The Role of Digital Storytelling in EFL Education for Cambodian Undergraduates

Chapter I

Introduction

Background of the Study

Literacy is traditionally defined as the ability to read and write, and this

chiefly echoed the era in which it was the sole means used to access, communicate,

and interpret the knowledge in written and/or printed texts (Savage & Barnett, 2015).

However, in today’s ever-increasingly digital society, this changes because

participating in digital spaces is more challenging due to the technology advancement,

thereby calling for a myriad of skills to navigate in those digital spaces (Broadband

Commission for Sustainable Development, 2017). With this emerges a new form of

literacy: Digital literacy. It is defined by Hague and Payton (2010, p. 19) as “skills,

knowledge, and understanding that enables critical, creative, discerning and safe

practices when engaging with digital technologies in all areas of life”. With that

having said, an arsenal of digital literacy practices is a prerequisite to living and

surviving in this contemporary society.

Recognizing the importance of digital literacy, the prime minister of

Cambodia, instructed the Supreme National Economic Council to formulate an all-

inclusive Digital Economy Policy Framework, which stresses the utmost importance

of the promotion of digital literacy in all sectors (Office of the council of Ministers,

2019, March 26). In education, the Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sport (MoEYS)

in Cambodia stated in Education Strategic Plan 2019-2023 that Information

Communication Technology (ICT) will be integrated into teaching, learning, and

knowledge sharing in all education sectors (MoEYS, 2019). ICT, therefore, will need

to be promoted in both teaching and learning of all subject areas, including English.

This emphasis on the use of ICT in English language teaching and learning is very

beneficial for the learners because it improves their language studies and provides a

fun and motivating learning experience (Yoon, 2014). In practice, EFL teachers can

assign students to work individually, in dyads, or in teams to find and present

information with some selected online tools (Son, 2018), and Son further added that

to present what the students have found, one interesting method that the teachers can

use with the students is Digital Storytelling.

Digital Storytelling (DST) is a project-based instruction that uses storytelling,

technology, and group work to accommodate the making of short video clips with

multi-media (e.g. images, music, sounds, video clips, etc.) to express a compelling

story (Castañeda, 2013; Christiansen & Koelzer, 2016; Lal et al., 2015). In second

language education, DST provides many benefits including providing novel

pedagogical methods and more varieties than the conventional methods,

“personalizing learning experience”, forming authentic scenarios simply and

significantly, and increasing learners’ engagement in the learning process (Moradi &

Chen, 2019). Moreover, DST allows students to engage in an online and/or offline

research of various information from different sources while examining and

synthesizing them, hone their communication skills through learning to structure their

thought, inquiring, sharing opinions, and narrating, and foster their emotional

intelligence, collaboration, and social learning through critiquing their work as well as

those of their friends (Robin, 2016).

In addition, DST can benefit language learners immensely. Empirical studies

have shown that DST, besides improving English oracy skills (Tahriri et al., 2015)

and writing skills (Sepp & Bandi-Rao, 2015), can also enhance language learners’

reading ability (Enokida, 2016; Nassim, 2018; Rahimi & Yadollahi, 2017; Vu et al.,

2019), and digital literacy (Chiang, 2020; Vu et al., 2019). The reasons for the

improvement in language skills and digital literacy may be due to the multimodal

nature of DST (Yoon, 2013), DST’s connection to Culturally Responsive Instruction

which can assist language learners in improving their language ability in a meaningful

and natural context (Stanley, 2018), and DST’s relation to “technology-mediated,

task-based, multiliteracy project” (Castañeda, 2013). In a digital story project, not

only do students make use of their language skills meaningfully, but they also need to

use digital tools. Vu et al. (2019) stated that when creating digital stories, students had

to use various technological tools, software, and web applications. Therefore, Digital

Storytelling (DST) is effective in improving language skills while promoting digital

literacy of the learners of English, especially those in Cambodia.

Statement of the Problem

Despite English being considered as a dominant foreign language in

Cambodia and the integration of English, in addition to French, as a core subject of

study in the national curriculum of formal education by the Ministry of Education,

Youth, and Sport (MoEYS, 2015), the majority of Cambodian English learners’

proficiency is not promising. This is the case because based on the EF English

Proficiency Indices (EF EPL, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019), Cambodia has been

ranked as one of the countries with very low English proficiency from 2015 to 2019.

This is perhaps partly because Cambodia was introduced to the English Language

later than other countries. Moore and Bounchan (2010) stated that teaching and

learning English in Cambodia was illegal until the late 1980s. Moreover, it may be

due to the traditional teaching methods still prevalent in most of the schools in

Cambodia.

Nevertheless, to tackle this problem, numerous efforts have been taken.

Firstly, the Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sport (MoEYS) introduced new

teaching principles in all subjects including English (MoEYS, 2015). Secondly, there

were organizations (e.g., Volunteer Service Oversea), that helped improve English

teaching and learning in Cambodia. Lastly, in the past years, there have been

empirical studies conducted on English proficiency in terms of its macro skills to

contribute to English learning and teaching in Cambodia. Be that as it may, most

studies dealt with writing, listening, and speaking (Chan & Srun, 2016; Hong, 2009;

Leaph, 2020; Roth & Suppasetseree, 2016; Yin & Chinokul, 2018). There has been,

however, little empirical research done in the area of EFL reading literacy in the

Cambodian context, despite its importance in English language development.

Reading is essential for the development of the English language because, as

claimed by Krashen (2020, May 1), it can provide “compelling inputs” that support

and hone other language skills. Stated in another way, reading can better students’

reading, writing, listening, and speaking abilities as well as enriching their

vocabularies (Anderson, 2008, 2018; Bamford & Day, 2004). Reading is also a

sought-after English language skill among Cambodian EFL students, especially the

undergraduate students, as shown in the result of Sothan’s (2015) study on the

English language needs of Undergraduate students in Cambodia. Despite that, the

reading ability of Cambodian undergraduate students is an issue. According to the

2019 test summary of TOEFL iBT® (ETS, 2019a), the mean score of Cambodian

undergraduate test-taker in reading is only 16 (low intermediate) out of 30; based on

the performance descriptors of the TOEFL iBT® test (ETS, 2019b), low-intermediate

readers’ overall understanding of the English texts is limited. Thus, Cambodian

undergraduate students’ reading ability is still problematic.

Therefore, to improve Cambodian undergraduate students’ reading ability, to

contribute to the empirical reading research in the Cambodia context, and to propose a

reading instruction that aligns with the Education Strategic Plan 2019-2023 of the

Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sport (MoEYS) in Cambodia, Digital Storytelling

(DST) was used in this study.

Research Questions

1. What is the effect of Digital Storytelling (DST) on Cambodian undergraduate

students’ EFL reading Literacy?

2. What is the perception of Cambodian undergraduate students on their digital

literacy after participating in Digital Storytelling (DST)?

3. What is the perception of Cambodian undergraduate students on Digital

Storytelling (DST)?

Research Objectives

1. To investigate the effect of Digital Storytelling (DST) on Cambodian

undergraduate students’ EFL reading literacy

2. To explore the perception of Cambodian undergraduate students on their

digital literacy after participating in Digital Storytelling (DST)

3. To explore the perception of Cambodian undergraduate students on Digital

Storytelling (DST)

Statements of Hypothesis

The previous studies on the effect of Digital Storytelling (DST) on students’

EFL reading literacy have shown that the implementation of DST could positively

impact the student’s EFL reading literacy (Enokida, 2016; Nassim, 2018; Rahimi &

Yadollahi, 2017; Vu et al., 2019). Therefore, the following hypothesis was tested:

• The post-test median score of Cambodian undergraduate students’ EFL

reading literacy is statistically significantly higher than the pre-test median

score at 0.05 level.

Definitions of Terms

1. Digital Storytelling (DST) refers to a project-based instruction in which

students work in groups to research the topic they choose and then make a

short video clip to present what they have found in the form of storytelling. In

this study, the researcher designed the project-based instruction by adapting

Yearta’s (2019) DST framework.

2. EFL reading literacy refers to the ability to construct the meaning from the

English texts through locating, understanding, evaluating, and reflecting.

Moreover, EFL reading literacy will be measured through the English Reading

Test based on PISA 2018 Reading Framework (OECD, 2019b).

3. Digital literacy refers to the ability to use technologies and level of digital

literacy skills. It includes five elements: Information Search and Evaluation,

Creation, Communication, Collaboration, and Online Safety (Son et al., 2017).

4. Cambodian undergraduate students refer to English-majored students from

the School of Foreign Languages (SFL) at the University of Cambodia (UC).

At SFL, they are trained for career prospects in areas ranging from English

teaching to translation services, and other non-governmental and

governmental institutions.

5. Cambodian undergraduate students’ perceptions refer to English-majored

SFL students’ views and judgments toward Digital Storytelling (DST) and

digital literacy after participating in Digital Storytelling (DST). The former

will be explored through the interview protocol and digital storytelling rubric,

while the latter will be done so via a digital literacy questionnaire translated

from Son’s (2015) Digital Literacy Questionnaire and Digital Story Rubric.

Scope of the Study

1. Participants included 18 English-majored students from the School of

Foreign Languages (SFL) at the University of Cambodia (UC). Their age

ranges from 19 to 23 years old, and they were from different social-economic

backgrounds. At SFL, English-majored students are groomed for career

prospects in areas ranging from English teaching to translation services, and

other non-governmental and governmental institutions.

2. Variables included the independent variable (IV), Digital Storytelling (DST),

and the dependent variables (DVs), Cambodian undergraduate students’ EFL

reading and digital literacy.

Significance of the Study

The significance of this study was three-fold. Firstly, this study greatly

contributed to the EFL reading literacy research in Cambodia, which thus far has been

scarce. Secondly, it provided teaching and learning benefits. As for EFL Cambodian

teachers, this study introduced a novel, pedagogical method used to enhance students’

EFL reading and digital literacy, which aligns with the Education Strategic Plan 2019-

2023 of the Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sport (MoEYS) in Cambodia. As for

EFL Cambodian students, this study ushered in a new, technology-oriented learning

experience of EFL reading literacy. In it, not only do they improve their EFL reading

literacy meaningfully, but they also improve their digital literacy, which is considered

as the 21st-century essential. Thirdly, it provided instrumental value for Cambodian

researchers. Provided that the researcher of this study translated Son’s (2015) Digital

Literacy Questionnaire in Khmer, the aforementioned researchers can utilize the

translated questionnaire for further studies related to digital literacy in Cambodian.

Plus, other instruments could also be used in further studies.

Overview of the Study

The study investigated the effectiveness of Digital Storytelling (DST) on the

Cambodian undergraduate students’ EFL reading and digital literacy. The study

includes five chapters.

Chapter I introduces the background of the study and the problem the present

study aims to deal with. In addition, the research questions, objectives, and hypothesis

is described in this chapter. After this, the scope of the study, definitions of terms, and

significance of the study will be elaborated.

Chapter II includes a theoretical and empirical review of the present study.

The review is grouped under three sections, which include digital literacy, Digital

Storytelling (DST), and EFL reading literacy. The chapter ends with a summary of

concepts, theories, and studies discussed.

Chapter III focuses on the research methodology of the present study. It

encompasses research design, context, population and participants, research

instruments, research procedures, and the data-collection and data-analysis methods.

Chapter IV presents the findings of the present study in conjunction with the

respective research questions.

Chapter V consists of the summary of the study, discussions of the findings,

limitation of the study, pedagogical implication, and recommendation for further

studies

Chapter II

Literature Review

This chapter is divided into three sections. The first section is on digital

literacy, which includes the definition of digital literacy and its elements and

assessment. The second section is about Digital Storytelling (DST). In it, the

definition of DST will be introduced first, which is followed by its components and

instructional framework. Then it will focus on the connection of DST to Culturally

Responsive Instruction and technology-mediated task-based multiliteracy project,

DST assessment, and the studies on the effect of DST on reading ability. The third

section is about EFL reading literacy. In this part, it will touch on the L1 reading

literacy and L2 reading literacy, and lastly reading literacy assessment will be

elaborated on.

Digital Literacy

Definition of Digital Literacy

Digital literacy is first coined by Gilster (1997) as the ability to comprehend,

critique, and synthesize multimodal information delivered by the computer. Digital

Literacy came into existence because of the following phenomena: (1) the widespread

ownership of personal computers in the 1980s in which word processing

revolutionized writing, (2) the emergence of hypermedia and the internet in the 1990s

in which hypermedia bettered the linkage of ideas and text, and (3) the rise of the

digital economy in which people from all around the world have access to knowledge

(Dobson & Willinsky, 2009). The term “digital literacy” was developed upon the

discussion of visual literacy which refers to the skill to comprehend the information

using images or non-textual symbols, technological literacy which refers to the skill to

use technological tools, computer literacy, which refers to the skill developed in the

1980s to use personal computers to accomplish certain things and information literacy

which refers to the ability to find, critique, use, and share information ("Digital

literacies ", n.d.).

Throughout the years, digital literacy has been given different definitions

(Hague & Payton, 2010; Marsh et al., 2017; Savage & Barnett, 2015; Son, 2015). For

example, Savage and Barnett (2015), who looked at digital literacy from a broader

perspective, claimed that digital literacy can be understood based on the definition of

conventional literacy in the sense that it is still about interacting with and

communicating the information but with a technological twist; that is, the modes and

platforms people use to interact with and communicate the information are various. In

a similar token, Marsh et al. (2017) deemed digital literacy as “multilingual,

multimodal, and multimedia communicative acts”, instead of skills for certain

platforms, devices, or apps. Moreover, Hague and Payton (2010) defined digital

literacy as “skills, knowledge, and understanding that enables critical, creative,

discerning and safe practices when engaging with digital technologies in all areas of

life”. In addition, Son (2015) deemed the awareness of online safety and the ability to

utilize digital technologies to create, communicate, collaborate, search for, and

evaluate audio-visual, or written texts. Lankshear and Knobel (2015) stated that there

are three key features of all the mainstream definitions of digital literacy: First, digital

literacy is limited to creating or communicating roles concerning information; second,

it involves interacting with information, which means critiquing or validating the

credibility or reliability of the information; third, most definitions assigned to digital

literacy as “a capacity, ability, or skill”, which is something one has or lacks.

Elements of Digital Literacy

Synonymous with its definitions, the elements of digital literacy have also

been conceptualized differently by different scholars (Bawden, 2008; Eshet-Alkalai,

2004; Payton & Hague, 2010; Son, 2015). Each one will be summarized below in

chronological order.

Firstly, Eshet-Alkalai (2004) deemed digital literacy as encompassing five

elements: (1) “photo-visual literacy”, which means the ability to fluently read and

comprehend messages and instructions presented in both visual and graphic formats,

(2) “reproduction literacy”, which means the ability to construct new concepts

through manipulating or reproducing multimedia, (3) “branching literacy”, which

means the ability to stay on the hyperspace track while navigating through complex

digital realms, (4) “information literacy”, which means the ability to access,

synthesize, and critique information, and (5) “socio-emotional literacy”, which means

the ability to possess abstract thinking and able to collaborate with others virtually to

construct, share, and evaluate data or information.

Secondly, Bawden (2008) narrowed down digital literacy to four general

elements: (1) “underpinnings”, which are basic computer skill sets; (2) “background

knowledge”, which refers to knowing the novel formats of information and their

places in the digital world, (3) “central competencies”, which refers to foundational

competencies and skills, ranging from information evaluation to knowledge

organization, and to comprehending both digital and non-digital format, and (4)

“attitudes and perspectives”, which encompasses autonomous learning and netiquette.

Thirdly, Payton and Hague (2010) claimed that digital literacy contains eight

elements: (1) “creativity” – this refers to the ability to make use of creative and

imaginative thinking with the aid of technology to produce outputs in “different

formats and modes”, (2) “critical thinking and evaluation” – this refers to the ability

to make analysis, examination, and critique on the “digital media and its content”, (3)

“cultural and social understanding” – this refers to the ability to take into

consideration the fact that people’s understanding and usage of digital medias and

their contents are, to large extent, influenced by the culture and society they are in, (4)

“collaboration” – this refers to the ability to take advantage of technology to support

and enhance one’s collaboration with other both inside and outside the classroom, (5)

“the ability to find and select information” – this refers to the ability to look for what

information required for the task at hand and where to find it on the digital platform

and to be “aware of intellectual property issues” such as plagiarism and copyright, (6)

“effective communication” – this refers to the ability to select the different modes of

information and technology that suit to particular audience so as to make one’s

messages understood better, (7) “e-safety” – this refers to the ability to stay cautious

when navigating in the digital platform or using digital devices. As such is knowing

what is deemed as appropriate use and content, and (8) “functional skills” – this refers

to skills in knowing how to competently use and adapt to the different platforms.

Lastly, according to Son (2015), digital literacy contains five elements: (1)

“information search and evaluation”, which refers to searching for, evaluating, and

managing information, (2) “creation”, which means constructing meaning, materials,

and resources, and creating activities, (3) “communication”, which deals with the

effective communication in the digital networks, (4) “collaboration”, which consists

of collaborating and sharing ideas and resources with others, and (5) “online safety”,

which concerns with the development of safe practices and critical engagement.

Assessment of Digital Literacy

Digital literacy plays an essential role in the education sector; therefore, as

stated by Covello and Lei (2010), its importance necessitates its assessment.

Embedding digital literacy assessment into the framework of education can assist the

institutional initiatives of ICT literacy, provide guidance and evaluation for

innovations and changes in curriculum, offer direction for individual learning, and

clearly define skills and knowledge (Katz, 2005). Digital literacy assessment can be

done through a survey or task that measures digital literacy (Jenkins, 2015).

Moreover, educators or policymakers can either design their digital literacy

assessment or choose from the existing one.

Firstly, educators or policymakers can design their digital literacy assessment

instruments. When developing the digital literacy assessment, Sparks et al. (2016)

recommend taking into consideration issues including (1) specific definition of digital

literacy construct; (2) the contexts of information to be dealt with; (3) the degree to

which certain technological tools are included and if they formulate a context for

problem resolution or are the aim of the assessment; and (4) scoring consideration.

For an illustration, Son (2015), a CALL specialist, constructed a digital literacy

questionnaire that can be used to gauge information on the language learners and

teachers’ digital literacy. In his questionnaire, there are five sections. The first section

deals with the background information, while the second and third sections focus on

self-ratings of digital literacy skills and usage of digital technologies. Next, the fourth

section contains a digital literacy test and the fifth section looks at the factors

impacting the use of digital technologies. Son et al. (2017) described two studies that

implemented that questionnaire on students with non-English speaking backgrounds

from the contexts of Japan and Australia. The result from the two studies showed that

students were aware of and interested in the use of digital tools and their actual and

perceived levels of digital literacy were contrasting. One implication from it is that

digital literacy in language education can be developed by providing useful

instructions and opportunities to learn about the resources and digital technologies for

language learning and how to access them.

Second, educators or policymakers can also make use of the existing digital

literacy assessment instruments. There are a plethora of existing digital literacy

assessment instruments, and over the years there have been studies conducted the

reviews on instruments. The most notable among such studies are the ones by Spark

et al. (2016) and Carretero et al. (2017). While Spark et al. (2016) conducted the

review on the instruments and placed them into three groups based on item design,

which includes MCQ items, constructed-response items, performance-based tasks,

and assessment focus which consists of information literacy, technology literacy,

digital information literacy, Carretero et al. (2017) conducted a review on the

assessment instruments of digital literacy and placed the instruments into three main

groups based on the approach to data collection:

1. Performance assessment, which is when people, who are in stimulations or

using common software tools to solve authentic, real-life issues, are

assessed by software or human observers.

2. Knowledge-based assessment, which is when people do the test carefully

designed to assess not only declarative but also procedural knowledge of

digital literacy.

3. Self-assessment, which refers to when people are required to evaluate their

skills and knowledge through questionnaires that include structured scales

and/or free-form reflection.

