IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Exploring the Effects of Digital Storytelling: A Case Study of Adult
L2 Writers in Taiwan
Min-Hsun Chiang
Tunghai University
Taiwan65

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Abstract
With the advent of information communication technologies, an escalating number of youths
is communicating, creating, and sharing narratives via Web 2.0 social networks. To ensure thecontinuity between in-class and out-of-class literacy practice, digital storytelling has become
increasingly prevalent in educational settings. Digital storytelling has the potential to enhance
digital literacy and self-efficacy through innovative learning and identity expressions. However,
the research at this juncture is scarce. Therefore, this study incorporated Storybird, a Web 2.0
collaborative writing tool, into a freshman composition class to cultivate digital literacy inEnglish among 18 college students who are studying English as an International Language in
Taiwan. In addition to developing digital literacy, this study also explored the effects ofStorybird-mediated storytelling on English as an International Language students’ self-efficacy
as a legitimate user of English. The results from both the quantitative and qualitative data
analyses indicate that after year-long participation in Storybird-mediated digital storytelling,
the majority of the participants rated their digital literacy in English higher than before.
Similarly, they developed a stronger sense of confidence as English as an International
Language writers. Some pedagogical considerations are offered at the end of this paper for
those who wish to incorporate Web 2.0 tools into their English as an International Language
classrooms to boost their pupils’ confidence in participating in this ever-connected global
community.
Keywords: English as an international language, digital storytelling, self-efficacy, digital
literacy, L2 writing, Storybird

66

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

The rapid development of information communication technologies (ICT) in our modern
society has transformed the ways people communicate with one another. Since humancommunication is mostly through the medium of language, as the technology advanced,
language is becoming inseparable from the digital environment (Hockly, 2012, p.110). Thisphenomenon has brought attention to the scholars to reevaluate the existing literacy skills thatwere taught in current educational systems (Churchill, 2016; Potts, 2013). Many educators
agree that new skills are required to comprehend and communicate using new technologies(Hockly, 2012). As a result, English as International Language (EIL) learners in the 21st
century not only need to learn the language but also need to learn to communicate and utilize
the language efficiently in the digital environment. This need becomes even more vital given
the newly defined digital divide between those who are passive consumers of media and those
who are proactive discerners and creators of media (Thomas, 2016).
Due to the widespread of ICT over the past decade, numerous researchers endeavored toconceptualize or describe the development of digital literacy (Eshet-Alkali & AmichaiHamburger, 2004; Potts et al., 2010, Ferrari, 2012). This trend also brought an urgent need fordeveloping digital literacy in a global society. Many governments or cross-national
confederations, such as the European Union, emphasized the importance of digital literacy inthe educational system (Churchill, 2016; Leahy & Dolan, 2010; Poore, 2011). The Ministry of
Education (MOE) in Taiwan also recognized the importance of digital learning and included
the development of information communication technology (ICT) skills in its educationalguidelines (MOE, Taiwan, 2012). Much research has hypothesized a close relationshipbetween digital storytelling (DST) and digital literacy (Karakoyuna & Kuzub, 2013; Robin,
2016; Thang et al., 2014. ) and supported the connection between the use of DST and students’
engagement and motivation for learning (Pop, 2012; Sylvester & Greenidge, 2009; Yang &Wu, 2012). However, fewer studies have scrutinized the link between DST and self-efficacy
among EIL users. Therefore, the present study not only connects DST with several types ofdigital literacy, but also relates it to the learner’s sense of confidence. The digital literacy underdiscussion in the current study comprises a set of skills that are essential for decoding andmaking meaning out of the digital texts (Churchill, 2016). In other words, these skills involve
critical thinking, language ability, and communicative skills, so-called 21st Century Skills(Brown, Bryan, & Brown, 2005; Jakes, 2006). The present study intends to answer thefollowing three research questions:
1. Is there any significant difference in university EIL students’ self-rated English digital
literacy before and after their participation in Storybird-mediated digital storytelling?
2. How does DST affect participants’ self-efficacy as EIL users after taking part in
Storybird-mediated digital storytelling?
3. What are the participants’ perceptions of integrating Storybird into their L2 writingclass?
Significance of the Study
The results from this study contribute to the pedagogical application of DST and theoreticalunderstanding of DST in the L2 writing context. Students nowadays are far more interested incontinually engaging themselves in participatory social networks out of school than academic
learning in school. The current results show that integrating DST into a formal composition
class created engaging and meaningful literacy practices in class, which in turn cultivated EIL
writers’ digital literacy and sense of confidence. The current results shed light on therelationships among DST, L2 digital literacy, and L2 self-efficacy. Most importantly, the67

