Malaysian Journal of ELT Research

Malaysian Journal of ELT Research
ISSN: 1511-8002
Vol. 10(1), 2014
INTERNATIONAL BOARD OF ADVISORS

Alastair Pennycook
University of Technology, Sydney
Chan Swee Heng
University Putra Malaysia
David Wray
University of Warwick
Paul Matsuda
Arizona State University
EDITORIAL BOARD
Director of Journals:
Ramesh Nair
Universiti Teknologi Mara, Malaysia
Chief Editor:
Stefanie Pillai
University of Malaya, Malaysia
Editors:
Chua Meng Huat
Lee King Siong
Surinder Pal Kaur
Malaysian Journal of ELT Research Vol. 10(1) April 2014
REVIEWERS
Agnes Liau Wei Lin
Universiti Sains Malaysia
Azrai Hj Abdullah
Universiti Teknologi Petronas, Malaysia
Francisco Perlas Dumanig
George Teoh Boon Sai
Universiti Sains Malaysia
Jelani Sulaiman
Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia
John Kullman
Canterbury Christ Church University, United Kingdom
Jonathan Newton
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
Mardziah Hayati Abdullah
Universiti Putra Malaysia
Meei-Ling Liaw
National Taichung University, Taiwan
Nor Fariza binti Mohd. Nor
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Noorizah Binti Mohd Noor
Rajasegaran P. Krishnasamy
Universiti Teknologi Mara Melaka, Malaysia
Rosnaini bt Mahmud
Universiti Putra Malaysia
Ruanni F. Tupas
National Institute of Education, Singapore
Sa-hui (Agatha) Fan
National Taichung University, Taiwan
ii
Salah Troudi
University of Exeter, United Kingdom
Shanthini Pillai
Ting Su Hie
Universiti Sarawak Malaysia
Yunisrina Qismullah Yusuf,
Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia
iii
CONTRIBUTORS
Asiah Kassim is a postgraduate candidate at the Faculty of Languages & Linguistics, University
of Malaya. The focus of her study is in the field of second language acquisition. She is currently
teaching English language proficiency courses for undergraduate students at Universiti Malaysia
Pahang.
Daljeet Singh Sedhu is an English Lecturer in Tunku Abdul Rahman University College, Perak
Branch Campus. His research interests are metacognitive teaching and learning of English
Language and paraphrasing skills.
Masoumeh Dousti obtained a BA in English literature and an MA in TEFL from Urmia
University in Iran. Her research interests are needs analysis, computer-assisted language
learning, and educational technology.
Mun Yee Lee is an English Lecturer at Tunku Abdul Rahman University College (Perak Branch
Campus). Her research areas of interest include students development of writing skills in
English, changes of global education trends and management.
Ng Lee Luan teaches postgraduate courses at the Faculty of Languages and Linguistics,
University of Malaya. Her research interests include computer assisted language learning, online
learning, and teaching and learning at higher education.
Sara Jalali is an assistant professor of TEFL at the Department of English Language and
Literature at Urmia University in Iran. Her research interests are mostly in the areas of CALL,
needs analysis, testing and assessment in EFL.
S. Chee Choy, PhD is an Associate Professor and Branch Campus Head of Tunku Abdul
Rahman University College (Perak Branch Campus) Her research interests are perceptions, and
attitudes in language learning.
Tgk. Maya Silviyanti is a lecturer at the Department of English Language, Faculty of Teacher
Training and Education, at Universitas Syiah Kuala in Aceh. She also teaches at the Language
Center of the university. Her research interests are in the field of educational technology and its
implementation in the L2 classroom. She obtained her Bachelor of Education from Universitas
Syiah Kuala, and a Masters of Arts in educational technology and TESOL from the University
of Manchester.
Yunisrina Qismullah Yusuf is a lecturer of Linguistics at Universitas Syiah Kuala. Her research
interests are mainly in linguistics, culture and education. She obtained her Bachelor of Education
from Universitas Syiah Kuala, and a Masters of Linguistics and PhD in (Phonology) from the
University of Malaya. She is currently the chief editor of Studies in English Language and
Education (SiELE).
iv
INFORMATIONS FOR AUTHORS

ABOUT MaJER
The Malaysian Journal of ELT Research (MaJER) aims to advance knowledge of and to
develop expertise in critical and scientific inquiry in English language teaching and learning. The
journal is intended for academicians, researchers, teacher educators and graduate students who
are involved in research and dissemination of knowledge in the field. This is a refereed online
journal which will publish articles in an on-going manner. All articles in this journal undergo
anonymous peer review by two referees.
Submission of a manuscript to MaJER implies that the work submitted is original and has not
appeared in other publications (whether electronic or print) and nor is it being considered for
publication elsewhere. Corresponding authors are responsible for ensuring that all contributors to
the manuscript submitted are properly and duly acknowledged. The Malaysian English Language
Teaching Association (MELTA) and the Editorial Board of MaJER will not be responsible for
any authorship disputes arising from the publication of an article in MaJER.
Whilst every effort is made to verify the originality of manuscripts and to proofread accepted
manuscripts, MELTA and the Editorial Board of MaJER cannot be held responsible for errors or
accuracy of information contained in articles published in MaJER. Further, the views and
opinions expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect those of MELTA or the Editorial
Board or their agents.
Authors are invited to submit articles that focus on new theoretical perspectives, syntheses of
research, discussions of methodological issues and scholarly analyses of issues in ELT. Articles
may also include debates on a variety of perspectives, policy and theories, investigations of
alternative modes of research in ELT, examination of trends in ELT and the advancement of
knowledge and understanding of effective English language teaching and learning. The article
must be accompanied by an abstract and a bio data of the author(s).
GUIDELINES FOR SUBMISSION OF ARTICLES
1. All articles submitted must be original materials not under consideration or published
elsewhere. Authors must state if a paper has been presented at a conference and appears
or will appear in the proceedings of a conference.
2. Authors must use spelling and punctuation that is common to written communication in
the UK.
3. Manuscripts may be submitted via e-mail to journals@melta.org.my with the subject of
the email written as SUBMISSION TO MAJER.
4. For the first submission, send your manuscript in two MS Word files. One should have
the names and details of authors removed and saved as MaJER Title of PaperReview Copy.doc, and the other with the author information included saved as MaJER
Title of Paper-Non Review Copy.doc.
5. The cover page should include: a. A title. b. Name and institutional affiliation of each
author as you would like it to appear in the published version and contact full contact
information (full mailing address, telephone/fax numbers and e-mail address).
6. The second page should consist of an abstract of not more than 200 words, followed by
a list of not more than five keywords.
7. The article should begin on the third page.
8. All references and citations should be checked for accuracy and spelling, and follow the
APA format. References in the main text should not be different from those in the
reference section.
9. Footnotes are not acceptable but rather, should be worked into the text.
10. Articles for the Malaysian Journal of ELT Research that contain quantitative or
qualitative analysis or survey research reports must follow research conventions strictly.
11. A 150 word bio data of the author(s) must also be provided after the references section.
vi
Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts on

Paraphrasing Skills of ESL Students
S. CHEE CHOY, MUN YEE LEE, DALJEET SINGH SEDHU
Tunku Abdul Rahman University College, Perak Branch Campus, Malaysia
ABSTRACT
This study examined the influence of cultural and contextual settings of passages on
ESL students paraphrasing skills using a sample of forty-one students enrolled in a
university diploma programme. The results showed that students paraphrase better with
passages that contained main points that were easy to identify. The culture and context
of the passages played an important, but secondary role of stimulating students interest.
It was also found that there were changes in students perceptions of themselves as
learners after they had learned the paraphrasing skills. They were more confident about
using their paraphrasing skills especially with passages that contained subject matter
that was easy to understand and interesting.
KEYWORDS: ESL, paraphrasing skills, student perceptions, cultural settings,
contextual settings
Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts
Background
Previous studies showed that paraphrasing skills helped ESL students learn
academic writing (Omar, 2003). In other studies there were indications that
culture had an influence on writing and learning (Boondao, Hurst & Sheard,
2009). Studies conducted by Orellana and Reynolds (2008) and Lee and Choy
(2010) showed that skills alone did not help students with paraphrasing. Other
factors, including culture and context, influenced their abilities. Hence, the
current study was conducted to investigate whether culturally familiar texts
influenced students paraphrasing skills.
Most bilingual students find translating from their first language to a second
language challenging, especially when this language is the medium of
instruction. This was highlighted by Orellana and Reynolds (2008) in their
article on the influence of context on paraphrasing tasks of bilingual students.
Another study by Lee and Choys (2010) found that students were not helped
by paraphrasing skills alone. Other factors that were cultural in nature also
determined their ability to summarise a passage. Yu (2008) suggested that
these cultural factors were language bound and found that students did better
at summaries when they were allowed to paraphrase in Chinese, their first
language, what they had read in English, which they learned as a foreign
language. This suggested that students skills could exceed what they
expressed if they were not hindered by their command of the second or
foreign language. The results from these studies were inconclusive; hence
further research was necessary to determine if the cultural orientation of a
passage also influenced a students performance in a paraphrasing task.
Studies by Yu (2008) and Orellana and Reynolds (2008) also suggested that
contextual settings of passages played a part in students performances when
paraphrasing. Students tended to perform better in their native language (Yu,
2008). However, the results from both studies indicated that students preferred
to paraphrase in English because it was easier to directly copy the text even
when it was not fully understood. It was also found that proper understanding
of the text and the time allowed for the task were important prerequisites for
paraphrasing (Yu, 2008).
Paraphrasing skills, therefore, were viewed as process driven rather than skills
driven as these skills depended on a students comprehension of the context of
the passage (Johns, 1988). Hence, it was best for students to have prior
experience with the context and content of the text. Passages that were
culturally, nationally and ethnically bound to students help them derive more
meaning. The strategies students used to process the paraphrasing task was
also important as it influenced how successful they were when completing the
task (Johns, 1988). Another difficulty with paraphrasing was that students
were writing to an unknown, absent audience (Orellana and Reynolds, 2008)
Hence, they were often oblivious to what this audience would like to know
Choy, S.C., Lee, M.Y., Sedhu, D.S. (2014). Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 10(1), pp. 1-15.
and want included from the passage. The identification of this audience was
often not emphasised by the teacher. Students would possibly benefit from
being provided with such process enhancing information to help them
paraphrase.
Westin (2006) found that readers could better comprehend passages that were
culturally related to them. The same study also found that second language
speakers had greater difficulty paraphrasing passages that contained contexts
that were unfamiliar to them. Students who had to translate texts in order to
understand them might gloss over meanings of words creating inaccuracies in
their paraphrasing (Orellana and Reynolds, 2008). Therefore it would be
difficult to paraphrase accurately while keeping the writing context, as well as
content, accurate. Hare and Borchardt (1984) further noted that the
paraphrasing of passages by less proficient readers were more piecemeal,
sentence by sentence based, rather than based on the whole passage.
Most studies on paraphrasing focused on the use of strategies to enhance skills
required to carry out the task. There was little emphasis on the type of
learning that took place as a consequence of these skills (Johns, 1988; Scott,
1998). Anthony (1996) noted that students should be actively involved in their
own learning and stressed the need for them to make learning meaningful to
themselves rather than a passive acceptance of information or repetition of
knowledge. Students actively involved in learning, required an emphasis of
contextual learning where students constructed their own learning
experiences. This form of learning could enhance students paraphrasing skills
as they would be able to apply these skills to different passages and situations.
Methods
The Present Study
This study was interested in determining the perceptions of students when
carrying out paraphrasing tasks that were culturally and contextually oriented
for them. Students performances in their paraphrasing tasks were measured
using selected passages. The perceptions of the students interpreted from
interviews were used to determine how they used the paraphrasing skills and
the influence of the passages on their ability to paraphrase. A search of the
literature found a dearth of information on the influence of passages on
students paraphrasing skills with the exception of studies by Yu (2008) and
Orellana and Reynolds (2008). Hence, in an attempt to enhance our
understanding of such influences two research questions (RQ) were used to
underpin this study:
RQ1. What were students perceptions of the paraphrasing skills taught using
passages that were culturally and contextually relevant?
RQ2. Were students perceptions of the paraphrasing skills reflected in their

performance in the paraphrasing tests?
Design and procedure
This study was carried out using the qualitative approach with a sample of
forty-one students who were pursuing diploma programmes at a university in
Malaysia. All of the students in the sample were adult learners, non-native
speakers of English and had obtained a C in English for their SPM
Examinations in the Malaysian equivalent of the GCE O Levels. The
informed consent of each student was obtained with an assurance of
anonymity. These students were allowed to withdraw at any time from the
study and were also told that any information provided by them would only be
viewed by the researchers.
The intervention was for a ten week period during the first semester when the
students were learning paraphrasing skills in their English course. The
students were taught paraphrasing skills with relevant practise exercises
during these ten weeks. Two tests were administered to the sample group: a
teacher made pre- and post-test for paraphrasing which consisted of a selected
passage to be paraphrased.
The pre-test was administered on the second week, while the post test was
administered on the twelfth week of the fourteen-week semester. In the
teacher made paraphrasing tests, two passages were chosen for students. The
first passage was contextually familiar to the students, while the second
passage was not. The two passages were selected to study the influence of
familiar passages on students abilities to paraphrase (Appendix A and
Appendix B). The readability levels of the two passages were determined
using the Flesch-Kincaid Readability Tests (Kincaid, Fishburne, Rogers, &
Chissom, 1975).
In order to ensure that the passages chosen for the pre- and post-tests were
appropriate, ten passages were initially selected. The passages were checked
for readability levels using the Flesch-Kincaid Readability Tests, and read for
content and context relevancy by the researchers. The passages were all 350 to
450 words long with readability levels of between Grade 8 to Grade 9. As the
students were ESL learners, passages chosen were lower than university level
English. These passages were read and re-read until two of them were finally
chosen based on the subject matter of the passages. The two passages chosen
had the same reading level at Grade 8.5 and were on hijacking in South Africa
for the unfamiliar passage and the custom of handshaking for the familiar
passage.
In addition to the tests, the students were interviewed as a group. They were
asked questions about what they had learned as well as their impressions of
the paraphrasing tasks they had carried out during class. A list of the questions
can be found on Appendix C. A total of two interview sessions were recorded
and videotaped, one before teaching the paraphrasing skill and the other after.
These sessions were then transcribed by the researchers for analysis. The
students were encouraged to be vocal with their views during the sessions and
were asked to indicate their responses with a show of hands which the
interviewer recorded using an observation protocol (Creswell, 2013).
The results obtained led to the use of the interpretive approach. The interview
data was analysed, and themes were allowed to emerge from it. The
interpretation was based on the perspectives of the researchers and, as such,
was value laden and biased. These salient points from the interview were then
analysed and grouped under a common category (Radnor, 2002). An
interpretive approach was used as the researchers were subjectively involved
with the participants through their interactions with them. The goal here was
to rely on the participants views of paraphrasing which were formed during
interaction with the researchers (Creswell, 2013). The researchers also
addressed the process that the students went through to learn paraphrasing.
The analyses were used to answer the research questions. The sample used
was from a Malaysian population and cannot be generalised. The hope of the
researchers was that the results obtained might be applicable to students of
other nationalities in similar situations.
Results
RQ1. What were students perceptions of the effectiveness of the paraphrasing
skills taught using passages that were culturally and contextually relevant?
From the analysis of the interviews, several salient points were found. These
points were grouped into the following categories and used to answer the
research question. The quotes from the interviews were edited to aid the
readers understanding.
Culturally and contextually familiar passages were harder.
Fifty-eight per cent of the students perceived that paraphrasing the
contextually familiar passages was more difficult. They found the task
difficult because they did not know how to identify the important points to be
included in their paraphrased passage. Although the handshake was familiar to
these students, they found it difficult to pick out the main points in the
passage. For instance, Student K commented:
Handshake is something common for me. However, I am confused
with which points to choose from the passage, although the passage
is easy to understand.
Student F noted the difficulty of the passage:

The handshake passage is more difficult for me as there are hidden
points. I got the main points, but I could not formulate the answer.
The language used in the passage is not the problem.
Culturally and contextually unfamiliar passages were easier.

