- Email: [email protected]
Toward an integrative framework for understanding multimodal L2 writing in the content areas
Journal of Second Language Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Second Language Writing journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jslw
Toward an integrative framework for understanding multimodal L2 writing in the content areas Scott E. Grapin*, Lorena Llosa New York University, United States
A R T IC LE I N F O
ABS TRA CT
Keywords: Multimodality Content area writing Second language learners
Second language (L2) learners in content area classes are expected to perform a range of writing tasks that involve multiple modes beyond language. Traditionally, however, research on multimodality with L2 learners has been approached differently in content versus L2 teaching and learning contexts. In this issue statement, we propose the need for an integrative framework for understanding multimodal L2 writing in the content areas that capitalizes on the complementary nature of these two research areas. After situating this need within U.S. K-12 education policy, we provide a brief overview of theoretical perspectives that have informed research in each area. Then, we identify key differences between these research areas in terms of (a) what modes are considered (i.e., multiple modes vs. linguistic mode) and (b) how those modes are analyzed (i.e., meaning-focused vs. feature-focused). Using a writing sample from an English learner in an elementary science classroom, we illustrate the potential of an integrative framework for providing a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of multimodal L2 writing in the content areas. Implications of an integrative framework and promising directions for future research are also discussed.
1. Introduction Despite the longstanding legacy of print-based, monomodal conceptions of literacy in school contexts, second language (L2) learners in content area classes are increasingly expected to perform writing tasks that involve multiple modes beyond language. Traditionally, however, research on multimodality with L2 learners has been approached differently depending on the teaching and learning context. In contexts primarily aimed at content teaching and learning (e.g., English language arts, mathematics, science), research has drawn on multimodal theories to analyze learners’ use of both linguistic and nonlinguistic modes and the disciplinary meaning communicated in each mode (e.g., Yi, Shin, & Cimasko, 2019). In contexts primarily aimed at L2 teaching and learning (e.g., English as a second or foreign language), research has drawn on psycholinguistic theories to analyze learners’ use of the linguistic mode specifically and the linguistic features elicited in each of its modalities (e.g., Gilabert, Manchón, & Vasylets, 2016). While these
⁎
Corresponding author at: Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development, Department of Teaching and Learning, 239 Greene Street #210, New York, NY 10003, United States. E-mail address: [email protected] (S.E. Grapin).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100711 Received 30 March 2019; Received in revised form 17 November 2019; Accepted 10 January 2020 1060-3743/ © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Scott E. Grapin and Lorena Llosa, Journal of Second Language Writing, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100711
Journal of Second Language Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx
S.E. Grapin and L. Llosa
research areas reflect distinct theoretical and methodological orientations matched to their respective contexts and purposes1, a lack of cross-fertilization between these areas restricts our understanding of how L2 learners engage in content area writing while developing L2 proficiency. In this issue statement, we propose the need for an integrative framework for understanding multimodal L2 writing in the content areas that capitalizes on the complementary nature of these two research areas. First, we situate this need within U.S. K-12 education policy. Second, we provide a brief overview of theoretical perspectives that have informed research on multimodality in each area. Third, we identify key differences between these research areas in terms of (a) what modes are considered and (b) how those modes are analyzed. Finally, we present a student writing sample from an elementary science classroom to illustrate the potential of an integrative framework for providing a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of multimodal L2 writing in the content areas. As this special issue of the Journal of Second Language Writing signals a key moment for the fast-growing field of multimodal L2 writing, it is timely to take stock of the present landscape, reflect on contributions and limitations of research in different contexts, and begin to envision how disparate research areas may be productively integrated to move the field forward. One indication that these research areas have remained separate is a lack of common terminology between them. As Jewitt, Bezemer, and O’Halloran (2016) point out, multimodal concepts (e.g., modality, mode, multimodality) tend to be “differently construed…both across and within different research traditions” (p. 1). Traditionally, the term modality has been used in L2 education to refer to channels of linguistic communication (e.g., speaking, writing). From this perspective, multimodality refers specifically to the relationship between modalities of language (e.g., speaking-writing connections; Hirvela & Belcher, 2016). More recently, with the field expanding beyond its purely linguistic roots and moving into new theoretical terrain, the term mode has been increasingly adopted to refer to “a socially and culturally shaped resource for making meaning” (Bezemer & Kress, 2008, p. 171), including the linguistic mode as well as nonlinguistic modes such as visual image and gesture. From this perspective, multimodality refers broadly to the co-deployment of multiple modes—both linguistic and nonlinguistic—in a communicative product or event. These differences in terminology, rather than being superficial or stylistic, reflect precisely the differences in theoretical and analytic foci that this issue statement aims to bring to the fore2 . For clarity throughout the paper, the following terminology will be adopted: mode (e.g., language, visual image, gesture) and modality (e.g., listening, reading, speaking, writing). 2. Multimodality in U.S. K-12 education policy The need for a more comprehensive understanding of multimodal L2 writing in the content areas is particularly urgent in U.S. K12 education policy in light of demographic shifts in the student population and a new wave of standards-based reform. Students classified as English learners (ELs) are the fastest growing subset of the U.S. student population, comprising nearly 10 % of public school students, and these students are expected to meet grade-level standards across content areas (National Center for Education Statistics, 2018). The latest content standards in English language arts, mathematics, and science have been adopted or adapted by a majority of states across the nation and represent fundamental shifts in the way content areas are taught and learned. Specifically, these content standards expect all students, including ELs, to engage in disciplinary practices that are both writing-intensive and multimodal. For example, the Common Core State Standards for English language arts expect students to write arguments using graphics, formatting, and multimedia for varying purposes and audiences (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010a); the Common Core State Standards for mathematics expect students to explain solutions to problems using symbolic representations (e.g., graphs, tables, charts) appropriate to the problem context (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010b); and the Next Generation Science Standards expect students to develop models using a combination of drawings, symbols, and written language in order to explain science phenomena (Next Generation Science Standards Lead States, 2013). Collectively, content standards make explicit that writing goes beyond language to the strategic use of multiple modes in ways recognized by each discipline (see Grapin, 2019 for further examples of multimodality in content standards). To support ELs in achieving content standards, U.S. federal legislation requires that states also adopt English language proficiency standards that: (i) are derived from the 4 recognized domains of speaking, listening, reading, and writing; (ii) address the different proficiency levels of English learners; and (iii) are aligned with the challenging State academic standards. (U.S. Department of Education, 2015, p. 24)
1
There are many contexts in which both language learning and content learning are goals of instruction. For example, L2 teaching and learning contexts (e.g., English as a second or foreign language classrooms) typically have language learning as their primary goal, but students may also be learning content through the language they are developing. Likewise, content teaching and learning contexts (e.g., science classrooms) typically have content learning as their primary goal, but students are also learning language through engagement in disciplinary practices. The distinction, then, between these contexts concerns the relative emphasis on language learning and content learning. 2 Even within these terminological traditions, there are variations. For example, in research on task-based language instruction, Gilabert et al. (2016) refer to speaking and writing as separate modes (rather than modalities of language) based on an orality-literacy model of language use. In research from a social semiotic perspective, Kress, Jewitt, Ogborn, and Tsatsarelis, (2014) refer to speaking and writing as distinct modes (rather than one linguistic mode) based on their unique potentials for making meaning. Since what constitutes a mode varies based on “what are counted as well-acknowledged regularities within any one community” (Jewitt, 2017, p. 111), definitions of mode (and modality) are continually being revised. 2
Journal of Second Language Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx
S.E. Grapin and L. Llosa
