Despite a growing number of Second Language (L2) researchers working in
cross-cultural and cross-... more Despite a growing number of Second Language (L2) researchers working in cross-cultural and cross-linguistic settings, issues related to these uniquely situated researcher identities have only scantily been addressed. In order to close this gap, we investigated three U.S.-based Korean female researchers in L2 studies. We sought to understand (1) the ways in which these researchers chose research topics, contexts, and participants; (2) how they related themselves to their research participants; and (3) to what extent and how they negotiated identities in conducting and reporting their research. With theoretical frameworks of positionality and intersectionality of researcher identities, we drew upon a few salient points from multiple data sources such as interviews, published papers, and field notes. We found not only that their research interests stemmed from their life experiences and graduate training, but accessibility, familiarity, and researcher’s self-identification also influenced their research topics, contexts, and relationships with their research participants. Furthermore, researchers’ active positioning themselves in relation to research content, contexts, and participants using their intersecting identities proved to be beneficial to their research. What our findings further suggest is that researchers embrace hybridity and multiplicity of subjectivities and identities in order to make a fair contribution to knowledge construction.
As a second language (L2) writing scholar who has extensively drawn upon first language (L1) lite... more As a second language (L2) writing scholar who has extensively drawn upon first language (L1) literacy research and has struggled to navigate between literacy studies and L2 writing research, I am thrilled to see Diane Belcher’s piece on multimodal composing and digital design and appreciate that the Journal of Second Language Writing (JSLW) is providing a forum for discussing one of the emerging yet overlooked topics in the field of L2 writing research. Belcher has made a compelling argument why L2 writing specialists should become facilitators of multimodal composing and digital design. In this response, I further argue why we should establish multimodal literacy research as a topic area within L2 writing and suggest some ways in which we can accomplish this agenda, thereby moving the field forward. Before discussing ‘how’ to establish multimodal literacy research in the field of L2 writing, I’d like to reiterate three points Becher (in)directly addressed in her piece. First, multimodal is not the same as digital. However, I have encountered teachers, L2/multilingual writers, and literacy journal editors/reviewers who associated multimodality exclusively with digital technologies and held skeptical views of multimodal literacy. Multimodal literacy practice encompasses both print-based and digital, screen-based practice, and we have long produced a wide range of multimodal texts in both non-digital and digital forms (e.g., posters, picture books, brochures, PowerPoint slides, and digital stories). Therefore, multimodal literacy practice is not radically new and has existed in the ordinary classroom and beyond. Second, multimodal literacy consists of language, as well as images, sounds, gestures, and so forth. Language (oral or written) is “only part of a larger constellation of semiotic resource” in meaning-making (Nelson & Kern, 2012, p. 47). Thus, a language- or textbased approach to literacy is quite limiting because the contemporary communicative landscape “requires addressing the full range of semiotic resources used within a community and/or society” (Early, Kendrick, & Potts, 2015, p. 448). If we as a field focus only on monomodal written text (typically academic written English), then our agenda in the field is quite narrow, and “such narrowing is unrealistic given the multimodal realities of the new media and broader changes in the communications environment” (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009, p. 179). A cautionary note here is that multimodal literacy researchers do not intend to trivialize the development of language or the multilinguality of ELLs in their literacy practices (see Yi & Crowder-Angay, 2016, for more detailed discussion). Third, written language is not going to disappear and will probably continue to be the most powerful mode of formal learning. It is just becoming more closely intertwined with the other modes, such as images and sounds (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009). Thus, we need to explore how L2/multilingual writers navigate and “integrate the spoken word, written text, visual impressions and images, social conventions, memories, feelings, and more to make and remake language for their specific purposes and interests” (Ware, Kern, & Warschauer, 2016, p. 319). I believe that when we explore L2/multilingual writers’ multimodal literacy practices across varied contexts, we can broaden our understandings of composing, composers, contexts, and the role of composing in our lives (e.g., for L2 and content learning, identity negotiation, career enhancement, civic engagement, or just enjoyment) and think about what counts as text and what it means to be literate in the 21st century. Then, how can (should) we establish multimodal literacy research as a topic area within L2 writing? The most critical first step is to explore our views of, especially our bias against and resistance to, multimodal literacy and to reconceptualize various aspects of multimodal literacy research and pedagogy. As alluded earlier, some teachers, while seeing the potential of multimodal practices, reported that multimodal literacy practices can be a “crutch that allows students [ELLs] to express themselves without fully acquiring the L2,” and “time spent on modes other than text may hurt test scores” (Yi & Choi, 2015, pp. 843–844). These ambivalent and skeptical views of multimodal literacy are understandable given time and resources constraints as well as challenges of aligning standards, instruction, and assessment, among others (see Yi, King, & Safriani, in press, for more details). However, such views of—especially bias against—multimodal literacy by different stakeholders (students, teachers, and scholars/journal reviewers) can prevent L2 writing professionals from paying more attention to multimodal literacy practices. With critical explorations into our views and perception of multimodal literacy, our worries, fears, and concerns of multimodal literacy should be replaced by research insights so that we engage in more empirical research on multimodal