Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Multidimensional analysis of efficacy of multimedia learning in development and sustained development of textuality in EFL writing performances

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigated the effect of multimedia learning on textuality of Iranian EFL (English as Foreign Language) intermediate learners’ writing performance in individual, collaborative and e-collaborative writing modalities from student and teacher perspectives The results of Multivariate and repeated measure analysis of variance on 90 participants’ writing performances on three measures of pretest, posttest and delayed posttest indicated that although textulaity was significantly improved as a result of multimedia learning in all three writing modes, its sustained development on delayed posttest was only observed in collaborative writing. Also,the results of the analysis of student self -perceived efficacy of multimedia learning questionnaire indicated that students attributed values significantly more to collaborative than to individual and e-collaborative writing modalities. Theme elicitation of structured interview with the teachers suggested when it comes to technology in Iranian EFL conventional educational context, education policy makers and teaching practitioners need to make principled decisions about its use. Possible sources of challenge in implementation of technology can be solved by revisiting issues such as the centrality of instructor roles, and group leadership as well as the quality of environmental support in local educational contexts such as that of Iran.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, R., Alwi, N. A. N. M., & Newton, J. (2015). Task complexity effects on the complexity and accuracy of writing via text chat. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 64–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aloraini, S. (2012). The impact of using multimedia on students’ academic achievement in the College of Education at King Saud University. Journal of King Saud University-Languages and Translation, 24(2), 75–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballentine, B. D. (2015). Textual adventures: Writing and game development in the undergraduate classroom. Computers and Composition, 37, 31–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaugrande, R.-A. D. (1981). de, Dressler WU introduction to text linguistics. Applied Linguistics and Language Study). Longman Publishing Group.

  • Biria, R., & Jafari, S. (2013). The impact of collaborative writing on the writing fluency of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(1), 164–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunyé, T. T., Taylor, H. A., Rapp, D. N., & Spiro, A. B. (2006). Learning procedures: The role of working memory in multimedia learning experiences. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(7), 917–940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Challob, A. a. I., Bakar, N. A., & Latif, H. (2016). Collaborative blended learning writing environment: Effects on EFL students’ writing apprehension and writing performance. English Language Teaching, 9(6), 229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, C.-F. (2012). Peer review via three modes in an EFL writing course. Computers and Composition, 29(1), 63–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, K. T.-C. (2012). Blog-based peer reviewing in EFL writing classrooms for Chinese speakers. Computers and Composition, 29(4), 280–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Guerrero, M. C. (2018). Going covert: Inner and private speech in language learning. Language Teaching, 51, 1), 1–1),35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, T., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, M. E. (2011). The role of narrative in multimedia Learning PHD Thesis. Nevada University, Las Vegas: Department of Curriculum and Instruction.

  • Diezmann, C. M., & Watters, J. J. (2002). A theoretical framework for multimedia resources: A case from science education. In Proceeding Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Brisbane.

  • Ebadi, S., & Asakereh, A. (2017). Developing EFL learners’ speaking skills through dynamic assessment: A case of a beginner and an advanced learner. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1419796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El Mhouti, A., Nasseh, A., Erradi, M., & Vasquèz, J. M. (2017). Enhancing collaborative learning in web 2.0-based e-learning systems: A design framework for building collaborative e-learning contents. Education and Information Technologies, 22(5), 2351–2364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2017). Writing with 21st century social tools in the L2 classroom: New literacies, genres, and writing practices. Journal of Second Language Writing.

  • Farhady, H., Jafarpoor, A., & Birjandi, P. (1994). Testing language skills from theory to practice. Tehran: Iran samt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Knowledge convergence in computer-supported collaborative learning: The role of external representation tools. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(3), 405–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garing, A. G. (2014). Coherence in argumentative essays of first-year College of Liberal Arts students at De La Salle University. Paper presented at the DLSU Research Congress.

  • Hughes, G. (2009). Social software: New opportunities for challenging social inequalities in learning? Learning, Media and Technology, 34(4), 291–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A., Harlow, A., & Cowie, B. (2004). New Zealand teachers' experiences in implementing the technology curriculum. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(2), 101–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kabilan, M. K., & Khan, M. A. (2012). Assessing pre-service English language teachers’ learning using e-portfolios: Benefits, challenges and competencies gained. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1007–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, K. (2016). Textual curation. Computers and Composition, 40, 175–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kent, C., Laslo, E., & Rafaeli, S. (2016). Interactivity in online discussions and learning outcomes. Computers & Education, 97, 116–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khatib, M., & Meihami, H. (2015). Languaging and writing skill: The effect of collaborative writing on EFL students’ writing performance. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6(1), 203–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khorshidi, A., & Abadikhah, S. (2013). A study of the form and content of private speech produced by Iranian adult EFL learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(5), 836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilic, V. (2007). Textual Properties. Beykent Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1(1).

