Computer Assisted Language Learning

ISSN: 0958-8221 (Print) 1744-3210 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncal20

Task design and its induced learning effects in a

cross-institutional blog-mediated telecollaboration

Wen-Chun Chen, Yu-Chih Doris Shih & Gi-Zen Liu

To cite this article: Wen-Chun Chen, Yu-Chih Doris Shih & Gi-Zen Liu (2015) Task design and its
induced learning effects in a cross-institutional blog-mediated telecollaboration, Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 28:4, 285-305, DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2013.818557

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2013.818557

Published online: 30 Jul 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2575

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 16 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ncal20
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 2015
Vol. 28, No. 4, 285–305, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2013.818557

Task design and its induced learning effects in a cross-institutional

blog-mediated telecollaboration
Wen-Chun Chena, Yu-Chih Doris Shihb and Gi-Zen Liuc*
a
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, National Chung Cheng University, Chiayi,
Taiwan; bDepartment of English Language and Literature, Fu-Jen Catholic University, New Taipei
City, Taiwan; cDepartment of Foreign Languages and Literature, National Cheng Kung University,
Tainan, Taiwan

This research investigated if and how the instructional design affected the learning
outcome in a blog-mediated project, namely students’ communicative writing in the
social media. Thirty-four college-level English learners from two universities in
Taiwan participated in the telecollaboration. The current research continues to high-
light the social networking nature of Web 2.0 by locating idea units (IUs) in students’
semi-formal weekly discussions, instead of focusing on syntactic complexity of con-
ventional written modality. In this study, the language learners’ output performance
(the quantity of IUs was operationalized as the dependent variable) was hypothesized
to be affected by task type and duration time. The findings indicate that both were sig-
nificant in eliciting the amount of IUs. As a result, the contributions of this study
include (a) shedding some light on the academic and educational capacity of
blog-mediated telecollaboration, (b) revealing multiple factors that might affect the
telecollaborative mechanism with the use of weblogs for language learning purposes,
and finally (c) evaluating interactive blogging activities’ educational value for comple-
menting formal-writing training.
Keywords: task type; duration time; telecollaboration; social networking; communi-
cative writing; blog

1. Introduction
Students nowadays seem increasingly dedicated to and equipped with sophisticated tech-
nology and skills when developing the target language (Chiu & Liu, 2013; Liu, 2008,
2011; Liu, Liu, & Hwang, 2011). As Godwin-Jones (2009) claims, “many are fully con-
versant with and committed to communicating through social networking sites” (p. 3);
the integration of mini applications (Apps) and Web 2.0 tools appears to cultivate a
“Personal Learning Environment” (p. 3). The present study introduces a cross-
institutional writing project for Taiwanese English learners to participate in and construct
a social network as well as a learning community via blog. Textual blogs are devised to
offer a free stage for students’ to voice their views with confidence and creativity, com-
pared with the face-to-face (F2F) milieu (Golonka, Bowles, Frank, Richardson, &
Freynik, 2012). When blog posts are responded to or commented on, authentic social
interaction occurs and tends to stimulate meaningful discussions. This process pedagogi-
cally and psychologically encourages non-native speakers (language learners) to commu-
nicate in their target language.

*Corresponding author. Email: gizen@mail.ncku.edu.tw

Ó 2013 Taylor & Francis

286 W.-C. Chen et al.

Blogs can be used for academic purposes, yet with a less intimidating and formal
undertone. Online discourse is a semi-written and semi-spoken hybrid language that
allows learners time to process input and craft output while still retaining the authenticity
of verbal language (Hudson & Bruckman, 2001). In an EFL (English as a Foreign
Language) country like Taiwan, this may be a protective mechanism for low-confidence/
proficiency learners when generating language output (W. C. Chen, 2012; W. C. Chen &
Eslami, 2013). This context is likely to elicit a higher quantity and quality of language
production from learners compared to F2F interactions (Blake, 2000; Warschauer, 1996).
Blogs, labeled as a kind of Web 2.0 tool, represent knowledge shareability, extendibility,
as well as individuality – a free platform for users (both readers and writers) to express
themselves and access responses/information from a knowledge source (Ducate &
Lomicka, 2008; Stevens et al., 2008; Witte, 2007). In short, the relaxing vibe and the
autonomous writing in online settings liberate and empower language learners.
Even though the aforementioned studies have shown encouraging results, the best
practices of using blogs for language learning purposes and the mechanisms underlining
the blogging process for this purpose remain underexplored – “Blogging doesn’t simply
happen” (Arena, 2008, p. 1). O’Dowd and Waire (2009) in their review on task design in
telecollaboration contended that the choice and the design of tasks have scarcely been
reported in the literature; and when they are, they are presented as an “unproblematic fait
accompli” (p. 174). A clear pedagogical framework is essential to ensure learning produc-
tivity (Pegrum, 2009). This study attempts to enrich the literature with a theme- and task-
based blog-writing project between two groups of college-level English learners launched
to connect two universities: one in the north of Taiwan and the other in the south of
Taiwan.

2. Literature review
2.1. The educational use of blogs
Blogs, as a social networking tool, have shown multifaceted values for general educa-
tional purposes, including the scaffolding effect (Kajder & Bull, 2003), thought-sharing
(Boling, Castek, Zawilinski, Barton, & Nierlich, 2008), feedback provision (Blair, 2003),
(learning) performance predictor (Du & Wagner, 2005), opinion exchanging, meticulous
writing, and motivation booster (Blair, 2003; Wilder & Mongillo, 2007). In short, from
the socio-cultural perspective of constructivism, the sheer force to keep the ball rolling
comes from the synergy of the learner community: students’ urge to post messages online
has gone beyond getting grades (Blair, 2003). They give and gain feedback for a deep
understanding of the subject matter and their intended audience.
Despite the prevalent support from classroom teachers and researchers, Arena (2008)
responded with a candid precaution that the use of blogs may still fail without a proper
instructional framework. Pegrum (2009) even used the metaphorical title “From Blogs to
Bombs” to address the significance of task design and project implementation, while Krause
(2005) demystified the use of blogs by sharing his negative experiences. Krause
disappointedly gave up on this highly recommended tool after three lessons were learned:
(1) vague learning tasks and an unspecific audience jeopardize students’ participation;
(2) blogs sometimes can obfuscate the situation when simple email listserv could have been
more effective; and (3) blogs work best for publishing individual texts that are near comple-
tion since revision advice is seldom sought on the platform. These doubts collectively
indicate that learning outcomes vary with other factors involved in a blog project. As
 Computer Assisted Language Learning 287

blogs are gaining popularity in classrooms, not only is a re-examination with multiple
lenses necessary, but discipline-specific studies are also needed to explicitly inform teachers
and learners about the affordance of the tool. The next section reviews blogs’ educational
capacity in the target context of the present study – language learning.

