a case study on the impact of weblogs on the writing

0 downloads 0 Views 631KB Size Report
b) Many-to-many communication refers to the fact that in CMC the potential for simultaneous .... answer to the question of how L2 writing should be taught has emerged (Hyland, 2003: ..... writing and present drafts, they were given no formal feedback. ... development they have reached in their command of the language.” (p.
University of Leicester

MA Applied Linguistics and TESOL

Dissertation

A CASE STUDY ON THE IMPACT OF WEBLOGS ON THE WRITING OF LOW-LEVEL LEARNERS IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CHILE

Year: 2009 Simon Higginson

1

2

Acknowledgements I would like to express my thanks and gratitude to Dr. Kevin Armstrong and Dr. Pamela Rogerson-Revell for their help and guidance during my studies. I would also like to thank Dr. Alejandro Armellini for the airport chats and good advice. Kind regards to all my friends at the University of Chile, especially Claudia, Ernesto and Carlos V. A special thank you to Clemencia, I appreciate all your help and support. Finally, and above all, to my darling Beatriz, thank you for being there. This is for you.

3

Abstract Since the turn of the century the use of computer-mediated-communication (CMC) has become more widespread in educational contexts and weblogs (blogs), one of the more popular forms of CMC (Bloch, 2007), have been the focus of numerous studies. However, whilst these studies have listed the potential benefits of blog use for language learners, few studies have offered any practical tips for educators who wish to implement the use of writing blogs in the EFL classroom. Moreover, the vast majority of studies have focused on the use of blogs with relatively high-level learners in academic contexts. This small-scale study focuses on how the use of blogs impact on the writing of a group of low-level learners in a tertiary EFL context in Chile. Moreover, it presents a tentative model to explain the different factors that contribute to writing development using weblogs as these learners grapple “not only with a written code but with a linguistic code that is still being acquired.” (Raimes, 1985: 232). The findings report that blogs have the potential to aid low-level learners develop their L2 writing and a number of suggestions are made that may help practitioners facilitate the process.

4

List of Abbreviations Blogs

Weblogs

CMC

Computer Mediated Communication

EFL

English as a Foreign Language

ESL

English as a Second Language

L1

First language

L2

Second Language

SLA

Second Language Acquisition

5

Contents Acknowledgements Abstract List of Abbreviations

3 4 5

Contents

6

1. Introduction………………………………..........…………..........……...........

8

2. Literature Review………………………………………………......................

10

2.1 ICT, CALL and CMC.......................................................................

10

2.2 Written CMC – Writing in a Collaborative Environment.................

13

2.3 Developing L2 Writing.....................................................................

17

2.4 Developing Writing with Low-Level Learners.................................

25

2.5 A Background to Blogs.....................................................................

30

2.6 The Use of Blogs in the L2 Classroom.............................................

32

2.7 Blogs and EFL Writing.....................................................................

36

3. Research Methodology……………………………………………….……...... 3.1 Research Question.............................................................................

40 40

3.2 Research Style………………………………................................................. 3.3 The Participants and Context of the Study………….......................

41 42

3.4 Data Collection…………………………………………..................

43

3.5 Ethical Issues……………………………………………………......

45

3.6 Data Analysis…………………………………………………….....

46

4. Discussion of Findings......................................................................................

49

4.1 Motivation to Write...........................................................................

50

4.1.1 The Mode of Writing............................................................

50

4.1.2 The Writing Topic................................................................

54

4.1.3 Audience...............................................................................

56

4.1.4 The Writing Environment.....................................................

58

4. 2 The Motivation to Keep on Blogging..............................................

60

4.2.1 Building Confidence: Success through Success...................

60

4.2.2 Ownership.............................................................................

63

4.2.3 The Writing Challenge.........................................................

65

4.2.4 Writing for Pleasure..............................................................

68

6

4.3 Writing Naturally..............................................................................

70

4.3.1 Perceived Writing Improvement...........................................

70

4.3.2 Interaction, Collaboration Peer-Scaffolding and Noticing....

74

5. Conclusion.........................................................................................................

80

5.1 Discussion and Summary of the Main Findings...............................

80

5.2 A Model of Blog Impact...................................................................

81

5.3 Limitations........................................................................................

83

5.4 Recommendations.............................................................................

84

References.............................................................................................................

85

Appendix 1A: Questionnaire (English Version)...................................................

91

Appendix 1B: Questionnaire (Spanish Version)...................................................

92

Appendix 2: Semi-Structured Interview Questions: English/Spanish...................

93

Appendix 3: Questionnaire Results.......................................................................

94

Appendix 4: Semi-Structured Interviews – Sample materials ………………..…

95

7

CHAPTER 1

1. Introduction

Of all the second language (L2) skills that learners have to master, writing is seen to be the most difficult (Richards & Renandya, 2002: 303). This may go some way to explaining why writing is considered to be more prestigious than spoken language, especially in academic contexts but also in society in general, and why L2 learners are frequently judged on their ability to write in an L2 as opposed to speaking it (Harris (1993). Surprisingly then, under the banner of the communicative approach to teaching and learning, more emphasis has been placed on oral production in the EFL classroom (Leja, 2007) and writing has often been afforded no more than a passing mention with regards SLA (Harklau, 2002). However, recent developments in the way people communicate in a „Networked world‟ have highlighted new literacy‟s and new genres of writing that are changing all areas of society including education (Dippold, 2009). Moreover, the language learning benefits of asynchronous computer-mediatedcommunication (CMC) have contributed to a change in the traditional definitions of language learning (see Kern et al., 2008), which has led to a reevaluation of the value of second language writing. According to Godwin-Jones (2008) online tools and websites offer “new opportunities and incentives for personal writing” (p. 7) that language teachers need to tap into.

This study looks at the impact of weblogs, a popular form of CMC, on the writing of a group of low-level EFL learners in a tertiary context in the University of Chile. The present chapter, Chapter 1, is the introduction. Chapter 2 is a review of the relevant

8

research literature which, due to the number of areas to be covered, is broken down into seven sections: ICT, CALL & CMC Written CMC Developing L2 Writing Developing Writing with Low-Level Learners A Background to Blogs The Use of Blogs in the Foreign Language Classroom Blogs and EFL Writing

Chapter 3 presents the research methodology and includes information pertaining to the research question, the research style, the participants and the contents of the study, and data collection and analysis. Chapter 4 is a discussion of the findings and Chapter 5 rounds up the proceedings in the form of a conclusion and recommendations for future research. Additionally, it presents a tentative model of blog impact based on the findings in this study.

9

CHAPTER 2

Literature Review

This chapter takes a look at literature relevant to the current study in a top-down approach, moving from the big picture to the single frame. It begins by establishing the role of technology in language learning (2.1) before focusing on written CMC (2.2). Sections 2.3 and 2.4 discuss the development of L2 writing and developing writing with low-level learners respectively. The remaining sections (2.5, 2.6 and 2.7) look at a background to blogs, the use of blogs in the L2 classroom, and blogs and EFL writing in that order.

2.1 ICT, CALL and CMC

The use of the computer as a language learning tool has undergone drastic changes in a relatively short space of time. Basic mechanical language learning drills were devised for computer use as early as the 1960s but more recent developments in information and communication technology (ICT), especially that of the Internet and the World Wide Web (WWW), have led to a change in the way computers are used in the language learning process (Warschauer and Healey, 1998).

One of the most significant changes with regards the use of computers in language learning has been the shift from the use of the computer as a tool for individual language practice to the use of computers for authentic communication. This change came about in the early nineties as increased access to the Internet presented opportunities for language 10

learners to engage in autonomous, worldwide computer-mediated communication (CMC) (Chapelle, 2001:23)

There are two forms of CMC: synchronous or real-time communication, such as telephoning or instant chat, and asynchronous or delayed communication, such as email and weblogs (blogs). Both forms allow learners the opportunity to engage in authentic communication with native speakers of the language they wish to learn around the clock and often at virtually no cost. As a result, CMC has had a much greater impact on language teaching than other forms of CALL (Delcloque, 2007).

What is particularly interesting about the new CMC tools and applications is the fact that they have been adapted for use in the language classroom as opposed to being designed as language learning tools per se. As Beetham and Sharpe (2007) state, “Most young people in Western societies make routine use of Internet and email, text messaging and social software, and their familiarity with these new forms of exchange are carried over into their learning.” (p. 5)

Chapelle (2004), in a review of second language research on learning through online communication, draws various positive conclusions that tapping into this familiarity may afford. Firstly, L2 communication practice online may aid learners L2 performance in other (non-online) contexts. Secondly, learners have been seen to engage in the negotiation of form and meaning during online communication which is considered effective in leading learners to notice gaps in their interlanguage and thus aid acquisition (see Swain, 1998). Thirdly, online communication has reportedly aided the development of a variety of language competences (syntactic, pragmatic and intercultural). Finally,

11

online communication has a language learning potential beyond that of the teacher merely using it as a means of constructing collaborative classroom tasks because learners can use it in different ways outside the classroom depending on their knowledge, resourcefulness and second language proficiency. To emphasize this final point, Chapelle (2004) draws from an ethnographic case study by Lam (2000) which describes the CMC experience of a teenage Chinese immigrant in the United States. The subject had struggled to make L2 learning progress via traditional classroom methods but eventually improved his language skills by participating in a chat network which allowed him to overcome the frustration and alienation he had previously felt in his high school environment.

However, as Bax (2000) points out, technology and language teaching have not always been easy bedfellows and he warns against technology being considered an easy solution for complex problems. An observation by Warschauer (1996) expresses similar sentiments in a more positive manner; “those who expect to get magnificent results simply from the purchase of expensive and elaborate systems will likely be disappointed. But those who put computer technology to use in the service of good pedagogy will undoubtedly find ways to enrich their educational program and the learning opportunities of their students.” (p. 29)

This section has discussed the development of ICT in the language learning classroom with special attention to CMC. It has highlighted some of the potential benefits of using online communication in the language classroom as discussed by Chapelle (2004). The subsequent section looks at specific factors related to the potential of CMC for promoting writing in a collaborative environment.

12

2.2 Written CMC – Writing in a Collaborative Environment

Findings from comparative research imply that learners on computer-mediated courses tend to be more motivated and more prolific writers (Greene, 2000) yet few studies have focused on CMC in relation to second language writing. Warschausr (1997) discusses CMC from a socio-cultural perspective to explore collaborative learning in the classroom and to evaluate the potential of CMC to promote collaborative language learning. To do so, he draws on Krashen‟s (1985) Input Hypothesis - whereby L2 development is charged by the comprehensible input a learner receives – Long‟s (1981) work on the Interaction Hypothesis – which suggests that interactional negotiated meaning has more potential for individual learner development - and Swain‟s (1985) notion of the Output Hypothesiswhereby language production pushes learners to notice gaps in their own production (Mitchell and Myles, 2004). This section mirrors Warschauer‟s study with the aim of discussing CMC‟s potential for promoting writing in a collaborative environment.

Warschauer (1997) identifies five features that differentiate written CMC from other forms of communication media. He lists these as: a) text-based and computer-mediated interaction b) many-to-many communication c) time-and place-independence d) long distances exchanges e) hypermedia links (From Warschauer, 1997: 470)

The following section discusses each feature (a-e) in more detail.

13

a) Warschauer (1997) explains how the two main functions of language1, communicative interaction and the interpretation of experience to make meaning, now occur in (written) text-based mode. Moreover, he claims that the ability of CMC to unite “the interactional and reflective aspects of language” (Warschauer, 1997: 472) has surmounted the traditional division between the spoken and written word, and that, thanks to CMC “human interaction now takes place in text-based form.” (Warschauer, 1997: 472). Furthermore, as this interaction is “easily transmitted, stored, archived, reevaluated, edited and rewritten” (1997: 472) it holds intriguing possibilities for language learners who can hone in on specific features of their production. The combination of these facts leads Warschauer (1997) to proclaim that “The computer-mediated feature of online writing has finally unleashed the interactive power of text-based communication.” (1997: 471).

b) Many-to-many communication refers to the fact that in CMC the potential for simultaneous participation is unlimited and that this creates opportunities for the construction of knowledge. Furthermore, it omits various face-to-face formalities (e.g. turn-taking) which allows for a more balanced participation (e.g. by removing power roles or context clues of social hierarchy). This point is backed up by reference to studies by Sullivan and Pratt (1996), Kern (1995b) and Kelm (1992) which report on increased and more balanced participation by learners engaged in online communication. Chapelle (2001) also highlights this benefit referring to studies by Beauvois (1998) and Markley (1998) that “have shown the written non-face-to-face discussion of the CMC diminishes the effect of individual differences that may hamper communication in the classroom, thereby resulting in more comprehensible output produced by those who would otherwise

1

According to Halliday

14

produce little” Chapelle (2001: 82). This point is particularly relevant given that output is generally regarded as an essential factor in improving fluency (Mitchell and Myles, 2004), and the increasing frequency with which the role of written output is being linked to SLA (Zaki and Ellis, 1999; Weissberg, 2000; Riechelt, 2001; Harklau, 2002) especially when referring to Instructed SLA. In addition, the interaction and knowledge construction learners engage in by means of CMC has led researchers (e.g. Warschauer, 1997; Kern, 2000; Chapelle, 2001; Hyland, 2003) to point out the link to Vygotskyan theories of collaborative learning whereby learners can develop their knowledge through interaction with a more knowledgeable other. This takes place in what is known as the zone of proximal development (ZPD), a sphere of developing knowledge or skill in which a learner needs scaffolded assistance due to an inability to function independently (Mitchell and Myles, 2004). In language learning this help is normally provided by a teacher but peer group interaction also permits the construction of a ZPD whereby collective knowledge resides in the group rather than in an individual member (Nassaji and Cumming, 2000). According to Kern et al. (2008) CMC encourages learners‟ sense of “collaborative spirit” (p. 282), a claim that is duly supported by the number of practitioners and researchers who have reported the value of CMC as a means of increasing collaborative peer interaction (Ducate and Lomicka, 2008), especially through peer feedback (Dippold, 2009). Moreover, Swain and Lapkin (1998) suggest that in collaborative interaction language is used by learners as a tool for mediating. Subsequently, they present evidence to support the claim that collaborative peer interaction aids both learning and communicating.

c) Time-place independence highlights the flexibility of online communication thanks to the development of mobile devices with 24-hour access. This affords learners time to

15

carry out more profound analysis and critical reflection of the texts they produce, as well as the possibility of initiating communication outside the classroom with their peers or teacher (Warschauer (1997: 474). Various researchers, most notably Swain (1985, 1995), consider analysis and reflection of output to be extremely beneficial to language development and, arguably, are factors that promote SLA. Swain‟s three functions of learner output are summed up by Mitchell and Myles (2004) who state that Swain is of the opinion that:

the activity of producing the target language may push learners to become aware of gaps and problems in their second language system (first function); it provides them with opportunities to reflect on, discuss and analyse these problems explicitly (third function); and of course, it provides them with opportunities to experiment with new structures and forms (second function). (Mitchell and Myles, 2004: 174).

d) Long distance exchanges refers to the fact that online communication is now more long reaching and learners now have opportunities for interaction on a global scale. Here Warschauer (1997) refers to a number of online exchange projects that involved email and the WWW. As noted earlier, long-distance exchanges afford access to a worldwide audience and the possibility of interaction with target language users on a daily basis, twenty-four hours a day (Delcloque, 2007). This is particularly beneficial in an EFL context as it increases the possibility of learners being involved in authentic interaction which is seen as paramount to the development of effective strategies for writing (Hyland, 2003: 40).

e) The final feature Warschauer (1997) refers to is that of hypermedia links which connect different types of media (text, data, graphics, audio and video) on a common theme in a non-sequential fashion and allows the user to browse them at will, thus demanding new writing and reading strategies (Kern 2000: 227). Warschauer (1997)

16

describes a long-distance collaboration between two groups of EFL students in Poland to elaborate a bilingual multimedia document for publication on the web. Student correspondence was via email and benefits from this form of CMC are said to include “heightened authenticity in writing and increased student collaboration, audience awareness, willingness to revise, and motivation” (Warschauer, 2003, in Matsuda el al, 2003: 163). However, whilst hypertext may be a useful language learning resource, it is not a true means of authentic communication although it requires new reading and writing strategies (Kern, 2000: 237/227). In this sense, it is more recent web-based applications, such as blogs, that “have precipitated changes in modes and uses of writing online” (Godwin-Jones, 2008) with the aforementioned interactive power that Warschauer (1997) proclaims.

