Arab World English Journal www.awej.org ISSN: 2229-9327 31
AWEJ Volume.5 Number.3, 2014
Relative
Impact of Windows Movie Maker Journaling on Writing Proficiency and
Apprehension
Ghada
Awada
American University of Beirut, Lebanon
Abstract
This
article reports the results of an experimental study that examined the relative
effectiveness of Windows Movie
Maker (WMM) as a computer-assisted language learning
tool
versus journal writing in improving the English as a
foreign language (EFL) writing
Proficiency and decreasing the levels
of writing apprehension
of grade eleven students in Lebanon. The study, too, looked into the perceptions of the participants
of the relevance and efficacy of using Windows Movie Maker (WMM) as an instructional tool. The study is based on the
assumption that the WMM computer-assisted language learning tool, unlike the
traditional pen and paper journal writing, provides an excellent opportunity
for students to creatively write and express themselves using music, script, pictures
and visual effects
that reflect learners’ personal experiences. The study
employed an experimental pretest- posttest control group design whereby two
intact classes were randomly assigned to control and experimental conditions.
Descriptive statistics were calculated and a series of independent sample
t-tests were conducted in order to address the questions raised in the study.
Finally, a content analysis of the qualitative data gathered from the study
participants to the open ended questions in the experimental group was carried
out to describe and concretize their perceptions of the WMM experience. The results
of the study indicated that the WMM journaling proved to be more effective than
the traditional pen and paper journaling in enhancing Proficiency and
decreasing writing apprehension. In addition, the participants in the
experimental group underscored both the importance and usefulness of using the WMM
tool in enhancing EFL journal writing.
Further research is recommended in order
to determine the extent of the generalizability of the findings of the present
study into other school contexts and across different grade and proficiency levels.
Key words: English as a foreign language (EFL), journal writing, journal
writing Proficiency, Windows Movie Maker (WMM), Writing apprehension
Introduction
The growing availability of educational technology
tools and software resources is one of the hallmarks that characterize contemporary
schools all over the globe. Likewise, journal writing has become a
widely-accepted practice in the English as foreign language (EFL) classroom as the
process approach has gradually replaced product-oriented instruction. As such,
teachers are expected to use modern technology in their teaching (Branigan,
2005; Ramos, 2007; Sweeder, 2007; Alderman & Beyers, 2009) as well as
incorporate journal writing in their teaching (Huff & Kiline, 1987). This
is especially the case given that the new generation of school goers is
considered to be “digital-natives” and “technologically-savvy” as described by
Prensky (2001).
The
rationale for using technology in the English as a second/foreign language is
now well-established and the paradigm shift from product to process writing
instruction has been almost completed in various EFL contexts and settings all
over the globe. Several researcher have advocated the role of technology in
teaching the various language skills such as listening comprehension (Hoven,1999),
reading (Kasper, 2000), and Writing (Cunningham, 2000, & Kasper 2000).
Likewise, Hoven (1999) has underscored the role of computers in creating
leaners’ autonomy. Similarly, EFL writing researchers and educators have long
embraced the tenets of process writing which encourage exploration, conceptualization,
multiple drafting, and revision of written products (Matsuda, 2003; Nunan,
2003; Schmitt, 2002).
Consequently, the
purpose of this article is to report the results of an experimental study on
the effect of using the Windows Making Movie (WMM) versus journal writing on
improving EFL writing Proficiency and decreasing writing apprehension.
The Present
Study
The
present study is conducted in a private high-school in Lebanon where English is
used as the language of instruction as well is taught as an important school
subject due starting with pre-school and up to grade 12. The importance
accorded to studying English as foreign language in the context of this study
is based on the perceived vitality of English as an important world language
used extensively in the domains of education, communication and commerce.
Presently, there are no previous studies which investigated the effect of the
WMM technological model in improving the writing proficiency of grade 11 Lebanese learners of EFL and
decreasing their levels of writing apprehension.
Specifically, the study addressed
the following questions:
1.