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

ultimate outcomes of this project, the field-tested DST integration guidelines, and theempirically grounded implications, help provide English language teachers with the ability tothink about and use technology in creative and culturally-responsive ways. The overall findings
help language educators arrive at a deeper understanding of the substantial roles that DST canplay in cultivating various aspects of digital literacy and boosting up writing-related selfefficacy as a language learner.
Literature Review
Digital Literacy
Literacy has evolved historically from classic literacy (reading-writing-understanding) toaudiovisual literacy to digital literacy or information literacy and recently to new media literacy.
With the advent of the new literacies, today’s reading and writing instruction are influenced by
the change in even more profound ways. Due to their inherent characteristic of change, aprecise definition of the “new literacies” seems unfeasible. Nevertheless, teachers andresearchers agree that today’s students need and deserve the skills, strategies, and insights tosuccessfully exploit the rapidly changing information and communication technologies that
continuously emerge in our world (Leu, 2000; Street, 2003). Digital literacy is also called 21stCentury Literacy, Digital Age Literacies, and 21st Century Skills (Brown, Bryan, & Brown,
2005; Jakes, 2006). According to Ferrari (2012), “ Being digitally literate implies the ability tounderstand media (as most mediums are digitalized), to search and think critically about
retrievable information (with the widespread use of the Internet) and be able to communicate
with others through a variety of digital tools and applications “ (p. 16).
Given the EIL context and the chosen platform of the present study, digital literacy here refers
to the following types of literacy, namely information literacy, reproduction/visual literacy,
language-based literacy, and connection literacy. The first two were adopted from EshetAlkalai et al. (2004), whereas the latter two were delineated by the researcher. Eshet-Alkalai
et al. (2004) proposed that digital literacy can be categorized into five cognitive skills: photovisual literacy, reproduction literacy, branching literacy, information literacy, and socioemotional literacy. The current study adopted information literacy and combined reproduction
and photo-visual literacy into one category due to their relevance to the current context. First,
information literacy is defined as the ability to evaluate and assess information accurately,
which is vital for information consumers in this information-overflow era. While surfing theInternet or navigating through digital databases, users face the difficulty of evaluating thecredibility and originality of information. Therefore, users rely on their information literacy tomake educated and intelligent assessments of information (Eshet-Alkalai et al., 2004).
Information-literate people are skilled in critical thinking and are skeptical of the quality of
information. Also, Mardis (2002) argued that information literacy is like a filter that
distinguishes incorrect, unrelated, or biased information and avoids its influences on users’
cognition. Second, reproduction/visual literacy is the ability to create new interpretations byusing pre-existing information from different media such as texts, visuals, and audio.
Reproduction literacy is vital in writing and art. In writing, people can reorganize and rearrange
pre-existing sentences to produce distinct implications. In art, people can edit and combine
visual or audio materials to make new creations (Eshet-Alkalai et al., 2004). Third, languagebased literacy refers to EIL’s students’ ability in exploring, discerning, and utilizing English
information from web 2.0 sources. The innovation of the Internet provides space for people tocommunicate and share information/knowledge with others. However, the Internet alsopresents many traps, such as hoaxes and malware. In general, English language-based literacy
is the ability to make a sound judgment of various English-mediated online sources and identify

68

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Internet traps. Finally, connection literacy pertains to EIL students’ capacity of branching out
to English-mediated cyber world with aims to communicate with other English speakers,
establish a connection with them, and professionally collaborate with them. In other words,
connection literate users are capable of sharing data with others, evaluating information, andcollaboratively constructing knowledge with others.
DST and its Educational Benefits
DST can be traced back to the late 1980s when new media technologies were merely justaround the corner. DST is not a new invention. Joe Lambert (2002) helped establish DST as
the co-founder of the Center for Digital Storytelling (CDS), a non-profit, community arts
organization for new media and civic engagement in Berkeley, California. Since the early
1990s, Lambert and the CDS have offered training and assistance to those who were interested
in creating and sharing their personal narratives (Center for Digital Storytelling, 2005). The
development of DST highly relates to the evolution of internet technology known as usercontributed content, social media, and Web 2.0 (Robin, 2016). Through Web 2.0, people
transformed from “one-to-many” communication to “many-to-many” communication on theInternet (Roush, 2006). Similar to traditional storytelling, digital stories relate to specific topics
and usually generate unique ideas (Robin, 2016). The definition is somewhat agreed upon;
nevertheless, the uses of DST for learning have been quite diverse. Some educators use DST
as a way to cultivate digital literacy, while others utilize it to motivate students to write. Bothendeavors have been relatively successful for students in various educational contexts.
Many studies show that DST bears a positive impact on digital literacy. For instance, Robin(2016) claimed that students’ technology literacy was enhanced as they added texts, images,
audio, and video into their digital stories, whereas Sylvester and Greenidge (2009) found thatstudents tended to employ both old and new literacies while creating digital stories. Thang etal. (2014) claimed that DST helped enhance students’ language literacy, communication
literacy, and media literacy. Besides, creating digital stories not only enhances students’ digital
literacy but also helps them achieve school-based curriculum goals (Karakoyuna and Kuzub,2013). Besides academic gains and strengthened digital literacy (Alameen, 2011), DST also
exerted its influence on L1 and L2 language learning (Yoon, 2013; Potts et al., 2010; Xu et al.,2011). Yoon (2013) looked into how DST affected the 5th-grade ELL students’ English
learning and concluded that students’ learning motivation and reading comprehension were
improved. Moreover, Potts et al. (2010) conducted an experimental study in a language arts
class with a group of second grade, multi-lingual students in the US. They reported that DST
engaged students in a meaningful social context in which their collaborative learning waspromoted (Potts et al., 2010, p.190). The DST experience also boosted students’ learning
motivation. The above studies suggest that DST has the potential to enhance digital literacy,
cultivate academic gains, facilitate language learning, and boost up learning motivation.
DST and Empowerment
Besides its facilitating effects on digital literacy, language development, and learning
motivation, DST has been used as a means of empowerment for marginalized voices acrosscommunity-based projects worldwide. Xu, Park, and Baek (2011) examined the effects of DST
on writing flow and self-efficacy in the virtual reality learning environment where sixty-four
undergraduate Korean students were recruited to participate in the study. The results show that
their writing self-efficacy and flow improved after engaging in DST (Xu et al., 2011, p. 188).
Yoon (2013) found similar results in his study as he investigated the effects of storytelling on
L2 learning attitudes and reading comprehension. Different from Xu et al. study, theparticipants in this study were 32 EIL 5th graders in South Korea. In addition to the69