literacy practice for teaching and learning, theorizing L2 writing from a multimodal perspective, and discussing methodological challenges of conducting multimodal literacy research. I believe we need more empirical evidence of both possibilities and constraints of multimodal literacy across varied contexts; more in-depth discussions of applications and expansion of theoretical frameworks from other disciplines (literacy studies, social semiotics) to multimodal literacy research in L2 writing; and the development of a methodological framework to analyze and describe multimodal texts by L2/multilingual writers. Equally important, more academic journals and publishers need to offer a space where multi-media text or content, such as videos and podcasts, can be included in the full text articles (e.g., digital multimodal editing platform) or in a Supplementary materials center (in fact, some online journals already allow for the inclusion of multi-media text). As pedagogical endeavors, teachers and teacher educators need to experiment with multimodal literacy practices in their classrooms. They can design and use their own multimodal instructional materials (e.g., creating videos, graphic organizers) and invite their students to analyze or create multimodal texts (e.g., bilingual picture books, documentaries, argumentative digital stories). Such research and pedagogical endeavors are necessary to establish multimodal literacy research as a topic area within L2 writing, thereby moving the field forward. I’m closing my response with a quote from James Paul Gee. As an L2 writing scholar who has witnessed a great tension between in-school and out-of-school literacy practices of L2/multilingual writers, I can’t agree more with Gee (2014): We give students texts and when they do not understand them we give them more texts. If they do not understand a word we give them more words, such things as definitions, explications, and lectures. The world outside school today is replete with words married to images, sounds, the body and experiences. (p. xi) I encourage L2 writing professionals to think hard about what our students will need in the real world once they have left our classroom and how we prepare them for the real world situation. I hope that these disciplinary dialogues will stimulate further conversations and empirical studies, thereby advancing the field theoretically, methodologically, and pedagogically.
In this article we demonstrate how we created a context in which digital story-telling was design... more In this article we demonstrate how we created a context in which digital story-telling was designed and implemented to teach multilingual middle school students in the summer program sponsored by a local nonprofit organization, the Latin American Association, in a city in the southeastern United States. While implementing the notion of multiliteracies (New London Group, 1996) in the Digital Storytelling classroom, we designed tasks and activities that were aligned with the four components of a multiliteracies pedagogy (i.e., situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing, and transformative practice) in order to engage the students in exploring their multiple literacies and identities by using multiple semiotic modes and resources (e.g., texts, images, and sounds). Our digital storytelling lessons show that multiliteracies practices can be a powerful venue for second-language learners and teachers. We further discuss how multiliteracies practices like digital storytelling can be adapted to other educational contexts.
Much of the eTandem research has investigated either linguistic or cross-cultural aspects of seco... more Much of the eTandem research has investigated either linguistic or cross-cultural aspects of second language (L2) learning, but relatively little is known about issues of identity construction in an eTandem context. Situating the study within theories and research of language learner identity, we examined ways in which two adult L2 learners (a Korean adult learning L2 English and a Korean-American adult learning L2 Korean) negotiated multiple identities and practiced their L2 through eTandem learning in an extracurricular setting. Our findings reveal that the participants developed a partnership based on reciprocity and a membership within the eTandem community, which contributed to their identity construction and L2 learning. These findings shed light on the affordances of eTandem as a meaningful and productive L2 learning environment and suggest a further examination of the relationship between L2 learners’ identity construction and eTandem learning.
I review a decade of empirical research specifically addressing possibilities and challenges of m... more I review a decade of empirical research specifically addressing possibilities and challenges of multimodal literacy practices in learning and teaching English as an additional language, particularly for adolescent multilingual English language learners (ELLs). Given the lack of empirical research and discussions about multimodal literacy practices of ELLs, this review focuses on the issues of multimodal literacy practices of ELLs and their teachers. Thus, I look mainly at the promise and potential of engaging ELLs in multimodal literacy practices and potential tensions of implementing multimodal literacies into classroom practices. Findings of this review suggest more empirical research related to how ELLs consume, interpret, and produce multimodal texts as well as some implications for pedagogy.
This article describes a longitudinal case study of Hoon (a pseudonym), an adolescent multilingua... more This article describes a longitudinal case study of Hoon (a pseudonym), an adolescent multilingual writer, with respect to his negotiation of multiple identities and access to academic writing practices. Through an inductive analysis of multiple data sources (interviews, observations, literacy artifacts, and field notes), the researcher observed that while negotiating a stigmatized ESL-student identity and an academic achiever identity, Hoon developed some survival strategies through school. Notably, those strategies acted as a double-edged sword in that they helped Hoon earn high grades but prevented him from engaging in extensive academic literacy activities. Findings from this study provide a more in-depth understanding of the nuanced experiences, challenges, and characteristics of adolescent multilingual writers and suggest a need for further examination of social contexts in which students construct positive identities, access various writing practices, and grasp the value of writing (whether in their first or second language) for academic and other purposes.
