Free From Demotivation in EFL Writing - The Use of Online Flipped Writing Instruction

Computer Assisted Language Learning
ISSN: 0958-8221 (Print) 1744-3210 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncal20
Free from demotivation in EFL writing: the use of

online flipped writing instruction
Wen-Chi Vivian Wu, Jie Chi Yang, Jun Scott Chen Hsieh & Tosh Yamamoto
To cite this article: Wen-Chi Vivian Wu, Jie Chi Yang, Jun Scott Chen Hsieh & Tosh Yamamoto
(2019): Free from demotivation in EFL writing: the use of online flipped writing instruction,
Computer Assisted Language Learning, DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2019.1567556
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1567556
Published online: 01 Feb 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 10
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ncal20
COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1567556
Free from demotivation in EFL writing: the use of

online flipped writing instruction
Wen-Chi Vivian Wua,b, Jie Chi Yangc , Jun Scott Chen Hsiehc and
Tosh Yamamotod
a
Department of Medical Research, China Medical University Hospital, China Medical
University, Taichung, Taiwan; bDepartment of Foreign Languages and Literature, Asia
University, Taichung, Taiwan; cGraduate Institute of Network Learning Technology, National
Central University, Taoyuan City, Taiwan; dCenter for Teaching and Learning, Kansai
University, Suita-shi, Osaka, Japan
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Motivation has played an essential role in learning, leading to Demotivation; flipped
various research areas across diverse disciplines. While the lit- learning; English writing
erature is replete with findings supporting the essentiality of proficiency; efficacy in
writing preparation
motivation in an individual’s academic success, demotivation
(a.k.a. negative motivation) has been underexplored, even
though it has been a widespread phenomenon observed in
language learning, particularly in the field of English writing in
EFL settings. To keep leaners motivated and engaged, innova-
tive pedagogies have been proposed, among which flipped
learning and writing instruction have received extra attention.
Previous studies have shown the effectiveness of flipped learn-
ing and online writing practices on enhancing student motiv-
ation and learning outcomes. Nonetheless, research on how
the aforementioned instructional practices could be integrated
to facilitate English writing among EFL learners still remains
scarce, let alone a detailed probe into demotivational factors
that might exist in such an innovative instructional design.
Therefore, this study examined demotivation factors in EFL
writing and the effects of the online flipped writing instruction
on EFL writing proficiency. Forty-eight sophomore English-
majors in Taiwan were paired with American college peers.
Multiple sources of data over a semester included pre- and
post-tests on two genres (descriptive/argumentative),
‘Demotivation Scale’, reflective journals, and interviews. The
results revealed that the online flipped writing instruction
enhanced the students’ writing proficiency (both globally and
locally), and that four characteristics of the flipped instruction
were observed not to cause demotivation in English writing,
including self-interest, classroom atmosphere and teaching
material, writing product, and teaching method and content.
The participants held positive perceptions about the online
flipped writing instruction and such learning experience
enhanced cross-cultural observation. Based on these findings,
pedagogical implications are provided.
CONTACT Jie Chi Yang yang@cl.ncu.edu.tw Graduate Institute of Network Learning Technology,
National Central University, No. 300, Jungda Rd., Jhongli District, Taoyuan City 32001, Taiwan
ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 W.-C.V. WU ET AL.
Introduction
In globalization, there is general consensus that great proficiency in English
is an essential primary benchmark of competitiveness in modern society.
Many countries around the world are optimizing their education policies to
respond to the global trends of language learning, encouraging students
and nationals to study English as second or foreign language (L2/EFL).
Although authorities put huge effort into perfecting the existing EFL educa-
tional framework, many challenges still exist to improve EFL proficiency
among students. Therefore, establishing a suitable learning environment,
maintaining motivation, and preventing factors that demotivate learners are
weighty and urgent missions for the EFL teachers and researchers.
Traditional approaches to writing cannot effectively maintain or
improve EFL learners’ interests in learning, particularly when teachers
have acted as the highest authority in teacher-centered instruction
(Buitrago & Dıaz, 2018) and when conventional practices in EFL con-
texts have primarily focused on teachers’ responses to written errors with
red ink (Furneaux, Paran, & Fairfax, 2007). Studying the usage of
vocabulary and grammar, making sentences, and performing revision
exercises for the improvement of the language skills are commonly
included in typical English course instructional design. Clearly, learning
English writing is not a series of simple steps and English cannot be
learned or acquired at the mastery level in a short period of time.
Potential challenges that language learners might face include insufficient
linguistic proficiency (including grammar, syntax and vocabulary), weak
structure organization competency, and high writing anxiety (Fareed,
Ashraf, & Bilal, 2016). For foreign language learners or even native
speakers, producing a good piece of writing is not an easy task (Brown,
2004), particularly when learners have low motivation to learn. In gen-
eral, EFL students perceive that writing is much more challenging than
other language skills, as it involves complex cognitive processes (Xu &
Qi, 2017) that lead them to experience frustration and difficulty at any
proficiency level (Chen, 2001). Research has pointed out that for EFL
students, writing is the weakest aspect of the English proficiency (Chen,
1997; Tseng, 2008). Even with complex, multi-layered, and recursive
composing processes (Flower & Hayes, 1981), most students cannot per-
form well in English composition. One potential reason for such a situ-
ation is related to the students’ motivation to learn.
The concept of motivation refers to an individual’s ‘choice of a par-
ticular action, the persistence with it’, and ‘the effort expended on it’
(D€ornyei, 2001, p. 8; Manolopoulou-Sergi, 2004, p. 428). One basic
COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 3
assumption about motivation is that it is not a stable or fixed state but