This section has looked at the potential of CMC in promoting writing in a collaborative environment, paying particular attention to five features that differentiate written CMC from other forms of communication media as highlighted by Warschauer (1997). However, in order to understand the full scope of L2 writing and what it entails, the following section discusses writing from a more traditional perspective focusing on the development of L2 writing and the theories and approaches that inform current pedagogy.

2.3 Developing L2 Writing

Over the last twenty years second language writing research has increased notably (Leki, 2000; Cumming, 2001; Harlau, 2002) with three principal dimensions of research informing instruction since the middle of the twentieth century: features of learner texts (product approach), the composing processes learners use (process approach), and the

17

sociocultural contexts in which the writing takes place (social oriented approaches) (Grabe and Kaplan, 1996; Cumming 2001, Hyland 2002).

The product approach, as it suggests, concentrates on the finished writing product by looking at texts with regard to surface elements (e.g. syntax, morphology) and the text structure (Cumming, 2000; Hyland, 2003). According to Hyland (p. 7), writing in a product based approach is no more than an extension of grammar with “little to do with the fact that communication, and not absolute accuracy, is the purpose of writing” (p 8). Typical classroom activities include grammar study, error analysis, sentence building, patterns of paragraph arrangement, and copying prescribed features of texts (see Kern, 2000). Once L2 learners could produce accurate sentences and had the ability to form paragraphs they would receive similar writing instruction to L1 writers. It was not until the end of the 1960s when dissatisfaction with the results from this approach led to the introduction of new theories (Grabe and Kaplan, 1996).

Towards the end of the 1970s, the process approach shifted the focus from the text to the writer and the different processes involved in composing a text. Whilst they are aware that not all researchers and practitioners would agree with them, Grabe and Kaplan (1996) claim that the process approach is best understood from a historical perspective and point to four key stages that have informed L2 writing research: The expressive stage, the cognitive stage, the social stage, and the discourse community stage (p. 88). Each stage can be seen as having developed as a means of incorporating new insights from a previous stage or stages, although not all practitioners and researchers have abandoned previous stages. Instructional practices associated with process approaches include; relevant topics, multiple drafting, peer-feedback and meaningful communication

18

rather than writing as a practice activity (see Grabe and Kaplan, 1996). However, criticism of this approach has highlighted, amongst other things, a general disregard to the effect of the sociocultural context on the writing process, and a leaning towards certain culturally defined academic genres which may hinder the progress of some learners (See Kern, 2000).

The third of the general approaches to writing focuses on the context of L2 writing and the role it plays in allowing writers access to discourse communities through paying attention to audience expectations. In this sense, rather than being a product of text or the cognitive process of the writer, writing is a means of social interaction. According to Cumming (2000), in this approach “writing in a second language forms a focus for individuals to learn ways of cooperating with and seeking assistance from diverse people and resource; to adapt to and reflect on new situations, knowledge and abilities; to negotiate relations of work and power; and gain and modify new senses of self.”(p. 7).

However, despite the prominence of these approaches and much research, no clear cut answer to the question of how L2 writing should be taught has emerged (Hyland, 2003: 78), leading Grabe and Kaplan (1996) to proclaim that “L2 writing is so varied and distinct from situation to situation that a general theory of L2 writing may not be possible” (p. 144). This appears to be because the factors involved in attaining writing expertise are not clearly understood due to the process being seen as complex, context dependant and, to a large extent, badly defined (Grape & Kaplan, 1996). As Richards and Renandya (2002) explain, “L2 writers have to pay attention to higher level skills of planning and organizing as well as lower level skills of spelling, punctuation, word choice and so on”. Furthermore, Weissberg (2000) suggests various interrelated factors

19

come into play regarding writing proficiency development listing; the learner‟s L1 writing expertise, previous writing experience in educational contexts, and overall language proficiency. Moreover, he signals that these factors differ for each learner depending on “differences in age, gender, personality, learning style and the oracyliteracy bias of the learner‟s home culture “(2000: 37).

Traditionally, differences between L1 writing and L2 writing have been a principal starting point for many discussions on writing in a second language (Archibald & Jeffery, 2000: 6) and, subsequently, a starting point for writing instruction. For the main part, up until the early 1980‟s L2 writing pedagogy was informed by L1 research (Krapels, 1990) and L2 writers were seen to behave like less competent L1 writers (Grabe & Kaplan 1996:141). However, Raimes (1985) warns against treating L2 writers the same as L1 writers and states that the two processes are “startlingly different” (1985, 232).

Research carried out by Silva (1993) on a group of adult L2 writers reports that: L1 readers found L2 writing to be simpler, less efficient and different to L1 writing. Despite similarities, composing patterns were less efficient, more limited and more complicated. L2 writers planned less and had trouble with goal setting and the generation and organization of content. Transcription lacked fluency and was less productive but involved more hard work. Despite revising their writing more, L2 writers spent less time reviewing, rereading or reflecting on their texts.

20

Overall, texts were shorter, contained more errors and obtained lower scores when tested holistically.

In a rather exhaustive study of research findings (that also serves to demonstrate how wide reaching L2 writing research has been), Silva (1993) lists 42 morphsyntactical differences (20 stylistic and 22 linguistic) and 14 lexicosemantic differences that researchers have identified when comparing the writing of L1 and L2 writers leading him to conclude, somewhat ironically, that while similarities exist, there are “numerous and important differences” (p. 671).

Moreover, as Raimes (1985) points out, what

differentiates L2 writers from their L1 counterparts is that they are struggling with a linguistic code in a state of acquisition, and a written code simultaneously. According to Hyland (2003),

Fundamentally, writing is learned, rather than taught, and the teacher‟s best methods are flexibility and support. This means responding to the specific instructional context, particularly the age, first language and experience of the students, their writing purposes, and their target writing communities, and providing extensive encouragement in the form of meaningful contexts, peer involvement, prior texts, useful feedback and guidance in the writing process (Hyland, 2003: 78). Harris (1993) describes writing instruction as “a vast and complex subject” (p. xiii) and the range of factors mentioned by Hyland (2003) go some way to demonstrating this vastness and complexity. After an attempt to build a model of adult L2 instruction Cumming and Riazi (2000) report that they were unable to identify “the principal variables that influence learning to write in a second language or in clarifying how such variables interrelate to produce students‟ achievement in second-language writing.” (p. 68).

Determining development in L2 writing is complex. Rater-based holistic

impressions of student writing lack the precision to be useful in evaluating long term

21

advances. Additionally, controversy exists regarding the kind of writing that constitutes a representative sample (Cumming and Riazi, 2000).

Consequently, there are few clear indications of what teachers should do in the language classroom as there is scant information on how people learn to write in an L2 or the effect teaching has on the process. As a result, rather than adhere to explicit models of L2 writing that cover the full range of aspects related to the learning and instruction, the majority of instructed L2 writing is based on traditions of process or product approaches, or both (Cumming and Riazi, 2000). An example of this is found in Teaching Writing Skills by Donn Byrne (1979). The author dedicates a chapter to developing skills but makes no reference to what skills he is referring to or how they will be developed. Furthermore, under a section entitled The importance of demonstrating progress he is limited to suggesting, somewhat cryptically, that if the learners are able to carry out the activities in the previous chapter then “they will be conscious of having made a certain amount of progress” (1979: 51). Ultimately, Byrne (1979) offers no more than a collection of writing activities that offer practice in the „skill of writing.‟

However, other authors do make concrete suggestions. Silva (1993) proposes that instruction should promote planning, transcribing, and reviewing based on learners‟ writing expertise and language resources. Furthermore, he advocates a focus on audience expectations, unfamiliar textual patterns and task types, along with work on enhancing grammatical and lexical resources. Brown (1994) identifies a number of written language characteristics from a writer‟s perspective that serve as a basis for learner development, related to writing fluency, audience, orthography, complexity (grammatical and lexical), vocabulary and formality. Harris (1993) draws on Krashen (1984) to state that planning

22

and revising and re-reading are habits of good writers that should be encouraged in order to increase learners‟ chances of successful and satisfactory writing.

Grabe and Kaplan (1996) offer what is one of the most extensive and detailed discussions of instructional practices offering descriptions of techniques and ideas at 3 different levels (beginning, intermediate, and advanced). They offer a framework for an idealized curriculum inspired by Raimes (1991) that combines elements of product, process, and social context approaches along with subject-matter content. Moreover, they specify teacher roles that draw on “meta-cognitive strategy research, research on the development of expertise, and Vygotskean views on literacy learning.” (p. 262) Planning, revision, drafting, learner selected tasks and feedback are just a few of the elements they advocate, complemented by a list of 75 themes for writing instruction, 25 for each of the aforementioned levels, that range from using print in the classroom (beginner) to style and the individual writer (advanced).

Ultimately, the solution to the dilemma presented by Grabe and Kaplan (1996) regarding a general theory of writing may well lie outside the traditional limits of writing theory. One interesting approach from a literacy perspective is that presented by Kern (2000) who introduces the concept of Available Designs (defined as meaning making resources) whereby writers draw on whatever resources are available to them from a continuum that ranges from linguistic resources to schematic resources, and that are activated in unison with procedural knowledge depending on the demands of the sociocultural context.

Kern (2000) explains that L1 and L2 writing, whilst not the same, involve similar processes with the distinction that writing in an L2 is complicated by new rules and

23

resources. However, the learning of new structures and writing norms adds to the learner‟s repertoire of Available Designs affording them the luxury of being able to draw on a wider range of writing resources to match the complexity of writing tasks they need to perform. Moreover, learners will make use of resources indiscriminately, regardless of which language they were acquired in originally (Kern, 2000). Backing up his claims with numerous examples from researchers (e.g. Lay, 1982; Zamel, 1982; Uzawa and Cumming, 1995), who report on L2 writers mixing and matching their resources or “borrowing” from their native language (including proficient L2 writers), Kern (2000) makes a convincing case. With regards to instruction he calls for a combination of product (focus on the text), process (focus on the individual) and genre-based approaches (focus on the social context) and claims that all three “are essential in a comprehensive pedagogy of literacy” (p. 180). A tentative Teaching framework is presented that combines four key components: situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing and transformed practice. Situated practice involves learner immersion in the act of making meaning which is described as a crucial factor in developing writing ability (Kern, 2000). It does this by giving learners comprehensive Available Design practice that develops “fluency and automaticity” (p. 192) via tasks such as letter writing and journal writing that encourage learners to express their own personal thoughts and ideas. Overt instruction involves helping students plan and organise their texts whilst simultaneously developing more product oriented aspects such as sentence grammar. Critical framing activities attend to the relationships that unite form, context and purpose, and transformed practice looks at ways of redesigning or recreating texts for use in new contexts (Kern, 2000).

24

Kern‟s proposal shares some features with the Grabe and Kaplan model (such as combining approaches), however, he insists that this is a literacy based model rather than purely a model of L2 writing (which Grabe and Kaplan strove to establish). Nevertheless, his notion of Available Designs presents a feasible model that addresses some of the problems that so flummoxed Cumming and Riazi (2000) when trying to create of a model of adult L2 writing instruction (see above).

This section began by looking at research into developing L2 writing. It discussed the 3 principal approaches to L2 writing and the difficulties researchers have faced in finding an appropriate model of L2 writing both in terms of development and instruction. Finally, instructional practices were discussed, in particular those proposed by Grabe and Kaplan (1996) and Kern (2000). The following section looks at the development of L2 writing with low-level learners.

2.4 Developing Writing with Low-Level Learners

As with other aspects of L2 writing, there are conflicting views on how to guide lowlevel learners in their quest to become proficient, successful and independent L2 writers. Moreover, there are also conflicting views regarding terminology with what are presumably low-level learners being referred to as unskilled writers (Raimes, 1985), basic writers (Cumming, 1989), less-skilled student writers (Sasaki, 2000), and low proficiency EFL students (Firkins et al., 2007). Moreover, Grabe and Kaplan (1996) state that “There is no one group of students that can be labelled as beginning writers. However, there are a number of groups of students who do fit the characteristic of beginners learning to

25

write in English” (p. 267). As the prior discussion has shown, this highlights the point that unskilled writers may well be L2 proficient, and learners who are not L2 proficient may well be skilled writers in their L1. Nevertheless, whilst limited language skills combined with insufficient content knowledge may hinder a L2 learner‟s writing ability, the relationship between L2 writing and language proficiency lacks sufficient detailed research (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996).

Sasaki (2000) points out that it is generally believed that: L1 writing strategies can be transferred to L2 writing L2 writing processes can be adversely affected by low-level FL proficiency L1/L2 writing strategies have a greater impact on learners‟ writing texts than L2 proficiency.

However, he states that much of the research that informed these claims is limited due to the heterogeneous nature of the subjects, their generally high level of proficiency, the cross-section of the subjects, or inadequate sampling methods. In fact, nearly all the research carried out in this area has been done with ESL students whose proficiency levels are prone to other sources of input that may affect their progress.

Research by Cumming (1989) looked at how the effect of writing expertise and L2 proficiency related to writing performance with a group of twenty-three young-adult ESL students of different levels of L1 writing expertise and L2 proficiency. He concludes that the two elements contribute to L2 writing in different ways. Inexpert writers lacked necessary procedures, strategies and knowledge to produce quality texts even if they were proficient L2 users, whereas expert writers were able to produce texts in accordance with

26

their level of writing expertise regardless of their L2 proficiency. Cumming and Riazi (2000) recorded similar findings when they analyzed the writing of 108 ESL learners on a short 6-week intensive writing course at a Canadian university and concluded that skilled L1 writers were able to improve linguistic aspects (i.e. accuracy and appropriateness) of their L2 writing far more significantly than less skilled L1 writers in the given time frame regardless of proficiency level.

On the other hand, Sasaki (2000) researched the writing processes of twelve Japanese EFL learners with three contrasting levels of L2 writing skill (experts, more-skilled/lessskilled novices) over a six-month period and reported that the lower proficiency learners planned less before starting to write and stopped to think more often than high proficiency writers. The author found no evidence of improved writing fluency or writing quality in the low-level writers after two semesters of process writing instruction. Sasaki (2000) concludes that the learners‟ writing speed was hampered by their low proficiency level. Despite the fact that they had begun to incorporate expert strategies (rereading and global planning), the novice writers stopped to translate frequently leading Sasaki to speculate that certain characteristics of writing expertise need long-term development (Sasaki, 2000). However, Myles (2002) claims that for the process approach to be effective for L2 learners, not only do they need to be given feedback on their errors, but they also need to have the level of language proficiency to put revision strategies into practice. Whilst learners in the study by Sasaki (2000) were prompted to check their own writing and present drafts, they were given no formal feedback.

How these findings translate to the classroom is unclear. Cumming (1989: 83) claims that L2 writers who are not yet fully proficient may be unable to organize their ideas as

27

discourse, whilst Grabe and Kaplan (1996) suggest that beginning writers benefit from challenging tasks that lead them to the discovery of extra knowledge and, as a consequence, more effective writing strategies (p. 246). However, both parties agree that, ultimately, increased language proficiency will eventually lead to improved writing quality (Cumming, 1989, Grabe and Kaplan, 1996), with Cumming (1989) adding that this will be demonstrated by writers creating more operative texts and paying more attention to intricate details.

From an instructional point of view, Johns (1997) alleges that many teachers feel that their learners are unable to write lengthy discourse until they demonstrate the ability to understand and produce sentences perfectly (Johns, 1997: 6-7). On the other hand, Bryne (1979) believes that if the aim is to guide learners to produce full texts then, even with beginners, texts should be practiced as the basic writing format. This is a view shared by Firkins et al. (2007) who claim low-proficiency EFL learners often have a limited awareness of full texts because the instruction they receive tends to have sentence level focus. They advocate a systemic functional linguistics approach to genre-based pedagogies which presents language in the form of complete, contextualized text from the outset regardless, of proficiency level.