Despite the important use of pop culture in many instructional settings, its use in the heritage ... more Despite the important use of pop culture in many instructional settings, its use in the heritage language (HL) classroom remains largely unexplored. Thus, this article reports findings from classroom-based qualitative research that examined the use and role of pop culture in advanced Korean HL learners’ literacy engagement and identity construction. Data analyses of the learners’ reading presentations and writing projects revealed that they extensively drew upon the heritage media and pop culture for their in-class literacy practices. Pop culture served as a contact point for their literacy practice, helped reexamine or strengthen their ethnic identity from a global perspective, and provided a window to discuss social issues and explore them. Findings suggest pedagogical implications for using pop culture in HL and foreign language classrooms.
Within a social view of literacy, this paper reports a two-year ethnographic case study of an ado... more Within a social view of literacy, this paper reports a two-year ethnographic case study of an adolescent multilingual writer, with respect to her transitions across in-school (i.e., Creative Writing class) and out-of-school writing contexts. This study was aimed to address two specific gaps in the fields of second language (L2) writing and literacy studies, by examining one of the most underrepresented groups (i.e., adolescent multilingual writers) and by exploring possible relationships between her voluntary, non-academic writing outside school and her academic writing practices. Findings reveal that a research participant greatly drew upon her voluntary, out-of-school writing for her Creative Writing class; and at the same time, her in-school writing activities and assignments were mentioned in out-of-school writing practices. This shows that her writing activities across in- and out-of-school contexts were influenced by each other, especially with respect to topics, genres, and languages of writing practices. These findings give us a more comprehensive understanding of the nature of adolescent L2 writers’ composing practices and suggest a further examination of the relationships (both similarities and differences) between in- and out-of-school literacy learning and ways in which multilingual writers negotiate writing practices across varied writing contexts.
Despite a growing number of Second Language (L2) researchers working in
cross-cultural and cross-... more Despite a growing number of Second Language (L2) researchers working in cross-cultural and cross-linguistic settings, issues related to these uniquely situated researcher identities have only scantily been addressed. In order to close this gap, we investigated three U.S.-based Korean female researchers in L2 studies. We sought to understand (1) the ways in which these researchers chose research topics, contexts, and participants; (2) how they related themselves to their research participants; and (3) to what extent and how they negotiated identities in conducting and reporting their research. With theoretical frameworks of positionality and intersectionality of researcher identities, we drew upon a few salient points from multiple data sources such as interviews, published papers, and field notes. We found not only that their research interests stemmed from their life experiences and graduate training, but accessibility, familiarity, and researcher’s self-identification also influenced their research topics, contexts, and relationships with their research participants. Furthermore, researchers’ active positioning themselves in relation to research content, contexts, and participants using their intersecting identities proved to be beneficial to their research. What our findings further suggest is that researchers embrace hybridity and multiplicity of subjectivities and identities in order to make a fair contribution to knowledge construction.
As a second language (L2) writing scholar who has extensively drawn upon first language (L1) lite... more As a second language (L2) writing scholar who has extensively drawn upon first language (L1) literacy research and has struggled to navigate between literacy studies and L2 writing research, I am thrilled to see Diane Belcher’s piece on multimodal composing and digital design and appreciate that the Journal of Second Language Writing (JSLW) is providing a forum for discussing one of the emerging yet overlooked topics in the field of L2 writing research. Belcher has made a compelling argument why L2 writing specialists should become facilitators of multimodal composing and digital design. In this response, I further argue why we should establish multimodal literacy research as a topic area within L2 writing and suggest some ways in which we can accomplish this agenda, thereby moving the field forward. Before discussing ‘how’ to establish multimodal literacy research in the field of L2 writing, I’d like to reiterate three points Becher (in)directly addressed in her piece. First, multimodal is not the same as digital. However, I have encountered teachers, L2/multilingual writers, and literacy journal editors/reviewers who associated multimodality exclusively with digital technologies and held skeptical views of multimodal literacy. Multimodal literacy practice encompasses both print-based and digital, screen-based practice, and we have long produced a wide range of multimodal texts in both non-digital and digital forms (e.g., posters, picture books, brochures, PowerPoint slides, and digital stories). Therefore, multimodal literacy practice is not radically new and has existed in the ordinary classroom and beyond. Second, multimodal literacy consists of language, as well as images, sounds, gestures, and so forth. Language (oral or written) is “only part of a larger constellation of semiotic resource” in meaning-making (Nelson & Kern, 2012, p. 47). Thus, a language- or textbased approach to literacy is quite limiting because the contemporary communicative landscape “requires addressing the full range of semiotic resources used within a community and/or society” (Early, Kendrick, & Potts, 2015, p. 448). If we as a field focus only on monomodal written text (typically academic written English), then our agenda in the field is quite narrow, and “such narrowing is unrealistic given the multimodal realities of the new media and broader changes in the communications environment” (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009, p. 179). A cautionary note here is that multimodal literacy researchers do not intend to trivialize the development of language or the multilinguality of ELLs in their literacy practices (see Yi & Crowder-Angay, 2016, for more detailed discussion). Third, written language is not going to disappear and will probably continue to be the most powerful