About fifty-eight per cent of the students perceived the contextually
unfamiliar passage was easier because the main points in the passage were
obvious and could be easily identified. The comments from students implied
that an easier to understand passage in terms of the language might be more
helpful for ESL students than the context of the passage. For instance, Student
O commented:
The hijack passage is easier because I can find all the points, but
the handshake passage is difficult as the main points were not
clear.
Student V commented:
The hijack passage is easier. I understand the passage better. I
have never read about car hijack before, but I managed to get the
necessary information.
Sixteen per cent of the students from this group perceived that they could
paraphrase better because they were interested in the subject matter. These
students also mentioned they had some prior knowledge of the topic in the
passage and found the passage easier to paraphrase and summarise. For
instance, Student C commented:
The hijack text is easier than handshake. I read some hijacking
articles and most of the cases were from foreign news. The
meaning of the passage can be easily understood.
Understanding requirements of the task improved confidence

levels.
All the students mentioned that their ability to understand the requirements of
the task and identify the main points affected their confidence levels. For
instance, Student V commented:
The exercise where I had to summarise the advantages and
disadvantages of watching television, is rather an easy task because
the requirement is understood and the points were easily lifted from
the passage. Thus, I was confident about doing it.
Another Student H also commented:

I was more confident about carrying out the task after I was able to
understand what was required; I was not as confident before I tried
it.
Students were unable to apply skills.

All of the students perceived that the skills taught were useful, but they were
not able to fully apply them in their exercises and tests. Even after many
practise exercises in paraphrasing, they continued to have difficulties
understanding and applying the requirements of the task and extracting the
main points from the passage. For instance Student K said:
The skills taught are useful, and I am more confident as a result, but
I still have difficulties when I have to paraphrase. I could do the
practise exercises and I did well in the exercises. They were easier
than the passage because they were short sentences. Whereas the
passage had so many sentences and I did not know which was
important and which was not.
Other students commented that the skills taught helped as long as the points in
the passages were clear and could easily be lifted from the text. When the
passages were difficult they found paraphrasing confusing. For example,
Student M commented:
The skills taught are useful as long as the passage is easy to
understand. The points must be easy to find. When the passages get
difficult it is confusing to apply the skills. I do not know where to
begin.
Skills did not help.

About thirty per cent of the students perceived that the paraphrasing skills
they learned did not help. They could not apply the techniques that were
taught, and their poor command of English was an obstacle when
paraphrasing. This was evidenced by Student T who commented:
Techniques were useful. But even when I used them to help me do
the paraphrasing, I cannot find the main points. Sometimes examples
are like the main points, and I include them as part of the answer. I
cannot differentiate them well because I am poor in English.
Other students were unsure if the techniques actually helped them carry out
the paraphrasing task. For instance Student H said:
After learning the techniques, I did not apply them on the tests
only on the exercises. I did not use the techniques as I was not
taught them especially before the first test.
Comprehension of passage was essential when applying paraphrasing skill.

There were two different passages given to students. About thirty per cent of
the students found the hijack passage easier to understand while the rest of
them found the handshake passage easier. The comments from students
suggested that perceptions of paraphrasing tasks depended on whether
students found the passage easy to understand and whether the main points
were obvious in the passage. For instance, Student O said:
The hijack passage is easier because I could find the points,

but the handshake passage was difficult. There were so many
points and I could not differentiate the main points from the
less important ones.
Student S further commented:

The hijack passage was harder. I could not differentiate the
main points and examples. The handshake passage was
straight to the point. The context was more familiar to me.
It was also found that paraphrasing skills were only useful if students could
comprehend the passages to a certain level. This was evidenced in the
comment made by Student C:
If I understand the whole passage then I would be able to
write, and apply the techniques that I was taught. But if I
could only understand the passage a little then I would just
try to copy the main points and make a passage with the
sentences I copy.
Discussion: RQ1
The passage on the handshake, a gesture practised by most people, could be
perceived as part of a world-wide culture and, therefore, familiar to the
students. However, based on what students expressed during the interview, the
contextually relevant passages were more difficult to paraphrase as the main
points were obscured by the sub-points in the passage. Thus, the way the
passage was written might be more important than its culture and context.
This finding did not support research by Orellana and Reynolds (2008) and
Yu (2008) as the ease of assessing the main points might be more important
than the contextual setting of the passages for ESL students when they were
paraphrasing. In the contextually familiar passage, the students had difficulty
differentiating the main points from the secondary ones.
The findings also suggested that if students were able to extract the main
points without difficulty they could paraphrase the passage. Students with
some knowledge of the subject found the task easier to carry out. This
supported research done by Johns (1988) and Westin (2006) who noted that
prior knowledge of the context of the passage might help students to
paraphrase a passage better. This prior knowledge acted as a bridge which
helped them understand the passage. The ease of lifting the main points from
a passage proved more important than the context of the passage for ESL
students. The familiarity of the subject matter played a role in helping these
students but seemed to be a secondary factor to the ease of identifying the
main points from the passage.
Students felt that they were more confident about paraphrasing if they could
understand the requirements of the task and if the main points of the passage
were clear and direct. Hence, these tasks seemed dependent on the structure of
the passages rather than the cultural orientations. Students found it easier to
focus on the requirements of the tasks rather than on the context and culture
orientation of the passage. This supported findings by Lee and Choy (2010)
and Westin (2006) that teaching paraphrasing skills alone did not help
students acquire these skills. Students paraphrased better when they could
identify the main points from the text. Also, interest in the subject matter
helped students carry out paraphrasing tasks, but this was secondary.
It would seem that the exercises for learning paraphrasing skills were easier
because they were mostly in short sentences or paragraphs giving a false
impression that paraphrasing was easy. However, when applying these skills
to the passages, most of them perceived the tasks were more difficult when
they had to apply the skills they learned. It could be that these students needed
to be introduced to paraphrasing short paragraphs then gradually progressed to
whole passages. The process where the students started paraphrasing
sentences and immediately progressed to full passages was daunting,
especially for ESL learners. It seemed that confidence in carrying out this task
could be built if students were given a transition period where paraphrasing
tasks progressed from sentences to short paragraphs and finally to full
passages. This further supported the findings by Lee and Choy (2010) that
skills alone did not help students paraphrasing abilities. Students also
perceived they were more confident paraphrasing if they understood the
requirements and could find the main points in the passage without difficulty.
They seemed to focus on the requirements of the tasks rather than the context
and culture of the passage.
Some of the students did not find the paraphrasing skills useful and were
unable to apply them when paraphrasing passages. One of the problems
constantly mentioned was that they did not have a good command of the
English language which hindered their ability to carry out the task. This would
support the findings of Orellana and Reynolds (2008) that students with a
poor command of the language they were paraphrasing in would have more
difficulty carrying out the task effectively.
The type of passage seemed to influence students comprehension level. This
was likely dependent on students prior knowledge of the subject matter in the
passage. The cultural influences did not seem to directly affect the students
ability to paraphrase the passage. Students who were able to comprehend the
passage to a certain level were able to lift the main points. This seemed to
agree with the findings of Hare and Borchardt (1984) and Westin (2006) that
ESL students with less language proficiency tend to paraphrase a passage
piecemeal and just extract information from the passage verbatim.
Paraphrasing skills were useful if students could apply them to passages they
could adequately comprehend. As such, the contextual settings might not be
as important as ensuring that students had the language ability to understand
10
the passage to be paraphrased. This finding seemed to support research by

Johns (1988) that students comprehension of a passage was important to help
them effectively carry out a paraphrasing task. However, this did not support
the findings by Orellana and Reynolds (2008) and Yu (2008) that the cultural
settings of a passage played an important part in helping students paraphrase.
Hence, the cultural setting of a passage was of secondary importance to
students comprehension of a passage when carrying out a paraphrasing task.
RQ2. Were students perceptions of the paraphrasing skills reflected in their
performance in the paraphrasing tests?
In an attempt to answer RQ 2, students performances in the post and pre-tests
were used in the analysis. Table 1 shows a summary of the scores obtained.
Table 1. Results of students paraphrasing scores
Average
Culturally
Paraphrasing Unfamiliar
Score
Passage
(%)
Pre-Test
50
Culturally
Familiar
Passage
(%)
55
Post-Test
60
60
Discussion: RQ2
The results of the paraphrasing test showed a bigger improvement in students
scores for the unfamiliar text than the familiar one. Students paraphrasing the
unfamiliar passage had an average ten point increase in their post test scores
from fifty points to sixty points. In comparison, students who paraphrased the
familiar passage had an average five point increase in their post test scores
from fifty points to sixty points. As the readability levels of both passages
were the same at grade 8.5, it would imply that the cultural orientation of a
passage might only play a secondary role as to how easy it was for students to
identify the main points in the passage.
The students were able to paraphrase the unfamiliar passage better because it
was easier to identify the main points when compared to the familiar one. This
finding did not support research by Orellana and Reynolds (2008) that
familiar texts help students perform their paraphrasing tasks better. It rather
suggested that another factor influencing students abilities to paraphrase was
their abilities to comprehend the passages. Students were able to understand
the unfamiliar passage better than the one that was familiar to them.
11
Conclusion
The results of this study suggest that using familiar texts did not directly help
students improve their paraphrasing skills. However, ensuring that the
students understand the requirements of the tasks and using passages that are
interesting to students with easy to identify main points as a start will help
build confidence. The culture and context of the passage play a secondary
role. Also, students perceptions of their own paraphrasing skills do not seem
to accurately reflect their actual skills when paraphrasing. Further research on
how teaching strategies can be tailored to suit the needs of ESL learners can
be carried out. Another suggestion will be scaffolding the learning of
paraphrasing skills by having students paraphrase sentences and then short
paragraphs and eventually longer passages. Since the selection of passages for
paraphrasing tasks seem to influence the performance of ESL learners, further
studies are needed as well. A passage needs to have content and context that
are easy for students to understand until they become more proficient with the
language.
The strategies that have been used to teach paraphrasing skills to students in
the past also need re-examination. Teachers seem to be teaching the strategies
without realising that their students are having difficulty applying them. The
selection of passages for paraphrasing, usually done by the teacher, could
result in students finding the passages uninteresting, especially if they have
had no prior knowledge of the topic. Further studies need to be carried out to
determine if passages of interest can influence students performances when
paraphrasing, as there are indicators in this study that this could have a greater
influence than its cultural orientation.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the contributions of Frances A. Bryant to the
successful completion of this paper.
References
Anthony, G. (1996). Active learning in a constructivist framework.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31(4), 349-369.
Boondao, R., Hurst, A. J., & Sheard, J. I. (2009). Understanding cultural
influences: Principles for personalized E-learning systems.
International Journal of Human and Social Sciences, 4(9), 691-695.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing
among five approaches. Los Angeles: Sage.
Hare, V. C., & Borchardt, K. M. (1984). Direct Instruction of summarization
skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(1), 62-78.
12
Johns, A. M. (1988). Reading for summarising: An approach to text

orientation and processing. Reading in a Foreign Language, 4(2), 7990.
Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975).
Deviation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index,
Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy enlisted
personnel. Memphis: Naval Technical Training, U.S. Naval Air
Station.
Lee, M. Y., & Choy, S. C. (2010). Effects of teaching paraphrasing skills to
studetns learning summary writing in ESL. TARC International
Conference on Learning and Teaching (pp. 71-77). Kuala Lumpur:
Tunku Abdul Rahman College.
Omar, A. H. (2003). Language and language situation in Southeast Asia:
With a focus in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Akademi Pengajian Melayu,
Universiti Malaya.
Orellana, M. F., & Reynolds, J. F. (2008). Cultural modeling: Leveraging
bilingual skills for school paraphrasing tasks. Reading Research
Quarterly, 43(1), 48-65.
Radnor, H. A. (2002). Researching your professional practice: Doing
interpretive research in educational settings. London: Open University
Press.
Scott, P. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A
Vygotskian analysis and review. Studies in Science Education, 32, 4580.
Westin, E. (2006). Cultural and historical narrative in native and non-native
speaker language. In H. L. Andersen, K. Lund, & K. Risager, Culture
in Language Learning (pp. 45-55). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Yu, G. (2008). Reading to summarise in English and Chinese: A tale of two
languages? Language Testing, 25(4), 521-551.
13
APPENDIX A
The Custom of Handshaking
A handshake is a short ritual in which two people grasp each others right or
left hand often accompanied by a brief up and down movement of the grasped
hands. Research shows that handshaking was practised as far back as the 2nd
century BC. It is believed that it originated during the Roman Empire, when
people would grasp each other at the elbow rather than the hand as a gesture
of trust, showing that they are not carrying any weapons beneath their sleeves.
The handshake is commonly done upon meeting, greeting, parting,
offering congratulations, expressing gratitude or completing an agreement. In
sports or other competitive activities, it is also done as a sign of good
sportsmanship. Its purpose is to demonstrate goodwill, trust and equality. Men
are more likely to shake hands than women. However, in business situations,
it is considered the standard greeting for both sexes.
In some cultures, people shake both hands but in most cultures people
shake the right hand. In Islam, shaking hands, along with the greeting
Assalamualaikum (peace be upon you), is a regular greeting. Boy Scouts
specifically use a left handshake. Since the right hand is more commonly
dominant, the left hand would typically be used in holding a shield; by
shaking with the left hand, one is defenceless while trusting the other person
who may still be holding a weapon in the right hand.
In the olden days, it was always the most important person, or the
strongest in the group, who had to extend the hand. That has changed. Today,
anybody at any place and at any time has the right to offer you his hand.
It is believed that when you extend your hand, there are three ways of
doing it, palm down, palm vertical and palm up. The palm down way forces
the other person to offer palm up, and he can feel in an underdog position.
Doing it palm vertical is a generous way to offer a handshake. It sends the
signal of cooperation, I want to work with you. Salespeople often offer a
handshake palm up. This is a subtle way of indicating the at-your-service
aspect of doing business. It says that the other person is in charge.
Your summary must:
Be in continuous writing (not in note form)
Not be longer than 80 words, including the 10 words given below
Begin your summary as follows:
A handshake is a short ritual in which two people ....
14
APPENDIX B
Hijacking in South Africa
The article describes the way car owners in South Africa have adapted their
lifestyles to meet the threat of hijacks. Write an account of what they do to
prevent hijacks.
People who live in and around Johannesburg are used to stories of cars
being hijacked and it is difficult to find a family that has not been affected by
a hijack. Johannesburg is in the Gauteng district and last year in this district
alone, 8979 hijackings were reported to the police. That is about 24 a day.
Most did not result in death but in more than 80 per cent of cases, hijackers
were armed with guns and there was a threat of death.
People drive defensively in Johannesburg. They keep their windows
up, their doors locked and skip red lights because any car waiting at an
intersection is vulnerable. They are vigilant and careful, and if a suspiciouslooking car or character is outside their house, they drive on. If their cars are
bumped by other cars on highway, they also drive on because stopping to
investigate is too dangerous.
While some hijackings are smooth, quick and polite, some are
exceptionally violent and involve hostages and murder. Cars have been taken
with babies and children still strapped in the back seat. Because of this, many
mothers no longer strap their children into cars. They think it is too risky. If
they are at the supermarket, they always pack the groceries into the car before
they let the children to get in. They are permanently on their guard.
Many parents prepare their children for such situations as if they were
practising fire drill. They tell them, for example, that if hijack takes place,
they are to listen to their parents and not the hijackers.
Hijacking is so much a part of daily life that a book was recently
published on what to do in the case of a hijack. One radio station even runs a
hijack-watch line that describes cars that have been taken and asks motorists
to look out for them.
Your summary must:
Be in continuous writing (not in note form)
Not be longer than 80 words, including the 10 words given below
Begin your summary as follows:
Car owners in South Africa are so frightened of hijack...
15
APPENDIX C
Interview questions:
1. What were your experiences when you were attempting to write the
paraphrasing tests?
2. What did you have to do to complete the summary writing test?
3. What were your experiences using the paraphrasing skills that you learned?
Were these skills something new or something familiar to you?
4. How well did you think you applied the summary writing techniques taught
to you in class?
5. What were some of the difficulties you encountered while producing a
summary?
6. Which of the two passages did you prefer? Why?
7. What do you see were your strengths and weaknesses when you attempted
to complete the task?
8. What were your feelings about the first test when you attempted it? What
about the second test?
The Roles of Collaborative Dialogue in Enhancing

