See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/360599985

USING TECHNOLOGY TOOLS IN WRITING INSTRUCTION

Article · July 2018

CITATIONS READS
10 536

2 authors, including:

Cristiane Vicentini
University of Tampa
14 PUBLICATIONS 107 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Cristiane Vicentini on 14 May 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Brief Report

USING TECHNOLOGY TOOLS IN

WRITING INSTRUCTION

Cristiane Vicentini*
Luciana C. de Oliveira
University of Miami

This review of the literature aims to provide an overview of the technology used to enhance writing
instruction in face-to-face and online environments. The research questions have the goal of finding
the most widely utilized collaborative and multimodal tools described in the literature, and what
benefits these tools bring to teaching and learning writing. Results reveal three main categories:
collaboration and presentation tools, evaluation and feedback tools, and organization tools. This
evolving technology can greatly enhance writing instruction and increase communication and
collaboration practices between teachers and learners.

Keywords: collaboration, multimodal, technology, tools, writing instruction

Over the first two decades of the 21st century, technology has permeated society and taken a central
role in communication and collaboration practices across the globe. The growing incorporation of
electronic tools in instruction has enabled a generation born into a digital world and able to speak the
language of technology—the “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001, p. 1)—to become more actively engaged in
a variety of classroom tasks (Blankenship & Margarella, 2014; Lotherington & Jenson, 2011; Nobles &
Paganucci, 2015; Sessions, Kang, & Womack, 2016).

Digital Literacy
The concept of digital literacy has evolved over the years. It encompasses technical ability as well as
cognitive and sociological skills involved in performing tasks in the digital setting (Eshet-Alkalai, 2004).
Digital technologies are changing the way learning takes place, as students make use of new media to
create, connect, and interact with the community (Edwards-Groves, 2012). To take part in today’s
participatory technological culture, which entails the use of multiple digital tools for getting ideas across,
learners would benefit from being taught with a variety of media tools to expand their abilities and
develop their critical thinking skills (Jenkins, Purushotma, Weigel, Clinton, & Robison, 2006). Unlike
traditional forms of literacy, the multimodality of digital literacy affords more collaborative meaning-
making processes, whose resulting products can be easily disseminated with the aid of technology.
This paper provides an overview of the technology currently being utilized to support writing
instruction in varied classroom environments and categorizes the findings according to their uses and
benefits for teaching and learning writing. The review of the literature was framed under the theoretical
frameworks of sociocultural theory, multimodalities, and multiliteracy.

Sociocultural Theory
Learning is a social process whose key tenets are human interaction and culturally mediated activity
(Vygotsky, 1978). The dialogic process involved in writing makes it not only a means of communication,

44 NYS TESOL JOURNAL Vol. 5, No. 2, July 2018

but also a form of social action (Prior, 2006). Writing practices established through a collaborative
dialogue enable mediated learning and the negotiation of meaning (Lantolf, 2000), and the use of
technology can afford collaborative and interactive practices in various instructional environments. Online
collaborative writing tasks encourage peer feedback and the exchange of ideas (Limbu & Markauskaite,
2015), increase engagement, and facilitate instructional feedback (Bikowski & Vithanage, 2016).

Multiliteracies and Multimodality

The pedagogy of multiliteracies encompasses linguistic diversity and multimodal communication
practices. Multimodality informs the meaning-making experiences, while multiliteracies provides the tools
for such experiences to happen (New London Group, 1996; Rowsell & Walsh, 2011). The multimodality
framework posits that meaning-making is established through a variety of modes, including but not
limited to visuals, print, motion, speech, and sound (Smith, 2014). Digital technologies strengthen
multimodal possibilities, influencing the way in which communication, learning, and social interactions
take place (Lotherington & Jenson, 2011). Multimodal media enable us to substantiate how we think, and
because learning is social, we can make use of these media to collaborate with others in the process of
knowledge making (Cope & Kalantzis, 2015).