mode of formal learning. It is just becoming more closely intertwined with the other modes, such as images and sounds (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009). Thus, we need to explore how L2/multilingual writers navigate and “integrate the spoken word, written text, visual impressions and images, social conventions, memories, feelings, and more to make and remake language for their specific purposes and interests” (Ware, Kern, & Warschauer, 2016, p. 319). I believe that when we explore L2/multilingual writers’ multimodal literacy practices across varied contexts, we can broaden our understandings of composing, composers, contexts, and the role of composing in our lives (e.g., for L2 and content learning, identity negotiation, career enhancement, civic engagement, or just enjoyment) and think about what counts as text and what it means to be literate in the 21st century. Then, how can (should) we establish multimodal literacy research as a topic area within L2 writing? The most critical first step is to explore our views of, especially our bias against and resistance to, multimodal literacy and to reconceptualize various aspects of multimodal literacy research and pedagogy. As alluded earlier, some teachers, while seeing the potential of multimodal practices, reported that multimodal literacy practices can be a “crutch that allows students [ELLs] to express themselves without fully acquiring the L2,” and “time spent on modes other than text may hurt test scores” (Yi & Choi, 2015, pp. 843–844). These ambivalent and skeptical views of multimodal literacy are understandable given time and resources constraints as well as challenges of aligning standards, instruction, and assessment, among others (see Yi, King, & Safriani, in press, for more details). However, such views of—especially bias against—multimodal literacy by different stakeholders (students, teachers, and scholars/journal reviewers) can prevent L2 writing professionals from paying more attention to multimodal literacy practices. With critical explorations into our views and perception of multimodal literacy, our worries, fears, and concerns of multimodal literacy should be replaced by research insights so that we engage in more empirical research on multimodal literacy practice for teaching and learning, theorizing L2 writing from a multimodal perspective, and discussing methodological challenges of conducting multimodal literacy research. I believe we need more empirical evidence of both possibilities and constraints of multimodal literacy across varied contexts; more in-depth discussions of applications and expansion of theoretical frameworks from other disciplines (literacy studies, social semiotics) to multimodal literacy research in L2 writing; and the development of a methodological framework to analyze and describe multimodal texts by L2/multilingual writers. Equally important, more academic journals and publishers need to offer a space where multi-media text or content, such as videos and podcasts, can be included in the full text articles (e.g., digital multimodal editing platform) or in a Supplementary materials center (in fact, some online journals already allow for the inclusion of multi-media text). As pedagogical endeavors, teachers and teacher educators need to experiment with multimodal literacy practices in their classrooms. They can design and use their own multimodal instructional materials (e.g., creating videos, graphic organizers) and invite their students to analyze or create multimodal texts (e.g., bilingual picture books, documentaries, argumentative digital stories). Such research and pedagogical endeavors are necessary to establish multimodal literacy research as a topic area within L2 writing, thereby moving the field forward. I’m closing my response with a quote from James Paul Gee. As an L2 writing scholar who has witnessed a great tension between in-school and out-of-school literacy practices of L2/multilingual writers, I can’t agree more with Gee (2014): We give students texts and when they do not understand them we give them more texts. If they do not understand a word we give them more words, such things as definitions, explications, and lectures. The world outside school today is replete with words married to images, sounds, the body and experiences. (p. xi) I encourage L2 writing professionals to think hard about what our students will need in the real world once they have left our classroom and how we prepare them for the real world situation. I hope that these disciplinary dialogues will stimulate further conversations and empirical studies, thereby advancing the field theoretically, methodologically, and pedagogically.
In this article we demonstrate how we created a context in which digital story-telling was design... more In this article we demonstrate how we created a context in which digital story-telling was designed and implemented to teach multilingual middle school students in the summer program sponsored by a local nonprofit organization, the Latin American Association, in a city in the southeastern United States. While implementing the notion of multiliteracies (New London Group, 1996) in the Digital Storytelling classroom, we designed tasks and activities that were aligned with the four components of a multiliteracies pedagogy (i.e., situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing, and transformative practice) in order to engage the students in exploring their multiple literacies and identities by using multiple semiotic modes and resources (e.g., texts, images, and sounds). Our digital storytelling lessons show that multiliteracies practices can be a powerful venue for second-language learners and teachers. We further discuss how multiliteracies practices like digital storytelling can be adapted to other educational contexts.
Much of the eTandem research has investigated either linguistic or cross-cultural aspects of seco... more Much of the eTandem research has investigated either linguistic or cross-cultural aspects of second language (L2) learning, but relatively little is known about issues of identity construction in an eTandem context. Situating the study within theories and research of language learner identity, we examined ways in which two adult L2 learners (a Korean adult learning L2 English and a Korean-American adult learning L2 Korean) negotiated multiple identities and practiced their L2 through eTandem learning in an extracurricular setting. Our findings reveal that the participants developed a partnership based on reciprocity and a membership within the eTandem community, which contributed to their identity construction and L2 learning. These findings shed light on the affordances of eTandem as a meaningful and productive L2 learning environment and suggest a further examination of the relationship between L2 learners’ identity construction and eTandem learning.