2.2. Blogging in L2/foreign language contexts

By generalizing the educational benefits of blogs, language teachers/researchers hypothe-
sized that the effects in L2 (second language) contexts would be similar to L1 (first lan-
guage) in theory (Alm, 2006; Duffy & Bruns, 2006; Jee, 2008; Kim, 2008; Zhang, 2009).
Nonetheless, with common psycho-cognitive barriers (e.g., EFL students’ minimal inter-
est and low self-confidence in learning the language or culture from a remote region, as
well as their need to rebuild L2 cognitive models identified by Li, 2009), unexpected
complications might arise in blog projects for language learning. Empirical accounts
grounded in various contexts are needed to verify the ideal hypotheses of L2 blogging.
Golonka et al. (2012) pointed out the scarcity of quantitative studies showing how blogs
can improve L2 productive skills. In response, the current study adopted textual blogs to
mediate learning tasks, with the following review focusing on L2 writing research among
blog-mediated projects as a prelude to the chosen research context.
The primary purpose of blogging, like most other Internet-based applications, is for
communication (Arslan & Şahin-Kızıl, 2010). Several empirical studies have been con-
ducted at the university level or in the professional fields to train learners’ communicative
writing (Spence & Liu, 2013); however, divergent enabling objectives and instructional
designs yielded inconsistent findings. Pinkman (2005) conducted a small-scaled action
research in a foreign language classroom at a Japanese university by incorporating blogs
to assist 15 students in an after-class project. Findings from the questionnaire and inter-
views indicated that the participants’ motivation and interests after a 16-week program
increased due to the interaction and feedback from their peers and teacher. The project
also helped students’ reading–writing skills as well as their communication needs.
Mynard (2008) later reported a case study of 26 female Japanese students keeping jour-
nals on blogs (L2 free writing to communicate with the teacher) for a semester. Through
a content analysis, she categorized the topics of students’ messages, concluding that blogs
have a positive effect on students’ critical thinking. Nevertheless, her participants did not
interact with each other via the social networking tool; hence, she recommended an
expansion of the blog’s connectivity which then could become a platform for students to
exchange personal reflections.
More recently, 18 college students (as a treatment group) in P.J. Chen’s (2010) study
blogged their daily learning logs and integrated peer reviews. In comparison with a control
group receiving conventional composition training, results from a survey, observation
notes, TOEFL TWE (Test of Written English) test (pre-test and post-tests), and writing
samples from both groups, showed that no significant differences existed between the two
groups in the following aspects: linguistic improvement, strategy use, perception of writ-
ing class, motivation, and anxiety. However, the treatment group outperformed the control
group in meta-linguistic awareness, while the latter excelled in self-efficacy for writing.
Using blogs for process-writing training, 13 Taiwanese EFL college students in Liou
and Peng (2009) published formal essays and sought peer feedback. Based on students’
revisions, peer feedback, and a perception survey, the researchers found an increase of
feedback quality as the project proceeded despite the mediocre feedback on the receivers’
side – the participants had mixed feelings about blog-mediated peer review. At the end of
288 W.-C. Chen et al.

the project, participants indicated a desire for outside readers as it might increase their
blogging motivation. A similar model was adopted by Arslan and Şahin-Kızıl (2010) in
Turkey, where 27 EFL participants in the treatment group of blog-integrated writing
instruction outperformed their counterparts (23 in the control group) in the aspects of con-
tent and organization, but not in vocabulary, language use, and mechanics. Compared to
other similar studies, Arslan and Şahin-Kızıl (2010) incorporated five performance indi-
cators to delineate the multi-layered nature of online communicative writing. In fact, lan-
guage learners need appropriate guidance to customize their writing for various purposes.
However, Wu (2006) encountered a different problem with his seven low intermediate
learners while using a similar writing task design as Liou and Peng’s (2009) and Arslan
and Şahin-Kızıl’s (2010). From the surface view, the students used peer review to give
hearty support and extravagant compliments, yet the survey results and the peers’ and
teachers’ comments both showed little effect on student writing, and the posting rate was
low. Wu in his later research (2008) recruited 51 students in a similar blog-writing project
yet focused more on their familiarity and the frequency of using blogs. He also found a
low peer feedback frequency and a wide gap between students’ beliefs and actions: they
thought blogging would be beneficial but in fact rarely used it. Echoing Liou and Peng’s
conclusion, Wu’s participants also desired collaboration from outside of school. A peda-
gogical suggestion they shared was the necessary training for peer review and feedback
provision.
Sun (2010) took a different approach to examine students’ learning performance by
recruiting 23 students to engage in academic writing practices on blogs and analyzed the
t-units (representing the syntactical complexity) in the first and the last three blog entries.
Students’ self-reports and two raters’ scoring both showed a significant difference
between before the treatment and after the treatment. Various editing strategies were dis-
played in the process of self-publishing. In spite of not having interactive peer feedback,
most students acknowledged the benefit brought by the blogging treatment for academic
writing training. Regardless of the inconsistent results in the aforementioned studies,
blogs’ affordances for improving students’ communicative writing (linguistically and/or
non-linguistically) have been unanimous. Evidently, the read–write tool facilitates
learners’ meaningful communication, and learning progress can be realized within a time-
frame. Despite this, if further understanding of how learners’ writing evolves with time is
to be pursued, micro- and macro-levels of analyses revealing procedural development
should be considered equally crucial – to complement the conventional pre-post evalua-
tive configurations.
Students’ perceptions of blogs and blogging have been the most investigated topic in
related research (e.g., P. J. Chen, 2010; Sun, 2010). Findings collectively show students’
positive attitudes toward the tool; however, regardless of how popular blogging may be
with L2 students, certain instructional precautions and problems should be addressed and
remedied: (1) task designs are hardly discussed (Golonka et al., 2012; O’Dowd and
Waire, 2009); (2) most researched blog-mediated tasks still target essay writing and peer
review (e.g., Arslan and Şahin-Kızıl, 2010; Liou & Peng, 2009; Mynard, 2008; Sun
2010; Wu, 2006) instead of sheer information exchanging or reflection sharing predomi-
nantly seen on regular blogs; and (3) learners’ desire to reach out to an outside audience
(Bahce & Taslaci, 2009; Liou & Peng, 2009). While communication effectiveness and
information exchange are prioritized in the digital era (Warschauer, 2007), an alternative
research direction reflecting the affordance of task-based discussions is called for to eval-
uate blog-mediated activities.
 Computer Assisted Language Learning 289

