Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Digital multimodal composition offers opportunities for emergent bilingual (EB) students to orchestrate semiotic resources in ways that develop their identities, strengthen their understandings of language, and help them to engage with content. To better understand how EBs can participate in varied multimodal composing practices, this study systematically reviews the literature on EBs’ digital multimodal composing in secondary classrooms. More specifically, it examines types of scaffolds, or planned and responsive instructional supports, used by teachers and students, as well as functions for learning associated with these scaffolds. Through an inductive approach, the authors analyzed 74 studies situated in classrooms. Findings showed seven types of scaffolding: collaboration, direct instruction, exemplar texts, translanguaging, discussion, encouragement, and questioning. In addition, eight scaffolding functions emerged that illustrate three major themes of scaffolding identities, scaffolding resources, and scaffolding contexts. The authors then discuss implications for classroom practice, implications for translanguaging and social semiotics theories, and directions for future research.

Keywords

emergent bilinguals multimodal composition scaffolding systematic review secondary

Emergent bilinguals (EBs)—or students in the process of adding varied linguistic resources to their expanding semiotic repertoires—bring linguistic, cultural, and academic strengths to classrooms that can support their participation in diverse literacy practices. Multimodal composition, a practice in which students leverage images, texts, sounds, and animations, among other modalities, within a digital environment, is one avenue for accessing these strengths in secondary classrooms. Recent work demonstrates how EBs deftly orchestrate multiple modalities and linguistic resources within digital products, including videos (e.g., Anderson & Macleroy, 2017; de los Ríos, 2018; Goulah, 2017; Jocson, 2012), podcasts (e.g., Smith, 2019a; Smythe & Neufeld, 2010; Wilson et al., 2012), digital claymations (e.g., Hepple et al., 2014; Mills, 2006), and multimodal presentations (e.g., Dalton et al., 2015; Honeyford, 2013b; Noguerón-Liu & Hogan, 2017; Pacheco et al., 2017), to communicate complex messages. Although print-centric pedagogies can offer EBs similar opportunities in literacy classrooms, multimodal composition has been shown to help access students’ identities and funds of knowledge (Ajayi, 2015; Cummins et al., 2015; Moll et al., 1992), expand communicative possibilities across time and space (DeBruin-Parecki & Klein, 2003; Price-Dennis & Carrion, 2017), and reshape classroom spaces as loci for social justice and multilingualism (Ajayi, 2015; de los Ríos, 2018; Pacheco & Smith, 2015).

Despite growing scholarship that suggests the benefits of EBs’ multimodal composition, scant work has addressed how teachers can scaffold student composing in secondary classrooms. As de Jong and Harper (2005) have long pointed out, supporting EBs is more than just “good teaching,” as teachers must attend to issues of language, culture, and content simultaneously within instruction. Similarly, while extensive work in writing research shows how teachers support both EB and non-EB students in print-centric classrooms (e.g., Benko, 2012), no research to our knowledge has yet addressed the specific scaffolds that teachers leverage to support EB multimodal composition. This is not surprising, given the diversity of digital products addressed within the research base, as well as the heterogeneity within the EB population. In other words, the ways in which a teacher supports a newcomer EB’s composing of a digital trailer might differ significantly from how he or she scaffolds a long-term EB’s composing of a PowerPoint presentation.

We address this knowledge gap through systematically reviewing the literature on multimodal composition with EBs in secondary classrooms. In a review of 74 studies between 1996 and 2019, our goal is to understand the forms and functions of scaffolding, which we understand as both planned and responsive instructional supports (Benson, 1997; Hammond & Gibbons, 2005; Wood et al., 1976). In what follows, we first describe how we understand multimodal composition and its affordances for EB students. We then further detail our perspective on scaffolding for EBs before turning to our study.

Multimodal Composition With EB Students

We understand multimodal composition through a social semiotics (Kress, 2003, 2010) and translanguaging lens (Canagarajah, 2012; García & Li, 2014). From a social semiotics perspective, EBs use multiple modes, such as images, sounds, texts, and movement, within digital compositions to negotiate meaning with a reader. These modes are imbued with distinct social and cultural affordances, or “semiotic resources” (van Leeuwen, 2004), and work synergistically to convey meaning. This social semiotic lens is particularly useful in understanding EBs’ multimodal composition as it accounts for the ways in which linguistic modes are one of many semiotic possibilities available to the composer; rather than attending solely to how bilingual students use language, social semiotics accounts for the dynamic and creative ways students orchestrate multiple resources for varied purposes.

From a translanguaging lens, multimodal composition entails leveraging the full range of a student’s semiotic resources within meaningful communication. Rather than viewing an EB’s knowledge of Spanish or English as separate, for example, it suggests that there is a single and unified system of semiotic features that an individual draws on (García & Li, 2014). This perspective extends beyond simply transitioning between resources within composing processes and product. Moreover, it transgresses long-held notions about the need to drive an artificial wedge between languages in classrooms, and transcends the sole reliance on oral or written language when communicating. Canagarajah (2013) added that translingual composing practices are strategic, and shape and are shaped by the contexts in which they are enacted. Translanguaging theory helps account for ways that EB students strategically deploy, assemble, and mesh multiple and varied resources, including those coded in divergent languages, to negotiate meaning.

Although few studies take this translingual perspective to describe EBs’ composing practices (see Zapata & Laman, 2016, for an example from elementary classrooms and Pacheco & Smith, 2015, for an example from middle-grade classrooms), a robust body of research illustrates how EBs draw on multiple modalities and linguistic resources within digital compositions, as well as the learning opportunities associated with this composing. In the past 20 years, this scholarship shows EBs composing to assert and negotiate identities (e.g., Kim & Song, 2019), to strengthen understandings of English (e.g., D’warte, 2014; Hepple et al., 2014) and non-English linguistic resources (e.g., Wilson et al., 2012), and to develop awareness of composing practices (e.g., Dalton et al., 2015) and content knowledge (e.g., Ajayi, 2015; Zheng et al., 2014).

Still, Canagarajah (2013) emphasized that an individual’s productive participation in translingual practices is never decoupled from context; that is, though students might draw freely from the full range of their meaning-making tool kits when composing, how they do so relates to their goals for composing, their real and imagined readers, and the context where composing occurs. Dagenais et al. (2017) illustrated this point, showing that students and teachers within assessment-oriented classrooms with strict language policies might struggle to participate in multimodal composition. We argue that along with contextual features, students’ knowledge and awareness of different aspects of multimodal composing shapes their negotiation of meaning with readers. Consistent with research that describes EBs’ participation in other literacy practices (Athanases & de Oliveira, 2014; Daniel et al., 2016; Walqui & Van Lier, 2010), we assert that students’ participation in multimodal composition requires scaffolding, as described below.

Scaffolding With EB Students

We understand scaffolding through a sociocultural perspective, in which an individual interacts with temporary supports to accomplish or comprehend what that individual otherwise could not (Benson, 1997; Hammond & Gibbons, 2005). The term “scaffolding” was first applied in the context of education by Wood et al. (1976) by building upon Vygotsky’s (1978) zone of proximal development (ZPD), which refers to an area where a learner cannot be successful independently, but can succeed with support from a more knowledgeable other or form of mediation. For EBs, scaffolds are critical for supporting content and language learning simultaneously (Mercuri & Mercuri, 2019; Russell, 2012; Windle & Miller, 2019). Below, we differentiate two types of scaffolding. Designed scaffolds are planned into the curriculum in anticipation of students’ content, language, and social needs (Edwards, 2014; Hammond & Gibbons, 2005). Interactional scaffolds are used to support student learning in real time as challenges or learning opportunities emerge in instruction (Hammond & Gibbons, 2005).