I review a decade of empirical research specifically addressing possibilities and challenges of m... more I review a decade of empirical research specifically addressing possibilities and challenges of multimodal literacy practices in learning and teaching English as an additional language, particularly for adolescent multilingual English language learners (ELLs). Given the lack of empirical research and discussions about multimodal literacy practices of ELLs, this review focuses on the issues of multimodal literacy practices of ELLs and their teachers. Thus, I look mainly at the promise and potential of engaging ELLs in multimodal literacy practices and potential tensions of implementing multimodal literacies into classroom practices. Findings of this review suggest more empirical research related to how ELLs consume, interpret, and produce multimodal texts as well as some implications for pedagogy.
This article describes a longitudinal case study of Hoon (a pseudonym), an adolescent multilingua... more This article describes a longitudinal case study of Hoon (a pseudonym), an adolescent multilingual writer, with respect to his negotiation of multiple identities and access to academic writing practices. Through an inductive analysis of multiple data sources (interviews, observations, literacy artifacts, and field notes), the researcher observed that while negotiating a stigmatized ESL-student identity and an academic achiever identity, Hoon developed some survival strategies through school. Notably, those strategies acted as a double-edged sword in that they helped Hoon earn high grades but prevented him from engaging in extensive academic literacy activities. Findings from this study provide a more in-depth understanding of the nuanced experiences, challenges, and characteristics of adolescent multilingual writers and suggest a need for further examination of social contexts in which students construct positive identities, access various writing practices, and grasp the value of writing (whether in their first or second language) for academic and other purposes.
Despite the important use of pop culture in many instructional settings, its use in the heritage ... more Despite the important use of pop culture in many instructional settings, its use in the heritage language (HL) classroom remains largely unexplored. Thus, this article reports findings from classroom-based qualitative research that examined the use and role of pop culture in advanced Korean HL learners’ literacy engagement and identity construction. Data analyses of the learners’ reading presentations and writing projects revealed that they extensively drew upon the heritage media and pop culture for their in-class literacy practices. Pop culture served as a contact point for their literacy practice, helped reexamine or strengthen their ethnic identity from a global perspective, and provided a window to discuss social issues and explore them. Findings suggest pedagogical implications for using pop culture in HL and foreign language classrooms.
Within a social view of literacy, this paper reports a two-year ethnographic case study of an ado... more Within a social view of literacy, this paper reports a two-year ethnographic case study of an adolescent multilingual writer, with respect to her transitions across in-school (i.e., Creative Writing class) and out-of-school writing contexts. This study was aimed to address two specific gaps in the fields of second language (L2) writing and literacy studies, by examining one of the most underrepresented groups (i.e., adolescent multilingual writers) and by exploring possible relationships between her voluntary, non-academic writing outside school and her academic writing practices. Findings reveal that a research participant greatly drew upon her voluntary, out-of-school writing for her Creative Writing class; and at the same time, her in-school writing activities and assignments were mentioned in out-of-school writing practices. This shows that her writing activities across in- and out-of-school contexts were influenced by each other, especially with respect to topics, genres, and languages of writing practices. These findings give us a more comprehensive understanding of the nature of adolescent L2 writers’ composing practices and suggest a further examination of the relationships (both similarities and differences) between in- and out-of-school literacy learning and ways in which multilingual writers negotiate writing practices across varied writing contexts.
Everyday literacies for many school-aged children are becoming digital and multimodal. More and m... more Everyday literacies for many school-aged children are becoming digital and multimodal. More and more English language learners (ELLs) around the world participate in online media to be connected with people who share similar interests, disseminate and obtain information, and keep up with current issues. While participating at those sites, ELLs are likely to encounter and may design digital multimodal texts that might include language, images, and sound. Among the emerging multimodal literacy practices, digital storytelling is one of the most common. It is a form of multimedia composing that consists of still or moving images combined with background sound and a voice-over narrative. Importantly, digital storytelling involves both
With recent education policies emphasizing standardized testing in K-12 schools, researchers and ... more With recent education policies emphasizing standardized testing in K-12 schools, researchers and practitioners have paid great attention to development of academic language and literacy for school-aged children. Despite the significant role of academic writing in school, many adolescent English language learners (ELLs) in an English-medium educational context have limited exposure to academic writing instruction in their ESL classes and are unprepared for the academic literacy demands required in their content area classrooms. In addition, they tend to face unique challenges of learning academic writing in English. Given that, it is important to explore adolescent multilingual writers and their writing practice and to provide pedagogical implications that teachers of adolescent multilingual students can integrate into their writing instruction. Framing the Issue Adolescent multilingual writers encompass a wide range of English language learners (ELLs) in middle and high school. They range from newly arrived ELLs with strong or weak first language (L1) writing competence to long-term ELLs with various levels of L2 writing competence. For these students, academic writing is a powerful learning tool and a significant component of many school subjects. Writing competence is vital to success at an English medium school and to being a member of any educational discourse community. The role of writing in English as a foreign language (EFL) classes in middle and high school is very different from that of academic writing in an ESL context. English is one of the important content areas for school, especially significant for college entrance examinations, and EFL teachers often face challenges teaching L2 (English) writing for different reasons (e.g., lack of EFL students' interest in L2 writing development compared to other skills like speaking and lack of teacher education for L2 writing instruction). Given the different role of academic writing for adolescent multilingual writers, it is important to understand the social context where L2 writing takes place and to explore the unique characteristics and challenges of adolescent multilingual writers when we discuss middle and high school writing in the field of teaching English to speakers of other languages (TESOL). The focus here will be on issues of academic writing in middle and high school in an English-medium context. The number of adolescent multilingual writers has continuously grown in an English-medium educational context. Yet they are one of the most under-explored student populations in the field of L2 writing: There is a huge gap in research and pedagogy for adolescent multilingual writers. Traditionally, L2 writing research has largely explored writing development and practice in the post-secondary context (e.g., undergraduate and graduate school), with relatively little attention to adolescent multilingual writers. From a pedagogical point of view, relatively little writing instruction and practice has taken place in middle and high school classes partly because many pre-and in-service teachers in middle and high school education have not adequately learned about writing instruction (for both ELLs and non-ELLs) in their teacher preparation and/or professional development programs (Graham, Capizzi, Harris, Hebert, & Morphy, 2014).
