REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 02 (2022), pp. 264-283 DOI: 10.18326/rgt.v15i2.264-283 p-ISSN: 1979-8903; e-ISSN: 2503-040X 264 Exploring Lecturers’ Standpoints in Composing Digital Fiction and Students’ Multimodal Literacy Level Fiftinova Fiftinova1*, Nandang Heryana2, Ida Rosmalina3 1,2,3 Language Education Department, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Sriwijaya, Indonesia *) Corresponding Author Email: fiftinova@fkip.unsri.ac.id DOI: 10.18326/rgt.v15i2.264-283 Submission Track: Received: 23-06-2022 Final Revision: 19-10-2022 Available Online: 01-12-2022 Copyright © 2022 Authors This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Abstract Multimodality, which encourages the combination of text, image, sound, and videos, could be varied from class to class. Multimodal literacy as a new dimension of literacy in the 21st century has emerged as a critical skill that EFL students must develop, given its role as a source of meaning in communication. The purpose of this study was to identify the level of students’ multimodal literacy and to identify lecturers’ standpoints on students’ multimodal literacy. This study was conducted both quantitatively and qualitatively and involved 71 EFL students who took creative writing subject in an English education program in one state university in South Sumatera. The data were collected by distributing a questionnaire from Bulut et al. (2015) and by interviewing 3 lecturers who taught the subject. Descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA were used to determine mean, standard deviation and differences in terms of gender and classes with different lecturer; qualitative data were thematically analyzed to categorize the themes. The results indicated that students’ multimodal literacy level was categorized high as indicated by the mean of each aspect of questionnaire: 4.22, 4.11 and 3.6 respectively. There was no different level of multimodal literacy between male and female students, and different lecturers with different instructions did not influence the level. Finally, the lecturers perceived positively to students’ multimodal literacy. Similarly, referring to the lecturers’ view, the students gave positive attitude towards multimodal writing and hence making their multimodal digital fiction successful. Keywords: multimodal literacy, digital fiction, creative writing, EFL mailto:fiftinova@fkip.unsri.ac.id http://dx.doi.org/10.18326/rgt.v14i1.25-42 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ F. Fiftinova, N. Heryana, I. Rosmalina 265 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 2 (2022) INTRODUCTION In the global world today, digital fiction has started to be used by teachers in an English language classroom. As it is digitally born, digital fiction offers a deeper degree of interaction involving decision-making (Frank, 2019), thus going beyond the simple eye move or turning of pages. Students are allowed to have interaction with the text by selecting the move of the story which causes each to experience a different storyline (Astrid et. Al, 2016; Kaba, 2017; Frank, 2019; Skains, 2019). Unlike conventional fiction, students reading digital fiction are given multiple modes such as image, sound, and video besides text. In writing too, students are allowed to enrich the text with those multimodal aspects. The modes of such image, sound and video distinguishes the text as multimodal. Today's digital fiction as multimodal text is one that students can easily locate in their daily lives, particularly outside of campus (Nouri, 2018; Almusharaff & Engemann, 2020) They will discover it on a variety of social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter; on websites such as blogs, Wattpad, YouTube; and on applications such as book creator, Canva, or Filmora. Additionally, they discovered it in the campus learning environment, such as teacher-led presentations and learning websites that they used for online learning, particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic. Nowadays, multimodal texts are used as learning resources in the field of English education. These multimodal texts are used as a supplement to the textbook (which contains still images) and/or the module as the primary source. Multimodal texts are frequently used to aid students' comprehension of reading and to encourage students’ participation in-class activities. However, because multimodal elements have not been explicitly taught to students, they lack experience constructing meaning using modes other than text. Thus, the opportunity for students to think critically has been underutilized, and multimodal literacy has received less attention from teachers during the classroom learning process (Warschauer, 2008; Eksi & Yakisik, 2015). Multimodal literacy, as a new dimension of literacy has emerged as a critical skill that students in the field of English education must develop, given its role as a source of meaning in communication. Multimodal literacy is the Exploring Lecturers’ Standpoints in Composing Digital Fiction … REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 2 (2022) 266 study of language in which two or more modes of meaning coexist (Mills & Unsworth, 2017). Multimodal literacy refers to the ability to interpret and produce multimodal artifacts in response to multimodal texts (Jewitt & Kress, 2003; van Leeuwen, 2017). Language and literacy facilitate communication by incorporating a