Designed scaffolds, such as exemplar texts, direct instruction, and collaborative groupings, can make complex concepts accessible for EBs and provide practitioners opportunities to collaborate before implementation of instruction (Russell, 2012). Novice teachers, who may struggle to provide consistent in-the-moment supports, leverage designed scaffolds to create accessible learning opportunities for EBs (Schall-Leckrone, 2018). However, designed scaffolds’ dependence upon preplanning presents a particular challenge, as time is at a premium for teachers (Edwards, 2014) and may be one reason teachers are resistant to scaffolding complex information (Kanno & Kangas, 2014). E. M. Johnson (2019) noted that the majority of research on scaffolding examines teachers’ use of designed scaffolds, rather than upon interactional scaffolds. Reynolds and Daniel (2017) asserted, however, that interactional scaffolds are crucial because they afford immediate response and adjustments based upon students’ in-the-moment needs.

Interactional scaffolds, including encouraging, questioning, and providing time for exploration and generative thinking, are unplanned and allow teachers to recognize EB needs and strengths as they engage in activities (Hammond & Gibbons, 2005; E. M. Johnson, 2019). Interactional scaffolds allow teachers to responsively address which scaffolds are most appropriate, which goals for learning these scaffolds address, and how this scaffolding relates to temporal aspects of an activity (E. M. Johnson, 2019). Given these considerations, interactional scaffolding can be particularly challenging for novice teachers (Schall-Leckrone, 2018). Along with this, teachers can overscaffold participation, thus leading to missed opportunities for EB language and content learning (Daniel et al., 2016; Jocius, 2020).

Within the context of multimodal composition, both designed and interactional scaffolds can support EB participation. Prior work shows the importance of supporting students in understanding the affordances of various modes, relationships between these modes, and how modes work together to create meaning (see Smith & Axelrod, 2019). Examining exemplar texts win multimodal workshops, for example, can serve as a designed scaffold to help EBs explore modal affordances and intersemiotic relationships (Callow, 2006). Scaffolding must also attend to technical, rhetorical, and social dimensions of multimodal composition that might challenge certain classroom norms for composing and collaborating. While students may have knowledge of digital literacies outside of the classroom, this knowledge might not translate across digital platforms and products, and moreover, might not inform multimodal meaning-making (Margaryan et al., 2011). In-the-moment technical assistance, for example, can serve as an interactional scaffold that supports students in not only using different digital tools, but in understanding how these tools support EBs’ rhetorical goals.

While previous reviews have been helpful for showing what learning outcomes are associated with EBs’ multimodal composition (see Smith et al., 2021; Yi et al., 2019), no single study or review to our knowledge has directly addressed how teachers, students, and other aspects of the classroom context make composing possible. We assert that scaffolding is one part of the constellation of practices that work in concert to afford EB participation (Reyes, 2012). The goal of the current review is to understand an important part of this constellation, thus examining the scaffolds that afford EBs’ multimodal composition, and the functions or learning outcomes associated with them.

Method of Review

This study is guided by the following questions:

What are the scaffolds used in studies examining EB students’ digital multimodal composing in secondary schools?

What are the functions associated with these scaffolds?

To explore these questions, we followed a systematic process for selecting and analyzing studies (Risko et al., 2008; Torgerson, 2003). We worked toward increasing trustworthiness in our methods by adhering to the following criteria (Macaro et al., 2018; Torgerson, 2007): (a) having more than one reviewer conduct the review, (b) following transparent and reproducible procedures, (c) including studies based on exhaustive and reliable searching, and (d) aiming to reduce reviewer bias.

Selection Criteria

The study selection process involved several steps. To begin, we identified five parameters for studies to be eligible for inclusion:

Only peer-reviewed journal articles sharing original empirical findings were included. Studies could be published in any year and could represent different methodologies and theoretical frameworks. We acknowledge that our decision to only include peer-reviewed articles as a quality criterion for our literature search means that we may have missed important doctoral research examining scaffolding for multimodal composing. We recognize that this decision could lead to publication bias, and we have attempted to mitigate this bias through examining challenges associated with composing and scaffold use.

Studies must focus on adolescents—defined as the age between 11 and 19 years (World Health Organization, 2019). Thus, studies focusing on students in middle and high school (Grades 5–12) were included. If studies examined more than one grade level (e.g., third to sixth grade), they were still included as long as some students met our inclusion age range.

Studies needed to report findings on digital multimodal composing in schools. Some studies spanned across in-school and out-of-school contexts; they were included if they presented some findings from classroom-based multimodal projects. Although multimodal composing can involve nondigital composing, our decision to focus on digital composing in school is buttressed by continued classroom attention to productive uses of media and technology, as well as more recent shifts toward digital platforms due to COVID-19.

Studies needed to examine students in the process of adding English to their existing linguistic repertoires, including studies that identified students as English learners (ELs), English language learners (ELLs), English as a second language (ESL) students, limited English proficient (LEP), newcomers, and recently exited ELLs, among other labels. We included studies that examined EB students’ composing practices, regardless of whether these students were identified explicitly as ELs. In addition, studies were included that examined students learning a dominant language in non-Anglophone contexts (e.g., Swedish or Dutch). We use the term “emergent bilingual” (EB) to encompass these different groups.

Studies needed to present findings focused on EBs composing digital multimodal products (e.g., videos, podcasts, PowerPoints, websites). Studies describing multimodal reading, interactions with online multimodal programs, or nondigital multimodal composing (e.g., handmade picture books or comics) were excluded.

Literature Search Procedures

Compatible studies were located using four search strategies. First, electronic searches were conducted in ERIC, JSTOR, and PsychINFO. Keywords used in database searches involved every combination (n = 27) of the terms “multimodal,” “digital literacies,” and “multimedia” with different language terms, including “ELL,” “ESL,” “bilingual,” “L1,” “L2,” “multilingual,” “linguistically diverse,” “translingual,” and “English as an additional language.” Second, 29 peer-reviewed journals that publish research focused on literacy, technology, or bilingualism were manually searched using the same keyword combinations described above. Third, we searched Google Scholar for any studies not found with the first two search strategies. Finally, reference lists of all collected studies on multimodal research from the previous 5 years (i.e., 2015 to 2019) were mined for other compatible studies.

In total, 5,917 articles from the abovementioned four search strategies were initially reviewed at the abstract level. We further screened a subset of 246 articles at the full-text level and eliminated any not meeting our inclusion criteria. For example, many abstracts from the initial search did not provide specific information on the type of multimodal product, instructional context, or student participants. After closely reading these studies, the sample was condensed to 74 studies that met inclusion criteria.

Data Analysis

We employed an iterative analytic approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998) to understand types of scaffolds (RQ1) and their functions (RQ2) in studies describing adolescent EBs and digital multimodal composing in schools. For the first phase, a subset (n = 10) of the same randomly selected studies were openly coded (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) by the research team to begin generating overarching themes. This process involved independently reading each study and inductively developing categories for the scaffolding described and their functions. Next, we collaboratively examined the open codes for the subset of studies, discussed their specific properties, and organized them into 14 common codes for types of scaffolds and 25 codes for scaffolding functions.

For the second phase of analysis, we applied the initial codes developed in the first phase to 10 additional randomly selected studies. We independently coded key findings—noting how our emerging categories applied to new studies and if there were findings not adequately represented. If there were any discrepancies when comparing our codes, we reread relevant studies and discussed interpretations until we agreed on a common code. This process allowed us to further develop our definitions and distinctions between codes. Through these discussions, we noted patterns in findings and reassembled our 14 initial codes for scaffold types into seven codes (RQ1) and our 25 initial codes for scaffold functions into eight codes (RQ2).

For the final phase of analysis, two authors each coded one half of the total studies with the seven codes for RQ1 and eight codes for RQ2. Our research team continually met during the coding process to refine these codes and ensure they were abstracted enough to adequately encapsulate the range of finding categories identified in previous phases. Last, we collaboratively organized our scaffold functions into three overarching themes that might apply across classroom contexts. To test for inter-rater reliability, 25% of the studies (n = 19) were double-coded for the final codes. Agreement among reviewers was 93%, and any discrepancies were collaboratively resolved.

Findings

We present our findings across two sections. First, we describe forms that scaffolds took in instruction, attending to how scaffolds were designed or interactional. Next, we examine how scaffolds afforded different learning opportunities for EBs, or scaffolding functions. Given our perspective that composing practices shape and are shaped by the distinct contexts in which students and teachers enact them, we describe overarching themes across these functions that might apply across contexts. We do not assert that certain scaffolds definitively correspond to a particular learning outcome, but detail how scaffolds can shape aspects of identity, resources, and contexts. Table 1 defines and details the seven major types of scaffolds used to support EBs’ multimodal composition.