rather a continuously changing process (Ellis & Larsen-Freeman, 2006).
Motivation is understood to be a crucial factor in language learning
(whether in native, ESL, or EFL contexts), playing an essential role in
engaging students in learning activities (D€ ornyei, 2001). Motivation is
therefore the most essential variable in predicting language learning out-
comes (D€ ornyei, 2005; Moskovsky & Alrabai, 2009; Sugita & Takeuchi,
2010) and in overcoming undesirable learning conditions in language
learning (Guilloteaux & D€ ornyei, 2008). More recently, Mohamed and
Zouaoui (2014) further stated that lack of motivation occupies an
important place in language learning, including in advancing writ-
ing skills.
Previous research has shown that less motivated learners are less likely
to succeed in language learning, particularly in the L2 context (D€ ornyei,
2005, 2009; D€ ornyei & Ushioda, 2011; Gardner, 2007; Lasagabaster, Doiz,
& Sierra, 2014). In addition, motivation, confidence, and ability are directly
linked, so that reductions in motivation can result over the long term in
less confidence and reduced ability (Wu, Yen, & Marek, 2011). Thus,
researchers have recently begun to shift their attention to demotivation
(Kikuchi, 2015; Molavi & Biria, 2013); that is, to ‘specific external forces
that reduce or diminish the motivational basis of a behavioral intention or
an ongoing action’ (D€ ornyei & Ushioda, 2011, p. 143) as well as psycho-
logical forces that discourage learners from further learning (Arai, 2004;
Falout, Elwood, & Hood, 2009; Sakai & Kikuchi, 2009). As Csizer (2017)
pointed out in her overview of motivation research in the L2 classroom,
‘another potentially pivotal issue in ISLA (instructed second language
acquisition) concerns the empirical investigation of students’ demotivation,
that is students losing their motivation during the learning process’ (p.
426). She further called for investigations into demotivation, as it should
be one of the key areas in future directions of motivation research.
Several demotivating factors have been suggested in previous studies,
such as inappropriate learning materials, lack of confidence, fear of com-
mitting mistakes, misbehavior by teachers, lack of resources, and experi-
ence of failure (Kaivanpanah & Ghasemi, 2011; Vefali & Ayan, 2015).
Other studies have suggested that demotivation can result from trad-
itional teaching methodologies like the grammar-translation approach or
the pressure of taking high- and low-stakes tests (Falout et al., 2009;
Hamada & Kito, 2008; Kikuchi, 2009; Murphey, Falout, Elwood, &
Hood, 2009).
In fact, demotivation has been a widespread phenomenon in language
learning, yet its significance has not been perceived adequately and was
not addressed appropriately until a decade ago (Falout et al., 2009;
4 W.-C.V. WU ET AL.
Ghanizadeh & Jahedizadeh, 2015; Sakai & Kikuchi, 2009), with the
dynamics of motivational change receiving long-needed attention
(D€ornyei, 2010; D€ ornyei & Csizer, 2002). D€ornyei (2005) noted that
research on teaching and learning in EFL contexts mainly addresses the
positive side of motivation, but ‘past motivation research has typically
overlooked the negative motivation’ (p. 89). Nevertheless, the facets of
motivation cannot be explained merely by motivation theories (Hamada
& Kito, 2008). More effort should be directed to examining the form and
effect of demotivation, because language learning failure is highly related
to demotivation (Falout et al., 2009; Hasegawa, 2004) and ‘demotivation
trumps motivation’ in the real educational scene (Rost, 2004, as cited in
Falout & Falout, 2005, p. 280).
The demotivation phenomenon can commonly be seen in language
classes and the number of demotivated learners is relatively high
(D€ornyei, 2001). However, in comparison with research on the motiv-
ation, studies addressing the lack of motivation faced by EFL learners is
scarce (Lucas, Bernardo, & Rojo-Laurilla, 2016). Boo, D€ ornyei, and Ryan
(2015), while revisiting the psychology of the language learning, made
the point that demotivation should continue as an important field of
study. While previous studies have mainly focused on EFL motivation in
general (Boo, D€ ornyei, & Ryan, 2015), research specifically targeting on
EFL writing motivation has been still in its infancy (Lee, Yu, & Liu,
2018). Generally, EFL learners are faced with diverse types of personal,
social, cultural, and linguistic challenges that might severely affect the
processes and outcomes of their learning. Therefore, how to empower
students with grit in learning that enables them to persevere while facing
obstacles and to attain success has been a vital issue (Jahedizadeh,
Ghanizadeh, & Ghonsooly, 2016; Tanaka, 2017). Researchers and lan-
guage instructors, therefore, must turn their attention to demotivation
and see the need to motivate students with pedagogical innovations.
To tackle with the issue of demotivation, some EFL teachers have
started to use new teaching materials and to adjust traditional
approaches to the instruction of English writing. One of these innovative
pedagogies is the use of flipped instruction. Flipped instruction reverses
the places for learning (classroom) and for homework completion
(home). In the flipped learning framework, the EFL students acquire
knowledge via watching online educational videos at home and practice
the language skills by doing exercises or activities in class. Because they
are present in person when students practice their language skills, teach-
ers can monitor and bolster the learning efficiency of the students dir-
ectly and effectively. This pedagogical arrangement provides ‘a dynamic,
interactive learning environment where the educator guides students as
they apply concepts and engage creatively in the subject matter’ (Flipped
Learning Network, 2014, p. 1). Bishop and Verleger (2013) argue that a
flipped classroom is an educational design consisting of two substantial
components: (i) the use of technologies, such as video lectures online,
and (ii) the involvement of interactive learning activities. In this educa-
tional design, digital learning materials are assigned to the students
before class with the use of technology (e.g. mobile devices, internet web-
sites, etc.) and the students are required to respond to the given materi-
als by doing exercises before classroom meetings. Previous studies have
shown the effectiveness of flipped instruction on enhancing student
engagement in class as well as increasing their motivation (Chen Hsieh,
Wu, & Marek, 2017b; Strayer, 2012; Traxler & Riordan, 2003; Wang, An,
& Wright, 2018). With greater readiness for in-class participation, learn-
ers are then engaged in interactive classroom activities that boost mean-
ingful learning and high-order thinking abilities (Baepler, Walker, &
Driessen, 2014; Hung, 2015). Such engagement further enhances learning
outcomes (Adnan, 2017; Boucher, Robertson, Wainner, & Sanders, 2013;
Chen Hsieh, Huang, & Wu, 2017a; Chen Hsieh et al., 2017b; Correa,
2015; Jamaludin & Osman, 2014; Leis, 2016; Li & Suwanthep, 2017;
Tseng, Lin, & Chen, 2018).
This study, therefore, sets itself apart from previous research in its
investigation into the potential benefits of a pedagogical innovation inte-
grating both flipped learning and online learning for English writing
among EFL learners. Last but not the least, the exploration of percep-
tions of learners about the innovative pedagogical design of this study is
of immense importance to researchers and language instructors, since it
yields insights into how demotivation factors in EFL writing can be
avoided for enhanced learning motivation.
In addition to flipped learning, another potentially effective peda-
gogical approach for tackling the issue of demotivation/motivation
among EFL students is the use of online writing practice (Chen, Chuah,
Tho, & Teh, 2015; Kikuchi, 2015; Sun & Qiu, 2014; Tsiakyroudi, 2018).
Tsiakyroudi (2018), in investigating the effectiveness of the Edmodo edu-
cational social network on Greek High School EFL learners’ motivation
to write, found that the implementation of the online writing project
contributed to students’ enhanced writing motivation, evidenced by a
shift not only in their attitudes to writing and writing habits but also
€
increased participation and engagement in the writing process. Ozdemir
and Aydın (2015) presented a review of the literature concerning wiki
effects on motivation and pointed out the usefulness of online writing
tasks on improving motivation in EFL writing, aligning with the results
of enhanced motivation for writing in other studies (e.g. Kassem, 2017;
6 W.-C.V. WU ET AL.
Ware, Kern, & Warschauer, 2016; Zheng, Yim, & Warschauer, 2018).
While some researchers have examined how certain types of social net-
working affected motivational aspects of writing, others have directed
their attentions to online exchanges between EFL learners and their for-
eign counterparts, with promising affordances identified in relevant stud-
ies. In fact, using new technologies such as social media or online
platforms to foster knowledge sharing and real-time communication
between the EFL learners and native speakers of English is an emerging
approach in EFL writing. The online instruction enables learners to
develop not only socially, but also intellectually, while interacting with
other people (Vikneswaran & Krish, 2016), because social interaction is
the key to learning where knowledge is shared, explored, developed, and
co-built (Pritchard & Woollard, 2010; Wu, Chen Hsieh, & Yang, 2017).
In this approach to EFL writing instruction, learners interact with native-
speaking peers or preservice students, check comprehension, share opin-
ions, compose ideas, and receive feedback. Such online interaction thus
enhances learner critical thinking skills through the processes of compre-
hension checking, idea organization for coherence, and clarification of
feedback learners have received from their peers (Pritchard & Woollard,
2010; Shih, 2011), effective in enhancing the quality of the EFL learning
by maintaining the students’ motivation to learn. The fundamental ele-
ments of its online nature embedding technological innovation and inter-
action as well as communication with English-speaking native peers thus
become positive factors that maintain motivation, avoid demotivation,
and improve English skills (Peterson, 2009).
While it is evident that demotivation has caught the attention of
researchers around the world (e.g. Hamada & Kito, 2008; Kikuchi, 2015;
Kikuchi & Sakai, 2009 among Japanese learners; Trang & Baldauf, 2007
among Vietnamese learners; Kim & Kim, 2016; Song & Kim, 2017
among Korean learners; or Sahragard & Alimorad, 2013 among Iranian
students), the exploration of demotivation in Taiwan is merely at the
starting point, let alone receiving specific scrutiny of the factors leading
to demotivation in language learning (particularly in the field of English
writing). Furthermore, albeit the rich evidence of flipped instruction in
its contribution to learner empowerment (e.g. enhanced learning out-
comes, motivation, in-class engagement, and critical thinking), and des-
pite the effectiveness of online writing instruction on the intellectual as
well as social growth of students, there has been little investigation into
the integration of flipped instruction and online writing practices.
Studies specifically addressing how such integration could be imple-
mented in the field of English writing in an EFL setting to boost student
motivation and to lower demotivation have been even scarcer. More
research is needed before researchers and instructors could determine

appropriate instructional models that enhance English writing (Keshta &
Harb, 2013).
Therefore, the current study aimed to broaden the understanding of
EFL writing demotivation in a comprehensive manner. To scrutinize
demotivation factors in EFL writing, the effects of flipped learning, as
well as online writing instruction, this study specifically examined writing
proficiency, demotivation factors, and learning perceptions among EFL
learners with the use of an online flipped writing instructional design.
The conceptual framework of the study is illustrated in Figure 1. Rather
than focusing on the long-established literature of motivation in learning,
this study specifically examined diverse demotivational factors that EFL
learners (i.e. students with Taiwanese Chinese as their mother tongue,
the site of the study) might face in language learning, particularly in
English writing, making this a significant study.
Accordingly, the researchers employed a mixed-method research
design to study how online flipped writing instruction affected the writ-
ing proficiency of EFL learners and their perceptions about demotivation.
The following research questions guided the study:
1. To what extent did the online flipped writing instruction enhance the
EFL learner’s writing proficiency?
2. To what extent did the online flipped writing instruction affect
demotivation?
3. What were the students’ overall perceptions about the online flipped
writing instruction?
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the study.

8 W.-C.V. WU ET AL.
Methods
Participants
The participants of this study consisted of 48 sophomore English-majors
from two Intermediate English Composition courses at a 4-year aca-
demic university in central Taiwan. The participants were between the
ages of 19 and 20 years. In terms of English learning, the participants
had received at least 7 years of English training through high school.
Having received training in writing for two years, their writing profi-
ciency was at an upper intermediate level. In order for the current study
to examine the effects of an online flipped writing practice on EFL writ-
ing performance, the Taiwanese students were paired with 36 under-
graduate students from two intact classes at a public liberal arts college
in the Midwestern United States. The 25 Taiwanese students in
Intermediate English Composition (A) were randomly paired with
American counterparts in Principles of Human Communication (N ¼ 20)
and 23 Taiwanese students in Intermediate English Composition (B)
were randomly paired with their counterparts in Intercultural
Communication (N ¼ 16). The students from both sides form a one-to-
one partnership. Since the Taiwanese participants were more than their
American partners, five students and seven students, respectively from
the Principles of Human Communication class and the Intercultural
Communication class were asked to give feedback to two Taiwanese
partners. The major tasks for the American students were to comment
on the Taiwanese students’ descriptive and argumentative essays and to
have meaning clarification sessions with the Taiwanese students.
The online flipped writing instructional design

Unlike traditional writing instructional practices, students acquire new
knowledge in the classroom and practice it at home via homework. In
this online flipped writing instructional design, however, the conven-
tional role of homework and classroom activities was reversed. That is,
the students acquired necessary background knowledge at home via pre-
class activities (such as watching instructional videos, reading chosen
articles, and answering comprehension check questions) and practiced
the writing skills in class, where the instructor could easily monitor and
assist the student. To be more specific, this flipped instruction required
the students to enhance class preparedness by previewing related content
knowledge through an online platform before physical classroom meet-
ings, and applying what they have learned to the classroom activities
under instructor’s guidance. While the instruction of the study resembled
those adopted in flipped research in the instructional process, it is the

combination of flipped learning and peer feedback as well as interaction
from online exchanges with American partners in an EFL writing context
that made this pedagogy unique, and that was examined for affordances.
Table 1 shows the overall flipped instructional design of the study.
Pre-task stage (Week 1–5)