What is the relative effect of using
the WMM journaling in comparison with traditional pen and paper journaling in
improving the writing Proficiency of grade 11 learners of EFL?
2.
What is the relative effect of using
the WMM in comparison with
traditional
pen and paper journaling in decreasing the writing apprehension
level of grade 11 learners of EFL?
3.
What are the perceptions of the participants
in the experimental group of their experience in using the WMM technological
model in their writing class?
The
following null hypotheses were formulated and tested in order to address the questions raised in the study:
Ho 1: There is no statistically
significant difference in the posttest writing proficiency scores of the experimental and
control group at the p ≤ 0.05 alpha level.
Ho 2: There is no statistically
significant difference in the posttest writing apprehension scores of the
experimental and control group at the p ≤ 0.05 alpha level.
Literature
Review
The
Windows Movie Maker
The review of the literature on the
development of the Windows Movie Maker (WMM) application suggests that it is a very
recent innovation. Version 1.1 of WMM was only included in Windows XP in 2001
and has been installed in computers in its current edition, with music, effects
and transitions, only in 2005.Quite naturally, there seems to be at present a noticeable
scarcity of research related to WMM journaling and its effects on educational
outcomes.
Portnoy
(1985) asserts that as students take on creative roles while working on authentic
and real life themes in their video production, they will be able to practice authentic
language, not only among themselves but also with other users of the language
outside the classroom. Consequently, the process of language learning can be made
more interesting and meaningful through video as learners are exposed to contexts
outside the restrictions of the classroom (Brown & Kegan, 1986; Wagschal,
1987). Similarly, Valmont (1995), Evans (1998) and Rudkin, (2004) maintained
that language teachers should be able to maneuver the equipment and software so
that the learners would be enabled to utilize the vital functions of the
available software applications. The research of Branigan (2005), Ramos (2007),
Sweeder( 2007) and Alderman and Beyers (2009) asserts that the use of video in
the language classroom should not be limited to a mere instructional tool.
Instead, student video journals should be encouraged and given importance in
order to enhance the learners’ confidence and promote proficiency.
The Windows Movie Maker (WMM) is a
computer- based application that can be potentially useful in promoting
learners' writing skills. Specifically,
the WMM tool actively engages learners in the stages of the video production
thereby take ownership of their own learning and progressively develop into independent
learners. As such, the WMM tool may
enhance students’ motivation and interest in journal writing as well as
increase their proficiency and decrease their apprehension. This is because journaling
allows students to express their thoughts and feelings, thereby gaining valuable
self-knowledge. It is also a good problem-solving tool. Keeping a journal and
writing regularly have been proven to promote writing dexterity and fluency. The preceding review of the literature reveals a strong
rationale for using technology and journals in teaching writing. However,
previous research on the effectiveness of specific technological models and
tools appears to be still scanty or non-existent due to the recentness of this
application as shown above.
Studies on Journaling and Writing Proficiency
Regarding
the impact of Journal writing on writing proficiency, the extant research on
the subject suggests that journal writing enables students to improve their writing
skills and promotes critical their thinking (O’Connell &
Dyment, 2006). In the same vein, Connor-Greene (2000) reports, “… the students who
wrote 15 journals may have received other benefits (e.g. improved writing
skills, increased confidence about writing) that are not reflected in their
grades on a psychology test.” (p. 45). Some research also suggests that journal
writing improves students’ writing and enhances their learning and writing
as reflected in
test scores (Connor-Greene, 2000, Bartscher, Lawler,
Rameriz, and Schinault, 2001). These researchers reported that the use of reflective
journaling is effective, having seen gains in the writing abilities of participants
in their research. Similarly, Bartscher et al., (2001) suggests that journal writing improves
significantly students' writing, and students “grew into the emotional commitment
of expressing their feelings” (p. 46).