2.3. Task types

Among many variables in task design, educators have explored and found task types to be
important for students’ learning, and suggested examining the feasibility of a task from
the aspects of task type, interactant, and content (Ellis, 2003). In classroom-based and
computer-mediated communication (CMC) based studies, diverse taxonomies of task
types have been reported (Ellis, 2003, Nunan, 2004; Pattison, 1987; Pica, Kanagy, & Falo-
dun, 1993; O’Dowd and Waire, 2009; Willis, 1996). Among all the taxonomies, literature
has shown that tasks requiring two-way information exchanges can increase negotiation
(Ellis, 2003; Pica et al., 1993). Taking this as a premise, under the two-way communica-
tive task type, there are two subtypes: open-ended and closed-ended task types (Pica et al.,
1993). The main differences between the two lay in the convergence of outcomes and the
amount of teacher’s guidance. Closed-ended tasks, or collaborative tasks (O’Dowd and
Waire, 2009), seek convergent goals or singularity of outcomes (e.g., jigsaw, information
gap, decision making, and problem-solving), while open-ended tasks allow for multiple
outcome options. Closed tasks also feature the stepwise detailed guidance teachers offer
(cf. the five-step instruction in Darhower, 2000) to direct students on diverse paths to meet
at some common point, which tends to boost negotiation and information exchange more
than its open counterpart (Blake, 2000; Pica et al., 1993). Pertinent studies of these two
task types have also yielded inconsistent conclusions, and comparative research in CMC
contexts is still scarce in the existent body of scholarly works.
Some research has shown that in a close-ended task learners can intensively experience
comprehension of input, feedback on production, and interlanguage modification while
jointly working towards task completion. These effects could be intensified when commu-
nication takes place online. Smith (2003) evaluated the learning performance of 14 college-
level ESL (English as a Second Language) students who participated in his synchronous
CMC project to complete closed tasks. Results indicate that one-third of the total relay turns
between learners were negotiated interactions (especially whenever non-understandings
occurred), while the other two-thirds consisted of collaborative progress toward task
completion. Closed tasks in the online environment made learners feel compelled to seek
specific closure, leading them to confirm and reconfirm more often than in F2F interaction.
Similarly in Blake’s (2000) research, closed tasks (especially jigsaw) elicited noticing
effect and induced much negotiation from 50 Spanish learners during text chats.
Despite the closed-ended task type being highly recommended, open-ended tasks
which do not require the interlocutors to agree or disagree with each other have also been
reported to elicit wider lexical and grammatical performance and a more pleasant discus-
sion experience (Darhower, 2000; Kelly-Lally, 2006). In O’Dowd and Waire’s (2009)
study, it was reported that task preference can also be culturally related. The American
participants in one of the reported case studies sensed more freedom in open tasks, while
their Spanish partners preferred the closed tasks due to the more focused and effective
exchanges that build a joint understanding of the task objective. Kelm (1992) reported
that 15 originally unsuccessful and unmotivated Portuguese learners ended up producing
a huge quantity of conversational output (ended with requests or questions) in open-
ended CMC tasks. In other words, open-ended tasks might have the potential to reset L2
learners’ affective filters. However, a side effect should be noted: the more open a task is
(i.e., the less guidance teachers offer), the fewer opportunities there are for negotiation
and interlanguage to develop. The two task types obviously have their respective pros
and cons, and their effects should be contextually re-examined for further clarification.
This once again illustrates how task design can affect outcomes and how more research
290 W.-C. Chen et al.

should be conducted to bridge the gap in the literature: manipulating closed and open
tasks for learners to conduct discussions on blogs may serve as an alternative method to
train their negotiation skills. To answer the call for further research, this telecollaboration
study aimed to answer the following research questions.

(1) Does task type affect students’ communication output in terms of idea units (IUs)
in blogs?
(2) Does the quality of students’ communicative writing change as telecollaboration
proceeds with time?

3. Methodology
3.1. Participants
The current project was conducted through a telecollaboration between two writing clas-
ses in an urban university in northern and a rural one in southern Taiwan. Thirty-four
English-majors (17 from each university) between the ages of 17 and 21 formed 17 dyads
and engaged in 10-week blog-mediated discussions. The orientation included video con-
ferencing via Skype between the two classes for ice-breaking, the use of Blogger (a free
blog platform provided by Google Inc.), and an introduction of ground rules to both
groups.

3.2. Instructional design

In order to promote the depth of discussion through two-way blogging, the theme “Self-
Awareness” closely related to the participants’ daily lives was set to elicit various per-
sonal opinions – their contemplations on thinking, learning, and living in the contempo-
rary world as a college student. This approach is validated by previous research: two-way
communication tasks optimize group productivity and language output (Coughlin &
Duff, 1994; Ellis, 2003, 2005). A theme also cognitively facilitates learners’ productions
and recalls of IUs (i.e., “semantic units”; Benton, Glover, & Plake, 1984, p. 195)
(Esmaeili, 2002; Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001). Meanwhile, concept identifica-
tion should retrieve a wider range of lexical knowledge from learners (Skehan, 1998). A
weekly writing prompt was announced on a project website titled The Rights to Write
accessible to all participants.
Students were expected to reflect on and respond to the prompts in a tandem and dia-
logical manner. This project was embedded as part of the writing assignments for two
classes (Composition/Composition & Conversation); each student was instructed to post
at least one initial message and then offer feedback (as much as preferred) to the counter-
part in their own time. Despite the project being part of the course requirement and
students’ earning credits from completing the project assignments, the instructors mainly
graded them by their level of dedication: timely responses, responsiveness to their
partners’ inquiries and prompts, and task completion. The instructional objective was to
encourage students to continuously engage themselves in inspiring discussions, growing
to manifest semantic richness, and complexity (IU density) during the information
exchange period in the target language. This meaningful activity concerned the research-
ers far more than the task products; moreover, the products served to raise communication
needs and thus only included a trivial percentage of the score. After all, as blogs are
intended for socializing in nature, completing a specific product is never the primary
 Computer Assisted Language Learning 291

function (Pegrum, 2009). Students’ opinions (knowledge contribution or negotiation),

writing styles, and tones of voice were not judged; their language errors were neither cor-
rected nor penalized. The lenient ground rules intended to cultivate a freedom-of-speech
ambience and simulate most blogging contexts. Compared to the conventional formal
writing training, the blogging activities were apparently more casual and liberal. This dia-
logical training (conversations with an authentic target reader) departed from conven-
tional formal writing – the other thread of the curriculum, including textual analysis,
TOEFL/TOEIC/GEPT written tests, and argumentation in the semester. The evaluation
and instructional emphases were also very dissimilar between the two: the blog project
highlighted peer-interaction and information exchange, and written tests/essay exercises
concerned grammatical accuracy, syntactical clarity, and topical cohesion. It should be
noted that no attempt was made to make this blog-based writing project a stand-alone
writing curriculum. Students’ performance, either in this project or during that period of
time, was accumulative from their holistic L2 learning experience – the development was
a continuum. In other words, their improvement, if shown, could be inevitably affected to
some extent by their another study. However, this blogging activity should be considered
as a formative assessment in which writers interpreted and reacted to responses from a
real audience and chose proper writing techniques/styles/genres (argumentative, narra-
tive, etc.) to communicate or negotiate effectively online.
In the present study, all the topics and task types were not in specific order to form any
specific combinations. The topics were not pre-determined, but emerged naturally with
the social news or current events. More specifically, all topics were chosen based on one
principle: they were closely related to the students or/and frequently mentioned during
the class time and/or in the news. Two types of tasks were included: open vs. closed. The
step-wise instruction coupled with the requirement of co-constructing a task product was
used to set a clear dichotomy between the two. An open task, judging by its goal orienta-
tion and outcome option(s), allowed divergent (open-ended) results or conclusions,
whereas a closed task should target a convergent (close-ended) result and only one out-
come option (Pica et al., 1993). For example, the implementation chart in Figure 1
showed the open tasks which did not require negotiation and decision making by the
dyads. These tasks were descriptive such as “Introducing your city” and “My favorite
task.” The closed tasks required decision-making and problem-solving skills of the learn-
ers for a final product such as a letter to the editor or a decision to the political election.
As aforementioned, the effects of the two task types on learners’ performance in CMC
are inconclusive, and this factor is rarely discussed in a blogging context. Hence, the pres-
ent study highlighted this critical variable to mend the gap in the literature.