At the very beginning of the experiment, the Taiwanese students were
engaged in tasks requiring them to become familiar with the functions of
Sakai, had the pre-tests on descriptive and argumentative essay writing,
and finished the pre-survey of Demotivation. The American partners
familiarized themselves with the scoring rubric and were trained for
feedback provision. As for the Taiwanese teaching assistants, they also
familiarized themselves with the scoring rubric for further provision of
in-class essay writing help in the main-task stage.
In the flipped instruction, the students were required to perform
assigned readings, check comprehension, and watch instructional videos
before class meetings. The reading materials were co-written by instruc-
tors from both Taiwan and America. An article depicting major holidays
in Taiwan and America was created as a descriptive essay, while the
other article addressing commonly practiced parenting styles in Taiwan
and America was used as an example of argumentative essay writing.
The two articles, about 1100 words in length, were carefully organized
with general introductions to aspects salient enough for the students to
organize their ideas. These two topics were chosen for the Taiwanese stu-
dents to encourage in-depth engagement and interaction with their
American partners and to sharpen their writing proficiency through idea
sharing and discussion.
As for the instructional videos made by the Taiwanese instructor, they
provided the students with guidance in both descriptive and argumenta-
tive essay writing. Before making the videos, the Taiwanese and
American instructors discussed what should be included in the videos, so
that the students would have a basic understanding of the two chosen
genres. The two eight-minute videos containing instructional content for
the descriptive and argumentative essays were narrated in English, cover-
ing the nature, structures, and effective strategies of the two chosen gen-
res. Examples included in the videos aimed to help the students better
comprehend the illustration. The Taiwanese instructor uploaded the two
videos to the online platform adopted for this study, sent notifications to
the Taiwanese students, and asked them to download the two videos for
individual watching at home.
10 W.-C.V. WU ET AL.
With regard to online activities, the online platform Sakai was pur-
posefully chosen for the participants in both countries to interact and
proceed with the writing tasks, with its function of providing an environ-
ment for online learning free from limitations on space and time. It,
therefore, enabled learners from different regions to get together with lit-
tle effort.
Main-task stage (Week 6–11)

The online flipped writing instruction included three major pre-class
learning tasks for the Taiwanese students: (1) watching the instructional
videos covering key elements of the two genres, (2) performing the
assigned readings developed by the instructors, and (3) answering com-
prehension check questions, respectively for the descriptive essay and the
argumentative essay. As regards the comprehension check questions, the
first type required the students to express their personal opinions, such
as preferred ways to celebrate the Chinese Holidays and ideas about the
‘Helicopter parents’ or ‘Tiger moms’. The other type of question was
more thought-provoking in its nature, such as ‘What are the differences
and similarities in the holidays between the two countries?’ or ‘Should
parents plan their child’s career path?’ The students were asked to
respond to these comprehension questions on Sakai before class.
During the in-class meetings, the Taiwanese instructor briefly guided
the students through the reading materials, browsed through their
responses to comprehension questions, and reviewed the instructional
videos for basic comprehension check. Later, the students were engaged
in genre-specific writing tasks. In the descriptive essay writing, the stu-
dents were required to reveal and describe the meaning of Taiwanese
and American holidays through detailed observation, focusing on details
they could include to ensure that the readers gain vivid impressions
imbued with their perspectives. To further develop their critical thinking
ability, students were also encouraged to express their thoughts about the
similarities as well as differences between Taiwanese and American holi-
days. With regards to the argumentative essay, on the other hand, the
students were asked to state a position on Taiwanese and American
parenting styles and give reasons, supported by evidence provided in the
reading material. Therefore, the students first made a comparison
between Taiwanese and American parenting styles and then expressed
their preference.
The students were required to finish the writing draft in class and
uploaded it to Sakai. Once the Taiwanese students uploaded their drafts
to Sakai, their American partners provided feedback respectively for sub-
sequent essay revisions. The Taiwanese students then carefully read the
written comments. After receiving the feedback for their American part-
ners, the Taiwanese students were encouraged to clarify meanings. With
the initial feedback and further exchanges of meaning clarification, the
students then proceeded with the first round of essay revision in class.
Therefore, the online interaction focused not merely on micro-level
grammar correction, but more on the content elaboration of the partici-
pants’ essays and meaning clarification. After the students finished
their revisions, they then uploaded the revision drafts to Sakai again,
where their American partners provided further comments. The
Taiwanese students then proceeded with the steps exactly like the first
round of revision; that is, reading the comments, arranging for meaning
clarification (if necessary), and performing a second round of essay revi-
sion. The instructor (also the first author) and three teaching assistants
(English-major graduate students) provided timely assistance with
any problems encountered by the students with their in-class writing
and revisions.
It should be noted that before the American students were asked to
provide feedback, a training session was carried out to make sure they
were familiar with the writing rubric and knew how to offer quality com-
ments in the required six areas of writing: ideas, organization, voice,
word choice, sentence fluency, and conventions. In the online training
session for 2 weeks, writing samples were provided for them to have a
basic understanding of what effective and ineffective essays were. They
were then asked to have trial runs of providing feedback, similar to a
norming session where they discussed the writing criteria and agreed on
the writing rubric. Training sessions for two weeks to the three teaching
assistants were also implemented. As the assistants, they not only fami-
liarized themselves with the writing rubric before the implementation of
the study but also provided immediate in-class help when the Taiwanese
students encountered problems. For example, when the students were
revising their descriptive essays, in addition to the American partners’
feedback, the teaching assistants directed the students’ attention to
whether enough details and descriptions were provided to enable readers
to gain a complete perception, whether each paragraph of the essay
focused on one aspect of the description, or whether the paragraphs
were ordered in the most effective way.
Post-task stage (Week 12–15)

The Taiwanese students in this stage first completed the post-tests
respectively on descriptive and argumentative essay writing. They then
finished the post-survey of Demotivation and reflective journals designed
to collect their perceptions of the flipped instructional design. Finally, a
self-developed focus-group interview was carried out to explore the par-

ticipants’ perceptions of their overall learning experiences in the writing
instruction.
Research design
In this study, all of the participants in Taiwan experienced the online
flipped writing instruction, so that they were not deprived of the oppor-
tunity to experience the instructional design. Therefore, this study did
not employ a formal experimental design with separate control and
experiment groups. Instead, the study was designed specifically to explore
student reactions to and perceptions of the instructional design, as
opposed to testing the differences resulting from using or not using the
instructional design.
Multiple sources of data were collected to examine the demotivation
factors in EFL writing, to investigate the effectiveness of the online
flipped writing instruction, and to explore student perceptions about the
learning experience, including (1) pre- and post-tests of two genres
(descriptive and argumentative essay writing); (2) the Demotivation Scale
developed by Kao (2012); (3) semi-structured focus-group interviews;
and (4) the students’ reflective journals. Figure 2 demonstrates the align-
ment among the issues explored, nature of the issues, and instruments
used for data collection.
Issue Nature Instrument
Research Queson 1 Pre-/post-tests of descripve and argumentave

Quantave
Wring proficiency essay
Demovaon Scale
1. English proficiency and self-confidence
2. Teacher feedback
Research Queson 2 3. Teaching method and content
Quantave
Demovaon 4. Wring difficulty
5. Classroom atmosphere and teaching material
6. Wring product
7. Self-interest
Focus-group interview
Research Queson 3
Qualitave
Overal percepon
Reflecve journals
Figure 2. Issues explored and instruments employed in the current study.

Data analysis
This study included three research questions that specifically examined
the effects of an online flipped writing instruction on EFL learners’
English writing performance, demotivation factors in English writing,
and students’ overall perceptions about the given pedagogical practice.
Two research questions (RQ1 and RQ2) required quantitative analysis
and one research question (RQ3) needed qualitative exploration.
Quantitative data analysis