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

improvement of writing self-efficacy, this study also indicates that DST is instrumental in
improving students’ reading. In sum, the studies reviewed in this section point out a positive
influence of DST in learning motivation and writing efficacy among L2 learners (Alameen,
2011; Potts, 2013; Xu et al., 2011; Yoon, 2013). These findings suggest that DST can be avalid tool for educational purposes. Aside from merely encouraging students to write, educators
see digital stories as an empowering mechanism to provide a voice to those who are typicallymarginalized (Yuan et al., 2019).
The similar empowerment effect is very likely to take place with EIL participants when theirwritings are shared publicly through Storybird. In other words, integrating DST with theEnglish composition class has the potential to boost EIL participants’ confidence to compose
and communicate in English as an empowering pedagogy. DST has been utilized as anempowering pedagogy in educational settings. For example, teachers delivered subject mattersthrough digital stories and empowered the students by asking them to be the storytellers (Liu,Tai, & Liu, 2018). Creating digital stories encourages learners to develop their voices insteadof merely imitating others’ words (Al-Qallaf & Al-Mutairi, 2016). To be a good storyteller, alearner strives to integrate his/her intentions and perspectives into digital stories (Bloch, 2018).
Similarly, Robin (2016) pointed out that the personal narrative that the storytellers tell about
their own experiences constitutes the most popular type of digital story. For instance, in the
study above by Robin (2016), the teachers who implemented DST in their classrooms foundthat students’ motivation and engagement levels were increased as a result of telling theirpersonal stories. Robin (2016) maintained that the phenomenon supported the idea of the“director’s chair effect.” By digital storytelling, students had chances to express themselves,
which gave rise to their sense of efficacy. In sum, the findings from the previous studies suggestthat digital storytelling, when utilized appropriately, can serve as a dynamic teaching andlearning method that brings about academic gains, language development, digital literacy
development, and a sense of efficacy in students.
Nevertheless, the contributing effects of DST on digital literacy identified by the previous
studies (Karakoyuna & Kuzub, 2013; Thang et al., 2014;) are mostly derived from a single
survey and/or self-appraisal by the participants. Besides, the questionnaire used by the previous
study did not break down the construct of digital literacy into its sub-domains. To mend thisgap and respond to the call by Belcher (2017) for further research on exploring the trajectory
among the affordances of multimodality of digital storytelling, digital literacy, and L2 writing
pedagogy, the current study employed both quantitative and qualitative methods to shed more
light on this juncture.
MethodDesignThis research utilized a case-study approach (Richards, 2003) to provide both quantitative andqualitative data of a group of Taiwanese university students engaged in year-long digitalstorytelling, which was integrated as part of their L2 writing practices. According to Duff(2014), a case study is suitable when understanding individuals’ experiences and development
courses within a particular educational context is the goal. This case study is exploratory innature with an attempt to gain insight into the potential effects of DST on developing L2
learners’ digital literacy and self-efficacy. The researcher functioned as an instructor of thecourse and a participant observer in the physical class and the cyber space. Most students
entered this class with a good grasp of computer literacy and above-average communicationcompetence in English. The study lasted for the entire school year from the fall semester of70

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 20202017 to the spring semester of 2018. At the onset of the study, the students were introduced to
Storybird-mediated writing as an integral component of the course. To tap into the participants’view of Storybird-mediated digital storytelling, qualitative data were also gathered from an
open-ended survey and a group interview toward the end of the study.
Participants and Setting
As a result of convenient sampling, eighteen English-major freshmen enrolled in the
Composition One course were recruited to take part in this one-year, Storybird-mediated DST
project. The average English proficiency of 18 participants was between B1 and B2 based on
the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) with one-third of them
comfortably landed on B2 while two-thirds remained on B1. Composition One is a required
year-long course for every English-major freshman in this 4-year college. The class meets twohours per week in an attempt to cultivate students’ ability to write a 5-paragraph academic
essay as the ultimate goal. At the beginning of the fall semester in 2017, two tutorial sessions
were conducted to orientate the participants to this relatively novel way of composing andwriting. In line with the course objectives for each writing practice, the participants were asked
to compose and illustrate their first draft on Storybird. The instructor, also the researcher of thecurrent study, commented on the participants’ writings via Storybird. When the participants
finished their second draft, they would receive voluntary comments from the other EIL students
studying at the other university. The partnership was formed via the collaboration with anotherprofessor’s composition class voluntarily. They were encouraged to visit their partners’
Storybird writings and leave comments as well. There were three telecollaborative exchanges
among the students.
Procedures
Storybird was a free Web 2.0 1 publishing tool providing collections of artwork for digitalstories. It was chosen as a DST platform for this study because it is user friendly and safe
cyberspace for creating and writing. Unlike other multimodal platforms, such as Padlet or
Photo Story, Storybird allows teachers to conveniently set up accounts for their students andorganize them into classes. Using Storybird, the teacher can comment on the students’ written
assignments and set the deadline for students to submit their revisions. The work students
produce can then be shared among the members and peer-assessed. Thus, on top of the
instructor’s comments, students are able to see and learn from what other students have written.
Crucially, it can also be published for the whole world to see, which lends itself nicely to theconcept of learning English as a global language with communication as a primary goal.
Data Collection and Analysis
Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected to shed new light on how the participants’digital literacy and self-efficacy were affected as they took part in the Storybird-mediatedwriting course. This study also tapped into the participants’ points of view as to how they
perceived this novel way of writing. Two quantitative instruments, the Digital Literacy Scaleand the Self-Efficacy of Using English as International Language, were developed by the
researcher to gather numerical data on the participants’ digital literacy and self-efficacy. The
digital literacy scale has four dimensions investigating the participants’ information,
reproduction/visual, language-based, and connection literacy. These four dimensions werechosen in light of the prior research (Eshet-Alkalai et al., 2004) as well as the educational needsof EIL learners. The self-efficacy questionnaire for EIL learners was developed by referring to
1

Storybird is no longer free. Now it charges teachers and students for writing and publishing on the platform.

