Three heads are better than one? Digital multimodal composition completed collaboratively versus individually

Abstract

Digital multimodal composing (DMC) has attracted language instructors’ and researchers’ increasing attention during recent years. Previous studies mainly investigated the students’ DMC processes and perceptions, but DMC products are underexamined, and in particular, scarce is research comparing collaborative DMC products and individual DMC products. This article reports an empirical study conducted with 185 EFL college students in an English for specific purposes (ESP) course in Vietnam, in which they completed two infographic tasks using Visme, one collaboratively and the other individually. The DMC products were graded according to a rubric assessing the aspects of content/organization, multimedia/visual effects, and language use; the accuracy of the students’ infographics was also evaluated. The results of variance (MANOVA) test showed no statistically significant difference in the overall qualities of infographics between the two work conditions (i.e. collaborative composing and individual composing) as to both tasks, but the between-participant effects showed that collaborative DMC products were advantageous in visual effects for Task 1 and in content/organization for Task 2. The findings of the Welch’s t-test revealed no statistically significant difference in the accuracy of students’ DMC products between collaborative work and individual work. This study fills the research gap by comparing the qualities of collaborative DMC products and individual DMC products, and meanwhile highlights the role of infographics in writing pedagogy. Implications of the study for research and pedagogy are also discussed.

Keywords

collaborative composing digital multimodal composing individual composing infographics writing products

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ajayi

(2008). Meaning-making, multimodal representation, and transformative pedagogy: An exploration of meaning construction instructional practices in an ESL high school classroom. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 7, 206–229.

Akoto

(2021). Collaborative multimodal writing via Google Docs: Perceptions of French FL learners. Languages, 6, 140.

Belcher

(2017). On becoming facilitators multimodal composing and digital design. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38, 80–85.

Bloch

(2007). Abdullah’s blogging: A generation 1.5 student enters the blogosphere. Language Learning and Technology, 11, 128–141.

Cho

Kim

(2021). Comparing the characteristics of EFL students’ multimodal composing and traditional monomodal writing: The case of a reading-to-write task. Language Teaching Research. Epub ahead of print 8 October 2021. DOI: 10.1177/13621688211046740.

D’Angelo

(2016). Academic posters: A textual and visual metadiscourse analysis. Peter Lang.

Fernández Dobao

. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 40–58.

Ferris

D.R.

Hedgcock

J.S.

(2014). Teaching second language composition: Purpose, process and practice. 3rd edition. Routledge.

Hafner

(2013). Digital composition in a second or foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 830–834.

10.

Hafner

(2014). Embedding digital literacies in English language teaching: Students’ digital video projects as multimodal ensembles. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 655–685.

11.

Hafner

(2015). Remix culture and English language teaching: The expression of learner voice in digital multimodal compositions. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 486–509.

12.

Hafner

(2020). Assessing digital multimodal composing in second language writing: Towards a process-based model. Journal of Second Language Writing, 47, 100710.

13.

Hafner

C.A.

Miller

(2011). Fostering learner autonomy in English for science: A collaborative digital video project in a technological learning environment. Language Learning and Technology, 15, 68–86.

14.

Hyland

Tse

(2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25, 156–177.

15.

Jiang

(2017). The affordances of digital multimodal composing for EFL learning. ELT Journal, 71, 413–422.

16.

Jiang

(2018). Digital multimodal composing and investment change in learners’ writing in English as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 60–72.

17.

Jiang

Luk

(2016). Multimodal composing as a learning activity in English classrooms: Inquiring into the sources of its motivational capacity. System, 59, 1–11.

18.

Jiang

Yang

(2020). Chinese ethnic minority students’ investment in English learning empowered by digital multimodal composing. TESOL Quarterly, 54, 954–979.

19.

Jiang

Lee

(2022). Developing a genre-based model for assessing digital multimodal composing in second language writing: Integrating theory with practice. Journal of Second Language Writing. Epub ahead of print 21 January 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2022.100869.

20.

Kim

Belcher

(2020). Multimodal composing and traditional essays: Linguistic performance and learner perceptions. RELC, 51, 86–100.

21.

Kim

Kang

(2020). Writing to make meaning through collaborative multimodal composing among Korean EFL learners: writing processes, writing quality, and student perception. Computers and Composition, 58, 102609.

22.

Krauss

(2012). Infographics: More than words can say. Learning and Leading with Technology, 39, 10–14.

23.

Kress

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

24.

Akoto

(2021). Review of recent research on L2 digital multimodal composing. International Journal of Computer Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 11, 1–16.

25.

Zhang

(2021). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms: A research agenda. Language Teaching. Epub ahead of print 18 October 2021. DOI: 10.1017/S0261444821000318.

26.

Maamuujav

Krishnan

Collins

(2020). The utility of infographics in L2 writing classes: A practical strategy to scaffold writing development. TESOL Journal, 11, e484.

27.

Manchón

R.M.

(2017). The potential impact of multimodal composition on language learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38, 94–95.

28.

McCrorie

A.D.

Donnelly

McGlade

(2016). Infographics: Healthcare communication for the digital age. Ulster Medical Journal, 85, 71–75.

29.

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60–92.

30.

Oskoz

Elola

(2016). Digital stories: Bringing multimodal texts to the Spanish writing classroom. ReCALL, 28, 326–342.

31.

(2017). For L2 writers, it is always the problem of the language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38, 92–93.

32.

Shin

D.S.

Cimasko

(2020). Development of metalanguage for multimodal composing: A case study of an L2 writer’s design of multimedia texts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 47, 100714.

33.

Smith

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

34.

Smith

Pacheco

de Almeida

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

35.

Storch

(2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153–173.

36.

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.

37.

Vygotsky

L.S.

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

38.

Yeh

H.C.

(2018). Exploring the perceived benefits of the process of multimodal video making in developing multiliteracies. Language Learning and Technology, 22, 28–37.

39.

Shin

Cimasko

. (2020). Special issue: Multimodal composing in multilingual learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 47, 100717.