The Effect of Using Social Media for Collaborative Academic Writing

in an EFL Writing Classroom

Wei Jiang, Ph.D., Zohreh R. Eslami, Ph.D.
Department of English, Case Western Reserve University, OH
Department of Teaching, Learning, and Culture, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX

Introduction Findings Conclusions

Theoretical Framework Figure 1. Frequency of LREs and NLREs in Dyadic • Compared with individual writing, EFL learners
Interactions (n = 53) Figure 2. Frequency Immediate Uptakes (n = 53) Figure 3. Frequency Delayed Uptakes (n = 53)
Sociocultural Theory received more benefits from collaborative writing
via social media both during and after collaboration.
•Learning is a social process occurring within interactions,
instead of as the results of interactions (Nassaji, 2016; Ellis, 2009) • AL in the AL-NES dyads had the highest gains
Statement of the Problem during collaboration and in writing products among
all participants.
•When technology is not routinely integrated during
instructions, using technology can be challenging to both • Social media provides convenience to discussion
teachers and learners (Liu et al., 2017). and noticing, but it may distract learners from the
•Extremely prominent challenges in Chinese universities due tasks.
to: policy constraints, tightly controlled internet access, and
the lack of technical support and empirical studies (Mei et al., 2017). Table 1. Frequency and Percentage of LREs & NLREs by Initiators and Complexity (n=53)
LREs, NLREs and Uptakes Implications and Future Research
Initiators Complexity
Dyadic 1.Significant difference: AL-NES> IL-NES > AL-IL
Implementing user-familiar technology could enhance Type
Types
A-NNES I-NNES NES Simple Complex
2.Learners initiated higher percentage of episodes in We recommend EFL teachers to incorporate social media
the instructional value of technology (Zeng, 2017). LRE 162 (33%) - 334 (67%) 190 (38%) 306 (62%) AL-IL interactions in their writing instructions, as it is familiar and
AL-NES NLRE - Content 31 (29%) - 76 (70%) 24 (23%) 83 (77%) 3.Large variance among dyads convenient to learners (Benson, 2019). However, to make sure
NLRE - Structure 99 (37%) - 167 (63%) 55 (21%) 210 (79%)
•Al-NES: M = 26.89, SD = 29.48 other features of social media do not distract learners
Our Question LRE - 48 (18%) 216 (82%) 165 (63%) 99 (37%)
•IL-NES: M = 41.62, SD = 40.94 from language learning, we suggest teachers to consider
IL-NES NLRE - Content - 12 (23%) 41 (77%) 12 (25%) 40 (75%)
How can EFL learners benefit from collaborative NLRE - Structure - 45 (32%) 96 (68%) 22 (16%) 118 (84%)
•AL-IL: M = 23.25, SD = 13.18 the following aspect while design social media related
writing via social media in terms of the quality of LRE 105 (50%) 104 (50%) - 139 (66%) 70 (34%) 4.Interaction with NES leads to higher numbers of writing tasks.
AL-IL NLRE - Content 30 (45%) 36 (55%) - 9 (14%) 57 (86%) immediate correction and correct resolution. 1.Tasks need to be engaging to avoid distraction (e.g.,
writing product and the quality of interaction interesting topic and practical purpose)
NLRE - Structure 48 (50%) 48 (50%) - 24 (25%) 72 (75%)
during collaborative writing? Figure 4. Gain Score of Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency Figure 5. Gain Score of Overall Writing Performance 2.Teachers need to properly instruct and train students
before the tasks and closely monitor the whole process.
Method 3.Teachers should give learners more time to get familiar
with the tasks and longer periods of practice.
Study Design
•Eight weeks quasi-experimental multi-group design
•Peer interaction tool: Tencent QQ
899 million active accounts (by 2016) Future Research
•Writing platform: Microsoft Word 1.Longer period. Ideally one semester or longer (Long, 2017)
•Collaboration process: peer planning, drafting, and editing 2.Use different measurements, such as interlanguage
through synchronous and asynchronous QQ text-chats and analysis.
Notes: Complexity measured by T-unit complexity ratio, dependent clauses per clause, Note: Overall writing performance measured by a 100-point analytical rubric, including
exchanging Word files average number of words per T-unit; accuracy measured by percentage of error-free T-units; grammar, vocabulary, sentence structure, content, text structure, coherence and cohesion
fluency measured by numbers of words, T-units, and clauses.
Participants
Materials Figure 6. Percentage of survey Result (Item 1)
Group Type Size References
AL-NES ndyad = 22
•Two online computer- Quality of Writing Performance (Gain Scores) Item 1: Using social
IL-NES ndyad = 18 mediated collaborative 1.Learners in the collaborative groups showed more media to exchange Benson, P. (2019). Ways of seeing: The individual and the social in applied linguistics
research methodologies. Language Teaching, 52, 60-70.
writing tasks improvement in complexity and overall writing performance but and discuss
AL-IL ndyad = 18 feedback is
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1, 3–18.

AL nindividual = 17 •Pre- and post-tests: less improvement in accuracy and fluency than learners in the convenient for me to
Lai, C., Lei, C., & Liu, Y. (2016). The nature of collaboration and perceived learning in wiki-
based collaborative writing. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(3), 80-
IL nindividual = 18 individual writing activity individual group. notice areas for 95.
Notes: AL, advanced learner; IL, intermediate •Perception Survey 2.Learners in L-NES dyads improved the most in overall writing improvement. Mei, B., Brown, G. T., & Teo, T. (2017). Toward an understanding of preservice English as a
learner; NES, native English speaker foreign language teachers’ acceptance of computer-assisted language learning 2.0 in
performance, and the least in complexity and accuracy. the People’s Republic of China. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26, 74-104.
Nassaji, H. (2016). Anniversary article Interactional feedback in second language teaching
Types of Measurements 3.Although the fluency results revealed some improvements, Figure 7. Percentage of survey Result (Item 2)
and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research,
Quantity of Frequency of LREs and NLREs (Figure 1) high standard deviations signalled a large variation among 20, 535–562. 
Zeng, G. (2017). Collaborative dialogue in synchronous computer-mediated communication
text-chats Frequency of episodes by initiators and complexity individual learners.
Item 2: Discussion and face-to-face communication. ReCALL, 29, 1-19. 
(Table 1)
4.ANNSs improved on accuracy and overall writing through social
Quality of Immediate and delayed uptakes (Figures 2 & 3) performance, but lost ground on complexity and fluency media makes me
text-chats
5.INNSs had higher gains in fluency and overall performance, concentrate more Contact Information
Quality of writing Changes in complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) on the tasks.
performance (Figure 4) and overall writing performance (Figure 5) but limited or no gains in complexity and accuracy. Wei Jiang: wei.jiang6@case.edu
Learners’ attitudes Perception survey results (Figures 6 & 7)
Zohreh R. Eslami: zeslami@tamu.edu