Many multilingual writers engage in voluntary, self-sponsored writing activities in their daily l... more Many multilingual writers engage in voluntary, self-sponsored writing activities in their daily lives. For instance, some English language learners (ELLs) keep a diary in their first or second language (or the mix of the two languages), and others join online communities or social networking sites in order to communicate with other ELLs. These multilingual writers' reflexive self-sponsored writing activities (e.g., diaries, journals) tend to range wider and sometimes are more interpersonally meaningful than their school-sponsored academic writing practices. Yet, self-sponsored writing practices are likely invisible to many researchers and classroom teachers. This entry attempts to give valuable insights into self-sponsored writing practices in which many ELLs engage by addressing their voluntary, self-initiated writing across varied contexts, discussing key research findings, and providing practical applications and recommendations that English as a second and foreign language practitioners can employ with their students.
Uploads
Papers by Youngjoo Yi
cross-cultural and cross-linguistic settings, issues related to these uniquely
situated researcher identities have only scantily been addressed. In order to
close this gap, we investigated three U.S.-based Korean female researchers
in L2 studies. We sought to understand (1) the ways in which these
researchers chose research topics, contexts, and participants; (2) how they
related themselves to their research participants; and (3) to what extent
and how they negotiated identities in conducting and reporting their
research. With theoretical frameworks of positionality and
intersectionality of researcher identities, we drew upon a few salient
points from multiple data sources such as interviews, published papers,
and field notes. We found not only that their research interests stemmed
from their life experiences and graduate training, but accessibility,
familiarity, and researcher’s self-identification also influenced their
research topics, contexts, and relationships with their research
participants. Furthermore, researchers’ active positioning themselves in
relation to research content, contexts, and participants using their
intersecting identities proved to be beneficial to their research. What our
findings further suggest is that researchers embrace hybridity and
multiplicity of subjectivities and identities in order to make a fair
contribution to knowledge construction.
to navigate between literacy studies and L2 writing research, I am thrilled to see Diane Belcher’s piece on multimodal composing and
digital design and appreciate that the Journal of Second Language Writing (JSLW) is providing a forum for discussing one of the
emerging yet overlooked topics in the field of L2 writing research. Belcher has made a compelling argument why L2 writing specialists
should become facilitators of multimodal composing and digital design. In this response, I further argue why we should
establish multimodal literacy research as a topic area within L2 writing and suggest some ways in which we can accomplish this
agenda, thereby moving the field forward.
Before discussing ‘how’ to establish multimodal literacy research in the field of L2 writing, I’d like to reiterate three points Becher
(in)directly addressed in her piece. First, multimodal is not the same as digital. However, I have encountered teachers, L2/multilingual
writers, and literacy journal editors/reviewers who associated multimodality exclusively with digital technologies and held
skeptical views of multimodal literacy. Multimodal literacy practice encompasses both print-based and digital, screen-based practice,
and we have long produced a wide range of multimodal texts in both non-digital and digital forms (e.g., posters, picture books,
brochures, PowerPoint slides, and digital stories). Therefore, multimodal literacy practice is not radically new and has existed in the
ordinary classroom and beyond.
Second, multimodal literacy consists of language, as well as images, sounds, gestures, and so forth. Language (oral or written) is
“only part of a larger constellation of semiotic resource” in meaning-making (Nelson & Kern, 2012, p. 47). Thus, a language- or textbased
approach to literacy is quite limiting because the contemporary communicative landscape “requires addressing the full range of
semiotic resources used within a community and/or society” (Early, Kendrick, & Potts, 2015, p. 448). If we as a field focus only on
monomodal written text (typically academic written English), then our agenda in the field is quite narrow, and “such narrowing is
unrealistic given the multimodal realities of the new media and broader changes in the communications environment”
(Cope & Kalantzis, 2009, p. 179). A cautionary note here is that multimodal literacy researchers do not intend to trivialize the
development of language or the multilinguality of ELLs in their literacy practices (see Yi & Crowder-Angay, 2016, for more detailed
discussion).
