The aim of this study and article was examine pros and cons with the use of multimodal texts, here called, multimodal compositions (MMCs), for a class studying English as a second language. The authors have studied the opinions and attitudes of 13 students to making and using multimodal compositions. The selection was done from convenience. The study used mixed methods employing a questionnaire using 23 questions which was analysed statistically, together with interviews with one teacher and four of the students. The results show that the students think MMC are valuable for writing assignments, because this lets them be more creative and learn useful professional skills. Results also show that PowerPoint was the students favourite MMC form and that students prefer writing on computers to writing by hand, but there was no link found between the students’ technical proficiency and the time the students need to start an MMC project. The teacher’s point of view was that MMC allows for several ways (modes) of expression, which motivates the students and promotes creativity. The teacher also finds Multimodal narrative more interesting On the downside the teacher thinks students may view MMC as extra work, and it requires the teacher to have technical skills. Limitations as stated in the article include that the students answers to both questionnaire and interviews were not based their actual usage but on their perceptions of multimodal text making.

The title is informative and clear and relevant both to the topic as outlined in the abstract and to the field of research as such. There is not enough information in this area yet. The increasing use of digital tools and multimodal texts in educational contexts makes this a both topical and important subject.

1. Including references to Kress more recent writings would strengthen the background on multimodality as Kress revised his theories considerably after 2010.

2. I suggest the authors reformulate “Kress (2003) stated that MMC are written texts that involve processes that apply to more than just words and letter” (p. 288) under 2.2 Definition of Multimodal Compositions). The definition(s) by Kress on multimodal text refers to MORE than writing, i.e. a text can be completely without writing and still a multimodal text.

3. The two hypotheses introduced under data 4.1 Survery Data Analyses (p. 290) reflect the implicit research questions in this article. Formulating research questions would make the text more accessible for the reader.

4. The discussion would profit from a topic sentence summarising the results instead of referring back to the section above.

5. It is concluded that students will be able to draw on their “knowledge, experiences and home background . . .and become more engaged in the school setting” (p.293) but I see no link back to results backing up this statement.

6. Under 4 Data Analyses (p. 290) there is something missing in the sentence “Furthermore, the two open-ended questions, Q#22: If you have done a multimodal composition did you enjoy it, and why? And if you have not done a multimodal composition do you think you would enjoy it and why?” and Q#23: “Which form of a multimodal composition do you like or do you think you would like most, and why?” (p.290); two questions are quoted but then what?