variety of meanings, including writing, visual images, movement, posture, and sound. In this case, students must recognize all modes of communication used by semiotic sources to convey meaning (Kress, 2010), which must be explicitly taught. For example, visual texts depict objects, people, and places using a variety of visual semiotic sources such as lines, patterns, sizes, and symbols, whereas written language relies on a set of nouns and adjectives to convey meaning. Additionally, students should be taught how writers select various modes to determine the most effective way to tell a story and how meaning is "woven" into multimodal texts through the selection and use of various modes in various combinations (Jewitt, 2009). Literacy is determined by the analysis, review, and production of words and pictures as a whole, not by separate interpretations of words and pictures (Bearne & Wolstencroft, 2007). In writing activities in EFL context, multimodal literacy is expected to be developed by creating or producing multimodal texts. This means that the product of the writing class is not in the form of ordinary verbal text but it has been equipped with other modes such as visual images, sound, or video. Students are asked to construct multimodal meaning based on the purpose of the written text so that the text becomes effective or easy for readers to understand. Writing multimodal texts in the classroom can be a motivation for students for it is relevant to their daily activities. (García et al., 2011) argued that multimodal texts are viewed as relevant and motivating resources that contribute to the pleasant and attractive nature of the EFL environment because the students believe that this type of text is profoundly connected to everyday life. By making writing assignments more relevant to students' lives and by creating more authentic audiences for students' writing, well-designed writing projects that incorporate student-created multimedia and multimodal outputs have the potential to increase struggling students' motivation to complete writing assignments (Darrington & Dousay, 2014). Students feel that multimodal text is more interesting for them (Tüzel, F. Fiftinova, N. Heryana, I. Rosmalina 267 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 2 (2022) 2013) because it is authentic material that can support their communicative performance (Lotherington & Jenson, 2011), allow students to connect with personal literacies (Cappello et al., 2019), and because it is the genre that they are already familiar with on a daily basis (Williams, 2016). Walsh supported the use of multimodal texts to expand students' learning experiences and provide them with a broader understanding of information and abilities (2010). In English Education Study Program, writing instruction has been directed at writing that supports multimodal literacy. This is to equip the prospective teachers with multimodal communicative competencies as they are responsible for the English language teaching at the secondary level. Haquin (2011) stated that it is important to know how to use the semiotic power of words and their characteristics and how they are used in teaching the things they can do to show the world and communicate. It is critical in teacher education to develop metalanguage to comprehend the connection between modalities and cultural meanings accessible to everyone in any situation (Hobson, 2014). In addition, reading and writing in this complex semiotic context requires not only “other literacy skills” but also a “metalanguage” to deconstruct the numerous modalities of meaning production (e.g., Kress, 1997; Unsworth, 2006, 2008). In a creative writing course, students are encouraged to produce multimodal compositions through digital fiction writing. In this course, students create digital fiction by using various digital tools that are their preferences or at the suggestion of the lecturer team who teaches them. Some of the digital tools that students use are video editors, Canva, and/or Twine. In this creative writing process, students can express creative ideas using imagination and reflect on imagination by constructing meaning from various choices of existing semiotic modes or sources. In this study, the writers wanted to identify the level of students' multimodal literacy in digital fiction writing and the lecturers’ view on the multimodal literacy. This investigation of multimodal literacy level was firstly introduced by Bulut et al. (2015), who also created an instrument to measure it. According to them, teachers must have multimodal literacy skills to keep up with evolving technology as part of their teacher training. Several Exploring Lecturers’ Standpoints in Composing Digital Fiction … REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 2 (2022) 268 academics have investigated the level of multimodal literacy of prospective teachers. Pramono and Suherdi (2019) found that the multimodal literacy level of 40 PPG students was categorized as high. Similarly, the findings of Eksi and Yakizik (2015) revealed that pre-service English language teachers have quite a high multimodal literacy level, and ability and knowledge improve in direct proportion to the amount of time spent on the internet, the academic year, and gender. The more time pre-service teachers spend on the Internet and the more multimodal structures they encounter, the more multimodal literate they become. These 2 studies suggested that