Third, written language is not going to disappear and will probably continue to be the most powerful mode of formal learning. It is
just becoming more closely intertwined with the other modes, such as images and sounds (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009). Thus, we need to
explore how L2/multilingual writers navigate and “integrate the spoken word, written text, visual impressions and images, social
conventions, memories, feelings, and more to make and remake language for their specific purposes and interests” (Ware,
Kern, & Warschauer, 2016, p. 319). I believe that when we explore L2/multilingual writers’ multimodal literacy practices across
varied contexts, we can broaden our understandings of composing, composers, contexts, and the role of composing in our lives (e.g.,
for L2 and content learning, identity negotiation, career enhancement, civic engagement, or just enjoyment) and think about what
counts as text and what it means to be literate in the 21st century.
Then, how can (should) we establish multimodal literacy research as a topic area within L2 writing? The most critical first step is
to explore our views of, especially our bias against and resistance to, multimodal literacy and to reconceptualize various aspects of
multimodal literacy research and pedagogy. As alluded earlier, some teachers, while seeing the potential of multimodal practices, reported that multimodal literacy practices can be a “crutch that allows students [ELLs] to express themselves without fully acquiring
the L2,” and “time spent on modes other than text may hurt test scores” (Yi & Choi, 2015, pp. 843–844). These ambivalent and
skeptical views of multimodal literacy are understandable given time and resources constraints as well as challenges of aligning
standards, instruction, and assessment, among others (see Yi, King, & Safriani, in press, for more details). However, such views
of—especially bias against—multimodal literacy by different stakeholders (students, teachers, and scholars/journal reviewers) can
prevent L2 writing professionals from paying more attention to multimodal literacy practices.
With critical explorations into our views and perception of multimodal literacy, our worries, fears, and concerns of multimodal
literacy should be replaced by research insights so that we engage in more empirical research on multimodal literacy practice for
teaching and learning, theorizing L2 writing from a multimodal perspective, and discussing methodological challenges of conducting
multimodal literacy research. I believe we need more empirical evidence of both possibilities and constraints of multimodal literacy
across varied contexts; more in-depth discussions of applications and expansion of theoretical frameworks from other disciplines
(literacy studies, social semiotics) to multimodal literacy research in L2 writing; and the development of a methodological framework
to analyze and describe multimodal texts by L2/multilingual writers. Equally important, more academic journals and publishers need
to offer a space where multi-media text or content, such as videos and podcasts, can be included in the full text articles (e.g., digital
multimodal editing platform) or in a Supplementary materials center (in fact, some online journals already allow for the inclusion of
multi-media text). As pedagogical endeavors, teachers and teacher educators need to experiment with multimodal literacy practices
in their classrooms. They can design and use their own multimodal instructional materials (e.g., creating videos, graphic organizers)
and invite their students to analyze or create multimodal texts (e.g., bilingual picture books, documentaries, argumentative digital
stories). Such research and pedagogical endeavors are necessary to establish multimodal literacy research as a topic area within L2
writing, thereby moving the field forward.
I’m closing my response with a quote from James Paul Gee. As an L2 writing scholar who has witnessed a great tension between
in-school and out-of-school literacy practices of L2/multilingual writers, I can’t agree more with Gee (2014):
We give students texts and when they do not understand them we give them more texts. If they do not understand a word we give
them more words, such things as definitions, explications, and lectures. The world outside school today is replete with words
married to images, sounds, the body and experiences. (p. xi)
I encourage L2 writing professionals to think hard about what our students will need in the real world once they have left our
classroom and how we prepare them for the real world situation. I hope that these disciplinary dialogues will stimulate further
conversations and empirical studies, thereby advancing the field theoretically, methodologically, and pedagogically.
cross-cultural and cross-linguistic settings, issues related to these uniquely
situated researcher identities have only scantily been addressed. In order to
close this gap, we investigated three U.S.-based Korean female researchers
in L2 studies. We sought to understand (1) the ways in which these
researchers chose research topics, contexts, and participants; (2) how they
related themselves to their research participants; and (3) to what extent
and how they negotiated identities in conducting and reporting their
research. With theoretical frameworks of positionality and
intersectionality of researcher identities, we drew upon a few salient
points from multiple data sources such as interviews, published papers,
and field notes. We found not only that their research interests stemmed
from their life experiences and graduate training, but accessibility,
familiarity, and researcher’s self-identification also influenced their
research topics, contexts, and relationships with their research
participants. Furthermore, researchers’ active positioning themselves in
relation to research content, contexts, and participants using their
intersecting identities proved to be beneficial to their research. What our
findings further suggest is that researchers embrace hybridity and
multiplicity of subjectivities and identities in order to make a fair
contribution to knowledge construction.
to navigate between literacy studies and L2 writing research, I am thrilled to see Diane Belcher’s piece on multimodal composing and
digital design and appreciate that the Journal of Second Language Writing (JSLW) is providing a forum for discussing one of the
emerging yet overlooked topics in the field of L2 writing research. Belcher has made a compelling argument why L2 writing specialists
should become facilitators of multimodal composing and digital design. In this response, I further argue why we should
establish multimodal literacy research as a topic area within L2 writing and suggest some ways in which we can accomplish this
agenda, thereby moving the field forward.