When choosing the existing instrument, Covello and Lei (2010) said that educators or

policymakers should consider the output needs, social needs, and other factors which

include implementation, feasibility, approach, scope, cost, and reporting structure.

Digital Storytelling (DST)

Definition of DST

Storytelling was a powerful and important means to teach and learn in the

past (Moradi & Chen, 2019), and it still is nowadays but with a digital add-on. Now

there is a new form of storytelling: Digital Storytelling (DST). Originally founded in

the late 1990s by Joe Lambert and Dana Atchely, Digital Storytelling (DST) is a short

video clip with a combination of photographs, voice-over narration, and many other

types of audio (Lambert, 2009). It is also a project-based instruction that uses

storytelling technology and group work to accommodate the making of short video

clips with multi-media (e.g. images, music, sounds, video clips) to express a

compelling story (Castañeda, 2013; Christiansen & Koelzer, 2016; Lal et al., 2015).

Moreover, DST was categorized into three types: personal narrative, the personal

story of an incident important to a person, historical documentaries, the stories that

explore the past events, and the stories intended to elaborate on the particular concept

or practice (Robin, 2006). Moreover, Digital Storytelling also possesses some notable

components

Elements of DST

According to Joe Lambert, there are seven elements of Digital Storytelling

(DST): “Point of View”, “Dramatic Question”, “Emotional Content”, “Economy”,

“Pacing”, “The Gift of Your Voice”, and “soundtrack”, each of which is summarized

by Moradi and Chen (2019) as follows:

1. “Point of View”: since one affordance of storytelling is to allow the

storytellers to use their personal experience, learners should build their

digital stories from their understanding and personal experience. As such

is the usage of the first-person perspective instead of the third-person one

to construct the digital stories. Stated differently, this elaborates the

storytellers’ perspectives and clarifies the aim and key point of the story.

2. “Dramatic Question”: an effective digital story possesses a compelling or

dramatic question that will be answered at the end of the story and grabs

the listeners’ attention throughout the story.

3. “Emotional Content”: this is another aspect of an effective digital story

that can make the listeners emotional when listening to the story. Once

screened, effective digital stories can elicit from the listeners' tears,

laughter, and expression of joy.

4. “Economy”: this refers to the usage of a sufficient amount of content with

appropriate detail to not overwhelm listeners with superfluous information.

Keys to providing the digital story content are precision, brevity, and

simplicity, all of which fall under the economy of the digital story.

5. “Pacing”: related to economy, pacing deals with the speed by which the

story goes or continues. Its focal concern is the rhythm of the story, which

should be in alignment with the story’s purpose and objectives.

6. “The Gift of Your Voice”: it is advisable that students put the effort in

personalizing their stories through voice recording and narration of the

script written by themselves to assist the listeners to understand the content

of the story.

7. “Soundtrack”: the storyline and the depth of the storytelling can be

improved and substantiated by integrating music or other various sound

supports.

DST instructional framework

Formerly used for artistic and therapeutic purposes (Lambert, 2009), DST is

now used in research and education (StoryCenter, 2017). In education, specifically

English language education, DST can also be implemented, and it offers many

benefits. Moradi and Chen (2019) said that DST when implemented in language

education has many advantages, including providing novel pedagogical methods and

more variety than the conventional methods, “personalizing learning experience”,

forming authentic scenarios simply and significantly, increasing learners’ engagement

in the learning process. Over the years, there have been many scholars proposing

instructional frameworks for DST. The most recent one among them is from Yearta

(2019). Yearta (2019) proposed a framework of DST, which includes:

1. Planning/selecting a topic: Learners are given various topic options to

choose from; however, they have to be under certain parameters.

2. Conducting research: Learners start their research in the library or the

online database. In this stage, learners should be trained on information

synthesis and triangulation. The former means combining information

from different sources, while the latter is comparing information from

different sources.

3. Drafting: This will take place once learners know their topics and have

done a great deal of research on them. In this stage, once having a draft

from their research, learners groups their first drafts in chunks, each of

which is later matched with an image from the internet. Once they have

chunked scripts with their respective images, they put them all together

using digital tools, such as Book Creator App, Puppet Pals, Splice, iMovie,

and Screencast-O-Matic. Learners upload images in one of the selected

tools and include their narration for each image using their script.

4. Revising: The learners revise their work through discussion with peers or

teachers.

5. Publishing for the authentic audience: Once their works are completed, the

works will be published on one of the digital platforms

DST as a Culturally Responsive Instruction

Assisting language learners in improving their language skills in a

meaningful and natural context, DST is considered as a culturally responsive

instruction (Stanley, 2018). Culturally responsive instruction is the pedagogical

method that stresses the importance of the integration of students’ culture in their

learning (Ladson-Billings, 1994). In DST, students tell stories electronically, using the

combination of text, audio, video, photos, and music (Moradi & Chan, 2019).

Technologies coupled with the video components are effective means by which the

language and cultural backgrounds of the students can be promoted, thereby

strengthening the students’ identities (Reyes & Vallone, 2008). Videos that are

constructed by students reflect their cultures and characteristics, which in turn

substantiates a sense and understanding of the community (Nicholas et al., 2011).

Subjects that can bridge the students’ background to the classroom culture can include

an interview, oral histories, and personal stories (Eckman, 1995). In their district-wide

study, Vu et al. (2019) conducted a textual analysis on two digital stories about

personal stories by students who used their L1 (Spanish) with English and found that

students once challenged to construct the identity texts experienced “unique learning

opportunities” through bridging communities, generation, culture, and languages.

Moreover, Vu et al. found that not only did this bridging of communities, generation,

culture, and language exist in the students’ finished digital stories, but it also existed

throughout the process of creating them as the students in their process of producing

digital stories participated in the bridging activities including conducting research,

interviewing members of their families, interacting in their local communities, and

exchanging ideas with their classmates, and ultimately, exhibiting their digital stories

either on the digital platforms or in the film festival sponsored by their schools.

DST as Technology-mediated, Task-based, Multiliteracy Project

DST is conceptualized as a technology-mediated, task-based, multiliteracies

project (Castañeda, 2013). The rationale behind this conceptualization is as follows.

First, the requirement for the DST, as claimed by Castañeda (2013), is a set of micro-

tasks, or milestones, which gradually guide students to the accomplishment of the

assignment. This aligns with Nunan’s (2004) definition of a project. Nunan defined a

project as a set of “maxi-tasks” which refers to the group of ordered and unified tasks

that collectively result in the completion of the final project. Moreover, the DST

project does not encompass a range of simple tasks. Instead, it includes meaningful,

technology-mediated tasks wherein learners utilize the technology and target language

to express to the audience a story in a video product (Castañeda, 2013; Ono, 2014).

Based on this premise, DST can be deemed as a project that consists of technology-

mediated tasks that build-up to the accomplishment of the project. Second, the DST

project is considered a “multiliteracies” approach (Angay-Crowder et al., 2013;

Christiansen & Koelzer, 2016). This approach originally aimed to deal with the

assortment of communicational media and channels and the growing importance of

diversity of language and culture (NLG, 1996). In the perspective of multiliteracies,

Castañeda (2013) claimed that not only do learners need to adapt to the society that is

progressively globalized by the use of language, but they also need to confidently

represent their ideas, using the emerging digital technologies, and Castañeda further

added that these two purposes in multiliteracies are married through the DST project.

Therefore, based on these two reasons, Digital Storytelling (DST) can be considered

as, in Castañeda’s (2013) term, a technology-mediated, task-based, multiliteracies

project.

As a technology-mediated, task-based, multiliteracies project, DST can

benefit learners immensely (Angay-Crowder et al., 2013; Beckett & Slater, 2018).

First, Beckett and Slater (2018) claimed that a project used for language learning is

supported by numerous studies to build learners’ skills for making the decision,

promote their independence, hone their teamwork skills, nurture their creative

thinking skills through testing their creativity, enhance their problem-resolution skills,

and provide students with meaningful contexts to learn a language, content, and

research skills. Moreover, Angay-Crowder et al. (2013) also provided a further

benefit of such a DST project. Angay-Crowder et al. claimed that the DST project can

provide multilingual adolescent students with the chance to construct the multimodal

story as a representation and reflection of their lives and sociocultural identities.

Moreover, since DST is project-based, for its success, the following should

be considered. According to Beckett and Slater (2018), they are explicitness,

structure, and fit, each of which is explained below:

1. Explicitness: the learners need to be reminded as to how the development

of their language progresses together with the development of their skills,

content knowledge, and socialization. To this end, the teachers can make

use of Gulbahar Beckett and Tammy Slater’s tool entitled “The Project

Framework” in which the learners’ awareness of improvement in

language, content knowledge, and skills through the use of “project diary”

wherein the learners note down the accomplishment of their language,

content, and skill learning.

2. Structure: the well-structured nature of the project is a prerequisite to the

success of the project; therefore, the project, especially at the initial part,

should have a good structure and regular monitoring.

3. Fit: despite the linguistic, skill-, and content-related benefits of the

project, it should reflect the situation of the learners with whom the

project is used. That is, the project demand, along with the instructional

language, should not exceed the learners’ current capability

DST Assessment

Since the conclusion of the digital storytelling activity is students

presenting/sharing their digital stories (Tobin, 2012), to evaluate it, a scoring rubric is

used. According to Carnegie Mellon (n.d.), a scoring rubric helps the graders make

their grading standard consistent, makes scoring less time consuming, reduces bias

when there are two or more graders, and assists the graders in identifying the areas in

need of improvement. A scoring rubric can also be categorized into two types: holistic

and analytic; of all the two, the analytic scoring rubric has higher reliability and

constructs validity even though it is more time-consuming and expensive than the

holistic scales (Hamp-Lyons, 1991).

From the literature, three notable sets of digital story rubrics emerge. The first

one is from Barrett (2006), the second one is from Tobin (2012), and the third one is

from Stanley and Dillingham (2009 as cited in Stanley, 2018).

In Barret’s digital story rubric used in general education, she adapted it from

the Scott County Schools’ (Kentucky) Digital Storytelling Rubric and based it from

the digital story elements, including:

1. Point of View: This focuses on to what extent the digital story has a

purpose or focus.

2. Dramatic Question: This concerns whether the question answered in the

digital story is dramatic.

3. Emotional Content: This deals with to what extent the audience is

profoundly and ardently involved.

4. The Gift of Your Voice: This looks at the uniformity in the storytelling,

which includes the tone of voice narration is consistent throughout the

story.

5. The Power of the Soundtrack (emotion): This focuses on whether the

music used can stimulate deep emotion from the audience.

6. The Power of the Soundtrack (originality): This deals with the originality

of the music used in the digital story.

7. Economy: This concerns the structure and brevity of the story.

8. Pacing: This looks at the rhythm of voice narration and the use of sound

effects to stir emotions.

Additionally, Tobin (2012), who modified the rubric from the work by the

Kamehameha Schools, made her digital story rubric suitable to be used in English

language class. The criteria used in Tobin’s digital story rubric include:

1. Creativity: This concerns the originality of digital story composition and

delivery.

2. Planning/storyboarding: This looks at whether the digital story is detailed

and demonstrates evidence of thorough planning.

3. Photography/videography: This deals with the relevancy and impact of the

added images and videos to the digital story.

4. Editing: This focuses on the appropriateness of the transition, effects, and

edits in the digital story.

5. Writing: This criterion concerns the overall quality of the digital story

based on whether it can successfully convey a message.

6. Content/connection to text: This focuses on the relevance and clarity of the

message conveyed in the digital story.

Moreover, the rubric proposed by Stanley and Dillingham (2009 as cited in Stanley,

2018) includes the eight criteria, which are:

1. Story: This concerns whether the story is engaging, with beginning, issue,

resolution, and end that are interesting.

2. Detail: This looks at the amount of detail used to tell the story to make it

coherent.

3. Point of View: This focuses on whether or not the story has a clear point of

view or purpose.

4. Narration: This deals with the clarity of the voice narration and its relation

to the storyline.

5. Pacing: This looks at whether the narrative pacing is effective to make the

audience engaged.

6. Grammar and Language Use: This concerns the correctness and

appropriateness of the grammar and language used in the story.

7. Image: This focuses on whether the background images are of high quality

and suitably harmonized with the different story scenes.

8. Music: This deals with the relevancy of the music used with the storyline

and tone.

4. Professionalism: This focuses on whether the author has a title and credit

page and the latter consists of correct citations and/or consents for

materials that are copyrighted.

All of these rubrics were used and adapted in the study to design the digital

story rubric that fits with the context of the study.

Related DST Studies on EFL Reading Literacy

Digital Storytelling (DST) is empirically supported to benefit EFL reading

literacy of EFL/ESL learners (Enokia, 2016; Nassim, 2018; Rahimi & Yadollahi,

2017; Vu et al., 2019). Following is the summary of each study on the effect of

Digital Storytelling (DST) on the learners’ reading ability in chronological order.

In their five-month study, Rahimi and Yadollahi (2017) compared the

effectiveness of digital storytelling on students’ reading ability, in addition to writing

ability. Their participants were 42 female students, who were then assigned into

control and experimental groups. The participants met with the instructor twice a

week, and each session lasted for 90 minutes. While the control group was introduced

to an offline content-making application, the experimental group was introduced to an

online one (Story Jumper). To collect data, they used the Reading-Writing section of

the Key English Test (KET) as a pre-and post-test. As for their result, they found that

after the intervention, the reading and writing performance in the KET of the

experimental group was significantly better than the control group (F = 11.680, p =

.00; partial eta squared = .222).

Enokida (2016) implemented Digital Storytelling (DST) in conjunction with

extensive reading on 27 Japanese EFL students in an EFL reading course entitled

“Advanced Reading” at a national university in Japan for one semester (15 weeks) of

the academic years 2014 - 2015. The aim was to help students focus on the story

structure and improve their reading and oral fluency. In that study, the students had to

participate in extensive reading activities in extracurricular time. In week 5, the

students gathered in groups to talk about the books they read and chose one book

collectively thought of as interesting, which was followed by the analysis of

characters and story structure of the chosen book. Then they constructed two stories,

each of which was told by a different character in the aforementioned book. After

rigorous revision, they then use a digital storytelling app, Videolicious, to create

digital stories for the stories they wrote. Then they shared their digital stories to

“Bb9”, which was a learning management system used in the university. The

researcher used the survey to gauge the effectiveness of the result, and it showed that

the intervention was effective in improving, in addition to other three macro language

skills, their reading skills, especially analytical reading of the narrative texts.

Nassim (2018) conducted a 5-week study on the effect of Digital Storytelling

(DST) on the students’ English proficiency. The researcher used an evaluation rubric

and survey to gather the data. The participants of the study were twenty-four students

in the course entitled English Foundation Level II. The participants were put into 4

groups, each of which was tasked to read, summarize, and make a digital story of one

short story. The findings from the survey showed that DST improved their reading

since they had to read the stories multiple times and summarize them.

As a part of their large-scale study on DST, Vu et al. (2019) conducted a 2-

month case study to determine the DST impact on language and literacy improvement

of the students in two classes, experimental and control classes. both classes were

assigned to read the book entitled 1984 by George Orwell and had to take quizzes

weekly and one final assessment. As for the final assessment, the experimental class

had to form a digital story to respond to the prompt “How close are we as a nation to

becoming a society monitored, and therefore controlled by the government? Compare

and contrast the fictional scenario of Orwell’s 1984 to citizen surveillance practice in

the United States”, while the control class had to write an essay. To compare those

two classes, the researchers used interviews, observation, and a researcher-made

survey. The result showed that students who had to make a digital story showed a

more in-depth understanding of the story since they could discuss the book deeply

with the interviewer; moreover, students in the DST class also had better retention of

the story as well.

EFL Reading Literacy

L1 Reading Literacy

According to PISA 2000 Reading Framework (OECD, 2000), reading

literacy refers to the capability of understanding, using, and reflecting on printed

and/or non-printed texts under the aim to reach one’s objectives, advance one’s

potential and knowledge, and partake in society, and it contains three dimensions:

Processes, which means being able to accomplish various reading tasks, which can

include formulating the gist of the text, scanning for the certain information,

interpreting or reflecting on the form or content of the text, Knowledge, and

understanding, which refers to the ability to read texts with different types (e.g.,

exposition, narration, description, etc.) and structure (advertisements, tables, graphs,

charts, and forms), and Context of application, which means being able to read texts

that are constructed for various scenarios, ranging from personal interest to work

requirements.

In 2009, the PISA 2000 reading literacy definition was extended by adding

“engagement in reading” into its definition of reading literacy, thus the formulation of

PISA 2009 reading literacy, which is defined as the capability of understanding,

using, reflecting on, and engaging with the printed and/or non-printed texts under the

aim to reach one’s objectives, advance one’s potential and knowledge, and to partake

in society (OECD, 2009). Engagement in this sense refers to the reading motivation

and consists of a collection of behavioral and affective characteristics, such as a sense

of control over the texts one reads, enjoyment and interest in reading, engagement in

the social aspect of reading, etc. (OECD, 2009).

Thus far PISA reading literacy has kept changing because, in this digital era,

readers will need to be competent at some new skills; that is, they have to be able to

use digital technologies, search for and access their reading texts utilizing a search

engine, hyperlinks, or other scrolling functions, evaluate and critique the information,

and read different texts to substantiate information, identify possible conflicts and

differences, and solve them (OECD, 2016, 2019a). Moreover, Leu et al. (2015) stated

the definition of reading literacy should be broadened to cover both basic processes of

reading skills and more advanced processes of digital reading skills while

acknowledging that the literacy concept will keep on evolving because of the evolving

nature of social context and new technologies. Therefore, the definition of reading

literacy has to mirror the comprehensive set of skills related to literacy tasks that are

required in the 21st Century (Spiro et al., 2015). In turn, this gives birth to PISA 2018

reading literacy which is the ability to understand, use, evaluate, reflect on and engage

with multiple texts to reach one’s objectives, advance one’s potential and knowledge,

and partake in society (OECD, 2019a). According to PISA 2018 Reading Framework

(OECD, 2019b), there are eight cognitive processes of successful reading which fall

under three main categories. Each category is described as follows:

1. Locate information: this includes two sub-cognitive processes. The first is

accessing and retrieving information in a text. This refers to scanning a

text to obtain the wanted information. The second is searching for and

selecting relevant text. This means looking for the pertinent text among

several texts based on the item or task demand (OECD, 2019b).

2. Understand: this encompasses three sub-cognitive processes. The first one

is representing literal information which is understanding denotative

meanings of the short passages or sentences. The second one is integrating

and generating inferences, which means synthesizing the information from

several sentences or a whole passage. The last one is integrating and

generating inferences across multiple sources, which refers to synthesizing

pieces of information from two or more texts (OECD, 2019b).

3. Evaluate and reflect: this consists of three sub-cognitive processes. First is

evaluating quality and credibility, which involves assessing the

information in a text to determine if it is reliable, current, accurate, or

valid. The second is reflecting on the form and content, which necessitates

the evaluation of the writing form to determine how the authors are

articulating their point of view and/or purpose. The last one is detecting

and handling conflict, which involves deciding whether texts support or

oppose each other (OECD, 2019b).

EFL Reading

Reading, as stated by Anderson (2008), is the process undertaken by readers

to link the textual information and their background knowledge to construct meaning.

Similarly, Grabe (2014) said that reading refers to the ability to extricate or construct

the meaning from the text. Doing so calls for the skills to determine the text's main

ideas, use a text reading model to synthesize them, and develop a suitable reader

interpretation model (Grabe, 2009). Anderson further said that the goal of reading is

reading comprehension. Reading comprehension refers to the process whereby

information of the written work is recognized and interpreted deeply by the readers

(Kong, 2019; Zhang, 2019), and the ability to comprehend and interpret the text

information in an appropriate manner (Grabe & Stoller, 2011). Furthermore, Oakhill

(2019) added that reading comprehension is a prerequisite not only for understanding

the text, but also for learning, and other social activities.