Table 1.

Teacher Scaffolds of Emergent Bilinguals’ Multimodal Composing Processes.

Instructional scaffold	Scaffold description	Relevant studies
Collaborative composing (59% of studies)	Students work together with peers, researchers, teachers, or families in different parts of the composing process	Ajayi, 2015; Anderson & Chung, 2011; Anderson & Macleroy, 2017; Cummins et al., 2015; Dagenais et al., 2017; Davis & Reed, 2003; DeBruin-Parecki & Klein, 2003; de la Piedra, 2010; de los Ríos, 2018; Duran, 1998; D’warte, 2014; Goulah, 2017; Gynne & Bagga-Gupta, 2015; Heath, 1996; Henry, 2019; Hepple et al., 2014; Ho et al., 2011; Honeyford, 2013b, 2014; Hughes & Morrison, 2014; Jocson, 2012; Kendrick et al., 2019; Kim & Song, 2019; Lantz-Andersson et al., 2016; Lenters & Winters, 2013; Mills, 2006, 2007a, 2007b; Muyassaroh et al., 2019; Pacheco et al., 2017; Rao, 2015; Skerrett, 2013; Skerrett & Bomer, 2013; Smith, 2017, 2018, 2019a, 2019b; Smith et al., 2017; Smythe & Neufeld, 2010; Tan & Guo, 2009; Van Sluys & Reinier, 2006; Walsh, 2009; Wilson et al., 2012; Zammit, 2011.
Direct instruction (53% of studies)	Teachers provide students with explicit guidance designed to teach a particular skill or concept	Ajayi, 2015; Albers & Frederick, 2013; Anderson & Macleroy, 2017; Callow, 2006; Dalton et al., 2015; Danzak, 2011; DeBruin-Parecki & Klein, 2003; de la Piedra, 2010; de los Ríos, 2018; Duran, 1998; D’warte, 2014; Hepple et al., 2014; Ho et al., 2011; Honeyford, 2013b; Hughes & Morrison, 2014; Jocson, 2012; L. Johnson & Kendrick, 2017; Kendrick et al., 2019; Kim & Song, 2019; Lantz-Andersson et al., 2016; Lenters & Winters, 2013; Mills, 2006; Pacheco et al., 2017; Pacheco & Smith, 2015; Pandya et al., 2015; Rao, 2015; Skerrett, 2013; Skerrett & Bomer, 2013; Smith, 2018, 2019a, 2019b; Smith et al., 2017; Tan & Guo, 2009; Walsh, 2009; Wilson et al., 2012; Zammit, 2011; Zheng et al., 2014.
Exemplar texts (34% of studies)	Teachers give examples of text(s) to demonstrate goals, genres, and digital formats; examples can also be used to model use of multiple modes	Ajayi, 2015; Albers & Frederick, 2013; Anderson & Chung, 2011; Anderson & Macleroy, 2017; Cummins et al., 2015; Dalton et al., 2015; Danzak, 2011; Goulah, 2017; Henry, 2019; Hepple et al., 2014; Hughes & Morrison, 2014; L. Johnson & Kendrick, 2017; Lenters & Winters, 2013; Mills, 2006; Muyassaroh et al., 2019; Noguerón-Liu & Hogan, 2017; Pacheco et al., 2017; Pacheco & Smith, 2015; Smith, 2017, 2018, 2019a, 2019b; Smith et al., 2017; Walsh, 2009; Zammit, 2011.
Translanguaging (32% of studies)	Teacher uses or encourages the use of varied linguistic resources in the classroom	Anderson & Chung, 2011; Anderson & Macleroy, 2017; Dagenais et al., 2017; Danzak, 2011; DeBruin-Parecki & Klein, 2003; de la Piedra, 2010; de los Ríos, 2018; D’warte, 2014; Goulah, 2017; Gynne & Bagga-Gupta, 2015; Heath, 1996; Honeyford, 2013b, 2014; L. Johnson & Kendrick, 2017; Kim, 2018; Kim & Song, 2019; Lantz-Andersson et al., 2016; Muyassaroh et al., 2019; Pacheco & Smith, 2015; Rao, 2015; Skerrett, 2013; Smith et al., 2017; Van Sluys & Reinier, 2006; Wilson et al., 2012.
Discussion (28% of studies)	Teacher prompts students to generate and share ideas through oral discourse with partners, small groups, or whole class	DeBruin-Parecki & Klein, 2003; de los Ríos, 2017; D’warte, 2014; Goulah, 2017; Heath, 1996; Hepple et al., 2014; Ho et al., 2011; Honeyford, 2013a, 2014; Hughes & Morrison, 2014; Kim & Song, 2019; Lenters & Winters, 2013; Muyassaroh et al., 2019; Noguerón-Liu & Hogan, 2017; Pandya et al., 2015; Price-Dennis & Carrion, 2017; Rao, 2015; Tan & Guo, 2009; Walsh, 2009; Wilson et al., 2012; Zenkov et al., 2011.
Encouragement (27% of studies)	Teacher makes statements or takes actions that promote students’ sense of self-efficacy	Ajayi, 2015; Bell et al., 2011; Dagenais et al., 2017; Dalton et al., 2015; Danzak, 2011; Davis & Reed, 2003; Heath, 1996; Honeyford, 2013a; Karam, 2018; Kendrick et al., 2019; Lenters & Winters, 2013; Pacheco et al., 2017; Pacheco & Smith, 2015; Rao, 2015; Skerrett, 2013; Skerrett & Bomer, 2013; Smith, 2019a; Smith et al., 2017; Tan & Guo, 2009; Van Sluys & Reinier, 2006.
Questioning (24% of studies)	Teacher poses questions to students at different times during the multimodal composing process	Bell et al., 2011; Cummins et al., 2015; Duran, 1998; D’warte, 2014; Goulah, 2017; Gynne & Bagga-Gupta, 2015; Honeyford, 2014; Jocson, 2012; L. Johnson & Kendrick, 2017; Muyassaroh et al., 2019; Pacheco et al., 2017; Rao, 2015; Skerrett, 2013; Skerrett & Bomer; 2013; Smith, 2018; Tan & Guo, 2009; Van Sluys & Reinier, 2006; Walsh, 2009

Designed Scaffolds

Collaborative composing

In 59% of studies, teachers scaffolded EBs’ multimodal composition through creating opportunities for students to collaborate during different aspects of the composing process. This scaffold included structuring coauthoring opportunities, such as de los Ríos’s (2018) description of EBs working together to create a single multimodal composition (see also Davis & Reed, 2003; Lantz-Andersson et al., 2016; Smith, 2019b; Tan & Guo, 2009; Zammit, 2011). This scaffold also included opportunities for students to share technical expertise (e.g., Jocson, 2012; Van Sluys & Reinier, 2006; Wiltse, 2015), analyze texts (Hughes & Morrison, 2014), provide feedback (e.g., Ho et al., 2011; Van Sluys & Reinier, 2006), and offer linguistic supports as they composed their own digital texts (e.g., de la Piedra, 2010). D’warte’s (2014) study of 9-to-13-year-old students’ designs of language maps exemplifies multiple aspects of this scaffold. Five participant teachers encouraged students to create visual representations of how language was used in important contexts in their lives. In doing so, students engaged in “substantive talk about language” (D’warte, 2014, p. 356) as they evaluated one another’s compositions. In addition, these individual maps then became an opportunity for multiple students to collaboratively compose video-recorded role-plays that portrayed language use in different contexts.