The first two requirements involving modalities (referred to as “domains” above) and English proficiency levels have been addressed by English language proficiency standards in different ways. One set of standards adopted by the majority of states describes the linguistic features in receptive (i.e., listening and reading) and productive (i.e., speaking and writing) modalities expected of ELs at each of six English proficiency levels (WIDA Consortium, 2012). Another more recent set of standards adopted by 12 states takes a similar approach but adds a third modality—the interactive modality—to account for the “collaborative use of receptive and productive modalities” (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2014, p. 5). The third requirement in the federal legislation mandating alignment between English language proficiency standards and content standards indicates that the two sets of standards must work in tandem to support ELs in the content areas. In recent years, English language proficiency standards have made substantial progress toward alignment with content standards. For example, both sets of English language proficiency standards referenced above emphasize disciplinary uses of language within and across content areas. However, English language proficiency standards continue to frame nonlinguistic modes as scaffolds or supports toward language rather than as central to engagement in disciplinary practices—what Grapin (2019) refers to as “the weak version of multimodality” (p. 33). While English language proficiency standards and content standards have different foci to serve different purposes, ELs in content classrooms are expected to engage in disciplinary practices that involve both linguistic and nonlinguistic modes (i.e., the focus of content standards) at the same time as they develop proficiency in linguistic modalities specifically (i.e., the focus of English language proficiency standards). Thus, an integrative framework for understanding multimodal L2 writing in the content areas could push the research community to better reflect the reality of teachers and students in content classrooms. Although we situate this need within U.S. K-12 education policy (see also Kibler, Valdés, & Walqui, 2014 for a review of standardsbased reform with L2 learners from an international perspective), the issues at stake are a matter of disciplinary, rather than national, boundaries as described next. 3. Theoretical perspectives on multimodality with L2 learners In content teaching and learning contexts, research has been informed by a range of related theories, each explicating “different aspects of multimodality with varied epistemological and methodological approaches” (Yi et al., 2019, p. 164). These include, but are not limited to, social semiotics, systemic functional linguistics, and multiliteracies. For example, a social semiotic perspective focuses on the affordances, or potentials for making meaning, of different modes and how those modes contribute, both separately and collectively, to multimodal ensembles (Bezemer & Kress, 2008; Kress, 2003). Alternatively, a multiliteracies perspective (New London Group, 1996) places greater emphasis on the social and cultural practices surrounding the use and production of multimodal texts, with a particular focus on identity development. Despite these differences, researchers working within this umbrella of theories converge in their common focus on “meaning in all its appearances, in all social occasions and in all cultural sites” (Kress, 2010, p. 2). In L2 teaching and learning contexts, research has been largely informed by psycholinguistic perspectives. With roots in the second language acquisition literature (e.g., Segalowitz & Lightbown, 1999), psycholinguistic perspectives have as their central focus the cognitive processes underlying language use. Specifically, these perspectives have been concerned with developing and testing theoretical models of L2 production in linguistic modalities (see Kormos, 2006 and Zimmerman, 2000 for models of L2 speaking and writing, respectively) and combinations of linguistic modalities (see Belcher & Hirvela, 2001 for an overview of theoretical perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections). Given that cognitive processes cannot be examined directly, one common approach adopted by psycholinguistically oriented researchers is to rely on the outwardly visible manifestation of these processes: the linguistic features elicited in each modality or combination of modalities across L2 proficiency levels (Housen, Kuiken, & Vedder, 2012). Although the theoretical perspectives described above are characteristic of research on multimodality with L2 learners in each context, they do not speak to the diversity of theoretical perspectives adopted in the field at large (see, for example, Weissberg, 2006 on speaking-writing connections from a sociocultural perspective). However, we focus specifically on the perspectives described above since, despite various calls for cross-fertilization between more cognitively oriented and socially oriented theories of writing (e.g., Beck, 2009), these perspectives have rarely been integrated in research with L2 learners. This lack of integration at the theoretical level has led to the different aims and designs of empirical studies in each area, as described next. 4. Research on multimodality with L2 learners Research on multimodality in content versus L2 teaching and learning contexts has adopted different research foci and analytic approaches. These research foci and analytic approaches differ along two key dimensions: (a) what modes are considered (i.e., multiple modes vs. linguistic mode) and (b) how those modes are analyzed (i.e., meaning-focused vs. feature-focused). The purpose of this section is not to provide a detailed review of studies but to highlight contributions and limitations of research in each area that underscore the need for an integrative framework. 4.1. Content teaching and learning contexts Research on multimodality in content teaching and learning contexts has focused on multiple modes—both linguistic and nonlinguistic—and the disciplinary meaning they communicate. This research has been carried out primarily in the context of English language arts classrooms, highlighting how L2 learners move fluidly across modes in their composing processes to engage multiple audiences and convey nuanced meanings (see Yi et al., 2019 for a comprehensive review). For example, studies have elucidated how multimodal writing presents opportunities for L2 learners to engage in literary analysis following unique compositional paths 3
Journal of Second Language Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx
S.E. Grapin and L. Llosa
(Pacheco & Smith, 2015; Smith, Pacheco, & de Almeida, 2017) and develop a heightened awareness of semiotic choices in the context of school-based academic genres (Harman & Shin, 2018; Shin, 2018). This research also dovetails with broader theoretical developments in L2 education that emphasize valuing and inviting students’ full linguistic and semiotic repertoire in the service of learning (Canagarajah, 2013; García & Li, 2014) and in writing instruction in particular (Velasco & García, 2014; Zapata & Laman, 2016). Research on multimodality in content contexts has made important contributions. This research recognizes multiple modes—both linguistic and nonlinguistic—used to make meaning in the content areas, thus challenging “long-held assumptions of the sufficiency of ‘language’ for all communicational needs” (Kress, 2015, p. 49). Moreover, this research prioritizes what L2 learners communicate in the content areas and, in doing so, goes beyond a narrow focus on how well (or not) these students are able to communicate in the language they are still in the process of developing. As Valdés (2004) has argued in response to overriding concerns of linguistic wellformedness in instruction with L2 learners, “what is missing entirely from discussions of the teaching of academic discourse…is the notion that writing is about ideas” (p. 122). An additional contribution of this research is the importance of studying students’ multimodal writing processes beyond just products. However, there are also limitations to this research, especially when viewed from the vantage point of L2 teaching and learning. While this research highlights how L2 learners move fluidly across modes (e.g., language and visual image) to create coherent compositional arrangements appropriate to purpose and audience, studies pay less attention to how L2 learners marshal their developing L2 proficiency, as traditionally defined3, within and across linguistic modalities. For example, studies that adopt systemic functional linguistics as a theoretical lens tend to focus broadly on the affordances of different modes and the interrelations among them in students’ writing (e.g., image-text relations). As a result, these studies can fall short of providing detailed analyses of the specific features of L2 production in linguistic modalities and how those features vary across L2 proficiency levels. An additional limitation of this research is the narrow range of genres that have been addressed (i.e., narrative and, to some extent, argumentative writing in English language arts) as well as the unequal distribution of studies across content areas, with a paucity of research in science and mathematics despite longstanding recognition of their multimodal nature (e.g., Lemke, 1990 in science; O’Halloran, 1998 in mathematics).
4.2. L2 teaching and learning contexts Research on multimodality in L2 teaching and learning contexts has focused on the linguistic mode and the linguistic features elicited in each of its modalities. This research has been carried out primarily in the context of English as foreign language instruction and assessment. For example, one line of inquiry in task-based language instruction has investigated similarities and differences in the linguistic features elicited by speaking versus writing (Ellis & Yuan, 2005; Granfeldt, 2008; Kormos, 2014). Broadly, these studies have uncovered that differences in linguistic performance between speaking and writing depend on a variety of factors, including the specific characteristics of the task and the L2 proficiency of the learners (see Gilabert et al., 2016 for a comprehensive review). Another line of inquiry has examined the use of integrated writing assessments that require test takers to synthesize information across listening and/or reading source material (Biber & Gray, 2013; Gebril & Plakans, 2013; Plakans, Gebril, & Bilki, 2019). Unlike research in task-based instruction, the purpose of these studies is not to draw comparisons between modalities but to examine the features of linguistic production when L2 learners at varying levels of proficiency use multiple linguistic modalities to complete a writing task. Research on multimodality in L2 contexts has made important contributions. In contrast with much previous research that treated linguistic modalities separately, this research emphasizes the relationships between and among linguistic modalities in “the achievement of task-related communicative goals” (Gilabert et al., 2016, p. 118). This shift, also reflected in recent ELP standards in the U.S. context (described above), suggests that when it comes to “real-life” language use, “the notion of discrete linguistic modalities…looks less and less meaningful” (Hirvela & Belcher, 2016, p. 604). Moreover, this research offers insight into the linguistic features elicited in different linguistic modalities and combinations of linguistic modalities in relation to a variety of factors and across L2 proficiency levels. However, there are also limitations to this research, especially when viewed from the vantage point of content teaching and learning. While the rationale for task-based language instruction and integrated writing assessments is to more authentically reflect “real-life” language use, writing in the content areas goes beyond language to the use of nonlinguistic modes specific to each discipline. Moreover, by focusing narrowly on how L2 learners communicate, this research does not pay sufficient attention to what these students communicate, which is the heart of the content being learned. After all, writing could be complex, accurate, and fluent from a linguistic perspective but fail to communicate disciplinary meaning that is relevant and precise from a content perspective (Grapin, Llosa, Haas, Goggins, & Lee, 2019). Although it is increasingly common for studies in task-based language instruction to consider functional dimensions of L2 performance (e.g., Kuiken & Vedder, 2017) and studies in writing assessment to pay greater attention to the content of writing (e.g., Bae, Bentler, & Lee, 2016), these studies still focus on meaning broadly conceived (e.g., task completion, coherence, comprehensibility) rather than disciplinary meaning (i.e., concepts and ideas communicated in content areas). An additional limitation of this research is that it has focused almost exclusively on college and adult L2 learners, with little consideration of the K-12 context.
3 We use the term “L2 proficiency” to refer narrowly to proficiency in the linguistic mode while recognizing other conceptualizations of L2 proficiency that expand beyond language (see, for example, Royce, 2002 on “multimodal communicative competence”).
4
Journal of Second Language Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx
S.E. Grapin and L. Llosa
Fig. 1. Fifth-grade English learner’s model-based explanation.