3.3. Data collection and analysis

In the present study, the main focus was on the procedural development of online discus-
sion, rather than the conventional emphasis on task product evaluation as Ellis (2003)
suggested. The final products from the closed tasks were not included for analysis in this
study. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected through three instruments: blog
message archives (to examine information content and procedural growth of writing),
supplemented with a perception survey (to indicate students’ attitudes toward the project
implementation in Part 1 and task design in Part 2, see the Appendix), and two rounds of
self- and peer-appraisals (to inspect the partnership and peer performance). In this
research, language learners’ output performance (quantities of IUs and the texts used for
each IU in their weekly posts) was hypothesized to be affected by task type and the
292 W.-C. Chen et al.

Figure 1. Implementation flowchart.

function of time; the potential relationships between the variables and students’ output
were revealed by a linear regression analysis and plotting. When performing the regres-
sion analysis, closed tasks were coded as dummy variable of 1 and open tasks as 0. The
analysis identified which task type had a higher likelihood to elicit more IUs. For the
function of time, the researchers attempted to see how the writing telecollaboration might
change students’ writing behaviors as the project progressed. We postulated that if the
training could generate positive impact on their communicative writing, there should be
upward trend lines indicating participants’ improvement of idea elaboration (Biber &
Gray, 2010; Liaw & Bunn Le-Master, 2010) and writing complexity (Benton et al.,
1984) as collaboration time increased. Possible alteration was made visible by plotting
the weekly ratios between word and IU counts, i.e., the amount of text that describes an
idea. The self- and peer-appraisal and perception survey results would be used to triangu-
late students’ learning performance.
Students’ communication output was operationalized as the IUs appearing in students’
blog message archives. The written discourse used for blogging is mostly semi-spoken
and semi-written; therefore, IUs (targeting semantic dimension) were an appropriate
choice to quantify the blog-mediated communication output due to the focus on idea con-
tent over lexical or syntactic complexity. In other words, IUs can reflect the
 Computer Assisted Language Learning 293

communicative essence of the blogging corpus better than t-units used for conventional
written modality or utterances for stream of speech (see Crookes, 1990; Kroll, 1977 for
more detailed definitions). Hincks (2010) used IUs to determine the amount of informa-
tion content and help conclude a significant difference in students’ oral presentations
between initial and final stages. In other words, students’ message archives on their blogs
should disclose the information transmission and the growth of their self-expressions in
L2 (if shown). Students’ self- and peer-appraisals and their responses to the perception
survey were supplemented to the quantitative analyses for the purpose of data triangula-
tion. The appraisals were self- and peer-evaluation scores (ranging from 1 to 100); stu-
dents gave to themselves and to each other (keypals). Appraisal guidelines were offered
as part of the orientation, and judged from three aspects of dedication: (1) responding in a
timely manner; (2) addressing their partners’ inquiries and prompts; and (3) completing
the task – with each item valued at 1/3 of the total score. The survey questions were pri-
marily sourced from Bakar and Ismail (2009, p. 55–57) and Sun (2010), and later custom-
ized by the constructs of the present study (for the key variables). The validity of the
questionnaire and appraisals were already verified in a pilot study conducted in the prior
year (W. C. Chen & Shih, 2010). A total of four experienced raters (including the
researchers) shared the coding task. To establish inter-rater reliability, the four raters first
coded 20% of the data and then met for six times to compare their results. After reviewing
the differences, detailed clarifications allowed the raters to re-establish the agreements on
the coding. Then they worked individually to process the remaining data yet still met
occasionally when confusions occurred to re-calibrate everyone’s understanding. The
project design serves as an example to address “a range of (writing) genres generated situ-
ationally for different media” (Kern, Ware, & Warschauer, 2008, p. 284) in the Web 2.0
era. The findings will hopefully offer future researchers or classroom practitioners clear
guidelines on how to manipulate variables to attain the desirable learning outcomes in a
CMC-supported learning project.

4. Results and discussion

During the 10 weeks of blog-mediated collaboration, 17 dyads generated a total of
708 messages (x ¼ 2:08, SD ¼ 0.86) and a word count of 139,412 (x ¼ 411:85,
SD ¼ 174.38). To further reveal the density of information content in the messages and
texts, 14,429 IUs (x ¼ 84:88, SD ¼ 30.54) were identified and the weekly ratios between
word, message, and IU counts were calculated.
To answer the first research inquiry, task type was examined to identify possible
effects on students’ communication quality. Among 10 tasks, four were open and six
were closed. Each open task averagely induced 13,229 words (SD ¼ 3132.33), 68.5 mes-
sages (SD ¼ 20.49), and 1253 IUs (SD ¼ 280.58) from all the participants; each closed
task induced averagely 14,416 words (SD ¼ 2281.05), 72.33 messages (SD ¼ 16.83), and
1569 IUs (SD ¼ 303.17). While word and message counts are fairly close between the
two task types, IU counts indicate a possible discrepancy.
A linear regression with task type as the independent variable and IUs as the depen-
dent variables was performed. As indicated in Table 1, compared to open tasks, closed
tasks inclined to induce significantly more IUs in each weekly discussion (p < 0.005,
R2 ¼ 0.53, and B ¼ 0.433) which means 53% of the variance in IUs can be explained by
the task-type predictor. This outcome is consistent with Pica et al. (1993) and Darhower
(2000), who conducted respective studies in an F2F setting and in an online environment.
Closed tasks required an end product from the dyads (e.g., Strawberry Generation as
 294

Table 1. Linear regression results (task type – IUs).