Before discussing ‘how’ to establish multimodal literacy research in the field of L2 writing, I’d like to reiterate three points Becher
(in)directly addressed in her piece. First, multimodal is not the same as digital. However, I have encountered teachers, L2/multilingual
writers, and literacy journal editors/reviewers who associated multimodality exclusively with digital technologies and held
skeptical views of multimodal literacy. Multimodal literacy practice encompasses both print-based and digital, screen-based practice,
and we have long produced a wide range of multimodal texts in both non-digital and digital forms (e.g., posters, picture books,
brochures, PowerPoint slides, and digital stories). Therefore, multimodal literacy practice is not radically new and has existed in the
ordinary classroom and beyond.
Second, multimodal literacy consists of language, as well as images, sounds, gestures, and so forth. Language (oral or written) is
“only part of a larger constellation of semiotic resource” in meaning-making (Nelson & Kern, 2012, p. 47). Thus, a language- or textbased
approach to literacy is quite limiting because the contemporary communicative landscape “requires addressing the full range of
semiotic resources used within a community and/or society” (Early, Kendrick, & Potts, 2015, p. 448). If we as a field focus only on
monomodal written text (typically academic written English), then our agenda in the field is quite narrow, and “such narrowing is
unrealistic given the multimodal realities of the new media and broader changes in the communications environment”
(Cope & Kalantzis, 2009, p. 179). A cautionary note here is that multimodal literacy researchers do not intend to trivialize the
development of language or the multilinguality of ELLs in their literacy practices (see Yi & Crowder-Angay, 2016, for more detailed
discussion).
Third, written language is not going to disappear and will probably continue to be the most powerful mode of formal learning. It is
just becoming more closely intertwined with the other modes, such as images and sounds (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009). Thus, we need to
explore how L2/multilingual writers navigate and “integrate the spoken word, written text, visual impressions and images, social
conventions, memories, feelings, and more to make and remake language for their specific purposes and interests” (Ware,
Kern, & Warschauer, 2016, p. 319). I believe that when we explore L2/multilingual writers’ multimodal literacy practices across
varied contexts, we can broaden our understandings of composing, composers, contexts, and the role of composing in our lives (e.g.,
for L2 and content learning, identity negotiation, career enhancement, civic engagement, or just enjoyment) and think about what
counts as text and what it means to be literate in the 21st century.
Then, how can (should) we establish multimodal literacy research as a topic area within L2 writing? The most critical first step is
to explore our views of, especially our bias against and resistance to, multimodal literacy and to reconceptualize various aspects of
multimodal literacy research and pedagogy. As alluded earlier, some teachers, while seeing the potential of multimodal practices, reported that multimodal literacy practices can be a “crutch that allows students [ELLs] to express themselves without fully acquiring
the L2,” and “time spent on modes other than text may hurt test scores” (Yi & Choi, 2015, pp. 843–844). These ambivalent and
skeptical views of multimodal literacy are understandable given time and resources constraints as well as challenges of aligning
standards, instruction, and assessment, among others (see Yi, King, & Safriani, in press, for more details). However, such views
of—especially bias against—multimodal literacy by different stakeholders (students, teachers, and scholars/journal reviewers) can
prevent L2 writing professionals from paying more attention to multimodal literacy practices.
With critical explorations into our views and perception of multimodal literacy, our worries, fears, and concerns of multimodal
literacy should be replaced by research insights so that we engage in more empirical research on multimodal literacy practice for
teaching and learning, theorizing L2 writing from a multimodal perspective, and discussing methodological challenges of conducting
multimodal literacy research. I believe we need more empirical evidence of both possibilities and constraints of multimodal literacy
across varied contexts; more in-depth discussions of applications and expansion of theoretical frameworks from other disciplines
(literacy studies, social semiotics) to multimodal literacy research in L2 writing; and the development of a methodological framework
to analyze and describe multimodal texts by L2/multilingual writers. Equally important, more academic journals and publishers need
to offer a space where multi-media text or content, such as videos and podcasts, can be included in the full text articles (e.g., digital
multimodal editing platform) or in a Supplementary materials center (in fact, some online journals already allow for the inclusion of
multi-media text). As pedagogical endeavors, teachers and teacher educators need to experiment with multimodal literacy practices
in their classrooms. They can design and use their own multimodal instructional materials (e.g., creating videos, graphic organizers)
and invite their students to analyze or create multimodal texts (e.g., bilingual picture books, documentaries, argumentative digital
stories). Such research and pedagogical endeavors are necessary to establish multimodal literacy research as a topic area within L2
writing, thereby moving the field forward.
I’m closing my response with a quote from James Paul Gee. As an L2 writing scholar who has witnessed a great tension between
in-school and out-of-school literacy practices of L2/multilingual writers, I can’t agree more with Gee (2014):
We give students texts and when they do not understand them we give them more texts. If they do not understand a word we give
them more words, such things as definitions, explications, and lectures. The world outside school today is replete with words
married to images, sounds, the body and experiences. (p. xi)
I encourage L2 writing professionals to think hard about what our students will need in the real world once they have left our
classroom and how we prepare them for the real world situation. I hope that these disciplinary dialogues will stimulate further
conversations and empirical studies, thereby advancing the field theoretically, methodologically, and pedagogically.