4.3. Toward an integrative framework: An example from the science classroom In this section, we illustrate how an integrative framework for understanding multimodal L2 writing in the content areas could capitalize on the contributions and address the limitations of these research areas that have remained largely separate. As one example of content area writing, we focus on constructing explanations, which is a key disciplinary practice in the scientific enterprise (e.g., Braaten & Windschitl, 2011) and in K-12 science education reform in particular (e.g., Next Generation Science Standards Lead States, 2013). Constructing an explanation in science involves “developing an account of how or why some phenomenon occurred” (McNeill, Berland, & Pelletier, 2017, p. 207). Explanations are often constructed based on models, or abstract representations of phenomena. Such model-based explanations employ both visual (e.g., drawings and symbols) and linguistic (e.g., written language) modes to construct coherent accounts of phenomena (see McNeill et al., 2017 for further details on the relationship between explanations and models in science). In this particular task aligned to a fifth-grade standard in space science, students were asked to explain why Daniel (a fictional student in the task scenario) sees the Bootid meteor shower (also referred to as “falling stars” in this classroom) only in the month of June and to predict when he should expect to see the same meteor shower next year. Students were expected to explain that, as Earth orbits the sun over a year, it passes by the Bootid meteor shower. Since Earth will return to the same location on its orbit during the same month every year, it will pass by the Bootid meteor shower again in June next year. Fig. 1 shows a model-based explanation constructed by a fifth-grade student in a mainstream science classroom. This student, whose home language is Spanish, was classified as an EL at an intermediate level of English proficiency. Prior to engaging in this writing task, students used a computer program to make observations of the night sky at different times of the year, which produced evidence of Earth’s orbit. The class then acted out an embodied model in which students assumed the roles of different agents (e.g., Earth, sun, meteor shower) and interacted physically according to their assigned role. Thus, the process of composing this explanation involved multiple modes (e.g., gesture) and modalities (e.g., speaking) beyond what is apparent from the written product alone. For this abbreviated analysis, we restrict our focus to the written product while recognizing that an integrative framework could address both process and product aspects of multimodal writing in the content areas. First, we analyze the student’s explanation from the perspective of content teaching and learning research by focusing on the disciplinary meaning communicated in visual and linguistic modes. Second, we analyze the student’s explanation from the perspective of L2 teaching and learning research by focusing on the linguistic features elicited in the written language modality specifically. This example is not intended as a rigorous analysis but to illustrate the potential of an integrative framework for informing more systematic empirical investigations in the future. From the perspective of content teaching and learning research, the student represents two key science ideas in the top half of Fig. 1. First, the curved arrows moving horizontally across the visual communicate the idea of Earth’s orbit. Interestingly, however, the sun is represented as part of Earth’s orbit, suggesting that both objects are in motion. Second, the placement of Earth between the sun and meteor shower (labeled “falling stars” in the key) communicates the crucial idea that objects are visible from Earth only when they appear on the opposite side of Earth from the sun (A common misconception would be to represent the meteor shower between Earth and the sun in which case the light from the sun would prevent the meteor shower from being seen). Both of these science ideas relate to the relative position of components in the space system and are made evident based on the affordances of the visual mode for conveying spatial relations among entities (Kress, 2000). In the bottom half of Fig. 1, the linguistic mode communicates the causal relationship between Earth’s orbit (cause) and the ability to see meteor showers at certain times of the year (effect). This science idea, which involves a temporal relation of cause (“earth [sic] is going to spin in circles”) and effect (“[Earth] is going to 5
Journal of Second Language Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx
S.E. Grapin and L. Llosa
end up at the same moth [sic]”), is made evident based on the affordances of written language for conveying sequential relations of events (Kress, 2000). The linguistic mode can also be seen as creating a “reading path” (Bezemer & Kress, 2008, p. 185) that animates the visual and engages the reader with the drawing and symbols in a manner prescribed by the student. For example, the reader is invited to begin at Earth’s current position and follow the direction of the arrows until returning to the same position. Thus, there is a multiplicative effect on meaning potential when visual and linguistic modes are co-deployed in this multimodal ensemble (Lemke, 2002). However, while this analysis sheds light on the disciplinary meaning communicated in visual and linguistic modes, both separately and collectively, it does not offer insight into how the student marshals her developing L2 proficiency to complete the writing task. From the perspective of L2 teaching and learning research, the above analysis could be complemented by more fine-grained attention to the linguistic features elicited in the written language modality. While the language in Fig. 1 is mostly accurate despite a few minor errors that are not particularly consequential in terms of meaning (e.g., “He will expected”), the colloquial expression “spins in circles” is imprecise, as it could refer either to Earth’s rotation (i.e., spins in circles about its axis) or Earth’s orbit (i.e., spins in circles around the sun). Furthermore, while the student demonstrates some degree of linguistic complexity needed to communicate the causal relationship (“…because…”), she is not yet able to connect two key ideas that are crucial to the explanation: (a) the location of Earth on its orbit and (b) the timing of when meteor showers are visible. Instead, the two ideas are blended into one phrase (“is going to end up at the same moth [sic]”). This student’s emerging complexity in written language is likely a reflection of her developing L2 proficiency. For the purpose of comparison, consider the response of a peer at a more advanced level of English proficiency: Daniel should expect to see the Bootid meteor shower next year in June around the same time he saw it this year because earth [sic] orbits around the sun for one year and then the process repeats all over again causing earth [sic] to end up in the same positions as last year. In addition to using disciplinary terminology (“orbits around the sun”), this student exhibits greater linguistic complexity by using a noun phrase to condense what was previously described (“the process repeats”) and a gerund-initiated subordinate clause to connect the location of Earth and the timing of the meteor shower’s appearance (“…causing earth [sic] to end up in the same positions as last year”). These linguistic features (e.g., “the process” as an example of conceptual anaphora) have also been identified as markers of more advanced proficiency in the K-12 literature on academic English (see DiCerbo, Anstrom, Baker, & Rivera, 2014 for a review). However, while this linguistic analysis offers insight into how the student in Fig. 1 marshals her developing L2 proficiency, a focus on linguistic features alone would miss the broader context: the role of the written language in the multimodal whole and the combined effect of visual and linguistic modes working in concert to communicate disciplinary meaning in the explanation (i.e., the focus of the analysis from the content perspective above). It is the complementary relationship between these perspectives that allows for a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of the student’s writing in science. This complementary relationship is illustrated in Fig. 2, with the text on the left and right sides indicating questions that motivate each part of the analysis. An integrative framework could inform research efforts across a wide variety of contexts, including across content areas, educational levels, and instructional arrangements with different relative emphases on content and language learning. In particular, one promising direction for applying such a framework is to inform emerging efforts related to multimodal assessment (e.g., Grapin & Llosa, 2019). Although research on multimodal instruction with L2 learners has surged in recent years, multimodal assessment has lagged behind (Yi, King, & Safriani, 2017). Traditionally, assessment has been carried out through written language, with nonlinguistic modes (e.g., visual) being viewed as scaffolds or accommodations for L2 learners. However, as the above analysis illustrates, assessment tasks that elicit responses in both linguistic and nonlinguistic modes could provide information about students’ content learning that traditional written language assessments might otherwise overlook (e.g., the relative position of components in a system). At the same time, more fine-grained attention to linguistic features could provide complementary information about the extent to which students are able to communicate their content learning in a language they are still in the process of developing—a persistent concern in the content assessment of L2 learners (e.g., Thurlow & Kopriva, 2015)—as well as diagnostic information that could be useful for supporting these students’ L2 proficiency development. The proposed framework could provide a principled means to begin (re)conceptualizing assessment approaches that offer a more complete and accurate picture of what L2 learners know and can do in the content areas.
Fig. 2. Complementary relationship between content teaching and learning perspective and L2 teaching and learning perspective (inspired by Tang, Delgado, & Moje, 2014). 6
Journal of Second Language Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx
S.E. Grapin and L. Llosa
More broadly, one organizing principle for research informed by this framework could be disciplinary practices (e.g., “constructing explanations” in the example above). A focus on disciplinary practices could begin to address documented challenges of implementing and researching multimodal writing with L2 learners (Yi et al., 2019). For example, one challenge involves tensions with prescribed curricula that focus narrowly on developing L2 learners’ language proficiency. Given the multimodal nature of disciplinary practices and their prominence in the latest content standards, organizing research efforts around these practices could bring multimodality out from the margins and more in line with standards-based curricular goals and objectives. Another challenge involves the limited range of genres that have been studied to date. As engagement in disciplinary practices calls upon a range of genres (e.g., constructing explanations), a focus on these practices could go beyond narrative and argumentative writing that have dominated research on multimodality with L2 learners. Finally, given that disciplinary practices are intended to reflect the actual practices of disciplinarians in their work (e.g., scientists, mathematicians), a focus on these practices is well-suited to incorporate a multiliteracies perspective that takes into account “how cultural, social, and discursive values and norms shape individual uses of multimodal texts” (Yi et al., 2019, p. 165). Organizing research efforts around disciplinary practices, while promising, would require careful consideration of how norms of engaging in these practices vary across content areas and the implications of this for multimodal writing instruction and assessment (see Lee, 2017 for discrepant norms related to argumentation in science vs. English language arts). This framework is not without limitations. For example, the framework does not explicitly address constructs such as identity development and critical language awareness that have figured prominently in the multimodal research agenda (e.g., Ajayi, 2009) nor does it address how L2 learners deploy multiple named languages in their composing processes (e.g., Zapata & Laman, 2016). Given these (and other) limitations, an important task going forward will be to consider how this framework is consistent with related theoretical perspectives and lines of inquiry and how the framework can be augmented or adapted by researchers for different purposes. Ultimately, we hope this framework initiates a dialogue in the field about how research on multimodality can bridge multiple theoretical perspectives and methodological traditions to better capture the complexities of multimodal L2 writing across a range of contexts. 5. Conclusion As Silva (2016) describes in his historical review of L2 writing research, the field of L2 writing has been interdisciplinary from its inception. Drawing insights from applied linguistics, psychology, composition studies, and education, among other areas, L2 writing “has embraced a largely eclectic orientation toward inquiry, primarily adopting and adapting frameworks and approaches from other areas and creating new ones to meet changing needs” (Silva, 2016, p. 33). This interdisciplinary nature has prevented L2 writing researchers from “being limited by the rigidity of a single theoretical or methodological paradigm” (Silva, 2016, p. 33). In keeping with this interdisciplinary tradition, L2 writing research must continue to adapt to meet changing needs, including expanded definitions of writing and new contexts in which L2 learners are expected to write. As definitions of writing expand beyond language and L2 learners are expected to write for a variety of purposes and audiences in the content areas, there is a need for new frameworks to guide research. An integrative framework for understanding multimodal L2 writing in the content areas represents an important step in that direction. Funding This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Declaration of Competing Interest None. References Ajayi, L. (2009). English as a second language learners’ exploration of multimodal texts in a junior high school. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 7, 206–229. Bae, J., Bentler, P., & Lee, Y. (2016). On the role of content in writing assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly, 13(4), 302–328. Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2008). Writing in multimodal texts: A social-semiotic account of designs for learning. Written Communication, 25(2), 166–195. Beck, S. (2009). Composition across secondary and post-secondary contexts: Cognitive, textual and social dimensions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(3), 311–327. Belcher, D., & Hirvela, A. (2001). Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2013). Discourse characteristics of writing and speaking task types on the TOEFL iBT Test: A lexico-grammatical analysis (TOEFL iBT Research Report RR-19)Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95(4), 639–669. Canagarajah, A. S. (2013). Negotiating translingual literacy: An enactment. Research in the Teaching of English, 48(1), 40–67. Council of Chief State School Officers (2014). English language proficiency (ELP) standards with correspondences to K-12 English language arts (ELA), mathematics, and science practices, K-12 ELA standards, and 6-12 literacy standards. Retrieved fromhttp://www.elpa21.org/sites/default/files/Final%204_30%20ELPA21% 20Standards_1.pdf. DiCerbo, P., Anstrom, K., Baker, L., & Rivera, C. (2014). A review of the literature on teaching academic English to English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 84(3), 446–482. Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2005). The effects of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.). Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 167–193). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins. García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Gebril, A., & Plakans, L. (2013). Toward a transparent construct of reading-to-write tasks: The interface between discourse features and proficiency. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10(1), 9–27.