  • Li, M., & Storch, N. (2017). Second language writing in the age of CMC: Affordances, multimodality, and collaboration. Journal of second language writing, 36, 5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowry, P. B., Curtis, A., & Lowry, M. R. (2004). Building a taxonomy and nomenclature of collaborative writing to improve interdisciplinary research and practice. Journal of Business Communication, 41(1), 66–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lunsford, A. A. (2006). Writing, technologies, and the fifth canon. Computers and Composition, 23(2), 169–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayo, M. d. P. G., & Ibarrola, A. L. (2015). Do children negotiate for meaning in task-based interaction? Evidence from CLIL and EFL settings. System, 54, 40–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikhchi, H. H. (2011). Standards of textuality: Rendering English and Persian texts based on a textual model. Journal of Universal Language, 12(1), 47–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mirvani, F., & Gholami, H. (2015). An investigation of the role of private speech in iranian intermediate efl learner’s grammar development. Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences, 5(2), 866–873.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohammadi, Z. (2017). Interactional complexity development, interactional demonstrators and interaction density in collaborative and e-collaborative writing modalities. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 36(2), 75–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naghdipour, B. (2016). English writing instruction in Iran: Implications for second language writing curriculum and pedagogy. Journal of Second Language Writing, 32, 81–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortega, L. (2015). Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Progress and expansion. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 82–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabiee, A., Nazarian, Z., & Gharibshaeyan, R. (2013). An explanation for internet use obstacles concerning e-learning in Iran. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(3), 361–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Racicot, R. (2016). The effect of multimedia writing support software on written productivity. Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention, 9(1), 99–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Funes, M. (2015). Exploring the potential of second/foreign language writing for language learning: The effects of task factors and learner variables. Journal of Second Language Writing, 28, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slevin, J. (2008). E-learning and the transformation of social interaction in higher education. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(2), 115–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stockwell, G. (2012). Computer-assisted language learning: Diversity in research and practice. Cambridge University Press.

  • Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms (Vol. 31): Multilingual matters.

  • Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Knouzi, I., Suzuki, W., & Brooks, L. (2009). Languaging: University students learn the grammatical concept of voice in French. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 5–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldeck, J. H., & Dougherty, K. (2012). Collaborative communication technologies and learning in college courses: Which are used, for what purposes, and to what ends? Learning, Media and Technology, 37(4), 355–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, M., & Gibson, D. (2015). Technology enhanced assessment in complex collaborative settings. Education and Information Technologies, 20(4), 675–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J., & Czik, A. (2016). Automated essay evaluation software in English language arts classrooms: Effects on teacher feedback, student motivation, and writing quality. Computers & Education, 100, 94–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wind, S. A., Stager, C., & Patil, Y. J. (2017). Exploring the relationship between textual characteristics and rating quality in rater-mediated writing assessments: An illustration with L1 and L2 writing assessments. Assessing Writing, 34, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yancey, K. B. (2004). Made not only in words: Composition in a new key. College Composition and Communication, 56(2), 297–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, W., Lu, X., & Weigle, S. C. (2015). Different topics, different discourse: Relationships among writing topic, measures of syntactic complexity, and judgments of writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 28, 53–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yazdi-Amirkhiz, S. Y., Ajideh, P., & Leitner, G. (2016). The influence of collaboration on individual writing quality: The case of Iranian vs. Malaysian college students. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 8(17), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yücel, Ü. A., & Usluel, Y. K. (2016). Knowledge building and the quantity, content and quality of the interaction and participation of students in an online collaborative learning environment. Computers & Education, 97, 31–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, B., & Warschauer, M. (2017). Epilogue: Second language writing in the age of computer-mediated communication. Journal of Second Language Writing., 36, 61–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. English Translation Department, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran

    Zohre Mohamadi Zenouzagh

Authors
  1. Zohre Mohamadi Zenouzagh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zohre Mohamadi Zenouzagh.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Table 9 Textuality rubric
Full size table

Appendix 2

Table 10 Students perceived efficacy of multimedia learning
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mohamadi Zenouzagh, Z. Multidimensional analysis of efficacy of multimedia learning in development and sustained development of textuality in EFL writing performances. Educ Inf Technol 23, 2969–2989 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9754-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9754-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation