Exploring the effects of digital storytelling as second language narrative writing

Exploring the effects of digital
storytelling as second language
narrative writing
Heyoung Kim
Chung-Ang University,
Seoul, Korea

practice of using computer-based
tools to tell stories

A multimodal approach to
narrative practice

DS is evolution of narrative writing
where multimedia tools are used to
enhance a story, critical thinking,
and media literacy (Ohler , 2005;
2006)
‘Meaning-making’ through
visual/verbal synergy
(Royce, 2002),
Synaesthetic semiosis (Kress, 1998, 2003)
DS affects the author’s voice and
intention (Nelson, 2006).
DS reflect cultural, social, and
diverse values (Shin &
Cimasko, 2008).

Is DS really an effective instructional
method for L2 narrative practice?
• Stories in DS can be weak and overpowered by the
technology (Ohler, 2005).
• The subjects of study can be treated superficially or
dismissively (Swensen, Young, McGrail, Rosema, and
Whitin, 2006) .
• There are not many empirical data to investigate DS as
effective language learning tool in the aspect of both
meaning and form in narrative writing.
Criticism of using DS as language practice

Is DS really an effective instructional
method for L2 narrative practice?
Needs of This Study
•What are the (actual) benefits
and pitfalls of DS as narrative
practice?
•How do L2 writer’s meaning
and form change in
multimodal writing practice?

Purpose of This Study & Research Questions
This study intends to analyze digital storytelling in terms
of 1) its effectiveness as ESL narrative practice and 2) its
unique characteristics compared to text-based narrative
writing.
1. How do L2
learners’ narrative
writings transform
in digital storytelling?
2. Is digital storytelling
an effective tool as
narrative writing
practice? Why or why
not?
Research questions

The Study
Participants
• 50 Korean college freshmen whose major is English
education at a university in Seoul
• 33 female, 17 male students
• Their English proficiency varied from low intermediate to
advanced.
• 10 students reported more than one-year study
experience in English-speaking countries.

The Study
Materials
The 50 participants’ narrative writing pair, two types of storytelling scripts:
inclass storytelling and digital storytelling.
Inclass
Storytelling
Digital
Storytelling
compare

The Study
Materials
The fifty participants’ narrative writing pair, two types of storytelling scripts:
inclass storytelling and digital storytelling.
IS (Inclass Storytelling Script) DS (Digital Storytelling Script)
Activity week
(number of data)
Week 4-6
(50 writings)
Week 12
(50 writings)
Presentation type Oral speech (3 minutes) Recorded oral speech (3-4 minutes)
Task type
(direction)
Storytelling I: Tell your story (ex. Childh
ood, personality, language learning experi
ence, or future dream) to your classmates
in class for 3 minutes.
Storytelling II: You need to create 3-
minuites mini movie of your story.
Writing type Digital texts posted on the individual writ
er’s blog before the presentation
Digital texts posted on the individual
writer’s blog with a movie

The Study
1) Rubric Assessment
• The personal narrative writing rubric with six categories, ‘idea’,
‘organization’, ‘voice’, ‘sentence fluency,’ and ‘conventions’, with 10
scales in four levels
• The two raters (inter-rater reliability is high (α= .807 (IS), α=.860 (DS)
and according to the intraclass correlation coefficient, .660-891 for IS
and.754-.921 with a 95% confidence)
• 100 writings were randomly shuffled in two different ways for
unbiased assessment, so the raters could not identify the author or the
type of writings.
Analysis

