Although increasing evidence has demonstrated the benefits of mobile technology in diverse aspects of language learning, research on the use of mobiles in task-based instruction has been scarce. Particularly, there has been little research directly investigating predictors of the quality of mobile-assisted, video-making tasks. To fill the gap and contribute to the area of emerging technology-mediated, task-based language teaching, the current study examined predicting factors of the quality of digital-video-making task outcomes. Forty-eight Korean high school students completed a digital-video-making task using a mobile application called KineMaster. Students created a self-introduction storytelling video focusing on their experiences of success or failure in their life. To examine predicting factors (English writing proficiency, first language narrative ability, digital literacy, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation), multiple data sources were gathered: timed argumentative English essays and Korean writing samples on the same narrative topic, a digital literacy questionnaire, and a motivation survey. For data analyses, the quality of the digital-video-making task outcome was scored using an analytic rubric assessing the use of multi-modes, language use, and task fulfillment. Students’ English and Korean narrative essays were rated for English writing proficiency and first language narrative ability, respectively. Digital literacy and motivation questionnaires were analysed quantitatively, and the composite scores were included in statistical models. Multiple regression models were created to investigate which factors predicted the quality of the digital-video-making task outcome. The results showed that English writing proficiency and first language narrative ability significantly predicted the quality of language use and task fulfillment. The findings shed light on mobile-assisted task performance in foreign language classrooms.
AlbertÁ.KormosJ. (2004). Creativity and narrative task performance: An exploratory study. Language Learning, 54, 277–310.
2.
AlmeidaL.S.PrietoL.P.FerrandoM.OliveiraE.FerrándizC. (2008). Torrance Test of Creative Thinking: The question of its construct validity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3, 53–58.
3.
AppelC.GilabertR. (2002). Motivation and task performance in a task-based web-based tandem project. ReCALL, 14, 16–31.
4.
ArchibaldA.JefferyG.C. (2000). Second language acquisition and writing: A multi- disciplinary approach. Learning and Instruction, 10, 1–11.
5.
BalamanS. (2018). Digital storytelling: A multimodal narrative writing genre. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14, 202–212.
6.
BelcherD.D. (2017). On becoming facilitators of multimodal composing and digital design. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38, 80–85.
7.
BurnettR.E.FrazeeA.HanggiK.MaddenA. (2014). A programmatic ecology of assessment: Using a common rubric to evaluate multimodal processes and artifacts. Computers and Composition, 31, 53–66.
8.
BurstonJ. (2014). The reality of MALL: Still on the fringes. Calico Journal, 31, 103–125.
9.
ChenY.CargerC.L.SmithT.J. (2017). Mobile-assisted narrative writing practice for young English language learners from a funds of knowledge approach. Language Learning & Technology, 21, 28–41.
10.
ChristiansenM.S.KoelzerM.L. (2016). Digital storytelling: Using different technologies for EFL. MEXTESOL Journal, 40, 1–14.
11.
CrossleyS.A.McNamaraD.S. (2012). Predicting second language writing proficiency: The roles of cohesion and linguistic sophistication. Journal of Research in Reading, 35, 115–135.
12.
DeciE.L.RyanR.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum.
13.
DörnyeiZ. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 31, 117–135.
14.
DörnyeiZ.UshiodaE. (2011). Teaching and Researching: Motivation. 2nd edition.Longman.
15.
DucateL.LomickaL. (2013). Going mobile: Language learning with an iPod Touch in intermediate French and German classes. Foreign Language Annals, 46, 445–468.
16.
EkiertM.LampropoulouS.RévészA.TorgersenE. (2018). The effects of task type and L2 proficiency on discourse appropriacy in oral task performance. In TaguchiN.KimY. (Eds.), Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp. 247–264). John Benjamins.
17.
EllisR. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
18.
EllisR.YuanF. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 59–84.
19.
EngberC.A. (1995). The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 139–155.
20.
Godwin-JonesR. (2012). Digital video revisited: Storytelling, conferencing, remixing. Language Learning & Technology, 16, 1–9.
21.
Godwin-JonesR. (2017). Smartphones and language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 21, 3–17.
22.