7
Journal of Second Language Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx
S.E. Grapin and L. Llosa
Gilabert, R., Manchón, R., & Vasylets, O. (2016). Mode in theoretical and empirical TBLT research: Advancing research agendas. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 117–135. Granfeldt, J. (2008). Speaking and writing in L2 French: Exploring effects on fluency, accuracy, and complexity. In A. Housen, S. van Daele, & M. Pierrard (Eds.). Proceedings of the conference on complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language (pp. 87–98). Brussels, Belgium: Koninklijke Vlaamse Academi. Grapin, S. E. (2019). Multimodality in the new content standards era: Implications for English learners. TESOL Quarterly, 53(1), 30–55. Grapin, S. E., & Llosa, L. (2019). Using multimodal tasks to promote more equitable assessment of English learners in the content areas. March Paper presented at the annual meeting of the language testing research colloquium. Grapin, S. E., Llosa, L., Haas, A., Goggins, M., & Lee, O. (2019). Precision: Toward a meaning-centered view of language use with English learners in the content areas. Linguistics and Education, 50, 71–83. Harman, R., & Shin, D. (2018). Multimodal and community-based literacies: Agentive bilingual learners in elementary school. In G. Onchwari, & J. Keengwe (Eds.). Handbook of research on pedagogies and cultural considerations for young English language learners (pp. 217–238). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Hirvela, A., & Belcher, D. (2016). Reading/writing and speaking/writing connections: The advantages of a multimodal pedagogy. In P. K. Matsuda, & R. Manchón (Eds.). Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 587–612). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton. Housen, A., Kuiken, V., & Vedder, I. (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA. Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins. Jewitt, C. (2017). A multimodal perspective on touch, communication, and learning. In F. Serafini, & E. Gee (Eds.). Remixing multiliteracies: Theory and practice from New London to New times (pp. 106–118). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Jewitt, C., Bezemer, J., & O’Halloran, K. (2016). Introducing multimodality. New York, NY: Routledge. Kibler, A., Valdés, G., & Walqui, A. (2014). What does standards-based education reform mean for English language learner populations in primary and secondary schools? TESOL Quarterly, 48(3), 433–453. Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kormos, J. (2014). Differences across modalities of performance: An investigation of linguistic and discourse complexity in narrative tasks. In H. Byrnes, & R. Manchón (Eds.). Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 193–217). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins. Kress, G. (2000). Multimodality: Challenges to thinking about language. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 337–340. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London, England: Routledge. Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. New York, NY: Routledge. Kress, G. (2015). Semiotic work: Applied linguistics and a social semiotic account of multimodality. AILA Review, 28, 49–71. Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2014). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom (2nd ed.). London, England: Bloomsbury Academic. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2017). Functional adequacy in L2 writing: Towards a new rating scale. Language Testing, 34(3), 321–336. Lee, O. (2017). Common core state standards for ELA/literacy and next generation science standards: Convergences and discrepancies using argument as an example. Educational Researcher, 46(2), 90–102. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science. New York, NY: Ablex. Lemke, J. (2002). Travels in hypermodality. Visual Communication, 1, 299–325. McNeill, K. L., Berland, L. K., & Pelletier, P. (2017). Constructing explanations. In C. V. Schwarz, C. Passmore, & B. J. Reiser (Eds.). Helping students make sense of the world using next generation science and engineering practices (pp. 205–227). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association. National Center for Education Statistics (2018). The condition of education 2018 (NCES 2018-144). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (2010a). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved fromhttp://www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/ELA_ Standards1.pdf. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (2010b). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved fromhttp://www.corestandards.org/wpcontent/uploads/Math_Standards1.pdf. New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60–92. Next Generation Science Standards Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Retrieved fromWashington, DC: National Academies Press. https://www.nextgenscience.org/. O’Halloran, K. L. (1998). Classroom discourse in mathematics: A multisemiotic analysis. Linguistics and Education, 10(3), 359–388. Pacheco, M., & Smith, B. (2015). Across languages, modes, and identities: Bilingual adolescents’ multimodal codemeshing in the literacy classroom. Bilingual Research Journal, 38(3), 292–312. Plakans, L., Gebril, A., & Bilki, Z. (2019). Shaping a score: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in integrated writing performances. Language Testing, 36(2), 161–179. Royce, T. (2002). Multimodality in the TESOL classroom: Exploring visual-verbal synergy. TESOL Quarterly, 36(2), 191–205. Segalowitz, N., & Lightbown, P. (1999). Psycholinguistic approaches to SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 43–63. Shin, D. S. (2018). Multimodal mediation and argumentative writing: A case study of a multilingual learner’s metalanguage awareness development. In R. Harman (Ed.). Bilingual learners and social equity (pp. 225–242). London, England: Springer. Silva, T. (2016). An overview of the development of the infrastructure of second language writing studies. In P. K. Matsuda, & R. Manchón (Eds.). Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 19–43). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton. Smith, B., Pacheco, M., & de Almeida, C. R. (2017). Multimodal codemeshing: Bilingual adolescents’ processes composing across modes and languages. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 6–22. Tang, K., Delgado, C., & Moje, E. (2014). An integrative framework for the analysis of multiple and multimodal representations for meaning-making in science education. Science Education, 98(2), 305–326. Thurlow, M. L., & Kopriva, R. J. (2015). Advancing accessibility and accommodations in content assessments for students with disabilities and English learners. Review of Research in Education, 39, 331–369. U.S. Department of Education (2015). Every student succeeds act. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved fromhttps://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114s1177enr/pdf/ BILLS-114s1177enr.pdf. Valdés, G. (2004). Between support and marginalisation: The development of academic language in linguistic minority children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7(2-3), 102–132. Velasco, P., & García, O. (2014). Translanguaging and the writing of bilingual learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 37(1), 6–23. Weissberg, R. (2006). Connecting speaking and writing in second language writing instruction. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. WIDA Consortium (2012). Amplification of the English language development standards. Retrieved fromMadison, WI: Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. http://www.wida.us/standards/eld.aspx. Yi, Y., King, N., & Safriani, A. (2017). Reconceptualizing assessment for digital multimodal literacy. TESOL Journal, 8(4), 878–885. Yi, Y., Shin, D. S., & Cimasko, T. (2019). Multimodal literacies in teaching and learning English. In L. de Oliveira (Ed.). Handbook of TESOL in K-12 (pp. 163–178). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. Zapata, A., & Laman, T. T. (2016). “I write to show how beautiful my languages are”: Translingual writing instruction in English-dominant classrooms. Language Arts Journal of Michigan, 93(5), 366–378. Zimmerman, R. (2000). L2 writing: Subprocesses, a model of formulating and empirical findings. Learning and Instruction, 10(1), 73–99. Scott Grapin is a doctoral candidate in TESOL in the Department of Teaching and Learning at NYU’s Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development. His research interests include multimodality, the integration of language and content learning, and second language writing instruction and assessment. Lorena Llosa is an Associate Professor in the Department of Teaching and Learning at NYU’s Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development. Her work addresses the teaching, learning, and assessment of English learners’ content and language proficiency in K-16 contexts. Her recent studies have focused on validity issues in the assessment of academic writing and the integration of language and content in instruction and assessment.
