Digital Storytelling Enhances Students' Speaking

Digital Storytelling Enhances Students' Speaking Skills at Zewail University of Science and Technology in Egypt Mohamed Aboulela Abdelmageed Zewail University of Science and Technology Egypt [email protected] Zeinab Ali El-Naggar Faculty of Education, Ain Shams University Egypt [email protected]

Abstract: Digital storytelling integrates the traditional art of oral storytelling with the technology available in the twenty-first century classroom. The aim of this study was twofold: firstly, to investigate the effect of digital storytelling on learners' oral proficiency, and secondly, to determine how far learners were satisfied with the digital storytelling experience. The research employed a quasi-experimental design in which eight first-year college students at Zewail University of Science and Technology in Egypt participated in the treatment that lasted for five weeks in the summer of 2017. The instruments for data collection constituted a pre-post speaking proficiency test, an interview, and written reflections. The findings showed that there was a statistically significant positive effect on learners’ oral performance. It was also revealed that the participants were greatly satisfied. Recommendations of the study and suggestions for further research were provided. Keywords: Digital Storytelling, Digital Story, Speaking, Oral Proficiency, Zewail University

Introduction Teaching language for communication has been greatly emphasized in the classroom since communication is one of the pivotal twenty-first century skills. Specifically, the ability to speak a language has been deemed critical as speaking is the most common form of human communication. Hence, successful language learners are the ones who can communicate effectively in the target language. In fact, communicative language teaching (CLT) refers to speaking as the communicative competence. Unlike the grammar competence, embedded in the Grammar-Translation Method, which focuses on learning about language, the communicative competence entails a process to conceptualize data and then produce it as an oral production. According to Harmer (2001), the ability to speak fluently integrates both knowing language features and processing information on the spot. For instance, speaking entails that speakers choose the proper vocabulary to express their ideas. In addition, they employ correct pronunciation and grammar to ensure the clarity of their messages. Furthermore, learning speaking reinforces new vocabulary, grammar and pronunciation, and boosts students’ confidence. It also promotes listening, reading, and writing skills (Baker & Westrup, 2003, p. 7). Accordingly, the vast majority of second and foreign language learners study a language with the aim to develop their oral proficiency (Celce-Murcia, 2001; Richards & Renandya, 2002; Ur, 2006). Since Egyptian students study English in a non-English speaking context, they have limited opportunities to use the target language outside the classroom. In other words, they are unable to transfer their knowledge from language-learning situations to using language situations. Therefore, they may need more opportunities to put their language learning in use in real life. To this end, technology may provide learners with a safe, less threatening, and highly motivating environment to develop their spoken language competence (Gong, 2002). Furthermore, Davies (2000) emphasizes that computer-assisted language learning (CALL) grants more learner-centered, explorative approaches in contrast to teacher-centered drill-based approaches. One computer-based, learner-centered approach is digital storytelling. Living in a digital world, students can tell their stories, exploiting the available technology inside and outside the classroom to express their emotions and feelings. In this way, digital stories combine traditional means of telling