Direct instruction

In 53% of studies, teachers scaffolded multimodal composition through direct instruction in the form of digital writer’s workshops (Anderson & Macleroy, 2017; Dalton et al., 2015; Kim & Song, 2019; Lenters & Winters, 2013; Smith, 2018; Walsh, 2009) and minilessons (Pacheco et al., 2017; Skerrett, 2013; Skerrett & Bomer, 2013). Multimodal workshops entailed instruction delivered over one or more sessions in which teachers targeted aspects of the composing process. These workshops then afforded students opportunities to participate in approximations of larger multimodal composition projects, such as captioning photos or creating images to accompany lines of text (Danzak, 2011). Workshops offered a supportive environment for students to try out different design techniques, receive feedback, and share expertise with peers. Minilessons entailed instruction delivered over a shortened time frame, in which teachers demonstrated technical features of composing and taught specific elements of design and modal affordances (Smith, 2019a, 2019b; Wilson et al., 2012). Rao’s (2015) study includes both minilessons and multimodal workshops, showing how direct instruction can build content and background knowledge useful for composing about a topic. Her investigation of digital composing with high school EBs in Hawaii includes workshops in which students examined human rights through captioning photos that they found from the internet, as well as minilessons in which the teacher showed ways in which to connect these understandings to the social studies curriculum. Part of this scaffolding included instruction about key words, which students could then use to caption different photographs about human rights.

Exemplar texts

In 34% of studies, teachers leveraged exemplar texts as scaffolds to familiarize students with intended genres and digital formats of multimodal products. Exemplar texts included blogs (Henry, 2019), online newspapers and website text (Ajayi, 2015), claymation videos (Hepple et al., 2014; Mills, 2006), comics (Danzak, 2011; Muyassaroh et al., 2019), teacher-created projects (Pacheco & Smith, 2015; Smith, 2017, 2018, 2019b), and advertisements (Goulah, 2017; Walsh, 2009) that students typically viewed prior to composing. For example, Goulah’s (2017) study of an 11th-grade ESL class of refugee students illustrates how an instructor initiated discussions on climate change with exemplar texts targeted toward ELs (Easy English News) and then progressed to full-length films (An Inconvenient Truth), websites, and commercials aimed at wider audiences of English users. The variety of modes and language included in the texts allowed students to see how information was presented in these genres before creating their own political commercials. In addition, exemplar texts facilitated cultural connections between students’ own religious beliefs and climate change. These texts then offered opportunities for students to analyze the use of modes and apply understandings to their own multimodal compositions.

Interactional Scaffolds

Translanguaging

In 32% of studies, teachers encouraged students to leverage the full range of their linguistic repertoires to support them throughout the composing process. Translanguaging scaffolds included student and teacher uses of linguistic resources coded in multiple languages to interact with community members and other collaborators to elicit information (Kim, 2018; Kim & Song, 2019), clarify directions (Gynne & Bagga-Gupta, 2015), and plan or draft compositions (Pacheco & Smith, 2015). While some projects within these studies explicitly encouraged the use of multiple linguistic resources within compositions (e.g., Anderson et al., 2018), translanguaging was primarily an interactional scaffold in that teachers and students identified linguistic resources to navigate challenges within the composing process. For example, in L. Johnson and Kendrick’s (2017) study of refugee students’ composing of accomplishment stories, the researchers describe how Yaqub, a Syrian student in Canada, used Arabic to search for information, and then leveraged a song from a Turkish television drama to convey aspects of emotion. The use of varied linguistic resources in the composing process helped Yaqub not only with technical aspects of composing, such as navigating websites, but in expressing “difficult knowledge” (p. 670) he might not have represented through the sole use of English linguistic resources.

Discussion

In 28% of studies, teachers leveraged discussion as responsive opportunities to engage students in dialogue with the teacher (Lenters & Winters, 2013; Pandya et al., 2015) or small groups (Rao, 2015; Tan & Guo, 2009). Honeyford’s (2014) study of seventh- and eighth-grade immigrant students’ creation of a self-inquiry project exemplifies different aspects of this scaffold. As students prepared to share digital poems and images in an open house with parents and community members, they engaged in discussion as a whole class around ways to communicate their experiences. The teacher “pushed them to think” about titles for photographs in relation to audiences, asking, “What do you want to show people?” (p. 205). These discussions reflected the collaborative nature of multimodal composition, where EBs and teachers shared opinions about the goals for this open house, where the students and teachers selected the genre (digital photographs) and relevant resources (English and Spanish linguistic resources) to accompany these photographs.

Encouragement

In 27% of studies, teachers used encouragement to scaffold EB multimodal composing. We define “encouragement” as actions or comments intended to promote students’ sense of self-efficacy (Dagenais et al., 2017; Rao, 2015; Skerrett, 2013; Van Sluys & Reinier, 2006). Encouragement allowed teachers to address students’ unease surrounding content and unfamiliar multimodal composing strategies. Heath (1996) also highlighted how encouragement supported students in expressing aspects of their identity. Karam (2018) further described how responsive praise from the teacher supported students’ production of multimodal texts, their engagement with content, and the use of their full linguistic repertoires. For example, he showed how one student felt unease with his accented English and resistance to print-based literacy practices. For this student, praise from the teacher, from classmates, and from YouTube viewers supported the student’s participation as a “competent, funny, and creative” (p. 517) composer of a video game about The Outsiders.

Questioning

In 24% of studies, teachers used question-asking as a means to scaffold students’ multimodal composing processes (Muyassaroh et al., 2019; Pacheco et al., 2017; Walsh, 2009). Questioning in these studies spanned a variety of different purposes, including activating prior knowledge (Duran, 1998; L. Johnson & Kendrick, 2017), checking for comprehension (Goulah, 2017; Rao, 2015), and catalyzing interest in different topics of inquiry (Cummins et al., 2015; D’warte, 2014; Van Sluys & Reinier, 2006). Both Jocson (2012) and Skerrett and Bomer (2013), for example, demonstrated how teachers asked students to reflect on their experience as immigrants before creating their digital projects. In Jocson’s (2012) study of multimedia composing in a ninth-grade social studies classroom, she showed how students answered questions prior to composing about their family’s immigration experiences, which then supported them in creating a storyboard for their digital compositions. Finally, some studies illustrated how questioning throughout the composing process facilitated intentional use of visuals and sounds (Bell et al., 2011; Honeyford, 2014; Skerrett, 2013).

Functions Across Scaffolds

Our perspective of multimodal composing aligns with Canagarajah’s (2013) notion of translingual practice, where individuals manage relationships toward resources, contexts, and identities to strategically negotiate meaning. This perspective helps frame how interactive and designed scaffolds afford support to students in composing texts to convey messages to real and imagined audiences. Table 2 summarizes the different functions associated with each scaffold. In what follows, we further group these scaffolds as supporting students in accessing, leveraging, and developing aspects of their identities; in recognizing and taking up different resources within the composing process; and through shaping different aspects of the communicative context.

Table 2.

Functions Associated With Teacher Scaffolds.

Learning outcome	Description of outcome	Scaffolds associated with this function	Learning outcome	Description of outcome	Scaffolds associated with this function
Produce multimodal composition	Students explore modal affordances to produce multimodal texts	Collaborative composing (n^a = 38) Exemplar text (n = 24) Direct instruction (n = 23) Discussion (n = 17) Translanguaging (n = 12) Questioning (n = 6) Encouragement (n = 5)	Empower students	Students are empowered through making decisions and taking risks to affirm identities and develop independence and responsibility	Collaborative composing (n = 30) Discussion (n = 19) Exemplar text (n = 14) Direct instruction (n = 14) Translanguaging (n = 14) Encouragement (n = 12) Questioning (n = 11)
Establish multimodal and multilingual context	Students are immersed in a multimodal and language-rich environment that encourages multimodal composing and an awareness of expanded communicative possibilities	Translanguaging (n = 19) Collaborative composing (n = 17) Direct instruction (n = 13) Discussion (n = 12) Encouragement (n = 8) Exemplar text (n = 6) Questioning (n = 5)	Build content understandings	Students receive instruction designed to extend their understanding of content knowledge	Direct instruction (n = 20) Collaborative composing (n = 15) Discussion (n = 12) Exemplar text (n = 9) Translanguaging (n = 8) Questioning (n = 6) Encouragement (n = 5)
Make real-world connections	Students relate new learnings to their prior knowledge, including their out-of-school practices	Collaborative composing (n = 15) Discussion (n = 13) Direct instruction (n = 12) Exemplar text (n = 8) Translanguaging (n = 8) Encouragement (n = 3) Questioning (n = 3)	Critically analyze	Students examine texts to identify important concepts and themes	Discussion (n = 12) Questioning (n = 10) Collaborative composing (n = 8) Direct instruction (n = 7) Exemplar text (n = 7) Translanguaging (n = 3) Encouragement (n = 2)
Learn to use tools	Students learn how to use new tools to create digital multimodal texts	Direct instruction(n = 17) Collaborative composing (n = 12) Exemplar text (n = 4) Discussion (n = 2) Encouragement (n = 1) Questioning (n = 1) Translanguaging (n = 1)	Gather information	Students collect data from multiple sources on a particular topic to apply to their digital products	Collaborative composing (n = 7) Direct instruction (n = 7) Discussion (n = 3) Translanguaging (n = 3) Exemplar text (n = 2) Encouragement (n = 1) Questioning (n = 1)

Number of studies in which this scaffold was used for a particular function.