8
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Second Language Writing journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jslw
Toward an integrative framework for understanding multimodal L2 writing in the content areas Scott E. Grapin*, Lorena Llosa New York University, United States
A R T IC LE I N F O
ABS TRA CT
Keywords: Multimodality Content area writing Second language learners
Second language (L2) learners in content area classes are expected to perform a range of writing tasks that involve multiple modes beyond language. Traditionally, however, research on multimodality with L2 learners has been approached differently in content versus L2 teaching and learning contexts. In this issue statement, we propose the need for an integrative framework for understanding multimodal L2 writing in the content areas that capitalizes on the complementary nature of these two research areas. After situating this need within U.S. K-12 education policy, we provide a brief overview of theoretical perspectives that have informed research in each area. Then, we identify key differences between these research areas in terms of (a) what modes are considered (i.e., multiple modes vs. linguistic mode) and (b) how those modes are analyzed (i.e., meaning-focused vs. feature-focused). Using a writing sample from an English learner in an elementary science classroom, we illustrate the potential of an integrative framework for providing a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of multimodal L2 writing in the content areas. Implications of an integrative framework and promising directions for future research are also discussed.
1. Introduction Despite the longstanding legacy of print-based, monomodal conceptions of literacy in school contexts, second language (L2) learners in content area classes are increasingly expected to perform writing tasks that involve multiple modes beyond language. Traditionally, however, research on multimodality with L2 learners has been approached differently depending on the teaching and learning context. In contexts primarily aimed at content teaching and learning (e.g., English language arts, mathematics, science), research has drawn on multimodal theories to analyze learners’ use of both linguistic and nonlinguistic modes and the disciplinary meaning communicated in each mode (e.g., Yi, Shin, & Cimasko, 2019). In contexts primarily aimed at L2 teaching and learning (e.g., English as a second or foreign language), research has drawn on psycholinguistic theories to analyze learners’ use of the linguistic mode specifically and the linguistic features elicited in each of its modalities (e.g., Gilabert, Manchón, & Vasylets, 2016). While these
⁎
Corresponding author at: Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development, Department of Teaching and Learning, 239 Greene Street #210, New York, NY 10003, United States. E-mail address: [email protected] (S.E. Grapin).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100711 Received 30 March 2019; Received in revised form 17 November 2019; Accepted 10 January 2020 1060-3743/ © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Scott E. Grapin and Lorena Llosa, Journal of Second Language Writing, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100711
Journal of Second Language Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx
S.E. Grapin and L. Llosa
research areas reflect distinct theoretical and methodological orientations matched to their respective contexts and purposes1, a lack of cross-fertilization between these areas restricts our understanding of how L2 learners engage in content area writing while developing L2 proficiency. In this issue statement, we propose the need for an integrative framework for understanding multimodal L2 writing in the content areas that capitalizes on the complementary nature of these two research areas. First, we situate this need within U.S. K-12 education policy. Second, we provide a brief overview of theoretical perspectives that have informed research on multimodality in each area. Third, we identify key differences between these research areas in terms of (a) what modes are considered and (b) how those modes are analyzed. Finally, we present a student writing sample from an elementary science classroom to illustrate the potential of an integrative framework for providing a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of multimodal L2 writing in the content areas. As this special issue of the Journal of Second Language Writing signals a key moment for the fast-growing field of multimodal L2 writing, it is timely to take stock of the present landscape, reflect on contributions and limitations of research in different contexts, and begin to envision how disparate research areas may be productively integrated to move the field forward. One indication that these research areas have remained separate is a lack of common terminology between them. As Jewitt, Bezemer, and O’Halloran (2016) point out, multimodal concepts (e.g., modality, mode, multimodality) tend to be “differently construed…both across and within different research traditions” (p. 1). Traditionally, the term modality has been used in L2 education to refer to channels of linguistic communication (e.g., speaking, writing). From this perspective, multimodality refers specifically to the relationship between modalities of language (e.g., speaking-writing connections; Hirvela & Belcher, 2016). More recently, with the field expanding beyond its purely linguistic roots and moving into new theoretical terrain, the term mode has been increasingly adopted to refer to “a socially and culturally shaped resource for making meaning” (Bezemer & Kress, 2008, p. 171), including the linguistic mode as well as nonlinguistic modes such as visual image and gesture. From this perspective, multimodality refers broadly to the co-deployment of multiple modes—both linguistic and nonlinguistic—in a communicative product or event. These differences in terminology, rather than being superficial or stylistic, reflect precisely the differences in theoretical and analytic foci that this issue statement aims to bring to the fore2 . For clarity throughout the paper, the following terminology will be adopted: mode (e.g., language, visual image, gesture) and modality (e.g., listening, reading, speaking, writing). 2. Multimodality in U.S. K-12 education policy The need for a more comprehensive understanding of multimodal L2 writing in the content areas is particularly urgent in U.S. K12 education policy in light of demographic shifts in the student population and a new wave of standards-based reform. Students classified as English learners (ELs) are the fastest growing subset of the U.S. student population, comprising nearly 10 % of public school students, and these students are expected to meet grade-level standards across content areas (National Center for Education Statistics, 2018). The latest content standards in English language arts, mathematics, and science have been adopted or adapted by a majority of states across the nation and represent fundamental shifts in the way content areas are taught and learned. Specifically, these content standards expect all students, including ELs, to engage in disciplinary practices that are both writing-intensive and multimodal. For example, the Common Core State Standards for English language arts expect students to write arguments using graphics, formatting, and multimedia for varying purposes and audiences (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010a); the Common Core State Standards for mathematics expect students to explain solutions to problems using symbolic representations (e.g., graphs, tables, charts) appropriate to the problem context (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010b); and the Next Generation Science Standards expect students to develop models using a combination of drawings, symbols, and written language in order to explain science phenomena (Next Generation Science Standards Lead States, 2013). Collectively, content standards make explicit that writing goes beyond language to the strategic use of multiple modes in ways recognized by each discipline (see Grapin, 2019 for further examples of multimodality in content standards). To support ELs in achieving content standards, U.S. federal legislation requires that states also adopt English language proficiency standards that: (i) are derived from the 4 recognized domains of speaking, listening, reading, and writing; (ii) address the different proficiency levels of English learners; and (iii) are aligned with the challenging State academic standards. (U.S. Department of Education, 2015, p. 24)
1
There are many contexts in which both language learning and content learning are goals of instruction. For example, L2 teaching and learning contexts (e.g., English as a second or foreign language classrooms) typically have language learning as their primary goal, but students may also be learning content through the language they are developing. Likewise, content teaching and learning contexts (e.g., science classrooms) typically have content learning as their primary goal, but students are also learning language through engagement in disciplinary practices. The distinction, then, between these contexts concerns the relative emphasis on language learning and content learning. 2 Even within these terminological traditions, there are variations. For example, in research on task-based language instruction, Gilabert et al. (2016) refer to speaking and writing as separate modes (rather than modalities of language) based on an orality-literacy model of language use. In research from a social semiotic perspective, Kress, Jewitt, Ogborn, and Tsatsarelis, (2014) refer to speaking and writing as distinct modes (rather than one linguistic mode) based on their unique potentials for making meaning. Since what constitutes a mode varies based on “what are counted as well-acknowledged regularities within any one community” (Jewitt, 2017, p. 111), definitions of mode (and modality) are continually being revised. 2
Journal of Second Language Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx
S.E. Grapin and L. Llosa