1

a story with different types of digital multimedia: graphics, text, recorded audio narration, video, and music to present information on a specific topic (Gregori-Signes, 2008). To this end, Robin (2006, p. 709) clarifies that digital stories have a variety of uses, including the telling of personal tales, the recounting of historical events, or as a means to inform or instruct on a particular topic. For example, digital stories may be used to demonstrate a personal life event, the construction of a pinhole camera, or recounting the story of Genghis Khan. Consequently, the diversity and flexibility of its subjects allows a digital story to fit into many areas of the curriculum. Furthermore, digital stories derive their power from weaving images, music, narrative and voice together, thereby giving deep dimension and vivid color to characters, situations, and insights (the Digital Storytelling Association, as cited in Stacy, 2005). Moreover, Ramírez & Belmonte (2007) argue that the animated pictures of the digital story immediately involve learners in the development of the story and contribute to creating curiosity that leads to concentration. In addition, Azizah (2010) asserts that the interactive nature of digital storytelling will create an active learning process for students. In this way, digital storytelling is an enjoyable activity that provides learners with a motivating, suitable approach to language learning and promote their EFL comprehension skills (Ramírez & Belmonte, 2006). Pelin et al. (2011) also assert that digital storytelling helps to improve students’ language skills, including listening and speaking skills. For instance, digital stories can be very useful in developing students' listening skills if appropriately selected since digital stories tend to be visual, interactive and reiterative. Ramírez and Belmonte (2006) postulate that these interactive and multi-sensory (integrating sound and animation of pictures) characteristics of the digital story provide an immediate context which facilitates vocabulary learning and oral language understanding, including pronunciation and prosody. Besides, Ohler (2008) states that due to the “interplay between writing, speaking, and listening, digital storytelling has great potential to help students learn language” (p. 51). Since digital storytelling often uses spoken narrative, and students get to hear how they sound and rerecord their narrations multiple times, they may enhance their oral proficiency.

Statement of the Problem Students at Zewail University of Science and Technology are poor speakers of English. They find it difficult to orally interact and communicate in English. Therefore, the current research attempted to investigate the effect of digital storytelling on enhancing students’ speaking skills by answering the following main question: What is the effect of digital storytelling on enhancing EFL college students’ speaking skills? In answering this question, the following sub-questions were answered: 1. What are the appropriate speaking skills for EFL college students? 2. How far is digital storytelling effective in enhancing the participants’ speaking skills? 3. To what extent are the participants satisfied with digital storytelling?

Hypotheses 1. There is no statistically significant difference between the mean scores of the treatment group on the overall pre-post speaking test. 2. There are no statistically significant differences between the mean scores of the treatment group on the pre-post speaking test in each speaking subskill. 3. Participants will be satisfied with using digital storytelling to enhance their speaking skills.

Delimitations The study was delimited to: - One intact class of eight first-year college students, doing a remedial English course at Zewail University of Science and Technology. - A specific duration for conducting the experiment (five weeks of the summer semester of 2017) - Four study units adapted from “Unlock: Listening and Speaking Skills 3” by Ostrowska (2014). - The following speaking subskills: fluency, pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, and comprehensibility.

2

Terms Digital Stories They are operationally defined as two to five-minute personal narratives that are presented digitally through the integration of multimedia tools, like images, videos, music, text, and recorded narration. Digital Storytelling In the current study, it refers to the participants’ ability to integrate multimedia elements, including visuals, audio, video, animation, and text to create multimodal personal narratives, retold with the purpose of enhancing their speaking skills. Speaking Skills The study defines speaking as the participants’ oral ability to express themselves fluently and comprehensibly, employing correct and proper vocabulary, structure, and pronunciation in the context of digital storytelling.

Significance The current research may be useful for students, teachers, and EFL curriculum designers. Firstly, it may be beneficial for improving college students’ speaking skills. In addition, it could lead to a great change in their attitudes toward learning English in general and speaking in particular. Secondly, EFL teachers may develop materials and activities based on digital storytelling as an innovative way of teaching and assessing their students’ speaking skills. Lastly, EFL curriculum designers may develop new curricula, fostering digital storytelling activities.

Method Design The current study employed a one-group pre-post test design. The treatment group was pretested on oral performance, received the treatment, and finally was postested. Differences in mean scores between the preadministration and post-administration were calculated. Participants One intact class of eight freshman year students at Zewail University of Science and Technology took part in the current study during the summer semester of 2017. The age of the students ranged from 18 to 20. These students were placed in the remedial English class based on their performance on the admission exam which was administered by the English Language Program (ELP). Their English level was approximately B1. Instruments Speaking Proficiency Test It was developed according to the criteria suggested by the IELTS. Hence, the tasks and materials were adapted from the IELTS speaking module. Furthermore, the speaking test consisted of three tasks: warm-up questions, individual talk, and discussion. The time allotted for the test was 8–11 minutes per learner, including giving clear instructions. The total score was 20 on the analytic speaking rubric. The test was reviewed by five EFL experts to ensure its face validity. In addition, test-retest reliability coefficient was 0.889 (significant at 0.001 level).