The Study
Advanced Proficient Basic Below basic
3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 1
Ideas  Skillfully combines all elements
to make the story interesting and
unifying
 Effective details create a vivid
picture
 Fresh (Uncommon) approach
holds reader’s attention
 Combines elements to make
the story interesting (or
unifying)
 Sufficient details create a
picture.
 Fresh approach adds to the
reader’s understanding
 Elements may or may not reveal
a unifying story
 Underdeveloped details show
little knowledge to create a
picture
 Fresh approach is not
attempted.
 No clear idea
 Lack of detail
 Common approach
Organizati
on
3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 1
 Memorable and clear
introduction and ending
 Effective and smooth sequencing
with use of appropriate
transitions
 Clear introduction and ending
 Logical sequencing with use of
some transitions
 Weak introduction and
conclusion
 Sequencing and use of
transitions are limited
 Missing intro or
conclusion
 Failure of sequencing
Voice 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 1
 Writer’s voice is authentic and
entertaining
 Clear sense of audience (use of
dialogue, repetition, humor,
emotion-evoking
 Effectively shows writer’s
personality and feeling
 Writer’s voice is authentic
 Some sense of audience
 Add writer’s personality or
feeling
 Writer’s voice is unclear and
detached from the story
 Lack of sensing audience
 Writer’s feeling is undefined
 No writer’s
voice/personality
 No sense of
audience/and or
personality
Word
Choice
3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 1
 words or phrases powerfully
convey intended message
and draw reader’s interest
 accurate and natural choice
of words
 Adequate and clear words or
phrases convey intended
message and helps reader’s
understanding
 mostly accurate and natural,
but some incorrect or fuzzy
words are found
 some words or phrases fail to
convey intended meaning
 incorrect and inappropriate
words are frequently found
 numerous inappropriate
or incorrect words or
phrases
 Simple words are
repeated
Sentence
Fluency
3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 1
 All sentences are well-
constructed with varied
structure.
 Sentences sound smooth
and rhythmic when read
aloud
 Most sentences are well-
constructed with varied
structure
 Sentences sound smooth
when read aloud
 Most sentences are well-
constructed but have a similar
structure.
 most sentences follows a
predictable pattern when read
aloud
 Sentences are not well
constructed
 sentences lack natural
pattern or rhythm
Conventio
ns
3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 1
Writer makes (almost) no errors in
grammar or spelling that distracts
the reader from the content.
Writer makes a few (3-5) errors in
grammar or spelling that distract
the reader from the content
Writer makes more than 5 errors in
grammar or spelling that distract the
reader from the content.
Writer makes numerous errors
in grammar or spelling

The Study
2) Qualitative and quantitative story analysis
Analysis
• Good story framework: unexplored or unrevealed area by
rubric assessment such as 1) topic, 2) point of story, 3)
authentic voice, 4) feeling, and 5) awareness of audience.
• The coded units were also quantitatively counted proportionally
compared to word counts in order to find out the common or
contrastive patterns in or between storytelling types.

The Study
2) Qualitative and quantitative story analysis
Analysis

The Study
3) Language (Analysis)
• Story length (the number of words)
• Word frequency
• Sentence Fluency (sentence length)
– Total number of words/number of sentences
• Words were counted by concordance program and MS. Word
Analysis

The Study
3) Language (Analysis)
Analysis
Concordance 3.3

Results
1) Writing Length
– The students wrote a shorter essay when producing
digital storytelling.
– The average word number of DS (M=325.7 SD=143.40) was
significantly less than that of IS (M=399.3, SD=145.96, t=2.81).
– 34 out of 50 students wrote longer writings in IS. 10 students
produced 200 words more (227-589 more words) in their IS
than in their DS . Only 9 students wrote distinctively longer DS
(89-292 more words).
1 The overall differences between two types of writings
Total words per essay Mean N SD SE Min Max t df p
Inclass Storytelling (IS) 399.3 50 145.96 20.64 20.92 126.28 2.81 49 .007*
Digital Storytelling (DS) 325.7 50 143.40 20.27
Table 2 Comparison between lengths of two writing types
* α <0.05 (two-tailed)

Results
2) Six traits of narrative writing
• There was no significant difference in average total scores between
two writings (IS=35.83 DS=35.43),
• But the average score of ‘Organization’ ‘Convention’ were
significantly higher in DS
• IS showed better scores in ‘Ideas’ ‘Word choice’ and ‘Sentence
fluency’.
Table 3 Comparison of Average Scores between two writings from rubric assessment
* α <0.01 (two-tailed)IS DS
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) t df p
Ideas 6.2 (1.39) 5.52 (1.72) 2.304 49 .025*
Organization 5.73 (1.29) 6.30 (1.47) -2.372 49 .022*
Voice 6.77 (1.27) 6.87 (1.13) -.479 49 .634
Word choice 6.97 (1.26) 6.62 (1.17) 2.344 49 .023*
Sentence fluency 6.43 (1.47) 5.84 (1.44) 3.098 49 .003**
Conventions 3.73 (1.71) 4.28 (1.72) -2.458 49 .018*
Total 35.83(5.87) 35.43 (5.97) .503 49 .617

Results
3) Quality and Quantity influenced by non-linguistic factors
• the quality and length of DS are more easily influenced by non-
linguistic factors
– Technology
selected software, technical difficulties, many pictures, or
lengthy video clips reduced the length and quality of DS writings
– Topic interest
Students who changed the topic to their favorites, such as travel,
living-abroad experience, high school friends or clubs produced
average 255 words longer than their IS. including the rich details
that explain interesting photos on their movie.
– Current thought and feeling
Students who showed strong feeling (positive or negative)
produced significantly longer or shorter writings in DS

