Unlocking Student Behavioral Engagement in a Thai EFL Writing Class with a Multimodal Project Approach: Students’ Perspectives
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The effects, from a students’ perspective, of implementing a multimodal project in a Thai EFL writing class were studied. The research objectives included: 1) examining the effects of the multimodal project on student behavioral engagement, both overall engagement and various interactions, including with peers, the teacher, and the course content, and 2) exploring students’ opinions on the use of a multimodal project in the writing class. A quasi-experimental mixed-method design was utilized, with 35 grade-11 students, recruited through purposive sampling, from a school in Bangkok. The research instruments comprised a pre-post student behavioral engagement questionnaire to gauge changes in engagement, as perceived by the students themselves, and a student reflection form to gather qualitative insights from the students regarding their experiences. Quantitative data underwent analysis using descriptive statistics and t-tests, while qualitative data were thematically analyzed. The study revealed a significant increase in overall student behavioral engagement. When examining student behavioral engagement in terms of interactions, the results showed the greatest difference in peer interactions, followed by interactions with the teacher, and then the content. Results from the students’ reflections showed positive perceptions towards the utilization of the multimodal project in the writing class. The findings of this study also have implications for teaching writing in EFL contexts.
Article Details
References
Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Bures, E. M., Borokhovski, E., & Tamim, R. M. (2011). Interaction in distance education and online learning: Using evidence and theory to improve practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2-3), 82-103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-011-9043-x
Amogne, D. (2013). Enhancing students writing skills through the genre approach. International Journal of English and Literature, 4(5), 242-248.
Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments and research questions. In M. Moore & G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 129-144). Erlbaum.
Arola, K. L., Sheppard, J., & Ball, C. E. (2014). Writer/designer: A guide to making multimodal projects. St. Martin’s Press.
Axelson, R. D., & Flick, A. (2010). Defining student engagement. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 43(1), 38-43.
Bateman, J., Delin, J., & Henschel, R. (2002). Multimodality and empiricism: Methodological issues in the study of multimodal meaning-making. British Economic and Social Research Council. http://www.fb10.uni-bremen.de/anglistik/langpro/projects/gem/downloads/bateman-delin-henschel-Salzburg.pdf
Belda-Medina, J. (2021). Enhancing multimodal interaction and communicative competence through task-based language teaching (TBLT) in synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC). Educ. Sci., 11, 723. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11110723
Bozarth, J. (2010). Social media for trainers: Techniques for enhancing and extending learning. John Wiley & Sons.
Cooper, A., Reimann, R., Cronin, D., & Noessel, C. (2014). About face: The essentials of interaction design. John Wiley & Sons.
Corso, M. J., Bundick, M. J., Quaglia, R. J., & Haywood, D. E. (2013). Where student, teacher, and content meet: Student engagement in the secondary school classroom. American Secondary Education, 41(3), 50-61.
Davis, M. H., & McPartland, J. M. (2012). High school reform and student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 515-539). Springer.
Dzekoe, R. (2013). Facilitating revision in the English as a second language (ESL) composition classroom through computer-based multimodal composing activities: A case study of composing practices of ESL students. [Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University]. https://doi.org/10.31274/etd-180810-2304
Erkan, Y., & Bengü, A. (2019). Peer editing as a way of developing ELT students’ writing skills: An action research. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(4), 1226-1235.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.
Gaytan, J., & McEwen, B. C. (2007). Effective online instructional and assessment strategies. The American Journal of Distance Education, 21(3), 117-132.
George, P. (2022). The rhetorical value of multimodal composition. International TESOL Journal, 17(1), 92-117.
Gladstone, J. R., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2022). Situated expectancy-value theory, dimensions of engagement, and academic outcomes. In A. L. Reschly & S. L. Christenson (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (2nd ed., pp. 57-76). Springer.
Gynne, A., & Bagga-Gupta, S. (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.
Hafner, C. A., & Miller, L. (2011). Fostering learner autonomy in English for science: A collaborative digital video project in a technological learning environment. Language Learning & Technology, 15(3), 68-86.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
Hepple, E., Sockhill, M., Tan, A., & Alford, J. (2014). Multiliteracies pedagogy: Creating claymations with adolescent, post‐beginner English language learners. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(3), 219-229.
Hung, H.-T. (2015). Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster active learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(1), 81-96.
Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 148-164.
Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press.
Jeanjaroonsri, R. (2023). Thai EFL learners’ use and perceptions of mobile technologies for writing. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 16(1), 169-193.
Jewitt, C. (2009). An introduction to multimodality. In C. Jewitt (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (pp.14-27). Routledge.