prospective teachers tend to have high multimodal literacy levels in their learning process and that future research should be conducted on a bigger sample than theirs. A high level of multimodal literacy was also indicated by a study conducted by (Ulu et al., 2017). In addition, they claimed that multimodal literacy has a positive and significant influence on critical reading self-efficacy perception. In this study, the level of multimodal literacy of prospective teacher students and lecturers’ views on multimodality were investigated to verify the previous results. This study did not take a bigger sample as recommended by previous research; this study chose students of creative writing course as the sample. Moreover, identifying the lecturers’ perspective regarding multimodal composition strengthened or confirmed the level of multimodal literacy obtained and provided insight into multimodal pedagogical practice. The results added new insight or contributions to the multimodal composition learning procedure which is in line with the development of 21st-century skills (4C). Perceptions of teaching multimodal literacy have also been studied by Ryu and Boggs (2016), and Almusharraf and Engemann (2020). The results of their research indicate that teachers respond positively to the implementation of multimodal literacy in the classroom. This implementation facilitates students in creating effective communication. Almusharraf and Engemann claimed that effective instruction in teaching multimodality is lecturers’ multimodal competence and suggested that assessment should be done multimodal too. The most significant job of lecturers in a multimodal setting was to engage students in critical reflections on themes such as the usage of modes and media to transmit ideas, according to one crucial conclusion (Dahlström, 2021). F. Fiftinova, N. Heryana, I. Rosmalina 269 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 2 (2022) In conclusion, this study describes the level of multimodal literacy of prospective English teachers in writing digital fiction and the lecturers’ view on multimodal literacy. The description of the level of multimodal literacy was enriched by the teachers’ views which eventually become the basis for planning future instruction for multimodal composition. RESEARCH METHOD This study was conducted using both quantitative and qualitative method. Quantitatively, students’ multimodal literacy was depicted through means and standard deviation. Therefore, a 17-items questionnaire from Bulut et al. (2015) was used to collect the data. This questionnaire consists of three categories: 1) Expressing Oneself Using Multimodal Structure, 2) Interpretation of the Contents Presented in Multimodal Structure, and 3) Preferring Multimodal Structures. The students were asked to determine one choice of agreement from a five-point Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree). This questionnaire got a slight modification to meet the research goal. In addition, qualitatively, to portray teachers’ views on multimodal literacy, an individual interview was conducted. In this case, 3 teachers teaching 3 different classes were selected. The interview questions were sent by e-mail to 2 teachers, and face to face interview was conducted with one of the teachers as she was available for an offline interview. Both kinds of interviews were documented by recording the conversation, noting down several important information, and then the record was transcribed. The participants involved in this study were 71 students from 4 classes (Class A, B, C and D) who took a Creative Writing course in the second semester in the academic year 2020/2021. This research was conducted in a Creative Writing class in an English education study program of a state university in Palembang. One of the course’s learning outcomes is the ability to master and use relevant and current information and communication technology in the context of English learning. This course is 2 credit hours and was done online using a variety of platforms such as e-learning, Zoom Meeting, Google Classroom, and Google Meet. Additionally, the other participants were 3 lecturers from 3 different classes of creative writing. The lecturers were selected as they were those who were responsible for the Exploring Lecturers’ Standpoints in Composing Digital Fiction … REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 2 (2022) 270 teaching of creative writing in the department. Writing is their expertise and their teaching experience is more than 15 years. The data from the questionnaire were analyzed using descriptive statistics to determine means and standard deviations. The difference among gender and group with 4 different lecturers were analyzed using one-way ANOVA. To interpret the data about students’ level of multimodal literacy, the five points Likert Scale conversion was used. The weighted mean interval score includes 4.21-5.00 (very high), 3.41- 4.20 (high), 2.61-3.40 (moderate), 1.81-2.60 (low) and 1.00-1.80 (very low). Meanwhile, data from interviews were analyzed thematically by following a procedure from Creswell (2012). The procedures include data organization– reading– data description– classification-interpretation. RESULTS & DISCUSSION Data from the questionnaire showed the demographic of the respondent-students. The students were grouped depending upon their gender and class they enrolled in. Table 1. Participant’s Demographic N Percentage