However,
Cisero (2006) reported
that many students did not like the journal
assignment and considered journal writing as “just a nuisance,” “busy work,” and
“tedious and unnecessary” (p.233). Cisero (2006) also noted
that students’ lack of interest
in the journal writing activities could provide a clue to the minimal
improvement attained by some students. This researcher
added stated that
“students’ overall ability as well as motivation are factors that need to be
considered in future research and effectiveness of journal writing” (p. 234).
Studies on Journaling and Writing Apprehension
Learners of English
as a foreign language EFL may experience high levels of speech and writing
apprehension when they produce language. However, engaging them in producing
their own video projects throughout the teaching/learning process may create a
stress-reduced environment which lowers the affective filter of leaners and
increase their self-confidence due to the interesting nature of videos
(Bennette,1988; Kinnaman, 1993; & Clovis 1997). Ullrich and Lutgendorf (2002) assert that, unlike some
physical stress management techniques such as yoga or exercise, journal writing is a viable option for the people who need to
express themselves. These researchers consider journaling as a great practice
for overall stress reduction as well as self-knowledge and emotional healing.
Dunlap (2006) maintained that journal writing decreases writing apprehension and is an enjoyable
experience for leaners. Likewise, Gau, Hermanson,
Logar, and Smerek (2003) reported that reflective journaling supports the educational process given that
it promotes writing fluency and quality. These finding echo those reported by Gau et al., (2003) and Hubbs
and Brand (2005) who established that reflective journaling could be the key to diminishing student and teachers’
writing apprehension in the classroom. Hubbs and Brand (2005) stated that “… anecdotal
evidence suggests that the use of reflective journals can hone students’
reflective skills, assist students in applying course content, help students’
process learning activities, and encourage personal growth and development” (p.
65). These researchers further also report
that “… reflective journaling can provide ways to illuminate automatic thinking
and habits of mind, and can lead students though a transformative process,
especially when the instructor engages the student in mutual dialogue” (p.63).
Conversely, Reeves (1997)
reports that a writer could be “… more apprehensive when writing personal narratives” and less
so “… when writing
argumentative or persuasive essays” (p. 39).
Because
students enjoy uploading and using authentic materials including pictures and
music they choose, WMM journaling may serve as a facilitator for speaking and
writing. The benefits of using WMM journaling
in language teaching are related to the provisions of rich, authentic, and
current information, exposure to colorful visual elements, enhanced flexibility
of individual learning pace, reinforced learning of the subject matter,
heightened motivation, and increased interest. A number of empirical studies have also indicated
that students had an overall positive attitude towards learning in a
computer-assisted language learning environment (Felix, 2001; Osuna &
Meskill, 1998; Shen, 1999).
The preview suggests
that although journal writing may have positive impact on writing development,
findings of previous research are somewhat non-conclusive and perspicacious
with the regard to the effects of journaling writing proficiency and apprehension..
Methodology
The
study employed a quasi-experimental pretest- posttest control design. Two
intact classes were randomly assigned to control and experimental conditions
and the treatment lasted for 4 weeks of instruction at the rate of 3 class
periods per week to teach the language skills of reading, writing, listening,
and speaking along with language rules and mechanics, cultural awareness, and
critical thinking in an integrated manner.
Participants
The
study was conducted in a public high-school
in Beirut, the capital of Lebanon. A convenient sample total of 24 grade 11 EFL
leaners participated in the study. The participants were randomly assigned to
control and experimental conditions, and the sample included a total of 16
males (75 %) and 8 females (25%). All
the participants are native speakers of Arabic and came from similar
socio-economic backgrounds. They were studying EFL at a rate of 3 hours per
week in accordance with the curriculum requirements proclaimed by the National
Ministry of Education. A total of 20 students had completed their grade 10
schooling at the same school and the remaining 4 at other public schools which
follow the same curriculum. Finally, there were 13 students in the control
group and 11 in the experimental group, and the age of the participants ranged
from 16- 19 years.