To examine the participants’ writing proficiency as covered in RQ1, pre-
test and post-test were adopted concerning descriptive essay writing and
argumentative essay writing. The tests were in-class timed essay writing
tests, where the students were asked to respond to two essay prompts in
two hours. In the descriptive essay test, entitled ‘School life’, the partici-
pants were required to describe their daily school lives. In the argumen-
tative essay test, entitled ‘Pros and cons of using smartphones in today’s
modern society’, they were asked to express their opinions about the use
of smartphones. Three writing experts agreed on the use of 6 þ 1 TraitV
R
Writing Rubric to assess the participants’ essays, and later chose the 6
TM
Traits Writing Rubric designed by Mesa Public Schools (Appendix A1
and A2) (http://www.mpsaz.org/falconhill/teacherresources/filecabinet/
files/rubric-61_writing_3-6.pdf), with its appropriateness in essay assess-
ment using those comprehensive statements of qualities in each trait. As
a field-tested and research-based assessment designed for easy use across
text types (Coe, Hanita, Nishioka, & Smiley, 2011; Graham & Hebert,
2010), the scoring rubric included six traits of writing evaluation, cover-
ing ideas, organization, voice, word choice, sentence fluency, and con-
ventions. The statements on the rubric explicitly define qualities to be
strong writing. Each trait is evaluated along a continuum from ‘1’ sug-
gesting the least desired feature of writing to ‘6’ describing the most
desired one.
To assign scores to the writing works for examining the effects of the
flipped instruction on English writing, the researchers consulted experts
specializing in writing assessment for converting quality levels into
scores. Based on suggestions from those experts, the traits of ideas,
organization, and voice were grouped as the global scope and each trait
accounted for 24 points; that is, the quality levels (from 1 to 6 levels)
were converted into scores (from 0 to 24 points). For traits of word
choice, sentence fluency, and conventions, they were taken together as
the local scope and each trait was converted to nine points. With three
traits (ideas, organization, and voice) respectively accounting for 24
points and the other three (word choice, sentence fluency, and conven-
tions) each holding nine points, the total score on the agreed grading
rubric was, therefore, 99 points. Table 2 shows the overall score distribu-
tion of the conversion.
Three evaluators experienced in English writing later graded the stu-
dents’ essays using the agreed grading rubric, with the total of 99 points.
Inter-rater reliability among the three evaluators was evaluated via
Krippendorff’s alpha at .85, which is better than .80, which is often
thought of as the norm for good reliability (Hayes & Krippendorff,
2007). Descriptive statistics and a paired-samples t-test were employed to
investigate the effect of the writing instruction on the participants’ over-
all writing proficiency and specific traits of writing.
To probe into if the online flipped writing instruction affected demo-
tivation, in response to RQ2, the Demotivation Scale developed by Kao
(2012) was adapted for pre- and post-testing. Descriptive statistics and a
paired-samples t-test were adopted to compare the differences between
the pre-survey and the post-survey. The 36-item scale included seven
constructs, covering (1) English proficiency and self-confidence, (2)
teacher feedback, (3) teaching method and content, (4) writing difficulty,
(5) classroom atmosphere and teaching material, (6) writing product,
and (7) self-interest. Table 3 displays the internal reliability of the demo-
tivating factors in Kao’s study.
The constructs of English proficiency and self-confidence addressed to
what extend the motivation of the students to write in English decreased
as the result of the interplay between their current English abilities and
self-confidence. English proficiency included knowledge in grammar,
vocabulary, and idea expression. Self-confidence denoted a positive feel-
ing arising from personal abilities in English writing. Teacher feedback
probed into whether students would lose motivation for English writing
as the result of feedback from the instructor. This construct required the
students to think about whether the instructor taught the writing skills
in class, graded assignments properly, and provided constructive com-
ments. Teaching method and content, highlighted the perceived import-
ance of individual help from the instructor, understanding the purpose
of activities in class, speed of instruction, opportunities to practice writ-
ing in class, means of instruction, and relevance of the teaching content.
The construct of Writing difficulty asked students to reflect on the topic
for English writing, whether it was easy, interesting, related to your per-
sonal life, and familiar to you. Classroom atmosphere and teaching mater-
ial emphasized whether student motivation to writing in English might
be decreased as the result of classroom management practices, grading
policy, teacher–student interaction, peer relationships, and the use of
Table 1. Time allocation of the flipped instruction.
Taiwanese students
Taiwanese
Pre-class teaching
Week Stage assignment In-class task American partners assistants
1 Pre-task (5 weeks) Familiarized with the
functions of Sakai
2 Familiarized with the
functions of Sakai
3 Pre-test on descriptive Rubric familiarization
essay writing
4 Pre-test on argumenta- Feedback provision training
tive essay writing
5 Watched instructional video Pre-survey of Feedback provision training Rubric familiariza-
on effective descriptive demotivation tion
essay writing
6 Main-task Read chosen article on Finished draft of Gave feedback Provided in-class
(6 weeks) ‘Holiday’ and answered descriptive essay Had meaning essay writ-
comprehension Uploaded draft clarification ing help
check questions to Sakai
7 Read comments from the Finished revision Gave feedback Provided in-class
American partner draft of descrip- Had meaning essay writ-
tive essay clarification ing help
Uploaded the revi-
sion draft to Sakai
8 Read comments from the Finished final draft of Provided in-class
American partner descriptive essay essay writ-
Watched instructional video Uploaded final ing help
on effective argumenta- draft to Sakai
tive essay writing
9 Read chosen article on Finished draft of Gave written feedback Provided in-class
‘Parenting’ and answered argumentative Had meaning essay writ-
comprehension essay clarification ing help
COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING
check questions Uploaded draft

to Sakai
(continued)
15
16
Table 1. Continued.
Taiwanese students
Taiwanese
Pre-class teaching
Week Stage assignment In-class task American partners assistants
10 Read comments from Finished revision Gave written feedback
American partner draft of argumen- Had meaning
tative essay clarification
W.-C.V. WU ET AL.
Uploaded revision
draft to Sakai
11 Read comments from Finished second revi-
American partner sion of the argu-
mentative essay
Uploaded final draft
to Sakai
12 Post-task Post-test on descriptive

(4 weeks) essay writing
13 Post-test on argumenta-
tive essay writing
14 Post-survey of
Demotivation
Reflective journal
15 Focus-group interview
Table 2. Score distribution of each trait.

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6
Ideas (24%) 0–4 58 9–12 13–16 17–20 21–24
Organization (24%)
Voice (24%)
Word choice (9%) 0–1 1–2 2–3 4–5 6–7 8–9
Sentence fluency (9%)
Conventions (9%)
Table 3. Internal reliability of the demotivating factors.

Factor Number of items Cronbach’s a
English proficiency and self-confidence 7 .900
Teacher feedback 5 .857
Teaching method and content 8 .818
Writing difficulty 4 .734
Classroom atmosphere and teaching material 5 .754
Writing product 4 .648
Self-interest 3 .871
textbooks. Writing product discussed whether assignment workload,

teacher explanations, and the pressure to finish the essay before class dis-
missal resulted in decreased motivation. Finally, the construct of Self-
interest concerned whether the students’ writing motivation was reduced
if they had no desire or interest in learning English or English writing.
Qualitative data analysis

To explore the participants’ perceptions of their overall learning experi-
ences in the writing instruction, in response to RQ3, self-developed
focus-group interviews with protocols and reflective journals were used.
To elicit the students’ genuine perceptions of the learning experience
without being constrained by their English abilities, the interviews were
administered in Chinese. The participants were also allowed to use either
Chinese or English in their reflective journals, with the purpose of ensur-
ing data richness. The interview scripts and reflective journals were then
carefully transcribed into English by the researchers, without distorting
the students’ original intentions. The data were carefully examined and
grouped into recurring themes.
Results and discussion

The overall analyses of the comparison between the pre-tests and post-
tests of the participants’ writing works (descriptive essays and argumen-
tative essays), the seven factors in the Demotivation Scale, the focus-
group interviews, and the students’ reflective journals revealed that the
students benefited from the online flipped writing instruction. Pre-class
learning activities (such as reading relevant materials, answering
comprehension questions online, and reviewing instructional videos)

facilitated English writing. Furthermore, the constructive feedback from
American peers and subsequent meaning clarification enabled the stu-
dents to advance their writing proficiency, including both the global
scope (i.e. ideas, organization, and voice) and the local scope (i.e. word
choice, sentence fluency, and conventions). The results of the
Demotivation Scale revealed that features of (1) teaching method and
content, (2) classroom atmosphere and teaching material, (3) writing
product, and (4) self-interest embedded in the online flipped writing
instruction helped the students to maintain their motivation (not experi-
ence demotivation), thus bolstering their motivation to write in English.
Last but not the least, the participants, in general, were positive about
the online flipped writing instruction. Such a learning experience enabled
them to maintain their motivation for English writing by engaging them-
selves in innovative instruction and in interaction with American part-
ners. The results of this article are presented in accordance with the
research questions.
RQ1: To what extent did the online flipped writing instruction enhance the
EFL learner’s writing proficiency?
The pre-tests and post-tests of the two writing genres (i.e. ‘School life’
for the descriptive essay and ‘Pros and cons of using smartphones in
today’s modern society’ for the argumentative essay) were graded by
three writing instruction experts using the writing rubric based on 6 þ 1
Traits. With the inter-rater reliability measured with Krippendorff’s alpha
at .85, the evaluation results yielded good reliability (Hayes &
Krippendorff, 2007). Table 4 shows the mean scores of the pre-tests and
post-tests of the two chosen genres. The results showed that in both gen-
res, the mean scores of the post-tests were higher than those of the pre-
tests. Specifically, the participants improved by 19.59 points on the
descriptive essay and 22.92 points on the argumentative essay.
The paired-samples t-test shown in Table 5 further revealed the partic-
ipants’ significant improvement in the post-tests of both genres in com-
parison with the pre-tests (p < .001), suggesting the positive effect of the
online flipped writing instruction on the participants’ overall writing
proficiency.
Furthermore, a detailed examination of each writing trait in each genre
via paired-sample t-test (Tables 6 and 7) revealed significant improve-
ment in the participants’ writing outcomes. Whether in global scope
(ideas, organization, and voice) or local scope (convention, sentence flu-
ency, and word choice), the participants significantly benefited from the
Table 4. Mean scores of the pre- and post-tests of the two genres.
Test N Mean SD
Descriptive essay Pre-test 48 63.33 5.90
Post-test 48 82.92 5.79
Argumentative essay Pre-test 48 57.29 5.39
Post-test 48 80.21 4.79
Table 5. Paired-samples t-test of the pre-tests and the post-tests of the two genres.
Paired differences
95% confidence interval
of the difference
Std. Sig.
Mean SD error mean Lower Upper t df (two-tailed)
Descriptive 19.58 2.41 .49 18.57 20.60 39.772 47 .000
(post–pre)
Argumentative 22.92 3.4 .62 21.64 24.20 36.993 47 .000
(post–pre)

p<.001.
Table 6. Paired-samples t-test of the writing traits in the descriptive essay (post–pre).
Paired differences
of the difference
Std. Sig.
Ideas 4.25 0.90 0.18 3.87 4.63 23.215 47 .000
Organization 4.88 1.60 0.33 4.20 5.55 14.959 47 .000
Voice 4.63 1.44 0.29 4.02 5.23 15.746 47 .000
Convention 2.00 0.66 0.14 1.72 2.28 14.859 47 .000
Sentence fluency 2.08 0.78 0.16 1.76 2.41 13.160 47 .000
Word choice 1.75 0.79 0.16 1.42 2.09 10.798 47 .000