Gender Female 62 87.3% Male 9 12.7% Class Class 6B-P 19 26.8% Class 6B-I 21 29.6% Class 6A-I 21 29.6% Class 6A-P 10 14.1% Table 1 above shows that the students were grouped into 4 classes taught by 4 lecturers with different years of experience and methods in teaching creative writing. Students’ Multimodal Literacy Level in Writing Digital Fiction As the questionnaire consists of 3 categories, students’ multimodal literacy in writing digital fiction is discussed per category in the following sections. F. Fiftinova, N. Heryana, I. Rosmalina 271 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 2 (2022) Expressing Oneself Using Multimodal Structure Based on the weighted mean interval score in data analysis section, it was found that, on average, students showed high agreement (4.22) on using multimodal structure. As described in table 2, students stated that multimodality or the use of varied modes such as images, sound, or videos offers easiness for expressing their ideas. It is indicated clearly in the statement “Using various elements (such as music and images) in presentations/digital fiction/story makes it easier to make my point” with mean of 4.41 and standard deviation of 0.623. Another evidence could be seen from the statement “I organize my thoughts systematically in my presentations/digital fiction/story. Thanks to various visual elements (such as image and video)” with mean 4.32 and standard deviation 0.528. Table 2. Expressing Oneself Using Multimodal Structure Statements Mean Std. dev Using various elements (such as music and images) in my presentations/digital fiction/story makes it easier to make my point. 4.41 0.623 I use visuals such as graphics/ tables/ pictures, and photographs in my writings. 4.06 0.735 I prepare an interactive presentation/digital fiction/story making use of music, visuals, and animations. 4.24 0.686 I organize my thoughts systematically in my presentations/digital fiction/story. Thanks to various visual elements (such as image and video). 4.32 0.528 I express myself more explicitly in environments in which writing, sound, and images exist together. 4.07 0.724 Total 4.22 Interpretation of the Contents Presented in Multimodal Structure Dealing with the second aspect of “Interpretation of the Contents Presented in Multimodal Structure”, students also had a high agreement (mean= 4.11) on 7 statements described in table 3 below. Exploring Lecturers’ Standpoints in Composing Digital Fiction … REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 2 (2022) 272 Table 3. Interpretation of the Contents Presented in Multimodal Structure Statements Mean Std. dev I pay attention to the body language of the individuals I am listening to. 4.23 0.659 I can realize how visual, auditory, and written elements influence individuals. 4.18 0.723 I use body language that is in harmony with the words I choose when speaking. 4.08 0.751 I relate various visual and verbal information on various media tools to each other 4.13 0.584 I interpret the information that I gather from numerous resources. 4.07 0.683 I relate the information to which I have access using visual and auditory elements. 4.08 0.528 I can decide whether or not content presented on various media (newspaper, TV, social media, etc.) is true. 4.04 0.664 Total 4.11 As revealed in Table 3, students do not only need verbal structure when making meaning. They interpret a certain meaning using various modes given. The statement “I pay attention to the body language of the individuals I am listening to” got high agreement from the students as the mean is 4.23 and the standard deviation 0.659. Similarly, the other 6 statements tend to have high agreement from the students. They believe that information is true and can be decided from multimodality as indicated by the statement “I can decide whether or not content presented on various media (newspaper, TV, social media, etc.) is true” with mean of 4.04 and 0.664 of standard deviation. Preferring Multimodal Structures Students have their preferences dealing with selecting structures for creating multimodal digital fiction. Table 4 presents that their level of preferences is categorized high with mean 3.6. For instance, the students showed disagreement (3.82) to the statement “The use of visual, auditory and written elements together leads to laziness of the mind” and “I only believe in the power of verbal expression when sharing my thoughts’ (3.11). All the respondents disagreed with all of the negative assertions in the questionnaire. F. Fiftinova, N. Heryana, I. Rosmalina 273 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 2 (2022) Table 4. Preferring Multimodal Structures Statements Mean Std. dev I do not like trying to interpret images, sounds, graphics, and writings simultaneously. 3.62 0.868 I only believe in the power of verbal expression when sharing my thoughts. 3.11 0.903 I get distracted in electronic environments in which visual, auditory, and written elements are used together. 3.49 0.876 The use of visual, auditory, and written elements together leads to laziness of the mind. 3.82 0.931 I get bored in communication in which written, auditory, and visual elements are used together. 