Zamel (1987) reports on a number of instances of classroom-based research in high schools in the United States, all of them ESL, that present evidence that purposeful writing, allowing learners to choose the topic, an emphasis on communication, and promoting the frequent writing of long texts, may all help less proficient writers improve.

28

According to Harris (1993), “pupils develop into good writers by virtue of their attitude to writing and their understanding of the processes, irrespective of the stage of development they have reached in their command of the language.” (p. 68). In addition, he claims that communication of meaning should be established as the main aim from the outset so that learners realize that making meaning rather than producing error free texts is the principal goal of L2 writing (Harris, 1993).

Grabe and Kaplan (1996: 268) state that learners need to be reminded of the importance and effectiveness of writing as a “means of self expression, communication and information-gathering” (p. 268). At beginning levels, they advocate a variety of writing activities, the promotion of writing as a common practice, post-writing group discussions, writing topics of student interest, and purposeful writing rather than writing for the sake of writing. They suggest a number of techniques to guide, motivate and encourage learners. Moreover, they promote literacy scaffolding (e.g. through advice, models and examples), an onus on vocabulary development, positive feedback and suggestions for helping learners with difficulties to get started.

Picas (1982) states that the ultimate goal of a L2 writing instruction is for learners to be able to write “freely and independently” (p. 110), and whilst some researchers have pointed out that increased L2 language proficiency will eventually lead to improved writing quality (Cumming, 1989; Grabe and Kaplan, 1996), others argue that writing will actually accelerate language proficiency, especially in instructional contexts (Raimes, 1985; Harris, 1993; Weissberg; 2000; Harklau, 2002). This seems to suggest that, either way, promoting writing will lead to some benefit for the learners. Raimes (1985) claims that given the right conditions L2 writers can engage in making meaning regardless of

29

their proficiency. Kern (2000) shares this opinion claiming that teachers can scaffold lowlevel learners to participate in more challenging tasks. This suggests that one thing teachers need to do is to create the right conditions for learners to engage in purposeful writing.

This section has focused on the developing writing with low-level learners. It has discussed research on the relationship between language proficiency and L2 writing ability, and it has looked at the type of writing activities that researchers have suggested low-level learners partake in. The subsequent section introduces blogs and discusses their most salient features.

2.5 A Background to Blogs

Blog is the short form of the word weblog. „Web‟ refers to the world-wide-web (WWW); the network of texts that are accessed via internet, whilst the word „log‟ is a short form of log-book, that can be defined as an official record of events during a particular time. Because blog communication is delayed (not in real time) blogs are classified as asynchronous. The blog writer is known as a blogger and a network of blogs is referred to as a blogsphere. In its most basic format, a blog is often described as an online journal or diary (Eastment, 2005). However, there are clear differences between a traditional journal or diary and an online journal. In theory, a journal or diary is normally read only by the author and readers are not afforded the possibility of adding comments as they can with blogs. As Murray and Hourigan (2008) state:

Due to the inherent generic format of this writing tool, it is difficult to pinpoint a stable and succinct definition of a blog. Moreover, as one attempts to define a blog, one is 30

immediately struck by the amorphous nature of the expanding blogosphere. Blogs are currently multi-use in format and thus have evolved beyond the original perception as being mere journal entries (Murray and Hourigan, 2008: 83).

Blogs are a new genre of writing born out of a technological revolution that has changed “how we live, how we communicate, and how we learn” (Siemens, 2005). They are frequently reported as being one of the most popular methods of CMC (Fellner and Apple, 2006: Bloch, 2007: Tu et al., 2007). Moreover, blogs have received increasing interest from educational sectors (Godwin-Jones, 2003) particularly in language teaching at tertiary level (Dippold, 2009).

In Educational contexts, reference is made to three distinct types of blog; tutor, learner, and class blog. Basically, a tutor blog serves as a type of teacher notice-board whereby a tutor can maintain contact with a group or groups of students. Learner blogs are individual journal-type environments and, a class blog is a single blog space that can be accessed and updated, edited, etc by a group of learners (Campbell (2003).

Whilst it is generally agreed that no single definition will suffice (Erben et al., 2008) blogs tend to possess certain features. Learners can write and publish their writing in an online diary. Each piece of published writing is referred to as a “post”. Posts are published chronologically with each new post at the head of the page and readers have full access to blog archives. Bloggers can personalise their blogs by adjusting colours and fonts, adding pictures, audio and video, and through linking to other blogs and websites. Moreover, blogs can be enabled to receive reader comments.

This short section has provided a brief definition of the blog, outlined the three main types of educational blog and, it has discussed typical blog features. The subsequent 31

section reviews the literature on the use of blogs in language learning with specific reference to foreign language contexts.

2.6 The Use of Blogs in the L2 Classroom

Despite the fact that blogs have been around for the last decade, the use of blogs as a language learning tool is a relatively new innovation. Eastment (2005) bemoans the lack of EFL blogs, and those she does refer to are hosted by teachers as a means of sharing material or experiences rather than being devoted to learners improving their language ability. This situation has changed in recent years as more and more teachers have been alerted to the possible language learning benefits blogs afford their learners (Murray & Hourigan, 2008). Furthermore, the fact that blogs are free of charge and simple to create and use has, in the words of Bloch, “raised intriguing possibilities for language learning classrooms” (2007:128).

Initial literature on blogs in language learning was mainly devoted to describing blogs and listing possible classroom applications and promoting use (e.g. Godwin Jones, 2003; Campbell, 2003; Wu, 2006). Often reference was made to other tools related to emerging technologies. Godwin-Jones (2003) draws a distinction between first generation and second generation web tools (with the latter offering faster, better possibilities for online collaborate) to introduce blogs, wikis and RSS2. Describing blogs as “The collaborative environment which has sparked the most intense interest in recent years” (p. 13), he suggests ways in which learners could use blogs and lists some potential learner benefits. These benefits include:

2

Rich Site Summary, a format for automatically updating frequently changing web pages.

32

The potential to demonstrate language development over time (being used as an electronic portfolio) Audience provision beyond that of classroom peers Learners being able to comment on what has been published The encouragement of ownership and responsibility through self-publishing The developing of more thoughtful writing (Adapted from Goodwin-Jones, 2003:13)

As proven by the abundance of journal articles, books, and blog posts in the last two or three years, interest in the use of blogs as a language learning tool has increased rapidly. Numerous studies have reported on a wide-range of positive attributes and learner benefits. The former includes; flexibility, adaptability, low cost and ease of use (Wu, 2006: Murray & Hourigan, 2008). Learner benefits include; promoting refection (Mynard, 2007: Murray & Hourigan, 2008), critical thinking (Goodwin-Jones, 2006), and language awareness (Kavaliauskiene el al, 2006), reducing language anxiety (Ward, 2004 in Ducate & Lomicka, 2008), promoting learner independence (Pinkman, 2005) motivating learners (Fellner and Apple, 2006), providing an authentic audience (Fellner and Apple, 2006: Hsu et al., 2008), promoting interaction (Ducate & Lomicka, 2008), providing a means of teacher feedback (Wu, 2006), peer-feedback (Moriarty & Rajapillai, 2006) or both (Moriarty & Rajapillai, 2006; Kavaliauskiene el al, 2006), potential to develop a variety of language skills (listening, reading, writing) (Fellner and Apple, 2006) and sub skills (Ducate & Lomicka, 2008). Additionally, blogs simultaneously develop non-linguistics skills that are considered essential for professional development and life-long learning (e.g. ICT skills) (Fellner and Apple, 2006: Murray & Hourigan, 2008) and, acting as a portfolio, they provide a record of

33

student work and language learning progress (Kavaliauskiene el al, 2006: Wu, 2006: Sollars, 2007).

Moreover, studies have frequently reported a positive reaction to blogging in the FL classroom. In an “informal student survey” by Moriarty and Rajapillai (2006) 27 of a total of 58 learners completed an end-of-course evaluation questionnaire via email on the merits of using blogs as a means of peer feedback on a Creative Writing class. A large percentage of the learners who participated in the survey expressed the opinion that the blog aided their capacity to give and receive feedback (78%), while the vast majority (89%) agreed that their writing had improved through blogging. Armstrong and Retterer (2008) researched blog use with a group of 16 intermediate Spanish FL learners in the USA. During one semester learners were required to post graded posts on an individual blog and two posts per week on a community blog which received a participation grade. They reported that learners wrote more on ungraded tasks and that, as a result of the blogging, learners felt more comfortable writing in Spanish and more confident in their handling of verb forms.

Wu (2006) reported more mixed results researching learner reaction to blogs with 2 groups of intermediate level English learners who were studying Engineering at tertiary level in Taiwan. Learners in one group (B) were required to write a minimum of 7 blog posts as part of their coursework. The learners in the other group (A) chose whether to blog or not and received no grade for their blogging. Learner reaction was recorded via questionnaire after one semester and whilst 85% of the learners thought blogging was a good idea only 8 out of 51 learners completed the required amount of posts and only around 50% thought the use of blogs beneficial in the English writing class.

34

Ducate and Lomicka (2008), who carried out a year-long study with groups of French and German learners found that although learners enjoyed the experience they had little interest in interacting with their peers. The authors had hopes of creating an online community but their learners were more interested in individual exploration. As a result, the learning was restricted to reading, writing, vocabulary and cultural knowledge.

In another study, Pinkman (2005) carried out a small-scale action research project on learner independence with the aim of promoting blogs as an out-of-class resource by encouraging learners to take part in authentic interaction and practice their language skills. The study involved 15 Pre-Advanced level learners3 at a Japanese University who were required to post 150 word blog entries weekly for a 15-week period. The study involved pre and post project questionnaires and open-ended interview questions. Whilst the results of the study were inconclusive, the author reported that blogs were a popular resource amongst her Japanese students. On the downside, however, she also reports that whilst eight out of ten of the learners involved in the interview component of the study expressed the intention to continue blogging after the research project, only two actually did so.

In a somewhat complex study, Kavaliauskienė et al (2006) researched the use of blogs to raise language awareness with a group of intermediate and pre-intermediate learners4 studying English for Specific Purposes (ESP) in a Lithuanian university. The authors administered questionnaires, analyzed student blog posts and evaluated student performance on a variety of online activities. Learner activities included self assessment of their language skills and performance via questionnaires, an online listening task, an 3 4

TOEFL 475 Oxford placement

35

opinion essay, and a peer review task. The authors found that blogs were useful for raising language awareness. They also claim that they promote learner development, enhance student motivation, reduce learners‟ fear of errors, improve self esteem, and allow learners the opportunity to reflect on their performance and achievements. Despite these claims, the study appears to comprise of only 4 blog activities, one of which some of the learners carried out in their L1. In addition, the authors state that not all the learners completed all the designated posts, and that some learners “lost” their blogs because they forgot the blog name.

This section has concentrated on the use of blogs in the L2 classroom. The following section looks at the literature on blogs and EFL writing.

2.7 Blogs and EFL Writing

Despite the fact that the blog is a writing tool, few studies have focused on blogs and writing in an EFL context. Fellner and Apple (2006) report learner gains in writing fluency following a seven-day intensive, integrated CALL English course using blogs. The learners, a group of 21 Japanese University language learners, were classed as being of low motivation and low proficiency5 after having failed to qualify for a study abroad program which was a requisite for graduation.

During the course, learners spent 20 minutes per-day freewriting blog posts, often on themes related to topics they had studied the previous day in class. This was followed by a short session with the learners reading and commenting on their classmates‟ blogs. The

5

TOEIC 150 to 370

36

fourth day of the study included a longer, previously researched post. In addition to blogging, learners engaged in a number of other CALL activities and regular classroom activities which included “web listening, use of online concordances, online grammar puzzles and quizzes, videos, and face-to-face pair and group discussions” (Fellner and Apple, 2006: 16). Furthermore, the methodology used a wave model (see Martin, 2002) which is designed to “enhance the recycling of comprehensible input” (Fellner and Apple, 2006: 16).

Word counts via a one-way ANOVA for repeated measure, and lexical frequency analysis by means of VocabProfiler, comparing blog posts from day 2 and day 6 are used to evidence gains in fluency. The authors report increased word counts of up to 600% and the inclusion of more complex vocabulary in post 6. However, whilst the quantity of text produced doubled over the period of the study, the claims of the authors regarding improvements in lexical frequency levels are somewhat exaggerated. All the vocabulary gains reported are proportional to the quantity of text produced and the amount of vocabulary produced in all four sections of the frequency levels (1000 level words, 2000 level words, academic words, and offlist words). On average, the quantity of words produced by students showed a twofold increase for each section. Thus, the only clear fact is that learners became more productive over the 7-day period, a fact which, as the authors point out, could be explained by improvements in typing fluency. Furthermore, numerous authors (e.g., Casanave, Shaw and Lui) have questioned the validity of these means of demonstrating developments in writing arguing that their inability to provide a “broader notion of language developments” (Casanave, 1994: 194) limits their usefulness.

37

From an ESL context, Bloch (2007) describes the use of blogs to help learners build up effective writing strategies for academic writing. His study of Abdullah, a Somali immigrant in a post-admission writing class at a university in the United States, reports benefits in the development of writing strategies but little evidence, if any, with regard to other features of this learner‟s writing (grammar, spelling, etc). However, for the purpose of the study, Abdullah was instructed to ignore these elements and concentrate on the development of rhetorical features. Bloch (2007) concludes that “having students blog in class is a pedagogy that can be useful in the development of their writing ability while making them contributors and not just consumers of information on the World Wide Web” (p138)

Few studies have reported negative features of blog use (Murray and Hourigan, 2008). Wu (2006) points to the possibility of falling standards in the formalities of writing with blog users reverting to the use of slang or SMS language and Murray and Hourigan (2008) also refer to negative impact this had on the writing quality of some of their intermediate level learners (in contrast to more advanced learners where no change in quality was noted). Other concerns are the possibility of technical glitches, such as lost passwords or lack of technological knowhow on the part of the learners (Armstrong & Retterer, 2008) but generally practitioners have commented positively on the simplicity of blog use (e.g. Eastment, 2005; Wu, 2006; Moriarty & Rajapillai, 2006; Murray & Hourigan, 2008)

The researcher was unable to find studies focused on the merits of blog writing with lowlevel learners in the foreign language classroom. Murray and Hourigan (2008) suggest that learners who have yet to acquire basic writing ability in the L2 may benefit from

38

blogging in their L1. However, this seems a puzzling suggestion as surely other activities (i.e. copying a simple text or trying to create a simple text from an application form) would have more pedagogical benefit. Moreover, if writing in an L2 promotes SLA, as some researchers have claimed (see above), then learners would be losing a valuable opportunity for improving not only their writing but also their overall L2 proficiency.

The aim of this chapter was to review the literature deemed relevant to the current study. It has reviewed various elements that, when combined, have some bearing on the use of blogs to promote writing development with low-level learners. The first two sections considered the technological aspects of the discussion. Section 1 looked at the development of CALL and the merits of online communication whilst the second section used a study by Warschauer (1997) as the basis for a discussion on written CMC in a collaborative environment. The following two sections focus on writing development. The first on developing L2 writing begins by looking at the three principal approaches to L2 writing with an onus on factors that contribute to this process. It also considers classroom instruction with special attention given to the proposals of Grabe and Kaplan (1996) and Kern (2000). The subsequent section looks at developing writing with lowlevel learners. The last three sections consider different factors related to blogs under the headings of: a background to blogs, the use of blogs in the L2 classroom, and Blogs and EFL writing.

39

CHAPTER 3

Research Methodology

This chapter describes the research methods used in this study. It begins by discussing the research question in section 3.1. The following section, 3.2, looks at the reasons behind the choice of the case study as a research method. Section 3.3 focuses on the participants and the context of the study. Section 3.4 covers the methods of data collection and includes reference to ethical issues. Finally, section 3.5 deals with the methods of analysis used.