p<.001.
implementation of online flipped writing practice, enabling them to

improve their sentence-writing skills (such as grammar and word choice)
as well as additional writing techniques (such as coherent organization
and logical argument).
The above results indicated that the learning activities embedded in
the online flipped writing instruction helped the participants to enhance
their overall writing outcomes. Such findings were in line with previous
studies that online interaction and peer feedback enhanced EFL learner
English writing proficiency (Lin & Chien, 2009; Lundstrom & Baker,
2009; Suzuki, 2008) and motivation (Ismail, 2006; Purnell & Paulanka,
2003). What were prominent in this finding was the beneficial effects as
the results of the overall instructional design. To be more specific, pre-
class activities (including previewing reading materials, answering com-
prehension questions, and watching instructional videos related to
descriptive and argumentative essay writing), constructive feedback from
the American partners, meaning clarification as a result of that feedback,
Table 7. Paired-samples t-test of the writing traits in the argumentative essay (post–pre).
Paired differences
of the difference
Std. Sig.
Ideas 4.92 1.28 0.26 4.38 5.46 18.780 47 .000
Organization 4.25 1.19 0.24 3.75 4.75 17.515 47 .000
Voice 7.67 1.90 0.39 6.86 8.47 19.732 47 .000
Convention 2.00 0.83 0.17 1.65 2.35 11.747 47 .000
Sentence fluency 2.04 0.86 0.18 1.68 2.40 11.648 47 .000
Word choice 2.04 1.00 0.20 1.62 2.46 10.011 47 .000

p<.001.
and the instructor’s timely help deepened the learning process, made the
students more engaged, and enhanced their writing outcomes.
RQ2: To what extent did the online flipped writing instruction affect
demotivation?
To examine whether the online flipped writing instruction contained
characteristics that affected demotivation, the Demotivation Scale devel-
oped by Kao (2012) was adopted in this study. Seven constructs were
included in the scale, consisting of (a) English proficiency and self-confi-
dence, (b) teacher feedback, (c) teaching method and content, (d) writing
difficulty, (e) classroom atmosphere and teaching materials, (f) writing
product, and (g) self-interest. Descriptive statistics of the pre-survey and
the post-survey shown in Table 8 revealed that the participants’
responses to the seven constructs fell into the upper-intermediate cat-
egory. The mean scores of the post-survey in five constructs (i.e. English
proficiency and self-confidence, teaching method and content, classroom
atmosphere and teaching material, writing product, and self-interest—
were lower than those of the pre-survey at a significant level, meaning
that they did not add to demotivation). Even though the scores of
teacher feedback and writing difficulty had somewhat higher result on
the post-survey than the pre-survey, the differences were not significant,
indicating that these factors did not contribute to demotivation.
The detailed analysis of the mean differences in each factor (as dem-
onstrated in Table 9) indicated that significant differences were found in
four factors, including teaching method and content, classroom atmos-
phere and teaching material, writing product, and self-interest. That is,
teaching method and content, classroom atmosphere and teaching mater-
ial, writing product, and self-interest in the course of the online flipped
writing instruction did not result in demotivation at the conclusion of
the study compared to the beginning. Among the four constructs, self-
Table 8. Mean scores of the pre-survey and the post-survey of the demotivation scale.
Classroom
atmosphere
English Teaching and
proficiency and Teacher method Writing teaching Writing
self-confidence feedback and content difficulty materials product Self-interest
Pre-survey 3.70 4.10 3.79 3.45 3.93 3.70 3.89
Post-survey 3.57 4.20 3.62 3.51 3.65 3.51 3.34
Mean 0.13 0.1 0.17 0.06 0.28 0.19 0.55
difference
interest topped the rank in the mean difference, followed by classroom

atmosphere and teaching material, writing product, and teaching method
and content.
Among the four constructs, self-interest topped the rank in the mean
difference, followed by classroom atmosphere and teaching material,
writing product, and teaching method and content. Self-interest
addressed whether the student’s interest in writing and desire to learn
the subject affected demotivation. In other words, self-interest could be
viewed as a lack of intrinsic motivation when the student had little desire
to devote themselves to English writing. In this regard, lack of interest
and lack of desire to learn English writing were two determinants that
led student to lose motivation during the course of the study. Since the
nature of self-interest and intrinsic motivation is not static but dynamic,
it shows the participants’ fluctuant reaction in response to the perceived
effects of the flipped instruction. When compared with conventional
teacher-centered and lecture-based writing courses, the online flipped
writing instructional design featured authentic learning materials, mean-
ingful learning activities, and peer feedback from online exchange with
the American partners. Since this pedagogy did not contain elements
that might reduce self-interest in learning, the flipped practice thus did
not cause demotivation as the result of decreased interest in learning.
Such results revealed that reduced self-interest in learning acted as an
important demotivational factor in English writing, aligning with previ-
ous researchers’ statements that reduced self-interest was detrimental to
learning (D€ornyei, 1998, reported in D€ ornyei, 2001; Falout & Maruyama,
2004; Hamada & Kito, 2008; Sakai & Kikuchi, 2009) and thus led to a
prolonged state of demotivation (Falout & Falout, 2005).
Classroom atmosphere and teaching material used in the flipped
instruction addresses the environment in which the learning occurred. In
this study, it included the actual classroom meetings, as well as the con-
text of the online learning management system, the peer interaction with
the American students, and the textbook and other actual instructional
materials. Classroom atmosphere and teaching materials, ranked as the
second most important characteristic in affecting demotivation in this
Table 9. Paired-samples t-test of the demotivation factors (post–pre).

Paired differences
of the difference
Std. Sig.
Mean SD error mean Lower Upper T df (two-tailed)
English profi- 0.13 0.62 0.09 0.06 0.32 1.425 43 .161
ciency and
self-confidence
Teacher feedback 0.10 0.70 0.11 0.31 0.12 .899 43 .374
Teaching method 0.17 0.43 0.07 0.04 0.31 2.703 43 .010
and content
Writing difficulty 0.06 0.86 0.13 0.32 0.20 .481 43 .633
Classroom atmos- 0.28 0.65 0.10 0.08 0.47 2.835 43 .007
phere and
teaching
material
Writing product 0.19 0.52 0.08 0.03 0.35 2.414 43 .020
Self-interest 0.55 0.91 0.14 0.27 0.82 3.959 43 .000

p < .05, p < .01, p < .001.
study. A positive classroom atmosphere, such as good classroom man-

agement, fair grading, good teacher–student interaction, and good peer
relationships, contributes to the quality of learning (Kao, 2012). In this
study, the instructor provided a fair grading policy and detailed writing
evaluation based on the rigid writing rubric. The teaching assistants and
the students’ American partners also received pre-instruction training in
how to provide in-class assistance and in how to provide quality con-
structive feedback. In addition, the reading materials were co-written by
instructors from both Taiwan and America and they were carefully
organized to meet the students’ proficiency level. This freed the partici-
pants from buying textbooks that might not be level-appropriate and
that might not be used. The instructional design adopted in the study
eliminated the potential reason that caused demotivation, thus effectively
motivating the learners to be engaged in the writing process. As a result,
the students perceived the classroom atmosphere and learning materials
as beneficial, and therefore this construct did not lead to demotivation.
The results of the study echoed the findings mentioned by previous
researchers, such as D€ ornyei (2001) and Falout and Maruyama (2004).
Textbooks that are either not used, or not used sufficiently, or are not
appropriate for the students’ proficiency levels decrease learner motiv-
ation (Arai, 2004; Chambers, 1993; Kikuchi & Sakai, 2009; Takase, 2004).
The construct of writing product addressed how assignment workload,
teacher explanations, and the pressure to finish the essay before class dis-
missal affected motivation. Generally speaking, writing difficulties and
the pressure of limited time, causing the students to be concerned that
they might not be able to complete a writing project, easily affected
demotivation. Perception of an unreasonable workload can also
significantly decrease student motivation to learn (Keblawi, 2005; Sugino,

2010). While conventional product-oriented writing instruction requires
students to view instructional materials when the class starts, do the
writing tasks in class, and hand in writing products before the class
ends, the flipped instruction implemented in this study removed this fac-
tor. To be more specific, the instructional design echoed process-oriented
writing by having students engage in preparatory tasks before class meet-
ings (reading, brainstorming, and comprehension checking), do writing
tasks with the instructor’s timely assistance, with multiple revisions based
on the feedback from American partners. At first glance, the writing
instruction required the participants to do extra work, yet the instruc-
tional design helped them to better prepare for the in-class writing tasks,
without being rushed through all of the learning tasks in one single class
meeting (from reading and brainstorming to organizing and finishing
the final product). Therefore, the nature of the writing product did not
lead to demotivation in this study.
The teaching method and content was the final construct that was
shown to significantly affected demotivation. This construct includes the
perceived importance of individual help from the instructor, understand-
ing the purpose of activities in class, speed of instruction, opportunities
to practice writing in class, methods of instruction, and relevance of the
teaching content. The mean difference between the pre-survey and the
post-survey suggested that these factors, as the students experienced
them, did not produce demotivation. This finding echoes previous stud-
ies (D€ ornyei, 1998, 2001; Hamada & Kito, 2008; Song & Kim, 2017;
Trang & Baldauf, 2007) that, specifically, the speed of instruction
(Hasegawa, 2004; Keblawi, 2005; Kikuchi & Sakai, 2009) and boring les-
sons (Arai, 2004; Falout et al., 2009; Kikuchi, 2009; Kikuchi & Sakai,
2009; Sakai & Kikuchi, 2009) acted as major demotivation factors
in learning.
Prior to the engagement of the online flipped writing instruction, most
of the students had experienced conventional writing courses where the
speed of in-class instruction was usually fixed, failing to adapt to individ-
ual needs. Furthermore, overt emphasis on grammar accuracy, vocabu-
lary building, and introduction to multiple genres (usually more than
five, such as expository essays, classification essays, process essays, cause/
effect essays, problem/solution essays, summary/response essays, argu-
mentative essays, comparison/contrast essays, and academic essays) were
perceived by students to be a huge burden. The instructional design in
this study, however, focused specifically on descriptive and argumentative
genres that the researchers and instructors deemed very important. The
methodology adopted in this study also allowed the students to view
readings materials and instructional videos at their own pace. The revi-
sion process with the help of the instructor, teaching assistants, and
American partners provided flexibility that fit the needs of each individ-
ual Taiwanese participant. In addition, the given instruction offered
ample opportunities for the students to practice writing in class, includ-
ing responses to comprehension check questions, the draft, and related
revisions. The instruction also featured variations in instruction (pre-
instruction activities, feedback reception and meaning clarification during
in-class writing tasks, individual assistance from the instructor and the
teaching assistants). Therefore, features of the teaching method and con-
tent in the flipped instructional design did not lead to a decline
in motivation.
As a result of these findings, the answer to Research Question 2 is that
none of the factors in Kao’s Demotivation Scale (2012) produces demo-
tivation in this study, including (1) English proficiency and self-confi-
dence, (2) teacher feedback, (3) teaching method and content, (4) writing
difficulty, (5) classroom atmosphere and teaching material, (6) writing
product, and (7) self-interest. Specifically designed to meet the demotiv-
ation challenges in EFL writing, the flipped instructional practice with
peer feedback adopted in this study successfully avoided demotivating
the students.
RQ3: What were the students’ overall perceptions about the online flipped
writing instruction?
The students’ overall perceptions about the online flipped writing
instruction, collected via focus-group interviews and reflective journals,
were analyzed for themes. The overall results revealed that the partici-
pants showed positive perceptions about the learning experience adopted
in this study. Their responses again highlighted the need to avoid demo-
tivational factors in English writing, particularly in terms of teaching
method and contents, classroom atmosphere and teaching materials,
writing products, and self-interest. Such results were evidenced by their
reflection on three closely related dimensions: (1) motivation and enjoy-
ment, (2) time and effort commitment, and (3) learning outcomes.
Motivation and enjoyment