3.80 0.804 Total 3.6 As described above, the multimodal literacy level of the students involved in digital fiction writing activities can be classified high because the mean of each aspect exceeds (3.41). Based on the score interval depicted in research method section, the mean of the first aspect which is Expressing Oneself Using Multimodal Structure is (4.22). This was categorized as very high. The mean for the second and the third aspect are categorized high as the scores are 4.11 and 3.6. This high multimodal literacy level It is relevant with results from (Ekşi & Yakışık, 2015), Ulu et al. (2017), and (Pramono & Suherdi, 2019). The result of this present study indicates that English prospective teachers are already aware of the use of multimodal structure in writing digital fiction. They have their own preferences and decide which mode they put in their digital fiction as using this multimodality allows them to have critical thinking and problem-solving skill or what Nouri (2018) claimed as ‘active designers.’ Furthermore, the result revealed that multimodal texts such as text, image, sound, video and body language are highly explored to build interpretation to support the production of digital fiction. This exploration of multiple communication modes has become digital writer’s choices since several decades ago (Astrid et.al, 2016), and it is growing as the technology develops. To obtain deep insight into students’ multimodal literacy based on the gender and the class they belong to, calculation using one-way ANOVA was conducted. Exploring Lecturers’ Standpoints in Composing Digital Fiction … REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 2 (2022) 274 Table 5. Multimodal Literacy Level Differences between Genders N Mean Std. Deviation mean Difference F-hit Sig Remark Male 9 3.92 6.20 -1.13 0.259 0.613 Not Significant Female 62 3.99 6.21 Based on table 5, the ANOVA test yielded an F-count value of 0.259 and a sig.F value of 0.613. Because sig.F is greater than 0.05, it is not significant. This explains that with significance level 5%, there is no significant difference between male and female students’ multimodal literacy level. Table 6. Multimodal Literacy Level Differences among Classes N Mean Std. Deviation F-hit Sig Remark Class 6B-I 21 3.93 5.80 2.287 0.087 Not Significant Class 6A-P 10 3.98 5.94 Class 6A-I 21 4.14 6.46 Class 6B-P 19 3.87 5.74 Table 6 explains that the mean of multimodal literacy level of 21 students of class 6B-I is 3.9, the mean of for 6A-P is 3.98, the mean of 21 students in 6A-I is 4.14 and the mean of 19 students of class 6B-P is 3.87. Statistically, the Anova test obtained an F-count value of 2.287 and a sig.F value of 0.087. Because the value of sig.F is 0.087 > 0.05, it means that it is not significant. Thus, statistically at a significant level of 5%, it can be stated that simultaneously there is no significant difference in the mean of students’ multimodal literacy level among the four classes. Perspectives and Challenges of Facilitating Multimodal Literacy in Writing Digital Fiction The interview was conducted individually with each interviewee and done both virtually or face to face. The interview session was recorded through zoom meeting and video recorder. The result of the interview was transcribed, and the transcription was thematically analyzed. After the analysis, several themes were found to be relevant as lecturers’ perspectives F. Fiftinova, N. Heryana, I. Rosmalina 275 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 2 (2022) on multimodality in digital fiction writing. The following are several passages from the interview session with the lecturers (RI and SS, CD). The interviews with the lecturers (RI and SS) were done both online and face to face based on their preferences. The purpose of the interview is to address “What are the perspectives of the lecturers towards students’ multimodal literacy? As the finding from the questionnaire reveals that students-respondents have a high multimodal literacy level, the findings from the interview also affirm that the lecturer perceived the students are successful in writing their multimodal composition. Lecturer SS said: So, I can see as the whole, and for some, for the one group that has difficulty finding the tools also they end up with a book which is – in terms of the content is pretty good, it’s just the composition of the picture is not as smooth. But I think, in general, I can see that they’re successfully doing the multimodal project.(SS) This success could be associated with the instruction applied by lecturers. All the lecturers mentioned that in their creative class they support their students to collaborate and to explore various digital tools to create digital fiction. RI stated: I applied collaborative learning model for three meetings. The steps: a) introducing the multimodal projects by asking them to read the material and discuss in a big group in a discussion forum in e-learning. b) composing the multimodal projects, and c) Creating the digital multimodal form.