3.1 Research Question

The main aim of this study is to evaluate the impact weblogs have on the writing of a particular group of EFL learners in a specific context. As a secondary aim, the study also attempts to map out a model that explains the dynamic processes that appear to promote improvements in learners‟ writing so that the findings can contribute to blog-based pedagogy in tertiary contexts in Chile. Furthermore, it is hoped that the findings of this study will form the groundwork for future studies in EFL contents on a wider scale.

Research question: 1. How do weblogs impact on the writing of low-level EFL learners in the University of Chile?

40

3.2 Research Style

Given the dual role of the researcher/practitioner, this study is best described as an Action Research Case Study. A case study investigates “the way a single instance or phenomenon functions in context” (Nunan, 1992: 229). It can employ both qualitative and quantitative methods and data depending on the intention of the research (Nunan, 1992).

According to Blichfeldt and Andersen (2006): Both case-study research and action research are concerned with the researcher‟s gaining an in-depth understanding of particular phenomena in real-world settings. The two types of research seem quite similar in their focus on the field or the world of action, while embracing considerable diversity in theory and practice. Several authors argue that action research should rely on the case-study method (e.g., Cunningham, 1993). Also, many action researchers adopt the specific guidelines for doing research which the proponents of case-study research offer (Blichfeldt and Andersen, 2006: 3).

Nunan (1992) describes the six main advantages of case study hold over other methods of research as identified by Alderman et al. (1976) 1) The method is firmly based in reality which should enable other practitioners to identify with the issues being researched. 2) Results lend themselves to generalizations.6 3) They are open to a variety of interpretations. 4) Data are recyclable and can be stored for future use. 5) Case study findings can be applied instantly 6) Data from case studies tend to be more accessible and thus more suited to a wide range of contexts. (Adapted from Nunan, 1992: 79)

6

But see Nunan (1992: 81)

41

Simons (1996) calls for the use of the case study “to take a quantum leap in how we come to understand complex educational situations.” (p. 231) by finding “new ways of seeing” (p. 226) and, given that writing is seen to be the most complex L2 writing skill (Richards & Renandya, 2002), the match seems justifiable. Furthermore, given the common uses of the case study in applied linguistics as a means of tracing language development (Nunan, 1992), and the fact that they tend to be longitudinal studies (Cohen et al., 2000: 188), the case study is, arguably, the most suitable method for the present investigation.

3.3 The Participants and Context of the Study

The participants involved in this study were fourth year Geography majors at Chile‟s State run institution, the University of Chile, who were required to take 4 semesters of English as a compulsory subject. Each semester consisted of two 90 minute classes for a period of 16 weeks. In addition, learners had the chance to attend a 90 minute laboratory session with a volunteer international language assistant for a period of 12 weeks per semester to participate in communicative activities (normally themed conversations).

The majority of the learners (24) in this particular group of students had initiated English at level 1 having scored less than 12 points out of 44 on an online, multiple choice, placement test designed to test students up to level B1+ of the Common European Framework. The test includes sections on reading comprehension, listening and language in context. In both the first and third semester learners missed a large number of classes due to Student strikes (3 weeks in the former, 4 weeks in the latter). This put additional strain on the learning as learners had an increased academic workload on their return.

42

Unfortunately, with English generally considered a complementary subject, attendance suffered during the subsequent recuperation periods following each strike.

The teaching methodology used was eclectic and included elements of task-based learning combined with a career-related approach, and an onus on lexical development, learner-centeredness and ICT. There were 28 learners in the group. 22 agreed to take part in the study and completed a questionnaire. The ages of the students ranged from 19 to 26 years old. There were an equal number of males and females. Subsequently, 6 students declined to be interviewed (3 males, 3 females). When the learners began using blogs they had a level equivalent to A2 of the Common European Framework.7 Obviously, as with any group of language learners, there were variations in levels of proficiency (see list in Sampling Decisions).

3.4 Data Collection

Defining the most appropriate form of sampling is an important decision to be made that will affect the quality and reliability of any case study (Cohen et al., 2000).

Initially, all 28 learners in the group being studied were invited to, and consented to, take part in the study. However, when the time came for the end of semester data collection 5 of the participants were unable to be contacted as they had embarked on travel or study projects abroad, and a sixth participant refused to participate having failed the semester.

7

Language descriptors developed by the Language Policy Division of the Council of Europe (Strasbourg) (see http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/cadre_en.asp)

43

Therefore, from an initial universe of 28, the remaining 22 learners consented to participate in the study.

The method of data collection included a five-point Likert item questionnaire8 and semistructured interviews9. The questionnaire (see appendix), which contained 27 Likert items and 3 yes/no background questions, was administered in Spanish in December, 2008. As the semi-structured interviews involved qualitative data which was to be triangulated, a small sample of 5 or 6 was considered sufficient (Cohen et al.:95). However, it was deemed that a slightly larger sample would present a richer more representative picture and therefore 9 interviews were conducted. Only one of the 22 students who participated in the questionnaires refused to take part in the interview stage but, a further 5 had to be discounted due to travel commitments (although one participant did offer to conduct the interview online). Of the remaining 16 participants, one or two were chosen for specific reasons that included age, gender, high/low language proficiency, and prior blogging experience. However, ultimately, due to the fact that the academic year had ended, a number of participants were interviewed simply because they were available.

8 9

Appendix 1A & 1B Appendix 2

44

The table (Figure 3.1) below sums up the participants, the selection criteria and their language general level compared with that of their peers. Interviewed Participant

Selection Criteria

Language level within group

Ann

Oldest female (25)

High

Clare*

Low-level female

Very Low

Don

Available

Average

Ernest

Most proficient participant

High

Felix

Available

Low

Fred

Low-level male

Very Low

Joe

Oldest male (26)

Average

Mary

Previous blog experience

Above average

Mike

Youngest learner (19)

Above average

Figure 3.1 Semi-structured Interview participants (*Posted highest number of comments)

3.5 Ethical Issues

Following Reynolds (1979, cited in Cohen et al., 2000) all the participants of the study were given a full explanation of the purpose and procedures of the research and were aware of their freedom to withdraw at any time. As reported above, one learner refused to participate in the study and another declined the offer to be interview but consented to the use of their data from the questionnaire. As the participants knew the researcher prior to the research, they deemed written consent unnecessary. However, in order to ensure confidentiality, all means of identifying the participants have been removed and the participants assigned pseudonyms. Finally, the investigation was given the full backing of the Head of the Geography Department. 45

3.6 Data Analysis

The aim of the analysis was to give a fairly “thick description” 10of a specific situation. In this sense, analysis is reduced to identifying social codes and their importance in a particular context (Geertz, 1973). This method of analysis allows the data more room to speak for itself in the fashion of a fly-on-the-wall documentary without the researcher having to interpret, evaluate or judge (Cohen et al., 2000). However, to avoid the common criticisms aimed at case studies suggesting they are at times journalistic, anecdotal, pompous, bland or prone to „selective reporting‟ (Nisbet and Watt in Cohen et al., 2000: 182), this study attempts to address some, if not all, of the paradoxes that Simons (1996) suggests case studies should. Simons (1996) argues that a obsession with quantitative data and an increase in the variety of case study designs has blurred the original potential of case studies that permits “new ways of knowing” (Simons, 1996). These paradoxes are paraphrased by Cohen et al., (2000) in the following manner: it (the case study) needs to:

reject the subject-object dichotomy, regarding all participants equally; recognize the contribution that a genuine creative encounter can make to new forms of understanding education; regard different ways of seeing as new ways of knowing; approximate the ways of the artist; embrace these paradoxes, with an overriding interest in people.

10

Geertz borrowed the term from Gilbert Ryle‟s 1968 paper The Thinking of Thoughts: What is 'Le Penseur' Doing

46

Nevertheless, for Simons (1996) the governing paradox is that “By studying the uniqueness of the particular, we come to understand the universal” (p. 231).

Despite these observations, as this study involved a group of individuals and their perceptions, there is a need to cross-reference data and find patterns which unwittingly leads to a type of natural quantification whereby reference to a phenomenon by more than one subject arguably increases the validity to make generalizations that serve, not only in the context of the study, but further afield. This can be seen as a type of “saturation of cases” (Verschuren, 2003) which has been used to allow data inform policy decisions by means of the representative picture it provides of holistic study (Verschuren, 2003).

The use of both qualitative and quantitative data leads to another important element of this study, the use of triangulation with the intention of allowing multiple perspectives of the same phenomena. Triangulation is the use of more than one data collection method that combines analysis of both of the aforementioned data types to offer a richer, deeper analysis of complex human behaviour. Furthermore, it is said to help demonstrate concurrent validity (Cohen et al., 2000).

As the previous section states, the data used for analysis were a questionnaire and semistructured interviews. The results of questionnaire were calculated and converted to percentages. However, as the data considers the perceptions of the learners, the figures11 also have the ability to for speak themselves regardless of any of the interpretations the researcher may provide. The semi-structured interviews were transcribed and were analysed in Spanish using a technique akin to the analysis stage of „progressive

11

Appendix 3

47

focussing‟ (see Parlett and Hamilton in Cohen et al., 2000). Next, the method of partial transcription (Drever, 2003) was used to reduce the amount of irrelevant material and the remaining data was translated into English for subsequent analysis 12. At this stage, a coding system was devised to give some semblance of order and structure to the process (Cohen et al., 2000). Initially, as a starting point, the codes were linked to questions 15 to 27 of the questionnaire as these questions deal with what can be considered more traditional writing developments. Whilst Cohen et al., (2000) state this is not standard procedure, Derver (2003) suggests that using pre-determined categories prevents the researcher imposing his way of thinking, and creates a fit with the data. On the downside, he claims that if some of the pre-established categories produce no data “it may be significant” (p. 68). However, whilst it seemed important to include pre-determined categories so as not to lose sight of the original aim of the study due to the huge amount of data up for analysis, it was also important to maintain a balance between the aim of the research and the norms of the research method. As means of a compromise, new datagenerated codes that emerged from the analysis were also created thus maintaining a balance between the desired (expected) and the unknown.

This chapter has presented aspects of the research methodology. The presentation of the research question was followed by a discussion on the research style. The participants and context of study were the focus in the next section, and a look at the ethical issues was preceded by an analysis of the data collection. Finally, the data analysis was discussed in some depth. The next chapter is a discussion of the findings of the study.

12

Appendix 4

48

CHAPTER 4

Discussion of Findings

This chapter discusses the findings of the small-scale research on the impact of blogs on the writing of this particular group of low-level EFL learners. Whilst this task could be approached from a variety of perspectives, in an attempt to adhere to the spirit of the case study and encounter “new ways of seeing and new forms of understanding” (Simons, 1996: 226), the findings will be presented as a potential model of the blog writing development of the low-level learners who participated in this study. The discussion will be divided into three independent sections, each representing a different stage of the overall model. The first section looks at how blogs impact the learners in motivating them to write.

Section 4.1 Motivation to Write

Initially, the relationship between blogs and the motivation to write appears to hinge on three key factors: the mode of writing, the writing topic, and the authentic reason to write created by the public nature of blogs which provides an authentic audience for learners‟ writing. Furthermore, blog writing that takes place in a comfortable, anxiety-free environment allows the learner space to progress at an individual pace. Each of these factors is discussed below.

49

4.1.1 The Mode of Writing

The mode of writing can be considered from two alternative points of view. Firstly, it was asynchronous, online writing, and secondly, it was journal style whereby learners had a large degree of freedom over what they wrote and how, provided they completed the designated task. Both factors proved to be motivational elements worthy of mention by those interviewed. Ann found the online writing to be more “dynamic” than traditional methods of writing, an opinion she shared with both Joe (“I think the blog is more dynamic.”) and Felix (“It‟s like more dynamic”):

“I find it more fun, because one is at the computer. It‟s sort of, I don‟t know if easier but it‟s more dynamic than writing the typical thing one does in class.” Ann

Approximately three-quarters (72.8%) of these learners state a preference for using blogs to write as opposed to using a pen and paper. Whilst 2 learners (9.1%) strongly disagreed on this point, the remaining 4 learners (18.2%) expressed no preference either way.

Figure 4.1 I prefer to write in English on my blog than to use a pen and paper

50

Warschauer (1996) points to four frequently cited motivational aspects of using computers in the classroom which can be summarised as; the novelty factor, the individualised nature, the high level of learner control, and the potential for fast, frequent, objective feedback. With specific regard to CMC he states that, allegedly, motivation comes from the provision of an anxiety-free mode of communication, the potential for international interaction, and the possibility of engagement in meaningful projects. In his own investigation into the motivational aspects of computer use for both writing and communication in a variety of ESL and EFL contexts, Warschauer (1996) recorded positive attitudes towards CMC. The three main motivational factors were; a desire to communicate, learner empowerment, and the learner belief that they would learn faster and more autonomously. Interestingly, motivation was highest when computer tasks were an integral part of the class rather than just being an extra activity. In the present study, Ann explains that she felt motivation because using the computer is more fun (novelty factor). In addition, the possibility of accessing an online dictionary (arguably a type of instant feedback) encouraged her to try harder:

“I find it more fun, because one is at the computer. It‟s more, I don‟t know if easier but it‟s more dynamic than writing the typical thing one does in class. For example, if you can‟t find a word you need to express, you look for it immediately. Then, what happened to me was that I tried to do a better job. There was also the tool thing, if I didn‟t know something I looked it up, but if you have a pen and a paper, it‟s as if you write no more than what you know. Having this other tool made it easier but at the same time it was demanding to a certain extent.” Ann

51

Felix, however, highlights the fact that blog writing was less “boring” and provided a better disposition to work:

“It was a good experience and I think it helps in learning, especially in writing because one has a good disposition to work. I think sometimes when one is in class it can be more boring, or one can lack the good disposition to work that working in the blog supplied, everybody at their computers, working and doing it willingly.” Felix

Another important aspect of the mode of writing is the fact that, unlike other forms of written CMC, such as chat or live conferencing, blog writing is asynchronous which allows time for learners to plan their writing. For this reason, writing is seen as an especially beneficial mode of communication for less proficient users as it reduces the anxiety often caused by the demands of oral interaction (Kern 2000). Clare mentions feeling encouraged by this and likens her blog experience to online chatting with time to prepare:

“I don‟t know, I think it‟s like if we used a different type of chat in English, it would be very similar to blogs in English, with the difference that with the blog you have a phase on which you can prepare the post and also you can read the answer calmly. In the end I feel that that encourages, not only writing in English, but also the communication between two people in general.” Clare

Mike also refers to this fact and he also points out this major difference between oral and written modes of language production:

52

“The difficult part is writing sentences. I can do it when I talk, but when you talk you don‟t have time to think about a correct idea in English. When writing you can allow yourself to look at it twice to check if it is right or wrong. Then that is what I highlight the most of the experience.” Mike

This observation is particularly relevant with regards to the functions of learner output discussed earlier. When learners have time to revise and check over their writing output it increases the chance of them noticing gaps in their performance that may push them to acquire new language. (Swain, 1985, 1995).