Research
Context
As
indicated earlier, the research context of the present study is a public
high-school in Lebanon. This context is characterized by enrolling students
from low socio-economic background with limited opportunities to use English
for communication in daily life and outside of school. However, the importance
of studying English is emphasized in the context of the present study both as a
language of instruction in which all other school subjects are taught with the
exception of Arabic language and
literature and as an independent school subject as well. This is because
English is considered an important international language to be studied starting
with kindergarten and up to grade 12 due to its recognized value in
communication, education, and commerce. Yet, it should be noted that the
majority of students in this study context, as well as in other similar public
school contexts, can be considered largely as limited English proficient (LEP)
learners and without much access to computers and modern technology, despite
the fact that smart boards and computers are becoming more available in many
public schools including the site of the present study.
Instruments
Three instruments were used to
collect data and measure the variables of writing Proficiency and apprehension
under investigation. These included a writing apprehension scale (Appendix I),
a journal rubric (Appendix II), and reflection logs. The writing apprehension
and journal rubric were used as pre-test and post-test measures of writing
apprehension Proficiency. The writing apprehension scale consists of a total of
26 likert-type items. Scores on the negatively worded items (Items 1, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 13, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 26) were reversed to ensure that high scores mean
higher apprehension.
The participants in the study indicated their levels of agreement with the
statements in the scale by circling a number on range from 1 strongly disagree -6
strongly agree. The internal consistency was moderate (α .54) based on data
from the present study. On the other hand, the journal rubric was used to score
the pre-writing and post-writing written products of the participants and resulted
in a holistic score in the range of 3-15 and converted to a percentage score
out of 100 based on the quality of ideas, focus, organization,
word choice, and language mechanics shown in the written responses of the
participants. Finally, a set guiding
questions which focused on the participants’ reaction to the writing
assignment, whether they enjoyed their WMM experiences and the expectations and
challenges they faced.
Treatment
The treatment lasted for four weeks
at the rate of three contact hours of integrated instruction per week. The
study participants of both the control and experimental group were asked to
perform a journal writing task which required writing a journal in response to
a prompt which asked them to describe an experience that touched them and
taught them new values. The journal writing instructional component
of the control group consisted of traditional pen and paper journal writing practices
which included instruction in pre-drafting, drafting, and revision strategies.
Specifically, the pre-drafting stage focused on enabling learners to explore
their topics in order to generate ideas in addition to learning how to write up
their ideas and revise their written products. Meanwhile, the experimental
group learners practiced journal writing through using the WMM procedures which
involves using computers to incorporate music, pictures, visual effects, word choice, font,
design they like.
Data
Analysis
Descriptive statistics (Means and Standard Deviations) were
calculated on the pre-test and post-test
performance scores of learners in the control and experimental groups,
following which four independent sample t-tests were conducted to investigate
the differences in journal writing proficiency and apprehension prior to and subsequent
to the intervention between the groups of learners in the control and experimental
groups. The treatment conditions (control vs experimental) were used as an independent
variable and journal writing Proficiency and apprehension as dependent variables.
In addition, content analysis was
used as the method of data analysis of the qualitative data gathered from
learners written reflection logs about their perceptions of the WMM experience.
These logs were used to write up the study results regarding learners’ perceptions.
Results
Findings
on journal writing proficiency
We found that, prior to intervention;
there was no significant difference in the writing proficiency of the
participants in the control group and the experimental group. (M = 66.33, SD
5.77) and the experimental group (M = 62.72, SD = 4.85), t (21) = -
1.61. P = .12.
Conversely, after the intervention, the
experimental group outperformed the control group: Control group (M = 74.66, SD
= 4.86) and the experimental group (M = 84.27, SD = 4.81), t (21) = 4.75, P = .00. The effect size of improvement was d
=1.96, which suggests a highly significant gain in proficiency from an
educational point of view. Therefore, the first null hypothesis of the study
regarding difference in the posttest writing performance of the control and
experimental group was rejected.
Findings on writing apprehension
Similarly, there was no
statistically significant difference in the writing apprehension of the
participants in the control group (M =92.85, SD =9.68) and the experimental
group (M = 97.25, SD = 42.02), t (29) = .36. P = .70.