In addition, according to Day and Park (2005), reading comprehension

encompasses six types, and they are: Literal comprehension, which means the

comprehension of the verbatim, textual meaning including vocabulary, dates, facts,

times, and locations; Reorganization, which is based on the literal comprehension, this

happens when information from different sections of the text is linked to building

further comprehension; Inference, which demands the composition of literal

comprehension and one’s intuition and knowledge to construct meaning not directly

stated in the text; Prediction, which requires the use of literal comprehension and

one’s intuition and knowledge to make predictions on the reading texts; Evaluation,

which involves the students in comprehensively judging certain parts of the text; and

Personal response, which requires the learners to respond to the text and subject with

their feeling toward them.

Moreover, Anderson (2008) stated that there is a reason why people read.

People, L2 readers included, generally read for six purposes (Grabe, 2009), and they

are: “Read for information search”, whereby readers want to find certain information

and involves the use scanning and skimming; “Read for quick comprehension”,

whereby readers make use of skimming to know what the passage is about and if they

want to read it, to make sense of the direction the difficult text leads them and what is

required of them to comprehend it, to decide on which passages to focus on, and to

arrive at a quick consensus on the usefulness of the text; “Read for learning”, whereby

readers aim to comprehend the information presented in text and decide its immediate

and future importance; “Read for information integration”, whereby readers read for

the purpose of synthesizing information from different texts; “Read for information

evaluation, critique, and usage”, whereby readers aim to conduct evaluation and

critique on the information from various texts to decide on degree to which certain

parts of the texts are most or least convincing, essential, and provocative and

application of the information; and “Read for general understanding”, whereby

readers read for relaxation. Simple as it may be, this provides a foundation for “Read

for learning” and “Read for information evaluation, critique, and usage”.

Provided all of these aspects of reading, the following principles for the

success of reading instruction from Grabe (2014) should be put into consideration,

and they are as follows: (1) Instructions of key skills joined with practicing

extensively and being exposed to print, (2) Interesting, diverse, attractive, plentiful,

and accessible resources for reading, (3) Including student choice in choosing main

reading resource to a certain extent, (4) Reading skills introduced and instructed by

scrutinizing principal passaged utilized in the reading course, (5) Lessons designed

around pre-, during-, and post-reading, the activities of which should be varied from

one to another reading, (6) Opportunities to experience success in comprehension

during reading, (7) Expectations for daily, in-class reading and regular extended

reading opportunities

In additionally, successful reading also requires readers to process the words

rapidly and automatically, can create a general meaning representing the main ideas,

efficiently coordinate many reading processes under the limited time, construe and

critique text meaning concerning background knowledge, reading goals, and purposes

(Grabe & Stoller, 2011; Grabe, 2014). Therefore, two prerequisites for successful

reading, according to Grabe (2009, 2014) are vocabulary knowledge and

comprehension-supporting reading strategies.

Vocabulary Knowledge

To become good readers of different texts, EFL learners are required to know

at the minimum 95 percent of the vocabulary they encounter in those texts (Grabe,

2014). Supporting this, Oakhill (2019) claimed that reading comprehension is largely

dependent on the depth of vocabulary, or the knowledge of words learned and their

association with other words and concepts because once concepts are occurring in the

text, the readers will find it easier to understand the text if they have a deeper

understanding of those concepts. In the same vein, Grabe (2009) stated that there was

a connection between how much vocabulary one knows and how much one can

understand what one reads. Empirical studies on this topic also support this

relationship (Ibrahim et al., 2016; Ocampo & McNeill, 2019). In one study, Ibrahim et

al. (2016) studied the relationship between reading comprehension and vocabulary

size among pre-university students in an intensive English language program at a

public university in Malaysia. From their correlational analysis, the relationship

between reading comprehension and vocabulary size was statistically significant at

r<0.01 level. In another study conducted on the grade-12th Thai EFL learners

(N=140), Ocampo and McNeil (2019) found that there was a positive correlation

between reading comprehension and vocabulary size, which was measured at the

levels of 2000K, 3000K, 5000K, and Academic Wordlist. Consequently, this goes to

show the importance of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension. However,

to obtain knowledge of vocabulary is not simple because knowing a word does not

mean knowing its meaning per se. Instead, knowing a word means being able to

access at least nine aspects of that word, and those nine components are

“orthography”, “morphology”, “parts of speech”, “pronunciation”, “meanings”,

“collocations”, “meaning associations”, “specific uses”, and “register” (Nation, 2013).

Therefore, learning a word for the first time does not guarantee that one will learn

everything about the word, but one has to be exposed oneself to the word in different

contexts over some time (Grabe, 2009). Doing so will lead one to possess the depth of

vocabulary knowledge (Oakhill, 2019). In addition to vocabulary knowledge,

comprehension-supporting reading strategies are also crucial in helping readers read

successfully.

Comprehension-supporting Reading Strategies

Comprehension-supporting reading strategies refer to the endeavors

consciously taken by the readers to advance their skills of reading, and they help

students understand the reading better (Anderson, 2008). Therefore, EFL teachers

should include reading strategies in their instruction. The effective reading strategy

instruction, as stated by Grabe (2009, 2014) should include constant demonstrating,

supporting, extensive training, and ultimately autonomous usage of the strategies by

the learners. Moreover, Grabe (2009) also stated there are eight empirical-supported

reading strategies including summarizing, forming the question, answering questions

and elaborative interrogation, activating prior knowledge, monitoring comprehension,

using text-structure awareness, using graphic organizer, and inference. Most of these

strategies have been empirically supported to influence reading comprehension, as

evidenced by the recent studies (Anyiendah et al., 2019; Azizah & Fahriany, 2017;

Shin et al., 2018). In one study focusing on the question-forming technique,

Anyiendah and colleagues (2019) conducted an experimental study on its

effectiveness on reading comprehension. They found that student-generated questions

significantly improved students’ reading comprehension. In another study on prior

knowledge, Shin et al. (2019) found that prior knowledge, along with having high

working memory, could assist students to reach a better understanding of the text. In

the other study on text-structure awareness, Azizah and Fahriany (2017) found that

there was a correlation between text-structure awareness and reading comprehension,

the correlation value of which is 0.876. To sum up, both vocabulary knowledge and

comprehension-supporting reading strategies are prerequisites to successful reading.

The following part will focus on reading assessment.

Reading Assessment

Assessment of reading should cover some components of language skills

(e.g., vocabulary knowledge), resources of knowledge (e.g., the appropriate use of

background knowledge), and “general cognitive ability” (e.g., the effective usage of

working memory abilities) (Grabe & Jiang, 2013), and measure not only text

comprehension, but also assesses the strategies employed, or failed to employ, to

obtain the understanding of the text (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2010).

Furthermore, reading assessment has many purposes, which are classified by

Grabe (2009) as follows: Assessment for reading proficiency, which is employed to

assess the overall reading abilities of the students, Classroom-learning assessment –

this assessment, which is done to measure the gain in skills and knowledge a while,

assessment for learning – which is aimed to provide students with instant task

feedback and then guide students to learn more effectively, Assessment of curricular

effectiveness which is intended to evaluate the effectiveness of the reading

curriculum, and Assessment for research purposes, which is not only important for the

research findings but also for implications of those findings; depending on purposes,

some reading researchers make use of standardized tests, while some others design

their tests.

In addition, since the nature of reading is unobservable, assessing reading is

making inferences of students’ reading performance (Afflerbach, 2016; Brown &

Abeywickrama, 2010; Kong, 2019). Because of this, the following points synthesized

from the literature should be put into consideration.

Firstly, assessing reading is likened to assessing various cognitive processes

that contribute to the meaning-making of the reading materials (Brown & Lee, 2015).

According to PISA 2018 Reading Framework (OECD, 2019b), there are eight

cognitive processes of successful reading which fall under three main categories. Each

category is illustrated as follows: “Locate information” – (1) accessing and retrieving

information in a text, which includes phrases, a few words, or numerical values; (2)

searching for and selecting relevant text, which includes a task requiring the test

takers to look for the pertinent text among several texts based on the item or task

demand; “Understand” – (3) representing literal information, which includes a task

asking the test-tasker to match a paraphrased information in the question with the one

in a passage, (4) integrating and generating inferences, which includes a task requiring

students to form a main idea, or a title for a passage, and (5) integrating and

generating inferences across multiple sources, which includes a task requiring the test

takers to synthesize pieces of information from two or more texts; “Evaluate and

reflect” – (6) evaluating quality and credibility, which includes a task asking the test

taker to assess the information in a text to determine if it is reliable, current, accurate,

valid, etc.; (7) reflecting on the form and content, which encompasses a task needs the

test taker to evaluate the writing form to determine how the authors are articulating

their point of view and/or purpose, and (8) detecting and handling conflict, which

includes a task requiring the test taker to decide if the two authors agree/disagree on

the issue (OECD, 2019b).

Secondly and lastly, the commonly used test formats for reading assessment,

as claimed by Kong (2019) are multiple-choice questions (MCQs), written or oral

recalls, cloze, sentence completion, semi-objective alternative (SAQs), true or false

statements, and matching. She, however, further pointed out that the most widely used

among them are MCQ and SAQ formats. The former requires the test-taker to read a

“stem” and choose the correct answer given in the “alternatives” (Brown &

Abeywickrama, 2010), while the latter asks the test-takers to write down answers, the

length of which is limited (Kong, 2019). Moreover, it is believed that the reading

process is so complex that its assessment should also cover its complexity

(Afflerbach, 2016). Therefore, multi- or mixed-method should be used to represent

the broad reading comprehension construct, the example of which can include a

combination of various formats aiming at distinctive constructs of reading

comprehension (Kong, 2019).

Thirdly, Day and Park (2005) suggested that reading assessment teachers

should maintain students’ interaction with the text through making texts easily

accessible to them while they are doing the reading test and avoiding the use of

“tricky questions” which refer to ambiguous, misleading questions that might

dishearten students.

Chapter Summary

Chapter II included the review of the three concepts relevant to the present

study: (1) digital literacy, (2) Digital Storytelling (DST), and (3) EFL reading literacy.

Firstly, originally coined by Paul Glister, digital literacy that comes into existence

because of some noticeable phenomena has been defined differently by different

scholars thus far, and so have its elements. The assessment of digital literacy in

education is normally done through the self-rating survey or task that measures digital

literacy. Secondly, Digital Storytelling (DST), founded by Joe Lambert and Dana

Atchely, refers to the project-based instruction that uses storytelling, technology, and

group work to accommodate the making of short video clips with multi-media to

express a story. DST contains 7 components: point of view, dramatic question,

emotional content, economy, pacing, the gift of your voice, and soundtrack.

Furthermore, DST is believed to be culturally responsive instruction and technology-

mediated task-based multiliteracy project. Thirdly, EFL reading literacy covers

English reading in L1 and EFL settings and the assessment of reading. In the L1

context, reading literacy refers to the ability to understand, use, evaluate, reflect on

and engage with multiple English texts to reach one’s objectives, advance one’s

potential and knowledge, and partake in society. Whereas in the EFL context, it refers

to the ability to comprehend and interpret English texts in appropriate manners.

Prerequisites to EFL reading are vocabulary knowledge and comprehension-

supporting reading strategies. Additionally, the effective assessment of reading should

measure the eight cognitive processes of reading, include multiple methods to cover

the broad areas of reading constructs, make the texts accessible to the test-takers, and

not include tricky ambiguity-ridden questions.

Chapter III

Research Methodology

Research Design

This study took on a one-group pretest, posttest research design. Usually

adopted to study the impact of the independent variable (IV) on the dependent

variable (DV), this design has two definitional characteristics: the usage of one

participant group and the linear nature that necessitates the assessment of DV before

and after the implementation of the intervention (Allen, 2017). In this study, the

dependent variables (DVs) were the EFL reading and digital literacy of Cambodian

undergraduate students, and the independent variable (IV), or intervention, was

Digital Storytelling (DST). Moreover, the researcher used a mixed-methods approach

to collect the data because, as recommended by Dornyei (2007), doing so will help

better the understanding of the studied phenomenon. In the current study, it refers to

the effect of Digital Storytelling (DST) on Cambodian undergraduate students’ EFL

reading literacy and digital literacy.

Context

Founded in 2003, the University of Cambodia (UC) is one of the most well-

known universities in Cambodia. UC provides a challenging but supporting platform

where students come to broaden their horizons, hone their critical and analytical

thinking, and better their creativity. Moreover, UC offers a plethora of degrees

encompassing Associate’s, Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctoral programs. At present,

UC has six colleges and four schools: College of Arts and Humanities, College of

Education, College of Law, College of Media and Communications, College of Social

Sciences, College of Science and Technology, School of Creative Arts, Techo Sen

School of Government and International Relations (TSS), the Tony Fernandes School

of Business, and School of Foreign Languages (SFL).

Being one of the schools in UC, SFL offers five language programs including

Chinese, English, French, Japanese, and Korean. In the School of Foreign Languages,

students will be given opportunities to improve their chosen language and get

themselves exposed to the culture of that language.

Population and Participants

Population

The population of the study was the English-majored students from the

School of Foreign languages (SFL) at the University of Cambodia (UC). According to

CEFR, the English-majored SFL students are at B1 (intermediate). At SFL, the

English-majored student from different provinces in Cambodia is trained for career

prospects in areas ranging from English teaching to translation services, and other

non-governmental and governmental institutions.

Participants

To obtain the participants of the study, the researcher used the convenience

sampling method, which is defined by Frey (2018) as a nonprobability sampling

method wherein the participants are selected based on their availability. Dornyei

(2007) added that convenience sampling is also partly purposeful; that is, participants

have to possess particular characteristics unique to the study purpose. Therefore,

chosen based on their willingness to participate in the study, the participants of the

study were 18 SFL students.

Table 1

The Profile of the Participants

Gender

Male

2 (11%)

Female

16 (89%)

Average of age

19 years old

Native language

Khmer (100%)

Average years of computer usage

4 years

Possession of electronic

dictionaries, smartphones, tablet

computers, and/or laptops

Yes

18 (100%)

0 (0%)

The people who first taught them

how to use computer

Teacher/Trainer (50%),

Top five sources for finding out

new digital technologies

Social Media (100%), Teacher (78%), Website

(68%), Friends (61%), and Books (45%)

Research Instruments

The research instruments of the present study included English Reading Test,

Digital Literacy Questionnaire, Digital Story Rubric, and Interview Protocol. The

elaboration of each instrument and its validation process is given as follows:

English Reading Test

Based on PISA 2018 Reading Framework (OECD, 2019b), the English

Reading Test was designed to determine the effectiveness of the intervention.

According to PISA 2018 Reading Framework (OECD, 2019b), reading ability

contains eight cognitive processes, which are categorized under (1) locate

information, (2) understand, and (3) evaluate and reflect. In the test (see Appendix A),

there are four passages based on the topics of the units. Each passage has 8 items, and

60 minutes is given to students to do the test. The test was implemented before and

after the intervention.

The validation of the English reading ability test included two stages. First,

the validity was determined through construct and content validity. Secondly, after

determining its validity, a pilot test was conducted to determine the reliability and

analyze the test items. Those two stages are discussed as follows:

Validity Measurement. The validity of the English Reading Test was

measured through construct and content validity, which is evidence that supports

whether the instruments require the participants to perform the behavior that is being

measured and taps into the construct as defined (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2010). One

appropriate approach to measure construct and content validity is through the

judgment given by the content experts (Salkind, 2010). The evaluation is normally

done using the index of item-objective congruence (IOC), the process of which

involves the content experts rating the items based on whether or not the items

measure the objectives of the instruments by providing each item a rating of -1 (for

obviously not measuring), 0 (unclear as to whether it measures the content areas), or 1

(obviously measure) (Rovinelli & Hambleton, 1976).

Therefore, three experts with at least 5 years of English teaching experience

were invited to assess the construct and content validity of the English Reading Test,

and a rating scale evaluation with three points (-1 = not measuring, 0 = unclear, and 1

= measure) was given to the aforementioned experts to evaluate the construct and

content validity of the English Reading Test. From the results given by the experts,

mean scores were calculated. The items in the IOC form that did have a mean score

from 0.5 to 1 were revised based on the experts’ suggestions and comments.

Overall, the majority of test items aligned with the constructs and were

appropriate for the B1 students. However, some items did not make the cut.

According to the IOC result (see Appendix C), items 1, 6, 22, and 30 received a mean

score lower than 0.5; therefore, they had to be revised based on the suggestions from

all experts.

Pilot Testing. The English reading ability pilot test was conducted to measure

the reliability and to analyze the test items of the test. The test was piloted before the

completion of one unit. 10 English-majored students from the School of Foreign

languages at the University of Cambodia were asked to join the pilot test. Those

students were not from the sample of the main study but had identical characteristics.

The reliability of the reading test was evaluated through internal consistency

reliability. This suggests that items in the test should have a high correlation with one

another to be accurately representative of content sampling, and if a high correlation

between items exists, in theory, it can be said that the measurement of the construct

possesses a certain degree of reliability (Robin, 2001). To estimate it, Robin (2001)

said that Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20), which is mainly used to measure the

internal consistency reliability for the dichotomous choices (e.g., yes/no, true/false, or

correct/incorrect, can be used. The interpretation for KR-20, as suggested by Salvucci

et al. (1997, p. 115), is as follows: r < 0.5 (low reliability), r = 0.5 – 0.8 (moderate

reliability), and r > 0.8 (high reliability). Based on the data analysis of the pilot study,

the KR-20 of the test is 0.84, which shows the test has high internal reliability.

The item analysis was then done to determine the effectiveness of the items in

the instrument. The used indices were Difficulty (p) and Discrimination (r) Indices.

The former shows how easy or difficult a certain item is, and the latter determines

whether a certain item can differentiate the low from the high performers (Brown, &

Abeywickrama, 2010). The researcher based the interpretation of the indices on the

one from Whitney and Sabers (1970), as shown in Table 2.

Table 2

Whitney and Saber’s (1970) Interpretation of Difficulty and Discrimination Indices

Difficulty Index (p)

Discrimination index (r)

Value

Interpretation

Value

Interpretation

p < 0.20

Difficult

r = 0

No discrimination

p = 0.20 to 0.80

Good in terms of difficulty

r ≥ 0.19

Low discrimination

p = 0.81 to 0.94

Easy

r = 0.20 to 0.29

Fair discrimination

p ≥ 0.95

Very easy

r = 0.30 to 0.39

High discrimination

r ≥ 0.4

Very high discrimination

According to the data analysis of the test implemented in the pilot study, the

overall Difficulty and Discrimination Indices are 0.3 (Good in terms of difficulty) and

0.4 (Very high discrimination), respectively. This goes to show that, overall, the test

items are effective regarding difficulty and discriminating low performers from high

performers. However, once analyzed individually, some items are too difficult and/or

are not able to effectively discriminate the test-takers, thereby requiring revisions.

Thus, these items and/or their distractors were simplified and/or changed to make

them appropriate in terms of the level of difficulty and discrimination (see Appendix

D).

Digital Literacy Questionnaire

The Digital Literacy Questionnaire that the researcher adapted from Son’s

(2015) questionnaire was used to gauge students’ perception toward their digital

literacy. The questionnaire (see Appendix H) was translated into Khmer, the

Cambodian language, to make it suitable for the students. The questionnaire was

given after the intervention and 30 minutes was given to students to answer the

questionnaire.

In the questionnaire, there are 23 questions, grouped under five sections.

Section I has 10 questions that focus on the background information including gender,

age, language use, academic level, background information regarding the use of

technology. Sections II and III contain 9 self-rating questions on digital literacy.