Methodology
With the goal of finding the most widely utilized collaborative and multimodal tools described in the
literature, our search was guided by the following research questions: (a) What technology tools are being
used to enhance writing instruction in face-to-face and distance-learning environments? (b) What benefits
can these tools bring when it comes to teaching and learning writing? The search on Academic Search
Premier, ERIC EBSCO, ERIC ProQuest, Google Scholar, and PsychINFO included the keywords education,
technology, Web 2.0 tools, online, EFL/ESL writing instruction, AWE tools, CALL, English language learners,
and multimodal and digital literacies, and examined references cited in peer-reviewed papers that covered
the topics of technology for writing instruction. The search for literature focused on publications from the
past twenty years; the earliest result was published in 2008. The first stage of the review process consisted
of a careful examination of the publications through the lens of the research questions and the theoretical
frameworks supporting instruction, collaboration, and multimodal composition. Next, a comparison of key
findings and a list of tools was compiled. These tools were then categorized into three main groups,
described in Technology for Writing Instruction, below.

Findings
A total of 39 publications were included in this review. The majority (79%) represented empirical
studies, and the others were practitioner-oriented articles (21%). The publications were mostly focused on
face-to-face instructional environments (62%), and only some of their articles described technology tools
used in support of writing instruction in online and hybrid settings (38%).
The following section describes three main categories of technology and Web 2.0 tools found in the
literature: (a) Collaboration and presentation tools, (b) evaluation and feedback tools, and (c) organization
tools. These groupings have been organized by their prominence, and the order of the tools in each
category is listed by frequency of use.

Technology for Writing Instruction

Collaboration and Presentation Tools
Blogs. Blogs are the most prevalent collaborative tools in the literature (Alharbi, 2015; Boling, Castek,
Zawilinski, Barton, & Nierlich, 2008; Calvert, 2014; Clark, 2010; Collier, Foley, Moguel, & Barnard, 2013;

45 NYS TESOL JOURNAL Vol. 5, No. 2, July 2018

Davis & McGrail, 2011; Dzekoe; 2017; Kilpatrick, Saulsburry, Dostal, Wolbers, & Graham, 2014; Lacina &
Griffith, 2012; Margaryan, Littlejohn, & Voit, 2011; Martin & Lambert, 2015; Mills & Exley, 2014; Miyazoe &
Anderson, 2012; Morton-Standish, 2014; Nobles & Paganucci, 2015). The use of blogs can be of benefit in
writing instruction when utilized as multimodal presentation tools, and their instant publication allows
creators to edit and revise content easily (Boling et al., 2008). One of the most user-friendly multimodal
blogs is Glogster, through which users can create multimedia online posters (Dzekoe, 2017; Kilpatrick et al.,
2014). Other multimodal blogs can be created using EduBlogs, KidzWorld, KidBlog, and ThumbScribes
(Morton-Standish, 2014). Escrapbooking.com is also suggested as a resource for creating and constructing
blogs (Lacina & Griffith, 2012).
Fan sites and social media pages. Fan sites and tribute pages are also collaborative, multimodal tools
in which learners can describe their favorite authors and their work, using images, music, avatars, games,
and puzzles. Their use can support writing instruction by facilitating students’ engagement with the
material and providing a space for them to post testimonials, favorite quotes, and new narratives, which
can be additional or related stories involving the same characters as in the original (Unsworth, 2008);
Mugglenet is a great example of a fan site for Harry Potter books. Another idea to encourage students to
write is using “Fakebook pages” (https://www.classtools.net/FB/home-page), where they can pay homage
to and celebrate their favorite book characters, historical figures, or authors (Morton-Standish, 2014).
Movie-making and digital story tools. MovieMaker, iMovie, and Animoto are other very popular
tools referred to in the literature (Baepler & Reynolds, 2014; Calvert, 2014; Clark, 2010; Edwards-Groves,
2012; Kilpatrick et al., 2014; Martin & Lambert, 2015; Mills & Exley, 2014; Nobles & Paganucci, 2015; Yuan
& Bakian-Aaker, 2015). These collaborative programs empower students when sharing their stories, while
enabling them to post such narratives online (Calvert, 2014; Clark, 2010). Students utilizing technology for
storytelling are able to increase their motivation for writing while also improving their language skills
(Sessions et al., 2016). Other recommendations for video animations, storytelling, and voiceovers are
Powtoon, iStopMotion, Puppet Pals, and Toontastic (Yuan & Bakian-Aaker, 2015), and Knowmia and
Educreations for recording and creating videos (Kilpatrick et al., 2014). More examples of highly interactive
and multimodal storytelling and presentation tools are VoiceThread, Prezi, Flipsnack (Martin & Lambert,
2015); Book Creator (Kervin & Mantei, 2016; Rowe & Miller, 2016; Saulsburry, Kilpatrick, Wolbers, & Dostal,
2015); JayCut (Baepler & Reynolds, 2014); Little Bird Tales, iBooks Author (Kilpatrick et al., 2014), Storybird,
Storyjumper, Bookemon (Morton-Standish, 2014), Drawing Pad (Rowe & Miller, 2016), Tellagami (Kervin &
Mantei, 2016) and Strip Designer (Kilpatrick et al., 2014). Stories can also be told through the creation of
made-up newspaper clippings using Fodey, which can then be published onto websites, wikis, blogs, or
Twitter (Kilpatrick et al., 2014).
Online collaborative writing and storing tools. The use of Google Docs is also frequently cited in
the literature (Bikowski & Vithanage, 2016; Boling et al., 2008; Brodahl, Hadjerrouit, & Hansen, 2011;
Calvert, 2014; Dzekoe; 2017; Zhou, Simpson, & Domizi, 2012) as it affords online collaboration in writing
and revising documents, as well as storage. This type of collaborative technology, which allows
simultaneous editing, enables students to negotiate meaning as they work together to write documents
online (Bikowski & Vithanage, 2016); the researchers noted how the use of technology helped participants
improve their writing and organization skills, while allowing for “flexibility and student experimentation” in
the collaborative process (p. 90). Other collaborative tools found in the literature were Etherpad (Brodahl
et al., 2011) and Dropbox (, 2013; Kilpatrick et al., 2014).
Wikis. Wikis are highly useful and user-friendly presentation and collaboration tools mentioned in the
literature (Alharbi, 2015; Boling et al., 2008; Kilpatrick et al., 2014; Margaryan et al., 2011; Martin &
Lambert, 2015; Miyazoe & Anderson, 2012). As opposed to more traditional pencil-and-paper writing
activities, wikis can motivate users to create and share content (Boling et al., 2008). A great tool for
sharing multimodal media is Wikispaces (Kilpatrick et al., 2014).