Written Corrective Feedback Efficacy
ASIAH KASSIM
Universiti Malaysia Pahang
NG LEE LUAN
University of Malaya
ABSTRACT
This paper discusses findings from a qualitative investigation to identify factors in
relation to language-related episodes (LREs) that influence the uptake and retention in the
accurate use of subject-verb agreement and prepositions resulting from indirect focused
and indirect unfocused written corrective feedback. In relation to these identified factors,
the roles of collaborative dialogue were determined through the analyses of the LREs and
the interviews with selected participants. The participants in the study who received
either focused or unfocused indirect corrective feedback for their written work were
required to revise their work collaboratively during the pair talk. Findings from the
analyses of the two data sources suggest that collaborative dialogue played a crucial role
in enhancing the corrective feedback efficacy in facilitating participants language
learning development. Primarily, collaborative dialogue enhanced learners focus towards
ungrammatical uses in written work. Working collaboratively also provided learners with
means to extensively deliberate over the corrections, which led to insightful reflections
on their existing linguistic knowledge in response to the corrective feedback that they
received for their written work.
KEYWORDS: Collaborative dialogue, language-related episodes, written corrective

feedback
The Roles of Collaborative Dialogue
17
Introduction
One of the pertinent issues that has been continuously discussed in the field of second
language learning is the role of corrective feedback (CF) and its influence on learners
linguistic development. A good number of studies relate contradictory views on this
matter. At one end, some scholars believe that corrective feedback is facilitative for
language acquisition. Findings from a number of studies have shown that CF helped the
learners to revise their work and write more accurately in subsequent writings (e.g.,
Bitchener & Knoch, 2010; Bitchener, Young & Cameron, 2005; Chandler, 2003; Ferris,
2006). On the other hand, researchers like Truscott (1996) argued that grammar
corrections are ineffective and may be detrimental to language learning development
(Truscott, 1996; Truscott & Hsu, 2008).
After over a decade of incessant debate, Evans, Hartshorn, McCollum and Wolfersberger
(2010) asserted that researchers have been asking the wrong question with regards to the
role of CF in language learning. Framing of the inquiries should focus more on how CF
can be exploited to help students become better writers, than to ask whether or not CF
should be given to the learners written work. This line of argument is parallel to that of
Ferris (2004) who stated that the importance of a study should be put on the types of CF
to be employed in different learning instructions that can cater to different learners
needs. White (2003) acknowledges the importance of examining data based on
individual performance because depending solely on statistical figures derived from
group scores may not be able to provide accurate interpretation in addressing grammar
proficiency of diverse learners. Moreover, drawing on suggestions brought forth by Van
Beuningen (2010) calling for more qualitative inquiries on CF issues, the present study
attempted to examine CF effectiveness from the learners perspective in relation to
influencing factors and the roles that collaborative dialogue play in enhancing the CF
efficacy. Thus, the analyses of the interviews and the LREs occurring in collaborative
dialogue may shed some light to questions of the present study which primarily attempt
to identify factors that influence uptake and retention of the CF and the roles that
collaborative dialogue play in enhancing this learning process.
Written corrective feedback, collaborative dialogue and the output hypothesis
Based on previous studies, it can be asserted that attention must be given to the CF
(Chandler, 2003) and there should be engagement with [the] feedback to enhance
uptake and retention (Lee, 2013). The Chandler (2003) study strongly indicated that
improvement in subsequent written work can be evident only when the learners attended
to the feedback and revise their writing accordingly, because if no revision was made it
can be considered as equivalent to giving no error feedback (Chandler, 2003, p. 280). In
other words, learners must demonstrate attentiveness towards the CF provided for it to
take effect in their written work.
With the assumption that CF can be more effective when attention is focused on the CF
received, a number of studies have incorporated the written CF with other approaches,
such as oral conference and metalinguistic explanation (Bitchener et al., 2005), error log
Kassim, A. & Ng, L.L. (2014). Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 10(1), pp. 16-30.
18
and continuous revision (Hartshorn et al., 2010) and collaborative dialogues (Storch &
Wigglesworth, 2010). Lee (2013) has also suggested that in order to maximise student
learning, working in pairs to make revisions should be taken into account as the means
to enhance learning development.
With regards to collaborative dialogue, one aspect that has mostly been examined is the
language-related episodes (LREs) that occurred during the revision process. LRE is
defined as any part of the discourse where students talk about the language they are
producing, question their language use or correct themselves or others (Swain & Lapkin,
1995). A number of studies that involve LREs analysis have been conducted to
investigate the effectiveness of learning instructions utilising collaborative tasks in
various contexts of language learning (e.g., Philp, Walter & Basturkmen, 2010; Sato &
Ballinger, 2012). Storch and Wigglesworths (2010) study for instance, looked at the
extent of LREs that occur in pair talks and how they influence uptake and retention of
language features negotiated in the collaborative dialogue. Findings from that study
suggest that the more extensive the engagement in the LREs is, the greater the uptake and
retention are of the linguistic forms discussed. Ishiis (2011) study using turn-based
coding system had also analysed collaborative dialogues to explore learners learning
strategies in improving linguistic accuracy in written work.
The key concept of Swains (2005) output hypothesis is that learners are actively engaged
in the process of language learning and collaborative dialogue can be viewed as the
means to achieve this condition. Swain (2005) outlines the output hypothesis by
proposing three functions that the theory serves: noticing, hypothesis testing and
metalinguistics. Noticing is important because it provides learners with the information of
the gap in the learners interlanguage system. Furthermore, hypothesis testing involves
learners to produce modified output and stretch their interlanguage system to find out
the target-like use of the linguistic form in question. This stage is significant because this
is where learners, as implied by Ferris (2006), will be most encouraged to be involved in
deeper internal processing and enhance the uptake and retention of the targeted
linguistic forms into their interlanguage system. This leads to the third function of the
output hypothesis, that is, the reflection on learners metalinguistic knowledge. The
resolution of the hypothesis testing and the reflection of the learners linguistic
knowledge will be the formation of a new or enhanced linguistic acquisition as well as
the realisation of the gap that exists in the learners interlanguage system.
In relation to the issue reviewed above, the present studys aim to explore the CF issue
from the learners perspectives would hopefully render some insights on the learners
engagement with feedback and the process that were involved in responding to the CF
that they received. Hyland (2010) indicates the scarcity of studies that have been carried
out investigating the learners strategies and learning processes that take place which
may increase CF efficacy in order to achieve full learning potential (Hyland, 2010, p.
179).
It is hypothesised that collaborative dialogue plays a crucial role in enhancing the written
corrective feedback that learners received leading to uptake and retention. Thus, it is the
19
intention of the present study that through the analysis of the LREs and interviews,
factors that influencing uptake and retention can be identified and the roles of
collaborative dialogue can be ascertained as to the manner this approach may enhance
language learning development.
The study
Research Questions
This study aimed to identify factors that influenced uptake and retention of the CF on
subject-verb agreement (SVA) and preposition in written work. Incorporating
collaborative dialogue as part of the treatment process, this inquiry was investigated from
the learners perspectives in investigating the roles that collaborative dialogue plays in
enhancing CF efficacy. The following research questions guided the present study: (1)
What are the factors in relation to the Language-Related Episodes (LREs) that influence
uptake and retention of the written corrective feedback on subject-verb agreement and
prepositions in written work?; and (2) What are the roles of collaborative dialogue in
enhancing the effectiveness of written corrective feedback in relation to the identified
influencing factors?
Participants
The study was conducted at a technical university in the East Coast of Malaysia involving
90 undergraduate students who were enrolled in the fourth level of English language
proficiency course. In order to fulfil the academic requirements, students at the university
are required to complete four levels of English language course and in general, they are
placed at the intermediate proficiency level. The average number of years of the
participants formal English language lesson is 13.5 depending on whether they enrolled
in a Diploma programme or a Foundation course after high school at the age of 18. Three
groups of 30 participants each were randomly assigned as the focused indirect CF (FCF),
unfocused indirect CF (UFCF) or the control group.
Design and procedures
Throughout the 12 weeks, the participants were required to write five 200-word
descriptions on graphic prompts of technological theme, of which 30 minutes were
allocated for each task. The participants were required to identify salient information in
the graph to write the description which comprises an introductory sentence, discussion
of the important information and a concluding remark. The selection of these written
tasks considered two main aspects; (i) this instrument elicited sufficient use of SVA and
prepositions; and (ii) it was the form of written task that the participants were familiar
with, so that the instructions and requirements of the tasks can be fully understood by the
participants.
The pre-test took place in week 2 and followed by Writing Task 1 (WT1) in week 3.
WT1 was returned the following week to the participants with either the UFCF or FCF.
20
The group that received FCF were given feedback on only subject-verb agreement and
preposition errors. For example:
SVA
* users prefer to using a Mozilla web brouser
Even though there are other errors in the sentence, feedback was only provided for the
selected linguistic forms. In the example, the selected error is subject-verb agreement,
and the part where the error occurred was underlined and indicted by the symbol SVA
above the underlined phrase to inform the learner of the error type.
The participants in the UFCF group, in addition to the two targeted structures, they also
received feedback on other linguistic features that were adapted from Azars (1992) guide
for correcting writing errors. Below is the example of the indirect unfocused feedback:
SVA
P
A
SP
M/S
*The users prefer at use a Mozilla web brousers
Apart from SVA and prepositions, feedback on article (A), singular/plural(SP) and
spelling (M/S) were also provided for the sentence in the example. The feedback was
more comprehensive and learners were provided with a much extensive range of
corrections for their written work. Learners were provided with only the indication of the
errors committed by underlining the selected parts and informing the types of errors
committed. The correct forms, however, were not provided with the feedback.
Upon receiving their writings with the CF, they were given five minutes to look through
their work on their own before they started working with their partner. The participants
were given the freedom to choose their own partner for the pair talk to ensure that they
were comfortable discussing their written work. The LREs were elicited from the two
pair talk sessions. These sessions took place in the multimedia language laboratory and
each student had an access to the computer for recording purposes. 30 minutes were
allocated to discuss each written work. However, they were allowed to extent their
discussion if necessary. Once they have finished discussing both written work and had
saved the recording on the computer, all the notes and the written work were collected.
Immediately after that, the participants completed Writing Task 2. The writings were
returned with the CF the following week and the same procedures took place. The
immediate post-test was conducted after the second pair-talk session ended and the
delayed post-test was administered six weeks later. The interview was conducted in week
13, the subsequent week after the delayed post-test. Each interview session lasted for
approximately 45 minutes to one hour.
Coding and analysis
The first source of data came from the two written work of the FCF and UFCF groups.
The CF provided for each piece of writing was identified and categorised according to the
21
two targeted linguistic forms. The second source of the data was the transcribed
collaborative dialogues of the UFCF and FCF groups in the two treatment sessions. All
relevant episodes which contained deliberations on the two targeted linguistic forms were
identified and coded into the following categorisations:
Linguistic forms SVA/ prepositions

Resolution correctly/ incorrectly/ unresolved
Focus on ungrammaticality perfunctory/ substantive
Hypothesising correction limited/ extensive
Post-response reflections
The two targeted linguistic forms were identified and coded as either SVA or
prepositions. In terms of resolution, correct resolution is when the pairs were able to
come up with the corrected forms of the errors committed. Incorrect resolution is when
the pairs came up with the forms that are inaccurate for the context of the written work.
The feedback was considered unresolved when the pairs during the deliberation over the
feedback mentioned that they did not know the correct form. Substantive focus is coded
when the learners were able to understand why the errors were committed and able to
explain on the corrections. Perfunctory focus is when the learners did not understand why
an error was committed and were not able to explain the corrections (Qi & Lapkin, 2001).
Extensive hypothesising of correction is when the participants deliberated extensively
over an error and tried out several options before finally agreeing on a correction.
Limited hypothesising of correction is when participants made correction by just
acknowledging the feedback and simply came up with a correction without much
deliberation. Post-response reflection is when learners reflected on their existing
linguistic knowledge in comparison to the CF that they received and the deliberated
corrections.
The third source of data came from the writings of the immediate and delayed post-tests.
In order to examine the retention of the corrective feedback, a process-product analysis
was employed (Nassaji & Swain, 2000; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2010). The analysis
linked the LREs in collaborative dialogue with the performance of the participants in the
immediate and delayed post-tests. To establish this link, the examination focused on
comparison between the response of the participants to the corrective feedback on the
two targeted structures with the accurate use of these two forms in similar instances
identified in the immediate and delayed post-tests.
Finally, the fourth source of data was the analysis of interviews conducted with the
participants in a week following the delayed post-test. The interview was analysed for
responses given on the roles of collaborative dialogue in enhancing the CF efficacy.
Results and discussion
According to White (2003), examining data at individual level is a welcome trend
which allows possibility of exploring more information on the individual linguistic
competence. Bitchener et al. (2005) also suggested that individual performance may be
22
one of the factors that influenced the disparity in the accuracy scores over a period of
time. Thus, this paper discusses qualitative findings that may render some insights as to
how the CF and collaborative dialogue may have facilitated the learners in improving
accuracy in written work. In order to achieve this, factors that may have influenced the
uptake and retention were identified from the analyses of the LREs as well as interviews
exploring the issue from the learners perspectives and what roles does the collaborative
dialogue play in enhancing the learning development in relation to the factors identified.
Learners focus on ungrammatical uses
According to Swain (2005), noticing plays an important role in directing learners
attention to the gap that exists in their interlanguage system. This awareness assists
learners to reflect on their language production and make necessary revisions. By
employing focused or unfocused indirect CF, errors were made salient for the learners to
focus their attention towards grammatical and ungrammatical uses while making room
for them to test their language hypothesis in making corrections during the collaborative
dialogue.
Close examination reveals that participants who demonstrated substantive focus seemed
to attain greater uptake and retention than those who showed only perfunctory focus.
Extract 1 is the LREs of learners demonstrating substantive focus. It was evident that the
pairs showed substantive focus when deliberating over a SVA error and eventually were
able to explain why the sentence was wrong and identified the correct form to use.
Extract 1
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Amira
Hana
Amira
Hana
Amira
SVA error herethe most popular device are

herethe subject is device
device are not are we need singularmmm
device?
Yes device is singular singular so, cannot use
are singularthen I should use isso, device is
Ormmm devices are?
no not devices I just talk about one device
heremobile
phoneso,
it
should
be
devicesingularverb is device is
Amira (all names in this article are pseudonyms) was fully aware that she was directed
toward the phrase the device are which was not in agreement in terms of numbers to the
verb used (line 1). When Hana suggested the use of are with devices, she asserted that
she was talking about one device, the mobile phone and it should agree with the verb is,
since it is singular (lines 6 to 8). This LRE indicated that when the pairs attentions were
directed towards the non-target like output, they managed to make accurate correction
since they demonstrated substantive focus by clearly stating the reason for the error
committed. This finding seems to corroborate the results from other studies that suggest
the greater role substantive noticing plays in enhancing uptake of corrective feedback that
is observed through the analysis of LREs (Qi & Lapkin, 2001; Sachs & Polio, 2007).
23
On the other hand, pairs that only demonstrated perfunctory focus would just simply read
the CF and agreed on a correction. An example of perfunctory focus is given in Extract 2.
Extract 2
1) Syed
(2) Nabila
(3) Syed
NextSVA the numbers increases

Change to the number increasesno s
Ok the numberno snext
Syed simply agreed on the suggestion and changed the numbers to the number,
leaving out the s. They were able to make accurate correction, but they did not
demonstrate understanding over the CF and the errors committed. With this simple
assumption, they tend to make mistakes when correcting similar SVA errors since they
were not completely aware of the subject or the verb of the sentence. Interview with this
pair of participants revealed that they just assumed that when the error is SVA, they just
needed to omit or add an s to one of the words underlined by the researcher. When
asked if they knew which one was the subject or the verb in the underlined phrases, they
mostly pointed out the verb correctly, but it was not consistent with the subject. An
example is given below:
SVA
Another web browser used by the internet user are Safari.
In this sentence, Syed pointed to the the internet user as the subject and during the pair
talk, he added s to the word user instead of using is to make it agreeable with the
actual subject of the sentence. He simply assumed that the internet users was the subject
of the sentence and it should be plural since are was used subsequent to the assumed
subject. What this condition implies is that even though they sometimes managed to
make accurate corrections, by not clearly being aware of the reason for their errors, they
were unable to take up and retain the CF in the long run.
Hypothesising corrections
Similar to the Storch and Wigglesworth (2010) study, learners in the present study who
were engaged in the LREs more extensively showed a greater uptake and retention of the
CF for the two target structures. Participants who did not extensively test their language
hypothesis seemed to not show much uptake and retention of the forms. They tended to
repeat the same errors in the subsequent written work. The example below illustrates
extensive hypothesising of correction during the collaborative dialogue deliberating over
a CF on a preposition error.
Extract 3
(1)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Amin
Ain
Amin
Ain
P errorprepositionat year 2007.