In most cases, the participants in this study found the online flipped
writing instruction to be an innovative alternative to keep them moti-
vated in English writing tasks. Around 80% of the students noted the dif-
ferences between the online flipped writing instruction and conventional
writing courses they had received previously, with 26 students indicating
‘more opportunities to receive useful feedback from the partners’ and

‘feeling comfortable while writing in class’. Over 78% of the students
expressed their positive attitude toward the pre-class learning activities
(i.e. reading related materials, answering comprehension questions,
watching instructional videos), mentioning that ‘compared to previous
writing instruction where I had little time for actual writing and experi-
enced frustration, this approach motivated me to write in English since I
have prepared for it’. Furthermore, around 10 students specifically com-
mented on the positive effect of the approach by pointing out that they
had ‘a better understanding of the structures of the genre before class’,
and that the activities help them ‘to brainstorm and get organized’. One
student even said that he had done extra work in searching for online
information, so as to strengthen his opinions.
However, five students also expressed their concerns about the use of
the flipped instruction, since they ‘might be lazy from time to time and
postponed doing required tasks before class’. Without sufficient prepar-
ation, they found it difficult to organize their ideas during in-
class writing.
Time and effort commitment

On average, most of the students mentioned that the online flipped writ-
ing instruction required more time and effort than a conventional writ-
ing class. While they complained about extra hours they devoted in the
early phases of the study, particularly on the homework/assignment prior
to the class meetings, most of them accepted additional time and work-
load because their devotion paid off while they started the writing tasks
in class. Over 75% of the students mentioned that the pre-instructional
learning activities helped them to brainstorm and perceive the
‘completeness’ of their writing. One student, in particular, offered the
statement that ‘different from finishing a final product in a short period
of time, the flipped instruction helped me to sense the completeness of
my work through various revisions’. Approximately five students even
mentioned ‘the sense of authorship’ that they had not experienced in
previous writing instruction. Therefore, despite extra effort put in the
course, the students were still motivated in writing, as the innovative
instruction guided them through the writing process.
Learning outcomes
The final theme in student analysis was based on the learning outcomes
resulting from the instructional design. In most cases, the students saw
beneficial outcomes. Nearly 75% of the students attributed their
improvement in writing to the learning activities included in the flipped

instruction, saying that they ‘have gained so much in coherent idea
organization and appropriate usages concerning word choices and gram-
mar rules’ and that they ‘are not that afraid of writing in English any-
more’. One student specifically commented:
Before I received my peer feedback for my paper, I had no idea that my usage of
transition was not good in my writing. After I received the feedback, I noticed
that good transition helps connect me with my readers, and allows them to follow
my ideas more smoothly.
On average, the students noticed their growth in autonomous learning,

noting that such instruction, compared to conventional writing courses
they had received, provided them with opportunities for self-correction
through interaction exchanges and multiple revisions. One student said,
‘I enjoyed the learning process since I have been more engaged and
active in organizing my thoughts’. Another student had a similar
thought, that ‘Instead of receiving information passively from the teach-
er’s lectures, I spend more time organizing my thoughts into a coherent
structure, rather than overemphasis on wording and grammar’.
Together with the quantitative data, the qualitative information from
the students’ reflective thoughts re-affirmed the importance of both
internal and external factors in preventing demotivation and improving
learning outcomes. Internal factors including writing products and self-
interest not only facilitated better preparation for in-class writing tasks
but also fostered enhanced interest to learn English writing. External fac-
tors such as teaching method and contents, and classroom atmosphere
and teaching methods, likewise contributed to the preservation of motiv-
ation, as perceived by the students. Self-paced learning, constructive feed-
back from American peers, level-appropriate instructional materials, and
sound atmosphere exemplified in the given flipped writing instruction
helped the students to avoid demotivation and become more engaged,
and enabled them to maintain their learning motivation.
Conclusion
The results of this study have extended prior research by probing into
the under-explored issue of demotivation in EFL learning. The primary
affordances identified by this study were the beneficial application of the
online flipped writing instruction to English writing in an EFL context.
Specifically, four constructs (namely, teaching method and content, class-
room atmosphere and teaching material, writing product, and self-inter-
est) in the flipped instructional design were identified as prominent
factors that must be controlled to avoid demotivating students in English
writing via flipped learning. With the aforementioned characteristics

embedded in the online flipped writing instruction, the current study
revealed the following effects that resulted from the innovative instruc-
tional design of this study:
1. The flipped instruction did not contain elements that might lead to a
decline in motivation in English writing over time, thus keeping par-
ticipants from losing their initial level of motivation, allowing them
to become more engaged in the writing process.
2. It significantly enhanced the students’ writing skills, thus making
them more competent in the macro-level (the global scope) and
micro-level (the local scope) areas.
3. It successfully engaged the participants in the learning tasks (includ-
ing both pre-class and in-class activities).
Based on the findings and discussion of the current study, the

researchers offer the following recommendations for practice:
1. In addition to teaching strategies that aim to motivate students,

instructors should also take into consideration aspects that demotiv-
ate students from love of English writing. Factors such as teaching
method and content, classroom atmosphere and teaching material,
writing product, and self-interest, in particular, should be planned
and managed carefully to avoid elements that cause students to lose
motivation, and thus keep them better engaged and motivated.
Flexibility in curriculum development should be considered to opti-
mize the learning context and meanwhile, to eliminate elements that
decrease motivation as the course progresses.
2. Online flipped writing instruction is an appropriate instructional
design for EFL writing. It not only aligns with modern ideas of stu-
dent-centered active learning (Fresen, 2007) but also leads to
enhanced learning outcomes.
3. Step-by-step guidance and timely encouragement holds the key to
successful implementation of the given instructional design, helping
students to take accountability of their learning process and to recog-
nize final satisfactory outcomes.
While the present study provided empirical evidence concerning how

the online flipped writing instruction enhanced students’ writing profi-
ciency and made students less demotivated in English writing, follow-up
work addressing the limitations of this study is also needed. First, the
sample size was limited to 48 sophomore English-majors at a four-year
academic university in central Taiwan. Persuasive results might not be