Model summary

Model R R2 square Adjusted R 2 Std. error of the estimate

W.-C. Chen et al.

a
1 0.727 0.528 0.525 61.98577
ANOVA
Model Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
1 Regression 726,110.157 1 726,110.157 188.981 0.000
Residual 649,337.843 169 3842.236
Total 1375,448.000 b 170
Coefficients

Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients 95.0% confidence interval for B

Model B Std. error Beta t Sig. Lower bound Upper bound

Constant (open) 84.373 6.138 13.747 0.000 72.256 96.489

Closed 0.433 0.106 0.727 14.111 0.000 0.371 0.494
a
Predictors: Open_Close.
b
Dependent variable: IU.
Note: a value of 0.05 is the cut-off point.
 Computer Assisted Language Learning 295

Figure 2. Sample (closed) task.

Note: Source: CWTV (2010).

shown in Figure 2); their prompts were hence explicit and step-wise in the course of form-
ing a work plan – aiming toward product completion, e.g., “ . . .How about we start goo-
gling online and get back to each other in a day or two. . .” (an excerpt from Task 8).
Open tasks did not require a final product, and elicited mainly personal sharing or infor-
mation exchange (e.g., identifying a foreign site as shown in Figure 3); hence, succinct
and thought-provoking prompts emerged, e.g., “. . .Some people said it’s gonna be the
end of the world, ya think?” (an excerpt from Task 10). Specifically, closed communica-
tive tasks were found to promote in-depth and intensive negotiations among group mem-
bers: the goal orientation of seeking a convergent solution/conclusion and the singular
outcome option harnessed learners’ on-task discussions (Pica et al., 1993). In order to
reach the joint goal, learners manipulated input (including the information, opinions from
the partners, and instructional prompts) to form a work plan (output) (Ellis, 2003). In con-
trast, open tasks focusing on information exchange and opinion sharing are comparatively
more fun (Darhower, 2000; O’Dowd and Waire, 2009); however, when discussing a topic
online without a specific pre-determined goal, much random chitchat and/or superficial
discussion occurs (Hamid & Akter, 2009).
Part One of the survey results revealed students’ attitudes toward the task and topic
designs (cf. Appendix for item means and SD). Student participants were asked to fill out
a Likert-scaled survey, where a response of four indicated strong agreement and one
strong disagreement, while a response of five meant that the question was not applicable
(N/A) to their situation. On the whole, students reflected positively on the task design,
based on their acceptance of both task types and controversial topics. However, if
296 W.-C. Chen et al.

Figure 3. Sample (open) task.

comparing between the two, 68% preferred closed tasks to open ones: they preferred
structured closed tasks with explicit instructions. This seems to reflect the findings of
O’Dowd and Waire’s (2009) study in which culture became a factor in task design. Mean-
while, 63% did not feel that blog writing should aim at a task product. In fact, blogs origi-
nally were created for social networking purposes. In order to identify the possible effects
of topic selection, four items verified the positive reactions (53%–80%) students had for
all topics under the Self-Awareness theme, and also acknowledged the freedom inherent
in open tasks (61%). Although task types have certain influence on learning outcomes, it
is also crucial to choose reverberating (conceptually debatable) topics to elevate learners’
motivation (Arnold & Ducate, 2006).
To examine the function of time and its effect on communication quality as the writing
project proceeded (the second research inquiry), the ratios of word and IU counts (indicat-
ing increased/decreased idea elaboration in each IU, namely the amount of words used to
describe each IU) from Tasks 1 to 10 were computed. The scatter plot in Figure 4 shows
all the ratios generated by each dyad each week. As the trend lines (lines of best fit) indi-
cate, most of the dyads improved steadily and gradually (ranging from 5% to 67%). This
indicates the increase of text elaboration and semantic complexity in blogging. This
improvement with the function of time was not (at least not directly) contributed by the
training of written tests and argumentative writing taught during the semester, since they
focused on grammatical accuracy, syntactical clarity, and organization. Excerpts 1 and 2
illustrate the tangible evidence of procedural growth of a student (in Dyad 7) from his
Week 2 and Week 6 posts. The texts are presented in their original form, i.e., unedited for
language errors. The marks [/] indicate how the IUs were identified. Although both have
seven IUs and both were opinion elaborations, the Week 6 excerpt, compared to that of
 Computer Assisted Language Learning 297

Figure 4. Scatter plot and trendlines of ratios between word and IU counts generated by every
dyad (D) every week.

Week 2, apparently contains more lexico-descriptors for the main issue, implying the
ability to create a more concrete and detailed background picture followed by explicit
and supported comments for readers. With richer lexis and despite grammatical errors,
the student became more expressive. In telecommunication behaviors (Tetzchner &
Nordby, 1991), this ability of giving vivid descriptions or powerful statements is impor-
tant for writers in online communication where little assumption should be made regard-
ing the readers’ prior experience and/or knowledge.

Week 2 post (41 words/7 IUs)

I was tutoring a student, [/] discovered that he was listening to rap. [/] Being curious and sur-
prised [/], I asked him what his opinion about American music is. [/] So he answered me,
“dark, and real!!!”, [/] but no one should judge [/] Compared to my friends [/]. . .

Week 6 post (59 words/7 IUs)

The sudden disqualification of Taiwanese taekwondo athlete Yanh Shu-chun is like an

exploding volcano. [/] The unstoppable smoke and rage keep spreading all over [/] from
China to Taiwan and Korea. [/] The incident built the tension between the three countries. [/]
I asked my father his opinion about the disqualification verdict. [/] He said everything was
kinda fishy. . .. [/] and we aren’t supposed to judge from the surface.[/]

One problematic pair (Dyad 11) failed to benefit from the collaboration. The student in
Dyad 11 often complained to the instructors about her keypal for his frequent procrastination
during their blog discussions. Since the writing project was part of the course requirements,
the irritated participant was often anxious about the consequences of failing the assignments;
the interruptive interaction logically jeopardized their partnership and learning performance.
O’Dowd and Waire (2009) suggested that the “tuning-in process” (p. 184) is the key in
298 W.-C. Chen et al.