Section IV has 1 question with 10 sub-questions, all of which test the general ability

of digital literacy, whereas Section V has 3 questions on respondents’ opinions toward

digital literacy and factors affecting their usage of digital tools for language learning.

The validation of the digital literacy questionnaire included two stages. First,

since the questionnaire had been translated into Khmer, the accuracy of the translated

questionnaire was determined through the back-translation method. Secondly, after

determining its validity, a pilot test was conducted to determine the effectiveness of

the questionnaire. Those two stages are discussed as follows

Back-translation Method. The accuracy of the translated digital literacy

questionnaire was measured through the back-translation method. It refers to the

process in which the translated text is translated back to the original language by a

translator who is not aware of the original text, and if there are any differences spotted

between the original and the back-translation versions, it indicates that translation

errors exist in the target language version (Tyupa, 2011). There are three steps in the

back-translation process: (1) Step 1: Back translation, in which the translated text is

back-translated into its original language by a translator with no knowledge of the

original text; (2) Step 2: Comparison, in which the original is compared with the

back-translated ones to identify any major differences in meaning; and (3) Step 3:

Reconciliation, in which the major differences identified from Step 2 will be

reconciled to see if the problem lies in the back-translated or the translated versions

("The Back Translation method: what is it and why use it? ," 2020, March 4).

Specifically, in Step 3, the original translator will go back to his or her work to look at

the parts containing the differences to determine if the translation contains meaning

identical to the original text, clarity and unambiguity, and readability; if there is no

error in the translation, the original translator will provide confirmation and

justification. However, if there are errors, the process will have to be repeated for the

parts containing differences ("The Back Translation method: what is it and why use

it? ," 2020, March 4).

Therefore, the questionnaire was first translated into Khmer by the researcher.

Next, the translated version of the questionnaire was then back-translated by a

translator who did not see the original questionnaire. Next, three experts, English

native speakers, were invited to compare the back-translated and original versions to

check for their similarity in terms of interpretation, using the IOC evaluation forms

with three points (-1 = agree, 0 = not sure, and 1 = disagree). From the results given

by the experts, mean scores were calculated. The items in the IOC form that did not

have the mean score from 0.5 to 1 would be reconciled by the researcher to see if the

difference lied in the translation or the back translation. Based on the result of IOC

(see Appendix J), Questions 5, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 contain some issues in terms

of interpretation of similarity between the original and the back-translated versions.

Thus, each item was reconciled, reflecting the comments of the experts.

Pilot Testing. After the completion of one unit, the Digital Literacy

Questionnaire was piloted in February 2021 by giving to 10 students who were not

from the sample of the main study but had similar characteristics. Then, Cronbach’s

Alpha (α) was calculated to measure the internal reliability of the questionnaire.

According to Murphy and Davidshofer (1988, pp. 89 as cited in Peterson, 1994), the

interpretation for the alpha is as follows: unacceptable level (α <0.6), low level (α =

0.7), moderate to the high level (α = 0.8 – 0.9), high level (α = 0.9). Based on the

calculation, the Cronbach’s Alpha of the questionnaire used in this study is 0.86.

Therefore, it can be interpreted that the questionnaire had good internal reliability.

Digital Story Rubric

The Digital Story Rubric (see Appendix K) was designed to evaluate the

improvement of students’ digital literacy and the digital stories created in all projects.

The design of the rubric was done through (1) the adaptation from and (2) synthesis of

Son’s element of digital literacy and Barret’s (2006), Tobin’s (2012), and Stanley and

Dillingham’s (2009 as cited in Stanley, 2018) rubrics. With a total score of 27 marks,

the Digital Story Rubric contains 9 criteria, which are adapted from those in Barret’s,

Tobin’s, and Stanley and Dillingham’s rubrics. The chosen 9 criteria are placed under

Son’s five elements of digital literacy. Each one will be described as follows:

1. Information evaluation & search – this contains two criteria:

Content/connection to the Text and Detail. The former looks at whether

the content is relevant and clear while the latter focuses on the sufficiency

of the detail being given in the digital story.

2. Creation – this consists of three criteria: Photography/videography,

Narration, and Editing. The first one deals with the relevancy and impact

of the images/videos used in the story. The second one looks at the clarity

of the narration and its flow with the content and image used. The third

one concerns the appropriateness and timing of the transitions, effects,

and edits in the story.

3. Communication – this encompasses two criteria. The first one is

Soundtrack (relevancy and emotion), which focuses on the relevancy and

emotional impact of the music used in the story. The second one is Pacing

(rhythm and voice punctuation) which deals with whether the pacing fits

with the storyline and helps the audience engaged with the story.

4. Collaboration – this includes one criterion, which is Planning/storyboard.

It concerns whether the digital story is detailed and shows consistent

evidence of collaboration and planning throughout.

5. Online safety – this has one criterion, which is Professionalism. It deals

with whether the digital story Includes a title and credit page that contain

appropriate citation/permission for any copy-written materials.

The validation of the rubric included two stages: the validity measurement, in

which construct and content validity was estimated to determine the validity, and pilot

testing in which the rubric was piloted to measure its effectiveness and reliability.

Validity Measurement. The validity of the Digital Story Rubric was

measured through construct and content validity, which is evidence that supports

whether the instruments require the participants to perform the behavior that is being

measured and taps into the construct as defined (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2010). One

appropriate approach to measure construct and content validity is through the

judgment given by the content experts (Salkind, 2010). The evaluation is normally

done using the index of item-objective congruence (IOC), the process of which

involves the content experts rating the items based on whether or not the items

measure the objectives by providing each item a rating of -1 (for obviously not

measuring), 0 (unclear as to whether it measures the content areas), or 1 (obviously

measure) (Rovinelli & Hambleton, 1977).

Therefore, three experts with at least five years of teaching experience were

invited to assess the construct and content validity of the Digital Story Rubric, and a

rating scale evaluation with three points (-1 = obviously not measuring, 0 = unclear,

and 1 = obviously measure) was given to the aforementioned experts to evaluate the

construct and content validity of the Digital Story Rubric. From the results given by

the experts, mean scores were calculated. The items in the IOC form that did not have

a mean score from 0.5 to 1 were revised based on the experts’ suggestions and

comments. The result from the IOC form shows that the Digital Story Rubric was

appropriate in terms of understandability and clarity, measurability, relevancy, and

appropriateness. Be that as it may, there are some comments and suggestions from

Expert B and Expert C (see Appendix M).

Pilot Testing. At the end of one unit intervention, the modified rubric was

piloted in February 2021 to determine its effectiveness and reliability. Two external

raters were invited to evaluate students’ digital stories. Before evaluating the digital

stories, the criteria had been explained to those raters.

The reliability of the rubric was then evaluated through inter-rater reliability.

This refers to the test scores consistency given by two or more independent judges

(Brown, & Abeywickrama, 2010). To estimate the inter-rater reliability of the sets of

scores given by the two lecturers, the researcher conducted the correlation analysis in

which the Pearson’s correlation coefficient of those two sets of scores was computed.

Dornyei (2007) said that this statistical procedure allows the researchers to assess the

strength and direction of association of two variables, and Dornyei further stated that

it can range from – 1 to +1. Dancey and Reidy (2017) said that “positive (+)” means

of high or low scores on one variable is correlated with high or low scores of the

other, “negative (-)” means the other way round, and zero (0) is considered as no

correlation existing between the two variables.

As for the interpretation of Pearson’s correlation coefficient, the researcher

used the one from Dancey and Reidy (2017, p. 182), as shown in Table 3.

Table 3

Dancey and Reidy’s (2017, p. 182) Interpretation of Pearson’s Correlation

Coefficients

Correlation Coefficients

Interpretation

No correlation

-0.1 to -0.3

+0.1 to +0.3

Weak

-0.4 to -0.6

+0.4 to +0.6

Moderate

-0.7 to -0.9

+0.7 to +0.9

Strong

-1

Perfect

Based on the score from the piloting, Pearson’s correlation coefficient is at

0.88, which is considered a strong correlation. Therefore, it can be said that the rubric

has strong inter-rater reliability.

Interview Protocol

The interview protocol (see Appendix E) was used to assist the researcher to

gauge the participants’ perceptions toward Digital Storytelling (DST). A semi-

structured interview was used since this type of interview guides the interviewer on

what to ask and allows him/her to be flexible when the valuable information appears

(Dornyei, 2007). After the post-test, 5 students were randomly selected to participate

in the interview. The interview was conducted in both Khmer and English to gauge

needed information from the participants as much as possible.

The validation of the interview protocol included two stages. First, the

validity was determined through construct and content validity. Secondly, after

determining its validity, it was piloted to measure the effectiveness of interview

questions.

Validity Measurement. The validity of the Interview Protocol was measured

through construct and content validity, which is evidence that supports whether the

instruments require the participants to perform the behavior that is being measured

and taps into the construct as defined (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2010). One

appropriate approach to measure construct and content validity is through the

judgment given by the content experts (Salkind, 2010). The evaluation is normally

done using the index of item-objective congruence (IOC), the process of which

involves the content experts rating the items based on whether or not the items

measure the objectives of the instruments by providing each item a rating of -1 (for

obviously not measuring), 0 (unclear as to whether it measures the content areas), or 1

(obviously measure) (Rovinelli & Hambleton, 1977).

Therefore, three experts with at least 5 years of English teaching experience

were invited to assess the construct and content validity of Interview Protocol, and a

rating scale evaluation with three points (-1 = obviously not measuring, 0 = unclear,

and 1 = obviously measure) was given to the aforementioned experts to evaluate the

construct and content validity of the Interview Protocol. From the results given by the

experts, mean scores were calculated. The items in the IOC form that did not have a

mean score from 0.5 to 1 were revised based on the experts’ suggestions and

comments. Based on the result of IOC (see Appendix G), Question 12 did not receive

a mean higher than 0.5; therefore, it was revised

Pilot Testing. The interview protocol was piloted in February 2021 after the

completion of one unit, and 5 English-majored students from the piloted group joined

the interview. It turned out that the interview took more time than expected. This was

since some interviewees did not understand some key terms (e.g., background-

building activity, teacher conference) in the questions. Hence, in the main study, the

researcher explained the key terms in advance before beginning the interview.

Moreover, the research would like to understand the challenges or difficulties the

students had from participating in the digital storytelling project. Therefore, the

researcher decided to add another part of the question to Question 12. The new

Question 12 was as follows:

The Revised Version of Question 12. How does participating in the DST

projects help you improve your English reading ability? Any difficulties or challenges

in your projects so far?

(Khmer Translation)

ត ើការចូលរួមក្នុង

DST projects

ជួយអ្នក្ឱ្យបតងកើនសម ថភាពអានភាសាអ្ង់តលេស

យ ាងដូចតមេចដដរ? មានការលំបាក្ ឫបញ្ហាប្បឈមដដរឫអ្ ់ក្នុងការត្វើ

project

ក្នេងមក្?

Research Procedure

The research procedure of this study as shown in Figure 1 was separated into

two phases: (1) Preparation of English reading the instructional intervention based on

the DST framework and (2) Implementation of the English reading instructional

intervention based on DST framework. Each one will be described below:

Figure 1

Research Procedure

Phase 1: Preparation of Research Instruments and English Reading DST-based

Instructional Intervention

The preparation of English reading instructional intervention based on the

Digital Storytelling (DST) framework entailed 3 stages:

Stage 1.1. Synthesize-related Concepts and Theories. The researcher then

explored the concepts and theories related to Digital Storytelling (DST), Digital

Literacy, and EFL Reading Literacy to construct the DST instructional framework for

the instructional plan used in this study. The summary of related concepts and

theories, as illustrated in Figure 2, is described as follows.

Digital Storytelling (DST) refers to a project-based instruction that uses

storytelling technology, and group work to accommodate the making of short video

clips with multi-media (e.g. images, music, sounds, video clips, etc.) to express a

compelling story (Castañeda, 2013; Christiansen & Koelzer, 2016; Lal, Donnelly, &

Shin, 2015). Moreover, DST is claimed by Stanley (2018) to be a culturally

responsive instruction, which assists language learners in improving their language

skills in a meaningful and natural context. Also, DST is conceptualized by Castañeda

(2013) as a technology-mediated, task-based, multiliteracy project. According to

Yearta (2019), there are five stages in Digital Storytelling including (1)

Planning/selecting a topic, (2) Conducting research, (3) Drafting, (4) Revising, and

(5) Publishing for an authentic audience. Furthermore, for its successful

implementation, Beckett and Slater (2018) said that the following aspects should be

in place. They are explicitness, structure, and fit.

Moreover, being digitally literate refers to awareness of online safety and the

ability to utilize digital technologies to create, communicate, collaborate, search for,

and evaluate audio-visual, or written texts (Son, 2015). Son et al. (2017) added that

digital literacy in language education can be developed by providing useful

instructions and opportunities to learn about the resources and digital technologies for

language learning and how to access them. Additionally, reading literacy, according

to PISA 2018 reading framework (OECD, 2019b) contains the right cognitive

processes, which are grouped under three main categories: (1) locate information, (2)

understand, and (3) Evaluate and Reflect. Plus, in this digital era, readers will need to

be competent at some new skills; that is, they have to be able to (1) use digital

technologies, (2) search for and access their reading texts utilizing a search engine,

hyperlinks, or other scrolling functions, (3) evaluate and critique the information, and

(4) read different texts to substantiate information, identify possible conflicts and

differences, and solve them (OECD, 2016, 2019a). Moreover, two prerequisites for

successful reading, according to Grabe (2009, 2014), are vocabulary knowledge and

comprehension-supporting reading strategies. These concepts have been discussed in

detail in the literature review. Grabe (2014) stated that the following principles of

reading instruction should be put into consideration, and they are as follows:

Instructions of key skills joined with practicing extensively and being exposed to

print, Interesting, diverse, attractive, plentiful, and accessible resources for reading,

Including student choice in choosing main reading resource to a certain extent,

Reading skills introduced and instructed by scrutinizing principal passaged utilized in

the reading course, Lessons designed around pre-, during-, and post-reading, the

activities of which should be varied from one to another reading, Opportunities to

experience success in comprehension during reading, and Expectations for daily, in-

class reading and regular extended reading opportunity.

Figure 2

Conceptual Framework

Stage 1.2. Develop and Validate Research Instruments. In this stage, the

researcher after conducting a thorough literature review began the development of the

research instruments The research instruments which include the English Reading

Test, Digital Literacy Questionnaire, Digital Story Rubric, and Interview protocol

were first developed. Following this was the validation of the aforementioned

research instruments. The validation process for each instrument was elaborated in the

previous section, and it included validity measurement and pilot testing. The former

was done to determine the construct and content validity of the instruments, whereas

the latter was done to measure their effectiveness. Then the research instruments were

piloted with the 10 participants who shared the same characteristic but were not from

the study sample.

Stage 1.3. Formulate DST Instruction Plans. Once thoroughly conducting a

literature review, the researcher then developed the DST instructional framework for

constructing DST unit plans used in the present study. To do so, the researcher

adopted the Digital Storytelling framework proposed by Yearta (2019) which includes

5 stages: (1) Planning/selecting a topic, (2) Conducting research, (3) Drafting, (4)

Revising, and (5) Publishing for an authentic audience.

The DST instructional framework was used to design the unit plans for four

units, which lasted for eight 90-minute sessions plus extracurricular time. The topic of

each unit was taken from QSkills for Success Level 5: Reading and Writing, which

was the book used as a coursebook in the School of Foreign languages (SFL) at the

University of Cambodia (UC). In total, there were four topics: Linguistics, Sociology,

Media Studies, and International Relations, each of which lasted for two 90-minute

sessions plus extracurricular time. Since each topic was broad, the researcher

narrowed each one down to as follows: Linguistics (Endangered Language),

Sociology (Poverty), Media Studies (Digital Literacy), and International Relation

(ASEAN).

The proposed DST instructional framework, as shown in Figure 3, contains

five stages: (1) Planning/selecting a topic, (2) Conducting research, (3) Drafting, (4)

Revising, and (5) Publishing for an authentic audience. Each stage contains at least

one activity. The activities from all stages were implemented throughout the four

units. Moreover, In one unit, there were two teacher-conferences scheduled to assist

students in their mini-projects. After this is the description of each stage and its

activities.

Figure 3

Digital Storytelling Instructional Framework

DST Stage 1: Planning/Selecting a Topic. The purpose of this stage is to

prepare students for and allow them to select the topics for their digital storytelling

projects, and it contains three activities: “Building Background”, “Preparing for

Creating a Digital Story”, and “Selecting a topic”.

As for “Building Background” which contains two or more sub-activities, it

strives to build background knowledge of the students for their projects. As a result,

audio-visual and written texts, and engaging and/or discussion-based activities will be

used. As for “Preparing for Creating a Digital Story”, it aims to provide information

on what the project entails and its sample. As for “Selecting the Topic”, it provides an

opportunity for the students to choose the topics.

As an illustration, in Unit 1, in “Building Background” (see Figure 4), students

will participate in Think-Pair-Padlet and Ted-Talk Discussion. In the former, students

will think, discuss in pairs the question “What is the importance of language”, and

then share their answer on Padlet. In the latter, students are put into groups to listen to

a TED talk and take notes on the effect of language loss. This, in turn, is followed by

whole-class sharing. After the students have participated in the “Background Building

Activity”, they will move to “Preparing for Creating a Digital Story” and “Topic

Selection”. In these two activities, they will first and foremost analyze a sample of the

teacher-made digital story using some guided questions and secondarily choose the

topic for their mini projects of the digital story.

Figure 4

Activities 1, 2, and 3

DST Stage 2: Conduct Research. This stage aims to further equip students for

their project with a reading strategy and related text and provide them with a chance

to go online and research on their project. This stage promotes intensive and extensive

reading comprehension through pair work, group work, and reading exercises.

Moreover, this stage contains two activities: ‘Reading to Get More Familiar’ and

‘Conducting A Research’:

In “Reading to Get More Familiar”, contains two sub-activities: “Reading

Strategy Reinforcement” and “Reading for Comprehension”. These two will further

prepare students for their projects by equipping them with a reading strategy they will

use in their research and a project-related reading passage in which they can practice

applying the learned reading strategy and gain more useful information about their

project. In “Conducting A Research”, which is done in extracurricular time, it

introduces the research task to students to gather information about each of their

topics. Before the class ends, the teacher will introduce the research task to the

students and provide useful sources to them based on their topics. Moreover, the first

teacher-conference session will be scheduled for them to follow up with their work

and provide help with online searching. Before joining the teacher conferences, they

must combine the information from the pair members and submit it to the teacher as a

draft of a two to three-page summary.

For example, in Unit 1, in “Reading Strategy Reinforcement” and “Reading

for Comprehension” (see Figure 5), the teacher will explicitly teach reading strategy

“identify main ideas” to students who then will practice using it in a mini-reading

exercise. After this, students will read an authentic passage from VOA on Researcher

Warn of a Loss of Language. Then they will do some reading exercises.

Figure 5

Sub-activities 4.1 and 4.2

After gaining some ideas from reading the passage, the students then will move to

“Conducting a Research” (see Figure 6) in which they will be assigned a reading

research task to gather information about their topic. The teacher will also provide

useful resources to each pair based on their topics. After this, the first teacher

conference will be scheduled outside the class time on Zoom to provide tips to

students regarding online safety and searching. Before joining the teacher conference,

the students must combine the information they have found and submit it to the

teacher as a draft of a one or two-page summary.

Figure 6

Activity 5 and the #1 Teacher Conference

DST Stage 3: Drafting. The objective of this stage is to provide students with

the opportunities to (1) read the others’ story drafts and give comments accordingly

and (2) plan for their projects. In this stage, there are three activities: ‘Participating in

the Draft Exhibition’, ‘Reading to Chunk a Draft’, and ‘Putting the Chuck in the

Storyboard’.