Meanwhile, the post-test
intervention difference between the two groups was statistically significant:
Control group (M =89.71, SD = 11.06) and the experimental group (M = 67.4, SD =
31.82), t (25) = - 2. 20, P = .03. The effect size of improvement was d =
1. 90 , which also suggests a highly significant gain in decreasing writing
apprehension. Therefore, the second null
hypothesis of the study regarding difference in the posttest writing
apprehension of the control and experimental group was rejected.
Findings on perceptions of WMM
Journaling Experience
The results of the content analysis
of qualitative data from reflective logs about learners’ experience with the WMM
suggest two aspects of interest: 1) the importance of using WMM in the writing
process and 2) the usefulness of this educational tool in teaching EFL writing
skills, in general, and journal writing in particular. Specifically, the theme
of the importance of the WMM emerged from the data as many learners in the
experimental group expressed their positive perception of this experience. For
instance, while some learners expressed satisfaction
upon the completion of the video, one learner reported that “the most
interesting part was adding the pictures and the frustrating part was editing
as we didn't realize that after applying the effects we need to relocate all
the subtitles the second time for the whole video.” Another said, "the
most beautiful part was adding the music which helped me with creating a soothing
impact."A third learner added, "the good part was the freedom in
choosing the animations that made the script look great." Two other
learners respectively asserted, the lovely part was the color and the font of
the script, easily chosen." "Nothing was boring or difficult and that
was the good thing."
Some
learners highlighted the elements that led to the success of the WMM journaling
when one of the grade 11 learners wrote, “the teacher managed to give
all the needed steps, and she showed us the creation of the whole
process."Another learner also wrote, "all of my group members had contributed
their ideas and helped me with getting my video journal done. The teamwork was
practiced in my group. We managed to help each other with the making the video
journals."
The
majority of the learners asserted the relevance of WMM journaling to language
learning when three learners respectively wrote, “I think video journaling was
relevant to my study. This is because I can learn the language, express myself
and use the pictures and the computer skills I want from this video.”
“We
learned how to use English in a meaningful way. I learned a lot on this assignment
because I gained more confidence when giving ideas and thoughts."
“I learned more about the lovely effect
of journaling through using the pictures that harmonize with the words
used."
This positive perception was also
echoed in the comments of other learners who wrote that "I learned
to be more confident, and I loved the music expressing my words." "I
enhanced my computer skills. I discovered the creative side of me."
"I learnt not only how to write but also to express myself confidently
from this assignment." “I enjoyed the Movie Maker production." “I
learned a lot during the movie production because I learned how to speak
fluently and write accurately."
Another student added, "I learned
a lot about the movie maker software and computer skills."Along similar lines, another leaner remarked, "I like how
the movie tells stories related to the outer world. "After all, my movie
was based on my true stories. I liked about the concept of my video because it
voiced out my situation and my own dream without getting ‘permission’ or
receive ‘judgment’ or ‘consideration’, from my parents.”
These comments and remarks suggest
that the MM journaling is perceived as an important teaching tool by learners.
These remarks also show that the learners in the study have perceived the WMM
journaling experience as very useful in employing language to freely and
interestingly express their thoughts on their own.
Discussion
The
present study set to examine the relative effectiveness of the Windows Movie
Maker technological tool in improving EFL Journal writing proficiency and
decreasing feelings of writing apprehension. As discussed earlier, the results
proved to be positive given that the learners who produced EFL journal writing
using the WMM outperformed their counterparts who produced the same content
according to the dynamics of traditional journal writing. These findings corroborate
those of Portnoy (1985), Brown and Kegan(1986), Wagschal (1987),Valmont (1995),
Evans (1998) ,Rudkin, (2004), Branigan (2005), Ramos (2007), Sweeder(2007) and
Alderman and Beyers, (2009), O’Connell & Dyment(2006) ,Connor-Greene
(2000) , and Bartscher, Lawler, Rameriz, and Schinault( 2001) who assert that video journals should be
encouraged and given importance in order to enhance the learners’ confidence
and promote proficiency. Conversely, the results of the study contradict with
those of Cisero (2006) reported that
many students did not like the journal assignment and considered journal writing
as“tedious and unnecessary” (p.233).