71

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Bandura’s (2006) notion of learner’s sense of efficacy to gauge the empowering effects ofStorybird-mediated DST on cultivating communication, writing-related, and purpose-driven
efficacy. Both instruments have piloted with thirty other first-year college students andobtained satisfactory reliability coefficients of Cronbach’s Alphas of .828 and .88 for digital
literacy and self-efficacy, respectively. Several paired-samples t-tests were performed to detect
any differences in digital literacy and self-efficacy between the pretests and posttests. An openended survey and a group interview regarding the participants’ view of Storybird-mediated
DST were conducted. The survey and interview data were content analyzed to explore
emerging themes. To establish the trustworthiness of the qualitative data, the data gathered via
qualitative methods were used to triangulate with the quantitative data.
Results and Discussion
Quantitative data from digital literacy and the self-efficacy questionnaire were analyzed to
identify the potential effects of Storybird-mediated DST on participants’ digital literacy andself-efficacy as EIL users. In addition to quantitative analysis, qualitative data were collected
through the open-ended survey to understand the participants’ perceptions of partaking in the
Storybird-integrated composition class. In the following sections, three major findings will bepresented as tentative answers to the three research questions, accompanied by discussion.
Research question 1: Is there any significant difference in university EIL students’ selfrated English digital literacy before and after their part-taking in Storybird-mediateddigital storytelling?
There is a significant difference in the participants’ overall digital literacy after year-longparticipation in Storybird-mediated digital storytelling. A questionnaire for self-rated English
digital literacy was administered to 18 students twice to detect any changes in their digital
literacy before and after the intervention. Cronbach’s Alphas of .84 and .89 were obtained forthe pretest and the posttest of the digital literacy questionnaire, which suggests the satisfactoryreliability coefficient of both tests. Table 1 summarizes the difference in the overall digital
literacy, information literacy, reproduction literacy, language-based literacy, and connection
literacy between the pretest and the posttest. The participants rated themselves higher in theoverall and four sub-categories of digital literacy after year-long engagement in Storybirdmediated digital writing. Among the four sub-categories of digital literacy, the participants
made the most substantial gain in reproduction/visual literacy while the least in information
literacy.
Table 1: Summary of pretest and posttest of the digital literacy scale
PretestOverall
I: Information literacy
II: Reproduction literacy
III: Language-based literacy
IV: Connection literacy(N=18)

Mean
11.05
2.90
2.79
2.54
2.83

SD
1.28
0.43
0.41
0.35
0.48

Posttest
Mean
SD
11.77
1.65
2.97
0.55
3.13
0.49
2.63
0.44
3.04
0.45

This identified discrepancy between information and reproduction/visual literacy may be
attributed to the chosen DST platform and the designated writing tasks. The platform, Storybird,
involves choosing artwork to illustrate the participants’ writing as the end product, which

72

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

ultimately trained the participants’ ability to create new interpretations by using pre-existingvisual sources. The considerably increased reproduction literacy might also help theparticipants write better, the effects worthy of investigating in the future study. While writing,it is crucial to be able to reorganize and rearrange pre-existing sentences to produce distinct
implications. According to Labbo, Reinking, and McKenna (1998), successful reproductionliterate scholars usually possess excellent synthetical and multi-faceted thinking, which may
contribute to more skillful writing. However, as they wrote and selected artworks, theparticipants were not required to include outside source references as they composed theirparagraphs or essays. As a result, the platform and the task did not land themselves to thedevelopment of information literacy.
To further identify if there was any significant difference in the overall and sub-categories ofdigital literacy before and after the intervention, five paired-samples t-tests were carried out.
The results are displayed in Table 2. According to the paired-samples t-tests, there are
significant differences in the overall and the reproduction/visual literacy between the pretestand the posttest. However, there is no significant difference in information literacy, languagebased literacy and connection literacy between the pretest and the posttest.
Table 2: Paired-samples t-test results of a questionnaire of digital literacy
Mean
Overall (Post-Pre)
0.72
Information literacy
0.07(Post-Pre)
Reproduction
0.34
literacy (Post-Pre)
Language-based
0.09
literacy (Post-Pre)
Connection literacy
0.21(Post-Pre)*P< .05 **P< .01

Std.
Deviation
1.10
0.41

Std. Error
Mean
0.26
0.10

t

df

2.80
0.78

17
17

Sig. (2tailed)
.01*
0.45

0.45

0.11

3.25

17

.005**

0.34

0.08

1.16

17

0.26

0.43

0.10

2.10

17

0.05

Different from the researcher’s anticipation, there is no significant difference in languagebased literacy which the participants were offered ample opportunities to develop. The current
results concerning digital literacy are partially consistent with the findings from previous
research (Thang, Sim, Mahmud, Lin, & Ismail, 2014; Robin, 2016). Similar to Thang et al.
(2014) study, where their participants’ digital literacy was improved after creating their groupstories on Photo Story 3 for a semester, the present study also saw the enhanced overall digital
literacy. Nevertheless, unlike the study above by Thang et al. (2014) in which the participants’language literacy, connection literacy, and media literacy were all enhanced, the current study
only found a significant difference in reproduction/visual literacy. As explained earlier, thenature of Storybird and the tasks involved might be the possible reasons to account for the nonsignificant, pre-post difference in the sub-category of information, language-based, andconnection literacy.
The non-significant finding in language-based literacy appears to be in contrast to Robin’s(2016) assertion that engaging in multimodal DST facilitates the enhancement of digitalstorytellers’ language literacy, oral ability, and cross-cultural competence. In his study, theparticipants used audio or other media to compose digital storytelling, and their language73