Comparisons between blogs and journals are frequent given that blogs were initially described by some authors (e.g. Eastment, 2005) as online journals. Whilst blogs are now seen as having infinitely more potential than journals, there are still similarities to be made. Casanave (1994) justifies journal writing by pointing out that many researchers believe that “students learn to read and write in great part by doing extensive reading and writing.” (p. 185). Moreover, journal writing encourages learners to write more and is seen to be an easier form of writing (Grabe and Kaplan, 1996). Kern (2000) claims that the principal aim of journal writing is to promote the habit of writing and to develop writing fluency. He describes two types of journal; individual and intellectual. The former is like a diary written on a regular basis, the latter a tool for encouraging reflection. Although both types promote free and expressive writing, it is the former which Kern claims is the most beneficial due to its overriding goal of language production. With reference to blogging as a type of journal writing activity, possibly the most relevant feature is the control the author has over what is written. Joe refers to this in the following manner:

53

“… when you‟re asked to write about a photograph, the teacher doesn‟t say which photograph. You decide what you want to say about a trip or about, I don‟t know, an adventure, a special event. That goes further than what the teacher can ask from you because you can write what you want. And also the computer makes you…the fact that you are not writing on a piece of paper and you‟re typing makes it a bit more interactive and, as I said a moment ago, this makes it more dynamic and fluent.” Joe

4.1.2 The Writing Topic

As implied above by Joe, the writing topic is also another motivational factor to consider. In this sense, it is not only the freedom for learners to write what they want, but also the choice of topics that aids motivation. Mike states that the fact that topics were “close to heart “simplified the writing process:

“Personally, it wasn‟t very difficult for me to write in English. Most of the topics were OK because they were close to heart so I had a lot to say.” Mike

Joe also implies that the choice of topic can simplify the writing process due to the fact that the topic can inspire the thought process and create more engagement with the text:

“We spoke about a photograph that brought back memories. It makes you interact in a wider manner, more dynamic, things that come to your mind as you write; and that generate a higher control of the language, what you are going to write about isn‟t as structured or forced. It‟s more meaningful and you see how things are going on the spot.

54

You can see which word, picture, memory you can add that simplifies what you feel, depending on what you are asked.” Joe

Clare, on the other hand, refers to a more interactive aspect of topic motivation by pointing out that what she was interested in was finding out what her friends said (wrote) about the different topics:

“… in general the topics were things we were interested in knowing about our classmates. Or for instance the story about a photograph, or more personal things, things that are more interesting from the viewpoint that you want to know about your friends‟ experiences…” Clare

All of these comments support previous findings regarding general attitudes related to the use of computers for writing and communication in the EFL classroom. Warschauer (1996) reports that, regardless of individual differences (typing expertise, knowledge of computers/computer use) or type of course (ESL/EFL, specialised/unspecialised), learners were unanimous in their positive attitudes on this count. Kavaliauskiene et al., (2006) also comment on the use of blogs to enhance student motivation. Hyland (2003) refers to the motivational importance of “engaging writers by providing relevant topics” (p. 80), and Grabe and Kaplan (1996) suggest mapping topics to learner interest in order to motivate writing.

In addition, various other factors also appear to influence motivation to write. Using a blog increased the interest of these learners in learning English (72.8%), as well as motivating 50% of them to work on their blogs in their free time. According to

55

Warschauer (1997) this last point is an example of microlevel situated learning which takes place whenever learners engage in authentic communication out-of-class and which, according to Kern (2000),“is a key element in the development of writing ability” (p. 192).

The comments above are particularly interesting if taken in conjunction with what Raimes (1985) says about unskilled writers “grappling not only with a written code but with a linguistic code that is still being acquired.” (p. 232). It seems to follow that by allowing low-level learners the chance to engage in authentic writing without the obligation of having genre constrictions lessens the cognitive load, thus allowing learners the opportunity to concentrate more fully on the linguistic code they are trying to negotiate.

4.1.3 Audience

Whilst possibly not as immediate a motivational aspect as the first two features, audience is by no means less important. In fact, it is the key factor in providing learners with an authentic reason to write (Hyland, 2003) and although at the outset some of these learners were not fully conscious of the audience effect, once they realised that they were being read it appeared to impact their writing in a number of ways.

Approximately 65% of these learners declared that they were more aware that they were writing for an audience due to their blog writing. Mike found it “better”:

56

“For example, having it published was much better than, for example, if you wrote a text and only gave it to the teacher.” Mike

Don felt that it affected the way he wrote because he had to take more care with his writing:

“I think the fact that I‟m writing something in the blog which other people are going to read, not just the teacher, obliges me to make its reading as easy as possible, so that my classmates don‟t get mixed up with what I‟m telling them and that they understand what I want to say... The blog imposes order, it straightens your ideas. I think it‟s not the blog alone. The fact of having to write, not just in the English blog, in any blog in general, writing something that other people will read, one has to do it in such a way that it looks tidy; clearly explained and in simple words. Throwing in ideas for the sake of throwing them in is out of the question.” Don

However, Clare expresses a reduced vision of audience that is limited to her classmates and the teacher:

“I was conscious of the fact that my classmates and the teacher had the possibility to read the posts. However, I don‟t think I was ever conscious that it was like, let‟s see, like an achieve that was in the Internet so that anybody could access it. I think I was just focused on the fact that my classmates could read it and I tried to write as clearly as possible for them.” Clare

57

Grabe and Kaplan (1996) state that “Audience is essential to the creation of text and the generation of meaning” (p. 207). They list five ways in which audience seems to have some bearing on text production: the amount of expected readers, their relationship to the writer, status differences, the degree of shared cultural knowledge, and shared knowledge of the writing topic. With regards to the current discussion, the learners were writing for a real, known audience (their peers) as opposed to a general, undefined, unknown audience (highlighted by Clare‟s comment above). Readers of an equal status are believed to partake in more interactional negotiating than either higher or lower status readers (Grabe and Kaplan (1996)13. Shared cultural and topic knowledge allow the writer to take certain things for granted thus reducing the need for complicated explanations. Moreover, this shared knowledge will also aid reader comprehension (see also Hyland, 2003). This combination of elements can be seen as simplifying the writing process for this group of low-level learners. Due to the fact that the assured readership was a set number of known readers of a similar status with a shared cultural background and a shared writing topic, this impacted their writing in a positive manner. This can be considered extremely beneficial in light of the observation by Raimes (1985) that inexperienced writers spend little time considering the reader.

4.1.4 The Writing Environment

Finally, in this section, a brief mention must be made of the writing environment. Despite the fact that the learners were in a classroom situation, the online environment still impacted their writing. Approximately 72% agreed or strongly agreed that they felt comfortable communicating by blog and the other 18% expressed no preference. 13

According to Grabe and Kaplan (1996) , Wolfson (1989) claims this is the case with oral exchanges but they point out that they know of no research in this area for written exchanges

58

Figure 4.2 I feel comfortable communicating by blog.

Ernest felt less pressure to worry about mistakes whilst Felix felt more relaxed writing in a less formal style:

“It‟s just that I feel more comfortable with the blog. I can express more things without worrying about making mistakes.” Ernest

“In the blog one can use a more colloquial English language like instead of “I want” in a sentence “I wanna”. You can ask the classmate next to you: how do you say this? Eh, and maybe not write so formally.” Felix

Preoccupation with mistakes is a major source of language anxiety that can stifle communication (Dörnyei, 2001). The fact that these learners felt less pressure to produce formal language appears to have had a positive impact on the learning process.

59

The following section discusses how other increased confidence, challenging tasks and ownership serve to enhance motivation to write and, as a result, the writing of the group of learners under discussion.

4. 2 The Motivation to Keep on Blogging

Whilst the novelty of using blogs may be an initial motivating factor (Kavaliauskiene et al., 2006), maintaining any kind of motivation for a prolonged period involves numerous other factors. The dynamic relationship between the initial motivational factors described in section 1 (above) appears to create a purpose for writing that is meaningful, interactive and low-anxiety. The second stage of blog impact on the writing of these low-level learners seems to stem from a boost in confidence brought about by them successfully accomplishing the assigned writing tasks. Additionally, the learners perceive the tasks as beneficial to their language learning process and this leads to other issues related to challenge and ownership. Moreover, many of these learners state that they consider blogging a fun activity that they were eager to participate in, especially when comparing blog writing to more traditional methods of writing.

4.2.1 Building Confidence: Success through Success

Confidence building is considered a major factor in maintaining motivational levels over a period of time (Dörnyei, 2001). According to Dörnyei (2001) “There is no better recipe for building someone‟s confidence than to administer regular dosages of success. It is a commonplace but very true that „Success breeds success‟.” (p. 89). He provides a number of strategies for maintaining and protecting motivation under the heading of “Providing

60

experiences of success.” He suggests giving learners various opportunities for success such as; aligning task difficulty to learners‟ abilities and alternating between challenging and more do-able tasks.

The vast majority of learners questioned (82%) stated that they felt more confident writing in English as a result of blog use.

Figure 4.5 Confident writing in English

According to comments made in the interviews, learners imply that blogs provide the aforementioned instances of success referred to by Dörnyei (2001). This was certainly the case with Fred and Clare, two of the weakest learners in the group, who explain the dynamics in the following manner:

“Maybe you realize you are making progress and then you write, you feel more like writing. You see you are making progress and you want to continue making progress.“ Fred 61

“…the ease with which you write, regardless of the mistakes you make, gives you a lot more confidence to write. Then you start having more and more ideas and your writing becomes more fluent. For example, the first post we had to do probably took me more than the 90 minute period to do a 100 word post. In the end when we started doing 300 word posts, it took me a lot less.” Clare

Additionally, Don states that his previous lack of confidence had had a negative effect on his writing, leading him to write in order to fulfil a task rather than to communicate what he actually wanted to say:

“Let us say that knowing that I can goes hand in hand with confidence. Knowing I can express my ideas. As far as I‟m concerned that is really fundamental. Before, the lack of confidence in not being able to express my ideas made me change some things for others I didn‟t want to write.” Don

This comment ties in with what Cumming (1989) posits about the inability of low proficiency learners to organise their ideas as discourse. Unable to cope with the complexities of a writing task, Don admits to having used a strategy that allows him to fulfil an assignment but not satisfy his desire to communicate his true feelings. Felix also professes to having used a similar practice:

“Now I care about writing well. Before for example, I wrote just any old thing and that was it.” Felix

62

However, the fact that using blogs helped both of these learners overcome this hurdle is a promising sign and a fact that deserves to be highlighted. One possible explanation as to why these learners began to improve is that their participation in a blogsphere presented them with reasons to make them want to be understood. According to Mike:

“…having it published was much better than, for example, if you wrote a text and only gave it to the teacher.” Mike

However, hand in hand with publication comes a gradual awareness of the responsibility the writer has for his readership.

4.2.2 Ownership

Another factor that seems to have affected how blogging impacted on the writing of these learners is the sense of ownership they feel once they realise their work will be published and read by other people (see Lowe and Williams, 2004; Mynard, 2007). The following exchange demonstrates the way this can affect a learner‟s self-esteem:

Researcher: And, have you shown your blog to people outside the university? Mary: Yes, at home to friends, to my sister. Researcher: And, what do they think? Mary: They‟re impressed at my having a blog in English. Researcher: And, how do you feel about that? Mary: I feel good.

63

Researcher: OK. And, have there been people you don‟t know who have posted a message? Mary: Yes, not many, maybe two people. Researcher: And, were they positive? Mary: Yes

Here Mary seems proud of her English blog and the fact that not only her family and friends but also people unknown to her have commented on her blog posts.

In the comment below, Joe demonstrates a sense of ownership by pointing out the importance of being able to express his personal view:

“For example when you‟re asked things like. What does the national holiday mean for you? For me it represents a lot about how I feel because I‟m a vegetarian. The context of the national holiday, with a lot of meat, the rodeo and typical traditions, for me it was good to express what I thought about it. It wasn‟t just talking for the sake of it, trying to complete a number of words, but to show how I picture the whole thing.” Joe

As Joe highlights, the sense of having a space to express his personal feelings overshadowed the notion of writing to complete a classroom activity.

Although the potential benefits of blog ownership have yet to be researched in any detail, Wu (2006) suggests it encourages learners to be more conscientious with their writing and Godwin-Jones (2003) claims that learners will be more responsible regarding the structure and content of their writing.

64

4.2.3 The Writing Challenge

Attaining writing expertise is considered a complex process that, for beginning writers, can be aided by challenging tasks that lead to increased knowledge of the writing topic and more effective writing (Grabe and Kaplan, 1996). There are various examples of these low-level learners being motivated and rising to the challenge as this next quote demonstrates:

“My girlfriend knows more English than me. She would say “I‟d like to help you”. I‟ve said “I don‟t want you to help me; I want to do it alone”. She‟s said she could help me with the things I write badly. She said she wanted to help but I would say no, or sometimes I said yes but in general I wanted to do it alone because I want to learn.” Joe

Here not only does Joe demonstrate his desire to rise to the challenge but also he implies that he is aware of the fact that he will be rewarded for his effort in the long run because his English will improve as a result of his effort. Felix expresses a similar opinion with regards to the challenge of posting a blog comment.

“I wasn‟t very good at posting comments. In fact I think I did little commenting, but when I did, I had to concentrate. One says: “Ah it‟s easy, it‟s just writing three lines”, but anyway, you still have to say something that has to do with what had been posted... All the same I felt it took me too long to do my comments. It takes me 30 minutes for example, to do five and it should be much faster. Anyway, as I had to read it, understand it, read what the others wrote. It was quite some job. To put it differently, it‟s as if you continued to study and to learn.” Felix

65

According to Dörnyei (2001) challenging tasks are more attractive for learners because they make learning both stimulating and enjoyable. Moreover, the fact that these learners perceive the blog activities as beneficial appears to stem from expectancy-value theories whereby motivation is driven by the belief that successful completion of an activity is within reach and worthwhile (Dörnyei, 2001). When questioned on the usefulness of blogs for learning English over 90% of these learners agree or strongly agree that the blog is a useful tool.

Figure 4.4 Is it useful to use a blog to learn to write in English

This point tallies with findings from Warschauer‟s (1996) on the motivational aspects of EFL writing on computers which suggest that learners feel that computer writing enhances learning, creativity, and opportunities for writing practice, and gives learners more control of their writing thus leading to better writing. With this group of learners, once they had assumed the responsibility associated with ownership, the will to succeed appeared more intense. For example, Clare mentions how frustrating the writing process

66

was at times and how, as she improved, she made deliberate mistakes in what can be interpreted as a means of monitoring her own progress:

“I feel really, really confident when I write in Spanish, I know what I‟m saying and how to say it. Where I studied they really worked on that and switching to English caused a rift. You know what you want to say, but you don‟t know how and that‟s very frustrating. Then, when you start writing more and more and it becomes easier, you start realizing what your mistakes are and every now and then you make a mistake on purpose just to see if it really is a mistake or not.” Clare

Clare clearly considers herself to be an accomplished writer in her mother tongue and her account of her own progress supports the claim of Cumming (1989) and of Grabe and Kaplan (1996) that increased proficiency will lead to improved writing quality. Subsequently, it is at loggerheads with the findings of Sasaki (2000) who found little improvement in the quality of low-level EFL writers after two semesters of writing instruction using a process approach.

A final point with regards to challenge is the extent to which learners were engaged in the tasks they had to carry out:

“For me, going to the class was not boring. In fact, it was a class that went very quickly because I had to focus on doing things well. Time flew because there were times in which the task was a bit more difficult and that resulted in time going by more quickly.” Joe According to Joe, the challenging tasks mean there is no time to get bored and this impacts on the learning process, which, as he explains below, is not always the case:

67

“Sometimes the opposite happens in a different class. The class becomes long and boring. You are bored and tend to talk with your classmates or you ask the one who knows the most. This is what happens in the English class when you don‟t know much; you tend to ask the students who know more. They tend to help you and that hinders your learning. It is different with the blog because here you are interacting and you learn in a different manner. With the blog you know that you have a goal to achieve in a certain time so, in my opinion, you try harder.” Joe

Moreover, Joe implies that the challenging nature of the blog activity encourages learners to make an effort to do their own work. Dörnyei (2001) suggests that sustained learner involvement is improved through stimulating and enjoyable tasks and that learning need not be tedious or boring. This notion is discussed in more depth in the next segment.