Concerning
writing apprehension, the findings of the present study corroborate those of Bennette(
1988), Kinnaman (1993), Clovis (1997) , Ullrich
and Lutgendorf (2002), Dunlap (2006), Gau,
Hermanson, Logar, and Smerek (2003), and Hubbs and Brand (2005) who report that
journal writing decreases writing apprehension. The findings of the present
study, however, are not in agreement with those of Reeves (1997) who maintain that
a writer could be “… more apprehensive when writing personal narratives” and
less so “… when writing argumentative or persuasive essays” (p. 39).
A
probable explanation of the efficacy and positive attitudes towards WMM jounaling could be attributed to the
provision of opportunities for students to write using a variety of pictures,
visual effects, music, animations, fonts, designs and text. However, future research should be conduct involving representative
samples of different EFL populations and grade levels in order to determine to
what extent the findings of the present study are generalizable as well as
determine the effect of context-specific factors such as gender, linguistic
composition, and levels of first and foreign language proficiency on the
interface of technology and language Proficiency and dispositions.
The
present study revealed that the grade 11 students were generally motivated and
excited about the WMM journaling although initially there were some hesitations
due to lack of experience as well as skills in movie-making. Detailed process
on operating the WMM software before the commencement of the project was found
to be vital and necessary as some subjects disclosed their dissatisfaction
mainly during the video-editing process. The WMM journaling project was able to
draw out the students’ creativity in integrating language with computer skills.
Students also responded that the WMM project has raised their self-esteem, and they
were more willing to express themselves using EFL. Above all, student-created
video is an authentic way to link language learning to the real life setting
outside the language classroom. All teachers who wish to engage their students
in authentic language learning should consider classroom videos.
Limitations
The
present study employed a relatively small and convenient sample size, which has
negative implications for the generalizability of the findings into other contexts. Further research with a larger and more
representative sample size should be conducted in order to test the generalizability
of the findings as well as examine the interaction of the treatment effects of
with other contextual variables such as students, level of language proficiency,
gender, technology apprehension.
Conclusion
It is probable in the future that WMM
as a computer –assisted learning tool will continue to be an in important
component in teaching writing .As such, language teachers should be fully aware
of how computer-assisted language learning tools can benefit language teaching,
learning and educational outcomes more generally.
References
Alderman, I. M. and
Beyers, D. J. (2009), Documentary visions, theological insights. Teaching
Theology & Religion, 12, 233–247.
Anderson, C. M.,
& MacCurdy, M. M. (2000). Writing and Healing: Toward an Informed Practice.
Urbana, Ill: National Council of Teachers of English.
Bartscher, M., Lawler, K.., Rameriz, A., Schinault,
K. (2001).Improving student’s writing ability through journals and creative
writing exercises. (Report No. CS 217 644) Chicago, IL: Saint Xavier University
& IRI/Skylight. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 455525).
Bennett, J. (1988). Student-produced
video: Focus on learning. Tech Trends, 33(1), 32.
Braine, G. (1997). Beyond word processing: Networked computers in ESL writing
classes. Computers and Composition, 14(1), 45-58.
Branigan, C. (2005).Video goes to school. eSchool
News, 8(4), 25-29.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Teaching by Principles: An
Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy (2nd ed.). Pearson
Longman.
Brown, L. K. & Kegan, P. (1989). Taking advantage
of media. Boston: Routledge.
Cisero, C. (2006). Does reflective
journal writing improve course performance? College Teaching, 54(2),
231-236.
Clarke, D., Waywood, A., & Stephens,
M. (1993). Probing the structure of mathematical writing. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 25, 235-250.
Connor-Greene,
P. (2000). Making connections: Evaluating the effectiveness of journal writing
in enhancing student learning. Teaching
of Psychology, 27(1), 44-46.