generated from a small sample size, thus making it challenging to
extrapolate the current results to other populations. More participants
should be included to enhance generalizability. Second, future studies
should consider collecting data from the American partners included in
this study. Data from the English-speaking participants could be col-
lected to know their perspectives about the pedagogical design. Finally,
since this study was not a formal experimental design with separate con-
trol and experiment groups intended to examine the effects of isolated
variables, future studies might consider the inclusion of a control group
for comparison or adopt the within-subjects research methodology
(Creswell, 2014). By doing so, a more comprehensive picture of EFL
writing, flipped learning, and online instruction could be presented.
Colpaert (2014), commenting on effective design solutions for
learning and teaching, highlighted the need to identify aspects amen-
able to improvement in the learning environment with regard to the
creation of an optimal learning environment, including ‘learner
motivation, teacher support, availability of content, the evaluation
model or technology’ (p. 16). The researchers in this study, in the
same vein, hope that the given flipped instructional design provides
an optimal learning setting that is not only free from the demotivat-
ing factors but also beneficial to language teaching and learning. It is
also hoped that the affordances revealed in this online flipped writing
design pave the way for further research concerning the integration of
motivation/demotivation and innovative instructional practices in the
field of EFL writing.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Dr. Wen-chi Vivian Wu, who received her doctoral degree in 2006, is a distinguished
professor of the Department of Foreign Languages at Asia University in Taiwan. Her
recent research areas include CALL, MALL, cross-cultural communication, robotics
learning, and learner motivation for English as a global language. She has published
extensively on CALL and technology-related prestigious journals, including CALL,
System, Computer in Human Behavior, Educational Technology and Society, etc. Over
the past few years, she has integrated international experiences into her conversation
and writing courses linking her students with college students and university professors
in America and Japan. She serves on the editorial board of the CALL Journal, and as a
senior advisor of Asian EFL Journal and associate editor of Asian ESP Journal.
Dr. Jie Chi Yang received his Ph.D. degree in Department of Human System Science
from the Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan, in 2000. He is currently a full professor
in the Graduate Institute of Network Learning Technology at the National Central
University, Taiwan. His research interests include computer assisted language learning,
digital game-based learning, human factors, mobile learning, web-based learning envir-
onment, natural language processing, and multimedia technologies. He is working on
the design, development, and evaluation of interactive learning environments by using
advanced technologies, aiming to enhance language learning and science learning. He
received the Ta-You Wu Memorial Award (Young Outstanding Researcher Award) from
the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan in 2009. He was also appointed as
Distinguished Professor at the National Central University, Taiwan in 2010.
Mr. Jun Scott Chen Hsieh is currently a Ph.D. candidate of the Graduate Institute of
Network Learning Technology at National Central University in Taiwan. He has four
academic papers published in CALL related journals while also serving as the production
editor of the Asian EFL Journal and the Managing Editor of International Journal of
Distance Education Technologies (IJDET). His recent research areas include flipped
learning, mobile learning, cross-cultural communication, intercultural collaboration, and
online learning community.
Dr. Tosh Yamamoto is a professor at the Center for Teaching and Learning at the
Kansai University in Osaka, Japan. He is currently an Associate Director for the
Division of Promotion of Educational Development. Tosh is an educational specialist for
curriculum, instruction, and media informatics ranging from the design for the educa-
tional paradigm at the institutional level, on the one hand, and for the course design to
ePortfolio design enhanced with active learning activities, on the other. For the last few
years, Tosh has been developing curriculum for Liberal Arts Education for Collaborative
Online International Learning (COIL) Program, in which students from various coun-
tries in Asia can conduct PBL in Global Teams in order to collaboratively design the
sustainable future society.
ORCID
Jie Chi Yang http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6265-1453
References
Adnan, M. (2017). Perceptions of senior-year ELT students for flipped classroom: A
materials development course. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(3–4),
204–222. doi:10.1080/09588221.2017.1301958
Arai, K. (2004). What ‘demotivates’ language learners? Qualitative study on demotiva-
tional factors and learners’ reactions. Bulletin of Toyo Gakuen University, 12(3),
39–47.
Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., & Driessen, M. (2014). It’s not about seat time: Blending, flip-
ping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms. Computers & Education, 78,
227–236. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.006
Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research.
Paper presented at the ASEE National Conference Proceedings; Atlanta, GA, pp. 1–18.
Boo, Z., D€ ornyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). L2 motivation research 2005–2014:
Understanding a publication surge and a changing landscape. System, 55, 145–157.
doi:10.1016/j.system.2015.10.006
Boucher, B., Robertson, E., Wainner, R., & Sanders, B. (2013). “Flipping” Texas state
university’s physical therapist musculoskeletal curriculum: Implementation of a hybrid
learning model. Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 27(3), 72–77. doi:10.1097/
00001416-201307000-00010
Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. New York,
NY: Pearson Education.
Buitrago, C. R., & Dıaz, J. (2018). Flipping your writing lessons: Optimizing time in
your EFL writing classroom. In J. Mehring & A. Leis (Eds.), Innovations in flipping
the language classroom (pp. 69–91). Singapore: Springer.
Chambers, G. N. (1993). Taking the “de” out of de-motivation. Language Learning
Journal, 7(1), 13–16. doi:10.1080/09571739385200051
Chen, D. W. (1997). The state of college EFL composition instruction - A survey of college
EFL composition instructors’ professional background and views. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of the Fourteenth conference on English teaching and learning in the
Republic of China, Crane, Taipei. pp. 355–366.
Chen, H. C. (2001). Diagnosis of difficulties in English writing and suggested remedial
instructional strategies. Paper presented at the Selected Papers from the Tenth
International Symposium on English Teaching; Crane, Taipei. pp. 197–207.
Chen, C. J., Chuah, K. M., Tho, J., & Teh, C. S. (2015). Attitudinal factors affecting wiki
group collaboration for English writing. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-
Learning, 18(2), 22–35. doi:10.1515/eurodl-2015-0011
Chen Hsieh, J., Huang, Y. M., & Wu, W. C. (2017a). Technological acceptance of LINE
in flipped EFL oral training. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 178–190. doi:10.1016/
j.chb.2016.12.066
Chen Hsieh, J., Wu, W. C., & Marek, W. M. (2017b). Using the flipped classroom to
enhance EFL learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(1–2), 1–21. doi:
10.1080/09588221.2015.1111910
Coe, M., Hanita, M., Nishioka, V., & Smiley, R. (2011). An investigation of the impact of
the 6 þ 1 trait writing model on grade 5 student writing achievement (Final Report
NCEE 2012-4010). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance.
Colpaert, J. (2014). Educational engineering and distributed design (A Research Report).
Los Angeles, CA: Institute for Education and Information Sciences (IOIW).
Correa, M. (2015). Flipping the foreign language classroom and critical pedagogies: A
(new) old trend. Higher Education for the Future, 2(2), 114–125. doi:10.1177/
2347631115584122
Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Csizer, K. (2017). Motivation in the L2 classroom. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 418–432). New
York, NY: Routledge.
D€
ornyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language
Teaching, 31(03), 117–135. doi:10.1017/S026144480001315X
D€
ornyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and research motivation. Harlow, London, UK: Pearson
Education.
D€ornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in

second language acquisition. Mahwah, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
D€ornyei, Z. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
D€ornyei, Z. (2010). The relationship between language aptitude and language learning motivation:
Individual differences from a dynamic systems perspective. In E. Macaro (Ed.), Continuum
companion to second language acquisition (pp. 247–267). London, UK: Continuum.
D€ornyei, Z., & Csizer, K. (2002). Some dynamics of language attitudes and motivation:
Results of a longitudinal nationwide survey. Applied Linguistics, 23,421–462. doi:
10.1093/applin/23.4.421
D€ornyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (Eds.). (2011). Teaching and researching motivation (2nd
ed.). Harlow, UK: Longman.
Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Language emergence: Implications for applied
linguistics – Introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics, 27, 558–589. doi:
10.1093/applin/aml028
Falout, J., Elwood, J., & Hood, M. (2009). Demotivation: Affective states and learning
outcomes. System, 37(3), 403–417. doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.03.004
Falout, J., & Falout, M. (2005). The other side of motivation: Learner demotivation. Paper
presented at the JALT2004 conference proceedings; Tokyo, Japan. pp. 280–289.
Falout, J., & Maruyama, M. (2004). A comparative study of proficiency and learner
demotivation. The Language Teacher, 28(8), 3–9.
Fareed, M., Ashraf, A., & Bilal, M. (2016). ESL learners’ writing skills: Problems, factors
and suggestions. Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 4(2),81–92. doi:10.20547/
jess0421604201
Flipped Learning Network. (2014). The four pillars of F-L-I-P. Retrieved from http://flip-
pedlearning.org/cms/lib07/VA01923112/Centricity/Domain/46/FLIP_handout_FNL_
Web.pdf
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College
Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387. doi:10.2307/356600
Fresen, J. (2007). A taxonomy of factors to promote quality web-supported learning.
International Journal on E-Learning, 6(1), 81–94.
Furneaux, C., Paran, A., & Fairfax, B. (2007). Teacher stance as reflected in feedback on
student writing: An empirical study of secondary school teachers in five countries.
IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(1),69–94.
doi:10.1515/IRAL.2007.003
Gardner, R. C. (2007). Motivation and second language acquisition. Porta Linguarum, 8, 9–20.
Ghanizadeh, A., & Jahedizadeh, S. (2015). Context-specific dynamics of demotivators in
foreign language education. International Journal of Research Studies in Language
Learning, 5(2),87–96. doi:10.5861/ijrsll.2015.1279
Graham, S., & Hebert, M. A. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can
improve reading (A Carnegie Corporation Time to Act Report). Washington, DC:
Alliance for Excellent Education.
Guilloteaux, M. J., & D€ ornyei, Z. (2008). Motivating language learners: A classroom-ori-
ented investigation of the effects of motivational strategies on student motivation.
TESOL Quarterly, 42(1), 55–77. doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00207.x
Hamada, Y., & Kito, K. (2008). Demotivation in Japanese high schools. Paper presented
at the JALT 2007 Conference Proceeding; Tokyo, Japan. pp. 168–178.
Hasegawa, A. (2004). Student demotivation in the foreign language classroom.
Takushoku Language Studies, 107(11), 119–136.
Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability
measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(1), 77–89. doi:
10.1080/19312450709336664
Hung, H. T. (2015). Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster active
learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(1), 81–96. doi:10.1080/
09588221.2014.967701
Ismail, C. (2006). Developing cultural awareness in foreign language teaching. The
Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 7(3),154–161. doi: 10.5539/elt.v5n3p95
Jahedizadeh, S., Ghanizadeh, A., & Ghonsooly, B. (2016). The role of EFL learners’
demotivation, perceptions of classroom activities, and mastery goal in predicting their
language achievement and burnout. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign
Language Education, 1(1),1–16. doi: 10.1186/s40862-016-0021-8
Jamaludin, R., & Osman, S. Z. M. (2014). The Use of a flipped classroom to enhance engage-
ment and promote active learning. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(2), 124–131.
Kaivanpanah, S., & Ghasemi, Z. (2011). An investigation into source of demotivation in
second language learning. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistic, 14(2), 89–110.
Kao, T. N. (2012). Factor analysis of English writing demotivation among central Taiwan
university students (Unpublished master thesis). Taichung, Taiwan: Providence
University.
Kassem, M. A. M. (2017). Developing business writing skills and reducing writing anx-
iety of EFL learners through wikis. English Language Teaching, 10(3), 151–163. doi:
10.5539/elt.v10n3p151
Keblawi, F. (2005). English as a foreign language. In M. Singhal & Liontas (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Second International Online Conference on Second and Foreign
Language Teaching and Research (pp. 49–78). Irvine, CA: The Reading Matrix.
Kikuchi, K. (2009). Listening to our learners’ voices: What demotivates Japanese high
school students? Language Teaching Research, 13(4), 453–471. doi:10.1177/
1362168809341520
Keshta, A. S., & Harb, I. I. (2013). The effectiveness of a blended learning program on
developing Palestinian tenth graders’ English writing skills. Education Journal, 2(6),
208–221. doi:10.11648/j.edu.20130206.12
Kikuchi, K. (2015). Demotivation in second language acquisition: Insights from Japan.
Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Kikuchi, K., & Sakai, H. (2009). Japanese learners’ demotivation to study English: A sur-
vey study. JALT Journal, 31(2), 183–204.
Kim, T. Y., & Kim, Y. (2016). EFL learning demotivation in the Korean context:
Similarities and differences across school levels. English Language & Literature
Teaching, 22(1), 135–156.
Lasagabaster, D., Doiz, A., & Sierra, J. M. (2014). Motivation and foreign language learn-
ing: From theory to practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lee, I., Yu, S., & Liu, Y. (2018). Hong Kong secondary students’ motivation in EFL writ-
ing: A survey study. TESOL Quarterly, 52(1), 176–187. doi:10.1002/tesq.364
Leis, A. (2016). Flipped learning and EFL proficiency: An empirical study. TELES
Journal, 36, 77–90.
Li, S., & Suwanthep, J. (2017). Integration of flipped classroom model for EFL speaking.
International Journal of Learning and Teaching, 3(2),118–123. doi: 10.18178/
ijlt.3.2.118-123
Lin, G. H. C., & Chien, P. S. C. (2009). An investigation into effectiveness of peer feed-
back. Online Submission, 3, 79–87.
Lucas, R. I. G., Bernardo, A. B., & Rojo-Laurilla, M. A. (2016). Amotivation in Filipino