telecollaboration. Various degrees of tuning-in could explain the unequal performance (indi-
cated by the different slopes of the trend lines in Figure 4) across the dyads in the present
study.
Part Two’s survey results were consistent with the quantitative statistical analysis
above (cf. Appendix for item means and SD). Most of the students reflected positively on
the weekly discussions, and voiced their thoughts online more than in real life (77%). As
the project proceeded, students felt this comparatively informal blogging activity also
benefited their formal writing (83%) and even possibly their oral fluency (72%). These
two benefits might result from their expanded thematic vocabularies (among 92% of the
participants) and the understanding of taking readers’ feelings into consideration (74%),
which could explain the difference between the Week-2 and Week-6 writing excerpts.
The regular blogging also enriched their general learning experience. Eighty-two percent
enjoyed the interaction with outside readers, and 97% felt unleashed from the physical
classroom. Sixty percent often chatted about the weekly topics with friends, 89% felt
inspired or intrigued by their keypals’ comments, and 83% agreed that the cross-
institutional online collaboration could complement in-class activities. Although
students’ online dialogues might imply a colloquial writing style or the tolerance of care-
less linguistic forms (Kern, 1995), most students (97%) sensed that the reduced time pres-
sure to when blogging is a merit. Ninety-four percent still checked their language despite
the casual nature of blog writing, and 77% suggested having pre-task discussions in class most
before posting on blogs. students
Consistent with the trend lines in Figure 3 and the survey result of Part Two, signifi- have
cant differences (p < 0.05 in Pairs 1 and 2 t-tests) can be seen in Table 2 between positive
students’ mid-term and final self-appraisal results from both sides. The participants attitude
reported having gained a higher level of satisfaction with their own learning performance towards
at the end compared to the middle of the semester. Moreover, the peer-evaluation results compute
showed no significant differences (p > 0.05 in Pairs 3 and 4 t-tests) between the two uni- r-mediat
versities in both the middle and the end of the project. As mentioned earlier, this finding ed
indicates that most of the participants might have acknowledged each other’s and per- collabora
sonal efforts in the collaboration. The positive atmosphere grew as the project proceeded. tive
writing
(give
5. Conclusion example
Innovative applications of blog with sophisticated technology may lead to multiple oppor- s from
tunities for telecollaborative students to further develop the target language (Ducate & other
Lomicka, 2008; Liaw & Bunn Le-Master, 2010; Sun, 2010). Findings of this study indi- studies)
cate that closed-type tasks are likely to induce more IUs than open-type tasks when dis-
cussion topics are not considered. Meanwhile, communicative writing via Web 2.0 media
is trainable when a suitable project is designed and implemented for a continuous period
of time. Students can be taught through adequate training how to successfully utilize Web
2.0 to improve their language learning and communicative writing skills in a foreign
language.
What we have learned from this project is that a critical awareness is needed of the
complexity of task design, as well as the factors involved, leading to desired outcomes.
For instance, the decisions and effects of discussion topics were unpredictable and hence
hard to measure. We attempted to choose hot topics (from instructors’ view) to induce
students’ willingness to communicate (Kang, 005), and still left them plenty of freedom
and flexibility to optimize the “openness” in open-ended tasks, as Ducate and Lomicka
(2008) suggested. However, it is undeniable and inevitable that topic selection may affect
Table 2. Paired samples t-tests between self- and peer-appraisals.

Mean N Std. deviation Std. error mean

Pair 1 Mid_Self_School1 78.8235 17 8.57493 2.07973
Final_Self_School1 85.0000 17 7.28869 1.76777
Pair 2 Mid_Self_School2 78.8235 17 6.96631 1.68958
Final_Self_School2 84.5882 17 3.12368 0.75760
Pair 3 Mid_Peer_School1 83.5294 17 9.31476 2.25916
Mid_Peer_School2 81.1765 17 9.10519 2.20833
Pair 4 Final_Peer_School1 84.1176 17 11.48849 2.78637
Final_Peer_School2 85.0000 17 9.51972 2.30887

Paired differences
95% confidence interval of the difference
Mean Std. deviation Std. error mean Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Pair 1 Mid_Self_School1 6.17647 4.51712 1.09556 8.49896 3.85398 5.638 16 .000

Final_Self_School1
Pair 2 Mid_Self_School2 5.76471 7.15480 1.73529 9.44337 2.08605 3.322 16 .004
Final_Self_School2
Pair 3 Mid_Peer_School1 2.35294 6.87333 1.66703 1.18100 5.88688 1.411 16 .177
Mid_Peer_School2
Pair 4 Final_Peer_School1 – 0.88235 12.77636 3.09872 7.45135 5.686,64 0.285 16 0.779
Final_Peer_School2
Note: a value of 0.05 is the cut-off point.
Computer Assisted Language Learning
299
300 W.-C. Chen et al.

communication output, which constitutes the first limit of this study. In addition, the
development of keypal partnerships can also affect students’ level of devotion to the col-
laboration, as what was raised as part of the findings, which is a common limitation in net-
worked learning projects (W. C. Chen, 2012). Furthermore, it is possible that a different
group configuration in a similar project could affect students’ discussion patterns (Kelly-
Lally, 2006). These underexplored factors are also worthy topics for future research.
Finally, this blog project was not intended to replace conventional writing training.
Instead, it serves as a supplementary role to actualize communicative writing for Web 2.0
media, and enrich students’ experience in writing classes. The progress students showed
was not only linguistic but also cognitive and affective.
Despite the above limitations, this research still offers the following contributions:
(1) shedding light on the academic and educational capacity of blog-mediated telecolla-
boration; (2) revealing multiple factors that might affect the telecollaborative mechanism
with the use of blogs for language learning purposes; and finally (3) validating interactive
blogging activities’ educational value for complementing formal writing training. In light
of telecommunication behaviors (Tetzchner & Nordby, 1991), this unconventional blog-
ging project may turn the geographical constraints into advantages: for EFL or introverted
learners: writing in such projects affords “anonymity and the lack of situational cues. . .
may actually enhance closeness rather than distance [between readers and
writers].” Furthermore, bloggers in such a project have the opportunity to learn non-
verbal communication conventions in the Web 2.0 era.

Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the 34 students who participated in the study. This work was partially supported
by the National Science Council in Taiwan (NSC 101-2410-H-194-111, NSC 100-
2511-S-006-001-MY2, and NSC 98-2511-S-006-003-MY2), and by the 2011 KPI Research Project
at National Cheng Kung University in Taiwan.

Notes on contributors
Wen-Chun Chen received her PhD degree in curriculum and instruction from Texas A&M Univer-
sity, College Station, and an MA degree in TESOL from New York University, USA. She is cur-
rently an assistant professor as National Chung Cheng University, Chia-Yi County, Taiwan. Her
major research interests include cross-cultural communication and teacher education for technol-
ogy-supported language teaching/learning. In the past 10 years, she has worked with ESL/EFL/ESP
learners of all age groups in both the USA and Taiwan.

Yu-Chih Doris Shih received her PhD degree in curriculum and instruction (with an emphasis of
educational technology) from Texas A&M University, USA. She is an associate professor in the
Department of English Language and Literature at Fu-Jen Catholic University, New Taipei City,
Taiwan. Her teaching and research interests are in the areas of foreign languages and cultural learn-
ing with technologies, multimedia education, and distance learning.