Clovis, D.L. (1997). Lights, Television, Action!. Educational
Leadership, 55(3), 38-40.
Cunningham, K.
(2000). Integrating CALL into the Writing Curriculum. The Internet TESL
Journal. Vol. VI No.5. Retrieved May 2000 from World Wide Web:
www.aitech.ac.jp/~iteslj/Articles/Cunningham-CALLWriting/
www.aitech.ac.jp/~iteslj/Articles/Cunningham-CALLWriting/
Douillard,
K. (2000). Implementation of ... Reflective friday: time out to think. National
Writing Project, The Quarterly-Fall, 29-35.
Dunlap,
J.C. (2006). Using guided reflective journaling activities to capture students’changing
perceptions. Tech Trends, 50(6),
20-26.
Evans, P.
(1998). A self-learning project with undergraduate accountancy students using
video and computer technology. Issues in Accounting Education, 13(3), 729
– 746.
Felix, U.
(2001). A multivariate analysis of students' experience of web-based learning.
Proceedings of the ASCILITE Conference. Retrieved January 20, 2014, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet17/felix.html.
Gau, E.,
Hermanson, J., Logar, M., Smerek, C. (2003). Improving student attitudes and
writing abilities through increased writing time and opportunities. (Report No. CS 512 508). Chicago, IL: Saint
Xavier University & IRI /Skylight. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED481441)
Hubbs,
D.L., and Brand, C.F. (2005). The paper
mirror: Understanding reflective journaling. Journal of Experiential Education, 28(1), 60-71.
Hoven, D. (1999). A Model for Listening and Viewing
Comprehension in Multimedia Environments. Language Learning &
Technology, 3(1), 88-103.
Huff, R., and C. Kiline (1987). The
Contemporary Writing Curriculum: Rehearsing, Composing, and Valuing. New
York: Teachers College.
Kasper, L. F. (2000). New technologies,
new literacies: Focus discipline research and ESL learning communities. Language
Learning & Technology, 4 (2), Retrieved on 3 July, 2104 from http://llt.msu.edu/vol104num102/kasper/default.html):
109-128.
Kinnaman, D.E. (1993). Technology and situated cognitive.
Technology and Learning, 14 (1) 86.
Levin, S. (2010). Student created video. Knowledge
Quest Film in Education,38 (4), 52–55.
Matsuda, P. K. (2003). Second language writing in
the twentieth century: A sitated historical perspective. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring
the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 15-34). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
McCoy, S. (2011). Pedagogic truth in the age of YouTube.
Journal of Singing. 67 (5), 549–550.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching and
Learning. U.S.: Heinle & Heinle.
O’Connel, T. & Dyment, J. (2006). Reflections on
using journals in higher education: a focus group discussion with faculty. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education,
31(6), 671-691.
Osuna, M. M., & Meskill, C. (1998). Using the World
Wide Web to integrate Spanish language and culture: A pilot study. Language
Learning & Technology, 1 (2), 71-92.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On
the Horizon 9, 5.
Portnoy, K. (1985). Video in script writing projects.
Media and Methods, 22 (2), 13–15.
Ramos, P.H. (2007). Aim, shoot, ready! Future teachers
learn to do video. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38 (1),
33–41.
Reeves,
L. (1997). Minimizing writing apprehension in the learner-centered classroom. English
Journal, 86(6), 38-45.
Rudkin J. (2004). The instructional design portfolio:
Students video project impacts lives beyond the classroom. Tech Trends, 48
(3), 62–64.
Schmitt, N. (2002). An Introduction to Applied
Linguistics. (Ed.). London: Arnold & Oxford University Press.
Shen, J. (1999). Learner anxiety & computer-assisted
writing. CALL-EJ, 3 (2). Retrieved
on February 2, 2014, from http://www.tell.is.ritsumei.ac.jp/callej/3-2/shen.html
Sweeder, J. (2008). Differentiating Instruction
through Digital Storytelling. In Society for Information Technology &
Teacher Education International Conference, 967-974.