Why wrong? Maybe it should year 2007? no at
No.. mmm preposition so maybe at 2007?
at 2007, no year? but at 2007 not right at year
2007 is better maybe we should change at use
(7)
(8) Amin
(9)
(10)
(11) Ain
(12)
(13)
24
different preposition.
at I think to show place at the bus stop for
yearwe should use other preposition... maybe
on or in?
in?... in year 2007 on year 2007 I think in year
2007 is better like dalam tahun 2007 (in the year
2007) ok in year 2007
The participants in Extract 3 had extensively hypothesised the corrections during the
LRE. They tested several possibilities (lines 4 to 9) before agreeing on the correction in
line (11). These learners were able to understand the CF and why an error had been
committed (lines 7-8) which provided them with more opportunity to extensively engage
in the deliberation of the CF.
On the other hand, when participants did not extensively hypothesise the correction, the
uptake and retention was considerably lower than those who had had extensive
engagements in deliberating the CF. An interview with a participant revealed that she
could not remember much from the pair talk when discussing the CF. The selected part of
the audio recorded pair talk was played to her and her written work was shown when she
was asked to recall during the interview.
This partI dont remember when I write later after the pair talkI just
write did not think about the discussionI cannot remember we
discussed very quickly.
(Rubi, personal communication, January 3, 2012)
Rubi admitted that she could not remember the pair-talk when she was writing the
subsequent tasks since the discussion was very short and did not trigger much emphasis
on the forms being deliberated.
Storch and Wigglesworth (2010) suggested that extensive engagement provides the
learners with more opportunity to test their language hypothesis while getting immediate
feedback from their peers. They also stated that learners have more resources in the
learning process when deliberating over the CF collaboratively since they can assist each
other and rely on each others metalinguistic knowledge. Swain (2005) stated that
learners need to test their language hypothesis in order to modify the output resulting
from the CF provided.
Learners post-response reflections
As evident in the LREs, learners who reflected on their linguistic knowledge following
their response to the CF that they received demonstrated greater uptake and retention of
the accurate forms in subsequent written work. These learners showed improved accuracy
on a condition that they were willing to unlearn the existing metalinguistic knowledge in
their interlanguage system. To illustrate this condition, an example is described below on
a preposition error, in conclusion. Most participants used as a conclusion, but after
25
much deliberation and reflections, even though the participants were reluctant to accept
the correct preposition, they were willing to change their familiar way of using the
phrase. Extract 4 is an LRE excerpt from the first pair talk session.
Extract 4
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Here preposition error as a conclusion why?

as a conclusion? preposition error so how we
change this?
Why is this wrong? I always use this.. I didnt realise
this is wrong maybe as conclusion, no a, just as
conclusion.
(6) Cheah
Well maybe but as conclusion does not sound
(7)
rightI think change the preposition as maybe we
(8)
cannot use as, use something else.
(9) Sia
But as a conclusion I always use this as a
(10)
conclusion change to what?
(11) Cheah
I think its in conclusionin conclusion or maybe to
(12)
conclusion?... no that to conclude. in
(13)
conclusion
(14) Sia
But why?... in conclusion doesnt sound right
dalam kesimpulan (in conclusion)
(15) Cheah
I think in conclusion that is how it is used
(16) Sia
Ok lets try that in conclusion
(UFCF Pair 2 Collaborative Dialogue 1)
Cheah
Sia
Cheah was quite reluctant to accept the newly agreed form in conclusion because she
had been using as a conclusion and was never pointed out that it was incorrect (lines 14). Eventually, after some deliberations, she accepted the form and changed her sentence
accordingly. This unlearning process enhanced the reflective function leading to greater
uptake and retention of the CF. The following are samples of sentences taken from
Cheahs writings.
Writing Task 1 original sentence sample:
P
As a conclusion, in 2008 households in Japan preferred to own a mobile
phones for communication.
Revised sentence:
In conclusion, in 2008 households in Japan preferred to own a mobile phones
for communication.
Task 2 sample sentence:
In conclusion, the internet surfers use Internet Explorer more when surf the
internet compared to other web browsers.
26
Delayed post-test sample sentence:

In conclusion, Singapore had highest number of subscribers in 2005.
It was evident that Cheah demonstrated uptake as seen in Task 2 sample sentence and the
accurate use was retained after six weeks as shown in the delayed post-test sample
sentence. Internalisation of the new accepted form occurred after the learners were
willing to unlearn the previous used forms. The fact that these participants generally
acknowledge their limited knowledge and skills in using the L2 made them to be more
receptive of the feedback. One learner admitted that she always felt that her English was
not good and she needed more practice to improve her language proficiency.
My English weak. I always feel when I write my sentence wrong. I need
teacher tell me how can make them more accurate. During pair talk my
friend help me a lot and maybe more discussion like this can help improve
more because I get feedback from teacher and from my friend. I can learn
more that way.
(Cheah, personal communication, January 4, 2012).
This receptiveness towards the corrective feedback due to the level of proficiency has
also been discussed in the Patthey-Chavez and Ferris (1997) study comparing learners of
different proficiency levels in their use of the CF in revising their written work. Lower
proficiency learners were more inclined to use the CF thoroughly than the more able
learners who employed the CF as initiatives to changes in their writings (as cited in
Hyland & Hyland, 2006). The unlearning that took place was an indication that the
learners have reflected on their own metalinguistic knowledge and they were more
receptive towards the new learned language features and made progress in the learning
development.
Roles of collaborative dialogue from the learners perspectives
The output hypothesis theorises that learning can occur when the learners produce
language (Swain, 2005). One of the means for the learners to produce language apart
from the written work is through collaborative dialogue. Exploring this issue from the
learners perspectives, the present study attempted to address the question posed by
Wigglesworth and Storch (2012) asking how collaborative dialogue is able to enhance
learning development.
In terms of the importance of attention given by the learners to the CF that they received,
interviews revealed that collaborative dialogue was viewed by the learners as the means
to ensure that attention is paid to the CF since revision was required to be completed
through the pair talk subsequent to getting back their written work. A number of
participants admitted during the interview that the pair talk made them focus on the CF
that they received.
27
The pair talk made pay more attention to the CF that I received. If I were to
work on my own individually, I wouldnt pay that much attention... I
would usually just browse through once and keep the writing away.
(Raj, personal communication, January 4, 2012)
This attitude was shared by most participants admitting that the attention that was given
to the CF was because they needed to make corrections collaboratively during the pair
talk. They were obligated to attend to the CF in order to contribute to the discussion
during the pair talk. The collaborative mindset that was proposed to be essential in the
Sato and Ballinger (2012) study can be also extended to the context of the present study.
Having viewed the importance of collaborative work in completing tasks, learners were
able to contribute more to the learning process, eventually enhancing each learners
language development.
Focus on ungrammatical uses was greatly enhanced by the collaborative dialogue. By
discussing the CF with a partner, a learner can be more aware of the gap that exists in
their interlanguage system. A participant stated that working collaboratively helped her to
become more conscious of her language use.
My friend help with the correction. If I made corrections on my own, I dont
know why they wrong, but when discuss, we help each other. So, I
understand better why they are wrong and how correct them.
(Nazira, personal communication, January 6, 2012)
Most participants felt that without the collaborative dialogue, they may not pay attention
to why errors have occurred. They would either simply make corrections without giving
much thought or may not even bother to correct the errors. If this happened, the CF that
was provided would not be beneficial to the learners and learning would not occur.
As evident in the LREs analysis, collaborative dialogue provided means for extensive
hypothesising of corrections. Learners deliberated over the CF more when they work
collaboratively to make corrections than when they work on their own. A participant said
that when they were discussing the CF, they were motivated to discuss thoroughly until
they arrived to the decision that they are both satisfied with.
When we discussed, we tried many times until when we were confident with
the corrections. But if I revise on my own, I just simply made correction and
did not think much about it.
(Alif, personal communication, January 5, 2012)
Most participants expressed that since they needed to contribute to the pair talk, they
really focused on the CF and they wanted to be certain of the corrections that they agreed
on.
Findings also reveal that collaborative dialogue enhances reflective function. Learners
were able to focus on ungrammatical uses in their existing language system and
28
extensively hypothesise their corrections mainly because collaborative dialogue provides

them with the means to reflect on their linguistic knowledge. Swain (2005) stated that the
pair talk can be regarded as the exterior source of physical and mental regulation for an
individual (Swain, 2005, p. 478). This regulation and scaffolding that occurred during
the collaborative dialogue would then be internalised into individual learners language
system. This internalisation can be an indication of learning taking place. Learners
expressed that working collaboratively to make corrections can be beneficial since they
were able to help each other and improve on their own linguistic knowledge.
Discussion to make corrections helped me a lot. I cannot make all corrections
alone because I dont know all. My partner help make me realise why the
error.
(Jannah, personal communication, January 6, 2012)
Another participant stated that working with a partner was better than working on her
own in making corrections.
I think I liked work with a friend more than work alone to make corrections.
We help each other a lot if I work alone I did not know the
correctionsI did not know why I was wrongmy friend helped me explain
why they were wrong.
(Maya, personal communication, January 5, 2012)
Working collaboratively provided the learners the means to get input from their peers on
their language use in addition to the CF provided by the teacher. In order for the CF to be
effective, it is important for them to be able to understand their errors and their language
use.
Conclusion
Learners in the present study demonstrated that they were inclined to reflect on their
existing second language system as a result of responding to the CF that they received, as
well as going through the process of focusing on the ungrammatical uses and
hypothesising the corrections. The findings from this study suggest that collaborative
dialogue enhanced the facilitative effects of the CF in assisting learners to improve
accuracy of SVA and prepositions in written work. As indicated by Wigglesworth and
Storch (2012) on the importance of producing language to learn, which is theorised in the
context of the Output Hypothesis (Swain, 2005), collaborative dialogue provides the
means for learners to produce language during the learning process. In other words, the
effectiveness of this learning process was greatly enhanced by the collaborative dialogue
that primarily direct and focus the learners attention towards the CF and to reflect on the
language use in written work. As Storch says (2010, p. 42), learning requires extensive
and sustained meaningful exposure and practice. In relation to this, it is evident from the
findings of this study that employing collaborative dialogue has been an effective means
to enhance corrective feedback efficacy which eventually leads to learning development.
29
However, Sachs and Polio (2007) remind us that since the LREs analysis can be highly
inferential, misinterpretations tend to occur. This can be due to the fact that there is no
certain way of knowing whether a given verbalization is a veridical (i.e. complete and
accurate) account of a learners awareness of linguistic input (Sachs & Polio, 2007, p.
73). Thus, the data in the present study have been interpreted with caution by frequently
seeking clarifications during the interview. Furthermore, since the present study has
limited the focus to just two linguistic features (SVA and prepositions), in terms of
pedagogical implications, it would be beneficial if studies can be conducted to explore
the roles of collaborative dialogue on CF provided for a wider range of linguistic
features. Nevertheless, the present study has yielded promising findings with regards to
the roles of collaborative dialogue in enhancing CF efficacy, and teachers may consider
incorporating this approach in language classes to help learners improve accuracy in
written work.
References
Azar, B. S. (1992). Fundamentals of English Grammar. New Jersey: Prentice Hall
Regents.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2
writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing,
19, 207-217.
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of
corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing,
14, 191-205.
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in
the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 12, 267-296.
Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, J. K., McCollum, R. M., & Wolfersberger, M. (2010).
Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy.
Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 445-463.
Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the shortand long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland, & F. Hyland
(Eds.), Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues. (pp. 84-104).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2004). The Grammar Correction debate in L2 writing: Where are we,
and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime. . .?).
Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49-62.
Hartshorn, J. K., Norman, E. W., Merril, P. F., Sudweeks, R. R., Strong-Krause, D., &
Anderson, N. J. (2010). Effects of Dynamic Corrective Feedback on ESL Writing
Accuracy. TESOL Quarterly , 44(1), 84-109.
Hyland, F (2010). Future directions in feedback on second language writing: Overview
and research agenda. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 171-182.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students writing.
Language Teaching, 39, 83-101.
30
Ishii, D. N. (2011). Paired learners verbalised strategies for determining grammatical

correctness: a turn-based system for coding metatalk. Language Awareness,
20(4), 359377.
Lee, I. (2013). Research into practice: Written corrective feedback. Language Teaching,
46(1), 108-119.
Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskyan perspective on corrective feedback in
L2: the effect of random versus negotiated help in the learning of English articles.
Language Awareness, 8, 34-51.
Patthey-Chavez, G., & Ferris, D. (1997). Writing conferences and the weaving of multivoiced texts in college composition. Research in the Teaching of English, 31(1),
51-90.
Philp, J., Walter, S., & Basturkmen, H. (2010). Peer interaction in the foreign language
classroom: what factors foster a focus on form? Language Awareness, 19(4), 261279.
Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second
language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277-303.
Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners uses of two types of written feedback on a L2
writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 67-100.
Sato, M., & Ballinger, S. (2012). Raising language awareness in peer interaction: a crosscontext, cross-methodology examination. Language Awareness, 21(1-2), 157
179.
Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research.
International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29-46.
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners' processing, uptake, and retention of
corrective feedback on writing. Studies on Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303334.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel, Handbook
of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471-484). New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language
Learning, 46, 327-369.
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y.-p. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 17, 292305.
Van Beuningen, C. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives,
empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies.
10(2), 1-27.
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2012). What role for collaboration in writing and
writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 364374.
A One-Stop Class Blog to Promote Collaborative Writing Activities