Scaffolding identities

As students engage in multimodal composition to communicate messages to varied audiences, they “mesh semiotic resources for their identities and interests” (Canagarajah, 2013, p. 50) and at the same time, attempt to recognize the identities and interests of those with whom they wish to communicate. Past work has shown that multimodal composition is a powerful tool for recognizing and building upon EBs’ identity in secondary classroom spaces (see Smith et al., 2021, for a review). Across the literature reviewed, we found that scaffolding supported EBs in identifying, leveraging, and developing their identities as multimodal and multilingual composers (Pandya et al., 2015; Skerrett & Bomer, 2013; Vasudevan et al., 2010) and in recognizing and addressing the identities of multiple interlocutors (DeBruin-Parecki & Klein, 2003; Pacheco & Smith, 2015).

Danzak (2011), for example, described the use of mentor texts as a way to support students in identifying aspects of their own experiences of immigrating to the United States and acclimating to a new cultural context. These mentor texts, including the graphic novel American Born Chinese (Yang, 2006), helped students “identify with issues” (Danzak, 2011, p. 192) that could be included in their own multimodal compositions. Perhaps most important, these texts helped students ascribe value to personal experiences worthy of expressing within school spaces. Attention to identity also included scaffolding students’ awareness of varied interlocutors. Ho et al. (2011) illustrated how collaborative composing gave Grade 7 EBs opportunities to create and justify a virtual museum plan for an external audience. The authors explained how group work gave students opportunities to “look at things from different angles” and “led to revision and refining of original ideas” (p. 1092). When students discussed their plans, they challenged one another to consider how different modes might engage different audiences, with one student observing how audiences “have different ways to view a photo . . . they have different opinions about it” (p. 1090).

Ajayi’s (2015) research on Yoruba-speaking students in English-dominant Nigerian classrooms shows similar findings, where scaffolding identity involved recognizing and building on students’ experiences, as well as building an awareness of audience. She described how analyzing exemplar texts, such as newspapers, and interacting with classmates on social media positioned students to consider affordances for potential readers. Students could then “conceptualize social media as a crucial resource for self and community” (p. 234) and compose texts for teenagers who read English texts “in a left-to-right and top-to-bottom order” and “are always in a hurry” (p. 233).

Scaffolding resources

Scaffolding supported students in managing aspects of text construction, including understandings of how modalities function to convey messages (Albers & Frederick, 2013; Kendrick et al., 2019; Tan & Guo, 2009) and how to manipulate technologies to deploy resources (Dagenais et al., 2017; Walsh, 2009). As digital composition encourages students to orchestrate and mesh divergent resources, this scaffolding is critical for helping students understand rhetorical possibilities associated with different modes, and for developing technical expertise needed to realize these possibilities.

Hepple et al.’s (2014) research on claymation videos demonstrates the importance of collaboration between students for developing understandings of and abilities to use different modalities (see also Lantz-Andersson et al., 2016; Mills, 2007b). They noted how collaboration afforded EBs opportunities to share expertise with particular modalities, as the claymation project required proficiency in camera techniques, understandings of animation sequencing, and abilities to collaborate. One student, Semret, with “limited writing ability” (Hepple et al., 2014, p. 227), collaborated by providing expertise on visual components of the composition. Another student, Jae-Sun, collaborated with classmates to discuss spatial arrangements and background visuals, thus constructing understandings of how modalities interact within the composition. As the claymation project included drawn backgrounds, photographs of clay figures, and written dialogue, this study illustrates the importance of scaffolding understandings of both modal affordances and the technical expertise for successful composition.

Pacheco and Smith (2015) also showed scaffolds for understanding modal affordances but highlighted how these understandings can be developed through multimodal workshops that include mentor texts and direct instruction. In workshops with eighth-grade EBs, the teacher modeled how to use features in PowerPoint and identify online sources for images and audio. Workshops also included explored mentor texts—in this case, PowerPoint presentations about heroes—that included languages other than English alongside images, texts, and audio. Dalton et al. (2015) also revealed how mentor texts can facilitate discussions of how different modes “work together to communicate a story in unique ways” (p. 554). The authors demonstrated that these texts can scaffold fifth-grade EBs’ design intentionality and metamodal awareness, and furthermore, can scaffold students in structuring their presentations within PowerPoint.

Scaffolding contexts

We describe the final way in which scaffolding supported EB learning in relation to Canagarajah’s (2012) notion of recontextualization, where interlocutors strategically manage aspects of communicative contexts to support meaning negotiation. The research literature shows how scaffolds reshaped classroom spaces and students’ relationships to these spaces in ways that facilitated multimodal composing. This includes reshaping classroom communicative norms (DeBruin-Parecki & Klein, 2003; de los Ríos, 2018), restructuring classrooms for multiple modalities and languages (Anderson & Chung, 2011; de la Piedra 2010; Kim & Song, 2019), and establishing the classroom space as a locus for authentic meaning-making (Cummins et al., 2015; Goulah, 2017).

Tan and Guo (2009), for example, explored how one teacher attempted to infuse new literacies practices into a traditionally print-centric classroom for 14-year-old learners of English in Singapore. Classroom discussions and teacher questioning both scaffolded student composing by reshaping communicative norms. The authors noted the importance of encouraging the use of specific, nonabstract language that asks students to consider a text’s message, its appeal, and its layout. These discussions facilitated “shifts in classroom practices” (p. 316), where the teacher and students used a “metalanguage” to examine multimodal texts. This metalanguage, which built on Freebody and Luke’s (1990) Four Resource Model, then helped students deconstruct texts, and eventually, construct their own brochures and three-dimensional (3D) multimedia productions.

This recontextualizing also includes recognizing and valuing the linguistic strengths and multimodal experiences that EBs bring to classrooms. Wilson et al. (2012) illustrated this theme, showing how Somali and Mexican American EBs composed digital podcasts that “played to their communicative strengths and preferences” (p. 376). They described how these podcasts specifically tapped into students’ linguistic proficiencies. Students had opportunities to practice challenging structures in English through oral recordings, to include images accompanied by Spanish texts, and to use more familiar English structures through written texts that accompanied their podcasts. Translanguaging, which includes different registers of speech and linguistic codes, thus served as a scaffold for accessing varied resources in the composing process.

Teachers also scaffolded composing through reshaping the classroom as a space for authentic meaning-making. Similar to the students in Wilson et al.’s (2012) study who shared their podcasts with community members, Anderson et al. (2018) showed how collaboration helped students compose digital stories for a “genuine audience, local and global” (p. 201). This included classmates, who provided feedback with VoiceThread, as well as others within an end-of-year film festival. Composing for authentic audiences encouraged students to “manipulate language they had previously learnt for a completely new purpose” (p. 202) and to use languages other than English to plan, negotiate, and discuss compositions. Both translanguaging and collaboration were scaffolds that recontextualized the classroom as a locus for authentic meaning-making where multiple semiotic resources were valued.

Discussion

Our study’s goal was to systematically review the literature on multimodal composition to understand the types of scaffolding employed to support adolescent EBs. Across 74 studies published between 1996 and 2019, we found that scaffolds were designed or interactional, and included collaborative composing (59%), direct instruction (53%), exemplar texts (34%), translanguaging (32%), discussions (28%), encouragement (27%), and questioning (24%). Scaffolds represented a variety of functions that facilitated EB composing by shaping identities, resources, and contexts.