(RI) Similarly, SS claimed that the cooperation that occurs in this class is therefore naturally mediated by many technologies, including multimodality, the platform itself, and the affordances that students employ when they write. Meanwhile, CD argued that the students develop ed multimodality through collaboration with peers. They gained knowledge from one another but maintained confidence in their own abilities to develop original things. Another perspective from SS should be highlighted: She believed that the multimodal digital fiction composition in creative writing subject is a result of exploring experience as she stated For writing books collaboratively, the process includes… also I think, in the beginning, revisiting their experience. So, I always begin with the Exploring Lecturers’ Standpoints in Composing Digital Fiction … REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 2 (2022) 276 experience of the students, and how their experience manifested in different multimodal elements. So, it could be pictures, videos, the audio they have, or maybe the sketch that they make and so on. So, it always begins with the students’ experience and then connects to how they experience at present and then how those experiences connected with other text that they learn or other students’ experience. (SS) In compiling a multimodal digital fiction, the lecturers admitted that students often use multiple technologies such as Filmora, Kidmaster, Ibis (digital drawing), Canva or Comic Strip, and other applications which are students' preferences. In selecting the application, the lecturers did not advise on certain applications because they were quite familiar with these applications in their daily lives. Dealing with this, RI stated “I let them select the kind of technological tool they knew exactly though I had provided a link for the material that “(RI) and CD agreed by mentioning that “About the devices used, the students are free to choose which they think they are familiar with”(CD). Digital fiction learning in the creative writing class received a positive response from students. In other words, there is a positive attitude from the students towards multimodal composition activities. The assessment of multimodal composition was carried out with different ways by the 3 lecturers. The first lecturer or SS evaluated by focusing on aspects such as content (plot, character, and language use) and creative design (smooth picture or good layout). This lecturer did not only evaluate students’ works but also considered the process of making a multimodal composition, such as persistence and problem-solving in every problem encountered. SS stated: I look at all the processes from the draft. So, the draft is … well, actually from the very beginning, the outline. So how they… it’s not just about the look because writing is also that content. So, the multimodal aspect is the… make what it looks like. So, the use… my assessments are two, so the first one is the content. The content means like the story, the essence of the story itself. And then, the presentation of the story into the whole book or memoir, or poetry. So I think that’s the two aspects that complemented each other. In terms of content, then I will follow the content like we assess F. Fiftinova, N. Heryana, I. Rosmalina 277 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 2 (2022) writing, whether how they express the story, how the plot is clear, for example. So, that’s more focused on the writing. Now, the other aspects, the multimodal aspect, the assessment is looking at how they can solve the problem, for example, oh they want to express the story into this picture. What kind of resources that they use? So, their effort to find the appropriate resource or the appropriate tool is also my consideration. Looking at how they afford the technology that meets their need. Because I think that’s important, that’s kind of problem-solving skills also, so finding out what is the appropriate tools to help them do the project (SS). On the other hand, the second lecturer, RI, used a simple rubric that focuses on the composition of text, images, and sounds as well as student creativity. Meanwhile, CD stated “I emphasize my assessment on the originality of the students’ work. I allow them to be as creative as possible”(CD). The lecturers found no significant difficulties in teaching multimodal composition. However, RI stated that she needed to learn more about teaching with multimodal composition. Meanwhile, SS stated that the issue that could be a problem was that this writing project would take a long time. In terms of difficulties, it’s just all the work is a bit time-consuming, because in the regular writing it’s just regular paragraph essays, for example, right? While in multimodal, they have to include all of the resources to make into an interesting writing (SS). The high level of students’ multimodal literacy is also supported by data from interviews. The data described several emergence themes which becomes essential aspects of multimodality (Figure 1). According to the lecturers’ view, the students were successful in making their multimodal digital fiction. This success can be said to be directly proportional to their high level of multimodal literacy. Moreover, students had a positive attitude towards learning multimodal composition. Another factor influencing the high level of multimodal literacy is that students were already technologically literate before they participated in creative writing course, making it easy for them to be creative. The students were digital natives or active users of digital tools both in their academic or non-academic context. As a result, in shaping digital fiction, the students become independent learners who have Exploring Lecturers’ Standpoints in Composing Digital Fiction … REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 2 (2022) 278 opportunity to choose independently digital tools that is familiar with them (Frank, 2016; Skains, 2019). By doing this, students were engaged in problem-solving skill and critical thinking skills. Figure 1. Essential Aspects in Multimodal Literacy What also