Results
1) Better story
2 Meaning Changes in Digital Storytelling
• DS seems to have more good-story elements,
 Writer’s voice and thoughts were shown in DS as much as in IS
(Authentic Voice(AV) per essay is 9.11 in IS and 8.77 in DS).
 Signs of feeling (F) (M=2.64 in IS, M=4.06 in DS) were found
significantly more often in DS (t=-2.97 p=.005).
IS (frequency) DS (frequency)
Total M SD Total M SD t df p
AV 428 9.11 5.38 412 8.77 5.21 .31 46 .761
F 124 2.64 2.24 191 4.06 3.02 -2.97 46 .005
AA 11 0.20 .45 65 1.30 2.00 -3.99 49 .000
Table 4 Statistical comparison of total frequency of authentic voice, feeling
and audience awareness

Results
1) Better story
 Writer’s voice and thoughts were shown in DS as much as in IS
(Authentic Voice(AV) per essay is 9.11 in IS and 8.77 in DS).
 Signs of feeling (F) (M=2.64 in IS, M=4.06 in DS) were found
significantly more often in DS (t=-2.97 p=.005).
• (showing friend photo) She had great personality. We hung out
together a lot. I love her so much.
• I hate all kinds of insects. Oo hoo! (showing insect photo) They are
just horrible.
• (showing cafeteria food) These are REAL lunch of OO high school. I
love them because they really delicious.

Results
1) Better story
 DS writers were more conscious of the audience (t=-3.99
p=.000). Only 9 students showed AA in IS 11 times in total,
while 21 students showed 65 attempts to actively interact with
unknown audience in DS. Not only the frequency of attempts,
but also the activeness of interaction was different.
[Grace’s awareness of audience quoted from her IS]
… To talk about some hobbies of mine
… to briefly talk about my type
… Lastly, I will briefly talk about my dream.

Results
1) Better story
 DS writers were more conscious of the audience (t=-3.99
p=.000). Only 9 students showed AA in IS 11 times in total,
while 21 students showed 65 attempts to actively interact with
unknown audience in DS. Not only the frequency of attempts,
but also the activeness of interaction was different.
[Grace’s awareness of audience quoted from her DS]
…If you want to go on a trip to this summer vacation let’s go together.
…I would like to introduce you one of my favorite American dramas.
…Well now I will talk about my current days.
…These are pictures of the children that I teach during Sunday school. Aren’t they adorab
…Can you take a guess?
... If you have a guess in English kindergarten teacher, you’re absolutely correct.
…I like to end this storytelling by saying that I love a department and all of you are great f

Results
1) Better story
 DS generally entails fuller details of the same topic. This
pattern is also closely related to multimodality because the
images, esp. photos, seemed to evoke their memory more
vividly about the same topics
[Lynn’s description of her schools in IS]
I went to Measong elementary school and Imea junior high school and
high school

Results
1) Better story
 DS generally entails fuller details of the same topic. This
pattern is also closely related to multimodality because the
images, esp. photos, seemed to evoke their memory more
vividly about the same topics
[Lynn’s description of her schools in DS]
I went to Measong elementary school. And I graduated Imea middle
school and high school. The building with green roof is my favorite
building ever because there is a dining room. Every day I ate dinner and
I’ve never had such a delicious dinner in my whole school year

Results
2) Extended topics
• Topics for personal narrative writing can be immensely extended in
DS.
 Many students revised their stories by adding some new
topics or completely changed to new topics.
<The most commonly emerging topics>
1. high school memories (11 students),
2. favorite movies or TV dramas (10),
3. music or singers (9),
4. travel (8)
5. Other hobbies (18).

Results
2) Extended topics
• New topics are all closely related to multimedia (e.g. image,
sound, or movie) availability.
 subjects that cannot be well described in a single mode writing,
such as favorite art paintings, sister’s fashion style, or favorite
singers’ voice
 content that are unlikely chosen in typical personal narratives
such as Sunday school children, lunch menus in school
cafeteria, or characters of favorite movies or cartoon.

Results
3) Self-disclosure
The writers seemed to more freely open their personal life story in DS
such as failure of university entrance exams, parents’ separation or
occupation or religious beliefs etc.
<Students’ narratives quoted from DS scripts>
• I was betrayed by one of my best friends and also suffered from many adversities and
troubles.
• I studied hard for my dream, but I suffered hardship on Korean SAT … I decided to try
one more time, but the result was not good.
• Honestly, I took Suneung (college entrance exam) about three times.
• I know there will be many hardships, but I am not afraid of anything because I believe
in myself. I will do myself. I feel confident. I fly high to my dream
• but I also accepted to military service in 2007. It was very hard story. It was very hard
time. … They look bad. And my troop always had hard training in Spring, Summer,
Fall and Winter.
• Second thing is my family. But we were separated by divorce. I am so sad.