46 NYS TESOL JOURNAL Vol. 5, No. 2, July 2018

 Discussion boards and forums. These tools are frequently utilized in hybrid and online environments
(Alharbi, 2015; Calvert, 2014; Comer, Clark, & Canelas, 2014; Jose & Abidin, 2016; Margaryan et al., 2011;
Miyazoe & Anderson 2012). Online forum discussions can increase EFL students’ interest and motivation
in interacting with others. They also support brainstorming, organization, and revision/editing, and
stimulate the creation of original and authentic writing (Jose & Abidin, 2016). Word-of-the-day forums
can also be an excellent tool for teaching vocabulary while incorporating discussion opportunities where
students can engage with others using the newly acquired lexicon (Calvert, 2014).
ePortfolios. These digital, multimodal versions of traditional paper-based portfolios, on which users
can display artifacts representing their schoolwork, are increasingly growing in popularity. Because they
are digital, ePortfolios afford instant publication and revision opportunities (Alshahrani & Windeatt, 2012;
Baepler & Reynolds, 2014; Clark, 2010).
Podcasts. Users can also plan and tell stories using podcasts—digital audio files that can be shared
online or through mobile apps (Boling et al., 2008; Margaryan et al., 2011; Mills & Exley, 2014). One of the
most user-friendly tools is GarageBand (Mills & Exley, 2014). While creating their scripts for recording the
podcasts, students are utilizing key writing skills for an authentic audience, which can be motivating to
learners. A successful example is cited in Boling et al. (2008), where a sixth-grade writing teacher posted
his students’ podcasts on his Youth Radio blog (https://youthradio.wordpress.com/) in order to connect
these young writers to their communities and provide them with a space to share their stories and
interests.
Table 1 summarizes the findings and reports the number of publications in which each type of product
is discussed.

Table 1
Technology Tools for Collaboration and Presentation
COLLABORATION AND PRESENTATION TOOLS
Type of Product n*
Blogs, fan sites, and social media pages 15
Movie making and digital story tools 15
Online collaborative writing and storing tools 7
Wikis 6
Discussion boards and forums 6
ePortfolios 3
Podcasts 3
*Some publications included more than one type of product, which were double coded.