3

Scoring The researchers developed an analytic rubric to score the participants’ answers to the speaking test. A total of 20 marks was divided among five main components (fluency, pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, and comprehensibility). Each component had four levels. The rubric was reviewed by a jury of EFL specialists, whose comments were considered in its final version (See Appendix A). Also, using Cronbach’s Reliability Scale, interrater reliability was calculated. Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.903 (significant at 0.001 level), indicating a very high internal consistency. Interview The semi-structured interview comprised seven questions and was divided into two sections: section one had three questions asking about how a learner created his or her digital story whether it was instant speaking or reading from a script, how many times he or she recorded himself or herself per digital story, and how much time he or she spent making each digital story respectively. The second section had four open-ended questions asking about the positive and negative characteristics of digital storytelling from the learners’ perspectives. Learners were asked to comment on the relation between digital storytelling and their oral proficiency, and the time frame for creating each of the five digital stories. The interview was conducted with the participants in the target language after the completion of the treatment; however, when the learners needed help, the interviewer would repeat or explain the questions. Written Reflections By the end of the treatment, students were asked to write reflective paragraphs about their digital storytelling experience. The instructor provided them with prompt questions. These written reflections were analyzed to reveal students’ perspectives on the program and the online platform.

Treatment After the participants did the speaking pretest, they received their usernames and passwords on www.wevideo.com. The researchers chose WeVideo because it is a user-friendly website, has a free library of pictures and music tracks, and can be accessed easily from any electronic device with internet connection. The instructor provided a guiding manual for using the platform. The intervention lasted for five weeks, each week the students and the instructor meeting once a week for two hours, during which they pitched their story ideas, completed their story maps, and worked on their scripts. They were to complete the digital stage at home. After finishing their digital stories, students were asked to upload them to YouTube and share them with their colleagues and other audience. Samples of students’ digital stories can be found here https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF8bsYVna0-3d8A_vgFAq6nYoiYTZ_Saq. In the first week, the teacher created a digital story (can be found here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoBFISZXCVQ&t=30s) as a model for students. They were asked to complete a story map for it. Students were asked to create their first digital stories about a topic of their own choice to get them comfortable with the idea. In the following week, students were divided into pairs. The teacher gave them a peer-review checklist to complete. This type of peer feedback was really constructive for learners to raise their awareness about, for example, pronunciation and grammar mistakes. In the other four weeks, students created digital stories about “Animals,” “Traditions,” “History,” and “Transport” respectively. They were encouraged to record and hear their speeches as many times as they needed for the sake of improving the quality of their final products. The instructor used the speaking test analytic rubric (See Appendix A) to assess the participants’ digital stories.

Results In order to verify the first hypothesis “There is no statistically significant difference between the mean scores of the treatment group on the pre-post speaking test regarding speaking as a whole,” the scores of the pre-post administrations of the speaking proficiency test were analyzed. The mean scores of the pre-post test were transformed

4

into mean ranks to employ Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test, the non-parametric equivalent of the paired t-test because the sample size was small and the data were not normally distributed. Table 1 presents the results of the analysis. The Z value is 2.524 with significance level of P = 0.01 (< 0.05). To measure the significance of the difference between the participants’ performances on the two administrations of the speaking test, the effect size for Wilcoxon SignedRanks Test was calculated according to the formula r=Z/Square root of N where N equals the total number of cases. The effect size was 0.631, designating a large effect. It can be suggested, then, that the program had a statistically significant positive effect on the participants’ speaking skills. Therefore, the first research hypothesis was rejected. To verify the second hypothesis “There are no statistically significant differences between the mean scores of the treatment group on the pre-post speaking test in each speaking subskill (fluency, pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, and comprehensibility),” the mean scores of each speaking subskill on the speaking pre-post test were analyzed. As shown in table 1, students have improved their speaking subskills significantly, and so the second hypothesis was dismissed. Skill Whole speaking Fluency Pronunciation Vocabulary Grammar Comprehensibility