4.2.4 Writing for Pleasure

There were an incredible amount of comments on how enjoyable these learners found the blogging experience. Lowe and Williams (2004) believe that learners view the web as a “public, playful place” (online) and that this can be used to encourage learners to invest time in blogging and to engage in writing activities. They also claim that with a little experience learners view blogging as an entertaining form of communication that increases their interest in writing. The following opinions, expressed during the semistructured interviews, appear to support this view:

“It is just that you don‟t see the blog as an assignment but as a more fun means of learning.” Ernest

68

“I think writing in a blog is fun because one has to look for resources on one‟s own. Even if one is given a theme, one can choose what one wants to write about: my tastes and my interests.” Mary

“It was original and fun and also an entertaining way of learning English, for me it was definitely very good.” Don

“First of all it was great fun. All of a sudden it became sort of like a game, fooling around, that sort of thing... I think sometimes when one is in class it can be more boring, or one can lack the good disposition to work that one had to work on the blog, everybody at their computers, working and doing it willingly. I really enjoyed it.” Felix:

Ernest infers that what he liked was the fact that the blog is a less traditional form of learning. Mary enjoyed the independent, personal nature of blogging whilst Don highlights the originality of blogging. Felix appears to enjoy the playful interaction. In fact, he claims that everybody found blogging to be a fun activity:

“You didn‟t want to miss the class. You are chatting with your friends, you have good laughs, and the person who is next to you can help you out. I think it was the same for all of us, everybody, when we were in the lab, all of us always did our work, and no one was distracted or doing anything else. That shows it was fun, and not just for me.” Felix

This section has looked at how a number of combined factors helped maintain learner motivation thus contributing further to writing development. The third section looks at the way long-term blogging impacts the writing of these learners.

69

4.3 Writing Naturally

This third section looks at the way in which the elements discussed in previous section come together to create an interactive, collaborative environment that impacts not only the writing of these low-level learners but also other elements of their second language learning. It begins with a brief discussion on more traditional aspects of these learners‟ writing developments as perceived by the learners themselves. Subsequently, it looks at how the interactive nature of the blogsphere leads to peer-scaffolding, collaborative learning and the chance for learners to notice gaps and repair gaps in their own L2 writing.

4.3.1 Perceived Writing Improvement

The low-level learners involved in this study were fairly unanimous about the perceived benefits of using blogs to develop their L2 writing as the three graphs below demonstrate.

Figure 4.5 Ease & Speed of writing & Spelling 70

Over 90% found it easier to write in English as a result of using the blog. Furthermore, 95% agreed that they could write faster, whilst just over 80% felt that their spelling had improved. There were no negative perceptions with regard to these elements.

Reference to these perceived improvements were also to be found in the semi-structured interviews. Mike claimed his writing fluency had increased while Anne realised that she found it easier to write when she had to use a paper and pen during an end of term test:

“Unlike before using the blog, I can write more fluently. It was harder before.“ Mike

“Even though I hadn‟t used a pen and paper since starting the blog, I mean everything I wrote is on the blog; I realized during the exam that it wasn‟t difficult for me to write, not hard at all.” Anne

Likewise, learners perceived improvements in the range and sophistication of both their vocabulary and their grammar. Whilst figures are high on all four counts, the most perceived improvement was increased vocabulary with 95%. In addition, 77.5% of learners felt blog use led them to use more sophisticated vocabulary. With regards to grammar, 72% perceived improvements and 68% believed they used a wider range of grammar structures. Only one learner perceived no improvement in grammar use.

Interestingly, when referring to grammar and vocabulary, Ernest believes that using the blog allowed him the opportunity to develop abilities he had been unable to develop previously:

71

Figure 4.6 Student Perception of Vocabulary & Grammar Improvements

“I feel more qualified to write, for example, a long paragraph in English without problems. The blog allows that: the vocabulary, the grammar and the way you write. One could say that the blog allowed me to develop these abilities that maybe I already had but I didn‟t know how to take advantage of? Yes, that‟s it.”Ernest

Various authors point to the reflective potential of written texts (Harklau, 2002), especially regarding CMC (Warschauer, 1997) and blogs in particular (Pinkman, 2005; Mynard, 2007). Ernest‟s comment seems to suggest that the fact that this process was ongoing allowed him this reflective opportunity and that this triggered his development. Furthermore, another related aspect of CMC that was discussed earlier is the fact that its asynchronous nature allows learners the opportunity to revise their work easily. As the following graph shows (Fig. 4.7) approximately 82% of the learners in this study

72

perceived that they spent more time revising their work. In addition, around 73% spent more time planning their writing, and 64% were more aware of writing for an audience.

All of these elements are considered beneficial for developing learners‟ writing. Grabe and Kaplan (1996) suggest learners should be shown how to revise and edit their writing at an early stage so; it is promising to see that this is something learners appear to do naturally in authentic communication.

Figure 4.7 Planning, Revision & Audience Awareness

Here Clare comments of the fact that blogs allow time for planning and that this helps to encourage interaction.

“…with the blog you have a phase in which you can prepare the post and also you can read the answer calmly. In the end I feel that, apart from writing in English, this also encourages the communication between two people in general.”

73

4.3.2 Interaction, Collaboration Peer-Scaffolding and Noticing.

Whilst the role of interaction in SLA is still unclear (Ellis, 1994), in an EFL context, such as the one being described, interaction through writing and reading can be imperative for the acquisition process (Harklau, 2002).

The learners in this study interacted by reading each other‟s posts and by posting comments. As part of the classroom procedure, learners were obliged to comment on at least three of their peers‟ blogs each week. In stark contrast to the study by Ducate and Lomicka (2008) discussed earlier, this proved to be a highly successful activity that appeared to have a tremendous impact on learners‟ writing. Felix explains how a peer‟s classmate triggered classroom interaction.

“...you always posted a comment on the blogs of people who posted on yours...The same with Peter, sometimes he made comments on something funny and everybody did some posting.”Felix

Some of the learners saw interaction as a means of monitoring their own progress. “The fact that you can comment on your partners‟ blogs, creates more dialogue. Answering back to your classmates‟ post implies reading and understanding. You understand what another person with the same level as you wrote, and you can see your progress and how you‟re learning; whether you‟re writing well or badly, what you have to improve, what corrections you have to make.” Joe

74

However, both Felix and Clare used the interactive process to confirm that they had succeeded in getting their message across.

“When a person commented what you expected to hear from your post, it meant they had understood the message you wanted to transmit. On the other hand, if they said something very, very different, it meant you hadn‟t really given the right idea.” Clare

“I remember once I think it was Nancy who said to me: “What did you mean by this?” Suppose I wrote: I want to have an ice cream with a hot girl, something like that, and what I really wanted to say was: I want to have an ice cream with a girl on a hot day, I had written it wrong and lots of guys laughed saying look at what you‟ve written, that‟s not the way you should write it. I had to check it and then either write to them, or tell them that it wasn‟t what I meant to say, I wanted to say something else.” Felix

The fact that Felix had to clarify his message to his peers serves to show the extent of the change in dynamics between a blog writing class and a traditional writing classroom wherein the writing is destined for the teacher eyes only. Hyland (2003) infers that giving learners opportunities to interact and negotiate online promotes language learning. According to Swain (1985) “Negotiating meaning needs to incorporate the notion of being pushed toward the delivery of a message that is not only conveyed, but that is conveyed precisely, coherently, and appropriately.”(p. 248)

Another interesting observation is that whilst weaker learners, like Clare and Felix, tended to be more worried about getting their message across, the stronger members of

75

the group, such as Ernest and Mike, were much more preoccupied with grammatical accuracy.

“Yes, using the verb (in third person) with “it” I would always conjugate it as “have” in any tense in the past. I would write „have‟ when I should have used „has‟. It was a mistake I always made and of course I corrected it with the blog, took it in and started using it well.” Mike

“I think it was a very good experience because we could improve our English grammar and the way we expressed ourselves in English through a written means such as the blog.” Ernest

There were also instances of peer-scaffolding and co-construction mentioned during the interviews. Don talks about everybody helping each other and points out a unique difference between blogging and traditional writing whilst Mary states that vocabulary knowledge was shared.

“My own classmates discussed if something was correct or mistaken, and a dynamic was created consisting in everybody helping one another, I think that was very good and that doesn‟t happen in traditional writing.” Don “Speaking in English to my classmates; when I wrote in the blog and didn‟t know a word I translated it and then we included it in our language knowledge.” Mary.

According to Swain and Lapkin (1998), learners “Applying their knowledge to new contexts may also create new jointly constructed knowledge” (p. 333). They claim this is

76

the essence of peer-scaffolding and collaborative learning whereby knowledge lies in the group rather than an individual.

In addition, Felix talks of remembering words that his peers used on their blogs which suggests a mid-point between peer-scaffolding and noticing. He is able to appreciate the quality of Ernest‟s writing and decides to „borrow‟ vocabulary.

“... then I would read Ernest‟s blog for example, and it was far better than mine and I would say: “How well he used that word” and I tried to remember it.” Felix

These comments appear to support reports regarding learners‟ ZPD and what takes place in the joint problem-solving activities that are seen to promote learning (Swain and Lapkin, 1998; Nassaji and Cumming, 2000). It also demonstrates how blogs allow learners the chance to take full advantage of the interactive power of CMC as envisaged by Warschauer (1997). Moreover, learners can revisit their work frequently and easily, either in class or in their own free time, and this allows them the chance to grow both individually and as part of a group, but without the pressures of face-to-face synchronous interaction. The following quote from Don, were he talks about re-reading all his posts and evaluating his progress in a favourable light, puts this into perspective. “Once, going through my blog archive, I looked over everything I had posted. I read my first posts and then read the last ones. And I felt there had been a change, because in the first one there wasn‟t a .., it was as if I had just thrown ideas based on the teacher‟s questions and I continued answering the questions the teacher put forward as a guideline. On the other hand in the last posts I felt that what I was writing was based on the questions, but not answering them. I was making, I was creating my own ideas

77

according to what I thought. The blog has also helped me occasionally in simplifying what I want to say, but keeping its essence.” Don

Learners in this study also made numerous references to noticing gaps in their own writing. Mike referred to noticing on numerous occasions and recalls how he would modify his language use as a result of this process.

“There were little things like word order, extra words and I started realising and internalizing things. Then in later posts I wouldn‟t make the same mistake. I‟d remember certain things were not right and I‟d erase them, rewrite them.” Mike

Felix expresses a similar sentiment and explains how the blog experience has encouraged him to make more of an effort:

“Personally what helped me a lot was becoming conscious of basic mistakes I made, how you have to write something, or that it should be in past or future tense. In this sense it helped me a lot because I realized that at the beginning I wrote almost anything. Now I try, to do it the best way I know how.” Felix

Finally, in the true spirit of the case study, the last word will allow the “events and situations to be allowed to speak for themselves” (Cohen et al., 2000: 182)

“...when you read the posts, you became aware of how different the English levels were, and how some people were a lot more advanced and others far more precarious. There were people who did posts very fast and well, like Carmen and Nancy; one understood

78

perfectly what they said, and I think they didn‟t make many mistakes. And like Ernest who uses words correctly such as, which, will, did, the past tense. One sort of reads in a basic language and it was well written. I compared it with mine, you know, how well the verbs were conjugated, I don‟t know if properly, but at least conjugated, different tenses, you know. Then I looked at mine and “Ouch!” Then you make some comments. For example you say: “Good for you Ernest, I found your story very amusing, bye,” you know. And Mary, you always posted a comment on the blogs of people who posted on yours...The same with Peter, sometimes he made comments on something funny and everybody did some posting. I wasn‟t very good at posting comments. In fact I think I did little posting, but when I did, I had to concentrate. One says: “Ah it‟s easy, it‟s just write three lines, but anyway, you still have to say something that has to do with what you posted...All the same I felt it took me too long to do my comments. It takes me 30 minutes for example, to do five and it should be much faster. Anyway, as I have to read it, understand it, read what the others wrote. It was quite some job. To put it differently, it is as if you continued to learn and to study. Felix.

This chapter has discussed the findings of the small-scale study on the impact of blogs on the writing of low-level learners in the University of Chile. The discussion was split into three sections, each representing a separate stage of blog writing development. The next chapter presents the conclusion of this research.

79

CHAPTER 5

Conclusion

5.1 Discussion and Summary of the Main Findings

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of blogs on the writing of low-level learners in an EFL context in the University of Chile. To this end, data was collected via a questionnaire of student perceptions and nine semi-structured interviews. The results of the data analysis have shown that the learners perceived a significant impact on their writing as a result of blog use on a number of levels. On the whole, learners‟ perceived improvements in a wide range of areas related to vocabulary, grammar, writing fluency, speed, spelling and overall writing ability. They perceived improved techniques of planning and editing, and increased audience awareness. Furthermore, they also claimed to have made all round language improvements thanks to the use of blogs (Fig.5.1).

Figure 5.1 Perceived all round improvements. 80

As with previous studies referred to in the literature review, learners wrote more than during traditional classroom writing activities. Moreover, they found it motivating to write on the computer and they preferred it to more traditional methods. Additionally, blog use was seen to encourage interaction, a collaborative spirit and increased language awareness.

5.2 A Model of Blog Impact

To complement these findings, an attempt has been made to present research data as a tentative model that explains how blogs impacted on these learners‟ writing, as opposed to just describing the result of the impact.

Initially, learners were motivated to write by the novelty factor of the online mode, the appealing writing themes, the authentic audience, the relaxed, anxiety-free environment, and the undemanding writing style they were allowed to adopt. The combination of these elements presented students with an authentic, meaningful reason to write and sufficient motivation to invest their energy. The second stage of the blog writing model is a combination of increased confidence as a result of successful completion of prior tasks, a sense of ownership that promoted more conscientious writing, a desire to rise to the challenge inspired by the aforementioned successes and the promise of subsequent rewards (expectancy-value theory), and, last but not least, good old-fashioned enjoyment. Finally, as learners became more involved in the interactive process they took part in exchanges that allowed them the opportunity to revise their work, to notice gaps in, and subsequently modify, their L2 output. The 3 stages are summarised in Figure 5.2

81

Stage 1

Stage 2

Stage 3

novelty factor

increased confidence

Interaction

appealing writing themes

ownership

Collaboration

authentic audience

challenge

Peer-scaffolding

anxiety-free environment

subsequent rewards

Noticing

undemanding writing style

enjoyment

Modified output

Figure 5.2. A Model of Blog Impact in 3 Stages

If there is any foundation in the above explanation, the following pedagogical implications would apply. Practitioners working on blogs with low-level learners would initially be advised to:

i) made comments obligatory from the outset (to encourage audience awareness). ii) allow learners the freedom to write in their own personal style (thus reducing the cognitive demands on producing the written code and emphasising the development of linguistic code). iii) assign interesting (meaningful/purposeful) topics that allow learners the opportunity to write about their own experiences. If these elements were applied, it is suggested that stages 2 and 3 would follow naturally, as long as learners were provided with challenging tasks.

In the words of Geertz (1973) “the essential task of theory building here is not to codify abstract regularities but to make thick description possible, not to generalise across cases but to generalize within then” (p. 26)

82

This study is significant in that it appears to cover uncharted ground. Whilst numerous studies have presented descriptive research or investigation on a certain element of blog writing, to the author‟s knowledge, no other study attempts to explain the how of blog writing in an EFL context. Therefore, it is hoped that this small-scale study will act as a catalyst for future research on the use of blogs in the EFL classroom.

5.3 Limitations

There are a number of limitations to the study. It is somewhat overarching in its scope and, at times, this may lead to distraction from the underlying aim. This was partly due to the lack of experience of the researcher and the overwhelming amount of data that was amassed. Moreover, being a case study, the investigation is open to criticism of observer bias (Nisebet and Watts, 1984, cited in Cohen et al., 2000). This point is further complicated by what may be construed as a vested interest in the proceedings due to the dual role of researcher/practitioner. However, given that the case study allows for multiple interpretations (see Nunan, 1992), and the claim that “events and situations be allowed to speak for themselves” Cohen et al., (2000: 182), it is hoped that the way the data is presented will allow readers the liberty to draw their own conclusions. Additionally, whilst case studies are often considered unsuitable for generalization (Nisebet and Watts, 1984, cited in Cohen et al., 2000; but see Nunan, 1992), Geertz (1973, see above) offers an alternative take on this point. Finally, the biggest limitation seems to be the lack of negative data to offer a balanced discussion.

83

5.4 Recommendations

This study has unearthed a number of areas that merit future research. These include: a study of the relationship between blog use and blog ownership. an investigation of the relationship between reading and writing development related to blog use. the role of gender in blog interaction. a replica study on the impact of blog use on the writing of low-level learners in another context would serve to evaluate the usefulness of the model of blog impact presented above.