Evaluation and Feedback Tools

Automated writing evaluation (AWE) tools. In this second category, AWE tools are the most
pervasive evaluation and feedback instruments found in the literature. There are several free and
commercially available AWE tools, including Grammarly (Nova, 2018) and PaperRater (Paper Rater, n.d.),
both of which also have paid versions that provide more advanced feedback features. Educational
institutions can make use of commercial tools such as Criterion, MY Access!, Turnitin Feedback Studio and
Revision Assistant, W-Pal, and WriteToLearn (Burstein, Chodorow, & Leacock, 2004; El Ebyary & Windeatt;
2010; Grimes & Warschauer, 2010; Laing, El Ebyary, & Windeatt, 2012; Landauer, Lochbaum, & Dooley,
2009; Lavolette, Polio, & Kahng, 2015; Li, Link, & Hegelheimer, 2015; Roscoe & MacNamara, 2013). A main
advantage of using AWE tools is that students can obtain instant assessment and feedback on their

47 NYS TESOL JOURNAL Vol. 5, No. 2, July 2018

written assignments, which in turn gives teachers more time to focus on other important aspects of
writing instruction.
Annotation tools. Screenchomp is suggested for recording and annotating, functioning like notes you
would make on a whiteboard. The work can then be shared with others online (Kilpatrick et al., 2014).
VideoANT enables video annotation and feedback, facilitating peer review directly onto the video. Video
and written annotations appear side by side in the same document, which enables users to reflect on their
scripts and improve their communication skills (Baepler & Reynolds, 2014).
Table 2 summarizes the findings and reports the number of publications in which each type of product
is discussed.

Table 2
Technology Tools for Evaluation and Feedback
EVALUATION AND FEEDBACK TOOLS
Type of Product n*
Automated writing evaluation (AWE) tools 9
Annotation tools 2
*Some publications included more than one type of product, which were double coded.

Organization Tools
Mind maps and graphic organizers. Popplet is the most widely cited tool found in the literature. It
allows users to create mind maps, timelines, graphic organizers, and many other ways in which to visually
organize information (Kervin & Mantei, 2016; Kilpatrick et al., 2014; Saulsburry et al., 2015; Sessions et al.,
2016).
Online storyboards. Another excellent tool for the creation of digital outlines of narratives is the use
of online storyboards such as StoryboardThat and Storyboard Pro (Morton-Standish, 2014).
Organization and notetaking tools. Corkulous and Padlet can help students’ writing by providing
them with tools for notetaking, organization, multimedia, collaborative brainstorming, and editing
(Kilpatrick et al., 2014). Notability, Evernote, and UPAD are additional options that allow users to organize
their writing, create outlines, and share content (Kilpatrick et al., 2014).
Table 3 below summarizes the findings and reports the number of publications in which each type of
product is discussed.

Table 3
Technology Tools for Organization
ORGANIZATION TOOLS
Type of Product n*
Mind maps and graphic organizers 4
Online storyboards 1
Organization and notetaking tools 1
*Some publications included more than one type of product, which were double coded.

Discussion
Technology tools used for collaboration and presentation can enhance student motivation, increase
engagement, and enable peer editing and sharing learners’ work. The most prevalent tools in the
literature are blogs, fan sites, social media pages, and movie-making and digital story tools. Teachers can
use them to assign final projects or as a means for formative assessment. Tools for online collaborative

48 NYS TESOL JOURNAL Vol. 5, No. 2, July 2018

writing, wikis, discussion boards, forums, and podcasts are other engaging ways in which teachers can
enhance their writing instruction and increase student participation. The use of ePortfolios enables a
multimodal form of authentic assessment (both formative and summative), while also facilitating
demonstration and sharing of the content. In addition, writing instruction can be complemented with
AWE tools, which provide students with evaluation and feedback, enabling teachers to focus on other
important aspects involved in the teaching of writing. Moreover, organization and annotation tools such
as mind maps, video annotation software, online storyboards, and notetaking software can provide
multimodal support to students as they create their work.
These findings confirm that technology has indeed taken a central role in communication and
collaboration practices, and that the use of multimodal tools can greatly enhance instruction and the
construction of student artifacts. Still, significant questions arise and further research is needed to address
matters such as access to technology as well as teacher training that would enable them to feel fully
confident in using tools that support the instruction of writing. Nevertheless, it is worth noting how
expanding the use of technology in instructional settings has tremendous potential to support writing
teachers and enable learners, most of whom are “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001, p. 1), to become
increasingly proficient and skilled writers.