In ‘Participating in the Draft Exhibition’, the students read their friends’ drafts

and give comments on content to their friends. In “Reading to Chunk a Draft”, the

students will be taught how to put the information in their drafts into chunks since

they will need them as scripts for their projects. In “Putting the Chuck in the

Storyboard”, the students will be provided with an opportunity to make a skeleton

plan for their projects through the use of the storyboard templates. The storyboard

template allows the students to plan out their projects by planning for what kind of

music, photos, or animation for each of their information chunks. Furthermore, the

second teacher conference session will be arranged outside the class time to aid all

students with their projects and check their progress.

For instance, in Unit 1, in “Participating in the Draft Exhibition”, “Reading to

Chunk a Draft”, and “Putting the Chunk in the Storyboard” (see Figure 7), students

will do the following. First, they will be asked to go to the Google Drive Folder that

contains their and their friends’ drafts. They will read four of their friends’ drafts and

give comments based on the guided questions given. After giving and receiving

comments, they then will be asked to chunk the information in their drafts using the

storyboard. This will help them when they create their digital stories. Once chunking

the information, they will present to the class how they chunk and what is the

rationale behind it. Then they can start creating their digital stories. After this stage,

there will be a second teacher conference arranged on Zoom to check the progress of

each pairs’ digital story project and provide bits of help and some useful tips to the

students regarding the program used to make the digital story.

Figure 7

Activities 6, 7, 8, and the #2 Teacher Conference

DST Stage 4: Revising. The purpose of this stage is to allow the students to

polish their digital stories through teacher- and peer feedback. This stage will be

carried out in the extracurricular time and contains one activity, “Revising”. In it, the

students will watch their friends’ digital stories and provide general comments to their

friends on the design and the quality of the audios, images, or videos used.

In Unit 1, in this activity (see Figure 8) students will first upload their digital

stories to the Google Drive Folder. They then will be assigned to watch and

comments on their friends’ digital stories, using the checklist to be provided. Having

receiving comments, they then will revise their digital stories, reupload their revised

digital stories, and notify the teacher about the revision so that the teacher can assess

the students’ digital stories.

Figure 8

Activities 9 & 10

DST Stage 5: Publishing for Authentic Audiences. This stage aims to share

the students’ finished digital stories with the authentic audience. Synonymous to the

previous stage, this stage will be done in the extracurricular time and entails one

activity, “Publishing the Digital Stories”. In it, the students will upload their finished

digital stories to the agreed-upon digital platform, after which they will participate in

a short reflection session.

In this activity in Unit 1 (see Figure 8), students will take turns uploading their

digital stories into the class YouTube Channel. The teacher, with students’

permission, will share the link with the public. After that, the students will then take

some time to reflect on their performance in the project using the guided question

provided.

Stage 1.4. Validate the DST Instructional Plans. To validate the finished

DST instructional plan, construct and content validity of the unit plans were

measured. One appropriate approach to measure construct and content validity is

through the judgment given by the content experts (Salkind, 2010). The evaluation is

normally done using the index of item-objective congruence (IOC), the process of

which involves the content experts rating the items based on whether or not the items

measure the objectives by providing each item a rating of -1 (for obviously not

measuring), 0 (unclear as to whether it measures the content areas), or 1 (obviously

measure) (Rovinelli & Hambleton, 1977).

Therefore, three experts with at least 5 years of English teaching experience

were invited to assess the construct and content validity of DST instructional plans,

and a rating scale evaluation with three points (-1 = obviously not measuring, 0 =

unclear, and 1 = obviously measure) was given to the aforementioned experts to

evaluate the construct and content validity of the DST instructional plans. From the

results given by the experts, mean scores were calculated. The items in the IOC form

that did not have a mean score from 0.5 to 1 were revised based on the experts’

suggestions and comments. Once the unit plans had been validated, they were then

piloted to determine their practicality and effectiveness. Approximately 10 English-

majored students from the School of Foreign Languages at the University of

Cambodia were asked to join the pilot test of the unit plan. Those students were not

from the sample of the main study but had identical characteristics including age,

major, and English proficiency. Changes were made accordingly to the lessons

learned from the pilot test. Based on the IOC result (see Appendix Q), the statement

regarding the suitability of materials for students’ level and the unit did not receive a

mean score higher than 0.5. Thus, changes were made to the materials, namely the

TED Talks, based on the experts’ comments. The finalized version of the unit plan

and material in Appendices N and O.

After having been validated, one unit of the unit plan was tried out with the 10

students who are not from the sample of the main study but share similar

characteristics in February 2021. The implementation of the unit was carried out with

a few unexpected problems, and they are as follows: (1) some students used the phone

to access the class, which made it difficult for them to participate in some of the

activities; (2) some students did not see the connection between reading strategy and

their researching tasks; and (3) during the “draft exhibition” stage, some students

were reluctant to provide comments to their friends’ drafts. Therefore, from dealing

with these problems, in the main study the researcher did the following: (1) Activities

were redesigned to make them both computer- and mobile-friendly, (2) during the

first session of reading strategy instruction, the researcher explicitly explained how

the reading strategy they learned reading would be helpful to them in their research

endeavor, and (3) the researcher trained students on how to comment on the drafted

scripts before asking them to analyze their friends’ drafts.

Phase 2: Implementation of the English Reading DST-based Instructional

Intervention

The application of the revised English reading the instructional intervention

based on the Digital Storytelling (DST) framework included 3 stages:

Stage 2.1. Orient Students to the Course and Conduct a Pretest of English

Reading Tests. Before joining the instructional intervention, the participants of the

study were orientated to Digital Storytelling (DST) and trained to use Adobe Spark, a

free digital-story making program. Then, they were requested to sign the consent form

and given the pre-test to do. The pre-test was the English Reading Test. The result

was used as a comparison with that of the post-test to determine the effectiveness of

the instructional plan based on the DST framework.

Stage 2.2. Administer the DST Instruction. The students participated in the

English reading units based on Digital Storytelling (DST) framework for eight 90-

minute sessions plus extracurricular time. Each unit, which lasted for two 90-minute

sessions plus extracurricular time, was adapted from Yearta’s (2019) Digital

Storytelling framework, and at the end of each unit, students working as teams would

have accomplished a mini-project, which was making a digital story based on the

theme of each unit. The outline of the units is shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9

Outline of the Units

Units/topic

weeks

Learning

Outcomes

Digital Storytelling

Digital

Literacy

Reading

Strategies

Stages

Activities

(Week 1) Orientation of the course implementing Digital Storytelling (DST) and

Adobe Spark, and implementation of English Reading Pre-Test

Unit 1:

Endangered

Language

(Weeks

2 -3)

Students

will be

able to:

determine

the main

ideas from

detail in

the

reading

passage

- work in

pairs to

DST Stage

Planning/

selecting a

topic

Act.1:

Building

Background

Sub-act.1.1.

Think-Pair-

Padlet

Sub-act.1.2.

Ted-Talk

Discussion

Collaboration

Identifyin

g main

ideas

Act.2:

Preparing for

Creating a

Digital Story

create a

digital

story

based on

the topics

related to

endangere

language

Act.3:

Selecting a

Topic

DST Stage

Conductin

g a

research

Act.4:

Reading to

Get More

Familiar

Sub-act. 4.1.

Reading

Strategy

Reinforcement

Sub-act. 4.2.

Reading for

Comprehensio

Information

search and

evaluation,

Communicatio

& Online

Safety

Act. 5:

Conducting a

Research

Teacher Conference

DST Stage

Drafting

Act. 6:

Participating

in the Draft

Exhibition

Collaboration,

Communicatio

& Creation

Act. 7:

Reading to

Chunk a Draft

Act. 8: Putting

the Chunk in

the Storyboard

Teacher Conference

DST Stage

Revision

Act. 9:

Making a

Revision

Collaboration

& Creation

DST Stage

Publishing

for an

authentic

audience

Act. 10:

Publishing the

Digital Stories

Collaboration

Unit 2:

Poverty

(Weeks

4 -5)

Students

will be

able to:

- generate

inferences

from the

DST Stage

Planning/

selecting a

topic

Act.1:

Building

Background

Sub-act.1.1.

Vote-and-

Rationale

Collaboration

Generatin

inferences

reading

passage

- work in

pairs to

create a

digital

story

based on

the topics

related to

poverty

Sub-act.1.2.

People’s

solutions to

Poverty

Act.2:

Preparing for

Creating a

Digital Story

Act.3:

Selecting a

Topic

DST Stage

Conductin

g a

research

Act.4:

Reading to

Get More

Familiar

Sub-act. 4.1.

Reading

Strategy

Reinforcement

(generating

inferences)

Sub-act. 4.2.

Reading for

Comprehensio

Information

search and

evaluation,

Communicatio

& Online

Safety

Act. 5:

Conducting a

Research

Teacher Conference

DST Stage

Drafting

Act. 6:

Participating

in the Draft

Exhibition

Collaboration,

Communicatio

& Creation

Act. 7:

Reading to

Chunk a Draft

Act. 8: Putting

the Chunk in

the Storyboard

Teacher Conference

DST Stage

Revision

Act. 9:

Making a

Revision

Collaboration

& Creation

DST Stage

Act. 10:

Publishing the

Collaboration

Publishing

for an

authentic

audience

Digital Stories

Unit 3:

Digital

Literacy

(Weeks

6 -7)

Students

will be

able to:

- generate

inferences

from

multiple

sources

the

reading

passages

- work in

pairs to

create a

digital

story

based on

the topics

related to

digital

literacy

DST Stage

Planning/

selecting a

topic

Act.1:

Building

Background

Sub-act.1.1.

Jamboard Dat

Idea

Sub-act.1.2.

Idea

Consolidation

Collaboration

Generatin

inferences

from

multiple

sources

Act.2:

Preparing for

Creating a

Digital Story

Act.3:

Selecting a

Topic

DST Stage

Conductin

g a

research

Act.4:

Reading to

Get More

Familiar

Sub-act. 4.1.

Reading

Strategy

Reinforcement

(generate

inferences

from multiple

sources)

Sub-act. 4.2.

Reading for

Comprehensio

Information

search and

evaluation,

Communicatio

& Online

Safety

Act. 5:

Conducting a

Research

Teacher Conference

DST Stage

Drafting

Act. 6:

Participating

in the Draft

Exhibition

Collaboration,

Communicatio

& Creation

Act. 7:

Reading to

Chunk a Draft

Act. 8: Putting

the Chunk in

the Storyboard

Teacher Conference

DST Stage

Revision

Act. 9:

Making a

Revision

Collaboration

& Creation

DST Stage

Publishing

for an

authentic

audience

Act. 10:

Publishing the

Digital Stories

Collaboration

Unit 4:

ASEAN

(Weeks

8 -9)

Students

will be

able to:

- identify

authors’

stances in

the

reading

passages

- work in

pairs to

create a

digital

story

based on

the topics

related to

ASEAN

DST Stage

Planning/

selecting a

topic

Act.1:

Building

Background

Sub-act.1.1.

ASEAN

Quizizz

Sub-act.1.2.

Debate about

ASEAN

Collaboration

Identifyin

g authors’

stances

Act.2:

Preparing for

Creating a

Digital Story

Act.3:

Selecting a

Topic

DST Stage

Conductin

g a

research

Act.4:

Reading to

Get More

Familiar

Sub-act. 4.1.

Reading

Strategy

Reinforcement

(

Sub-act. 4.2.

Reading for

Comprehensio

Information

search and

evaluation

Communicatio

& Online

Safety

Act. 5:

Conducting a

Research

Teacher Conference

DST Stage

Drafting

Act. 6:

Participating

in the Draft

Exhibition

Collaboration,

Communicatio

& Creation

Act. 7:

Reading to

Chunk a Draft

Act. 8: Putting

the Chunk in

the Storyboard

Teacher Conference

DST Stage

Revision

Act. 9:

Making a

Revision

Collaboration

& Creation

DST Stage

Publishing

for an

authentic

audience

Act. 10:

Publishing the

Digital Stories

Collaboration

(Week 10 ) Implementation of English Reading Post-Test and General Digital

Literacy Questionnaire

(Weeks 11) Digital Storytelling (DST) Interview

Stage 2.3. Conduct a Posttest of English Reading Test, Questionnaire, and

an Interview. After the completion of all the instructional interventions, the post-test

was given to the participants. The pre-and post-tests of EFL reading ability were the

same. The comparison of the results from the pre-and post-tests was used to determine

the effectiveness of instructional plans based on the DST framework. After the test,

the digital literacy questionnaire was given to the participants to explore their

perception toward their digital literacy, and some of the participants were randomly

selected to join the semi-structured interview, the information from both of which was

used to substantiate the result of the pre-and post-test comparison.

Data Collection

The data collection procedure will take place in three phases: before, during,

and after the implementation of English reading DST-based instructional intervention.

The whole experiment lasted for 11 weeks. Before the instructional intervention, in

Week 1, students were given the English Reading Test to test their EFL reading

literacy, and they were then oriented to the instructional intervention and the program

they were going to use throughout the units.

After that, they joined in the instructional intervention for 8 weeks from Week

2 to Week 9. In Week 10, they took the English Reading Test to investigate the

improvement in their English reading ability, moreover, they also responded to the

Digital Literacy Questionnaire to explore their perceptions on their digital literacy

after participating in Digital Storytelling. Last, in Week 11, some of the students were

selected randomly to join the semi-interview to explore their perceptions of Digital

Storytelling.

Data Analysis

This section is divided into three sub-sections, each of which was for a data

analysis method used for each research question. The summary of data analyses

conducted for each research question is shown in Table 4 below, and the detailed

explanation is given on the following page.

Table 4

The Data Analysis Method used by the Researcher for Each Research Question

Research

questions

Purposes

Instruments

Data sources

Data

analyses

method

1. What is the

effect of

Digital

Storytelling

(DST) on EFL

reading literacy

of Cambodian

undergraduate

students?

(1) To

investigate the

effect of DST

on Cambodian

undergraduate

students’ EFL

reading

(1) Pre-test

and post-test

of the English

reading test

(1) Pre- and

post-test

scores

(1) Descriptive

statistics, the

Wilcoxon

Signed-Rank

test, and an

effect size

2. What is the

perception of

Cambodian

undergraduate

students’ on

their digital

literacy after

participating in

Digital

Storytelling

(DST)

(3) to explore

Cambodian

undergraduate

students’

perceptions on

their digital

literacy after

participating in

Digital

Storytelling

(DST)

(3a) a digital

literacy

questionnaire

(3b) Digital

Story Rubric

(3a) Scale of

the

questionnaire

and analysis of

the text in the

open-ended

questions

(3b) score

from the rubric

(3a)

Descriptive

statistics,

content

analysis

coding, and

categorization

(3b)

Descriptive

statistics, the

Friedman test

3. What are the

perceptions of

Cambodian

undergraduate

students on

Digital

Storytelling

(DST)?

(2) To explore

Cambodian

undergraduate

students’

perceptions of

and Digital

Storytelling

(DST)

(2b) Interview

protocol

(2b) Analysis

of the data

from the

interview

(2b) Content

analysis

coding, and

categorization

Data Analysis for the First Research Question

The first research question aims to study the effect of Digital Storytelling

(DST) on Cambodian undergraduate students’ reading ability. To obtain the data, the

researcher used the English reading ability tests as pre-and post-tests. To analyze the

data, the researcher did as follow:

Firstly, the researcher calculated the median of students’ scores in the pre-and

post-tests of reading. Then, the researcher compared them to see if they were

different, to determine whether they were different at the statistically significant level

of 0.05, the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test, a non-parametric test, was used in place of a

parametric test because of the following reasons. According to Corder and Foreman

(2009), the parametric test can only be used with the study that meets the following

conditions: (1) the participants that are randomly selected from the population, (2) the

groups of participants that are independent of each other, apart from the case of paired

values, (3) the data that is normally distributed and interval scale, (4) the participants

that possess roughly equivalent variances, and (5) the sufficiently large groups. The

current study failed to meet some of the criteria because neither were the 20

participants randomly selected from the population nor was their number sufficiently

large enough to produce the data with normal distribution. Therefore, to analyze the

data, the researcher used the Wilcoxon Sign Rank test, which, as stated by Dornyei

(2007), is the non-parametric substitute to the paired-sample t-test that is normally

used to decide whether the difference of the two samples are at the statistical

significance at the level of 0.05.

Secondly, after the statistically significant difference had been determined,

the effect size for the result of the test was computed because, as stated by Dornyei

(2007, p. 212), “it can depict “the magnitude of an observed phenomenon”. The

interpretation of the effect size based on Cohen (1988) is as follows: 0.10 = small

effect, 0.30 = moderate effect, and 0.50 = large effect.

Data Analysis for the Second Research Question

The second research question aims to investigate the university students’

perceptions of their digital literacy after participating in DST. In this study, the

perception of their digital literacy is reported under two sections: (1) use of digital

technologies and (2) levels of digital literacy skills. The digital literacy questionnaire

adapted from Son’s (2015) questionnaire and digital story rubric were given to

students to explore their perceptions toward their digital literacy. Descriptive statistics

were used to analyze the quantitative data from the questionnaire, while its qualitative

data were analyzed through content analysis. For five-point Likert scale questions,

mean intervals with equal differences were calculated for the interpretation (Pimentel,

2010). Additionally, to analyze the data from the digital story rubric, descriptive

statistics were used to compare the difference of the score from the first to last

projects and to determine if the difference was statistically significant at the level of

0.05, the Friedman’s test was used. The rationale for choosing the Friedman test is

because the current study failed to meet some of the aforementioned Corder and

Foremen’s (2009) criteria for study suitable for the use of parametric tests.

Data Analysis for the Third Research Question

The third research question aims to investigate the university students’

perceptions of Digital Storytelling (DST). To obtain the data, the interview protocol

was used. Moreover, analyzing the data from the interview protocol was done through

content analysis, which is a research method used to collect qualitative data that are

not predetermined but resultant inductively from the analysis of the qualitative data,

and content analysis contains four stages (1) “transcribing the data”, (2) “pre-coding

and coding”, (3) “growing ideas – memos, vignettes, profiles, etc.”, and (4)

“interpreting the data and drawing conclusion” (Dornyei, 2007)

Chapter IV

Results

This chapter presents the qualitative and quantitative results of the study that

employed the one-group-pretest, posttest design to look at the effect of Digital

Storytelling on Cambodian undergraduate students’ EFL reading Literacy and Digital

Literacy. This chapter is divided into four sections. Sections 1, 2, and 3 report the

results in response to Research Questions 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Section 4 presents

a summary of this chapter.

Result of the First Research Question

• Research Question 1 – What is the effect of Digital Storytelling on

Cambodian undergraduate students’ EFL reading literacy?

• Hypothesis 1 – The post-test median score of Cambodian undergraduate

students’ EFL reading literacy is statistically significantly higher than the

pre-test median score at 0.05 level.

The research question sought to investigate the effect of Digital Storytelling

on Cambodian undergraduate students’ EFL reading literacy. To attend to this

question, a researcher-designed English Reading Test with 32 points was used as pre-

and post-tests to evaluate EFL reading literacy of the students. Then the researcher

used descriptive statistics to see whether there was any difference. Then the

researcher used the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test to determine if the difference found

is statistically significant. It then would be followed by the calculation for the effect

size.

Overall EFL Reading Literacy

Table 5.1 shows that the differences between mean rank and sum of ranks

were in favor of positive ranks (i.e., the posttest result of the English reading test).

The difference between the pre- and post-English reading tests was also statistically

significant (z = -2.96, p = .003) with a large effect size of .70 (Cohen, 1988). Hence,

this concludes that their overall EFL reading literacy improved after the intervention.