González-LloretM. (2015). A practical guide to integrating technology into task-based language teaching. Georgetown University Press.
23.
González-LloretM.OrtegaL. (2014). Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. John Benjamins.
24.
GreshamP. (2014). Fostering creativity through digital storytelling: ‘It’s a paradise inside a cage’. Metaphor, 1, 47–56.
25.
HafnerC.A. (2014). Embedding digital literacies in English language teaching: Students’ digital video projects as multimodal ensembles. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 655–685.
26.
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.
27.
HafnerC.A.MillerL. (2011). Fostering learner autonomy in English for science: A collaborative digital video project in a technological learning environment. Language Learning & Technology, 15, 68–86.
28.
HafnerC.A.ChikA.JonesR.H. (2015). Digital literacies and language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 19, 1–7.
29.
HeL.ShiL. (2012). Topical knowledge and ESL writing. Language Testing, 29, 443–464.
30.
Hernández-RamosP.DeLaPazS. (2009). Learning history in middle school by designing multimedia in a project-based learning experience. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42, 151–173.
31.
HungH.T.ChiuY.C.J.YehH.C. (2013). Multimodal assessment of and for learning: A theory-driven design rubric. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44, 400–409.
32.
HwangW.Y.ChenH.S.ShadievR.HuangR.Y.M.ChenC.Y. (2014). Improving English as a foreign language writing in elementary schools using mobile devices in familiar situational contexts. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27, 359–378.
33.
IshikawaT. (2006). The effect of task complexity and language proficiency on task-based language performance. Journal of Asia TEFL, 3, 193–225.
34.
JewittC.E. (2011). The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. Routledge.
35.
JiangL.LukJ. (2016). Multimodal composing as a learning activity in English classrooms: Inquiring into the sources of its motivational capacity. System, 59, 1–11.
36.
JonesR.H.HafnerC.A. (2012). Understanding digital literacies: A practical introduction. Routledge.
37.
KajderS.SwensonJ. (2004). Digital images in the language arts classroom. Learning & Leading with Technology, 31, 18–22.
38.
KamimuraT. (1996). Composing in Japanese as a first language and English as a foreign language: A study of narrative writing. RELC Journal, 27, 47–69.
39.
KawauchiC. (2005). 5. The effects of strategic planning on the oral narratives of learners with low and high intermediate L2 proficiency. In EllisR. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 143–164). John Benjamins.
40.
KelloggR.T. (1994). The psychology of writing. Oxford University Press.
41.
KimY. (2013). Effects of pretask modelling on attention to form and question development. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 8–35.
42.
KimY.BelcherD. (2020). Multimodal composing and traditional essays: Linguistic performance and learner perceptions. RELC Journal, 51, 86–100.
43.
KimY.KangS. (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.
KormosJ. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 390–403.
46.
KressG. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge.
47.
KubotaR. (1998). An investigation of L1–L2 transfer in writing among Japanese university students: Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 69–100.
48.
Kukulska-HulmeA. (2009). Will mobile learning change language learning?ReCALL, 21, 157–165.
49.
Kukulska-HulmeA.VibergO. (2018). Mobile collaborative language learning: State of the art. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49, 207–218.
50.
LaiC.LiG. (2011). Technology and task-based language teaching: A critical review. CALICO Journal, 28, 1–24.
51.
LanY.J.SungY.T.ChangK.E. (2007). A mobile-device-supported peer-assisted learning system for collaborative early EFL reading. Language Learning & Technology, 11, 130–151.
52.
LeeL. (2014). Digital news stories: Building language learners’ content knowledge and speaking skills. Foreign Language Annals, 47, 338–356.
53.
LiuK.P.TaiS.J.D.LiuC.C. (2018). Enhancing language learning through creation: The effect of digital storytelling on student learning motivation and performance in a school English course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66, 913–935.
54.
LoJ.HylandF. (2007). Enhancing students’ engagement and motivation in writing: The case of primary students in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 219–237.
55.
LongM.H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Wiley Blackwell.
56.
LotheringtonH.JensonJ. (2011). Teaching multimodal and digital literacy in L2 settings: New literacies, new basics, new pedagogies. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 226–246.
57.