Measurement Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

Number 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

Mean 12.35 14.45 2.3 2.9 2.375 3 2.437 2.875 2.25 3 2.625 3.375

S.D 2.85 3.25 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.88 0.4 0.6 0.37 0.65 0.4 0.5

Z Value 2.524

Sig. 0.01

2.428

0.01

2.157

0.03

2.33

0.02

2.588

0.01

2.46

0.01

Effect Size 0.6 Large 0.6 Large 0.5 Medium 0.5 Medium 0.6 Large 0.6 Large

Table 1: Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test Results As for the first section of the interview, students unanimously agreed that they read from their scripts while recording their speeches. Also, they averagely recorded themselves 3.3 times. In addition, 3.25 hours was the average time to complete each digital story. The other type of data was qualitative, collected through the second section of the interview and students’ written reflections. Content analysis was employed to analyze these qualitative data. The data were divided into two categories: firstly, “the Program” comprised “positive attitude” and “negative attitude” to reveal learners’ viewpoints toward using digital storytelling to enhance their oral performance. The other category was “WeVideo,” which investigated the learners’ attitudes toward the use of the online platform. As presented in table 2, participants’ attitudes toward the treatment was mainly positive. They suggested that it helped them improve their speaking skills. According to the learners, creating digital stories was interesting and helped them become more engaged in learning. It also helped them improve their grammar and correct their errors through the peer-review and the teacher’s feedback. Moreover, they believed that their digital storytelling experience enhanced and boosted their vocabulary. As for vocabulary, they mentioned that the used thesauruses to vary the diction of their digital stories. As for pronunciation, they looked up the pronunciation of new words or words they were not sure how to pronounce before recording themselves. For example, one participant stated, “I have to check the grammar and the pronunciation many times which improves my language.” Furthermore, they stated that digital storytelling enhanced their self-confidence by giving them the opportunity to organize their ideas logically and express themselves meaningfully. Having the power of choice to import their pictures and organize them the way they wanted, they had more self-confidence to produce final quality products. In addition, since learners were encouraged to write scripts, they felt less anxious about speaking in the target language. However, learners acknowledged that the program had some shortcomings, including time constraints and rerecording. They commented that the program was time-consuming since they had to complete many steps before recording themselves, including collecting and importing pictures, writing the scripts, and revising and editing them. Also, they had to record themselves many times to correct any pronunciation errors and produce a more fluent speech. On the other end of spectrum, learners clarified that they enjoyed using WeVideo to create their digital stories. They found the platform to be user-friendly since it provided many demonstrations and had a section of frequently-

5

asked questions. Learners also benefited from its large storing space since they did not have to carry external devices to store their pictures and recordings. Yet, they alleged that the platform had some overwhelming features, including adding transitions among segments and shifting from the story mode to timeline mode. They illustrated that at that point they could either ask the teacher for help or check the WeVideo Guidebook provided by the instructor. Hence, learners viewed digital storytelling as a new way of learning that helped them improve their speaking proficiency by highlighting the positive effect of the program on their vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, and fluency. In addition, learners enjoyed the program though it was time-consuming and required much practice. As for the platform, it was user-friendly, but some of its features were confounding to the students, suggesting more technology-related guidance and practice before starting a digital storytelling project. Category

The Program

Positive Attitude

Negative Attitude

WeVideo Platform

Positive Attitude Negative Attitude

               