Table 5

The Result of the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test of the Pre- and Post-tests

English

Reading Test

Groups

Mean

Rank

Sum

Rank

Effect

size

(r)

Posttest-

Pretest

Negative

Ranks

3.50

14.00

-2.96

.003

.70

Positive

Ranks

10.69

139.00

Ties

Note. N refers to the number of students, p < 0.05

In conclusion, it can be said that Digital Storytelling positively impacted

students’ EFL reading literacy because the median score of their post-test (Mdn =

22.25) is higher than that of their pre-test (Mdn = 18) at a statistically significant level

(z = -2.64, p = .003, r = 0.69). Moreover, to further analyze the effect of Digital

Storytelling on their EFL reading literacy, the English reading test was split into three

aspects. Then, the pre-and-post-test data of each aspect was then examined and

compared.

EFL Reading Literacy in Three Aspects

Table 5.2 indicates the differences between mean rank and sum of ranks were

in favor of positive ranks in all test aspects (i.e., the posttest result of the English

reading test). There were also statistically significant differences in the pre- and post-

tests of the reading test aspects: (1) locating information (z = -2.32, p = .02), (2)

understanding (z = -2.39, p = 0.2), and (3) evaluating and reflecting (z = -2.06, p =

.04). The effect size was .55, .56, and .49, respectively. The first two were large while

the last one was medium (Cohen, 1988). Thus, this implies that the student's ability to

locate information, understand, and evaluate and reflect in English measurably

improved after the intervention.

Table 6

The Result of the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test of the Pre- and Post-tests (Their

Separate Aspects)

English Reading

Test Aspects

Groups

Mean

Rank

Sum

Rank

Effect

size

(r)

Posttest-Pretest

(Locate

Information)

Negative

Rank

5.33

16.00

2.32

.02

.55

Positive

Rank

8.09

89.00

Ties

Posttest-Pretest

(Understand)

Negative

Rank

3.83

11.50

2.39

.02

.56

Positive

Rank

7.95

79.50

Ties

Posttest-Pretest

(Evaluate and

Reflect)

Negative

Rank

6.00

33.00

2.06

.04

.49

Positive

Rank

10.00

120.00

Ties

Note. N refers to the number of students, p < 0.05

Result of the Second Research Question

• Research Question 2 – What is the perception of Cambodian

undergraduate students’ on their digital literacy after participating in

Digital Storytelling?

The research question strove to look at the perception of Cambodian

undergraduate students’ on their digital literacy after participating in Digital

Storytelling. Their perception refers to two aspects: (1) the use of technologies and (2)

the level of digital literacy skills. To answer this question, a questionnaire on digital

literacy and a digital story rubric was used. The data from the rubric was used to

substantiate the data from the questionnaire.

The Digital Literacy Questionnaire was adapted from Son’s (2015)

questionnaire and was back-translated into Khmer to make it appropriate for the

students. The questionnaire was administered at the end of the study (Week 10). On

the other hand, the Digital Story Rubric was designed by adapting from and

synthesizing Son’s elements of digital literacy and Barret’s (2006), Tobin’s (2012),

and Stanley and Dillingham’s (2009 as cited in Stanley, 2018) digital story rubrics.

The rubric was used at the end of each project to evaluate students’ digital stories in

light of digital literacy. Students’ scores for all projects were analyzed using

Friedman’s test to look at the improvement of digital literacy.

Use of Digital Technologies

Ability to Use Digital Technologies. Table 6.1 shows that the mean scores of

the students’ ability to use technologies for information search and evaluation (M =

1.78, SD = 2.05) and online safety (M = 3.05, SD = .99) were the lowest and highest,

respectively. Overall, their ability to use technologies for information search and

evaluation, creation, communication, collaboration, and online safety was above

average (M = 12.27, SD = 4.06); in other words, at the adequate digital literacy levels.

Table 7

The Descriptive Statistics of the Result from the General Digital Literacy Test

(Section IV)

General Digital Literacy Test

Min

Max

Information Search & Evaluation

1.78

2.05

Creation

1.41

Communication

2.44

1.46

Collaboration

2.06

Online Safety

3.05

.99

Overall (Full Score = 20 Marks)

12.27

4.06

As illustrated in Table 6.2, the majority of the participants (89%) used the

computer for learning purposes, used social networking services, could change the

computer brightness and contrast, could write files into a CD, DVD, or USB drive,

and could download and use the apps on digital devices. However, the majority of

them did not have a personal homepage or personal profile on the website (83%),

could not create or update the website (67%), and could scan disks for viruses (56%.)

Overall, out of 20 “Can and Do” questions that look at whether they could use and

knowledge of using certain digital tools, the majority of the participants said “yes” to

17 of them.

Table 8

Responses to “Do” and “Can” Questions

“Do” and “Can ”Questions

Yes

Do you understand the basic functions of computer hardware?

67%

33%

Do you have a personal homepage or personal profile on the

web?

17%

83%

Do you use keyboard shortcuts?

83%

17%

Do you use the computer for learning purposes?

89%

11%

Do you find it easy to learn something by reading it on the

computer screen?

67%

33%

Do you find it easy to learn something by watching it on the

computer screen?

78%

22%

Do you use social networking services?

89%

11%

Do you have any online friends you have never met in person?

72%

28%

Do you feel competent in using digital learning resources?

67%

33%

Do you have mobile apps you use for language learning

72%

28%

Table 8 (Con.)

Responses to “Do” and “Can” Questions

“Do” and “Can ”Questions

Yes

Can you change the computer screen brightness and contrast?

89%

11%

Can you minimize, maximize, and move windows on the

computer screen?

78%

22%

Can you use a ‘search’ command to locate a file?

78%

22%

Can you scan disks for viruses?

44%

56%

Can you write files onto a CD, DVD, or USB drive?

89%

11%

Can you create and update web pages?

33%

67%

Can you take and edit digital photos?

72%

28%

Can you record and edit digital sounds?

61%

39%

Can you record and edit digital videos?

78%

22%

Can you download and use apps on digital devices?

89%

11%

Table 6.3. indicates that the students were good at using social networking

services (M = 4.00, SD = 0.77) and using web search engines (M = 3.72, SD = 0.75).

However, they were poor at learning management system (M = 2.06, SD = 1.30) and

Photo sharing site (M = 2.56, SD = 1.04).

Table 9

Use of Digital Technologies Applications

Meaning

Word processing applications

3.22

0.43

Acceptable

Presentation application

3.39

0.78

Acceptable

Communication applications

2.83

0.79

Acceptable

Learning management systems

2.06

1.30

Poor

Social networking services

4.00

0.77

Good

Blogs

2.44

0.70

Poor

Wikis

2.39

1.20

Poor

File sharing sites

2.61

1.14

Acceptable

Photo sharing sites

2.56

1.04

Poor

Video sharing sites

3.44

0.51

Good

Web search engines

3.72

0.75

Good

Dictionary apps

3.89

0.76

Good

Note. Very poor (M = 1.00 – 1.79), poor (M = 1.80 – 2.59), acceptable (M = 2.60 –

3.39), good (M = 3.40 – 4.19), very good (M = 4.20 – 5.00)

Table 6.4 reveals that the students used an electronic dictionary (M = 4.22, SD

= 0.88) and word processor (M = 4.11, SD = 0.68) very frequently. They also

frequently text chatting (M = 4.00, SD = 0.91). However, they occasionally used blogs

(M = 2.67, SD = 0.97) and language learning software (M = 2.83, SD = 1.20).

Table 10

Frequency of Using Various Digital Technologies to Work with

Meaning

Word processor

4.11

0.68

Very Frequently

3.94

0.87

Frequently

World Wide Web

3.72

0.89

Frequently

Language learning software

2.83

1.20

Occasionally

Language learning website

3.78

0.88

Frequently

Language learning mobile app

3.89

0.76

Frequently

Blog

2.67

0.97

Occasionally

Wiki

2.89

1.28

Occasionally

Text Chatting

4.00

0.91

Frequently

Voice chatting

3.94

0.80

Frequently

Video Conferencing

2.94

0.94

Occasionally

Electronic dictionary

4.22

0.88

Very frequently

Note. Very rarely (M = 1.00 – 1.79), rarely (M = 1.80 – 2.59), occasionally (M = 2.60

– 3.39), frequently (M = 3.40 – 4.19), very frequently (M = 4.20 – 5.00)

Attitudes toward the Usage of Digital Technologies. As shown in Table

6.5, the students think that training in technology-enhanced language learning should

be included in language education programs (M= 4.33, SD = 0.69), enjoy using digital

devices (M = 4.28, SD = 0.46), and are willing to learn more about digital

technologies (M = 4.28, SD = 0.57). Furthermore, they are not sure if they are aware

of various types of digital devices (M = 4.00, SD = 0.69).

Table 11

Students’ Attitudes on the Usage of Digital Technologies

Statements

Mean

)

Meaning

I enjoy using digital devices.

4.28

0.46

Strongly agree

I feel comfortable using digital devices.

4.00

0.69

Agree

I am aware of various types of digital devices.

3.61

0.61

Agree

I understand what digital literacy is.

3.78

0.65

Agree

I am willing to learn more about digital

technologies.

4.28

0.57

Strongly agree

I feel threatened when others talk about digital

technologies.

2.72

0.89

Disagree

I feel that I am behind my fellow students in

using digital technologies.

2.94

1.11

Uncertain

I think that it is important for me to improve

my digital fluency.

4.39

0.78

Strongly agree

I think that my learning can be enhanced by

using digital tools and resources.

4.22

0.55

Strongly

Agree

I think that training in technology-enhanced

language learning should be included in the

language education program

4.33

0.69

Strongly

Agree

Note. Strongly disagree (M = 1.00 – 1.79), disagree (M = 1.80 – 2.59), uncertain (M

= 2.60 – 3.39), agree (M = 3.40 – 4.19), strongly agree (M = 4.20 – 5.00)

Furthermore, according to Figure 10, the factors that commonly affect their

usage of digital technologies to learning a language consist of lack of knowledge of

the students (72.%), lack of knowledge of the teacher (72.%), lack of training (72%),

lack of interest of the student (67%), and lack of skills of teachers (67%).

Figure 10

Factors Affecting Their Usage of Digital Technologies

From the qualitative data of the open-ended question emerged one theme

(Where R stands for Responses):

The Importance of Digital Literacy. The students positively viewed digital

literacy. They considered it important for learning and urged the Ministry of

Education, Youth, and Sport to integrate it into the curriculum:

R1: Not only does digital literacy help you in your study and research, but it also

strengthens your understanding of digital technologies….

R2: Digital Literacy is important for the next generation…..

R3: It is something the Ministry should focus on more.

61%

72%

56%

67%

72%

39%

50%

67%

61%

72%

33%

39%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Lack of supporting resources

Lack of training

Lack of interest of teachers

Lack of skills of teachers

Lack of knowledge of teachers

Lack of facilities

Lack of learning materials

Lack of interest of students

Lack of skills of students

Lack of knowledge of students

Lack of budget

Lack of time

Percentage of students' votes

Factors

Level of Digital Literacy Skills

Self-assessment of Digital Literacy Skills. Based on Table 6.6, indicates

levels of their ability to use the internet were at the highest (M = 3.28, SD = 0.71)

while using digital technologies was the lowest (M = 2.83, SD = 0.71). Students

reported their overall digital literacy skills at the acceptable level (M = 3.10, SD =

0.33). To better understand the improvement of their digital literacy skills to that

point, their scores from the rubric in the digital story mini-projects across the units

were analyzed, using Friedman’s test.

Table 12

Level of Digital Literacy Skills

Digital literacy

level

Typing skills

3.11

0.32

Acceptable

Web-search skills

3.06

0.42

Acceptable

Ability to use the computer

3.22

0.65

Acceptable

Ability to use the internet

3.28

0.67

Acceptable

Ability to use the digital

technologies

2.83

0.71

Acceptable

Overall

3.10

0.33

Acceptable

Note. Very poor (M = 1.00 – 1.79), poor (M = 1.80 – 2.59), acceptable (M = 2.60 –

3.39), good (M = 3.40 – 4.19), very good (M = 4.20 – 5.00)

Students’ Digital Literacy Skills across Units. According to Table 6.6

(where DS stands for Digital Storytelling Mini-project and U for Unit), the medians

show a gradual improvement in the students’ digital literacy skills reflecting in their

scores from the digital story mini-projects across the units. The improvement was

statistically significant, x2(3, n = 18) = 53.04, p < .01, with the effect size of .98,

which was considered large (Cohen, 1988). Because of the statistically significant

result, a post-hoc test using a Wilcoxon signed ranked test with a Bonferroni-adjusted

alpha level of 0.013 (0.05/4) was computed for further analysis.

Table 13

Students’ Scores across Units using Friedman’s Test

DS (U1)

DS (U2)

DS (U3)

DS (U4)

Chi-

squar

Effec

size

Mea

rank

Mea

rank

Mdn

Mea

rank

Mdn

Mea

rank

1.11

1.89

24.0

26.0

4.00

53.04

.98

As is displayed in Table 6.8, the post-hoc test indicates that there was a

significant increase in the respective scores of the digital story mini-projects, as

between Units 1 and 2 (T = 105 , z = -3.42, p = .001), Units 1 and 3 (T = 171 , z = -

3.83, p < .001), Units 1 and 4 (T = 105 , z = -3.95, p < .001), Units 2 and 3 (T = 171 ,

z = -3.81, p < .01), Units 2 and 4 (T = 171 , z = -3.79, p < .001), and Units 3 and 4 (T

= 171, z = -3.91, p < .01), all of which had large effect sizes (Cohen, 1988

In conclusion, the students held a positive view toward their digital literacy

after participating in Digital Storytelling. The students used digital literacy at an

adequate level after participating in the Digital Storytelling intervention. Their ability

to use digital technologies for information search and evaluation, creation,

communication, and online safety was above-average while their digital literacy skills

were at an acceptable level. There was also a gradually significant increase in their

digital literacy skills across four units.

Table 14

The Post-hoc Test using a Wilcoxon Signed Ranked Test

Digital story mini-projects and their

units

Effect

size

DS (U2) – DS (U1)

105

-3.42

.001

.80

DS (U3) – DS (U1)

171

-3.83

.000

.90

DS (U4) – DS (U1)

171

-3.95

.000

.93

DS (U3) – DS (U2)

171

-3.81

.000

.89

DS (U4) – DS (U2)

171

-3.79

.000

.89

DS (U4) – DS (U3)

171

-3.91

.000

.92

Result of the Third Research Question

• Research Question 3 – What is the perception of Cambodian

undergraduate students’ on Digital Storytelling?

The research question aimed to explore the perception of Cambodian

undergraduate students on Digital Storytelling. This research question was addressed

by the interview protocol which contains interview instructions and 12 interview

questions based on the framework used in the study. 10 students were randomly

selected to join the interview at the end of the study (Week 11).

In the interview, students were reminded that their identities would be kept

anonymous and they were encouraged to express their opinions or views based on the

questions asked. They responded in both Khmer and English. Students’ responses

were recorded and later analyzed through theme analysis based on the Digital

Storytelling Instructional Framework.

Digital Storytelling Stages

Stage 1: Planning/ Selecting Topics. This stage aims to prepare students for

their projects through fun activities. Also, there are three activities in this stage. They

first participated in background building activities. From their responses, they were

very beneficial to them since the activities allowed them to get ready and have more

ideas for the project, and it promoted a sense of camaraderie, energized students, and

allowed them to have a heightened focus:

Student #1:

ចឹងចំត ាោះសក្មមភាពរបស់

teacher

មុនដំបូងចឹង វាអាចជួយឲ្យ

សមាជិក្ប្ក្ុមខ្ុំអ្ីចឹងបានយល់អ្ំពី

topic

ហ្នឹងកាន់ដ ចាស់ តហ្ ីយនិងមានលំនិ

ក្នុងការសរតសរ

script

...មានន័យថាយល់ពី

topic

តហ្ ីយមានលំនិ ជាងមុន

……

Student #2: ….

អាចនិយាយបានថា អាចជា

teacher

តបើក្ផ្េូវឲ្យពួក្តយើងថា

project

ហ្នឹង តយើងនឹងត្វើទាក្់ទងនឹងអ្ីតល។ តហ្ើយត ាតពលដដលតយើង

discuss

គ្នាមុននឹង

ចាំតផ្ដើមតមតរៀនហ្នឹង វាអាចជា

idea

តផ្េងៗដដលតយើងអាចចាប់បានពីមិ េរួមថនាក្់

ទាំងអ្ស់

……

Student #10: Teacher

មានសក្មមភាព ូចមុនដំបូង មុនតពលចាប់តផ្ដើមហ្នឹង ត្វើឲ្យ

តយើងមានភាពសវាហាប់ មានភាពដដលអាចត្ដា អារមមណ៍ខពស់។

(Translation)

Student #1: For the activity, you used at the start of the lesson, it helped me

and my team to have a better understanding of the topic and more ideas to

write a script…. It means that we know more about the topic and have more

ideas…

Student #2: It can be said that the teacher showed us what the project would

be about, and when we discussed beforehand like that before we started the

lesson, it could provide us with different ideas from our classmates….

Student #10: When you [the teacher] the small activity at the start of the

lesson like that, it energized us and made us have a high focus

(Students #1, #2 & #10, Interview, 13 June 2021)

After they had participated in background-building activities, they went on to analyze

a digital story sample before selecting the topics to create their digital stories. Such

activities help them:

Student #2:

តពលចាប់តផ្ដើម

Project

តនោះដំបូង ខ្ុំមិនទាន់ដឹងថាអ្វីជា

digital story

ត ាោះតទ? ដូតចនោះវីតដអ្ូលំរូទាំងត ាោះនិងការពនយល់បដនថមពីត ាក្ប្លូ វាបានជួយតអាយ

ខ្ុំបានដឹងកាន់ដ ចាស់ថា ត ើទប្មង់នន

digital story

ដបបណា? ប្ ូវការអ្វីខេោះតដើមបី

ដំតណើរការវាតអាយបានលអ?.....

Student #5: …..

ដ ដល់តពលខ្ុំបានតមើល

sample

ចឹងត ា ខ្ុំត ើញរតបៀបរបបននការ

ត្វើ ក្៏ដូចជា

process

វាមួយៗ។ រតបៀបថាប្បសិនជាតយើងបានតមើល

sample

មុនចឹង

ចមងល់ក្ដនេងណាអ្ី តយើងអាចសួរ

teacher

បានចឹងហាស៎។

…

(Translation)

Student #2: When starting the project for the first time, I don’t know what a

digital story is? So the digital-story samples plus the explanation from the

teacher helped me know more clearly: what is the form of a digital story?

What is needed to do it smoothly?

Student #5:…..but when we watched the sample, we could see the how(s) or

the process of it. When we could watch the sample beforehand like that, we

could ask the teacher if we had any doubts…

(Student #2 & #5, Interview, 13 June 2021)

Stage 2: Conducting Research. In this stage, the students were introduced to

a useful reading strategy and related passage to the theme of their digital-story topics.

They particularly like the strategy they learned because it helped them with their

reading endeavor in and outside the class:

Student #3:

តហ្ើយសប្មាប់

reading strategy

ក្៏វាមានសារៈសំខាន់ដដរ តប្ ាោះថាត ា

តពលដដលតយើងដឹងអ្ំពីយុទធសាប្សេក្នុងការអានបានលអចឹង វាត្វើឲ្យតយើងចំតនញ

តពលតវ ា តហ្ើយមួយតទៀ វាត្វើឲ្យតយើងឆាប់យល់អ្ំពីអ្ ថបទហ្នឹង

…

Student #5:

ខ្ុំលិ ថាវាមានសារៈសំខាន់ខេាំង តប្ ាោះត ាយសារដ ប្បសិនជាការអាន

របស់តយើង ប្បសិនជាតយើងមានដូចជាយុទធសាប្សេក្នុងការអាន វាត្វើឲ្យតយើងអាន

តលឿន តហ្ើយតយើងចាប់យក្ចំនុចដដលតយើងអាចត្េើយសំនួរបានតលឿន។

(Translation)

Student #3: And for reading strategies, they are important too because when

we know about the reading strategies, it can save our time and help us

understand the passage more quickly.