The first two requirements involving modalities (referred to as “domains” above) and English proficiency levels have been addressed by English language proficiency standards in different ways. One set of standards adopted by the majority of states describes the linguistic features in receptive (i.e., listening and reading) and productive (i.e., speaking and writing) modalities expected of ELs at each of six English proficiency levels (WIDA Consortium, 2012). Another more recent set of standards adopted by 12 states takes a similar approach but adds a third modality—the interactive modality—to account for the “collaborative use of receptive and productive modalities” (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2014, p. 5). The third requirement in the federal legislation mandating alignment between English language proficiency standards and content standards indicates that the two sets of standards must work in tandem to support ELs in the content areas. In recent years, English language proficiency standards have made substantial progress toward alignment with content standards. For example, both sets of English language proficiency standards referenced above emphasize disciplinary uses of language within and across content areas. However, English language proficiency standards continue to frame nonlinguistic modes as scaffolds or supports toward language rather than as central to engagement in disciplinary practices—what Grapin (2019) refers to as “the weak version of multimodality” (p. 33). While English language proficiency standards and content standards have different foci to serve different purposes, ELs in content classrooms are expected to engage in disciplinary practices that involve both linguistic and nonlinguistic modes (i.e., the focus of content standards) at the same time as they develop proficiency in linguistic modalities specifically (i.e., the focus of English language proficiency standards). Thus, an integrative framework for understanding multimodal L2 writing in the content areas could push the research community to better reflect the reality of teachers and students in content classrooms. Although we situate this need within U.S. K-12 education policy (see also Kibler, Valdés, & Walqui, 2014 for a review of standardsbased reform with L2 learners from an international perspective), the issues at stake are a matter of disciplinary, rather than national, boundaries as described next. 3. Theoretical perspectives on multimodality with L2 learners In content teaching and learning contexts, research has been informed by a range of related theories, each explicating “different aspects of multimodality with varied epistemological and methodological approaches” (Yi et al., 2019, p. 164). These include, but are not limited to, social semiotics, systemic functional linguistics, and multiliteracies. For example, a social semiotic perspective focuses on the affordances, or potentials for making meaning, of different modes and how those modes contribute, both separately and collectively, to multimodal ensembles (Bezemer & Kress, 2008; Kress, 2003). Alternatively, a multiliteracies perspective (New London Group, 1996) places greater emphasis on the social and cultural practices surrounding the use and production of multimodal texts, with a particular focus on identity development. Despite these differences, researchers working within this umbrella of theories converge in their common focus on “meaning in all its appearances, in all social occasions and in all cultural sites” (Kress, 2010, p. 2). In L2 teaching and learning contexts, research has been largely informed by psycholinguistic perspectives. With roots in the second language acquisition literature (e.g., Segalowitz & Lightbown, 1999), psycholinguistic perspectives have as their central focus the cognitive processes underlying language use. Specifically, these perspectives have been concerned with developing and testing theoretical models of L2 production in linguistic modalities (see Kormos, 2006 and Zimmerman, 2000 for models of L2 speaking and writing, respectively) and combinations of linguistic modalities (see Belcher & Hirvela, 2001 for an overview of theoretical perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections). Given that cognitive processes cannot be examined directly, one common approach adopted by psycholinguistically oriented researchers is to rely on the outwardly visible manifestation of these processes: the linguistic features elicited in each modality or combination of modalities across L2 proficiency levels (Housen, Kuiken, & Vedder, 2012). Although the theoretical perspectives described above are characteristic of research on multimodality with L2 learners in each context, they do not speak to the diversity of theoretical perspectives adopted in the field at large (see, for example, Weissberg, 2006 on speaking-writing connections from a sociocultural perspective). However, we focus specifically on the perspectives described above since, despite various calls for cross-fertilization between more cognitively oriented and socially oriented theories of writing (e.g., Beck, 2009), these perspectives have rarely been integrated in research with L2 learners. This lack of integration at the theoretical level has led to the different aims and designs of empirical studies in each area, as described next. 4. Research on multimodality with L2 learners Research on multimodality in content versus L2 teaching and learning contexts has adopted different research foci and analytic approaches. These research foci and analytic approaches differ along two key dimensions: (a) what modes are considered (i.e., multiple modes vs. linguistic mode) and (b) how those modes are analyzed (i.e., meaning-focused vs. feature-focused). The purpose of this section is not to provide a detailed review of studies but to highlight contributions and limitations of research in each area that underscore the need for an integrative framework. 4.1. Content teaching and learning contexts Research on multimodality in content teaching and learning contexts has focused on multiple modes—both linguistic and nonlinguistic—and the disciplinary meaning they communicate. This research has been carried out primarily in the context of English language arts classrooms, highlighting how L2 learners move fluidly across modes in their composing processes to engage multiple audiences and convey nuanced meanings (see Yi et al., 2019 for a comprehensive review). For example, studies have elucidated how multimodal writing presents opportunities for L2 learners to engage in literary analysis following unique compositional paths 3
Journal of Second Language Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx
S.E. Grapin and L. Llosa
(Pacheco & Smith, 2015; Smith, Pacheco, & de Almeida, 2017) and develop a heightened awareness of semiotic choices in the context of school-based academic genres (Harman & Shin, 2018; Shin, 2018). This research also dovetails with broader theoretical developments in L2 education that emphasize valuing and inviting students’ full linguistic and semiotic repertoire in the service of learning (Canagarajah, 2013; García & Li, 2014) and in writing instruction in particular (Velasco & García, 2014; Zapata & Laman, 2016). Research on multimodality in content contexts has made important contributions. This research recognizes multiple modes—both linguistic and nonlinguistic—used to make meaning in the content areas, thus challenging “long-held assumptions of the sufficiency of ‘language’ for all communicational needs” (Kress, 2015, p. 49). Moreover, this research prioritizes what L2 learners communicate in the content areas and, in doing so, goes beyond a narrow focus on how well (or not) these students are able to communicate in the language they are still in the process of developing. As Valdés (2004) has argued in response to overriding concerns of linguistic wellformedness in instruction with L2 learners, “what is missing entirely from discussions of the teaching of academic discourse…is the notion that writing is about ideas” (p. 122). An additional contribution of this research is the importance of studying students’ multimodal writing processes beyond just products. However, there are also limitations to this research, especially when viewed from the vantage point of L2 teaching and learning. While this research highlights how L2 learners move fluidly across modes (e.g., language and visual image) to create coherent compositional arrangements appropriate to purpose and audience, studies pay less attention to how L2 learners marshal their developing L2 proficiency, as traditionally defined3, within and across linguistic modalities. For example, studies that adopt systemic functional linguistics as a theoretical lens tend to focus broadly on the affordances of different modes and the interrelations among them in students’ writing (e.g., image-text relations). As a result, these studies can fall short of providing detailed analyses of the specific features of L2 production in linguistic modalities and how those features vary across L2 proficiency levels. An additional limitation of this research is the narrow range of genres that have been addressed (i.e., narrative and, to some extent, argumentative writing in English language arts) as well as the unequal distribution of studies across content areas, with a paucity of research in science and mathematics despite longstanding recognition of their multimodal nature (e.g., Lemke, 1990 in science; O’Halloran, 1998 in mathematics).
4.2. L2 teaching and learning contexts Research on multimodality in L2 teaching and learning contexts has focused on the linguistic mode and the linguistic features elicited in each of its modalities. This research has been carried out primarily in the context of English as foreign language instruction and assessment. For example, one line of inquiry in task-based language instruction has investigated similarities and differences in the linguistic features elicited by speaking versus writing (Ellis & Yuan, 2005; Granfeldt, 2008; Kormos, 2014). Broadly, these studies have uncovered that differences in linguistic performance between speaking and writing depend on a variety of factors, including the specific characteristics of the task and the L2 proficiency of the learners (see Gilabert et al., 2016 for a comprehensive review). Another line of inquiry has examined the use of integrated writing assessments that require test takers to synthesize information across listening and/or reading source material (Biber & Gray, 2013; Gebril & Plakans, 2013; Plakans, Gebril, & Bilki, 2019). Unlike research in task-based instruction, the purpose of these studies is not to draw comparisons between modalities but to examine the features of linguistic production when L2 learners at varying levels of proficiency use multiple linguistic modalities to complete a writing task. Research on multimodality in L2 contexts has made important contributions. In contrast with much previous research that treated linguistic modalities separately, this research emphasizes the relationships between and among linguistic modalities in “the achievement of task-related communicative goals” (Gilabert et al., 2016, p. 118). This shift, also reflected in recent ELP standards in the U.S. context (described above), suggests that when it comes to “real-life” language use, “the notion of discrete linguistic modalities…looks less and less meaningful” (Hirvela & Belcher, 2016, p. 604). Moreover, this research offers insight into the linguistic features elicited in different linguistic modalities and combinations of linguistic modalities in relation to a variety of factors and across L2 proficiency levels. However, there are also limitations to this research, especially when viewed from the vantage point of content teaching and learning. While the rationale for task-based language instruction and integrated writing assessments is to more authentically reflect “real-life” language use, writing in the content areas goes beyond language to the use of nonlinguistic modes specific to each discipline. Moreover, by focusing narrowly on how L2 learners communicate, this research does not pay sufficient attention to what these students communicate, which is the heart of the content being learned. After all, writing could be complex, accurate, and fluent from a linguistic perspective but fail to communicate disciplinary meaning that is relevant and precise from a content perspective (Grapin, Llosa, Haas, Goggins, & Lee, 2019). Although it is increasingly common for studies in task-based language instruction to consider functional dimensions of L2 performance (e.g., Kuiken & Vedder, 2017) and studies in writing assessment to pay greater attention to the content of writing (e.g., Bae, Bentler, & Lee, 2016), these studies still focus on meaning broadly conceived (e.g., task completion, coherence, comprehensibility) rather than disciplinary meaning (i.e., concepts and ideas communicated in content areas). An additional limitation of this research is that it has focused almost exclusively on college and adult L2 learners, with little consideration of the K-12 context.
3 We use the term “L2 proficiency” to refer narrowly to proficiency in the linguistic mode while recognizing other conceptualizations of L2 proficiency that expand beyond language (see, for example, Royce, 2002 on “multimodal communicative competence”).
4
Journal of Second Language Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx
S.E. Grapin and L. Llosa
Fig. 1. Fifth-grade English learner’s model-based explanation.