References
Alharbi, M. (2015). Effects of Blackboard’s discussion boards, blogs and wikis on effective integration and
development of literacy skills in EFL students. English Language Teaching, 8(6), 111–132.
Alshahrani, A., & Windeatt, S. (2012, August 22–25). Using an e-portfolio system to improve the academic
writing performance of ESL students. In L. Bradley & S. Thouësny (Eds.), 2012 EUROCALL conference
proceedings: Using, learning, knowing. (pp. 10–15). Gothenburg, Sweden. Research-publishing.net.
Baepler, P., & Reynolds, T. (2014). The digital manifesto: Engaging student writers with digital video
assignments. Computers and Composition, 34, 122–136.
Bikowski, D., & Vithanage, R. (2016). Effects of web-based collaborative writing on individual L2 writing
development. Language Learning & Technology, 20(1), 79–99.
Blankenship, M. U., & Margarella, E. E. (2014). Technology and secondary writing: A review of the literature.
Contemporary Educational Technology, 5(2), 146–160.
Boling, E., Castek, J., Zawilinski, L., Barton, K., & Nierlich, T. (2008). Collaborative literacy: Blogs and internet
projects. The Reading Teacher, 61(6), 504–506.
Brodahl, C., Hadjerrouit, S., & Hansen, N. K. (2011). Collaborative writing with Web 2.0 technologies:
Education students’ perceptions. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice,
10, 73–103.
Burstein, J., Chodorow, M., & Leacock, C. (2004). Automated essay evaluation: The Criterion online writing
system. AI Magazine, 25, 27–36.
Calvert, K. (2014). Facilitating the quest: A case study of three technologies in an EAPP writing classroom.
CATESOL Journal, 25(1), 106–117.
Clark, J. E. (2010). The digital imperative: Making the case for a 21st-century pedagogy. Computers and
Composition, 27(1), 27–35.
Collier, S., Foley, B., Moguel, D., & Barnard, I. (2013). Write for your life: Developing digital literacies and
writing pedagogy in teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education,
13(3), 262–284.
Comer, D. K., Clark, C. R., & Canelas, D. A. (2014). Writing to learn and learning to write across the
disciplines: Peer-to-peer writing in introductory-level MOOCs. The International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning, 15(5), 26–82.

49 NYS TESOL JOURNAL Vol. 5, No. 2, July 2018

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2015). The things you do to know: An introduction to the pedagogy of
multiliteracies. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), A pedagogy of multiliteracies (pp. 1–36). London, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Davis, A., & McGrail, E. (2011). The influence of classroom blogging on elementary student writing. Journal
of Research in Childhood Education, 25(4), 415–437.
Dzekoe, R. (2017). Computer-based multimodal composing activities, self-revision, and L2 acquisition
through writing. Language Learning & Technology, 21(2), 73–95.
Edwards-Groves, C. (2012). Interactive creative technologies: Changing learning practices and pedagogies
in the writing classroom. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 35(1), 99–113.
El Ebyary, K., & Windeatt, S. (2010). The impact of computer-based feedback on students’ written work.
International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 121–142.
Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Journal
of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1), 93–106.
Ferreira, D. (2013, September 12–14). Written corrective feedback and peer review in the BYOD classroom.
In L. Bradley & S. Thouësny (Eds.), 20 years of EUROCALL: Learning from the past, looking to the future.
Proceedings of the 2013 EUROCALL Conference (pp. 86–92). Évora, Portugal: Research-publishing.net.
Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010). Utility in a fallible tool: A multi-site case study of automated writing
evaluation. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 8, 4–43.
Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Weigel, M., Clinton, K., & Robison, A. J. (2006). Confronting the challenges of
participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Chicago, IL: The MacArthur Foundation.
Jose, J., & Abidin, M. J. Z. (2016). A pedagogical perspective on promoting English as a foreign language
writing through online forum discussions. English Language Teaching, 9(2), 84–101.
Kervin, L., & Mantei, J. (2016). Digital writing practices: A close look at one grade three author. Literacy,
50(3), 133–140.
Kilpatrick, J. R., Saulsburry, R., Dostal, H. M., Wolbers, K. A., & Graham, S. (2014). The integration of digital
tools during strategic and interactive writing instruction. In R. S. Anderson & C. Mims (Eds.), Handbook
of research on digital tools for writing instruction in K–12 settings (pp. 608–628). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Lacina, J., & Griffith, R. (2012). Blogging as a means of crafting writing. The Reading Teacher, 66(4),
316–320.
Laing, J., El Ebyary, K., & Windeatt, S. (2012, August 22–25). How learners use automated computer-based
feedback to produce revised drafts of essays. In L. Bradley & S. Thouësny (Eds.), CALL: Using, Learning,
Knowing: EUROCALL Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden (pp. 156–160). Dublin: Research-publishing.net.
Landauer, T., Lochbaum, K., & Dooley, S. (2009). A new formative assessment technology for reading and
writing. Theory into Practice, 48, 44–52.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second
language learning (pp. 1–26). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lavolette, E., Polio, C., & Kahng, J. (2015). The accuracy of computer-assisted feedback and students’
responses to it. Language Learning & Technology, 19(2), 50–68.
Li, Z., Link, S., & Hegelheimer, V. (2015). Rethinking the role of automated writing evaluation (AWE)
feedback in ESL writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 1–18.
Limbu, L., & Markauskaite, L. (2015). How do learners experience joint writing: University students’
conceptions of online collaborative writing tasks and environments. Computers & Education, 82,
393–408.
Lotherington, H., & Jenson, J. (2011). Teaching multimodal and digital literacy in L2 settings: New literacies,
new basics, new pedagogies. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 226–246.
Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Voit, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’
use of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 56(2), 429–440.