Finally, learning to write in a second language is a messy business, and anything that simplifies the process for both learners and practitioners is worth investigating. As Kern (2000) points out, “Teachers, not technology, are the key to improved language learning.” (p. 260). To blog or not to blog, that is the question. In the classroom, only teachers have the answer.

84

References Archibald, A. and Jeffery, G.C. (2000) Second language acquisition and writing: a multidisciplinary approach. Learning and Instruction 10: 1-11. Armstrong, K. and Retterer, O. (2008) Blogging as L2 writing: A case study. AACE Journal, 16 (3): 233-251. Bax, S. (2000) Putting technology in its place. In: Field, C. (Ed.), Issues in Modern Foreign Languages Teaching. Routledge: 208–219. Beetham, H. and Sharpe, R. (Eds) (2007) Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age. London: Routledge Bloch, J. (2007) Abdullah‟s Blogging: A Generation 1.5 Student Enters the Blogosphere, Language Learning and Technology 11(2): 128–141. Brown, H.D. (1994) Teaching by Principles: an interactive approach to pedagogy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents Byrne, D. (1979) Teaching Writing Skills. London: Longman Campbell, A. P. (2003) Weblogs for use with ESL classes. The Internet TESL Journal, 9 (2), Retrieved November 20, 2008, from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/CampbellWeblogs.html Campbell, A. P. (2004) Using Live Journal for authentic communication in EFL classes. The Internet TESL Journal, 10 (9). Retrieved November 20, 2008, from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Campbell-LiveJournal Casanave, C.P. (1994) Language Development in Students‟ Journals. Journal of Second Language Writing 3(3): 179–201. Chapelle, C. (1997) CALL in the year 2000: still in search of research paradigms? Language Learning and Technology, 1(1): 19–43. Chapelle, C. (1998) Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA. Language Learning and Technology, 2(1): 22–34. Chapelle, C. ((2001) Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition; Foundations for teaching, testing and research, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapelle, C. (2004). Learning through online communication: Findings and Implications from second language research. Pre-seminar draft, WUN eLearning Seminar Series: Researching Dialogue and Communities of Inquiry in Higher Education. Retrieved November 1, 2008 from http://www.wun.ac.uk/elearning/seminars/seminar_one/seminarone.html. Cohen, L. Manion, K. and Morrison, K. (Eds.) (2000) Research methods in education London: Routledge-Falmer. 85

Cumming, A. (1989) Writing expertise and second language proficiency. Language Learning, 39: 81–141 Cumming, A. (2001) Learning to Write in a Second Language: Two Decades of Research. International Journal of English Studies, 1(2): 1-23. Cumming, A. and Riazi, A. (2000) Building models of adult second-language writing instruction. Learning and Instruction, 10(1): 55-71 Delcloque, P. (2007) Computer Assisted Language Learning Retrieved: November 11, 2008, from http://www.history-of-call.org/ Derver, E (2003) Using Semi-Structured Interviews in Small-Scale Research. Edinburgh: Scottish Council for Research in Education (60-74) Dippold, D. (2009) Peer Feedback Through Blogs: Student and teacher perceptions in an advanced German class. ReCALL. 21(1): 18-36 Dörnyei, Z. (2001) Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Ducate, L. C. and Lomicka, L. L. (2008) Adventures in the blogsphere: From blog readers to blog writers. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 21(1): 9-28. Eastment, D. (2005) Blogging. ELT Journal, 59(4):358-360 Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Erben, T., Ban, R., Eisenhower, K., Jin, L., & Summers, R. (2008). Using technology for foreign language instruction: Creative innovations, research and applications. In T. Erben, & Sarieva, I. (Eds.), CALLing All Foreign Language Teachers: integrating technology in the foreign language classroom. New York: Eye on Education Press. Fellner, T. and Apple, M. (2006) Developing writing fluency and lexical complexity with blogs. The JALT CALL Journal 2(1): 15-26. Firkins, A. Forey,G. and Sengupta, S. (2007) Teaching writing to low proficiency EFL students. The ELT Journal 64(4): 341-352. Godwin-Jones, R. (2003) Emerging Technologies: Blogs and Wikis: Environments for On-line Collaboration, Language Learning and Technology, 7(2): 12–16. Godwin-Jones, R. (2006). Tag clouds in the blogosphere: Electronic literacy and social networking. Language Learning and Technology, 10(2), 8–15. Godwin-Jones, R. (2008). Emerging Technologies Web-Writing 2.0: Enabling, Documenting and Assessing Writing Online. Language Learning & Technology 12(2):713. 86

Geertz, C. (1973) The interpretation of cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books Grabe, W, and Kaplan, R.B., 1996. Theory and Practice of Writing. New York: Addison Wesley Longman Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Greene, D. (2000) A Design Model for Beginner-Level Computer-Mediated EFL Writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 13(3): 239-252. Harklau, L. (2002) The role of writing in classroom second language acquisition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11: 329–350. Harris, J (1993) Introducing Writing. London: Penguin. Hsu et al., (2008), Using blogs to assist English – language learning: an investigation into student perception. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 21 (2): 181- 198. Hyland, (2003) Teaching and researching writing. England: Pearson Education. Johns, A. (1997) Text, Role, and Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kavaliauskiené, G. Anusiené, L. Mazaikiené, V. (2006) Weblogging: Innovation for Communication in English Class. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching. Volume 3, Number. 2, pp 220-233 Kern, R. (2000) Literacy and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kern et al. (2008) Network- Based Language Teaching. Encyclopedia of Language and Education (4) 281 – 292. Krapels, A. (1990) An overview of second language writing process research. In B. Kroll, B. (Ed.), (1990) Second Language Writing. Research Insights for the Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge Universisty Press. Leki, I. (2000) L2 Writing: a commentary. Learning and instruction journal. (10): 101105. Lowe, C., & Williams, T. (2004) Moving to the public: Weblogs in the writing classroom. In L. Gurak, S. Antonijevic, L. Johnson, C. Ratliff, & J. Reyman, (Eds.) Into the blogosphere. http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/. Mitchell, R. and Myles, F. (2002) Second Language Learning Theories, London: Edward Arnold. Moriarty & Rajapillai (2006) Using blogs for Peer Feedback in a Creative Writing Course – An Exploratory Study. Retrieved from: 87

http://www.english.heacademy.ac.uk/explore/publications/casestudies/technology/blogs_ feedback.php Murray, L. (2007) Blog writing integration for academic language learning purposes: towards an assessment framework. Retrieved from: http://www.aelfe.org/documents/1402_murray.pdf Murray, A & Hourigan, T (2008) Blogs for specific purposes: Expressivist or sociocognitivist approach? CALL 20 (1):87-92 Mynard, J. (2007) A blog as a Tool for Reflection for English Language Learners. Asian EFL Journal. Professional Teaching Articles. November 2007 Nassaji, H and Cumming, A (2000) what is in a ZPD? A case study of a young ESL student and teacher interacting through dialogue journals. Retrieved from: http://ltr.sagepub.com Nisbet and Watt in Cohen et al. 2000 Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge and Falmer: 182 Nunan, D. (1992) Research methods in language learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. Oravec, J. (2002) Bookmarking the World: Weblog Applications in Education. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 45(7): 616-621. Picas, A. (1982) Teaching English Writing. London: The Mac Millan Press Limited. Pinkman, K. (2005) Using blogs in the Foreign Language Classroom: Encouraging Learner Independence The JALT CALL Journal, Vol. 1.1, 12-24. Quinn, D., Duff, A., Johnston, H. and Gursansky, D. (2007) Blogging: Infusing engagement, enjoyment (joy) and reflection into teaching, Refereed conference paper for HERDSA 2007 Raimes (1985) What Unskilled Writers do as they write: A classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly 19 (2): 259 -258 Raimes, A. (1983) Techniques in Teaching Writing. New York: Oxford University Press Reichelt, M. (2001a) A critical review of foreign language writing research on pedagogical approaches. The Modern Language Journal, 85(4), 578–598. Richards, J C. and Renandya W A. (2002) Methodology in Language Teaching. An anthology of Current Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sasaki, M. (2000) Toward an empirical model of EFL writing processes: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 259–292.

88

Seliger, H. W., & Shohamy, E. (1995) Second language research methods. Cambridge, England: Oxford University Press. Sollars,V. (2007) Writing experiences in a second language classroom: from theory to practice. Siemens, G. (2005) Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 2:1 Shaw and Lui (1998). What develops in the development of second language writing? Applied linguistics (19) 2 : 225-254 Swain, M. (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty and J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.64-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998) Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82:3, 320-337. Silva, T. (1993) Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 657–677. Simons, H. (1996). The Paradox of Case Study, Cambridge Journal of Education 26(2): 225 – 238. Tu, C., Chen, P., & Lee, M. (2007) Fostering EFL Learners‟ Writing Competence through Web-Based Guided Writing WHAMPOA 53: 225-244 Verschuren, P. (2003) Case study as a research strategy: Some ambiguities and opportunities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6 (2), 121 -139. Warschauer, M., (1996) Computer-assisted language learning: an introduction. In: Fotos, S. (Ed.), Multimedia Language Teaching. Logos, Tokyo, pp. 3–20. Warschauer, M. (1996a) Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7–26.

Warschauer, M. (1996b) Motivational aspects of using computers for writing and communication. Telecollaboration in Foreign Language Learning: Proceedings of the Hawai„i symposium, 29–46. Warschauer, M. (1997) Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 470–481. Warschauer, 2003, in Matsuda et al, (2003): 163 89

Warschauer, M., (2000) „„CALL for the 21st Century‟‟ IATEFL and ESADE Conference, 2 July 2000, Barcelona, Spain. Available fromhttp://www.g se.uci.edu/markw/cyberspace.html (Accessed 25/1/02). Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998) Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31, 57–71. Weissberg, B. (2000) Developmental relationships in the acquisition of English syntax: Writing vs. speech. Learning and Instruction. 10, 37–53. Wu,W. (2006) Using blogs in an EFL writing class. Retrieved from: www.chu.edu.tw/~wswu/publications/papers/conferences/05.pdf Wu, Ch. (2006), Blogs in TEFL: A new Promising Vehicle. US – China Education Review, 3(5): 69 – 73. Zamel,V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79–102. Zamel,V (1987) Recent research on writing pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly 21(4): 697-715. Zaki, H. & Ellis, R. (1999) Learning vocabulary through interacting with a written text. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Learning a second language through interaction (pp. 151–169). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

90

Appendix 1A: Questionnaire (English Version) Questionnaire on the use of blogs for learning English 1. This questionnaire is about the use of blogs for learning English. 2. The personal information in this form is private and confidential. General Information: Name: _______________________________________ Sex: _______________ Age: ______________ I have an internet connection at home.

YES

NO

I have my own notebook or PC.

YES

NO

My English blog was my first experience of using a blog

YES

NO

Questionnaire: Please read the statements and indicate you level of agreement according to the scale below by marking the corresponding box with an x 1. I strongly agree 2. I agree 3. I neither agree nor disagree 4. I disagree 5. I strongly disagree 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

2

3

4

I think blogs are easy to use. I found it easy to learn to use my blog. I work on my blog in my free time. I search for words in an online dictionary whilst I work on my blog. It is useful to use a blog to learn to write in English. I will continue to use my blog in the future. I prefer to write in English in my blog than to use a pen and paper to write. Using a blog increased my interest in learning English. Using a blog increased my interest in writing in English. I feel more confident writing in English after having used a blog. I feel comfortable communicating by blog. I enjoy reading my classmates‟ blogs. I enjoy posting comments on my classmates‟ blogs. I enjoy receiving comments from my classmates. Since I started using my blog: I spend more time planning my writing. I spend more time revising my writing. I am more aware that in the blog I am writing for an audience. I find it easier to write in English. I can write faster in English. I feel that my spelling has improved. I feel that my vocabulary has increased. My vocabulary is more sophisticated than before. My grammar has improved. I use a wider range of grammatical structures. My writing is more formal/academic. I think my English writing has improved as a result of using a blog this semester. I think all my English communication skills have improved as a result of using a blog this semester. Would you be willing to be interviewed about you experience using blog

YES

NO

91

5

Appendix 1B: Questionnaire (Spanish Version) Cuestionario sobre el uso de blogs en el aprendizaje de inglés 1. Este cuestionario es sobre el uso de blogs en el aprendizaje de inglés. 2. La información personal es confidencial. Información Básica: Nombre: _______________________________________ Sexo: _______________ Edad: ______________ Tengo conexión internet mi tu casa

SI

NO

Tengo PC o notebook propio

SI

NO

Mi blog en inglés fue mi primera experiencia con blogs.

SI

NO

Cuestionario: Por favor, lee las afirmaciones 1 a 22 y señala tu grado de acuerdo con un X en la casilla adecuada según la escala abajo. 1. Muy en acuerdo 2. En acuerdo 3. Ni en acuerdo ni desacuerdo 4. En desacuerdo 5. Muy en desacuerdo 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

2

3

4

Creo que los blogs son simples de utilizar. Encontré fácil aprender a utilizar mi blog. Trabajé en mi blog en mi tiempo libre. Busqué palabras en un diccionario en línea mientras trabajaba. Es útil usar blogs para aprender a escribir en inglés. Continuaré usando el blog en inglés en el futuro. Prefiero escribir en inglés en el blog que en papel. Usar un blog aumentó mi interés en aprender inglés. Usar un blog aumentó mi interés en escribir en inglés. Me siento más seguro/a al escribir en inglés después de utilizar el blog. Me sentí cómodo/a comunicándome vía mi blog. Disfruté leyendo los blogs de mis compañeros. Disfruté comentando en los blogs de mis compañeros. Disfruté el recibir comentarios de mis compañeros. Desde que comencé a utilizar el blog: Paso más tiempo planificando mi escritura. Paso más tiempo revisando mi escritura. Estoy más consciente de quienes leen mi blog. Me parece más fácil escribir en inglés. Puedo escribir más rápido en inglés. Siento que mi ortografía ha mejorado. Siento que mi vocabulario ha aumentado. Mi vocabulario es más sofisticado que anteriormente. Mi gramática es más acertada. Utilizo un mayor rango de estructuras gramaticales. Mi escritura es más formal/académica. Creo que mi inglés escrito ha mejorado como resultado del uso del blog este semestre. Creo que todas mis habilidades para comunicarme en inglés han mejorado como resultado del uso del blog este semestre. ¿Estarías dispuesto/a de ser entrevistado/a sobre tu experiencia usando blogs?

SI

NO

92

5

Appendix 2: Semi-Structured Interview Questions: English/Spanish

Semi-Structured Interview Questions: English 1) How was your experience using blogs in the English class this semester? 2) What do you feel are the differences between blogging and writing with paper and pen with regards to learning English? 3) Has blogging changed how you feel about writing in English? If so, why; if not, why not? 4) Do you feel that blogging has improved you ability to write in English? If so how? 5) Do you think that blogging has helped you develop other aspects of your ability to communicate in English? If yes, how; if not, why? 6) In the questionnaire you mentioned ……. in question number …. Can you explain why?

Semi-Structured Interview Questions: Spanish 1) ¿Cómo fue tu experiencia usando blogs en la clase de inglés este semestre? 2) ¿Cuáles crees tú que son las principales diferencias entre utilizar el blog y las formas de escritura más tradicionales a la hora de aprender inglés? 3) ¿El utilizar los blogs ha cambiado la manera como te sientes al escribir en inglés? 4) ¿Sientes que el usar el blog ha mejorado tu capacidad para escribir en inglés? Si es así ¿Cómo? 5) ¿Crees que el usar el blog ha ayudado a desarrollar otros aspectos de tu capacidad para comunicarte en inglés? Si es así ¿cómo? Si no ¿Por qué? 6) En el cuestionario tu mencionaste……………… en la pregunta número………….. ¿Puedes explicar por qué?

93

Appendix 3: Questionnaire Results Questionnaire on the use of blogs for learning English I have an internet connection at home. I have my own notebook or PC. My English blog was my first experience of using a blog.