Jewitt. C. (2012). Technology and reception as multimodal remaking. In S. Norris (Ed.), Multimodality in practice: Investigating theory-in-practice-through-methodology (pp. 97-111). Routledge.
Jewitt. C., & Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality, literacy and school English. In D. Wyse, R. Andrews, & J. Hoffman (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of English, language and literacy teaching (pp. 342-353). Routledge.
Jiang, L., & Luk, J. (2016). Multimodal composing as a learning activity in English classrooms: Inquiring into the sources of its motivational capacity. System, 59, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.04.001
Jin, E. (2023, June 12). Down the rabbit hole of multimodal composing: Misconceptions, clarifications, complication and interrogation. SSRN. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4476638
Juiboonmee, M. (2023). How to enhance students’ writing skills? In A. Burns (Ed.), Exploratory action research in Thai schools: English teachers identifying problems, taking action and assessing results (pp. 34-39). British Council. https://www.britishcouncil.or.th
Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford University Press.
Khun-Inkeeree, H., Pimjan, L., & Adelaja, A. A. (2021). Moderating effect of Thai teachers’ perspective on the relationship between teaching perspectives, students’ engagement. International Journal of Instruction, 14(1), 631-646.
Kim, Y., Kang, S., Nam, Y., & Skalicky, S. (2022). Peer interaction, writing proficiency, and the quality of collaborative digital multimodal composing task: Comparing guided and unguided planning. System, 106, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102722
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. Routledge.
Lane, E. S., & Harris, S. E. (2015). A new tool for measuring student behavioral engagement in large university classes. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(6), 83-91.
Li, M. (2020). Multimodal pedagogy in TESOL teacher education: Students’ perspectives. System, 94, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102337
Liu, M., Calvo, R. A., Pardo, A., & Martin, A. (2015). Measuring and visualizing students’ behavioral engagement in writing activities. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 8(2), 215-224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2014.2378786
Moore, M. G. (1993). Three types of interaction. In K. Harry, M. Hohn, & D. Keegan (Eds.), Distance education: New perspectives (pp. 12-24). Routledge.
Nopmanotham, N. (2016). A study of writing strategies used by Thai EFL high school students [Master’s thesis, Thammasat University]. http://ethesisarchive.library.tu.ac.th/thesis/2016/TU_2016_5521032176_6894_4682.pdf
Oga-Baldwin, W. L. Q, (2019). Acting, thinking, feeling, making, collaborating: The engagement process in foreign language learning. System, 86, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102128
Prasetyawati, O. A., & Ardi, P. (2020). Integrating Instagram into EFL writing to foster student engagement. Teaching English with Technology, 20(3), 40-62.
Pratumtong, R., Channuan, P., & Suksawas, W. (2021). Investigating EFL learners’ engagement in writing research papers. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 11(11), 1396-1404.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231.
Selfe, R. J., & Selfe, C. L. (2008). “Convince me!” Valuing multimodal literacies and composing public service announcements. Theory Into Practice, 47(2), 83-92.
Slavin, R. E. (2014). Cooperative learning and academic achievement: Why does groupwork work? Anales de Psicología, 30(3), 785-791.
Stewart, O. G. (2023). Using digital media in the classroom as writing platforms for multimodal authoring, publishing, and reflecting. Computers and Composition, 67, 102764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2023.102764
Stone, G. (2017). Implementation of critical literacy for English writing classes in the Thai context. The New English Teacher, 11(2), 65-65.
The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.
Twiner, A., Coffin, C., Littleton, K., & Whitelock, D. (2010). Multimodality, orchestration and participation in the context of classroom use of the interactive whiteboard: A discussion. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 211-223.
Utami, Y., & Djamdjuri, D. S. (2021). Student’s motivation in writing class using of Canva: Students’ perception. Proceedings of the 3rd Bogor English Student and Teacher (BEST) Conference, Indonesia, 3, 153-159. https://pkm.uika-bogor.ac.id/index.php/best/article/view/1143
Van Donge, R. (2018). Authentic learning experiences: Investigating how teachers can lead their students to intrinsic motivation in meaningful work (Publication No. 119) [Master’s thesis, Dordt University]. https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/med_theses/119
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wikan, G., Mølster, T., Faugli, B., & Hope, R. (2010). Digital multimodal texts and their role in project work: Opportunities and dilemmas. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 225-235.
Xie, Q., Liu, X., Zhang, N., Zhang, Q., Jiang, X., & Wen, L. (2021). Vlog-based multimodal composing: Enhancing EFL learners’ writing performance. Applied Sciences, 11(20), 9655. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11209655
Yeh, E., & Mitric, S. (2019). Voices to be heard: Using social media for digital storytelling to foster language learners’ engagement. TESL-EJ, 23(2), 1-15.