For EBs, and particularly for newcomers and refugee students, scaffolding in relation to identity is important as immigration experiences and acclimating to a new country might be difficult topics in classrooms (see Danzak, 2011; Hos, 2020). Scaffolding identity was also important given the challenges of communicating to multiple real and imagined readers simultaneously (Honeyford, 2013b; Pacheco & Smith, 2015). For students who compose for family and community members, classmates, and teachers, these scaffolds can support students in recognizing ways to align their messages with different interlocutors. We assert that teachers must support students in recognizing themselves as composers—individuals with experiences, identities, and stories worth sharing—to participate successfully in multimodal composition.

Similarly, understandings about certain resources, including non-English linguistic resources, must also be scaffolded so students can develop an awareness of their value and communicative potential. This scaffolding is particularly important in classrooms that do not traditionally encourage the use of languages other than English (Dagenais et al., 2017; Wiltse, 2015) and nonprint modalities (Tan & Guo, 2009). This scaffolding involves not only the development of technical understandings of how to use multiple languages and modalities but also the development of students’ awareness of rhetorical possibilities associated with meshing and orchestrating resources.

Our findings also show the different aspects of classroom contexts that can inform scaffolding. Teachers were essential in implementing scaffolds, and they relied on multilingual and multimodal texts (Ajayi, 2015; Kim & Song, 2019), conversations with other teachers (Anderson & Chung, 2011; Callow, 2006), and responsive assessments of students’ strengths and needs (Cummins et al., 2015; D’warte, 2014). However, students also played critical roles in scaffolding one another’s multimodal composition processes (de la Piedra, 2010; Ho et al., 2011; Lantz-Andersson et al., 2016; Van Sluys & Reinier, 2006; Wiltse, 2015). They provided technical assistance and acted as coresearchers, collaborators, and reviewers. This collaboration was important for building understandings about new technology, but moreover, in establishing a classroom community where multiple languages, modalities, ideas, and identities were valued.

Implications

This review of scaffolding adolescent EBs’ multimodal composition holds implications for both classroom practice and research. Given the consistent presence of scaffolds across the literature, we hold that EBs—like their classmates—need support from teachers and peers when grappling with the challenges associated with digital composition. Rather than positioning students as “digital natives” (Koutropoulos, 2011; Mills, 2010) who have an innate expertise with digital tools and their affordances, the research consistently showed how attending to resources, identities, and contexts bolstered student composing. To be effective multimodal communicators, students need explicit scaffolding to understand the affordances (Kress, 2003) of different modes and how they can be combined for specific rhetorical purposes (Dalton, 2012/2013; Smith & Axelrod, 2019). This includes explicitly teaching metalanguages and principles of design and asking students to critically analyze multimodal examples (Ajayi, 2015; Callow, 2006; Dalton et al., 2015; Tan & Guo, 2009).

This review also sheds light on understandings of translingual practice, where composers mesh divergent resources to strategically negotiate meaning (Canagarajah, 2013). Across the literature, scaffolds supported students in understanding modal affordances, and moreover, helped students access resources that might otherwise remain inaccessible. Scaffolding translingual practice seems particularly important in English-centric contexts, where resources coded in languages other than English might contrast with English language resources and communicative norms (see Daniel et al., 2016).

We argue for a need to theorize classroom spaces as sites where individuals access “spatial repertoires” (Pennycook, 2017). Rather than assuming that a student “has” Spanish or is “competent” in using certain technologies, attending to spatial repertoires demands an analysis of the different resources present within an ecology. As individuals interact with one another, with ideologies, and with different tools, including scaffolds, familiar and new resources emerge to facilitate meaning-making. We also argue for the need to understand classrooms as “writing communities” (Graham, 2018) where students, teachers, and readers share expertise and composers make decisions based on imagined and actual readers. Scaffolds can help students voice identities as competent composers, recontextualize the classroom space as collaborative and connected, and share and negotiate new resources. As the composition process is shaped by both individual and contextual factors, a scaffold such as discussion (see Tan & Guo, 2009) can support a student’s use of metalanguage to describe a text while simultaneously shaping classroom norms around language use.

This review also makes visible knowledge gaps to be addressed in future research. The overwhelming majority of studies used qualitative analyses (see Vandommele et al., 2017, for an exception), and no study specifically measured how scaffolding affords or constrains composing. Furthermore, future research could explore what scaffolds are best suited for different products (e.g., how modeling is needed for complex digital tools, such as video-production software) and how certain scaffolds align with different EB populations (e.g., how collaboration supports students at the earliest stages of developing proficiency in English). The research reviewed in this analysis centered primarily on English language arts and literacy classrooms. More work must investigate the affordances of multimodal composition for meaning-making in different disciplines, and what scaffolds are available to teachers within these contexts (e.g., a biology teacher using a diagram as an exemplar text to scaffold the composition of a similar diagram). Last, though this review suggests the potential of using scaffolds to support composition, more work must address the persistent challenges associated with digital composition. Muyassaroh et al. (2019), for example, pointed out difficulties in time management, and Dagenais and colleagues (2017) described ongoing difficulties of including multimodal and multilingual composition in classrooms with print-centric or English-centric ideologies. Future research must explore how scaffolds not only support student understandings of composition, but recontextualize the classroom space as a site for multilingual and multimodal meaning-making.

Conclusion

As teachers continue to find innovative ways to support students’ digital multimodal composing, this review points to the many efforts that they have already undertaken in their classrooms. With the unforeseen challenges—and opportunities—that are emerging in today’s uncertain climate, these efforts will be of renewed importance as digital learning contexts and tools become more prevalent. Along with the import of finding ways to better integrate technology into new classroom models, we echo Mills et al. (2016), who pointed to the ways that teachers can collaborate with students to recognize the value within their own stories, experiences, languages, and cultural heritages. When students have support in accessing these valuable resources, they have opportunities to expand their meaning-making repertoires and amplify their voices.

Supplemental Material

sj-zip-1-jlr-10.1177_1086296X211010888 – Supplemental material for Scaffolding Multimodal Composition With Emergent Bilingual Students

Supplemental material, sj-zip-1-jlr-10.1177_1086296X211010888 for Scaffolding Multimodal Composition With Emergent Bilingual Students by Mark B. Pacheco, Blaine E. Smith, Amber Deig and Natalie A. Amgott in Journal of Literacy Research

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Mark B. Pacheco

Natalie A. Amgott

Supplemental Material

The abstracts in languages other than English are available at

References

*Ajayi

(2015). Critical multimodal literacy: How Nigerian female students critique texts and reconstruct unequal social structures. Journal of Literacy Research, 47(2), 216–244.

*Albers

Frederick

(2013). “We teach who we are”: A study of two Latino transformative educators. TESOL Journal, 4(2), 233–260.

*Anderson

Chung

Y.-C.

(2011). Finding a voice: Arts-based creativity in the community languages classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14(5), 551–569.

*Anderson

Chung

Y. C.

Macleroy

(2018). Creative and critical approaches to language learning and digital technology: Findings from a multilingual digital storytelling project. Language and Education, 32(3), 195–211.

*Anderson

Macleroy

(2017). Connecting worlds: Interculturality, identity and multilingual digital stories in the making. Language and Intercultural Communication, 17(4), 494–517.

Athanases

S. Z.

de Oliveira

L. C.

(2014). Scaffolding versus routine support for Latina/o youth in an urban school: Tensions in building toward disciplinary literacy. Journal of Literacy Research, 46(2), 263–299.

*Bell

Ewaida

Lynch

M. R.

Zenkov

Fink

(2011). Student perspectives on quality teaching: Words and images. Voices From the Middle, 19(1), 32–40.

Benko

S. L.

(2012). Scaffolding: An ongoing process to support adolescent writing development. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(4), 291–300.

Benson

B. K.

(1997). Scaffolding. English Journal, 86(7), 126–127.

10.