Students’ Responses Enhance oral proficiency Make ideas organized and coherent Increase vocabulary Improve pronunciation Believe it is engaging Improve grammar Boost confidence Preparing a script Time-consuming Rerecording User-friendly Flexible Easily accessed Large storing space Overwhelming features (e.g., adding transitions) moving from timeline mode to story mode is confusing

Table 2: Summary of Interview Data and Written Reflections

Discussion In line with the findings of the reviewed previous studies (Kearney & Schuck, 2005; Hull & Katz, 2006; Li, 2006; Sadik, 2008; Xu & Ahn, 2010; Baghdasaryan, 2012), those of the current study can be justified by the fact that learners are communicating with audience through their digital stories. In this sense, language is a means of communication (Bull & Kajder, 2004). To illustrate, students have created a short, video narrative by combining recorded narration, images, and video. During this process, they storyboard, edit their scripts, and record themselves as many times as they want; hence, the students have had many opportunities to practice pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, and fluency (Gregori-Signes, 2008). They also have become more confident about communicating in English, which may have led to enhancing their speaking skills. Moreover, it was revealed that learners could organize their thoughts more consistently and express their ideas more fluently. Thus, speaking in the target language is much facilitated and meaningful since learners were telling personal stories. This finding coincides with those of Robin (2008), Sadik (2008), and Coutinho (2010). Essentially, learners strive for good products since they know others will see their digital stories. Therefore, they do their best to showcase their digital stories, making sure they are free of errors (Levin, 2003). Learners are also more motivated to create their digital stories when they realize that a large audience will watch them (Robin, 2008). Once their stories are shared, new borderless communication channels are opened for students to discuss, analyze, and sympathize with one another across the globe. For instance, one participants’ digital story about his first school day stirred the discussion about what audience experienced in their first day of school and how their experiences differed from that of the storyteller. Regarding learners’ degree of satisfaction toward the program, the analysis of relevant data showed that participants had a positive attitude toward the program. They also felt enthusiastic to use digital storytelling to enhance their speaking skills and enjoyed using the platform “WeVideo.” To illustrate, learners found that “WeVideo” is a user-friendly platform for telling their own digital stories since they were allowed to share their stories directly on

6

YouTube. In this sense, students were active participants rather than passive learners because they could use the target language inside and outside the walls of the classroom, making learners’ experience with digital storytelling more engaging and motivating. In addition, digital storytelling provides an authentic, hands-on, personal learning experience. For instance, learners use real world artifacts in a real world context to create their digital stories. Hence, digital storytelling offers further opportunities for communication since learners may have a discussion with their audience about the published digital stories. Besides, learning is personalized and individualized because students decide how they tell their stories (e.g., selecting the most appropriate images to use). In addition, they preferred to write scripts and read from them. Reading from scripts, accordingly, should not be considered as a hindrance to enhancing oral proficiency. On the contrary, learners should be allowed to have their scripts and read from them while recording their narratives. In doing so, as the positive findings of the study suggest, learners may significantly enhance their oral proficiency. On the other hand, students viewed time issues and unfamiliarity with the platform as major obstacles while creating their digital stories. They felt that they needed more time both to be familiar with “WeVideo” and to practice their speeches. In this way, to integrate digital storytelling in the curriculum, students should be given enough time to be acquainted with the platform, whether a website or software program, and be exposed to a plethora of examples of digital stories (Robin, 2008; Coutinho, 2010). Furthermore, students may have needed more time to rerecord themselves so that their narrations are both fluent and accurate. Still, the findings of the study should be interpreted cautiously because of two main limitations: the small number of participants and the time frame. Firstly, the number of the students who participated in the experiment is limited. Only eight students of the foundation year at Zewail University of Science and technology took part in the study. Secondly, the experiment lasted for only five weeks, in which the participants created five digital stories. This may have affected the reliability and validity of the study. If another study integrates a bigger number of participants and a longer time frame, it will have more generalization to claim that digital storytelling may enhance EFL learner’s language skills, especially speaking.