TENGKU MAYA SILVIYANTI & YUNISRINA QISMULLAH YUSUF
Universitas Syiah Kuala, Indonesia
ABSTRACT
Blogs have been found to assist learners to develop their skills through virtual teamwork. This
paper reports on a preliminary study on the use of class blogs to support collaborative English
writing activities. Observation and evaluation were conducted in a second year writing class
comprising 30 university students over a period of one semester. In designing the ICT-based
learning, the process suggested by Oliver, Harper, Wills, Agostinho & Hedberg (2007) was
followed: rule based process, strategy based process, incident based process and role based
process. Further interviews on students interests, objections and constraints faced in using the
class blogs were conducted to assess their functions in learning. The findings showed that blogs
had encouraged collaborative writing activities, such as sharing knowledge and negotiation
(Brown, 2001), support (Williams & Jacobs, 2004), consultation (Hedge, 2000) and appreciation
(Yau, et al., 2003). Students grades in the writing tests increased and the content of their
writings improved after this activity was implemented. The issue faced by teachers was typically
on the validity of the post contents or comments as there was a possibility for students to post on
behalf of their peers. For students, their primary obstacle was the accessibility to the Internet on
campus.
KEYWORDS: Communication technology, pedagogical tool, blog, writing, collaborative
activities
32
Introduction
The contribution of the Internet in this digital era has assisted in enhancing the process of
teaching and learning. The online world encourages students to be more actively involved in the
tasks given by teachers. As a result, students learning is promoted through digital devices from
consequential activities which engage with real audiences. Among the digital devices, Blogs are
found to be one of the popular asynchronous online platforms which have been employed in
teaching and learning (De Almeida Soares, 2008). This has been found to be especially so in
higher education (Fard, Tasir, Ziden, & Esa, 2010; Abu Bakar, Latif & Yaacob, 2010;
Normand-Marconnet & Cordella, 2012; Song & Chan, 2008; Williams & Jacobs, 2004). Blogs
are one of the alternative technological tools that can help students develop their skills,
especially writing, through virtual collaboration (Normand-Marconnet & Cordella, 2012; Sollars,
2007; Vljataga, 2010).
Blogs are increasingly considered as a teaching and learning platform in the pedagogical sphere.
Vljataga (2010, p. 20) says that blogs can be used to support several pedagogical aims and
scenarios, ranging from individual knowledge management and competence development to
group-based learning activities. The feature of blogging, which exhibits collaborative writing
activity, is through the production of each blog post and responses by audiences or followers.
Using blogs in teaching and learning, students learn how to participate and become present in the
community. Even those who consider themselves as outsiders among their peers are driven to be
involved in the activity. The process of participation that is distributed socially becomes the
central activity of a meaningful learning context (Lave & Wenger, 1991). The students are also
placed in a state where they can be dependent on what they are doing. Barab and Duffy (cited in
Mayes & De Freitas, 2007) further add that to make the learning dependent in an informal
setting, the materials should be set in a constructivist tasks order to make the materials and
learning activities authentic to the social context. Appropriate design of the materials by the
teachers can lead students to form their knowledge and abilities.
Blog activity in collaborative learning
In educational contexts, several advantages of using blogs are found to promote collaborative
learning, help students increase their sense of audience and assist teachers in understanding their
student writers and learning (Xu, 2008). The scenario in promoting a collaborative learning is
when teacher-students in a particular class own a blog and all members are invited to share ideas,
write their stories and conduct other social communication activities together. Members are also
invited to give comments, add information and give feedback. Comments are one of the
collaborative features of communication which increases interactivity within the blog
environment (Suzuki, 2004); they are interactions that involve the exchange of thoughts, feeling,
or ideas between members that create mutual effect on each other (Brown, 2001). This setting
can encourage critical, analytical and analogical thinking and further promote creative, intuitive
and associational thinking (Richardson, 2006, cited in Huette, 2006). A blog may increase the
students sense of audience when it belongs to a group or community of students because it
allows them to gather and interact to achieve particular goals (Connell, 2005). This situation
makes them aware of their writing and to whom they are writing (Kennedy, 2003). Yau et al.
Silviyanti, T.M., & Yusuf, Y.Q. (2014). Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 10(1), pp. 31-45.
33
(2003, p. 2) also state that collaborative learning occurs when every student learns from
everyone else, no student is deprived of the opportunity for making contributions and
appreciating the contributions of others. The attitude on appreciation can also motivate other
students to continue writing and share knowledge through the class blog.
A number of studies have shown that blogs positively stimulate students writing experiences in
the classroom. Song and Chan (2008) conducted a study on Malaysian university entry level
students perception on the use of blog as a transformational technology for teaching and
learning. By the end of the semester, their study revealed that students were ready to accept this
medium to be a part of their learning environment as they found blog a useful and effective
learning and assessment tool. Another study by Fard et al. (2010) looked into the use of blogs in
the students learning process. Blogs were found to give positive outcomes towards students as
the mutual connection between viewers and blogger showed a high and positive correlation
coefficient. For L2 learning in ESL classrooms, specifically, Abu Bakar, Latif and Yaacob
(2010, p. 140) found that blogs offered students positive support to take charge of their own
learning in collaborative manner, set their own learning goals, developed new knowledge,
improved their language skills, built their self-confidence and provided fresh dimension to life in
the classrooms.
A more recent study on collaborative blogging on communicative skills is by Iyer (2013) on its
effects in writing of Thai EFL students. A total of 12 participants were to write eight blog
assignments and the communicative skills in blog writing were analyzed based on four codes,
namely creativity, critical thinking, voice, comments and contributions. Creativity is to convey
new ideas and share imagination with others, while critical thinking is to develop the expression
of thought. Voice is to provide opportunity to communicate ideas and views to others and finally,
comments and contributions show the students communication with each other and efforts made
to offer ideas. These codes were found to improve as a result of collaborative blogging.
The present study
For Universitas Syiah Kuala in Banda Aceh, Indonesia, Wi-Fi has been available in campus for
all staff and students since 2008. However, writing classes have always been taught using the
traditional method. These involved giving specific topics to the students individually or in groups
after lectures on a subject matter. Their assignments and final projects were typed and printed for
submission. Feedback, comments and grades were provided on the submissions. From one view,
this method enables students to keep a record of what they have learnt, and they could improve
their drafts by learning from the teachers feedback. However, from another point of view, the
students were not engaged in collaborative activities as they did not learn from each other. They
did not have the chance to read and learn from their friends writings, nor give peer feedback. In
general, the learning process was teacher-oriented and students did not have much initiative to
explore and improve their skills from peers. For that reason, a more effective atmosphere which
involves students participation in writing activities with multi-interactions among peers was
needed. It was important for us to seek new tools and services to build an environment that can
further reinforce their learning.
34
Considering the benefits of blogs in enhancing the students motivation and its contribution in
improving writing skills, and furthermore with the accessibility of the Internet available in our
campus, we decided to use blogs to complement the direct teacher-student instructive method in
our writing class. This innovation was expected to boost the students motivation and enhance
their learning ability through collaborative writing. Furthermore, blogs allow responses to
postings from teachers and students instantaneously. Teachers and students can instantly respond
to a post right after it is published. This differs from the traditional writing evaluation method
where feedback takes time to be distributed back to the students by the teachers. Accordingly,
this study sought to answer two research questions:
1. What is the collaborative writing activities found in the class blog?
2. What are the students perceptions on the use of the class blog?
Despite previous studies having shown that blogs improve performance in writing skills, there
was still a need to study the use of blogs especially in English as a foreign language context. The
rationale for this is because the use of blogs in English language education, in developing
countries such as Indonesia in particular, is still new. Therefore, this research is hoped to benefit
other teachers who also intend to implement blogs as a part of their teaching activities especially
to enhance writing skills.
Method
Participants
We investigated the initial use of blogs over one semester in an English writing class. The class,
Writing II, was for undergraduates who were in their second year. The class was held twice a
week, totalling a number of 32 meetings in one semester. A number of 30 students enrolled the
class with an age range of 17-25 years old. We planned the blog activity before the semester
started and inquired about the students familiarity with the Internet on the very first day of class.
All of them said that they were very familiar with the Internet. As a start, every student had a
Facebook account and half of the students were on Twitter, Multiply, Friendster and Hi5. From
30 students, 18 owned personal laptops. For those who did not, they had borrowed their friends
laptops, used the ones available in the main library or those at the Warnet (an abbreviation from
warung Internet, which means Internet shops available to the public).
Instruments
In conducting this study, we used a class blog as our first instrument of collecting data (e.g. the
students posts) and from these posts we identified the collaborative writing activities based on
the literature. The second instrument of our study was the interview with the students to obtain
their perceptions on the use of class blog during the semester. The use of these instruments is
explained as the following.
(1) Class blog
We had chosen blogs over other social networking software such as Wikis or Moodle as our
students were not very familiar with them. Furthermore, even though Wikis and Moodle have
35
more features than blogs, blogs seems to be simpler and do not require knowledge of HTML and
HTP (Smith & Baber, 2005; Kennedy, 2003), and they are easy to publish (Pendrod, 2007).
Moreover, 23 out of 30 students were known to have accounts in some blogs and 15 of them
even had their own blogs. The first author also owned a blog and most students were members of
her blog. For others, this was their very first introduction into blogging, collaborating and
publishing work online. Blogs also expanded our possibilities of writing together even when no
specific room was available as it is adaptable in terms of program, location, interaction and
communication (Collis & Moonen, 2001). This is substantiated by Cheong (2002, cited in
Zaidieh, 2012, p. 20) that the social networking is easy and quick in term of accessing
accessibility, reviewing, updating, and editing learning material needs anytime and anywhere.
Campbell (2003) mentions that there are three types of blogs used for educational purposes,
namely: the tutor blog (run by the class teacher), the learner blog (run by each student in the
group individually) and the class blog (run by teacher and students collaboratively). Some of our
students were new to this technology and some of them did not own personal computers or
laptops. Considering these issues and the fact that the objective of involving blogs in our writing
activities was to promote collaborative writing among students and also with their teachers, we
chose to use a class blog where both teachers and students could mutually work together and
assist one another under one digital circle.
Course of action on the use of class blog
Similar to the face-to-face communication, online communication also needs rules to keep our
goals on track. Consequently, we set a few guidelines and expectations for the blog activity. In
putting theory into practice, Oliver et al. (2007) mention four things to be considered when
designing an ICT (Information and Communications Technology) based learning to promote
quality outcomes, namely: rule based process, strategy based process, incident based process,
and role based process. They were employed as the following.
(a) Rule based process
Writing II is a compulsory beginners course for students in English writing in the study
program. It was the continuation of Writing I given in the third semester. In Writing II, the
main subjects to be covered in the class included simple main idea, supporting sentences,
comparison and contrast. Therefore, to achieve the learning goals through our class blog
activity, rules were set for signing up and posting.
In signing up, both teachers and students owned one blog. The class blog was primarily
created by the first author. As this was an initial trial on blog activity conducted in our
classroom, we wanted to avoid outsiders participating in it. There was the possibility of a
blog being read by thousands of people that may constrain the use of blogs for educational
purposes and further have unknown netizens respond or give comments unexpectedly
(William & Jacobs, 2004, p. 233). Therefore, the teacher-students blog was restricted to the
class and outsiders were not allowed to become followers. It is demanding enough for
teachers to evaluate students writing as to read through all their work is time consuming
(Kennedy, 2003) let alone permit other non-student members to participate in the blog. For
36
that reason, only members of the class could post, give feedback or comments in our class
blog and this made it easier for us to identify and evaluate our students. They were asked to
sign up in the blog with their real names. Every post or comment made by students was also
followed by their full names in brackets.
The first blogging activity started after two months of the course to complement the teacherstudents direct learning method. We needed time from a few class meetings to set out the
instructions to operate the technology and rules to begin with. The students were divided
into 10 groups, consisting of three students each. Each group was to post an assigned writing
topic in the class blog. We did not assigned the task individually to students as Sollars
(2007) says that it may be better for hesitant or introvert students to start working in a large
or small group to encourage them. Hence, their first effort for publication was through group
work. This could increase their confidence as they would have time to edit and ensure
together as a team that the draft was appropriate before the final product was circulated.
In posting, we had also set rules about who and what to post. Each week, one group was
chosen to become the host of the blog with a specific topic to be written in 250-300 words.
Barab and Duffy (cited in Mayes & De Freitas, 2007) suggest that materials should be
authentic to the social context, and so we chose topics which involved issues in our
education system, such as writing a thesis as the universitys requirement, achieving a
certain score in TOEFL as a graduation requirement, wearing uniforms to school, and
teachers to be replaced by the Internet. The writing genre followed the universitys syllabus
such as narrative and descriptive writing. The host could upload videos and pictures to
support their text. Creativity was also encouraged; therefore, the host could change the
background colour or design accordingly. Students were warned against plagiarism from the
beginning of the course and were warned that plagiarism could result in them failing the
course.
(b) Strategy based process
Oliver et al. (2007) emphasize that activity needs tasks. Learning through blog depends on
the activities that are designed. Students interactions through comments on the threads lead
them to enhance their knowledge by negotiating in the writing process, such as asking for
clarifications, learning new vocabulary and at the same time improving their writing. These
actions direct the students to become active participators or contributors rather than merely
passive recipients of knowledge (Brandl, 2002).
Accordingly, in our class blog activity, for other students who were not host of the week,
they were to post feedbacks and comments on the comment thread. They could argue,
propose, agree or clarify the issues presented by the host as the options were limitless, but
within the boundaries of appropriate language. The use of indecent language was not given
any mark. Every student had to post one comment with at least two to three lines of text
within the comment thread. They were also allowed to comment on other students
comments on the post, so feedback was not only oriented to the post by the host. The
teachers also provided comments for every post to support a dynamic environment, and
these could be debated by the students as well.
37
(c) Incident based process

Oliver et al. (2007) see this process as the learning which forces students to be exposed to,
or take part in the participation of a task. This enables students to make their own decision
about what they are going to do. In view of that, one of our rules was that every student must
comment on the post of the week. This action was to get all students to participate and be
involved in the writing task given to the host.
(d) Role based process
Oliver et al. (2007) explain that this process involves students taking different roles. They
also explain that the outcome of the learning process is gained through students
participation. In our class blog, despite that we were the one who appointed the host of the
week and topic for the group, thus the students were the active executors in this activity.
Every student had the chance to become the role of host and commenter in the process.
From all the posts or writing from the students in the class blog, we observed the
collaborative activities which were formulated based on the literature and there were aligned
with our data or content of our students blog writing. These collaborative activities were
sharing knowledge and negotiation (Brown, 2001), support (Williams & Jacobs, 2004),
consultation (Hedge, 2000) and appreciation (Yau, et al., 2003).
(2) Interviews
To further assess to what extent the class blog was functional to our students in collaborative
writing activities, the first author interviewed every student on their interests, objections and
constraints faced in executing this task near the end of the semester. As this was our initial trial
on this particular method, it was important to gain information from the first batch of students for
future improvement and planning. The perceptions of the students on whether the use of the class
blog had assisted in improving their writing skills were also obtained. The students are coded as
SS1 until SS30 in this paper.
The first three questions asked during the interview were from De Almeida Soares (2008) and
we have added questions number four and five to suit our current situation:
1. Whats your opinion about this activity?
2. How motivated are you with the blog?
3. Does it help you to improve your English writing?
4. What have you learned from this activity?
5. What are your constraints in conducting the class blog?
38
Findings
Class blog collaborative writing activities
We found that writing in the class blog presented productive outcomes. Students were seen to
engage in situations where they commented based on the hosts post. The long thread of
comments on every post indicated reciprocated interaction between them. It showed us that every
student had put in an effort to participate. An extract from a students post is as shown in Figure
1 with the topic statement: Students do not have to write thesis anymore. Figure 2 illustrates
some the comments in the thread by other students following the post.
Figure 1. A post by Group 4
Host: Group 4
Names: SS4, SS17 and SS12
Topic: Students do not have to write thesis anymore
Thesis is an academic writing. It constitutes of a requirement for undergraduate students to get the bachelors
degree. All university in Indonesia require their students to write a thesis as a requirement to get bachelors
degree. The thesis has to be written before the students follow the sidang (final exam). Because, when sidang is
going on, examiner will examine the students by asking some questions about the content of their thesis. By
those questions, the examiner can evaluate whether or not students can defend their arguments which is written
in their thesis.
On this point, we disagree that the students do not have to write thesis anymore. Because, what they have to give
to their department and their university to show their ability about what they have learned without writing a
thesis. There are several reasons why we disagree if students do not have to write thesis anymore. First, the
students must have an evidence of their ability about what they have learned in the university. For example, all
along 8 semester, they had studied in university, writing thesis is a possibly thing to prove their ability. Second,
thesis can prove whether or not the students are reasonable to get the bachelors degree. Third, as university
students, they must be able to write scholarly paper in order they can write a thesis is easier.
Figure 2. Comment threads following the post by Group 4