MakB.ConiamD. (2008). Using wikis to enhance and develop writing skills among secondary school students in Hong Kong. System, 36, 437–455.
58.
McDonoughK.CrawfordW.J.MackeyA. (2015). Creativity and EFL students’ language use during a group problem-solving task. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 188–199.
59.
MillsK.A. (2010). A review of the ‘digital turn’ in the new literacy studies. Review of Educational Research, 80, 246–271.
60.
MurrayD.E. (2005). Technologies for second language literacy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 188–201.
61.
NahK.C.WhiteP.SussexR. (2008). The potential of using a mobile phone to access the Internet for learning EFL listening skills within a Korean context. ReCALL, 20, 331–347.
62.
NishiokaH. (2016). Analysing language development in a collaborative digital storytelling project: Sociocultural perspectives. System, 62, 39–52.
63.
OngJ. (2015). Do individual differences matter to learners’ writing ability?The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2, 129–139.
64.
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.
65.
OskozA.ElolaI. (2014). Integrating digital stories in the writing class: Toward a 21st- century literacy. In GuikemaJ.P.WilliamsL. (Eds.), Digital literacies in foreign and second language education (pp. 179–200). CALICO.
66.
OskozA.ElolaI. (2016a). Digital stories: Bringing multimodal texts to the Spanish writing classroom. ReCALL, 28, 326–342.
67.
OskozA.ElolaI. (2016b). Digital stories: Overview. Calico Journal, 33. 157–173.
68.
OskozA.ElolaI. (2020). Digital L2 writing literacies: Directions for classroom practice. Equinox.
69.
OxfordR. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teaching should know. Newbury House.
70.
PrenskyM. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On The Horizon, 9, 1–6.
71.
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: https://www.r-project.org (accessed September 2021).
72.
RahimiM.ZhangL.J. (2018). Effects of task complexity and planning conditions on L2 argumentative writing production. Discourse Processes, 55, 726–742.
73.
ReidM.BurnA.ParkerD. (2002). Evaluation report of the BECTa digital video pilot project. BECTa.
74.
Reyes TorresA.Pich PonceE.García PastorM.D. (2012). Digital storytelling as a pedagogical tool within a didactic sequence in foreign language teaching. Digital Education Review, 22, 1–18.
75.
RobinsonP. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287– 318). Cambridge University Press.
76.
RobinsonP. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43, 1–32.
77.
RobinsonP. (2007). Criteria for classifying and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In Garcia-MayoM.P. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 7–27). Multilingual Matters.
78.
SasakiM.HiroseK. (1996). Explanatory variables for EFL students’ expository writing. Language Learning, 46, 137–168.
79.
ShinY. (2019). Do native writers always have a head start over nonnative writers? The use of lexical bundles in college students’ essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 40, 1–14.
80.
SkehanP. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.
81.
SmedaN.DakichE.ShardaN. (2014). The effectiveness of digital storytelling in the classrooms: A comprehensive study. Smart Learning Environments, 1, 1–21.
82.
SmyrnaiouZ.GeorgakopoulouE.SotiriouS. (2020). Promoting a mixed-design model of scientific creativity through digital storytelling: The CCQ model for creativity. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, 25.
TedickD.J. (1990). ESL writing assessment: Subject-matter knowledge and its impact on performance. English for Specific Purposes, 9, 123–143.
88.
TorranceE. (1969). Creativity: What research says to the teacher. National Education Association.
89.
Van den BrandenK. (2016). Task-based language teaching. In HallG. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of English language teaching (pp. 238–251). Routledge.
90.
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.
91.
VibergO.GrönlundÅ. (2012). Mobile assisted language learning: A literature review. In SpechtM.SharplesM.MultisiltaJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Mobile and Contextualized Learning (pp. 9–16). CEUR Workshop Proceedings. Available at: http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-955/papers/paper_8.pdf (accessed September 2021) .
92.
WrigglesworthJ. (2019). Using smartphones to extend interaction beyond the EFL classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33, 413–434.
93.
YoonT. (2014). Developing multimodal digital literacy: The application of digital storytelling as a new avenue for effective English learning with EFL elementary school students in Korea. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA.
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.