Recommendations The findings of the study suggest that digital storytelling has a positive effect on learners’ oral proficiency. It may be the very tool to provide students with opportunities to practice and therefore enhance their speaking skills inside and outside the classroom. Meanwhile, the learners are reported to have a positive attitude towards the digital storytelling experience. They also pointed that it has more advantages than disadvantages. Learners’ behaviors combined writing scripts, recording and rerecording themselves, importing pictures, and selecting background music. Because the learners showed preference for reading from the script, the teachers should allow them to do so. Despite the limitations and delimitations of the current research, its findings can be applied in English language teaching settings, such as general English courses, conversation courses, and English for specific purposes. Moreover, EFL teachers may implement the findings of the study to enhance their learners’ speaking skills, hence filling in the gaps in the EFL setting, in which learners do not have enough opportunities to practice the target language outside the classroom. Moreover, the findings of the study may renovate the methodology of English language teaching and learning in Egypt, where teachers may find in digital storytelling a more effective, engaging, and motivating way to support their teaching. For example, they may create digital storytelling-based lesson plans.

Suggestions for Further Research To further investigate the effectiveness of digital storytelling, the following studies seem pertinent: digital storytelling and EFL learners’ intercultural awareness; digital storytelling and EFL learners’ critical thinking skills; digital storytelling and EFL learners’ motivation and engagement; digital storytelling and EFL learners’ project-based learning skills; a comparative study of the relative effectiveness of digital storytelling-based reflection and paperbased reflection for EFL learners; and a qualitative study investigating learners’, teachers’, and administrators’ perspectives on using digital storytelling.

7

References Azizah, C. N. (2010). Potentials of interactive digital storytelling for preschool children in daily reading activity. (Unpublished Master’s thesis, Universiti Utara Malaysia). Retrieved from http://etd.uum.edu.my/2390/ 1/ Cut_Nora_Azizah.pdf Baghdasaryan, K. (2012). The impact of digital storytelling on EFL learners' speaking skills: Reinforcing EFL learners' speaking skills by implementing technology. San Bernardino, CA: Lambert Academic Publishing. Baker, J., & Westrup, H. (2003). Essential speaking skills: A handbook for English language teachers. London: VSO. Bull, G. & Kajder, S. (2004). Digital storytelling in the language arts classroom. Learning & Leading with Technology, 32 (4), 46–49. Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Coutinho, C. (2010). Storytelling as a strategy for integrating technologies into the curriculum: An empirical study with post-graduate teachers. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2010--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 379 –3802). San Diego, CA, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/ 33972/ Davies, G. D. (2000). CALL (computer assisted language learning). Retrieved from https://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/61 Gong, J. (2002). The employment of CALL in teaching second/ foreign language speaking skills. Post Script, 3(1). Retrieved from https://palssresources. wikispaces.com/file/view/Foreign+Language+Speaking+Skills(2).pdf Gregori-Signes, C. (2008). Integrating the old and the new: Digital storytelling in the EFL language classroom. GRETA, 16(1), 29–35. Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching. England: Longman. Hull, G. A., & Katz, M. L. (2006). Crafting an agentive self: Case studies of digital storytelling. Research in the Teaching of English, 41(1), 43–81. Retrieved from http://www1.udel.edu/present/aaron/digitalstory/Readings/ Case% 20Studies%20on%20Digital%20Storytelling.pdf Kearney, M., & Schuck, S. (2005). Students in the director's seat: Teaching and learning with student-generated video. In P. Kommers & G. Richards (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2005 (pp. 2864–2871). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Levin, H. (2003). Making history come alive. Learning and Leading with Technology, 31 (1), 22–27. Li, L. (2006). Digital storytelling: Self-efficacy and digital literacy. In T. Reeves & S. Yamashita (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on ELearning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2006 (pp. 2159 –2164). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Ohler, J. (2008). Digital storytelling in the classroom: New media pathways to literacy, learning, and creativity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Ostrowska, S. (2014). Unlock: Listening & speaking skills 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pelin et al. (2011). Educational uses of digital storytelling around the world. Middle East: Technical University.