(SS10)
Basically, I agree with your statement if university students have to write a thesis to get bachelors degree. But
your statement writing thesis is a possibly thing to prove their ability is not reasonable to me. Because in fact,
not all students make their own thesis. Most of them have paid someone to make it. For that fact, how can the
thesis become a possibly thing to prove students ability?
A reply of that comment
(SS13)
Her quote that Because in fact, not all students make their own thesis. Most of them have paid someone to
make it. I just want to say, how did you get the fact? In writing, if we put facts we must show how do we get
the fact. I mean you have to show us the sources where you get it, but unfortunately, you do not show it to us.
(SS6)
I agree with her (SS10) that was said: how can the script become a possibly thing to prove someones ability? I
think you should be careful to make the reasons. Because if your reasons is not related to your topic. It could not
be good. But overall all good
(SS14)
39
Paragraph 2 line 1: I think On this point should be At this point. That is the right grammar I think.
(SS21)
I agree with the writer. It is true that placing all the emphasis on the thesis seems very dangerous, but almost all
universities in this world have students to write thesis or research report to get a degree.
(Teacher)
I get your point and good job! But needs to pay more attention on grammar. For examples: par. 1 line 5 change
By to From, par. 1 line 7 change is to are. (SS14) is correct. Par. 2 lines 2-3question or statement?
There some more which you have to take notice in the whole text, I dont want to give it all away Can
anybody else spot them? Oh, another important matter: please add references to support your views!
A reply of that comment
(SS22)
Miss, I think in paragraph 2 line 5 they have to remove an too. Then they have to change about to on. Am
I right or wrong?
(more comment posts)
(SS17)
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. We will fix it immediately. Hopefully for the next article, we
will be better.
From all the blog posts, a number of collaborative activities were found among students. As
mentioned earlier in the Method section, we have found them to be: sharing knowledge,
negotiation, support, consultation and appreciation. They are explained in the following
sections.
(1) Sharing knowledge
We discovered that the students were exploring and sharing their ideas in the comment threads
whereas this condition was not seen in the classroom activity. This collaborative exchange of
ideas provides mutual understanding among them (Brown, 2001). For example, after Group 4
(host) posted their writing (see Figure 1), other students tried to give comments in the form of
agree or disagree following their reasons and suggestions, such as by SS10, SS6 and SS21. The
experiences and opinions brought up by other students in the comment threads could be
discussed either directly in the class blog or later during the face-to-face meeting in class.
(2) Negotiation
The process of negotiating meaning (Brown, 2001) among students also occurred at the same
time, such as the comment by SS13 who asked for clarification of SS10s comment. SS14 who
offered a correction in the hosts grammatical error suggests that the student has become a
contributor of knowledge (Brandl, 2002). The feedback by the teacher was not only for the host,
but for other students to read as well. It is expected that all students can learn from the teachers
correction to further improve the quality of their writing. This can be seen by the comment
provided by SS22, where she also took part in addressing some grammatical errors made by the
host and added her comment as a reply to the teachers. This initiative meant that the students did
40
not just pay attention to the post by the host, but also to the discussion developed by the
community as a whole.
(4) Support
Another important account found from the comments and feedback of students was support
(Williams & Jacobs, 2004). Every student was seen to reinforce each other. Jacobs (2003, cited
in Williams & Jacobs, 2004, p. 233) says that the readers of blogs, who post comments in reply
to entries, often positively reinforcing the opinions of the blogger, but sometimes disagreeing on
points of philosophy, politics or social comment, and occasionally flaming the blogger for
opinions expressed. Regarding our class blog, we found numerous examples of support from
students towards each other. Examples from Figure 2 are such as SS10 who started her comment
with encouragement, I agree with your statement before pointing out her disagreement with
But your statement. Then there is the comment by SS6, who provided an argument to the
opinion of the host but later cheered them by giving a compliment, But overall all good.
(5) Consultation
We also discovered that the less skilful and active students which we detected during the direct
teacher-students learning session were also willing to provide comments to the hosts posting.
They felt that in the class blog they had time to firstly write a draft of their comment on a piece
of paper which could be edited. They could also consult their peers, and revise the comments
again until they felt confident enough to post them on the blog. The blog activity also focused on
the students rather than teachers; they were forced to be active in the community. A positive side
to this force was that it encouraged students, especially the reluctant ones to become what
Hedge (2000) described as self-directed learners, who motivated themselves to reach a certain
goal. It empowered the shy or marginalized students to emerge in the online community
(Pendrod, 2007).
(6) Appreciation
Finally, by the end of the comment threads, one of the hosts posted a personal appreciation
towards all his peers and teachers for their comments. This indicated that his group was open to
constructive feedback to further improve their writing. Showing appreciation was important to
maintain a sense of connection, interaction and trust among the students. As proposed by Yau et
al. (2003), when students learn from each other, this is when they can learn to appreciate the
work of their peers. This attitude can stimulate other students to improve their performance in
writing.
Students perceptions on the use of class blog
Consequently, information given by students from the interviews helped us to evaluate the
implementation of the blog activity. From the questions (Q1-Q5), the responses from our
students were as following.
41
Regarding Q1, 87.5% of the students said that they enjoyed writing in the class blog. The typical
responses for those who accepted this activity was that learning to write by using the class blog
gave them opportunity to read their peers work and vice versa. As they were also able to
comment and give feedback to each other, they could share ideas and learn from each other.
Some excerpts (E) from the students who viewed the class blog positively are:
(E1) We can read our friends work. We can share, become more active and using something
new in class such as this technology for learning is interesting. (SS6)
(E2) I can compare my writing with my friends. I can learn more by reading more work of my
friends. (SS8)
For those who viewed the activity with uncertainty (12.5%), it was because they felt that they
were not that good in writing. Therefore, if their peers could read their work and judge them, it
would be embarrassing. However, they claimed that as over the semester, they felt more
comfortable and confident to post and comment in the class blog compared to at the beginning of
the semester as the face-to-face meetings with the teachers and other students made them become
more familiar with each other every week.
For Q2, 87.5% of students found that collaborative writing though blog increased their
motivation in writing, and another 12.5% were not very motivated or interested even though they
also found blog to be useful for them. A positive comment from a student was:
(E3) Yes! If we just write on paper, it is only me and the lecturer who read it. But with the blog,
everyone can read it. So it motivates me to write better, to write something good. (SS7)
A negative response was:
(E4) Not really. Blog is just a media to post our writing. But I am not really motivated to write
more because of it. (SS4)
Referring to Q3, all students agreed that the class blog had improved their writing. They had
gained knowledge from the comments, feedback and postings from their peers. They also
claimed that correction from the teacher assisted them in improving their writing.
(E5) The comments made us aware of our mistakes. We get more knowledge from reading our
friends posts. Our friends can criticize us, but whenever they praise me, I am so happy!
(SS2)
(E6) I learn a lot! Because we learn how to write from blog, our friends can comments and give
critics towards our writing. So I discover more about my writing weaknesses in academic
writing. I can improve from them. (SS30)
As for Q4, 75% of the students found that the blogs enhanced their writing ability such as
expressed in E7. However, 25 of the students were unsure whether they had learned anything
from this activity, such as stated in E8.
42
(E7) Yes. There were so many posts by friends, so many comments, so I learned positively. The
feedbacks from the teachers and friends helped me write better. (SS3)
(E8) I dont think so. It just a facility that let other people read my work. If it is not good, it is
embarrassing. (SS24)
For the constraints we asked in Q5, 65.5% said that it was related to accessibility to the Internet,
which was slow at times. Another 35.5% did not report any constraints. Regarding the Internet,
they said they could do their homework at home as they had better access there. When the
connection was slow in campus, they used the facility in the Warnet such as stated in E9.
(E9) Yes, we had to go to hot spot area. Sometimes the Internet is slow and it doesnt connect.
So I have to go to the Warnet. (SS27)
Implications of the class blog
Having conducted writing tasks through a class blog, we are assured that this method can benefit
students by enhancing their writing skills through collaborative work. First of all, students were
engaged in collaborative task and collaborative thinking. These are among the advantages found
in a blog activity (Xu, 2008). This was shown in the effort they took to work together to produce
a piece of writing and post it on the class blog. Secondly, the students were put in a situation
where they had to become visible in the community by participating in the thread comments.
This pushed them to be more courageous to provide comments, even if it was only in one
sentence. Some students were even seen to give comments more than once and provide
arguments and clarifications to their posts or to those posted by others in the class. Brown (2011)
explains that this kind of interaction creates mutual effects on each other. It also enhances
students critical, analytical, and analogical thinking (Richardson, 2006, as cited in Huette,
2006). Thirdly, students were comfortable using this platform in their English language class as
evidenced by their eagerness to be active in the class blog community. As Abu Bakar, Latif &
Yaacob (2010) contend, blogs offer positive support in terms of collaborative learning goals,
new knowledge experiences, improved language skills, increased self-confidence and the
creation of a new atmosphere in learning. Therefore, this blog activity is certainly one of the
innovative tools that can support learning in writing.
Overall, the ten topics posted by our students provided numerous examples of collaborative
activities in sharing knowledge, negotiation, (Brown, 2001), support, (Williams and Jacobs,
2004), consultation (Hedge, 2000) and appreciation (Yau, et al, 2003). Students showed evidence
of participation and seemed content to be involved in the class blog community. Any doubts
about whether the postings were made by the students themselves were resolved during face-toface meetings with the students.
Apart from blog, direct classroom activities were also conducted, so students and teachers did
not only meet in the virtual environment, but also in the real world. The implementation of a
class blog resulted in a more vibrant learning environment compared to our previous classes with
conclusive direct teacher-student mode of learning. During every class meeting, the discussion
on the post of the week which was conducted digitally then became face-to-face discussions.
Issues which were not resolved or clarified in the blog became the concentration of direct
43
discussion in the classroom. In one instance, the teacher could not fully explain why By was
needed to be changed to From (see Figure 2) as that would take up much space. Consequently,
during the class meeting, this was further clarified to students who were still confused about the
matter. Discussion on how to write appropriate references and citations were also further dealt
with in the classroom.
Discussion and conclusion
The class blog was found to promote collaborative writing activities in our class. From our data,
the students not only shared knowledge, but negotiated, supported each other, consulted with the
teachers and each other and showed appreciation to others. The use of the blog also switched the
mode of learning from teacher-centred to student-centred, and complemented our direct teaching
methods in the classroom. The students individual grades for the beginning, midterm and final
writing examinations increased over time throughout the course. This indicated that their
participation in collaborative writing probably assisted them in being more aware of their writing
skills and motivated them to improve. The interviews conducted with the students further suggest
that the majority of them were positive about on the implementation of the class blog. For
teachers, when students post their work online, where their posts and comments were digital
rather than on a hard copy, it was also easier for teachers to test for plagiarism, for example using
Google Search.
Our study has shown that the use of class blog brought positive effects towards students writing
skills through collaborative tasks. However, this study also has limitations. Among them are the
participants of the study which only consisted of students in one particular class. It is expected
that future research can conduct an experiment which involve two classes (one as the control
group, and the other as the experimental group) to study the difference between the two. A study
of the students writing scores at different points of the course is also suggested to track the level
of improvement in their writing skills.
References
Abu Bakar, N., Latif, H. & Yaacob, A. (2010). ESL Students feedback on the use of blogs for
language learning. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 16(1),
120-141.
Brandl, K. (2002). Integrating Internet-based reading materials into the foreign language
curriculum: From teacher-to-student-centered approaches. Language Learning and
Technology, 6(3), 87-107.
Brown, D. H. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy.
New York: Longman.
Campbell, A. P. (2003). Weblogs for use with ESL classes. The Internet TESL Journal, IX(2).
Retrieved October 4, 2012 from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Campbell-Weblogs.html
Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible learning in a digital world: Experiences and
expectations. London: Kogan Page.
44
Connell, S. (2005). Comparing blogs, wikis, and discussion board as collaborative learning
tools.
Retrieved
October
4,
2012
from
http://soozzone.com/PDFs/Plan_ConnellED690.pdf
De Almeida Soares, D. (2008). Understanding class blogs as a tool for language development.
Language Teaching Research, 12(4), 517-533.
Fard, H. E., Tasir, Z., Ziden, A. A., & Esa, N. (2010). A case study on blogs effects as a
learning activity in higher education environment. World Applied Sciences Journal, 9(5),
567-572.
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Huette, S. (2006). Blogs in education. Retrieved November 17, 2012 from
http://tep.uoregon.edu/shared/blogswikispodcasts/BlogsInEducation.pdff
Iyer, P. (2013). Effects of collaborative blogging on communicative skills in writing of Thai
University EFL students. English for Specific Purposes World, 14(39), 1-14.
Kennedy, K. (2003). Writing with web logs. Retrieved October 25, 2012 from
http://teachlearning.com/db_area/archieves/TL/2003/02/blogs.php
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mayes, T., & De Freitas, S. (2007). Learning and e-learning: The role of theory. In H. Beetham,
& R. Sharpe (Eds.). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing and delivering elearning (pp. 13-25). London: Routledge.
Normand-Marconnet, N., & Cordella, M. (2012). Spanish and French foreign learners blogging
experience: Motivation and attitude. The JALT CALL Journal, 8(1), 316.
Oliver, R., Harper, B., Wills, S., Agostinho, S., & Hedberg, J. (2007). Describing ICT-based
learning designs that promote quality learning outcomes. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe
(Eds.). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing and delivering e-learning (pp.
64-80). London: Routledge.
Pendrod, D. (2007). Using blogs to enhance literacy: The next powerful step in 21st-century
learning. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Smith, D. G., & Baber, E. (2005). Teaching English with information technology. London:
Modern English Publishing.
Sollars, V. (2007). Writing experiences in a second/foreign language classroom: From theory to
practice. In M. Camilleri, P. Ford, Leja, H. & Sollars, V. (Eds.). Blogs: Web journals in
language education (pp. 15-26). Graz: European Centre for Modern Languages.
Song, H. S. Y., & Chan, Y. M. (2008). Educational blogging: A Malaysian university students
perception and experience. Paper presented at ASCILITE 2008, Melbourne, Australia.
Retrieved
October
04,
2012
from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/song.pdf
Suzuki, R. (2004). Diaries as introspective research fools: From Ashton-Warner to blog. TESLEJ-The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 8(10), 1-10.
Vljataga, T. (2010). Blogs. In K., Grodecka, F. Wild & B. Kieslinger (Eds.). How to use social
software in higher education (pp. 20-23). Wien: iCamp Project.
Williams, J., & Jacobs, J. (2004). Exploring the use of blogs as learning spaces in the higher
education sector. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(2), 232-247.
Xu, K. (2008). Lets blog. Essential Teacher, 5(1), 10-11.
45
Yau, S. S., Gupta, S. K. S., Gupta E. K. S., Karim F., Ahamed S. I., Wang, Y., Wang, B. (2003).
Smart classroom: Enhancing collaborative learning using pervasive computing
technology. Proceedings of 2nd ASEE International Colloquium on Engineering
Education (ASEE2003) (pp. 1-10), Nashville, Tennessee. Retrieved November 16, 2013
from http://dpse.eas.asu.edu/papers/SmartClassroom.pdf
Zaidieh, A. J. Y. (2012). The use of social networking in education: challenges and
opportunities. World of Computer Science and Information Technology Journal, 2(1), 1821.
Attitudes of Iranian EFL learners towards CALL:

The effect of treatment length investigated
SARA JALALI & MASOUMEH DOUSTI
Urmia University, Iran
ABSTRACT
The attitude of EFL learners towards CALL is one of the important elements that can be
influential in implementing a CALL course. This study investigated the attitudes of three
groups of young language learners towards CALL. In the control group, traditional classes
were held while in the first experimental group computers were used for 15 minutes and in
the second experimental group this lasted for 30 minutes. The results showed that generally
young EFL learners had positive attitudes towards CALL but their attitudes were
significantly different in the second experimental group. This shows that the duration of
exposure to the computer-based activities can be an influential element in the EFL learners
attitudes.
KEYWORDS: Computer-assisted language learning, CALL, student attitudes, young
learners, length of exposure
Attitudes of Iranian EFL Learners towards CALL
47
Introduction
With the emergence of new technologies that may serve the purpose of teaching more
effectively than the other tools, teachers are more aware of the current waves in their
teaching field. It is needless to mention that teachers are anxiously searching all the
possible ways to add to the effectiveness of their teaching and hence contribute to learners
achievements. In this regard, the integration of new technologies in general and computers
in particular into EFL classes are striking for teachers and consequently students can be
considered to be in the middle of the explosion of these emerging technologies.
Lasagabaster and Sierra (2003) state that learners are increasingly engaged in using CALL
(Computer-Assisted Language Learning), and teachers make unravelling efforts to integrate
CALL into the curriculum. The cautious students rapidly realize the necessity of adjusting
their learning styles with these new technologies. However, it should be kept in mind
learners perceptions towards these novel technologies and their presence in their English
classes as teaching tools may have a great effect on the success or failure of the teaching
and learning processes. From Lasagabaster and Sierras point of view (2003) learners are
considered as potential contributors to the development of the language learning tools,
hence researchers should take into consideration learners opinions in evaluating CALL
programs.. The identification of learners perceptions towards the use of CALL may help
teachers cope with the possible problems in the actual integration of computers in the
learning process. Furthermore, since technology application is newly presented into the
educational system of most developing countries, getting a wider snapshot of the attitudes
towards its application may be helpful in dealing with possible obstacles. Kadel (2005)
found that overcoming the usual obstacles that may discourage the utilization of technology
for instruction requires an attitude that is extremely positive.
A significant number of studies address students attitudes towards the application of
computer technology in classrooms (e.g. Arkin, 2003; Bebell, O Conner, O Dwyer &
Russell, 2003; Lam, 2000; Pekel, 2002; Smith, 2003; Tuzcuolu, 2000; Warschauer, 2003).
In the following part some of these studies are examined in detail.
Stepp-Greany (2002, p. 165) reports students perceptions in a TELL environment of a
beginning Spanish class. She states that benefits for the students include[d] increased
motivation, improvement of self-concept and mastery of basic skills, more student-centred
learning and engagement in the learning process, and more active processing, resulting in
higher-order thinking skills and better recall .
Jalali S., & Dousti, M. (2014). Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 10(1), pp. 46-62.
48
Some research found that learners have positive attitudes towards the implementation of
computers in EFL classes. Greenfield (2003) reports that 10th and 11th graders in Hong
Kong considered computer-based learning pleasurable and they gained more confidence
while using computers. In another study, Lasagabaster and Sierra (2003) examined 59
university students attitudes towards CALL and they found that the students considered
CALL programs as complementary tools in language learning and that CALL created a less
stressful environment for students as they could study on their own in a more flexible
schedule. Similarly, Ayres (2002) studied learners attitudes towards the use of CALL and
found that though learners did not consider CALL as a valuable replacement for classroombased learning, they believed that it was an important and extremely useful aspect of their
studies. Al-Shammari (2007) investigated Saudi EFL learners attitudes toward CALL at
the Institute of Public Administration (IPA) in Saudi Arabia. He found that EFL learners
attitudes were positive and the t-test findings showed that Saudi female EFL learners had
more positive attitudes toward CALL than their male counterparts.
However, there are not many studies that explore students attitudes about CALL
integration after the actual use of computers in their classes. Hence, in line with the studies
mentioned above, this study attempted to bridge this gap by finding out young EFL
learners perceptions towards CALL after the implementation of computer-based grammar
and vocabulary activities. Moreover, this study deliberately manipulated the length of
exposure in doing these activities so it seeks to find whether this variable affects learners
perceptions or not, a feature which makes it distinct from other similar studies.
The present study addresses the following questions:
Q1: What are the attitudes of the control group towards CALL application?
Q2: What are the attitudes of the first experimental group towards CALL application?
Q3: What are the attitudes of the second experimental group towards CALL application?
Q4: Are there any significant differences in the attitudes of the groups with different
lengths of exposure towards CALL?
Methodology
Participants
In order to get valid information about learners attitudes towards CALL and to focus on
the possible influence of length of exposure on their perceptions, the members of three
intact classes were engaged. At first, 49 female elementary EFL learners who were 11-13
years old were engaged. In order to homogenize the participants in terms of language
49
proficiency, the Cambridge Young Learners English Test was administered. The analysis of
the obtained data from the proficiency test revealed the mean score of 60.82, 62, and 62.44
for the first, second, and third groups respectively (Table 1).
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the proficiency test
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
Mean
Minimum Maximum
first class
17
60.82
7.88
1.91
40
70
second class
16
62.00
5.31
1.32
49
70
third class
16
62.44
5.16
1.29
47
68
Total
49
61.73
6.19
.88
40
70
However, the results of the analysis led to the elimination of four outliers who got very low
scores in comparison to others (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Box plot for the proficiency test
After the administration of the proficiency test, all the other participants were deemed to be
homogeneous and they were all judged to be beginners in EFL learning. A semirandomized procedure was utilized to tackle the problem of non-randomization. The groups
were randomly assigned to two experimental groups and one control group, each consisting
of 15 participants (Table 2).
50
Table 2. Descriptive statistics

N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Minimum
Maximum
Control
15
60.47
5.10
1.32
53
68
Experimental 1
15
60.47
4.24
1.10
51
66
Experimental 2
15
66.93
3.54
.91
61
74
Total
45
62.62
5.24
.78
51
74
Instruments
A-CALL questionnaire
The main instrument of this study was the Attitudes towards Computer-Assisted Language
Learning (A-CALL) questionnaire (Jalali & Ardebili, 2013). This questionnaire consists of
20 items, structured in the form of statements. 5-point Likert Scale was used to rate the
items, in which 5 stands for strongly agree, 4 for agree, 3 for neutral, 2 for disagree, and 1
for strongly disagree. With the exception of items 2, 3, 4, 5, 19, and 20, all the other items
are written in positive direction. To ensure that the questionnaire was comprehensible to all
the learners, its translated version was administered. To check the reliability and validity of
the translated version of the A-CALL questionnaire, Jalali and Ardebili (2013) piloted it on
150 learners. The factor analysis was conducted, and the results were compared with
Vandewaetere and Desmet (2009) (See Table 3).
Table 3. Factor analysis for the questionnaire

Component
1
2
item 4
.75
item 5
.68
item10
.64
item16
.62
item 2
.61
item8
.61
item7
.60
item17
.59
item 3
.53
item11
.52
item 1
.47
item9
.44
item14
.85
item15
.68
item13
.67
item19
item20
item18
51
.85
.83
.31
The results of the factor analysis showed that items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16,
and 17 all loaded on the first factor or component, Surplus Value of CALL. As can be
observed in Table 3, all of the loadings were more than 0.3. The next factor of the
questionnaire was Teacher Influence. The items loading on this factor were 13, 14, and 15.
The above table shows that all of the loadings were more than 0.3. The third factor of the
questionnaire, on which items 18, 19, and 20 loaded was Degree of Exhibition to CALL.
The loading of item 6 was less than 0.3 and item 12 loaded on an unrelated factor; hence
these two items were eliminated from the questionnaire.
Afterwards, the Cronbachs Alpha was estimated, and the results showed that the total
Alpha was 0.81. This indicated that the modified version of the questionnaire enjoyed a
good degree of reliability. Moreover, the Cronbachs Alphas of the three subsets of the
questionnaire were found to be 0.84, 0.67, and 0.51, respectively. Since the number of
items in two of the subsets was just three, a very high Alpha level could not be expected
(Jalali & Ardebili, 2013).
52
Cambridge young learners English test

This test has been designed to homogenize the primary learners aged 7 to 12, with an
approach to make testing fun. This test covered all four skills. Section one included five
listening parts, with an overall number of 25 questions, each part consisting of five
questions. Section two was devoted to reading and writing which had 35 questions being
presented in seven parts; however, it should be noted that its writing section could be
scored objectively. The last section examined learners speaking ability through the
utilization of find the difference, information exchange, and tell the story tasks.
To check the reliability of the test, 30 learners who were similar to the target group took the
test and the KR-21 method was applied and the results revealed a high degree of the
reliability of the test, i.e. 0.76.
Family and friends 2 Multi-Rom
The publisher of this book provides a student Multi-Rom that contains computer-based
activities, which are relevant to the grammar and vocabulary items presented in each unit.
This software utilizes a combination of colourful images and sounds that enhance the
quality of the activities.
In the vocabulary part, the students had to match the words with pictures and then their
performance on these activities were checked by the software and remarks such as
Congratulations or Try Again were provided. These remarks could be considered as a
kind of immediate feedback provided by the software. In the grammar part, if the students
could match the correct question with its answer, the sentence was marked green; if the
correct answer was not chosen, it was marked red. This book was the material used for
classroom teaching in all groups. However, the control group only received the book
without its accompanying software. The student Multi-Rom was utilized in the
experimental groups with different lengths of exposure as will be explained in the next
section.
Procedure
This study investigated young EFL learners perceptions towards CALL with a focus on the
possible effect of length of exposure to computer-based activities on their attitudes. To do
so, the following procedures were followed:
53
The first step in conducting the present research was the administration of the Cambridge
Young Learners English test as the homogenizing tool. In order to ensure the reliability of
the test scores for the speaking part, another teacher was asked to provide her own scores
for each participant and hence the inter-rater reliability was checked. The correlation
between the two sets of scores was high enough, i.e. 0.81. After ensuring the homogeneity
of the learners in terms of their general proficiency, the three intact classes were randomly
assigned to one control and two experimental groups with 15 participants in each group.
In the 12 treatment sessions, the software was not utilized in the control group; however,
similar paper-based activities were done in the class to make sure that this group had the
vocabulary and grammar activities which were similar in terms of content to computerbased activities utilized in the other groups. These activities were used immediately after
the teaching phase in groups of two.
Computer software was used in both of the experimental groups. The length of exposure
was the only difference between the two experimental groups. One group used this
technology twice as long as the other group; the first experimental group was given fifteen
minutes to utilize the software and the second experimental group was given half an hour to
do so. It must be emphasized that this Multi-Rom was not available to the participants in
the control or experimental groups to be used at home.
The final step in the process of conducting the research was the administration of the
questionnaire. Since the participants were young learners, the Persian version of the
questionnaire was administered and whenever the participants asked for clarification of the
questions, the teacher provided the appropriate explanation.
Data Analysis
The SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) software was utilized to analyse the
obtained data. To examine the participants attitudes towards the CALL application, the
mean score and standard deviation for each item in the questionnaire was calculated. To
observe the possible significant differences in the attitudes of the groups with different
lengths of exposure to computer-based activities, the one-way ANOVA was applied.
Results and discussion
The main aim of the present study was addressing young EFL learners perceptions towards
CALL after its actual implementation. To do so, at first the attitudes of the participants in
54
the control group were examined. This group did some paper-based grammar and
vocabulary activities similar to computer-based ones. Table 4shows the percentages of the
selected options by this group.
As it is observable from this table, the learners have positive attitudes towards the
integration of CALL into EFL classes. However, in spite of this finding, a good percentage
of the participants disagreed with the administration of EFL tests by computers, observable
in responses to items 3 and16 of the questionnaire. In item 3, the majority of the
participants (53.3%) agreed with the statement that computer-based language tests can
never be as good as paper-and-pencil tests. Moreover, the same percentage of the
participants stated that they did not have faith in computer-based language tests. These
findings may be due to the infancy of the CALL application in the Iranian EFL classes.
Maybe more exposure to CALL in the Iranian contexts can modify the participants
attitudes towards computer tests. Meticulous examination of the items related to teachers
influence on the use of CALL reveals that 46.7% of the participants consider teacher
proficiency to be crucial in attracting their students positive attitudes towards the CALL
application. It evokes the idea of improving teachers computer literacy in teacher
education programs. The third set of questions related to the degree of exhibition to CALL
(items 18, 19, and 20 in the questionnaire). In item 18, which addresses whether the
participants feel less inhibited when communicating in the foreign language via computer
(chat) than in a face-to-face situation, 60% of the respondents selected the no idea choice.
This response may be due to the lack of having any experience in communicating via
computers. All the presented choices for item 19 attracted the attention of some of
participants. That is why achieving any definite conclusion for this item is not possible.
However, 33.3% of the respondents disagreed that in a face-to-face learning situation
(classroom) they often experienced anxiety when speaking in the foreign language. The
results for item 20 show that 40% of participants disagreed that the threshold to start a faceto-face conversation is bigger than starting a virtual (computer-assisted) conversation.
55
Table 4. The control groups attitudes towards CALL