4.3. Toward an integrative framework: An example from the science classroom In this section, we illustrate how an integrative framework for understanding multimodal L2 writing in the content areas could capitalize on the contributions and address the limitations of these research areas that have remained largely separate. As one example of content area writing, we focus on constructing explanations, which is a key disciplinary practice in the scientific enterprise (e.g., Braaten & Windschitl, 2011) and in K-12 science education reform in particular (e.g., Next Generation Science Standards Lead States, 2013). Constructing an explanation in science involves “developing an account of how or why some phenomenon occurred” (McNeill, Berland, & Pelletier, 2017, p. 207). Explanations are often constructed based on models, or abstract representations of phenomena. Such model-based explanations employ both visual (e.g., drawings and symbols) and linguistic (e.g., written language) modes to construct coherent accounts of phenomena (see McNeill et al., 2017 for further details on the relationship between explanations and models in science). In this particular task aligned to a fifth-grade standard in space science, students were asked to explain why Daniel (a fictional student in the task scenario) sees the Bootid meteor shower (also referred to as “falling stars” in this classroom) only in the month of June and to predict when he should expect to see the same meteor shower next year. Students were expected to explain that, as Earth orbits the sun over a year, it passes by the Bootid meteor shower. Since Earth will return to the same location on its orbit during the same month every year, it will pass by the Bootid meteor shower again in June next year. Fig. 1 shows a model-based explanation constructed by a fifth-grade student in a mainstream science classroom. This student, whose home language is Spanish, was classified as an EL at an intermediate level of English proficiency. Prior to engaging in this writing task, students used a computer program to make observations of the night sky at different times of the year, which produced evidence of Earth’s orbit. The class then acted out an embodied model in which students assumed the roles of different agents (e.g., Earth, sun, meteor shower) and interacted physically according to their assigned role. Thus, the process of composing this explanation involved multiple modes (e.g., gesture) and modalities (e.g., speaking) beyond what is apparent from the written product alone. For this abbreviated analysis, we restrict our focus to the written product while recognizing that an integrative framework could address both process and product aspects of multimodal writing in the content areas. First, we analyze the student’s explanation from the perspective of content teaching and learning research by focusing on the disciplinary meaning communicated in visual and linguistic modes. Second, we analyze the student’s explanation from the perspective of L2 teaching and learning research by focusing on the linguistic features elicited in the written language modality specifically. This example is not intended as a rigorous analysis but to illustrate the potential of an integrative framework for informing more systematic empirical investigations in the future. From the perspective of content teaching and learning research, the student represents two key science ideas in the top half of Fig. 1. First, the curved arrows moving horizontally across the visual communicate the idea of Earth’s orbit. Interestingly, however, the sun is represented as part of Earth’s orbit, suggesting that both objects are in motion. Second, the placement of Earth between the sun and meteor shower (labeled “falling stars” in the key) communicates the crucial idea that objects are visible from Earth only when they appear on the opposite side of Earth from the sun (A common misconception would be to represent the meteor shower between Earth and the sun in which case the light from the sun would prevent the meteor shower from being seen). Both of these science ideas relate to the relative position of components in the space system and are made evident based on the affordances of the visual mode for conveying spatial relations among entities (Kress, 2000). In the bottom half of Fig. 1, the linguistic mode communicates the causal relationship between Earth’s orbit (cause) and the ability to see meteor showers at certain times of the year (effect). This science idea, which involves a temporal relation of cause (“earth [sic] is going to spin in circles”) and effect (“[Earth] is going to 5
Journal of Second Language Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx
S.E. Grapin and L. Llosa
end up at the same moth [sic]”), is made evident based on the affordances of written language for conveying sequential relations of events (Kress, 2000). The linguistic mode can also be seen as creating a “reading path” (Bezemer & Kress, 2008, p. 185) that animates the visual and engages the reader with the drawing and symbols in a manner prescribed by the student. For example, the reader is invited to begin at Earth’s current position and follow the direction of the arrows until returning to the same position. Thus, there is a multiplicative effect on meaning potential when visual and linguistic modes are co-deployed in this multimodal ensemble (Lemke, 2002). However, while this analysis sheds light on the disciplinary meaning communicated in visual and linguistic modes, both separately and collectively, it does not offer insight into how the student marshals her developing L2 proficiency to complete the writing task. From the perspective of L2 teaching and learning research, the above analysis could be complemented by more fine-grained attention to the linguistic features elicited in the written language modality. While the language in Fig. 1 is mostly accurate despite a few minor errors that are not particularly consequential in terms of meaning (e.g., “He will expected”), the colloquial expression “spins in circles” is imprecise, as it could refer either to Earth’s rotation (i.e., spins in circles about its axis) or Earth’s orbit (i.e., spins in circles around the sun). Furthermore, while the student demonstrates some degree of linguistic complexity needed to communicate the causal relationship (“…because…”), she is not yet able to connect two key ideas that are crucial to the explanation: (a) the location of Earth on its orbit and (b) the timing of when meteor showers are visible. Instead, the two ideas are blended into one phrase (“is going to end up at the same moth [sic]”). This student’s emerging complexity in written language is likely a reflection of her developing L2 proficiency. For the purpose of comparison, consider the response of a peer at a more advanced level of English proficiency: Daniel should expect to see the Bootid meteor shower next year in June around the same time he saw it this year because earth [sic] orbits around the sun for one year and then the process repeats all over again causing earth [sic] to end up in the same positions as last year. In addition to using disciplinary terminology (“orbits around the sun”), this student exhibits greater linguistic complexity by using a noun phrase to condense what was previously described (“the process repeats”) and a gerund-initiated subordinate clause to connect the location of Earth and the timing of the meteor shower’s appearance (“…causing earth [sic] to end up in the same positions as last year”). These linguistic features (e.g., “the process” as an example of conceptual anaphora) have also been identified as markers of more advanced proficiency in the K-12 literature on academic English (see DiCerbo, Anstrom, Baker, & Rivera, 2014 for a review). However, while this linguistic analysis offers insight into how the student in Fig. 1 marshals her developing L2 proficiency, a focus on linguistic features alone would miss the broader context: the role of the written language in the multimodal whole and the combined effect of visual and linguistic modes working in concert to communicate disciplinary meaning in the explanation (i.e., the focus of the analysis from the content perspective above). It is the complementary relationship between these perspectives that allows for a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of the student’s writing in science. This complementary relationship is illustrated in Fig. 2, with the text on the left and right sides indicating questions that motivate each part of the analysis. An integrative framework could inform research efforts across a wide variety of contexts, including across content areas, educational levels, and instructional arrangements with different relative emphases on content and language learning. In particular, one promising direction for applying such a framework is to inform emerging efforts related to multimodal assessment (e.g., Grapin & Llosa, 2019). Although research on multimodal instruction with L2 learners has surged in recent years, multimodal assessment has lagged behind (Yi, King, & Safriani, 2017). Traditionally, assessment has been carried out through written language, with nonlinguistic modes (e.g., visual) being viewed as scaffolds or accommodations for L2 learners. However, as the above analysis illustrates, assessment tasks that elicit responses in both linguistic and nonlinguistic modes could provide information about students’ content learning that traditional written language assessments might otherwise overlook (e.g., the relative position of components in a system). At the same time, more fine-grained attention to linguistic features could provide complementary information about the extent to which students are able to communicate their content learning in a language they are still in the process of developing—a persistent concern in the content assessment of L2 learners (e.g., Thurlow & Kopriva, 2015)—as well as diagnostic information that could be useful for supporting these students’ L2 proficiency development. The proposed framework could provide a principled means to begin (re)conceptualizing assessment approaches that offer a more complete and accurate picture of what L2 learners know and can do in the content areas.
Fig. 2. Complementary relationship between content teaching and learning perspective and L2 teaching and learning perspective (inspired by Tang, Delgado, & Moje, 2014). 6
Journal of Second Language Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx
S.E. Grapin and L. Llosa
More broadly, one organizing principle for research informed by this framework could be disciplinary practices (e.g., “constructing explanations” in the example above). A focus on disciplinary practices could begin to address documented challenges of implementing and researching multimodal writing with L2 learners (Yi et al., 2019). For example, one challenge involves tensions with prescribed curricula that focus narrowly on developing L2 learners’ language proficiency. Given the multimodal nature of disciplinary practices and their prominence in the latest content standards, organizing research efforts around these practices could bring multimodality out from the margins and more in line with standards-based curricular goals and objectives. Another challenge involves the limited range of genres that have been studied to date. As engagement in disciplinary practices calls upon a range of genres (e.g., constructing explanations), a focus on these practices could go beyond narrative and argumentative writing that have dominated research on multimodality with L2 learners. Finally, given that disciplinary practices are intended to reflect the actual practices of disciplinarians in their work (e.g., scientists, mathematicians), a focus on these practices is well-suited to incorporate a multiliteracies perspective that takes into account “how cultural, social, and discursive values and norms shape individual uses of multimodal texts” (Yi et al., 2019, p. 165). Organizing research efforts around disciplinary practices, while promising, would require careful consideration of how norms of engaging in these practices vary across content areas and the implications of this for multimodal writing instruction and assessment (see Lee, 2017 for discrepant norms related to argumentation in science vs. English language arts). This framework is not without limitations. For example, the framework does not explicitly address constructs such as identity development and critical language awareness that have figured prominently in the multimodal research agenda (e.g., Ajayi, 2009) nor does it address how L2 learners deploy multiple named languages in their composing processes (e.g., Zapata & Laman, 2016). Given these (and other) limitations, an important task going forward will be to consider how this framework is consistent with related theoretical perspectives and lines of inquiry and how the framework can be augmented or adapted by researchers for different purposes. Ultimately, we hope this framework initiates a dialogue in the field about how research on multimodality can bridge multiple theoretical perspectives and methodological traditions to better capture the complexities of multimodal L2 writing across a range of contexts. 5. Conclusion As Silva (2016) describes in his historical review of L2 writing research, the field of L2 writing has been interdisciplinary from its inception. Drawing insights from applied linguistics, psychology, composition studies, and education, among other areas, L2 writing “has embraced a largely eclectic orientation toward inquiry, primarily adopting and adapting frameworks and approaches from other areas and creating new ones to meet changing needs” (Silva, 2016, p. 33). This interdisciplinary nature has prevented L2 writing researchers from “being limited by the rigidity of a single theoretical or methodological paradigm” (Silva, 2016, p. 33). In keeping with this interdisciplinary tradition, L2 writing research must continue to adapt to meet changing needs, including expanded definitions of writing and new contexts in which L2 learners are expected to write. As definitions of writing expand beyond language and L2 learners are expected to write for a variety of purposes and audiences in the content areas, there is a need for new frameworks to guide research. An integrative framework for understanding multimodal L2 writing in the content areas represents an important step in that direction. Funding This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Declaration of Competing Interest None. References Ajayi, L. (2009). English as a second language learners’ exploration of multimodal texts in a junior high school. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 7, 206–229. Bae, J., Bentler, P., & Lee, Y. (2016). On the role of content in writing assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly, 13(4), 302–328. Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2008). Writing in multimodal texts: A social-semiotic account of designs for learning. Written Communication, 25(2), 166–195. Beck, S. (2009). Composition across secondary and post-secondary contexts: Cognitive, textual and social dimensions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(3), 311–327. Belcher, D., & Hirvela, A. (2001). Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2013). Discourse characteristics of writing and speaking task types on the TOEFL iBT Test: A lexico-grammatical analysis (TOEFL iBT Research Report RR-19)Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95(4), 639–669. Canagarajah, A. S. (2013). Negotiating translingual literacy: An enactment. Research in the Teaching of English, 48(1), 40–67. Council of Chief State School Officers (2014). English language proficiency (ELP) standards with correspondences to K-12 English language arts (ELA), mathematics, and science practices, K-12 ELA standards, and 6-12 literacy standards. Retrieved fromhttp://www.elpa21.org/sites/default/files/Final%204_30%20ELPA21% 20Standards_1.pdf. DiCerbo, P., Anstrom, K., Baker, L., & Rivera, C. (2014). A review of the literature on teaching academic English to English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 84(3), 446–482. Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2005). The effects of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.). Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 167–193). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins. García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Gebril, A., & Plakans, L. (2013). Toward a transparent construct of reading-to-write tasks: The interface between discourse features and proficiency. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10(1), 9–27.