Student #5:

I think they are essential because when we have reading

strategies, we can read efficiently and pinpoint the answer to the reading

question.

(Students 3 & 5, Interview, 13 June 2021)

After learning about the reading strategy, they then worked collaboratively to search

for information online to gather information to write a script for their digital stories.

100

After this stage, they joined a teacher conference outside the class where they would

receive comments from the teacher and some tips on how to evaluate information

online. As for the research task, the students expressed favorable views toward it:

Student #4:….

តហ្ើយតលើសពីហ្នឹងតទៀ ត ាតពលដដលតយើងបានអានអ្ ថបទតាម

online

ចឹងវាពប្ងីក្ចំតណាោះដឹងខ្ុំដូចគ្នា

…

Student #10: …...

វាមានអ្ ថប្បតយាជន៍ចំត ាោះតយើង ពិតប្ ាោះអ្ីការ

research

ត្វើឲ្យ

តយើងពប្ងីក្ចំតណាោះដឹង។ តពលដដលខ្ុំ

research

ហ្នឹង ខ្ុំទទួលបានចំតណាោះដឹង

តប្ចើនណាស់

……

(Translation)

Student #4:….and aside from that, when we read articles online like that, it

also broadened my knowledge too.

Student #10:….It is very beneficial for us because researching increases our

knowledge. While I was doing the research, I gained a lot of knowledge

(Students #4 & #10, Interview, 13 June 2021)

Additionally, the reading strategy they learned in class also helped them a lot with

their research because it allowed them to read with more efficiency:

Student #2: ……

ត ាតពលដដលខ្ុំចាប់តផ្ដើ ុមអាន ខ្ុំពាយាមតប្បើ ិក្និក្ទាំងអ្ស់ហ្នឹង

ចូលឲ្យអានចឹង ត ាតពលដដលខ្ុំតប្បើ ិក្និចទាំងអ្ស់ហ្នឹង ជួយខ្ុំឲ្យអានឆាប់ទទួល

បានទិននន័យត ាតពលដដលខ្ុំអានតលើអ្ ថបទអ្ីមួយ។

Student #4:

ខ្ុំលិ ថាវាជួយបានតប្ចើនត ាតពលដដលតយើងដឹង

strategy

ននការអាន

តហ្ើយតយើងត ាអានអ្ ថបទត ាតលើ

online

។

……

.ត ាតពលដដលពួក្ខ្ុំចូលត ាក្នុង

online

តដើមបីអាន

information

ហ្នឹង ត ាតពលដដលខ្ុំអាន អាចឆាប់បាន

main idea

ដូចជាការតសកនក្ដនេងណាដដលសំខាន់ចឹងត ា។

101

Student #7: So some information in online are so long, so when we know the

strategy of the reading, we can provide the main idea and just select the

necessary that we need.

(Translation)

Student #2:…..When I started reading, I tried to use all of those techniques in

my reading. Using them helped me to gather information faster when I read

the articles.

Student #4: I think it is very helpful to know reading strategies when reading

online articles…… When we went online to read information, we could quickly

scan for main ideas.

(Students #2, #4 & #7, Interview, 13 June 2021)

Stage 3: Drafting. In this stage, the students have drafted their scripts

participated in three activities, the aims of which were to help them refine their scripts

and plan for their digital stories. For the first activity where their scripts were read and

commented on by their friends, the students believed that it helped them see their gaps

for improvement and provided them with new ideas to write the script:

Student #3:

សប្មាប់ខ្ុំ ខ្ុំលិ ថាវាពិ ជាមានអ្ ថប្បតយាជន៍ តប្ ាោះអ្ី

idea

ខ្ុំដ មនាក្់

ឯង ឫក្៏សមាជិក្ខ្ុំអ្ ់ប្លប់ប្គ្ាន់តទ។ តពលខេោះវាមានក្ងវោះខា ចឹងខ្ុំប្ ូវការ

idea

ពី

អ្នក្ដនទដដរតដើមបីជួយបំតពញក្ងវោះខា ហ្នឹង។

Student #4: …

..ត ាតពលដដលតយើងទទួលបាន

feedback

ពីអ្នក្ដនទត ាតលើ

អ្ ថបទរបស់តយើងហ្នឹង…តយើងអាច….តពលដដលតយើងត្វើលឺតយើងមានក្ំរិ

មួយដដលតយើងបតចេញសម ថភាពរបស់តយើង។

[

មិ េតយើង

]

អាចមានសម ថ

ភាពខភស់ជាងតយើង ឫក្៏មានអ្ីចំនុចពិតសសរបស់គ្ា ់

grammar

ឫក្៏អ្ីចឹង

102

ត ា។ ចឹងគ្ា ់អាចតមើលរបស់តយើង តហ្ើយប្បាប់តយើងថា

grammar

របស់

តយើងតនោះអ្ ់ប្ ូវ

tense

ឫក្៏អ្ីចឹងត ា។

Student #7: just the idea of our team is not enough at all, so when we receive

the recommendation from the other, we can know about our mistake and such

as we can provide the necessary something or we can correct all the mistake

or something like that.

(Translation)

Student #3: For me, I think it is useful because my idea or those of my

teammates alone are not enough. Sometimes there are gaps, so we need ideas

from others to fill in those gaps.

Student #4: …..when we receive feedbacks from others on our script, we

can….when we did it, there was a limit to how much we could show our

ability. [Our friends] might be more capable than us or are more

knowledgeable in certain areas, such as grammar. So he/she could check our

work and tell us that the grammar that we use was not correct in terms of

tense usage.

(Students #3, #4, & #7, Interview, 13 June 2021)

After this activity, they then move on to chunking and storyboarding activities, both

of which were deemed as indispensable for creating their digital stories because they

help them build a skeleton plan for their digital stories:

Student #2:

តពលដដលតយើង ាក្់ចឹងត ា តយើងដឹងថារូបហ្នឹងតយើងបាន

source

ពី

ណាមក្។ តហ្ើយទីពីតយើងដឹងថា ការ ាក្់រូបត ាតលើវិតដអ្ូតយើងត ាតាមលំ ាប់លំ

ត ាយ។ ជា្មមតារូបតយើង ាក្់តរៀបត ាក្នុង

box

ហ្នឹងតយើងមានតលខមួយ តលខពីរ

តហ្ើយចឹងវាអាច

order

ដដលតយើងប្ ូវតរៀបក្នុងវិតដអ្ូ។

103

Student #6:

ត ាតពលដដលពួក្ខ្ុំ ាក្់វាជាក្ង់ៗចឹងត ា វាត្វើឲ្យពួក្ខ្ុំងាយប្សួល

តរៀប

script

។ ត ាតពលកា ់ចឹងត ា ត្វើឲ្យពួក្ខ្ុំងាយប្សួលក្នុងការឲ្យម ិតយាបល់

គ្នាត ាវិញត ាមក្ តហ្ើយត្វើ

script

ហ្នឹងឲ្យលអ។

Student #8:…..

វាងាយប្សូលនឹងការតមើល តហ្ើយងាយប្សូលក្នុងការយល់ដឹងថា

ក្ដនេងណាជា

introduction

ក្ដនេងណាជា

Body

ត ាតពលតយើងត្វើ

digital story

។

…

(Translation)

Student #2: When we put it like that, we know the source of the photo, and

secondly, we know that the arrangement of the photos will be in order.

Normally, in the photo we put in each box, we have numbers (number 1,

number 2..). So, it can be the order we arrange in the video.

Student #6: When we put it into chunks like that, it is easy for us to prepare the

script. Also, it is conducive to exchanging ideas on the script to make it better.

Student #8:…It is easy to check and understand where the introduction and

body are when making a digital story.

(Students #2. #6, & #8, Interview, 13 June 2021)

After having skeleton plans for their digital stories, they started making their first

drafted digital stories. Before moving to Stage 4, they joined another teacher

conference where they would receive help from the teacher on the use of Adobe Spark

and be asked to report their progress

Stage 4: Revising. This stage aims to provide students with more

opportunities to receive feedbacks from both peers and teachers to further polish their

digital stories. In addition to viewing the comments from their peers as dispensable,

they also considered the feedback from the teachers on their digital stories crucial too:

104

Student #4: …..

ត ាយសារដ ត ាក្នុង

project

ទី១

project

ទី២ចឹង ពួក្ខ្ុំអាចនឹង

មានក្ំហ្ុសជាមួយនឹងសតមេង និងការ

narrate

ប ុដនេត ាតពលដដលតប្កាយៗមក្ពួក្

ខ្ុំបានតរៀនត ាចំនុច ហ្នឹង តហ្ើយពួក្ខ្ុំបានពាយាមត្វើតាម

lesson

ដដល

teacher

បានបតប្ងៀនចឹង

feedback

ខ្ុំទទូលបានពី

teacher

ហ្នឹងវារាងលអជាងមុន

…

Student #8: :

វាមានអ្ ថប្បតយាជន៍ តប្ ាោះថាវាត្វើឲ្យតយើងដឹងថាពីសម ថភាពរបស់

តយើង។ ថាតយើងត្វើហ្នឹងបានអ្ីខេោះ តហ្ើយខវោះប្ ង់ចំនុចណា។

(Translation)

Student #4: ….because in the first and second projects, we had issues with the

choice of soundtrack and the narration, but in the following projects, we

learned about them and we tried to follow the lesson that the teacher taught.

Thus, the feedbacks received later was better.

Student #8: It is very beneficial because it mirrored our ability: what we have

done and lacked?

(Students #4 & #8, Interview, 13

June 2021)

Stage 5: Publishing for Authentic Audiences. After making necessary

changes, they then would be asked in this stage to upload their digital story to the

Class’ YouTube channel. After that, they participated in a short reflection session to

look back on their performance. Then, with their permission, their digital stories

would be shared with the real audience. The participants particularly liked the fact

that their digital stories were shared:

Student #2: I am proud of myself.

ត ាតពលដដល

ខ្ុំមានអារមមណ៍ថា

happy

ឲ្យ

teacher share

ត ា តហ្ើយខ្ុំលិ ថា

work

ខ្ុំហ្នឹងអាចឲ្យតលត ើញតប្ចើន។

105

Student #4: ……

ត្វើឲ្យពួក្ខ្ុំមានអារមមណ៍ថាលួរដ ត្វើឲ្យលអជាងហ្នឹង ិចត ា តប្ ាោះ

teacher

ប្ ូវ

post

អ្ីចឹងដដរ។ ខ្ុំលិ ថាលអ តប្ ាោះថាលអសប្មាប់ពួក្ខ្ុំជាអ្នក្ត្វើ

ត ាយសារពួក្ខ្ុំជាអ្នក្ត្វើចឹង ខំប្បឹងត្វើឲ្យលអជាងមុនចឹង។

……

Student #9: [

ខ្ុំ

]

សបាយចិ េ ពិតប្ ាោះអ្ីជាសម ថផ្លដដលតយើងខំត្វើជាលក្ខណៈ

ជា

teamwork

ចឹង តហ្ើយបងយក្វាត ា

post

ជាសាធារណៈចឹង វាត្វើឲ្យពួក្ខ្ុំ

feel

good

ត ាតលើអ្វីដដលពួក្តយើងបានត្វើ។

Student #10:

ខ្ុំលិ ថាមានតមាទនៈភាព ត ាយសារដ តយើងអាចដចក្រំដលក្

ចំតណាោះដឹង ក្៏ដូចជាព ៍មានតផ្េងៗ ដដលទាក្់ទងជាមួយ

Topic

ហ្នឹងត ាពិភព

ត ាក្ខាងតប្រា។ ចឹង

[

ខ្ុំ

]

មានតមាទនៈភាពចំត ាោះខេួនឯង និងប្ក្ុមរបស់ខេួនឯង។

(Translation)

Student #2: I felt proud of myself when my work was shared. I felt happy that

the teacher shared my work with other people.

Student #4:….it made us feel like we should do it better because the teacher

would then share it. I think it is good for us because we were the creators, so

we tried to do it better….

Student #9: [I] felt happy because it was our achievement as a team. So when

you posted it like that, it made us feel good for what we had done.

Student #10: I think I felt a sense of pride because I could share the knowledge

as well as information related to the topic with the outside world. [I] was

proud of myself and my team.

(Students #2, #4, #9, & #10, Interview, 13 June 2021)

Positive and Negative Aspects

Positive Aspects. From the students’ responses, there were some positive

aspects of Digital Storytelling. All of the students agreed that after participating in

106

the digital storytelling projects, their reading ability improved. They claimed that they

encountered new vocabulary and learned useful reading strategies:

Student #2:

ខ្ុំលិ ថាសម ថភាពននការអាន

improve

បានលអជាងមុនតប្ចើន ត ាយសារ

ដ ដូចជា អ្ ថបទមួយចឹង រាល់ដងត ាតពលដដលខ្ុំអ្ ់

apply

អា

strategy

ដដល

teacher share

មក្ហ្នឹង ។ ឧទហ្រណ៍៖ អ្ ថបទមួយខ្ុំប្ ូវចំ ាយតពលក្នេោះតម ាង ដ

ត ាតពលដដលខ្ុំ

apply strategy

ចូលទាំងអ្ស់ត ា ខ្ុំ

save time

ជាងមុន។

Student #5:

ទាល់តពលតយើងបានចូលតរៀនចឹងត ា ខ្ុំបានតរៀនពី

strategy

របស់វា តពល

តយើងមក្អានតសៀវត ា ឫក្៏អ្ ថបទអ្ីតផ្េងៗហ្នឹង តពលអានតហ្ើយតយើងចាប់លិ រក្

main idea

តហ្ើយតយើងអាច

infer

វាមក្ចឹងហាស៎។

Student #6:…..

តហ្ើយត ាតពលដដលអានបានតប្ចើនត ា ក្៏តចោះបានតប្ចើន យល់ ាក្យអ្ីៗ

បានតប្ចើន តប្ ាោះថាតពលដដលអានត ា ខ្ុំមិនតចោះទាំងអ្ស់តទ ចឹងខ្ុំយក្វាបក្ដប្ប ឫក្៏

ដសវងយល់ពី

meaning

របស់វាតទៀ ។

(Translation)

Student #2: I think my reading ability is better than before because

when I applied the reading strategies that you shared I spent less time

on it.

Student #5: After joining your class, I learned about reading strategies. When I

read books or articles, I started to think about the main ideas and what I could

infer from them.

Student #6:…. And when we read a lot, we learned a lot of new things and

understood a lot of new vocabulary because while reading I could not understand

all the words, so I either translated them or tried to understand their meanings.

(Students #2, #3, & #5, Interview, 13 June 2021)

Moreover the process of making digital stories also further boosted their reading

ability. For illustration, the students explained how it further benefited their reading

ability:

107

Student #4: ….

ត ាតពលដដលតយើងអានអ្ ថបទតាម

online

តយើងយក្

reading

strategy

មក្

apply

មួយដងតហ្ើយ។ តប្កាយតពលមក្តយើងសរតសរ ត ាតពលដដល

តយើងសរតសរ

script

តហ្ើយ តយើងចាប់តផ្ដើមអាន

script

របស់តយើងរក្

main idea

របស់តយើងរក្ចំនុចណាដដលតយើងបានតលើក្ត ើង តហ្ើយចំនុចណាដដលតយើងមិន

បានតលើក្ត ើង។

Student #5:…

តយើងបានអានតប្ចើន ត ារក្

online website

ក្៏តប្ចើនយក្មក្

summary

បានតហ្ើយ តយើងប្ ូវ

rehearsal

អា

script

ហ្នឹងដដដលៗតទៀ ។ ចឹងត ា

មានអារមមណ៍ថាតយើងអានតហ្ើយ អានតទៀ ចឹងការអានរបស់តយើងវា

fluent

ជាងមុ

ន។

(Translation)

Student #4:…. When we read online, we already applied the strategies we

learned. Then when we finished writing a script, we read the script to find the

main ideas which we had and hadn’t raised….

Student #5:….. We had read a lot from a lot of online websites to write a

summary. Then we even rehearsed the script again and again. So, I felt like we

read and reread so our reading became more fluent.

(Students #2, #3, & #4, Interview, 13 June 2021)

Furthermore, the students also said that the reading they did during their research

could provide them with a lot of new knowledge:

Student #4:….

តហ្ើយតលើសពីហ្នឹងតទៀ ត ាតពលដដលតយើងបានអានអ្ ថបទតាម

online

ចឹងវាពប្ងីក្ចំតណាោះដឹងខ្ុំដូចគ្នា

…

Student #10: …...

វាមានអ្ ថប្បតយាជន៍ចំត ាោះតយើង ពិតប្ ាោះអ្ីការ

research

ត្វើឲ្យ

តយើងពប្ងីក្ចំតណាោះដឹង។ តពលដដលខ្ុំ

research

ហ្នឹង ខ្ុំទទួលបានចំតណាោះដឹង

តប្ចើនណាស់

……

(Translation)

Student #4:….and aside from that, when we read articles online like that, it

also broadened my knowledge too.

108

Student #10:….It is very beneficial for us because researching increases our

knowledge. While I was doing the research, I gained a lot of knowledge

(Students #4 & #10, Interview, 13 June 2021)

To sum up, after participating in the digital storytelling, the students saw an

improvement in their reading ability because they learned a lot of new vocabulary,

knew more reading strategies, had numerous chances to apply the reading strategies,

and read extensively on the topics of units. Plus, as a result of doing the research, they

could also broaden their general knowledge.

Negative Aspects. From the students’ responses, they faced some notable

difficulties or challenges. For example, they explained their difficulties as follows:

Student #3:

ការត្វើ

digital story

ក្នេងមក្ហ្នឹង វាពិបាក្ប្ ង់ថាសមាជីក្ប្ក្ុមរបស់ខ្ុំ

អ្ ់បាន

discuss

គ្នាឲ្យបានតពញតលញតទ។

…

.. ប ុដនេតបើសិនជាអ្ងកុ ុយក្នុងប្ក្ុមបាន

ពិភាក្ាគ្នា ខ្ុំលិ ថាវាមានភាពងាយប្សួលតប្ចើន។ ប ុដនេត ាយសារដ

Covid-19

ចឹ

ង វាត្វើឲ្យពួក្ខ្ុំពិបាក្ជួបគ្នា។

Student #4:….

ចំត ាោះការតប្បើប្បាស់

Adobe Spark

ក្ដនេង

add

អ្នក្ជួយវារាង

complicate

ត ាយសារមានដ មនាក្់ដដរអាចត្វើការងារត ាក្នុង

project

ហ្នឹងបាន ចឹង

តបើតយើងចង់ចូលទាំងអ្ស់គ្នាចឹង វាត្វើឲ្យការងារតយើងរឹ ដ រតញ ត នញ តទៀ ។

Student #10: ……

មួយវិញតទៀ ្ំហ្្ ន ឹងលឺ

internet

ដ មដង

…

(Translation)

Student #3: For making the digital stories so far, it’s hard for me and my team

to have a proper discussion…. If we could have discussed it face-to-face, it

would have been easier. But because of Covid-19, we could not meet each

other.

Student #4:….for using Adobe Spark, I found it complicated to add a

collaborator because only one person could work on the project on the site at

109

a time. If we went in together to work on the project. It would only complicate

everything.

Student #10: ….Another notable difficulty is the speed of the internet…

(Students #4 and #10, Interview, 13 June 2021)

From their responses, the students faced more difficulties. First, due to Covid-19, they

could only meet virtually. This, according to them, did not result in a fruitful

discussion. Secondly, working collaboratively on Adobe Spark proved to be

challenging as only one person can work on it at a time. Lastly, the speed of their

internet was also another major challenge for them too.