Agree
%
No
idea
%
0
33.3
Strongly
Agree
%
66.7
40
20
20
6.7
13.3
6.7
6.7
20
53.3
13.3
46.7
26.7
13.3
13.3
26.7
40
13.3
20
53.3
46.7
20
46.7
33.3
13.3
33.3
26.7
13.3
13.3
10. Learning a foreign language by computer constitutes a

more relaxed and stress free atmosphere.
11. Learning a foreign language by computer enhances your
intelligence.
13. Teachers attitude towards CALL largely defines my
attitude towards the use of computers in language learning.
14. Teachers enthusiasm towards CALL largely defines my
motivation for using computers in language learning.
15. Teachers proficiency of using computers in language
learning largely defines my attitude towards computer use in
language learning.
16. I have faith in computer-based language tests.
20
40
26.7
13.3
13.3
40
40
6.7
6.7
6.7
73.3
6.7
6.7
20
40
33.3
6.7
6.7
6.7
40
46.7
26.7
53.3
20
17. I have faith in computer-based language exercises.
6.7
13.3
46.7
33.3
18. I feel less inhibited when communicating in the foreign

language via computer (chat) than in a face-to-face situation.
19. In a face-to-face learning situation (classroom) I often
experience anxiety when speaking in the foreign language.
20. For me, the threshold to start a face-to-face conversation
is bigger than starting a virtual (computer-assisted)
conversation.
6.7
6.7
60
13.3
13.3
20
33.3
13.3
26.7
6.7
13.3
40
20
13.3
13.3
1. My language learning will proceed more when this is

assisted by a computer.
2. Learning a foreign language assisted by computer is not as
good as learning it by oral practice.
3. Computer-based language tests can never be as good as
paper-and-pencil tests.
4. Computer-assisted language learning is less adequate as the
traditional language learning.
5. People who learn a language by computer-assisted learning
are less proficient than traditional language learners.
7. Computer-assisted language learning gives more flexibility
to language learning.
8. Computer-assisted language learning is as valuable as
9. Computer-assisted language learning can stand alone.
Strongly
Disagree
%
0
Disagree
%
To figure out whether the actual utilization of computers in EFL classes has any significant
influence on learners attitudes, the A-CALL questionnaire was administered after 12
sessions of treatment in both of the experimental groups. As it was stated before, the first
experimental group did some computer-based grammar and vocabulary activities for fifteen
56
minutes as post teaching activities. Table 5 demonstrates the first experimental groups
attitudes towards CALL.
Table 5.The first experimental groups attitudes towards CALL
1. My language learning will proceed more when it is assisted

by a computer.
2. Learning a foreign language assisted by computer is not as
good as learning it by oral practice.
3. Computer-based language tests can never be as good as
paper-and-pencil tests.
4. Computer-assisted language learning is less adequate as the
5. People who learn a language by computer-assisted learning
are less proficient than traditional language learners.
7. Computer-assisted language learning gives more flexibility
to language learning.
8. Computer-assisted language learning is as valuable as the
10. Learning a foreign language by computer constitutes a
more relaxed and stress free atmosphere.
11. Learning a foreign language by computer enhances your
intelligence.
13. Teachers attitude towards CALL largely defines my
attitude towards the use of computers in language learning.
14. Teachers enthusiasm towards CALL largely defines my
motivation for using computers in language learning.
15. Teachers proficiency of using computers in language
learning largely defines my attitude towards computer use in
language learning.
18. I feel less inhibited when communicating in the foreign
language via computer (chat) than in a face-to-face situation.
19. In a face-to-face learning situation (classroom) I often
experience anxiety when speaking in the foreign language.
20. For me, the threshold to start a face-to-face conversation is
bigger than starting a virtual (computer-assisted) conversation.
Strongly
Disagree
%
6.7
Disagree
%
Agree
%
13.3
No
idea
%
26.7
46.7
Strongly
Agree
%
6.7
26.7
53.3
20
46.7
26.7
26.7
13.3
33.3
33.3
13.3
6.7
13.3
33.3
26.7
20
6.7
13.3
6.7
33.3
33.3
13.3
13.3
6.7
6.7
53.3
20
0
0
13.3
0
33.3
40
33.3
53.3
20
6.7
13.3
20
46.7
20
13.3
46.7
40
13.3
13.3
26.7
13.3
33.3
20
20
40
20
0
0
6.7
6.7
0
26.7
60
46.7
26.7
33.3
40
33.3
0
13.3
6.7
33.3
40
26.7
13.3
20
26.7
40
The responses provided by the first experimental group are to a great degree similar to
those of the control group. This group admitted the value of CALL integration to EFL
classes, and asserted the great role of teachers proficiency in using computers on defining
57
their perceptions towards CALL. Moreover, the inhibition to take computer-based tests was
still present in this groups answers. Similarly, any change in participants attitudes was not
noticed towards the exhibition to CALL, the participants of this group did admit the
superiority of face-to-face conversations to virtual ones. Hence, it can be concluded that
fifteen minutes of exposure to CALL did not leave any significant effect on participants
views towards CALL.
In the third research question, the second experimental groups views were examined.
Table 6 shows the details of the results obtained. It is worth reminding that this group
utilized the computer software for half an hour, which is twice as long as the other group.
In line with the other two groups positive perceptions towards CALL, the second
experimental group showed stronger positive attitudes in all the examined areas, which are
namely CALL value, teacher influence, and exhibition to CALL. However, the most
prevalent change in participants attitudes relates to the administration of computer-based
tests. In item three, 40% of the learners stated that computer-based tests were as good as
paper-and-pencil tests. Moreover, 53.3% of them revealed their faith in computer-based
tests in item 16.This finding implies that as the familiarity with computer-based activities
increases, learners show greater acceptance of computer-based test administrations. It must
be reminded that this familiarity is achieved through longer exposure to computer-based
activities.
58
Table 6.The second experimental groups attitudes towards CALL
1. My language learning will proceed more when it is assisted by a

computer.
2. Learning a foreign language assisted by computer is not as good as
learning it by oral practice.
3. Computer-based language tests can never be as good as paper-andpencil tests.
4. Computer-assisted language learning is less adequate as the traditional
language learning.
5. People who learn a language by computer-assisted learning are less
proficient in than traditional language learners.
7. Computer-assisted language learning gives more flexibility to language
learning.
8. Computer-assisted language learning is as valuable as the traditional
language learning.
10. Learning a foreign language by computer constitutes a more relaxed
and stress free atmosphere.
11. Learning a foreign language by computer enhances your intelligence.
13. Teachers attitude towards CALL largely defines my attitude towards
the use of computers in language learning.
14. Teachers enthusiasm towards CALL largely defines my motivation
for using computers in language learning.
15. Teachers proficiency of using computers in language learning largely
defines my attitude towards computer use in language learning.
18. I feel less inhibited when communicating in the foreign language via
computer (chat) than in a face-to-face situation.
19. In a face-to-face learning situation (classroom) I often experience
anxiety when speaking in the foreign language.
20. For me, the threshold to start a face-to-face conversation is bigger than
starting a virtual (computer-assisted) conversation.
SD
%
13.3
D
%
6.7
N
%
0
A
%
46.7
SA
%
33.3
46.7
40
6.7
6.7
20
40
26.7
6.7
6.7
20
53.3
20
6.7
40
33.3
13.3
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
53.3
26.7
13.3
60
26.7
0
0
6.7
0
6.7
0
60
46.7
26.7
53.3
6.7
0
6.7
40
46.7
60
13.3
0
26.7
0
13.3
20
53.3
13.3
13.3
26.7
46.7
13.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
20
60
53.3
40
33.3
26.7
40
6.7
20
33.3
40
6.7
26.7
26.7
20
26.7
The final research question was an attempt to detect the existence of any significant
differences in the attitudes of groups with different lengths of exposure to computer-based
activities towards CALL. Table 7 illustrates the analysis of the data in relation to this
question. As the table demonstrates, there are significant differences at the p < .05 level
among the groups with different lengths of exposure: F (2, 42) = 11.11, p = .0. This implies
59
that there are significant differences among the mean scores on the dependent variable,
although, this table does not show where these differences lie.
Table 7.ANOVA for groups with different length of exposure
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
Between Groups
418.18
209.09
Within Groups
790.40
42
18.82
Total
1208.58
44
Sig.
11.11
.00
To detect the exact location of the difference, the post-hoc Tukey HSD test is presented in
Table 8. As shown in Table 8, the asterisks are demonstrative of a significant difference
between the two groups being compared. The mean difference for the groups is compared
at p < .05.Post-hoc comparisons indicated that the mean score for the control group (M =
60.47, SD =5.10) was not significantly different from the first experimental group (M =
60.47, SD =4.24). However, the mean score for the control group (M = 60.46, SD =5.10)
was significantly different from that of the second experimental group (M = 66.93, SD
=3.54). Similarly, the first experimental group (M = 60.47, SD =4.24) did differ
significantly from the second experimental group (M = 66.93, SD =3.54).
Table8. Multiple comparisons for groups with different length of exposure
(I) participant groups
Mean Difference
(J) participant groups (I-J)
Control
experimental1
.00
1.58
1.00
experimental2
-6.47*
1.58
.00
control
.00
1.58
1.00
experimental2
-6.47*
1.58
.00
1.58
.00
experimental1
experimental2
control
6.47
Std. Error
Sig.
Hence, it can be concluded that longer exposure to computer-based activities may be

influential on learners attitudes towards the CALL integration. This implies that
maximizing the length of exposure to computer-based activities can be a great contribution
to CALLs acceptance. The observed results for the control and first experimental groups
may be attributable to technology phobia. Computer anxiety or computer phobia in EFL
classes may be due to the novelty of their integration. Hence, it can be concluded that as
learners become more familiar with computer as a teaching aid, learners will show more
60
enthusiasm in their presence in the EFL classes. Jalali and Dousti (2012) in their study
focused on the application of computer-based activities in EFL classes to figure out any
significant differences between control and experimental groups achievement. However,
such a difference was not observed and only learners involvement and eagerness were
apparent in their study. In another similar study, Sadeghi and Dousti (2013) examined the
role of length of exposure to computer-based activities on young Iranian elementary EFL
learners' grammar gain. The results of one way ANOVA demonstrated significant
differences between the control and experimental groups in the immediate post-test.
Moreover, the findings of the delayed post-test showed that a significant difference did
exist between the control group and the second experimental group. To put in a nut shell, as
the exposure to CALL increases, learners achievement and positive attitudes towards
CALL is also observable.
Conclusion
It goes without saying that computers play an undeniable role in human life in general and
in the life of teenagers in particular because this new generation uses new technologies
more than others. Hence, it is not a question of whether or not to integrate computers into
the field of education. Instead, it is time to wonder about the most effective ways of their
integration and exploitation in the EFL contexts. As Albirini (2004) states, peoples attitude
towards a new technology is a key element in its diffusion, and the findings of the present
study demonstrated that approximately all the participants expressed their optimistic
attitudes towards the integration of CALL in EFL classes. Taking into account the presence
of such a status of CALL in learners point of view, it can be recommended that stakeholders should be cognizant about this attitude and facilitate the possibility of incorporating
computers into educational settings.
Furthermore, the researchers came to the conclusion that teachers perceptions could
greatly influence learners attitudes. As a consequence, it is essential to promote teachers
attitudes towards CALL to better prepare learners for computer integration into EFL
classes. This finding highlights the importance of special training for language teachers to
familiarize them with new technologies.
On the basis of the research findings regarding participants attitudes towards computerbased tests, it can be recommended that there is a need for expanding learners exposure to
computer-based activities to lessen their inhibition and anxiety. As the treatment suggested,
the second experimental group with longer exposure to computer-based activities mostly
61
held positive attitudes towards computer tests. In spite of the presence of limitations in this
study, as a final remark it can be stated that the findings may help us understand,
appreciate, improve, and implement effective computer-based activities in the EFL
contexts.
References
Albirini, A. (2004). An exploration of the factors associated with the attitudes of high
school EFL teachers in Syria toward information and communication technology.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.
Al-Shammari, M. (2007).Saudi English as a foreign language: Learners attitudes toward
Computer-Assisted Language Learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West
Virginia University.
Arkin, E.I. (2003). Teachers attitudes toward computer technology use in vocabulary
instruction. Unpublished masters thesis. The Department of Teaching English as a
Foreign Language, Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey.
Ayres, R. (2002). Learner attitudes towards the use of CALL. Computer-Assisted Language
Learning, 15(3), 241-249.
Bebell, D., OConnor, K. M., ODwyer, L. M., & Russell, M. (2003). Examining teacher
technology use: Implications for pre-service and in-service teacher preparation. Journal
of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297-310.
Jalali, S., & Ardebili, M. (2013).The perceptions of Iranian EFL learners toward
computer-assisted language learning. Paper presented at the International Conference
on Current Trends in ELT, 20-22 May, Urmia, Iran.
Jalali, S., & Dousti, M. (2012).Vocabulary and grammar gain through computer
educational games. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 12(4), 1077-1088.
Greenfield, R. (2003). Collaborative email exchange for teaching secondary ESL: a case
study in Hong Kong. Language Learning and Technology, 7(1), 46-70.
Kadel, R. (2005). How teacher attitudes affect technology integration. Learning and
Leading with Technology, 32(5), 3435.
Lam, Y. (2000). Technophilia vs. technophobia: A preliminary look at why secondlanguage teachers do or do not use technology in their classrooms. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 56(3), 389-420.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2003). Students evaluation of Call software
programmes. Educational Media International Journal, 2(4), 293-304.
62
Pekel, N. (2002). Students attitudes towards web-based independent learning at Bilkent

University School of English Language. Unpublished masters thesis, Bilkent University
Institute of Economics and Social Sciences, Ankara, Turkey.
Sadeghi, K., & Dousti, M. (2013).The Effect of length of exposure to CALL technology on
young Iranian EFL learners grammar gain. English Language Teaching, 6(2), 14-26.
Smith, B. (2003).The use of communication strategies in computer-mediated
communication. System, 31, 2953.
Stepp-Greany, J. (2002). Student perceptions on language learning in a technological
environment: Implications for the new millennium. Language Learning and Technology,
6(1), 165-180.
Tuzcuolu, U. (2000). Teachers attitudes towards using Computer Assisted Language
Learning (CALL) in the foreign languages department at Osmangazi University.
Unpublished masters thesis. Bilkent University Institute of Economics and Social
Sciences, Ankara, Turkey.
Vandewaetere, M., & Desmet, P. (2009). Introducing psychometrical validation of
questionnaires in CALL research: The case of measuring attitude towards CALL.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22, 349-380.
Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Malaysian Journal of ELT Research - Volume 10 (1) 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTERNATIONAL BOARD OF ADVISORS

Malaysian Journal of ELT Research Vol. 10(1) April 2014

Malaysian Journal of ELT Research Vol. 10(1) April 2014

Malaysian Journal of ELT Research Vol. 10(1) April 2014

Malaysian Journal of ELT Research Vol. 10(1) April 2014

INFORMATIONS FOR AUTHORS

Malaysian Journal of ELT Research Vol. 10(1) April 2014

Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts on

Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts

Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts

Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts

RQ2. Were students perceptions of the paraphrasing skills reflected in their

Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts

Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts

Student F noted the difficulty of the passage:

Culturally and contextually unfamiliar passages were easier.

Understanding requirements of the task improved confidence

Another Student H also commented:

Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts

Students were unable to apply skills.

Skills did not help.

Comprehension of passage was essential when applying paraphrasing skill.

Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts

The hijack passage is easier because I could find the points,

Student S further commented:

Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts

Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts

the passage to be paraphrased. This finding seemed to support research by

Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts

Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts

Johns, A. M. (1988). Reading for summarising: An approach to text

Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts

Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts

Effects of Culturally and Contextually Familiar Texts

The Roles of Collaborative Dialogue in Enhancing

KEYWORDS: Collaborative dialogue, language-related episodes, written corrective

The Roles of Collaborative Dialogue

The Roles of Collaborative Dialogue

The Roles of Collaborative Dialogue

The Roles of Collaborative Dialogue

The Roles of Collaborative Dialogue

Linguistic forms SVA/ prepositions

The Roles of Collaborative Dialogue

SVA error herethe most popular device are

The Roles of Collaborative Dialogue

NextSVA the numbers increases

P errorprepositionat year 2007.

The Roles of Collaborative Dialogue

The Roles of Collaborative Dialogue

Here preposition error as a conclusion why?

The Roles of Collaborative Dialogue

Delayed post-test sample sentence:

The Roles of Collaborative Dialogue

The Roles of Collaborative Dialogue

extensively hypothesise their corrections mainly because collaborative dialogue provides

The Roles of Collaborative Dialogue

The Roles of Collaborative Dialogue

Ishii, D. N. (2011). Paired learners verbalised strategies for determining grammatical

A One-Stop Class Blog to Promote Collaborative Writing Activities

A One-Stop Class Blog to Promote Collaborative Writing Activities

A One-Stop Class Blog to Promote Collaborative Writing Activities

A One-Stop Class Blog to Promote Collaborative Writing Activities