50 NYS TESOL JOURNAL Vol. 5, No. 2, July 2018

 Martin, N. M., & Lambert, C. (2015). Differentiating digital writing instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 59(2), 217–227.
Mills, K. A., & Exley, B. (2014). Time, space, and text in the elementary school digital writing classroom.
Written Communication, 31(4), 434–469.
Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2012). Discuss, reflect, and collaborate: A qualitative analysis of forum, blog,
and wiki use in an EFL blended learning course. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 34, 146–152.
Morton-Standish, L. (2014). Using online media to write extended persuasive text. The Reading Teacher,
67(6), 419–429.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational
Review, 66(1), 60–93.
Nobles, S., & Paganucci, L. (2015). Do digital writing tools deliver? Student perceptions of writing quality
using digital tools and online writing environments. Computers and Composition, 38, 16–31.
Nova, M. (2018). Utilizing Grammarly in evaluating academic writing: A narrative research on EFL students’
experience. Premise: Journal of English Education, 7(1), 80–97.
Paper Rater. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.paperrater.com/free_paper_grader
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants, Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
Prior, P. (2006). A sociocultural theory of writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.),
Handbook of writing research (pp. 54–66). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Roscoe, R. D., & MacNamara, D. S. (2013). Writing pal: Feasibility of an intelligent writing strategy tutor in
the high school classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1010–1025.
Rowe, D. W., & Miller, M. E. (2016). Designing for diverse classrooms: Using iPads and digital cameras to
compose eBooks with emergent bilingual/biliterate four-year-olds. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy,
16(4), 425–472.
Rowsell, J., & Walsh, M. (2011). Rethinking literacy education in new times: Multimodality, multiliteracies,
& new literacies. Brock Education, 21(1), 53–62.
Saulsburry, R., Kilpatrick, J. R., Wolbers, K. A., & Dostal, H. (2015). Getting students excited about learning:
Incorporating digital tools to support the writing process. Odyssey: New Directions in Deaf Education,
16, 30–34.
Sessions, L., Kang, M. O., & Womack, S. (2016). The neglected “R”: Improving writing instruction through
iPad apps. TechTrends, 60(3), 218–225.
Smith, B. E. (2014). Beyond words: A review of research on adolescents and multimodal composition. In R.
E. Ferdig & K. E. Pytash (Eds.), Exploring multimodal composition and digital writing (pp. 1–19). Hershey,
PA: IGI Global.
Unsworth, L. (2008). Multiliteracies, e-literature and English teaching. Language and Education, 22(1),
62–75.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Yuan, T., & Bakian-Aaker, L. (2015). Focus on technology: Classroom digital storytelling in grades K–2:
Writers make a movie for the reader. Childhood Education, 91(5), 402–404.
Zhou, W., Simpson, E., & Domizi, D. P. (2012). Google Docs in an out-of-class collaborative writing activity.
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 24(3), 359–375.

_________________________________
*Corresponding author: [email protected]

51 NYS TESOL JOURNAL Vol. 5, No. 2, July 2018

View publication stats