Gi-Zen Liu received his PhD degree in instructional systems technology from Indiana University
Bloomington, USA. He is director of the Foreign Language Center and an associate professor of
Foreign Languages & Literature Department at National Cheng Kung University (NCKU), Tainan
City, Taiwan. He has received five research awards from the College of Liberal Arts at NCKU in
2007–2011 and another from the National Science Council of Taiwan in 2012. His research interests
include instructional technology and design, CALL, CMC, and blended language learning.
 Computer Assisted Language Learning 301

References
Alm, A. (2006). CALL for autonomy, competence and relatedness: Motivating language learning
environments in Web 2.0. JALT CALL Journal, 2(3), 29–38.
Arena, C. (2008). Blogging in the language classroom: It doesn’t simply happen. TESL-EJ, 11(4).
Retrieved August 8, 2012, from http://tesl-ej.org/ej44/a3.pdf.
Arnold, N., & Ducate, L.C. (2006). Future foreign language teachers’ social and cognitive collabo-
ration in an online environment. Language Learning and Technology, 10(1), 42–66.
Arslan, Recep Ş., & Şahin-Kızıl, Aysel. (2010). How can the use of blog software facilitate the
writing process of English language learners? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(3),
183–197.
Bahce, A., & Taslaci, N. (2009). Learners’ perception of blended writing class: Blog and face-to-
face. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 10(4). Retrieved from http://tojde.anadolu.
edu.tr/tojde36/articles/article_12.htm
Bakar, A.N., & Ismail, K. (2009). Using blogs to encourage ESL students to write constructively in
English. ASEAN Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 1(1), 45–57.
Benton, S.L., Glover, J.A., & Plake, B.S. (1984). Employing adjunct aids to facilitate elaboration in
writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 18(2), 189–200.
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elabo-
ration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 2–20.
Blair, L. (2003). Teaching composition online: No longer the second best choice. KAIROS, 8(2).
Retrieved August 8, 2012, from http://english.ttu.edu/kairos/8.2/binder.html?praxis/blair.
Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage.
Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120–136.
Boling, E., Castek, J., Zawilinski, L., Barton, K., & Nierlich, T. (2008). Collaborative literacy:
Blogs and Internet projects. The Reading Teacher, 61(6), 504–506.
Chen, P.J. (2010). A study on the effectiveness of a blog-integrated EFL college writing courses
(PhD dissertation). National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
Chen, W.C. (2012). Professional growth during cyber collaboration between pre-service and in-
service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(2), 218–228.
Chen, W.C., & Eslami, Z. (2013). Focus on form in live chats. Educational Technology & Society,
16(1), 147–158.
Chen, W.C., & Shih, Y.S.D. (2010). Cultivating linguistic ownership through reflective blog-
writing: A college-level dyadic collaboration through Web 2.0. In Z.W. Abas, I. Jung, &
J. Luca (Eds.), Proceedings of Global Learn Asia Pacific 2010 (pp. 291–297). Penang,
Malaysia: AACE.
Chiu, L.L., & Liu, G.Z. (2013). Effects of printed, pocket electronic, and online dictionaries on high
school students’ English vocabulary retention. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 1–16.
doi:10.1007/s40299-013-0065-1
Coughlin, P., & Duff, P.A. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of SLA task from an
activity theory perspective. In J.P. Lantolf & G. Appe (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second
language research (pp. 173–193). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Crookes, G. (1990). The utterance, and other basic units for second language discourse analysis.
Applied Linguistics, 11, 183–199.
CWTV (Producer). (2010). I don’t hire those who are under 30 [YouTube video]. Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/user/dozangcom?feature=watch
Darhower, M.L. (2000). Synchronous computer-mediated communication in the intermediate for-
eign language class: A sociocultural case study (ProQuest dissertation). University of Pitts-
burgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Du, H.S., & Wagner, C. (2005, January). Learning with weblogs: An empirical investigation. Paper
presented at the 38th International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, USA.
Ducate, L.C., & Lomicka, L.L. (2008). Adventures in the blogosphere: From blog readers to blog
writers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(1), 9–28.
Duffy, P., & Bruns, A. (2006, September). The use of blogs, wikis and RSS in education: A conver-
sation of possibilities. Paper presented at the Online Learning and Teaching Conference, Bris-
bane, Australia.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. New York: Oxford.
Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
302 W.-C. Chen et al.

Esmaeili, H. (2002). Integrated reading and writing tasks and ESL students’ reading and writing
performance in an English language test. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(4), 599–620.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D.M., Hosp, K., & Jenkins, J.R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of
reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Read-
ing, 5(3), 239–256.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2009). Emerging technologies personal learning environments. Language
Learning & Technology, 13(2), 3–9.
Golonka, E.M., Bowles, A.R., Frank, V.M., Richardson, D.L., & Freynik, S. (2012). Technologies
for foreign language learning: A review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 1–36.
Hamid, M.A., & Akter, B. (2009). Usages and abuses of mobile internet in Bangladesh: An empiri-
cal study. Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1511602_code1391164.pdf?abstractid=1511602&mirid=1.
Hincks, R. (2010). Speaking rate and information content in English lingua franca oral presenta-
tions. English for Specific Purposes, 29(1), 4–18.
Hudson, J.M., & Bruckman, A.A. (2001, March). Effects of CMC on student participation patterns
in a foreign language learning environment. Paper presented at the Human Factors in Comput-
ing, Seattle, WA, USA.
Jee, M.J. (2008, December). Blogs to foster language autonomy. Paper presented at the Third CLS
International Conference (CLaSIC 2008), Singapore.
Kajder, S., & Bull, G. (2003). Scaffolding for struggling students: Reading and writing with blogs.
Learning and Leading with Technology, 31(2), 32–35.
Kelly-Lally, A.M. (2006). Effect of task-type and group size on foreign language learner output in
synchronous computer-mediated communication (PhD dissertation). University of Texas at
Austin, Austin.
Kelm, O.R. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A
preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 441–545.
Kern, R.G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quan-
tity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 457–476.
Kern, R., Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2008). Network-based language teaching. In N.V. Deusen-
Scholl & N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), Second and foreign language education (Vol. 4, pp. 281–
292). New York: Springer.
Kim, H.N. (2008). The phenomenon of blogs and theoretical model of blog use in educational con-
texts. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1342–1352.
Krause, S.D. (2005). Blogs as a tool for teaching. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved
from http://www.stevendkrause.com/academic/che_blog.pdf
Kroll, B. (1977). Combining ideas in written and spoken English. In E.O. Keenan & T.L. Bennett
(Eds.), Southern California occasional papers in Linguistics: Vol.5. Discourse across time and
space (pp. 69–108). Los Angeles: University of Southern California.
Li, D. (2009). Activating strategies to fossilization for English learners in China. English Language
Teaching, 2(4), 75–77.
Liaw, M.L., & Bunn Le-Master, S.B. (2010). Understanding telecollaboration through an analysis
of intercultural discourse. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), 21–40. doi: 10.1080/
09588220903467301
Liou, H.C., & Peng, Z.Y. (2009). Training effects on computer-mediated peer review. System,
37(3), 514–525.
Liu, G.Z. (2008). Innovating research topics in learning technology: Where are the new blue
oceans? British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 738–747.
Liu, G.Z. (2011). The blended language learning course in Taiwan: Issues & challenges of instruc-
tional design. In J. Macalister & I.S.P. Nation (Eds.), Case studies in language curriculum
design: Concepts and approaches in action around the world (pp. 82–100). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Liu, G.Z., Liu, Z.H., & Hwang, G.J. (2011). Developing multi-dimensional evaluation criteria for
English learning websites with university students and professors. Computers & Education,
56(1), 65–79.
Mynard, J. (2008). A blog as a tool for reflection for English language. The Philippine ESL Journal,
1, 77–90.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Computer Assisted Language Learning 303

