developing a Critical Inquiry-Based E-Educational Model (CIEM) to Enhance Critical Thinking Skills among High School Students: A Mixed-Methods Study in the Libyan Context. Al-Farooq Journal of Sciences, 2(4), 525-540.
[32] Ali, R. S. (2025). EFL Pre-Service Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Using AI Applications. Al-Farooq Journal of Sciences, 1(1), 93-109.