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

literacy was substantially improved. On the contrary, the current study did not see such a
positive outcome in language-based literacy although the 18 participants had written andrevised several English paragraphs and essays on Storybird during the two semesters. The
plausible reason may include that the digital writing tasks on Stoirybird did not ask theparticipants to focus on spotting grammatical errors, paraphrasing or summarizing information
and/or deciphering the content of websites. The only item under language-based literacy thathas reached significant difference states, “I can identify English information that is not correct.”
As the participants composed on Storybird, they had to search for an outside source to back up
their writing assignments. This may account for the significant difference identified in this item.
Another interesting finding surfaced as the connection literacy was on the brink of reaching asignificant difference (P= .051). This may due to the fact that the participants were only
provided with limited opportunities to engage in peer sharing/commenting with their partners
in the nearby colleges. There were only three times that the participants reviewed andcommented on others’ Storybird writings as well as being reviewed and commented on
throughout the entire school year. Should the cross-institutional collaboration has lasted longer,
the connection literacy might have further developed. In light of the enhanced overall digital
literacy, it is also essential to find out if the integration of Storybird has boosted the participants’sense of confidence in speaking and writing in English as an International Language.
Research question 2: How does DST affect participants’ self-efficacy as EIL users after
taking part in Storybird-mediated digital storytelling?
There is no significant difference in the overall self-efficacy of being an EIL user among the
18 participants before and after the intervention; nevertheless, a significant difference was
identified in the aspect of writing-related self-efficacy. To investigate the effects of Storybirdmediated DST on self-efficacy, the questionnaire of self- efficacy as EIL user was administered
to 18 participants in the beginning and the end of the school year. Table 3 provides a summaryof the mean scores and standard deviations of the overall and the three domains in the pre andpost self-efficacy scores for 18 participants. Table 2 indicates that the participants’ self-efficacy
as EIL user were boosted in their overall and the three domains. The reliabilities of the pretestand posttest were calculated with satisfactory Cronbach’s (α = 0.861 for the pretest and 0.854
for the posttest).
Table 3: Summary of pretest and posttest of self-efficacy as EIL user questionnaire
PretestOverall
I: Communication
II: Writing-Related
III: Purpose-Driven(N=18)

Mean
7.67
2.67
2.49
2.54

SD
1.00
0.48
0.41
0.35

Posttest
Mean
SD
8.00
1.24
2.76
0.51
2.64
0.49
2.63
0.44

Four paired-samples t-tests were performed to examine the effect of Storybird-mediated DST
on the participants’ self-efficacy and its three domains before and after the intervention. Table
4 shows that there is no significant difference in overall, communication, and purpose-driven
self-efficacy. Nevertheless, a significant difference was identified in writing-related selfefficacy, which suggests that the participants’ writing-related self-efficacy was significantly
enhanced at the end of this study (t=2.43, p<.05, d=.54).

74

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Table 4: Paired-samples t-test of pe and post-test of self-efficacy ofusing English as an international language
Mean
Overall (Post-Pre)
Communication (PostPre)
Writing (Post-Pre)
Purpose (Post-Pre)*P<.05

Std. Error
Mean
0.21
0.08

t

df

0.33
0.09

Std.
Deviation
0.88
0.35

1.60
1.14

17
17

Sig. (2tailed)
0.13
0.27

0.15
0.08

0.29
0.43

0.07
0.10

2.28
0.83

17
17

0.04*
0.42

Different from the insignificant difference identified with the current participants, Yang and
Wu (2012) reported that DST had significant effects on senior high school students’ English
proficiency, critical thinking, and self-efficacy. Although Yang and Wu focused on high school
students’ English learning motivation, they did include five items for self-efficacy in theirmotivation questionnaire. Their research results indicate that the use of DST in the English
class positively influenced their students’ learning motivation, and their writing self-efficacy,
a domain in writing motivation, was significantly improved at the end of the study. For thepresent study, lack of practice might be the main reason accounting for the non-significant
findings with the overall, communication-related, and purpose-driven self-efficacy after yearlong engagement in Storybird-mediated digital storytelling. The participants did not get
sufficient opportunities to communicate with their cross-institution partners via digitalstorytelling; neither did they have enough practices to accomplish specific tasks through digitalstorytelling. As a result, their sense of confidence was not cultivated. Given ample practices,
their self-efficacy of using English for communication and purposes might be elevated, as in
the case of their writing-related self-efficacy, the primary focus of this study. The statistic
findings suggest that self-efficacy in one language skill cannot collude to others unless there
are a compatible amount of practices evenly allocated for other language skills.
Unlike the insignificant statistical difference in the participants’ overall self-efficacy, thequalitative analysis from the open-ended survey indicates that the majority of the participantsconsidered their sense of confidence being promoted as a result of partaking in the Storybirdmediated digital storytelling. Every participant affirmed the statement that their sense ofconfidence had been enhanced after year-long writing training. When asked if the integrationof Storybird writing has somehow contributed to their enhanced confidence, the majority
responded positively, with only 4 out of 16 respondents answering with ambivalence. Many
participants attributed the compliments from other Storybird writers as the leading cause for
their elevated confidence. For example, Erica recalled, “I have received some compliments on
my stories from other writers, which has made me feel more confident in my writing.” Similarly,
Jessica pointed out that Storybird not only has made English writing more exciting but also
removed her apprehension towards it, which in turn increased her confidence in English writing.
This finding is consistent with the previous research results (Robin & McNeil, 2012; Sylvester& Greenidge, 2009; Yang & Wu, 2012). Robin & McNeil (2012) postulated that students’ selfefficacy was promoted after implementing DST in the classroom. Interestingly, Sylvester andGreenidge (2009) noticed that the students’ motivation to write increased after they were
informed that their writing assignments would be published on the Internet and viewed by otherpeople other than their teachers, which echoes precisely what some of the participants statedin the survey. For instance, Elaine mentioned, “Somehow, I feel more motivated and confident
to write when I knew that some real readers are out there on the Storybird to read and appreciate75