Results
1) Words
• Two raters gave a significantly higher score on IS in ‘word choice’ (IS
Mean=6.97 DS Mean=6.62 t=2.34)
– writers pay more attention to their word selection in single-mode
writing because texts is only medium to express themselves
3 Language Differences between IS and DS

Results
1) Words
• Interesting word pattern was found in DS
– Demonstrative pronouns, ‘this’ and ‘these’ were used
significantly more in DS because the writers wanted to indicate
something on their movie (ex. this is my sister).
– second-person pronouns, ‘you’ and first-person plural, ‘we,’
were more frequently used in DS. The context of concordance line in
figure 2 clearly shows that ‘You’ mostly refer to audience while ‘we’ refers to
narrator and friend(s).
– some transitional words for timing and signposting, such as
‘next’, ‘now’, ‘finally’ were remarkably more often used in DS
– More often used emotional words. ‘Love’, ‘really’, ‘hard’,
‘happy’, ‘beautiful’, ‘enjoy’ and ‘dream’

Results
1) Words
IS DS IS DS
Headword % N % N Headword % N % N
first 0.201 40 0.209 34 Love(d ) 0.236 47 0.473 77
second 0.055 11 0.092 15 hard 0.176 35 0.350 57
next 0.030 6 0.092 15 happy 0.115 23 0.215 35
now 0.281 56 0.436 71 beautiful 0.040 8 0.147 24
finally 0.025 5 0.111 18 enjoy(ed) 0.130 26 0.160 26
Total Words 2748 2350 Total Words 2748 2350
Table 6. Comparison of transitional words (timing & signposting) between IS and DS

Results
2) Sentence Fluency
• IS are better organized with more varied structures.
– According to rubric assessment two raters gave significantly
higher score on IS than DS in ‘Sentence fluency.’ (IS Mean=
6.52, DS Mean=5.76)
• Not only syntactical complexity and variety, DS sentences are
simpler than IS.
– The average sentence length (eg. total words per sentence =total
number of words/ total number of sentences) was 11.405 in IS
and 9.841 in DS. The qualitative analysis also shows that DS
descriptions are simpler and shorter

Results
2) Sentence Fluency
6.52, DS Mean=5.76)
simpler than IS.
My high school life was little different with other students. My
school had boarding houses attached to it. So all students eat, sleep,
study together. But I had a hard time first because I’m not good at
adapt myself to new circumstances like that. [IS]
•My high school life was little different with other students. My school had boarding houses attached to it. So all students eat, sleep, study together. But I had a hard time first bec

Results
2) Sentence Fluency
6.52, DS Mean=5.76)
simpler than IS.
This is my school. When I came to here first, it is so nervous and
unfamiliar place to me. But now I live a happy life here making a lot
of memory with my classmates [DS]

Results
3) Writing Convention
• Students monitored language forms more carefully in writing
DS.
– The average score of rubric assessment for ‘writing convention’
are both quite low (IS Mean=3.86 and DS Mean=4.22) compared
with those of other categories. It is predictable because student writings were
both pre-written oral speech scripts originally uploaded on their personal blog,
so form was not emphasized.
– However, there was statistical difference between two average
scores, t=-2.78).
•My high school life was little different with other students. My school had boarding houses attached to it. So all students eat, sleep, study together. But I had a hard time first bec

Discussion
• “How do L2 Learners’ narrative writings
transform in digital storytelling?”
•
• How is the meaning changed in digital storytelling?
• The meaning of the students’ narrative writing was changed.
• How is the language changed in digital storytelling?
•

Discussion
• “Is digital storytelling an effective tool as
narrative writing practice? Why or why not?”
•
– Motivating, good content, effective tool for narrative practice
– Can create better stories and extend topics.
– More effective for organizing writing and monitoring writing
conventions
– Not effective for improving language forms or developing
writing fluency
– Only if they like topic, technology, or multimodal way of
expressing oneself
Yes
No

Conclusion
Digital storytelling is powerful for
language learning only if teachers are
aware of its unique nature and L2
instructional values compared with
traditional one.

Exploring the effects of digital storytelling as second language narrative writing

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Exploring the effects of digital storytelling as second language narrative writing (20)

More from heyoungkim (16)

Recently uploaded (20)

Exploring the effects of digital storytelling as second language narrative writing