O’Dowd, R., & Waire, P. (2009). Critical issues in telecollaborative task design. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 22(2), 173–188.
Pattison, P. (1987). Developing communication skills. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pegrum, M. (2009). From blogs to bombs: The future of digital technologies in education. Crawley,
WA: UWA Publishing.
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second
language instruction and research. In G. Crookes & S.M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language
learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9–33). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Pinkman, K. (2005). Using blogs in the foreign language classroom: Encouraging learner indepen-
dence. JALT CALL Journal, 1(1), 12–24.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern
Language Journal, 87(1), 38–57.
Spence, P., & Liu, G.Z. (2013). Engineering English and the high-tech industry: A case study of an
English needs analysis of process integration engineers at a semiconductor manufacturing com-
pany in Taiwan. English for Specific Purposes, 32(2), 97–109.
Stevens, V., Quintana, N., Zeinstejer, R., Sirk, S., Molero, D., & Arena, C. (2008). Writingmatrix:
Connecting students with blogs, tags, and social networking. TESL-EJ, 11(4), 1–16.
Sun, Y.C. (2010). Extensive writing in foreign-language classrooms: A blogging approach. Innova-
tions in Education and Teaching International, 47(3), 327–339.
Tetzchner, V.S., & Nordby, K. (1991). Telecommunication behaviour. In S.V. Tetzchner (Ed.),
Issues in telecommunication and disability: COST 219. European Commission. Retrieved from
http://speech.di.uoa.gr/hestia/books/issues91/04tel.html.
Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language
classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2–3), 7–26.
Warschauer, M. (2007). Technology and writing. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International
handbook of English language teaching (Vol. 15, pp. 907–917). New York: Springer US.
Wilder, H., & Mongillo, G. (2007). Improving expository writing skills of preservice teachers in an
online environment. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online
serial], 7(1). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol7/iss1/languagearts/article1.cfm.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Longman.
Witte, S. (2007). “That’s online writing, not boring school writing”: Writing with blogs and the talk-
back project. Journal of Adolescent Adult Literacy, 51(2), 92–96.
Wu, W.S. (2006). The effect of blog peer review and teacher feedback on the revisions of EFL writ-
ers. Journal of Education and Foreign Languages and Literature, 5(3), 125–139.
Wu, W.S. (2008). Using blogs in an EFL writing class. In S. Priya (Ed.), Netlingo: The metamor-
phosis of language (pp. 86–99). Hyderabad, India: The Icfai University Press.
Zhang, D. (2009). The application of blog in English writing. Journal of Cambridge Studies, 4(1),
64–72.

Appendix
Question Items in the Final Perception Survey (translated from Chinese into English)

Student participants were asked to rate their responses on a Likert scale, with 4 indicated strong
agreement and 1 strong disagreement, while 5 indicated that the question was not applicable to their
situation.

Positive (3þ4) Negative (1þ2) Mean SD

Part 1. Task/topic designs

1. I like open-ended tasks (no need to 93% 7% 3.48 0.72
reach an agreement/decision/
conclusion).
(Continued on next page)
304 W.-C. Chen et al.

Positive (3þ4) Negative (1þ2) Mean SD

2. I prefer conclusive tasks (striving 68% 38% 2.38 0.59

to reach a consent) than open-ended
tasks (no need to reach an
agreement/decision/conclusion).
3. I like controversial topics (e.g., 80% 20% 3.15 0.74
Strawberry Generation).
4. I prefer the tasks which require a 63% 47% 2.20 0.79
task product. I can gain a sense of
accomplishment (e.g., a letter to the
editor).
5. I like a completely open task, i.e., 61% 39% 2.88 0.99
we can decide to discuss any topic of
our choice.
6. I prefer the prompts tying to 61% 39% 2.70 0.85
famous current news (e.g., municipal
election).
7. I like the tasks requiring clue/ 53% 43% 2.70 0.99
information searching, e.g., guessing
a foreign city.
8. I prefer the tasks focusing on self- 80% 20% 3.05 0.81
discovery (e.g., personal political
views, moral, or values).
9. Sometimes I would talk about the 73% 27% 2.93 0.89
blogging topics with my friends.
10. Sometimes I would expand the 76% 24% 2.88 0.69
blog discussion topics to my other
assignments/courses.
Part 2. Project Setup
11. I can express myself more freely 77% 23% 3.11 0.76
and more candidly on the blog than
in real life.
12. The online informal English 83% 17% 3.20 0.72
writing benefits my formal writing
skills.
13. The online informal and 72% 28% 3.02 0.86
conversational writing benefits my
verbal communication in English.
14. Engaging in thematic online 92% 8% 3.34 0.64
discussions enriches my vocabulary
in English.
15. The cross-institutional 82% 18% 3.23 0.77
telecollaboration allows me to
interact with outside audience in
English, rather than being limited to
communicating with my teachers
and classmates in the classroom.
16. Social networking media, like 97% 3% 3.40 0.55
blogs, are supposed to break the
boundary of physical classroom,
broaden our thoughts, and open
information exchange channels.
17. Sometimes my classmates and I 60% 40% 2.80 0.76
would talk about our online
discussions with our keypals.
 Computer Assisted Language Learning 305

Positive (3þ4) Negative (1þ2) Mean SD

18. Sometimes I would ponder on my 89% 11% 2.66 0.76

keypals’ opinions about the
discussion topics.
19. Sometimes I surprise myself by 45% 55% 3.43 0.70
the way in which I talk online with
my keypal: I am bold, blunt, and
provocative, unlike how I am in real
life.
20. I would take the readers’ feelings 74% 26% 2.54 0.74
and resonance into consideration
when I post comments online.
21. I take my time processing and/or 97% 3% 3.40 0.55
searching for information when
publishing my comments on social
media, since I do not feel pressured
or nervous like I do in class
discussions.
22. Although it is an informal and 94% 6% 3.34 0.60
almost conversational writing, I
would still do grammar and spelling
checks, and pay attention to the
passage flow.
23. This kind of online cross- 83% 17% 3.14 0.77
institutional collaboration
compliments classroom activities.
24. If an in-class discussion on the 77% 23% 2.97 0.66
weekly topic can take place before
the weekly blog posting begins, it
will help my online discussions a lot.
Note: (1) The original questionnaire was in Chinese to prevent any confusion our freshmen students might have
due to their limited English reading proficiency. A verbal guidance was offered before the students filled out the
questionnaire. (2) No one rated 5 (N/A) hence were not recorded.