7
Journal of Second Language Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx
S.E. Grapin and L. Llosa
Gilabert, R., Manchón, R., & Vasylets, O. (2016). Mode in theoretical and empirical TBLT research: Advancing research agendas. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 117–135. Granfeldt, J. (2008). Speaking and writing in L2 French: Exploring effects on fluency, accuracy, and complexity. In A. Housen, S. van Daele, & M. Pierrard (Eds.). Proceedings of the conference on complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language (pp. 87–98). Brussels, Belgium: Koninklijke Vlaamse Academi. Grapin, S. E. (2019). Multimodality in the new content standards era: Implications for English learners. TESOL Quarterly, 53(1), 30–55. Grapin, S. E., & Llosa, L. (2019). Using multimodal tasks to promote more equitable assessment of English learners in the content areas. March Paper presented at the annual meeting of the language testing research colloquium. Grapin, S. E., Llosa, L., Haas, A., Goggins, M., & Lee, O. (2019). Precision: Toward a meaning-centered view of language use with English learners in the content areas. Linguistics and Education, 50, 71–83. Harman, R., & Shin, D. (2018). Multimodal and community-based literacies: Agentive bilingual learners in elementary school. In G. Onchwari, & J. Keengwe (Eds.). Handbook of research on pedagogies and cultural considerations for young English language learners (pp. 217–238). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Hirvela, A., & Belcher, D. (2016). Reading/writing and speaking/writing connections: The advantages of a multimodal pedagogy. In P. K. Matsuda, & R. Manchón (Eds.). Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 587–612). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton. Housen, A., Kuiken, V., & Vedder, I. (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA. Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins. Jewitt, C. (2017). A multimodal perspective on touch, communication, and learning. In F. Serafini, & E. Gee (Eds.). Remixing multiliteracies: Theory and practice from New London to New times (pp. 106–118). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Jewitt, C., Bezemer, J., & O’Halloran, K. (2016). Introducing multimodality. New York, NY: Routledge. Kibler, A., Valdés, G., & Walqui, A. (2014). What does standards-based education reform mean for English language learner populations in primary and secondary schools? TESOL Quarterly, 48(3), 433–453. Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kormos, J. (2014). Differences across modalities of performance: An investigation of linguistic and discourse complexity in narrative tasks. In H. Byrnes, & R. Manchón (Eds.). Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 193–217). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins. Kress, G. (2000). Multimodality: Challenges to thinking about language. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 337–340. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London, England: Routledge. Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. New York, NY: Routledge. Kress, G. (2015). Semiotic work: Applied linguistics and a social semiotic account of multimodality. AILA Review, 28, 49–71. Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2014). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom (2nd ed.). London, England: Bloomsbury Academic. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2017). Functional adequacy in L2 writing: Towards a new rating scale. Language Testing, 34(3), 321–336. Lee, O. (2017). Common core state standards for ELA/literacy and next generation science standards: Convergences and discrepancies using argument as an example. Educational Researcher, 46(2), 90–102. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science. New York, NY: Ablex. Lemke, J. (2002). Travels in hypermodality. Visual Communication, 1, 299–325. McNeill, K. L., Berland, L. K., & Pelletier, P. (2017). Constructing explanations. In C. V. Schwarz, C. Passmore, & B. J. Reiser (Eds.). Helping students make sense of the world using next generation science and engineering practices (pp. 205–227). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association. National Center for Education Statistics (2018). The condition of education 2018 (NCES 2018-144). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (2010a). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved fromhttp://www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/ELA_ Standards1.pdf. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (2010b). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved fromhttp://www.corestandards.org/wpcontent/uploads/Math_Standards1.pdf. New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60–92. Next Generation Science Standards Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Retrieved fromWashington, DC: National Academies Press. https://www.nextgenscience.org/. O’Halloran, K. L. (1998). Classroom discourse in mathematics: A multisemiotic analysis. Linguistics and Education, 10(3), 359–388. Pacheco, M., & Smith, B. (2015). Across languages, modes, and identities: Bilingual adolescents’ multimodal codemeshing in the literacy classroom. Bilingual Research Journal, 38(3), 292–312. Plakans, L., Gebril, A., & Bilki, Z. (2019). Shaping a score: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in integrated writing performances. Language Testing, 36(2), 161–179. Royce, T. (2002). Multimodality in the TESOL classroom: Exploring visual-verbal synergy. TESOL Quarterly, 36(2), 191–205. Segalowitz, N., & Lightbown, P. (1999). Psycholinguistic approaches to SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 43–63. Shin, D. S. (2018). Multimodal mediation and argumentative writing: A case study of a multilingual learner’s metalanguage awareness development. In R. Harman (Ed.). Bilingual learners and social equity (pp. 225–242). London, England: Springer. Silva, T. (2016). An overview of the development of the infrastructure of second language writing studies. In P. K. Matsuda, & R. Manchón (Eds.). Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 19–43). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton. Smith, B., Pacheco, M., & de Almeida, C. R. (2017). Multimodal codemeshing: Bilingual adolescents’ processes composing across modes and languages. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 6–22. Tang, K., Delgado, C., & Moje, E. (2014). An integrative framework for the analysis of multiple and multimodal representations for meaning-making in science education. Science Education, 98(2), 305–326. Thurlow, M. L., & Kopriva, R. J. (2015). Advancing accessibility and accommodations in content assessments for students with disabilities and English learners. Review of Research in Education, 39, 331–369. U.S. Department of Education (2015). Every student succeeds act. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved fromhttps://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114s1177enr/pdf/ BILLS-114s1177enr.pdf. Valdés, G. (2004). Between support and marginalisation: The development of academic language in linguistic minority children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7(2-3), 102–132. Velasco, P., & García, O. (2014). Translanguaging and the writing of bilingual learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 37(1), 6–23. Weissberg, R. (2006). Connecting speaking and writing in second language writing instruction. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. WIDA Consortium (2012). Amplification of the English language development standards. Retrieved fromMadison, WI: Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. http://www.wida.us/standards/eld.aspx. Yi, Y., King, N., & Safriani, A. (2017). Reconceptualizing assessment for digital multimodal literacy. TESOL Journal, 8(4), 878–885. Yi, Y., Shin, D. S., & Cimasko, T. (2019). Multimodal literacies in teaching and learning English. In L. de Oliveira (Ed.). Handbook of TESOL in K-12 (pp. 163–178). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. Zapata, A., & Laman, T. T. (2016). “I write to show how beautiful my languages are”: Translingual writing instruction in English-dominant classrooms. Language Arts Journal of Michigan, 93(5), 366–378. Zimmerman, R. (2000). L2 writing: Subprocesses, a model of formulating and empirical findings. Learning and Instruction, 10(1), 73–99. Scott Grapin is a doctoral candidate in TESOL in the Department of Teaching and Learning at NYU’s Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development. His research interests include multimodality, the integration of language and content learning, and second language writing instruction and assessment. Lorena Llosa is an Associate Professor in the Department of Teaching and Learning at NYU’s Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development. Her work addresses the teaching, learning, and assessment of English learners’ content and language proficiency in K-16 contexts. Her recent studies have focused on validity issues in the assessment of academic writing and the integration of language and content in instruction and assessment.
8