YES YES YES

16 (22) 13 (22) 20 (22)

Questionnaire: Please read the statements and indicate you level of agreement according to the scale below by marking the corresponding box with an x 1. I strongly agree 2. I agree 3. I neither agree nor disagree 4. I disagree 5. I strongly disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

I think blogs are easy to use. I found it easy to learn to use my blog. I work on my blog in my free time. I search for words in an online dictionary whilst I work on my blog. It is useful to use a blog to learn to write in English. I will continue to use my blog in the future. I prefer to write in English in my blog than to use a pen and paper to write. Using a blog increased my interest in learning English. Using a blog increased my interest in writing in English. I feel more confident writing in English after having used a blog. I feel comfortable communicating by blog. I enjoy reading my classmates‟ blogs. I enjoy posting comments on my classmates‟ blogs. I enjoy receiving comments from my classmates. Since I started using my blog: I spend more time planning my writing. I spend more time revising my writing. I am more aware that in the blog I am writing for an audience. I find it easier to write in English. I can write faster in English. I feel that my spelling has improved. I feel that my vocabulary has increased. My vocabulary is more sophisticated than before. My grammar has improved. I use a wider range of grammatical structures. My writing is more formal/academic. I think my English writing has improved as a result of using a blog this semester. I think all my English communication skills have improved as a result of using a blog this semester. Would you be willing to be interviewed about you experience using blogs?

1 16 16 3 15 18 2 8 9 9 9 10 7 7 10

2 5 5 8 5 2 3 8 7 8 9 8 12 9 8

3 1 1 9 2 2 13 4 6 4 2 4 3 6 4

4

8 9 9 9 8 10 10 8 5 3 4 12

8 9 5 11 13 8 11 9 13 12 10 9

5 3 6 2 1 4 1 5 3 7 6 1

1 1 1

5

15

1

1

5

2

1

3 2

1 2

1

1 2

YES 21 (22)

94

Appendix 4: Semi-Structured Interviews – Sample materials Ann Enriching because it is easy to use. That is why I liked it. One just entered the blog and if one couldn‟t go to class I went online in the afternoon and there it was you had posted what had to be done. One enters and it‟s easy, really very easy. I‟ll repeat what I told you before, one sort of tries to do it better; at least I tried to do so: to speak (write) at length, maybe not being as brief as usual, and to be more self demanding in order to learn. Besides I liked it, it truly wasn‟t as boring as a typical English homework is.

I think both things are closely related. If one learns to write properly, one will learn how to speak properly.

Besides the fact of writing, expressing yourself, speaking about yourself in English. The other thing I liked was reading. I almost always read the same ones. I don‟t know Helen‟s, and Nora‟s I always posted comments to them. That was also fun because one entered something and then read what somebody else had written. Sometimes even some funny things you made comments about really amusing things. That wasn‟t boring, it was great! Besides, afterwards I sort of reread them and would tell them: “Look at what you put in the blog”, things like that I don‟t know, all the same it was easier for me to write in the blog than during the exam or in the sufficiency test, you had to write, anyway I found it easier, even though I had not used pen and paper after the blog. I mean everything that is *(4:05) in the blog, and I realized during the exam that it wasn‟t difficult for me, not hard at all.

The teacher told me that my writing had improved, and that was because I started looking up more words, how to write them correctly, finding more synonyms so as not to use the same ones all the time.

And, what do you think of your writing capacity to things in English?

It is as if it were easier for me, even speaking it too.

How come?

For example the verb thing: past, present, future tenses. I always used only the present. It is as if now I understood, more or less, the past and future tenses, linking words. My English improved a bit, it was no longer so much like Tarzan‟s. No, no, because for example, when I‟ve had to speak in English with my own family, or even reading it, for example my mother asked me: “What does it say here”, It wasn‟t very hard, not at all. I became aware of that when reading the geography texts we use; before I didn‟t even look at them, because they were in English. I suppose I didn‟t make too much of an effort, I didn‟t even try to read them. The other day I was reading about the basins or catchment areas, it was in English and I said to myself: “I will read it “and I understood almost everything, it wasn‟t hard.

Good. Really good, because almost all literature about geography is in English there is very little in Spanish. It is as if many doors had opened to learn new things, not reading over and over the same things. Actually, I perceived that there are many new things to explore, I liked that. I realized that I have learnt.

95

Joe The fact that you can comment on your partner‟s blogs creates more dialogue. Answering back to your classmate‟s post implies reading and understanding. You understand what another person with the same level as you writes, and you can check your progress and learning. I always tried to add some extra things. A funny comment, a joke, I don‟t know.

And if I had to, for example, chat in English, I would use the same formula I used in the blog, on how to start a conversation, how to end it, how to ask questions.

Clare When a person commented what you expected to hear from your post, it meant they had understood the message you wanted to transmit. On the other hand, if they said something very, very different, it meant you hadn‟t really given the right idea. It was a good experience. You learn a lot and you use tools that you were not used to using in English. When we got here we never used dictionaries. I used to resort to it all the time when I was at school. When you are working with the blog, you have the chance to use an online dictionary and look for words you don‟t know. And the idea was that later another person would read it and tell you and correct it if words were in the wrong order or used the wrong words, etc.

I think the only thing that is missing maybe is that the corrections be in person. That may be, one of the best ways to learn, is that the blogs be read by you and somebody else who is telling you right then, where you are mistaken. More often than not, you don't understand the corrections (she doesn't say it, but she means the corrections in the blog), or you are sure it is right, but because it can be expressed differently, these are things beyond what you have been writing.

Do you think that with the blog you had more feedback than with a traditional class?

Yes, I think so. For example, at school we had a different methodology in English that was, for instance, we had to do plays all the time. But the difference was that at school you had a text and you memorized it. So in the end you memorized and you knew it. You know which part went where, as opposed to the blog that is more “didactic” if you want, you have your first post, the second post, and you compare the way you‟re writing. The fact that the number of words increases is also setting higher goals. If there is a topic and you can‟t write over 200 words you get really upset and there are other subjects with which you can easily reach that number. In the end it is that you are just putting your ideas into English. As it gives you the chance to express your own ideas in English, it is different from all traditional methods that ask you to get a text and write ideas based on it, as I said.

And when he corrected my mistakes, I felt these were things I knew. Where I failed was I did not reread it. When one reads it over again one becomes aware

I think that the other thing could be the posts. The idea of placing comments in front of what you are reading. One thing is to comment on your ideas and the other thing is to write a comment on what you‟re reading that was written by other people. In that sense I believe that dialogue is encouraged, written dialogue. I don‟t know, I think it‟s like if we used a different type of chat in English, it would be very similar to blogs in English, with the difference that with the blog you have a phase on which you can prepare the post and also you can read the answer calmly. In the end I feel that that encourages, apart from writing in English, also the communication between two people in general.

96

I think that sometimes it is really important to feel someone reads what you write. It is pretty bad to write something for no one to read it. Then it was a way to make us feel you read what we wrote and vice versa. It was also fun to read the comments and laugh with things that they remember and you didn‟t. That also contributes to a kind of online relationship and to keep each other communicated even though we saw each other every day.

Don Ok, well, my experience was pretty good, even if, I don't do, if it wasn't constant on my part. I feel the use of the blog gave me tools to be able to speak in length in English, able to write in English based on what I was writing in my posts in the blog, it was also useful to express in writing the ideas I had, even though it was quite hard. That is, I enjoyed the fact of posting something I wanted. In the long run it was gratifying. Before that I used to modify it, and it was not what I wanted to say. In that sense the blog was a great experience. I think, had I used it more regularly my improvement would have been better. As I told you before if I had...I could have done much better. And that is why I think the blog in itself is a good tool for learning and to make one feel one can use the language properly.

My own classmates discussed if something was correct or mistaken, and a dynamic was created consisting in everybody helping one another, I think that was very good and that does not happen in traditional writing

Once, going through my blog archive, I looked over everything I had posted. I read my first posts and then read the last ones. And I felt there had been a change, because in the first one there wasn‟t a ....it was as if I had just thrown ideas based on the teacher‟s questions and I continued answering the questions the teacher put forward as a guideline. On the other hand in the last posts I felt that what I was writing was based on the questions, but not answering them. I was making, I was creating my own ideas according to what I thought. The blog has also helped me occasionally in simplifying what I want to say, but keeping its essence.

Ernest There‟s been improvement, but not as meaningful as there has been in Fred who did not speak any English, and now after having done the courses, one could understand his English and in the blog there were still some mistakes but his understanding and production of English changed, not 100% but significantly. Things about the blog I didn‟t like? None really, it was so easy to use that it didn‟t pose any problems. For example, they wrote when I put a post of a beach I had visited. They wrote things like “I know that place” “It is great” or “I‟ve never been there”. They were simple comments, but they were right in terms of grammar or the way they were written. As I said, there were some expressions that are more colloquial in English. I don‟t know if we learn a lot, but I learnt colloquial expressions and other classmates learnt others, we shared that

Fred I mean, it has made learning al lot easier, but I don‟t know if I feel like learning a lot more than before. It‟s been easier to learn it but I don‟t think it‟s been a springboard for me to say “Yes, I am going to open the blog to learn some more. I mean, for me it‟s been a lot easier to read other articles that I was given in the first year and there I think… I remember in first year the teacher gave us a text in English and the teacher asked me about it and I answered “ I don‟t

97

read in English” and did not read the text or answered because I didn‟t understand a word. Now if I am given a text, I can understand it.

Felix Later on when one has to read something in English, the use of the blog helps a lot, when one reads our classmates‟ blogs, it helps lots, a lot, I feel that with these four semesters my English became much better compared to what my initial level was, you know, now I can read and understand a page in the web or I can read something and know what it says, not perfectly, but I have a fairly good idea of what is being said.

Now I care about writing well. Before for example, I wrote just any old thing and that was all. Because when one doesn‟t know anything, one just writes and doesn‟t care what, but when one knows a bit more and you have to read something, you say ha, ha, such poor writing. Now as I know a bit more, I try to do it better.

Yes, I tried. Obviously it bothered me. Ricardo Paulsen always teased me, so I tried to I tried to write better, you know. He said: “Dude, how can you write like this”, and I answered: “I don‟t know, I‟m trying hard to do it better.” Then I would read Frodo‟s blog for example, and it was far better than mine and I would say: “How well he used that word” and I tried to remember it, then I would read Jan‟s and even I realized, it was not well written. I understood the idea, but it was like Tarzan “me want”, you know.

Yes, of course, but it is not only the blog, though they sort of go together, we also had to read several texts in English during this semester. I believe writing in the blog gives you more fluency, but it is not the blog alone.

Personally what helped me very much was becoming conscious of basic mistakes I made, how you have to write something, or that should be in past or future tense, in that way it helped me a lot because I realized that at the beginning I wrote almost anything. Now I try, to do it the best way I know how.

And, did you use a dictionary online?

Yes, yes.

Before using the blog did you ever use an English dictionary?

No, never.

Do you think it was a useful tool?

Yes, because, what I tried to do on many opportunities was when writing in the blog I looked it up in the online dictionary and knew what I had written there were some things I knew were right, sometimes it had a different meaning, then I said: “I forgot a word,” and I spoke to the fellow next to me: “How the hell is it I can‟t remember.” Ok, the dictionary. OK, then I could continue writing. Maybe not. That is why it is much more dynamic. Because one isn‟t restraining oneself all the time, mostly because of unimportant things. Ok, but I tried and one starts sort of correcting things. And as you used to say to us, I don‟t know if it will be the best but I still think it allows you to continue with your progress.

98

First of all it was great fun. All of a sudden it became sort of like a game, fooling around, that sort of thing. Look what I wrote Ha, ha *** then one read the blog, and ha, ha, look, see what happened to you that time. When you were a kid you fell, ha, ha, ha, you know. Or for example, the very thing you had posted, ha, ha, posting it later, you know, things, it is fun. And when you read the posts, you became aware of how different the English levels were, and how some people were a lot more advanced and others far more precarious. There were people who did it very fast and well, like Cata and Nati; one understood perfectly what they said, and I‟d think without making mistakes; like Frodo who uses words correctly such as, which, will, did, the past tense. One sort of reads in a basic language but all right. It‟s as if I compared it with mine, no problem, you know. That is, as if verbs were properly conjugated, I don‟t know if properly, but at least conjugated, different tenses, you know. I looked at mine and Ouch. Then one makes some comments. For example one commented: “Good for you Frodo, I found your story very amusing, bye,” you know. Maira, one always posted those who posted to you. Then Maira got there, and found out what had happened to her. Ha, ha, that was good. The same with Pedro, sometimes he made comments on something funny and everybody did some posting. I wasn‟t very good at posting comments. In fact I think I did little posting, but when I did, I had to concentrate. One says: “Ah it‟s easy, I just write three lines, but anyway, you still have to say something that has to do with what you posted, or that time when you were on vacation, that was fun! All the same I felt it took me too long to do my posting. It takes me 30 minutes for example, to do five and it should be much faster. Anyway, as I have to read it, understand it, read what the others wrote. It was quite some job. To put it differently, it is as if you continued to learn and to study.

Mary Speaking in English to my classmates; when I wrote in the blog and didn‟t know a word I translated it and then we included it in our language knowledge.

When I wrote in the blog, I made mistakes, and what we supposedly did with the other students was that they corrected those mistakes and we could learn from that. However it didn‟t work well because there was no information as to how to improve that. In the end I put in parenthesis what I had wrong, I changed it, but that didn‟t stay in my memory. So I kept forgetting.

Yes because when I wrote I realised my blog had more visits and also that my classmates wrote comments on what I had written, that is why I became aware of those visits.

At times I wrote jokes in English which my classmates understood all the same.

I felt it was necessary for it to be an obligation, that is, if I write something, I want it to be read and I also enjoy learning about what other people wrote and because of that post comments on it.

Mike At first, it was hard to write in the blog, because there were many word I didn‟t know, verbs and that sort of thing.

Yes, Very aware of learning English, it is very useful because it helps you improve your grammar. Typical mistakes you make when writing in English that without the encouragement of reading will never be solved. Because, in my opinion, these problems can only be solved through practice.

99

The nice thing about blogs is that you can publish. So if there are any problems with the posts, somebody can correct it for you. They could say “This is good, this is bad” Even though we, as a class, did not encourage each other very much.

For example, having it published was much better because, for example, if you wrote a text and only gave it to the teacher. The good thing about the blog is that you can have ideas of things and learn to correct too. In that sense the blog is better.

Well, considering the first time they gave me a written task and develop an idea in English, it helped me because it helped me improve a part of my English. Maybe listening is what is used the most to understand English but reading in English is not so difficult for me. The difficult part is writing sentences. I can do it when I talk, but when you talk you don‟t have time to think about a correct idea in English. When writing you can allow yourself to look at it twice to check if it is right or wrong. Then that is what I highlight the most of the experience. Little mistakes I used to have in the past. Or little mistakes that I was told “no, it is not that way, it is this way” And then I would start, I would take it in and then I would use it correctly.

It was a bit complicated when there were topics I was not interested in I would sit for half an hour in front of the computer thinking “what shall I write now?” I‟ve written any amount of words and I‟ve got nothing more to say. That‟s it.

In what way?

As I said before, to have written longer comments in the blog so as to, not only practice more but also that the other person practiced their reading. Maybe there was not enough feedback. Many times there were no comments. It was partly our fault because the blog in itself is a good tool. I didn‟t find anything negative about it.

Little things like word order, extra words and I started noticing and internalizing to use things properly in the end. Then in the later posts I would say “I won‟t put this” or I will correct this” I would remember certain things were not right and would erase them. And what did you think when you read your classmates‟ blogs? Firstly, I read the message more than focusing on the grammar. And most of the time I had a clear idea. Somehow the message got across. It was like they managed to express what they wanted and you could understand it. And every once in a while …if I saw a grammatical mistake, I noticed it. As I said earlier there was lack of feedback on our part. Like saying “hey!” or something like in a couple of comments I wrote something like “This is the way to write it”

100