*Callow

(2006). Images, politics and multiliteracies: Using a visual metalanguage. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 29(1), 7–23.

11.

Canagarajah

A. S.

(2012). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. Routledge.

12.

Canagarajah

A. S.

(2013). Negotiating translingual literacy: An enactment. Research in the Teaching of English, 48, 40–67.

13.

*Cummins

Markus

Montero

M. K.

(2015). Identity texts and academic achievement: Connecting the dots in multilingual school contexts. TESOL Quarterly, 49(3), 555–581.

14.

*Dagenais

Toohey

Bennett Fox

Singh

(2017). Multilingual and multimodal composition at school: ScribJab in Action. Language and Education, 31(3), 263–282.

15.

Dalton

(2012/2013). Multimodal composition and the Common Core State Standards. The Reading Teacher, 66(4), 333–339.

16.

*Dalton

Robinson

Lavvorn

Smith

B. E.

Alvey

Uccelli

Proctor

C. P.

(2015). Fifth-grade students’ digital retellings and the Common Core: Modal use and design intentionality. The Elementary School Journal, 115(4), 548–569.

17.

Daniel

S. M.

Martin-Beltrán

Peercy

M. M.

Silverman

(2016). Moving beyond yes or no: Shifting from over-scaffolding to contingent scaffolding in literacy instruction with emergent bilingual students. TESOL Journal, 7(2), 393–420.

18.

*Danzak

R. L.

(2011). Defining identities through multiliteracies: EL teens narrate their immigration experiences as graphic stories. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(3), 187–196.

19.

*Davis

Reed

(2003). Assessing multimodal texts in multilingual classrooms. Perspectives in Education, 21(1), 101–118.

20.

*DeBruin-Parecki

Klein

H. A.

(2003). Stvaranje prijatelja/making friends: Multimodal literacy activities as bridges to intercultural friendship and understanding. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46(6), 506–513.

21.

de Jong

E. J.

Harper

C. A

. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English-language learners: Is being a good teacher good enough? Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(2), 101–124.

22.

*de

Piedra

M. T.

(2010). Adolescent worlds and literacy practices on the United States–Mexico border. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(7), 575–584.

23.

*de los Ríos

C. V

. (2017). Picturing ethnic studies: Photovoice and youth literacies of social action. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 61(1), 15–24.

24.

*de los Ríos

C. V

. (2018). Bilingual Vine making: Problematizing oppressive discourses in a secondary Chicanx/Latinx studies course. Learning, Media and Technology, 43(4), 359–373.

25.

*Duran

R. P.

(1998). Learning and technology: Implications for culturally responsive instructional activity and models of achievement. The Journal of Negro Education, 67(3), 220–227.

26.

*D’warte

(2014). Linguistic repertoires: Teachers and students explore their everyday language worlds. Language Arts, 91(5), 352–362.

27.

Edwards

(2014). Supporting English language learners: New Zealand secondary mainstream teachers’ knowledge and use of recommended teaching resources and strategies. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 49(1), 43–58.

28.

Freebody

Luke

(1990). Literacies programs: Debates and demands in cultural context. Prospect: An Australian Journal of TESOL, 5(3), 7–16.

29.

García

(2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan.

30.

Glaser

B. G.

Strauss

A. L.

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine de Gruyter.

31.

*Goulah

(2017). Climate change and TESOL: Language, literacies, and the creation of eco-ethical consciousness. TESOL Quarterly, 51(1), 90–114.

32.

Graham

(2018). A revised writer(s)-within-community model of writing. Educational Psychologist, 53(4), 258–279.

33.

*Gynne

Bagga-Gupta

(2015). Languaging in the twenty-first century: Exploring varieties and modalities in literacies inside and outside learning spaces. Language and Education, 29(6), 509–526.

34.

Hammond

Gibbons

(2005). Putting scaffolding to work: The contribution of scaffolding in articulating ESL education. Prospect, 20(1), 6–30.

35.

*Heath

I. A.

(1996). The social studies video project: A holistic approach for teaching linguistically and culturally diverse students. Social Studies, 87(3), 106–112.

36.

*Henry

(2019). Online media creation and L2 motivation: A socially situated perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 53(2), 372–404.

37.

*Hepple

Sockhill

Tan

Alford

(2014). Multiliteracies pedagogy: Creating claymations with adolescent, post-beginner English language learners. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(3), 219–229.

38.

*Ho

C. M. L.

Nelson

M. E.

Müeller-Wittig

(2011). Design and implementation of a student-generated virtual museum in a language curriculum to enhance collaborative multimodal meaning-making. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1083–1097.

39.

*Honeyford

M. A.

(2013a). Critical projects of Latino cultural citizenship: Literacy and immigrant activism. Pedagogies, 8(1), 60–76.

40.

*Honeyford

M. A.

(2013b). The simultaneity of experience: Cultural identity, magical realism and the artefactual in digital storytelling. Literacy, 47(1), 17–25.

41.

*Honeyford

M. A.

(2014). From aquí and allá: Symbolic convergence in the multimodal literacy practices of adolescent immigrant students. Journal of Literacy Research, 46(2), 194–233.

42.

Hos

(2020). The lives, aspirations, and needs of refugee and immigrant students with interrupted formal education (SIFE) in a secondary newcomer program. Urban Education, 55(7), 1021–1044.

43.

*Hughes

J. M.

Morrison

(2014). The impact of social networking and a multiliteracies pedagogy on English language learners’ writer identities. Writing & Pedagogy, 6(3), 607–631.

44.

Jocius

(2020). The CLICK model: Scaffolding multimodal composing for academic purposes. Language Arts, 97(3), 146–158.

45.

*Jocson

K. M.

(2012). Youth media as narrative assemblage: Examining new literacies at an urban high school. Pedagogies, 7(4), 298–316.

46.

Johnson

E. M.

(2019). Choosing and using interactional scaffolds: How teachers’ moment-to-moment supports can generate and sustain emergent bilinguals’ engagement with challenging English texts. Research in the Teaching of English, 53(3), 245–269.

47.

*Johnson

Kendrick

(2017). “Impossible is nothing”: Expressing difficult knowledge through digital storytelling. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(6), 667–675.

48.

Kanno

Kangas

S. E.

(2014). “I’m not going to be, like, for the AP”: English language learners’ limited access to advanced college-preparatory courses in high school. American Educational Research Journal, 51(5), 848–878.

49.

*Karam

F. J.

(2018). Language and identity construction: The case of a refugee digital bricoleur. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 61(5), 511–521.

50.

*Kendrick

Early

Chemjor

(2019). Designing multimodal texts in a girls’ afterschool journalism club in rural Kenya. Language and Education, 33(2), 123–140.

51.

*Kim

(2018). “It was kind of a given that we were all multilingual”: Transnational youth identity work in digital translanguaging. Linguistics and Education, 43, 39–52.

52.

*Kim

Song

K. H.

(2019). Designing a community translanguaging space within a family literacy project. The Reading Teacher, 73(3), 267–279.

53.

Koutropoulos

(2011). Digital natives: Ten years after. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(4), 525–538.

54.

Kress

(2003). Literacy in the new media age. Routledge.

55.

Kress

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

56.

*Lantz-Andersson

Vigmo

Bowen

(2016). Students’ frame shifting—Resonances of social media in schooling. Learning, Media and Technology, 41(2), 371–395.

57.

*Lenters

Winters

K.-L.

(2013). Fracturing writing spaces: Multimodal storytelling ignites process writing. The Reading Teacher, 67(3), 227–237.

58.

Macaro

Curle

Pun

Dearden

(2018). A systematic review or English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51(1), 36–76.

59.

Margaryan

Littlejohn

Vojt

(2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 56(2), 429–440.

60.

Mercuri

(2019). Scaffolding English language learners’ literacy development through a science inquiry approach. In de Oliveira

L. C.

Obenchain

K. M.

Kenney

R. H.

Oliveira

A. W.

(Eds.), Teaching the content areas to English language learners in secondary schools: English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies (Vol. 17, pp. 231–245). Springer International Publishing.

61.

