Although digital multimodal composing (DMC) is receiving increasing attention in language classrooms, the extent to which it contributes to students’ writing practices is controversial. In order to understand the affordances of DMC compared to traditional monomodal writing in school contexts, it is pertinent to compare DMC and traditional writing using academic integrated-skills tasks. The current study aims to investigate the relationship between the quality of Korean high school students’ multimodal composing and that of the same students’ traditional monomodal writing, as well as content and language alignment. Thirty-one Korean high school students carried out a summary-reflection task through DMC and traditional monomodal writing. After reading a short fable by Aesop, students summarized and reflected on the text. While students used only one mode in traditional writing (i.e. English text), they utilized multiple modes in DMC (e.g. pictures, movies). Students’ task outcomes were scored using analytic rubrics, and texts were coded in terms of the content and linguistic features students retrieved from the text (i.e. alignment) and their degree of reflection. The results showed that there were no statistically significant differences in the quality, content and language alignment, or amount of reflection in writing outcomes between students’ DMC and traditional monomodal writing.
Asención-DelaneyY. (2008). Investigating the reading-to-write construct. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 140–150.
2.
BaraltM.Gurzynski-WeissL.KimY. (2016). Engagement with language: How examining learners’ affective and social engagement explains successful learner-generated attention to form. In SatoM.BallingerS. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 209–240). John Benjamins.
3.
BlochJ. (2018). Digital storytelling in the multilingual academic writing classroom: Expanding the possibilities. Dialogues: An Interdisciplinary Journal of English Language Teaching and Research, 2, 96–110.
4.
CasanaveC.P. (2017). Controversies in second language writing. University of Michigan Press.
5.
ChoiY. (2015). Effects of post-reading drawing and summary writing on Korean elementary students’ English vocabulary learning and reading comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Chonnam National University, Gwangju, South Korea.
6.
ChungK.W. (2012). 다양한 독후 활동에 관한 연구. [A study on multiple after-reading activities]. Digital Library, 66, 23–44.
7.
CummingA. (2014). Assessing integrated skills. In KunnanA.J. (Ed.), The companion to language assessment: Volume I: Ability, contexts, and learners (pp. 216–229). Wiley.
8.
CummingA.KantorR.BabaK., et al. (2005). Differences in written discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks for next generation TOEFL. Assessing Writing, 10, 5–43.
9.
GebrilA.PlakansL. (2013). Towards a transparent construct of reading-to-write assessment tasks: The interface between discourse features and proficiency. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10, 9–27.
10.
GrapinS.E.LlosaL. (2020). Toward an integrative framework for understanding multimodal L2 writing in the content areas. Journal of Second Language Writing, 47, 100711.
11.
HafnerC.A. (2014). Embedding digital literacies in English language teaching: Students’ digital video projects as multimodal ensembles. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 655–685.
12.
HafnerC.A. (2015). Remix culture and English language teaching: The expression of learner voice in digital multimodal compositions. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 486–509.
13.
HafnerC.A.HoW.Y.J. (2020). Assessing digital multimodal composing in second language writing: Towards a process-based model. Journal of Second Language Writing, 47, 100710.
14.
HullG.A.NelsonM.E. (2005). Locating the semiotic power of multimodality. Written Communication, 22, 224–261.
15.
HuntK.W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. National Council of Teachers of English.
16.
JewittC. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32, 241–267.
17.
JiangL. (2018). Digital multimodal composing and investment change in learners’ writing in English as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 60–72.
18.
JiangL.RenW. (2020). Digital multimodal composing in L2 learning: Ideologies and impact. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 20, 167–182.
19.
JiangL.YuS.ZhaoY. (2019). Teacher engagement with digital multimodal composing in a Chinese tertiary EFL curriculum. Language Teaching Research, 25, 613–632.
20.
JociusR. (2013). Exploring adolescents’ multimodal responses to The Kite Runner: Understanding how students use digital media for academic purposes. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 5, 310–325.
21.
JonesR.H.HafnerC.A. (2012). Understanding digital literacies: A practical introduction. Routledge.
22.
KimY.BelcherD.D. (2020). Multimodal composing and traditional essays: Linguistic performance and learner perceptions. RELC Journal, 51, 86–100.
23.
KressG. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge.
24.
LeaM.R.JonesS. (2011). Digital literacies in higher education: Exploring textual and technological practice. Studies in Higher Education, 36, 337–393.
25.
LiM.AkotoM. (2021). Review of recent research on L2 digital multimodal composing. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 11, 1–16.
26.
LongM. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Wiley Blackwell.
27.
LongM. (2016). In defense of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 5–33.
28.
ManchónR. (2011). Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language. John Benjamins.
29.
ManchónR. (2017). The potential impact of multimodal composition on language learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38, 94–95.
30.
ManchónR.M.MatsudaP.K. (2016). Handbook of second and foreign language writing. De Gruyter Mouton.
31.
MozgalinaA. (2015). More or less choice? The influence of choice on task motivation and task engagement. System, 49, 120–132.
32.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60–93.
33.
NunanD. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
34.
OngJ.ZhangL.J. (2010). Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 218–233.
35.
PhilpJ.DuchesneS. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 50–72.
36.
PhungL. (2017). Task preference, affective response, and engagement in L2 use in a US university context. Language Teaching Research, 21, 651–666.
37.
PlakansL.GebrilA. (2013). Using multiple texts in an integrated writing assessment: Source text use as a predictor of score. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 217–230.
38.
PlakansL.GebrilA. (2015). Assessment myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching. The University of Michigan Press.
39.
ProvenzoE.F. (2011). Multiliteracies: Beyond text and the written word. Information Age.
40.
QiuX.LoY. (2017). Content familiarity, task repetition and Chinese EFL learners’ engagement in second language use. Language Teaching Research, 21, 681–698.
41.
QuW. (2017). For L2 writers, it is always the problem of the language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38, 92–93.
42.
ShinD.-S.CimaskoT. (2008). Multimodal composition in a college ESL class: New tools, traditional norms. Computers and Composition, 25, 376–395.
43.
SmithB.E. (2014). Beyond words: A review of research on adolescents and multimodal composition. In FerdigR.E.PytashK.E. (Eds.), Exploring multimodal composition and digital writing (pp. 1–19). IGI Global.
44.
SmithB.E. (2017). Composing across modes: A comparative analysis of adolescents’ multimodal composing processes. Learning, Media and Technology, 42, 259–278.
45.
SmithB.E.PachecoM.B.de AlmeidaC.R. (2017). Multimodal codemeshing: Bilingual adolescents’ processes composing across modes and languages. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 6–22.
46.
VandommeleG.Van den BrandenK.Van GorpK.De MaeyerS. (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.
47.
WetteR. (2017). Source text use by undergraduate post-novice L2 writers in disciplinary assignment: Progress and ongoing challenges. Journal of Second Language Writing, 37, 46–58.
48.
YiY. (2017). Establishing multimodal literacy research in the field of L2 writing: Let’s move the field forward. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38, 90–91.
49.
YiY.ShinD.-S.CimaskoT. (2020). Special issue: Multimodal composing in multilingual learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 47.
50.
YoonT. (2012). Are you digitized? Ways to provide motivation for ELLs using digital storytelling. International Journal of Research Studies in Educational Technology, 2, 25–34.
51.
ZhangX. (2017). Reading–writing integrated tasks, comprehensive corrective feedback, and EFL writing development. Language Teaching Research, 21, 217–240.
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.