ESL learners: Exploring some correlates. Porta Linguarum: Revista Internacional de
Didactica de Las Lenguas Extranjeras, 26, 109–119.
Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of
peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1),
30–43. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002
Manolopoulou-Sergi, E. (2004). Motivation within the information processing model of
foreign language learning. System, 32(3), 427–441. doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.04.002
Mohamed, M., & Zouaoui, M. (2014). EFL writing hindrances and challenges: The case
of second year students of English at Djillali Liabes. Journal of Educational and Social
Research, 4(3),149–156. doi: 10.5901/jesr.2014.v4n3p149
Molavi, A., & Biria, R. (2013). EFL learning among motivated and de-motivated Iranian
seminary. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 6(1),
55–66. doi:10.5294/laclil.2013.6.1.4
Moskovsky, C., & Alrabai, F. (2009). Intrinsic motivation in Saudi learners of English as
a foreign language. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 2(1), 1–10. doi:10.2174/
1874913500902010001
Murphey, T., Falout, J., Elwood, J., & Hood, M. (2009). Inviting student voice. In R.
Nunn & J. Adamson (Eds.) Accepting alternative voices in EFL journal articles (pp.
211–235). Busan, Korea: Asian EFL Journal Press.
€
Ozdemir, E., & Aydın, S. (2015). The effects of wikis on motivation in EFL writing.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 2359–2363. doi:10.1016/
j.sbspro.2015.04.241
Peterson, M. (2009). Learner interaction in synchronous CMC: A sociocultural perspec-
tive. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(4), 303–321. doi:10.1080/
09588220903184690
Pritchard, A., & Woollard, J. (2010). Psychology for the classroom: Constructivism and
social learning. New York, NY: Routledge.
Purnell, L. D., & Paulanka, B. J. (2003). Transcultural healthcare: A culturally competent
approach. Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis Co.
Rost, M. (2004, November 14). Generating student motivation. A paper presented at the
Longman Teacher Training Tour, Tokyo.
Sahragard, R., & Alimorad, Z. (2013). Demotivating factors affecting Iranian high school
students’ English learning. In M. Cortazzi, & L. Jin (Eds.), Researching cultures of
learning: International perspective on language learning and education (pp. 308–327).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sakai, H., & Kikuchi, K. (2009). An analysis of demotivators in the EFL classroom.
System, 37(1), 57–69. doi:10.1016/j.system.2008.09.005
Shih, R. C. (2011). Can Web 2.0 technology assist college students in learning English
writing? Integrating Facebook and peer assessment with blended learning. Australian
Journal of Educational Technology, 27(5),829–845. doi:10.14742/ajet.934
Song, B., & Kim, T. Y. (2017). The dynamics of demotivation and remotivation among
Korean high school EFL students. System, 65, 90–103. doi:10.1016/
j.system.2016.12.010
Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation,
innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171–193. doi:
10.1007/s10984-012-9108-4
Sugino, T. (2010). Teacher demotivational factors in the Japanese language teaching context.
Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 3, 216–226. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.036
Sugita, M., & Takeuchi, O. (2010). What can teachers do to motivate their students? A class-
room research on motivational strategy use in the Japanese EFL context. Innovation in
Language Learning and Teaching, 4(1), 21–35. doi:10.1080/17501220802450470
Sun, Z., & Qiu, X. (2014). Evaluating the use of wikis for EFL: A case study of an under-
graduate English writing course in China. International Journal of Information
Technology and Management, 13(1), 3–14. doi:10.1504/IJITM.2014.059146
Suzuki, M. (2008). Japanese learners’ self-revisions and peer revisions of their written
compositions in English. TESOL Quarterly, 42(2), 209–233. doi:10.1002/j.1545-
7249.2008.tb00116.x
Takase, A. (2004). Investigating students’ reading motivation through interviews. Forum for
Foreign Language Education, 3,23–38. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10112/1293
Tanaka, M. (2017). Examining EFL vocabulary learning motivation in a demotivating
learning environment. System, 65, 130–138. doi:10.1016/j.system.2017.01.010
Trang, T. T. T., & Baldauf, R. B., Jr. (2007). Demotivation: Understanding resistance to
English language learning-the case of Vietnamese students. The Journal of Asia TEFL,
4(1), 79–105.
Traxler, J., & Riordan, B. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of retention strategies using SMS,
WAP and WWW student support. Paper presented at the Proceedings of 4th Annual
Conference; Galway, Ireland: LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Science. pp. 54–55.
Tseng, D. S. D. (2008). Creative English writing and idea organization. Inservice
Education Bulletin, 25(2), 27–38.
Tseng, M. F., Lin, C. H., & Chen, H. (2018). An immersive flipped classroom for learn-
ing Mandarin Chinese: Design, implementation, and outcomes. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 31,714–733. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2018.1440603
Tsiakyroudi, M. (2018). Exploring the effectiveness of Edmodo on Greek EFL B1 learners’
motivation to write. Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning, 9(1), 96–112.
Vefali, G. M., & Ayan, H. Ç. (2015). (De)Motivation in preparatory EFL classrooms.
Applied Language Learning, 25, 16–40.
Vikneswaran, T., & Krish, P. (2016). Utilising social networking sites to improve writing:
A case study with Chinese students in Malaysia. Technology, Pedagogy and Education,
25(3), 287–300. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2015.1030441
Wang, J., An, N., & Wright, C. (2018). Enhancing beginner learners’ oral proficiency in
a flipped Chinese foreign language classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning,
31,490–521. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2017.1417872
Ware, P., Kern, R., & Warschauer, M. (2016). The development of digital literacies. In
P. K. Matsuda & R. K. Manchon (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language
writing (pp. 307–328). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.
Wu, W. C., Chen Hsieh, J., & Yang, J. C. (2017). Creating an online learning commu-
nity in a flipped classroom to enhance EFL learners’ oral proficiency. Educational
Technology & Society, 20(2), 142–157.
Wu, W.-C. V., Yen, L. L., & Marek, M. W. (2011). Using online EFL interaction to
increase confidence, motivation, and ability. Educational Technology & Society, 14(3),
118–129. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id¼EJ963205
Xu, C., & Qi, Y. (2017). Analyzing pauses in computer-assisted EFL writing—A com-
puter-keystroke-log perspective. Educational Technology & Society, 20(4), 24–34.
Zheng, B., Yim, S., & Warschauer, M. (2018). Social media in the writing classroom and
beyond. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 5,12–14. doi:
10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0555
Appendix A1
Appendix A2

Free From Demotivation in EFL Writing - The Use of Online Flipped Writing Instruction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Free From Demotivation in EFL Writing - The Use of Online Flipped Writing Instruction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Computer Assisted Language Learning

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

Free from demotivation in EFL writing: the use of

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1567556

Published online: 01 Feb 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

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

Free from demotivation in EFL writing: the use of

assumption about motivation is that it is not a stable or fixed state but

research is needed before researchers and instructors could determine

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the study.

The online flipped writing instructional design

those adopted in flipped research in the instructional process, it is the

Pre-task stage (Week 1–5)

Main-task stage (Week 6–11)

Post-task stage (Week 12–15)

self-developed focus-group interview was carried out to explore the par-

Issue Nature Instrument

Research Queson 1 Pre-/post-tests of descripve and argumentave

Figure 2. Issues explored and instruments employed in the current study.

Quantitative data analysis

check questions Uploaded draft

12 Post-task Post-test on descriptive

Table 2. Score distribution of each trait.

Table 3. Internal reliability of the demotivating factors.

textbooks. Writing product discussed whether assignment workload,

Qualitative data analysis

Results and discussion

comprehension questions online, and reviewing instructional videos)

implementation of online flipped writing practice, enabling them to

interest topped the rank in the mean difference, followed by classroom

Table 9. Paired-samples t-test of the demotivation factors (post–pre).

study. A positive classroom atmosphere, such as good classroom man-

significantly decrease student motivation to learn (Keblawi, 2005; Sugino,

Motivation and enjoyment

‘more opportunities to receive useful feedback from the partners’ and

Time and effort commitment

improvement in writing to the learning activities included in the flipped

On average, the students noticed their growth in autonomous learning,

writing via flipped learning. With the aforementioned characteristics

Based on the findings and discussion of the current study, the

1. In addition to teaching strategies that aim to motivate students,

While the present study provided empirical evidence concerning how

academic university in central Taiwan. Persuasive results might not be

D€ornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in

Lucas, R. I. G., Bernardo, A. B., & Rojo-Laurilla, M. A. (2016). Amotivation in Filipino

You might also like