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

my writing,” as she contemplated on her overall experience with Storybird. When the EIL
students have the opportunity to publish their written work on the Internet and receive genuine
comments afterward, their sense of confidence in English writing can be fostered.
Research question 3: What are the participants’ perceptions of integrating Storybird into
their L2 writing class?
Storybird-mediated DST was well-received as an integral part of their composition class by theparticipants. Analyses of the responses from the end-of-year survey indicate theoverwhelmingly positive reaction to the integration of Storybird among the present participants.
The survey consists of 16 questions probing into the participants’ views on integrating
Storybird-mediated DST into their regular composition class, commenting/receiving
comments from other Storybird writers, and operating on the Storybird platform. Three major
themes are presented and illustrated with the participants’ responses, including preferring
Storybird-integrated over conventional writing classes, benefiting from the interaction withother Storybird writers, and wanting some modifications on the Storybird platform.
When asked to choose between the Storybird-integrated and the traditional composition class,the entire cohort except for one student opted for the former for several reasons. The foremost
reason identified by the participants is that Storybird makes English writing more exciting andless inhibiting when compared with the conventional writing class. The participants not only
enjoyed writing on Storybird but also benefited from interacting with other Storybird writers.
Emily pointed out, “It’s delightful to write on Storybird with so many pictures to choose from.
My writing became more interesting and vivid after being illustrated with pictures”. Many
participants mentioned that receiving feedback from people other than the instructor also makes
the writing process worthwhile because having a real audience brings purpose and meaning to
the writing. Most participants found the comments they received helpful in revising their pieceof written work. For instance, Vicky recalled the comments she got from the other Storybird
writer and asserted that “I have never thought my story could be developed that way until I saw
the suggestion from the other Storybird writer. It’s always beneficial to have an additional readto give my writing a fresh look”. Besides receiving helpful comments from others, theparticipants enjoy reading others’ Storybird writings as well. With the considerable advantages
stemming from the Storybird integration, the majority of the participants recommended thecontinuous use of Storybird for next year’s students. Nevertheless, when asked if they would
continue to use Storybird as a writing platform after the current class ended, only 4 participants
said “Yes” while the rest replied with uncertainty.
Most participants acclaimed the vivid and artistic pictures offered by Storybird as the primaryfeature that instilled fun into the writing process. Teresa mentioned, “I really enjoy illustrating
my story with the Storybird pictures. This process helped me relax and become less concerned
about my imperfect English”.
Many other participants also acknowledged that when they write on Storybird, they pay more
attention to the content instead of the grammatical accuracy of their English compositions. For
example, Alisa mentioned that “While I am writing on Storybird, I pay less attention togrammatical accuracy and vocabulary usage; instead, I focus on my contents. On the contrary,when I am writing with the other way, I will pay more attention to them. I think the differenceis that for me, my works in Storybird are like stories; however, when they are in a traditionalway, they are essays.” In addition to the eye-catching pictures provided on the Storybird
platform, many participants applauded the opportunity to interact with other Storybird writers
via reading and commenting on each other’s stories. When asked what they mostly focused on

76

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

while commenting on others’ Storybird writing, fourteen out of the 18 participants said thatthey mainly focused on the content, two on the language accuracy, and the remaining two on
the structure. They believe that the content is the core of any story and deserves the mostattention. Therefore, when the participants commented on others’ Storybird writing, theyusually thought of themselves as a reader and a language learner. The participants voiced theirpreference for constructive comments advising how they can revise their stories. Emily
explained, “With this kind of comment, I would know what to do with my story. As for thosecomments with only compliments, I welcome them, but I think I learn little from them”.
Although the participants held very positive views of Storybird, they identified some
limitations of this platform, such as no flexibility of mixing illustrations from various artists,
no spelling checker, the difficulty of locating matching pictures, and difficulty of modifying
the story. The participants would like to see some of the aforementioned problems being
addressed with the updated version of Storybird.
The main reasons accounting for the participants’ positive attitudes toward the Storybirdintegrated digital writing are similar to the previous study (Dogan, 2012; Hett, 2012) where thesubjects enjoyed writing with the artistic pictures and interacting with their peers. Hett (2012)
postulated that the technologically enhanced images and audio made DST captivating foryoung writers. Although Storybird is not equipped with audio recording, the participants in thecurrent study were drawn enchantedly to writing a story with pictures. In addition, mostparticipants believe that they have made substantial progress in English writing as a result oftaking part in this project, which echoes Yoon’s (2013) argument that DST can improvestudents’ language growth in reading, writing, speaking and listening. In sum, integrating
Storybird into a conventional composition course has been perceived as a motivating,stimulating, interactive, and facilitating innovation by the current participants who fervently
suggested the continued use of the platform for the upcoming freshman class.
Pedagogical Implications and Conclusion
The overall findings of this study suggest that DST can be a practical and empoweringpedagogical addition to the existing EIL writing course. Different from the previous studies
which relied on a single survey result to report the potential effects of DST on cultivating digital
literacy (Karakoyuna & Kuzub, 2013; Thang et al., 2014), this study pointed out the differingoutcomes among sub-categories of digital literacy. The differing outcomes suggest that merely
integrating a technologically advanced approach will not automatically develop all aspects ofdigital literacy. The type of digital literacy mainly cultivated hinges upon the nature of the
adopted platform and the characteristics of instructional task design. Explicit instructions on
verifying the source reliability and identifying the media bias are needed to cultivate students’
information literacy. With the unprecedented overflow and preoccupation of social media
among youth, cultivating their information and connection literacy became far more crucial
than before. To help adult EIL students become prudent consumer of social media rather thanbeing consumed by social media, the English language teachers ought to educate their students
about how to “use technology as a tool to engage in creative, productive, lifelong learning
rather than simply consuming passive content” (Thomas, 2016, p. 18). This study offers someguidelines for EIL teachers to integrate multimodal DST as an empowering pedagogy.
The quantitative results suggest that integrating Storybird with the conventional EIL writing
course has positive effects on cultivating adult EIL students’ digital literacy and promoting
their writing-related self-efficacy. The current participants not only rated their overall digital
literacy but also reproduction/visual literacy higher after their year-long engagement in77