*Mills

K. A.

(2006). “We’ve been wastin’ a whole million watchin’ her doin’ her shoes”: Situated practice within a pedagogy of multiliteracies. Australian Educational Researcher, 33(3), 13–32.

62.

*Mills

K. A.

(2007a). Access to multiliteracies: A critical ethnography. Ethnography and Education, 2(3), 305–325.

63.

*Mills

K. A.

(2007b). “Have you seen Lord of the Rings?” Power, pedagogy, and discourses in a multiliteracies classroom. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 6(3), 221–241.

64.

Mills

K. A.

(2010). Shrek meets Vygotsky: Rethinking adolescents’ multimodal literacy practices in schools. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(1), 35–45.

65.

*Mills

K. A.

Davis-Warra

Sewell

Anderson

(2016). Indigenous ways with literacies: Transgenerational, multimodal, placed, and collective. Language and Education, 30(1), 1–21.

66.

Moll

L. C.

Amanti

Neff

Gonzalez

(1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132–141.

67.

*Muyassaroh

M. N.

Asib

Marmanto

(2019). The teacher’s beliefs and practices on the use of digital comics in teaching writing: A qualitative case study. International Journal of Language Teaching and Education, 3(1), 45–60.

68.

*Noguerón-Liu

Hogan

J. J.

(2017). Remembering Michoacán: Digital representations of the homeland by immigrant adults and adolescents. Research in the Teaching of English, 51(3), 267–289.

69.

*Pacheco

M. B.

Smith

B. E.

(2015). Across languages, modes, and identities: Bilingual adolescents’ multimodal codemeshing in the literacy classroom. Bilingual Research Journal, 38(3), 292–312.

70.

*Pacheco

M. B.

Smith

B. E.

Carr

(2017). Connecting classrooms and communities with language and technology: A multimodal codemeshing project. Voices From the Middle, 24(3), 65–69.

71.

*Pandya

J. Z.

Pagdilao

K. C.

Kim

A. E.

Marquez

(2015). Transnational children orchestrating competing voices in multimodal, digital autobiographies. Teachers College Record, 117(7), 1–32.

72.

Pennycook

(2017). Translanguaging and semiotic assemblages. International Journal of Multilingualism, 14(3), 269–282.

73.

*Price-Dennis

Carrion

(2017). Leveraging digital literacies for equity and social justice. Language Arts, 94(3), 190–195.

74.

*Rao

(2015). Universal design for learning and multimedia technology: Supporting culturally and linguistically diverse students. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 24(2), 121–137.

75.

Reyes

(2012). Biliteracy among children and youths. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(3), 307–327.

76.

Reynolds

Daniel

(2017). Toward contingency in scaffolding reading comprehension: Next steps for research. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(3), 367–373.

77.

Risko

V. J.

Roller

C. M.

Cummins

Bean

R. M.

Block

C. C.

Anders

P. L.

Flood

(2008). A critical analysis of research on reading teacher education. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 252–288.

78.

Russell

F. A.

(2012). A culture of collaboration: Meeting the instructional needs of adolescent English language learners. TESOL Journal, 3(3), 445–468.

79.

Schall-Leckrone

(2018). Coursework to classroom: Learning to scaffold instruction for bilingual learners. Teacher Education Quarterly, 45(1), 31–56.

80.

*Skerrett

(2013). Building multiliterate and multilingual writing practices and identities. English Education, 45(4), 322–360.

81.

*Skerrett

Bomer

(2013). Recruiting languages and lifeworlds for border-crossing compositions. Research in the Teaching of English, 47(3), 313–337.

82.

*Smith

B. E.

(2017). Composing across modes: A comparative analysis of adolescents’ multimodal composing processes. Learning, Media & Technology, 42(3), 259–278.

83.

*Smith

B. E.

(2018). Composing for affect, audience, and identity: Toward a multidimensional understanding of adolescents’ multimodal composing goals and designs. Written Communication, 35(2), 182–214.

84.

*Smith

B. E.

(2019a). Collaborative multimodal composing: Tracing the unique partnerships of three pairs of adolescents composing across three digital projects. Literacy, 53(1), 14–21.

85.

*Smith

B. E.

(2019b). Mediational modalities: Adolescents collaboratively interpreting literature through digital multimodal composing. Research in the Teaching of English, 53(3), 197–222.

86.

Smith

B. E.

Axelrod

(2019). Scaffolding multimodal composing in the multilingual classroom. In de Oliveira

L. C.

Smith

B. E.

(Eds.), Expanding literacy practices across multiple modes and languages for multilingual students (pp. 83–96). Information Age Publishing.

87.

*Smith

B. E.

Pacheco

M. B.

de Almeida

C. R.

(2017). Multimodal codemeshing: Bilingual adolescents’ processes composing across modes and languages. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 6–22.

88.

Smith

B. E.

Pacheco

M. B.

Khorosheva

(2021). Emergent bilingual students and digital multimodal composition: A systematic review of research in secondary classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 56, 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.298

89.

*Smythe

Neufeld

(2010). “Podcast time”: Negotiating digital literacies and communities of learning in a middle years ELL classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(6), 488–496.

90.

Strauss

Corbin

J. M.

(1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE.

91.

*Tan

Guo

(2009). From print to critical multimedia literacy: One teacher’s foray into new literacies practices. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(4), 315–324.

92.

Torgerson

C. J.

(2003). Systematic reviews. Bloomsbury.

93.

Torgerson

C. J.

(2007). The quality of systematic reviews of effectiveness in literacy learning in English: A “tertiary” review. Journal of Research in Reading, 30(3), 287–315.

94.

*Vandommele

Van den Branden

Van Gorp

De Maeyer

(2017). In-school and out-of-school multimodal writing as an L2 writing resource for beginner learners of Dutch. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 23–36.

95.

van Leeuwen

. (2004). Introducing social semiotics: An introductory textbook. Routledge.

96.

*Van Sluys

Reinier

. (2006). “Seeing the possibilities”: Learning from, with, and about multilingual classroom communities. Language Arts, 83(4), 321–331.

97.

*Vasudevan

Schultz

Bateman

(2010). Rethinking composing in a digital age: Authoring literate identities through multimodal storytelling. Written Communication, 27(4), 442–468.

98.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

99.

Walqui

Van Lier

(2010). Scaffolding the academic success of adolescent English language learners: A pedagogy of promise. WestEd.

100.

*Walsh

C. S.

(2009). The multi-modal redesign of school texts. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(1), 126–136.

101.

*Wilson

A. A.

Chavez

Anders

P. L.

(2012). “From the Koran and Family Guy”: Expressions of identity in English learners’ digital podcasts. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(5), 374–384.

102.

*Wiltse

(2015). Not just “sunny days”: Aboriginal students connect out-of-school literacy resources with school literacy practices. Literacy, 49(2), 60–68.

103.

Windle

Miller

(2019). Scaffolding second language literacy: A model for students with interrupted schooling. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 8(1), 39–60.

104.

Wood

Bruner

J. S.

Ross

(1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.

105.

World Health Organization. (2019). Adolescent health. https://www.who.int/health-topics/adolescent-health#tab=tab_1

106.

Yang

G. L.

(2006). American born Chinese. First Second.

107.

Shin

Cimasko

(2019). Multimodal literacies in teaching and learning in and out of school. In de Oliveira

L. C.

(Ed.), Handbook of TESOL in K–12 (pp. 163–177). John Wiley.

108.

*Zammit

K. P.

(2011). Connecting multiliteracies and engagement of students from low socio-economic backgrounds: Using Bernstein’s pedagogic discourse as a bridge. Language and Education, 25(3), 203–220.

109.

Zapata

Laman

T. T.

(2016). “I write to show how beautiful my languages are”: Translingual writing instruction in English-dominant classrooms. Language Arts, 93(5), 366–378.

110.

*Zenkov

Harmon

Bell

Ewaida

Lynch

M. R.

(2011). Seeing our city, students, and school: Using photography to engage diverse youth with our English classes. English Education, 43(4), 369–389.

111.

*Zheng

Warschauer

Hwang

J. K.

Collins

(2014). Laptop use, interactive science software, and science learning among at-risk students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(4), 591–603.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.17 MB

0.00 MB