8

Ramírez, M. D., & Belmonte, I. A. (2006). Learning English with the Internet. Children and Teenagers (CATS), the YLSIG Newsletter, IATEFL, 10–14. Ramírez, M. D., & Belmonte, I. A. (2007). Using digital stories to improve listening comprehension with Spanish young learners of English. Language Learning & Technology Special Issue on Listening Comprehension, 11 (1), 87–101. Richards, J., & Renandya, W., A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Robin, B. R. (2006). The educational uses of digital storytelling. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1, 709. Robin, B. R. (2008). Digital storytelling: A powerful technology tool for the 21st century classroom. Theory into Practice, 47, 220–228. Sadik, A. (2008). Digital storytelling: A meaningful technology-integrated approach for engaged student learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(4), 487–506. Stacy, B. (2005). Digital storytelling: Examining the process with middle school students. Retrieved from http://edhd.bgsu.edu/~sbanist/6320/ pdfs/ LitReviewdigistor.pdf Ur, P. (2006). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Xu, Y. & Ahn, J. (2010). Effects of writing for digital storytelling on writing self-efficacy and flow in virtual worlds. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, (pp. 2118–2125). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

9

Appendix A: The Analytic Speaking Rubric

Fluency

Pronunciation

Vocabulary

Grammar

Comprehensibility

(4) Speaks fluently with few pauses, rare repetitions, or selfcorrection; effortless and smooth speech; no hesitation to find words or grammar.

(3) Speaks fluently with only occasional pausing, repetition or self-correction; speech is mostly smooth; hesitation caused mainly by rephrasing and trying to find the right words.

(2) Speaks slowly with frequent pauses; uses repetition or self-correction to keep going; some sentences may be left incomplete.

No conspicuous or consistent mispronunciations; pronunciation enhances understanding; Pronounces /b, p, θ, ð, f, v/ correctly. Uses a wide range of vocabulary flexibly and precisely; uses idiomatic language and collocations naturally and accurately.

Occasional mispronunciations make understanding difficult; Pronounces /f, v/ correctly, but has problems with /b, p, θ, ð/. Limited use of vocabulary; makes occasional errors in word choice; uses simple words only to convey basic meaning.

Naturally and appropriately uses a full range of structures; clear evidence of strong command of grammatical structure; “slips” do not impede comprehension.

Has occasional pronunciation lapses that do not interfere with understanding; no phonemic errors; Pronounces /b, p, f, v/ correctly, but has problems with /θ, ð/. Adequate use of vocabulary; less use of idiomatic language and collocations; occasional inaccuracies; makes a few word choice errors. Flexibly uses a wide range of structures; good command of grammatical structures but some grammar mistakes persist; limited number of errors that do not impede comprehension.

Response readily comprehensible; employs appropriate cohesive devices; develops the topic fully and appropriately; no interpretation required from the listener.

Response mostly comprehensible; uses a range of connectives and discourse markers often appropriately; minimal interpretation required from the listener.

10

Produces basic sentence forms with reasonable accuracy; always conveys meaning in simple sentences; subordinate structures are rare; frequent errors may lead to misunderstanding. Response partially comprehensible; may overuse certain connectives and discourse markers; interpretation sometimes required from the listener.

(1) Speaks with long pauses and incomplete thoughts; gives only simple short responses or memorized expressions; may not be able to continue; perceiving continuity in utterances is difficult for the listener. Frequent pronunciation errors lead to misunderstanding; Pronounces /b, p, θ, ð, f, v/ incorrectly.

Inaccurate use of vocabulary; frequent word choice errors impede comprehension; only produces isolated words or memorized utterances. Inaccurate use of basic sentence forms; accuracy is limited to memorized utterances; frequent errors impede comprehension.

Response barely comprehensible; repetitious use of simple connectives.