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Storybird writing. Higher reproduction/visual literacy is often associated with proficientsynthetical and multi-faceted thinking (Labbo et al., 1998), two essential prerequisites toskillful writing. In other words, the current participants’ writing might also have improved. For
future study, it will be of significance to investigate whether this engaging in DST will also
help EIL students improve their academic writing. Besides higher digital literacy, theparticipants also developed a stronger sense of self-efficacy as an EIL writer, which in turn will
help them conquer more challenging writing tasks in the future. The boosted self-efficacy inwriting suggests that confidence cultivated in one language skill cannot transfer onto otherskills. In other words, when EIL students became more confident in one language skill (e.g.,
writing) via specific training, the influence of the training would not get carried over into otherlanguage skills (e.g., speaking, listening or reading). Therefore, it will be ideal for engaging
EIL students in multimodal DST in which they can orally contribute to the digital story. As
such, the participants’ communication-oriented self-efficacy might be promoted. In the present
study, the collaboration was mainly conducted in written form.
Apart from the statistical analysis results, the qualitative findings indicate that Storybird waswell received by the cohort of 18 students who have expressed enthusiasm toward writing withartful pictures. Despite some difficulties in locating suitable pictures to illustrate their writing,many participants wanted to write more and practice more on Storybird. DST contains not only
traditional literacy but also new literacies as it involves multimedia texts. Students who struggle
with traditional literacy may have a stronger motivation and a better grasp of traditional literacy
when they create digital stories. Thus, new literacies have the potential to scaffold students’traditional literacy (Sylvester & Greenidge, 2009). In both reading and writing, DST is a new
medium for struggling students (Hett, 2012). Interestingly, students’ motivation to write
increased after they were informed that their writing assignments would be published on theInternet and viewed by other people besides teachers. Therefore, the current study suggests thatteachers can use DST to motivate reluctant students and stimulate them to revise and complete
writing assignments for a broader audience out there on the Internet. According to Pop (2012),
students of higher education are often considered self-efficacious learners. Their self-efficacy
on learning is often underestimated. However, students’ motivation and engagement are two
essential elements for successful learning (Pop, 2012; Yang & Wu, 2012). The current study
shows that DST enhanced the students’ engagement in English learning and their productivity
in English writing. The results of the open-ended survey also affirmed the positive effects ofStorybird-mediated DST on digital literacy and self-efficacy among adult EIL students. Despite
the overall positive findings, some participants voiced their frustration toward choosing thesuitable artworks to illustrate their more complicated pieces of writing. Some expressed theirtiredness of finding the right pictures to match their writings over the course of one school year.
Based on these negative feedbacks, it is advisable for any teacher who intends to introduce a
DST platform to his/her students that sticking to one single platform throughout the entire year
may not be the best practice. It’s worth trying more than one platform to gauge its instructional
affordance and sustainability.
Albeit the theoretical and pedagogical implications, the generalizability of the current study toother L2 contexts is limited in the following aspects. First, the differences identified from thepaired-samples t-tests do not denote the interaction among digital storytelling, L2 digital
literacy/writing self-efficacy, and time. Second, the number of participants is not significant
enough to warrant the predictability of similar outcomes when the study is replicated. Third,
the current study did not investigate the effects of DST on L2 writing gains. The developmentof L2 writing can only be inferred from the participants’ self-reported data. In light of the above
limitations, the future study may recruit more participants and randomly divide them into the78

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

experimental group with DST and the control group with conventional L2 writing pedagogy to
explore the potential differences in digital literacy, self-efficacy, and L2 writing competence.
Also, the future study should look into the effects of DST on writing development among L2
learners.