Ullrich, P. M., & Lutgendorf, S.
K. (2002). Journaling about stressful events: Effects of cognitive processing
and emotional expression. Annuls of Behavioral Medicine, 244.
Wagschal, P.H. (1987). Literacy in the electronic age.
Education Technology, 27 (6), 5–9.
Appendix I
Writing Apprehension
Please circle the number of the
alternative below the statement that best indicates your feelings about that
statement.
1. I avoid writing.
Strongly
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 agree
2.
I have no fear of my writing being evaluated.
Strongly
Strongly
disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 agree
3.
I look forward to writing down my ideas.
Strongly
Strongly
disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6
agree
4.
I am afraid of writing journals when I know they will be evaluated.
Strongly
Strongly
disagree 1
2 3 4 5 6 agree
5.
Taking a composition course is a very frightening experience.
Strongly
Strongly
disagree 1
2 3 4 5 6
agree
6.
Handing in a composition course is a very frightening experience.
Strongly
Strongly
disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 agree
7. My mind seems to go blank when I
start to work on a journal .
Strongly
Strongly
disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 agree
8.
Expressing ideas through writing seems to be a waste of time.
Strongly
Strongly
disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 agree
9. I would enjoy
submitting my writing to magazines for evaluation and publication.
Strongly
Strongly
disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 agree
10.
I like to write my ideas down.
Strongly
Strongly
disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 agree
11. I feel confident in my ability to
clearly express my ideas in writing.
Strongly
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 agree
12.
I like to have my friends read what I have written.
Strongly
Strongly
disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 agree
13.
I’m nervous about writing.
Strongly
Strongly
disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 agree
14.
People seem to enjoy what I write.
Strongly
Strongly
disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 agree
15.
I enjoy writing.
Strongly
Strongly
disagree 1 2 3 4
5 6 agree
16.
I never seem to enjoy what I write.
Strongly
Strongly
disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 agree
17.
Writing is a lot of fun.
Strongly
Strongly
disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6
agree
18.
I expect to do poorly in writing classes
even before I enter them.
Strongly
Strongly
disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 agree
19.
I like seeing my thoughts on paper.
Strongly
Strongly
disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 agree
20.
Discussing my writing with others is an enjoyable experience.
Strongly
Strongly
disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 agree
21.
I have a terrible time organizing my ideas in a journal writing course.
Strongly
Strongly
disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 agree
22.
when I hand in a journal , I know I’m going to do poorly.
Strongly
Strongly
disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 agree
23. it’s easy for me to write good
journals .
Strongly
Strongly
disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 agree
24.
I don’t think I write as well as most other people.
Strongly
Strongly
disagree 1 2
3 4 5 6
agree
25.
I don’t like my journals to be evaluated.
Strongly
Strongly
disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 agree
26.
I’m no good at writing.
Strongly
Strongly
disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 agree
Appendix II
Rubric for
Journal
www.bwsd.k12.wi.us/highschool/.../Rubric%20for%20Journals%20and...
s
|
Content
|
Voice
|
Rules
|
|
5
The journal is well thought out, honest, and
creative. The entry is emotionally
deep.
|
5
The entry is engaging, honest and legible. The
questions and answers are included.
|
5
The entry has few grammar and spelling mistakes.
There are no fragments or run-on sentences.
|
|
3
The journal entry is honest, creative, but lacks
diving deep.
|
3
The journal entry is honest and engaging.
The entry includes the answers, but not the
re-written questions.
|
3
The journal entry has noticeable grammar and
spelling mistakes.
|
|
1
The journal entry lacks honesty and
creativity. There are one word
answers.
|
1
The journal entry lacks honesty, hard to read, and
is rambling. The questions are not
re-written and the answers are hard to follow.
|
1
The journal entry is difficult to read due to too
many errors in grammar.
|