Chapter Summary

This chapter reports on the findings to the research questions, which are as

follows:

Research Question 1 looked at the effect of Digital Storytelling on students’

EFL reading literacy. The result from the pre-test (Mdn = 18) and post-tests (Mdn =

22.5) shows a significant difference (z = -2.64, p = .003, r = 0.69). In turn, it proved

the positive effect of Digital Storytelling on their EFL reading literacy.

Research Question 2 sough to explore the perception of Cambodian

undergraduate students’ on their digital literacy after participating in Digital

Storytelling. After participating in the Digital Storytelling intervention, the students

reported that their ability to use technologies for information search and evaluation,

creation, communication, and online safety was above average while their digital

literacy skills were at an acceptable level. There was also a gradual improvement in

their digital literacy skills across units at the significant level of .05. An additional

110

finding revealed that the students held a positive attitude toward the usage of digital

technologies and implied that a teacher performed a significant role in shaping their

usage of digital technologies. To them, digital literacy was crucial and should be

integrated with the curriculum

Research Question 3 aimed to explore the perception of Cambodian

undergraduate students on Digital Storytelling. Their responses were analyzed based

on the framework used in this study. Overall, students held a positive perception

toward Digital Storytelling. The process they had to go through helped them

accomplish the mini-project in each unit. They also agreed that Digital Storytelling

could improve their EFL reading literacy. However, there were some difficulties they

encountered.

111

Chapter V

Summary, Discussion, Implications, Recommendations, Conclusion and

Limitations

This chapter is organized into five parts. The first part contains a summary of

the whole study followed by the findings. The second part provides a discussion of

the research findings in tandem with the previous studies. The third part elaborates on

the pedagogical implication deriving from the findings. The fourth part looks at the

recommendations for future studies. The fifth part presents the Conclusion and

limitations of the current study.

Summary of the Study

This study aims to investigate the effect of Digital Storytelling on Cambodian

undergraduate students’ EFL reading and digital literacy. This study, in addition,

explores the opinions of the students toward Digital Storytelling. Consequently, this

study seeks to answer the research questions as follows: (1) What is the effect of

Digital Storytelling on Cambodian undergraduate students EFL reading literacy? (2)

What is the perception of Cambodian undergraduate students on Digital Storytelling?

(3) What is the perception of Cambodian undergraduate students on their digital

literacy after participating in Digital Storytelling (DST)?

The study design was a one-group pretest, posttest design. It made a

comparison between the median scores of the student’s pre-tests and that of the post-

tests. The study participants were 18 undergraduate students from the School of

Foreign Languages (SFL) in Academic Year 2021. Moreover, the instructional

112

intervention was intended as a supplementary course in which the students joined

voluntarily to strengthen their EFL reading and digital literacy.

The study involved two main phases – (1) Phase 1: Preparation of research

instruments and English reading DST-based units, and (2) Phase 2: Implementation of

the English reading DST-based units.

Phase 1 contains four more stages. In the first stage, a thorough literature

review was conducted to gather and synthesize related concepts and theories for the

development of research instruments and instructional intervention. In the second

stage, four research instruments, which included English Reading Test, Digital

Literacy Questionnaire, Digital Story Rubric, and Interview Protocol, were developed,

validated by the experts, and pilot-tested in February 2021. In the third stage, the

instructional framework used in the instructional intervention was formulated through

the adaptation of the Digital Storytelling framework proposed by Yearta (2019),

which contains five stages. The instructional framework includes five stages: (1)

Planning/selecting a topic, (2) Conducting research, (3) Drafting, (4) Revising, and

(5) Publishing for authentic audiences, all of which collectively consisted of 10

activities and two teacher-conferences. The framework was used to develop

instructional manuals for four units, which lasted for eight 90-minute sessions plus

extracurricular time. The unit topics, which included Endangered Language, Poverty,

Digital Literacy, and ASEAN were taken and adapted from QSkills for Success Level

5: Reading and Writing, the course book used at SFL. In the fourth stage, the

instructional manuals followed by their materials were validated by the experts and

113

then piloted-tested with 10 students with similar characteristics to that of the sample

in February 2021.

Phase 2 encompasses three stages. Stage 1 aimed to provide a pre-study

orientation to the students regarding Digital Storytelling and Adobe Spark, a free

video-making program. Moreover, in this stage, students were requested to sign the

consent forms and asked to do the English Reading Test as a pre-test. Stage 2 strove

to implement the instructional intervention in which there were four units. Each unit

followed the instructional framework of the study and lasted for 2 ninety-minute

sessions with extracurricular time, which was concluded with students working as

teams to create a digital story based on the unit theme. Each student-made digital

story was assessed using the Digital Story Rubric. Stage 3 endeavored to conduct the

English Reading Test, administered Digital Literacy Questionnaire, and Interview

protocol. In this stage, students after undergoing the instructional intervention did the

English Reading Test as a post-test and Digital Literacy Questionnaire. As a

conclusion of the study, ten of the participants were randomly selected to join the

interview.

The findings of this study can be put into three main aspects: (1)

Undergraduate students’ EFL reading literacy, (2) their perceptions on their digital

literacy after participating in Digital Storytelling, (3) their perceptions on Digital

Storytelling, and

In the first aspect of the findings, based on a Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test, the

comparison of the students’ median scores of the pre- and post-tests of English

reading reveals the effectiveness of Digital Storytelling on undergraduate students’

114

EFL reading literacy because students’ performance in the post-test (Mdn = 22.25)

was higher than their performance in the pre-test (Mdn = 18) at the significant level of

0.05 (z = -2.64, p = .003). The effect size was .69, which was considered large

(Cohen, 1988). This goes to show that Digital Storytelling is effective in improving

EFL reading literacy of undergraduate students.

In the second aspect, after participating in Digital Storytelling, students

possess positive perceptions toward their digital literacy. The students used digital

literacy at an adequate level after participating in the Digital Storytelling intervention.

Their ability to use digital technologies for information search and evaluation,

creation, communication, and online safety was above average while their digital

literacy skills were at an acceptable level. There was also a gradually significant

increase in their digital literacy skills across the four units.

In the third aspect, it was found that students' perceptions of Digital

Storytelling were favorable. They deemed the steps they had to go through to be

indispensable in helping them accomplish their mini-project in each unit. Their

responses indicated that the stages scaffolded them in their attempts to create digital

stories. They considered the support from the teacher and their peers to be

indispensable and having their masterpieces shared rewarded them emotionally.

Discussion

The discussion of the present study’s findings can be grouped into three facets:

(1) Implementation of Digital Storytelling on EFL Reading literacy, (2) Perceptions

on Digital Literacy, and (3) Perceptions on Digital Storytelling.

115

Implementation of Digital Storytelling on EFL Reading Literacy

Research Question 1 investigated the effect of Digital Storytelling on their

EFL reading literacy. by comparing the median scores of the pre and post English

Reading Tests, it revealed that Digital Storytelling had a positive effect on students’

EFL reading literacy due to the higher median score of the post-test and the

statistically significant difference between pre- and post-tests at the significant level

of 0.05. Hence, the result substantiates the study hypothesis which hypothesizes that

the post-test median score of Cambodian undergraduate students’ EFL reading

literacy is statistically significantly higher than the pre-test median score at the 0.05

level. This significant result of the effectiveness of Digital Storytelling on students’

reading ability echoes those of previous studies (Liu et al., 2018; Rahimi & Yadollahi,

2017; Yang & Wu, 2012). The enhancement in the students’ EFL reading literacy can

be attributed to (1) the aims of the Digital Storytelling intervention framework and (2)

the affordances of Digital Storytelling on reading.

The instructional framework aims to embed explicit instruction of various

reading strategies. In each unit, the students explicitly learned and then implemented,

a reading strategy in a short and relevant reading passage. Given the complementary

role played by reading strategies, teaching students explicitly how to implement the

reading strategies should accommodate their reading comprehension. This echoes the

ideas propounded by Stroller et al. (2013) and Grabe (2016), all of whom emphasized

the need to provide explicit instruction of reading comprehension to better students’

reading ability. This prominence of strategy instruction is further supported by the

research findings of Okkinga et al. (2018), who found that their intervention impacted

116

their students’ reading ability only when there was a reading-strategy instruction of

high quality. Moreover, the framework intends to combine the intensive form of

reading with its extensive counterpart. In every unit, the students were reading the

texts analytically, focusing on the use of the reading strategy, and they used the

strategy learned in class to help them read extensively online to search for information

to write scripts for their digital stories. This affords learners abundant chances to

learn, practice using, and deploy reading strategies first-hand (Al Qahtani, 2020). It

also allows them to improve their reading through extended reading opportunities.

The provision of the extended reading opportunities corresponds to Grabe’s (2014,

2016) reading curriculum principle, while the intensive-cum-extensive reading

corroborates Anderson’s (2008) reading instruction principle, which suggested

integrating intensive with extensive reading in the reading class. This intensive and

extensive combination is further supported by Maipoka and Soontornwipast (2021),

who found a significant improvement in their students’ reading ability, after taking a

course that integrated intensive and extensive reading. Hence, the analytical reading

in class and the extended reading outside the class both played a role in improving the

students’ EFL reading ability.

Digital Storytelling also possesses affordances for the improvement of EFL

reading literacy. It presents students with meaningful instances to use writing to

improve reading. Throughout the units, students actively enhanced their reading

ability through writing digital-story scripts, which included what they read online.

Given the mutual link between reading and writing, it is argued in this study that the

subsequent writing task is done after online reading improved the students’ EFL

reading literacy. This aligns with Gao’s (2013) suggestion and Graham and Herbet’s

117

(2011) conclusion, which underscores the need to utilize writing tasks to develop

reading comprehension. This is additionally backed by Lee and Schallet’s (2016)

study. They found that writing could expedite reading ability development. Moreover,

it is hypothesized in this study that Digital Storytelling improves students’ motivation

to read. The students were more invested in their reading to gather information for

their digital stories because the digital-story topics were relevant to them, and they

were aware that their digital stories would then be shared with their classmates, and

later, with the public (with their permission). This, in turn, boosted their motivation to

read for information to enrich their digital stories. This highlights the propositions by

Grabe (2014) and Brandt et al. (2021) on the important role performed by motivation

in developing reading ability. The study on interest and motivation in reading by

Lustyanite and Aprilia (2020) ultimately cements the point. Their study revealed that,

besides a high interest in the reading topic, high motivation is likely linked to better

reading comprehension. Therefore, the affordances of Digital Storytelling, which

include both providing the students with chances to use writing to improve reading

and enhancing their motivation to read, also end up contributing to the overall EFL

reading development of the students.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that there was not an improvement in every

students’ overall EFL reading literacy after Digital Storytelling. Some students had

lower scores in the post-tests if compared to those of their pre-tests. Also, there was

one student who had the same score in their pre- and post-tests. This negative result

can be explained by the following. Based on their responses from the interview, it

revealed that slow and unstable internet connection was a challenge to them. Thus,

this external factor might impede their ability to perform better in the test since the

118

test was conducted online. Moreover, they were asked to join the study voluntarily,

this might also affect their level of commitment and effort put into doing the test.

Perceptions on Digital Literacy

Research Question 3 explored the Cambodian undergraduate students’

perception of their digital literacy after participating in Digital Storytelling. In this

study, students reported that their ability to use digital technologies and level of

digital literacy skills were overall acceptable. There was a significant improvement in

their digital literacy skills across the units. It can be implied that Digital Storytelling

tended to connect to their digital literacy. This was consistent with Al Khateeb (2019),

Churchill and Barratt-Pugh (2020), and Chan et al. (2017) on the potential of Digital

Storytelling to improve students’ digital literacy. Students’ digital literacy

improvement might be explained through the design of the Digital Storytelling for

reading instruction. The design aimed to engage the students in a series of problem-

based tasks that required them to use digital literacy for reading to create a digital

story project. In each unit, students searched and evaluated online information to

include in their digital story project. With their projects, they collaborated with peers,

prepared storyboards, and applied Adobe Spark to create their digital stories for

creation, communication, and collaboration. While creating their digital stories, they

were informed about copyright violations and advised to avoid them for online safety.

119

When they finished creating their digital stories, they uploaded them to the class’

Youtube Channel. Tour (2020) recommended how situated learning or learning

through doing might accommodate students’ digital literacy development. It can be

concluded that students upgraded their digital literacy for information search and

evaluation, creation, communication, collaboration, and online safety (Son, 2015,

2020).

Nevertheless, it should be noted that the students, after Digital Storytelling,

rated their ability to use certain digital technologies unfavorably. They are also

reported to have very rarely used certain digital technologies. This may be due to their

insufficient exposure to various digital technologies. Throughout this study, they did

not experience using many digital tools, but only a few suggested by the teacher.

Thus, this might influence their perceptions as to their ability to use those digital

technologies.

Perceptions on Digital Storytelling

Research Question 2 explored the perception of Cambodian undergraduate

students’ on Digital Storytelling. From the analysis of their transcribed, verbal

responses from the interview, it can be said the students view digital storytelling

favorably. The positive view toward Digital Storytelling by the students was also

found by the previous studies conducted by Chiang (2020) and Nassim (2018).

Moreover, the analysis of students’ transcripts shed more light on the following

insights:

120

The participants believed that chunking and storyboarding supported them in

creating digital stories since they provided a clear plan for their digital stories. This

reflects the assertion made by Robin (2020) on the importance of storyboarding in a

digital story. In addition, throughout the stages of Digital Storytelling, the students

received scaffolding from both their teacher (e.g., digital story sample, background-

building activity, reading strategy instruction, etc.) and peers (e.g., feedbacks). They

reported that it helped them with their mini-project immensely. This is in alignment

with the claim by (Godwin-Jones, 2015) on the importance of providing scaffolding

to students since creating digital stories is complicated.

Furthermore, the students described having a sense of joy, pride, and

motivation, knowing that their digital stories were shared with authentic audiences.

They were happy, proud of their achievement, and willing to put extra effort to make

their digital stories better. In Murniati and Sanjaya’s (2017) study, they also found

that their participants were more invested in their works because they had to share the

works online. In Chiang’s (2020) study, it was also found that students were more

motivated to do the work once they know that their work would be shared with other

people. Thus, it can be said showcasing students’ work plays an important role in

improving their self-esteem and motivation in learning. Moreover, during their online

searching for information, they could apply the reading strategies that they learn in

class and their background knowledge was also broaden. This further proves the point

of providing extended reading opportunities for EFL students in their reading class.

Moreover, the participants believed that after joining DST, their EFL reading

literacy improved because they could learn useful reading strategies and have many

121

meaningful opportunities to read both in and outside the class. This finding further

supports the result of the first research question. It is true, however, that it is just a

mere perception; still, this resonates with what Krashen (1982) put forth in his input

hypothesis, saying that positive perceptions can lead to positive behaviors of learning,

which eventually produces positive results.

Creating digital stories online during the pandemic, according to the

participants, poses notable obstacles. The students expressed an unfavorable view

toward online discussion since it was not productive to them, and thus they showed a

desire to go back to a face-to-face class. Another difficulty reported by the

participants is their slow internet connection. Online learning necessitates a stable

internet connection; however, in most Asian countries, slow internet was a challenge

for students. A previous study on online learning in the Asian context conducted by

Pasaribu and Dewi (2021) also found a similar finding. The students desired to go

back to normal class and faced difficulties with a slow internet connection.

Pedagogical Implications

The implications can be applied for three aspects: (1) the Digital Storytelling

intervention, (2) EFL reading literacy, (3) digital literacy, and (4) methodology.

The implementation of this intervention leads to students’ EFL reading

literacy, increase their use of digital technologies, and levels of digital literacy skills.

With the applications of this digital storytelling for reading instruction, it focuses on

the integration of technology. Levy (2019) recommended teachers bring into the

classroom new technologies that can make the connection between the classroom and

the real world because doing so will be more engaging for the students. Moreover, it

122

emphasizes the reading strategies to locate, understand, evaluate, and reflect on the

texts through digital literacy. Explicit instruction of reading strategies should be

followed by extensive reading and writing tasks to create a digital story. Teachers

should structure their reading instruction with meaningful digital storytelling stages

and tasks, including (1) planning to select a digital story topic, (2) conducting

research, (3) drafting, (4) revising, and (5) publishing for authentic audiences. EFL

reading teachers may adapt the digital storytelling intervention to best fit their

contexts and purposes.

Reading and writing are believed by scholars and/or researchers to be

mutually complementary. On the recommendation from Gao (2013) and Graham and

Herbet (2011), English reading instruction should consist of writing tasks, which can

accommodate students to summarize and comprehend the texts more effectively.

Hence, EFL reading teachers should design activities or tasks in a way that they

integrate writing into reading instruction. Reading motivation should be enriched

because it plays an essential role in reading improvement. Reading teachers should

develop teaching strategies to promote motivation in the reading class (Lustyanite &

Aprilia, 2020). Teacher and peer scaffolding deserve a place in reading instruction

since it is considered a prerequisite in the language-learning context (Gonulal &

Loewen, 2018). The support from the teacher and peers is indispensable to students in

their journey to become better readers. As a project-based reading instruction, it is

recommended that novel, unique, or authentic elements with peer feedback and peer

assessment be integrated with the design of a project, to foster the autonomy, creative

thinking, and language skills of the students (Maruanaya & Latief, 2019). Thus,

teachers should create and provide opportunities for such scaffolding to happen.

123

The problem-based tasks that require students to create multimedia artifacts, in

particular, digital stories can be implied to support students’ digital literacy. This is so

because its process will allow them to develop and deploy their digital literacy. Such

student-created artifacts should be presented to an authentic audience. Doing so is

complementary rewarding for all students, thereby motivating them to keep on

extending their digital literacy. Teachers should provide students with practical

guidelines and opportunities to learn about the availability of digital tools and

resources, and how to access and use them for language learning to effectively

develop digital literacy skills (Son et al., 2017).

The research instruments used in this study underwent careful and rigorous

validation. Thus, it is recommended that other researchers can make use of the

research instruments to fit the context and purpose of their study. Noteworthy are the

digital story rubric and the translated digital literacy questionnaire. As for the rubric,

it can be potentially used in an experimental study to study the effect of digital

storytelling on digital literacy. As for the questionnaire, the research whose interest

lies in digital literacy in the context of Cambodia can use it to study the digital literacy

of Cambodian students as that area is still an untapped area.

Recommendation for Future Studies

Following are the recommendations for further studies. First, future research

studies should take on a true experimental research design (i.e., two groups with

randomly selected participants, and pre- and post-tests) to gain stronger evidence of

the effect of Digital Storytelling. Second, future research studies should maintain a

manageable sample size of 18 to 30 since Digital Storytelling requires a lot of time

124

and effort from the teacher and students. Third, due to the multimodal nature of

Digital Storytelling, it will be interesting for future studies to look at more than one

macro skill but others in combination. Fourth, it will be equally worthwhile to study

the number of hours the students spent outside the class provided how Digital

Storytelling is considered as a project-based instruction.

Conclusion and Limitations of the Study

In sum, the implementation of Digital Storytelling could improve Cambodian

undergraduate students’ EFL reading and digital literacy. In particular to EFL reading

literacy, Digital Storytelling accommodates the convergence of students’ reading

motivation, explicit reading instruction, extensive reading opportunities, and

meaningful digital storytelling tasks. For digital literacy, Digital Storytelling engages

students in a series of tasks that allow them to implement digital literacy.

Albeit the fact that this study was conducted successfully, some limitations

were also discovered, which can act as caveats for the interpretation of the research

findings of this study. Firstly, the study was conducted in the EFL context of

Cambodia, thereby making its findings not generalizable to other EFL contexts in

other countries. Secondly, the current study utilized the one-group, pre-test, post-test

design, thus there might be a slight likelihood that the change in the dependent

variable might not be due to the independent variable, but the external variable.

Thirdly, the students joined the study voluntarily, and the majority of them studied at

two universities at the same time. Hence, this might affect their performance and

commitment throughout the study.

Students also viewed