79

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

References
Alameen, G. (2011). Learner digital stories in a Web 2.0 age. TESOL Journal, 2(3), 355–369.
https://doi.org/10.5054/tj.2011.259954
Al-Qallaf, C. L., & Al-Mutairi, A. S. R. (2016). Digital literacy and digital content supports
learning: The impact of blogs on teaching English as a foreign language. The Electronic
Library, 34(3), 522–547. https://doi. org/10.1108/EL-05- 2015-0076
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. C. Urdan(Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT: Information
Age.
Belcher, D. (2017). On becoming facilitators of multimodal composing and digital design.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 38, 80–85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.10.004
Bloch, J. (2018). Digital Storytelling in the multilingual academic writing classroom:
Expanding the possibilities. Dialogues: An Interdisciplinary Journal of English
Language Teaching and Research, 2(1), 96–110.
https://doi.org/10.30617/dialogues.2.1.6
Brown, J., Bryan, J., & Brown, T. (2005). Twenty-first century literacy and technology in K–8
classrooms. Innovate, 1(3). Retrieved fromhttp://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=17.
Center for Digital Storytelling. (2005). Center for Digital Storytelling Web site. Retrieved
March 12, 2019, from http://www.storycenter.org/history.html
Churchill, N. (2016). Digital storytelling as a means of supporting digital literacy learning inan upper-primary-school English language classroom [Unpublished doctoral
dissertation]. Edith Cowan University.
Dogan, B. (2012). Educational uses of digital storytelling in K-12: Research results of digitalstorytelling contest (DISTCO) 2012. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of SITE 2012-Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp.
1353–1362). Austin, Texas, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in
Education (AACE).
Duff, P. (2014). Case study research on language learning and use. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 34, 233–255. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0267190514000051
Eshet-Alkali, Y. & Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2004). Experiments in digital literacy.
Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(4), 421–429. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2004.7.421
Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital competence in practice: An analysis of frameworks. Seville: Institutefor Prospective Technological Studies, European Commission.
Hett, K. (2012). Technology-supported literacy in the classroom: Using audiobooks and digitalstorytelling to enhance literacy instruction. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 40(3), 3–
13.
Hockly, N. (2012). Digital literacies, ELT Journal-English Language Teaching, 66(1), 108–112.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccr077
Jakes, D. (2006). Standards-proof your digital storytelling efforts. TechLearning, March 2006.
Retrieved fromhttp://www.techlearning.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=180204072.

80

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Karakoyuna, F., & Kuzub, A. (2013). Examining digital storytelling in terms of the 21st century
skills development. TEL2013 Technology-enhanced Learning. Singapore.
Labbo, L. D.,Reinking, D., & McKenna, M. C. (1998). Technology and literacy education in thenext century: Exploring the connection between work and schooling. Peabody Journalof Education, 73(3-4), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.1998.9681895
Lambert, J. (2002). Digital storytelling: Capturing lives, creating community. Berkeley, CA:
Digital Diner Press.
Leahy, D. & Dolan D. (2010). Digital literacy: a vital competence for 2010? In N. Reynolds& M. Turcsányi-Szabó, (Eds), Key Competencies in the Knowledge Society. KCKS
2010. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, Vol 324 (pp210–221). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-153785_21
Leu, D.J., Jr. (2000). Our children’s future: Changing the focus of literacy and literacy
instruction. The Reading Teacher, 53, 424–431.
Liu, K., Tai, S. D., & Liu, C. (2018). Enhancing language learning through creation: The
effect of digital storytelling on student learning motivation and performance in aschool English course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(4),913–935. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423- 018- 9592- z
Mardis, M. A. (2002). Mind the gap: An overview of perceptual barriers to k-12 information
literacy. In P. Barker & S. Rebelsky (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA, 2001 World
Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (1221–
1222). Denver, USA. Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing
in Education.
Ministry of Education, Taiwan. (2012). 101 年度施政⽅針 Educational Policy for the Year2012]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.edu.tw/secretary/content.aspx?site_content_sn=27519
Poore, M. (2011). Digital literacy: human flourishing and collective intelligence in aknowledge society. Literacy Learning: the Middle Years, 19(2), 20–26.
Pop, A. (2012). Enhancing English language writing and speaking through digitalstorytelling. Retrieved fromhttp://www.icvl.eu/2012/disc/icvl/documente/pdf/intel/ICVL_IntelEducation_paper6.
pdf
Potts, D. (2013). Plurilingualism as multimodal practice. TESOL Quarterly, 47(3), 625–630.
https://doi. org/10.1002/tesq.118
Potts, A., Schlichting, K., Pridgen A., & Hatch, J. (2010). Understanding new literacies for
new times: Pedagogy in action. The International Journal of Learning, 17(8), 187–
193. https://doi. org/10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v17i08/47139
Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Robin, B. (2016). The power of digital storytelling to support teaching and learning. Digital
Education Review, 30, 17-29. https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2016.30.17-29

81

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Robin, B.R., & McNeil, S.G. (2012). What educators should know about teaching digitalstorytelling. Digital Education Review, 22, 37–51.
https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2012.22.37-51
Roush,W. (2006). Yahoo’s Web 2.0 overhaul. Technology Review. Retrieved fromhttp://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/16883/
Street, B. (2003). What’s “new” in new literacy studies? Critical approaches to literacy intheory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education 5(2), Retrieved on May
12, 2014, from http://www.tc.columbia.edu/cice/
Sylvester, R., & Greenidge, W. L. (2009). Digital storytelling: Extending the potential for
struggling writers. The Reading Teacher, 63(4), 284–295.
https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.63.4.3
Thang, S., Sim, L.Y., Mahmud, N., Lin, K. L., & Ismail, K. (2014). Enhancing 21st century
learning skills via digital storytelling: Voices of Malaysian teachers andundergraduates. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 118, 489–494.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.02.067
Thomas, S. (2016). Future ready learning: Reimagining the role of technology in education.
Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
Xu, Y., Park, H., & Baek, Y. (2011). A new approach toward digital storytelling: An activity
focused on writing self-efficacy in a virtual learning environment. Educational
Technology & Society, 14(4), 181–191.
Yang, Y. T. C., & Wu, W. C. I. (2012). Digital storytelling for enhancing student academic
achievement, critical thinking, and learning motivation: A year-long experimental
study. Computers & Education, 59(2), 339–352.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.012
Yoon, T. (2013). Are you digitized? Ways to provide motivation for ELLs using digitalstorytelling. International Journal of Research Studies in Educational Technology,2(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrset.2012.204.
Yuan, C., Wang, L., & Eagle, J. (2019). Empowering English language learner students
through digital literacies: Research, complexities, and implications. Media andCommunication, 7(2), 128–136. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v7i2.1912
Corresponding author: Min-Hsun ChiangContact email: minhsunl@thu.edu.tw82