needs to be an important concern from this research are the learning procedures which could facilitate students’ writing of digital fiction. The procedures in this context include introducing multimodal writing projects, recalling experience (brainstorming), collaborative work, and independent multimodal assignment. Assigning students to a project-based activity while completing multimodal works provides opportunities for students to express more by using many modes (Skains, 2019) to achieve learning objectives and hence affect multimodal literacy level. The procedures designed in this study is potential in developing students’ multimodal task as Jim and Polio (2020) proposed three important aspects: objectives and multimodal writing instruction, mode of language in multimodal tasks, and independent and collaborative work. Dealing with assessment, the lecturers focus on the process of creating multimodal composition and the final product. Writing digital fiction does not Multimodal Literacy Assessment Challenges Digital Tools Successful Composition Attitude Learning procedure F. Fiftinova, N. Heryana, I. Rosmalina 279 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 2 (2022) only deal with the multimodality of the product but also with students’ effort in solving the problem, persistence, and hard work. Drafting, revising, editing and having peer and lecturer’s feedback are promoted during the process of writing. Meanwhile, the multimodal digital fictions are evaluated its content (plot, character, language use), originality, design and creativity. Even though, the lecturers tend to have similar standard of evaluation, the standard is not well established and relevant. According to Adsanatham (2012) and Fjørtoft (2020), assessment in writing multimodal digital text should involve the students who are the writer-designers. Students are responsible for their own evaluation during the process of writing and thus the writing shows some progressions. As a final point, teaching writing multimodal digital fiction is quite challenging for the lecturers. They believe that they themselves must recognize and learn digital tools for learning to write multimodal text. This makes sense as they are the facilitator and model for these student-teachers. Jiang et al (2021) believe that teacher or lecturers engage with digital multimodal composing is a multifaceted continuum. They may have different points when teaching digital multimodal composition. The findings also show that teachers' ideas of themselves, students, and language directed and mediated these personalized exchanges. Another problem is that giving multimodal task is a bit consuming. The lecturers should provide a good time management to encourage students to complete the task. CONCLUSION The level of multimodal literacy of the students tends to be high these days; they are millennials who have been exposed to and used to a range of multimodal texts from an early age, whether pictures (drawings and photographs), sounds, videos, or text. The students have had multimodality potentials before they began the academic life. They actively look for solutions to the problems faced in creating multimodal works. As a result, in writing digital fiction, the students do not have much difficulty, and they have a good attitude to writing it. Therefore, classroom instruction will undoubtedly serve as a catalyst for developing multimodal literacy. This study implies that lecturers should address two critical components while Exploring Lecturers’ Standpoints in Composing Digital Fiction … REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 2 (2022) 280 teaching writing: multimodal writing instruction and multimodal writing evaluation. To summarize, the findings of this study will contribute to the growth of multimodal writing training in the field of English language teaching. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writers would like to gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the Rector of Universitas Sriwijaya in completing this research. REFERENCES Adsanatham, C. (2012). Integrating assessment and instruction: Using student-generated grading criteria to evaluate multimodal digital projects. Computers and Composition, 29(2), 152–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2012.04.002. Bearne, E. & Wolstencroft, H. (2007). Visual approaches to teaching writing: Multimodal literacy. Sage Publications. Bulut, B., Ulu, H. & Kan, A. (2015). Multimodal literacy scale: a study of validity and reliability. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 61, 45-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2015.61.3. Capello, M., Wiseman, Angela, M., Turner, & Jennifer, D. (2019). Framing equitable classroom practice: potentials of critical multimodal literacy research. Literary Research: Theory, Method and Practice, 68, 205-225. Dahlström, H. (2022). Students as digital multimodal text designers: A study of resources, affordances, and experiences. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(2), 391–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13171 Darrington, B., & Dousay, T. (2014). Using multimodal writing to motivate struggling students to write. TechTrends, 59(6), 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-015-0901-7. Ekşi, G., & Yakışık, B. Y. (2015). An investigation of prospective English language teachers’ multimodal literacy. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199(June 2016), 464–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2012.04.002 http://dx.doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2015.61.3 F. Fiftinova, N. Heryana, I. Rosmalina 281 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 2 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.533. Ensslin, A., Skains, L., Riley, S., Haran, J., Mackiewicz, A., & Halliwell, E. (2016). Exploring digital fiction as a tool for teenage body image bibliotherapy*. Digital Creativity, 27(3), 177–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2016.1210646 Fjørtoft, H. (2020). Multimodal digital classroom assessments. Computers and Education, 152(September 2019), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103892. García, D. L., García, J. E., & Hernández, Y. (2011). Students’ beliefs: Multimodal texts as pedagogical tools in foreign language learning. Revista Papeles, 3(5), 21–35. Hobson, S. (2014). Multimodality, ethnodrama, and the preparation of pre- service teachers of writing. Perspectives on Urban Education, 11(2), 21- 43. Ikasari, B., Drajati, N. A., & Sumardi, S. (2019). The use of multi-modal texts in an English classroom of hard-of- hearing learners. Pedagogy : Journal of English Language Teaching, 7(2), 95. https://doi.org/10.32332/pedagogy.v7i2.1661. Jiang, L., Yu, S., & Zhao, Y. (2021). Teacher engagement with digital multimodal composing in a Chinese tertiary EFL curriculum. Language Teaching Research, 25(4), 613– 632. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819864975 Jewitt, C., & Kress, G. (Eds.). (2003). Multimodal literacy. New York: Peter Lang. Kaba, F. (2017). Teaching and Studying Literature in The Digital Era - From Text to Hypertext. Turkophone, 4(1), 6–13. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/38050193/Teaching_and_Studying_Litera ture_in_The_Digital_Era_-From_Text_to_Hypertext Kress, G. (1997). Visual and verbal modes of representation in electronically mediated communication: the potentials of new forms of text. In I. Snyder https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819864975 Exploring Lecturers’ Standpoints in Composing Digital Fiction … REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 2 (2022) 282 (Ed.), Page to screen: Taking literacy into the electronic era (pp. 55-80). Sydney, au: Allen & Unwin. Kress, G. (2010). A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. New York. Lim, J., & Polio, C. (2020). Multimodal assignments in higher education: Implications for multimodal writing tasks for L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100713 Lotherinton, H. & Jenson, J. (2011). Teaching multimodal and digital literacy in L2 settings: New literacies, new basics, new pedagogies. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32: 226-246. Haquin, D. M. (2011). La perspectiva multimodal sobre la comunicación: desafíos y aportes para la enseñanza en el aula. Diálogos educativos, (22), 3-14. Mills, K. A., & Unsworth, L. (2017). Multimodal literacy. In G. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of education. Oxford University Press. Nouri, J. (2019). Students multimodal literacy and design of learning during self-studies in higher education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 24(4), 683–698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9360-5. Pramono, S. A., & Suherdi, D. (2019). Exploring EFL pre-service teachers’ multimodal literacy: Level and implementations. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 87–90. https://doi.org/10.1145/3345094.3345103. Ryu, J., & Boggs, G. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions about teaching multimodal composition: The Case study of Korean English teachers at secondary schools. English Language Teaching, 9(6), 52. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n6p52. Skains, R. L. (2019). Teaching digital fiction: integrating experimental writing and current technologies. Palgrave Communications, 5(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0223-z. F. Fiftinova, N. Heryana, I. Rosmalina 283 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 2 (2022) Ulu, H., Avşar-Tuncay, A., & Baş, Ö. (2017). The relationship between multimodal literacy of pre-service teachers and their perception of self- efficacy in critical reading. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(12), 85. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v5i12.2806. Unsworth, L. (2006). Towards a metalanguage for multiliteracies education: Describing the meaning-making resources of language-image interaction. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 5(1), 55-7 Unsworth, L. (2008). Multiliteracies and metalanguage: Describing image/text relations as a resource for negotiating multimodal texts. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 377-405). New York, us: Lawrence Earlbaum. Van Leeuwen, T. (2017). Multimodal literacy. Metaphor, (4), 17-23. Warschauer, M. (2008). Technology and literacy: Introduction to the special issue. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 3(1), 1-3. Williams, B.T. (2016) Genre inside/genre outside: how university students approach composing multimodal texts. In: Breuer E, Archer A. (eds.) Multimodality in higher education. Brill, Leiden, p 114–135. Walsh, M. (2010). Multimodal literacy: What does it mean for classroom practice? Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 33(3), 211-239. https://www.alea.edu.au/documents/item/63