4. Results
4.6 Research Question Six…
5.1.2 Research Question Two
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
making surface and stylistic changes and bold writers, who favored making four types of changes. Since the numbers of participants and revision inYagelski’s study
outnumbered those in the present study (Yagelski: 21 students with 154 revisions; this study: 4 students with 48 revisions), it was not surprising that Yagelski noticed the existence of a trend that most students favored making surface and stylistic changes.
If more cases were covered in this present study, it might be likely that the researcher also came up with the same result as found by Yagelski.
5.1.2 Research Question Two
Aiming to find out how much the weblog-mediated process writing class
contributed to the development of students’ writing ability in content and organization, this study discovered three findings: 1) blog-mediated process writing offered the greatest progress in content and organization, 2) the total numbers of changes by types in revisions didn’t always positively correlate with the percentages of progress, and 3) fluency was found in these four participants. By analyzing the two drafts with
Johnson’s indicators of content and organization, the above findings were further corroborated with two findings. First, the habit of writing a topic sentence (the main idea) was developing in the post-test draft. Second, most of their supporting sentences in the post-test draft contained the topic related ideas (details, examples and
explanation). Another finding worthy of note was that these four participants also made progress in grammar and vocabulary, though the gained points were not as significant as those in content and organization.
These findings above roughly matched the results in a study conducted by Gallego De Blibeche (1993). The study targeting at two groups of elementary level college students of Spanish: the experimental group, which received prewriting discussion, free writing, pair work, drafting and peer review, and the control group,
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
which received direct grammar instruction, including grammar exercises and wrote drafts. The results showed that both groups had equal gains on content, organization, vocabulary, grammar and error reduction, but the former outperformed the latter in the improvement in composition length (an indicator of fluency to measure content) and quality of organization. Even though there was no control group, the primary findings in this present case study conformed to those of the previous study: a process writing group could make overall progress, but the progress in content and organization proved more significant than that in vocabulary and grammar. It echoed Barnett’s belief (1989) that in process writing, “less correction of grammatical errors, together with honest attention to content, can sometimes reduce — and seldom promotes — grammatical mistakes in future composition. It implies that in process writing, once the meaning is developed, the form will be achieved as well.
5.1.3. Research Question Three
In the interviews, the positive functions of weblog in the process writing model were approved. All of these four participants agreed that blog was beneficial in each step of the process writing model. According to the data gathered in the interviews, the class blog offered these four things: 1) links to the online resources in prewriting, 2) a collection of old essays for inspiration, 3) spelling checker, editing functions and the reverse chronological order format, and 4) a publishing medium. The above findings echoed the statements that blogs promote the use of the Internet as a research tool (Oravec, 2002). Most important of all, the class blog in this study also
exemplified the features of self-reflection (Barlett-Bragg), interaction (Ducate &
Lomicka, 2008) and publication (Godwin-Jones, 2003), all of which were closely connected to the commonly found activities or tools in process writing: journal, feedback and portfolio.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
5.1.4 Research Question Four
The fourth research question was to discuss what challenges they had in this class and what teacher support they would need. Speaking of challenges, learners seemed to show different tolerance for the number of revisions. Only one participant felt it was fine to do R3 while the other three found it boring to make R2 or R3.
Therefore, how to keep students focused or interested in doing multiple revisions seems to become an important issue. In addition to the peer editing sheets and
checklists in this class, the teacher should come up with some other activities to keep students more engaged in making revisions.
Regarding the teacher support, the teacher-student conference was suggested to offer help to solve problems that they were unable to handle by themselves or with the peers’ help. If there is any teacher-student conference, it is suggested to be scheduled after the practice of peer review. Their request for teacher-student conference echoed Zamel’s statement (1983) that the writing problems should be solved with the joint effort of the teacher and students. In the process of discovering meaning, the teachers should offer timely help as facilitators (Barnett, 1989). However, not all of them reached an agreement on the practice of the teacher-student conference. One participant showed her concern that the teacher-student conference might end up a routine practice. Considering that Chinese students are shy in nature, the teacher should pay attention to individual difference while conducting a teacher-student conference in class. A suggested approach is to create a less threatening atmosphere in the teacher-student conference to reduce their anxiety while asking the teacher for help.
5.1.5 Research Question Five
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
The fourth research question was if they had any attitude change toward writing after taking the blog-mediated process writing class. The writing attitude
questionnaires got mixed results in the following categories: confidence, anxiety, usefulness and preference. The interviews with these two participants further verified the invalidity of the questionnaire results. Overall, the interview confirmed that these participants did experience attitude change after taking this class. Their confidence increased and anxiety decreased while the usefulness didn’t change much and their preference was enhanced. To some extent, this finding was very similar to
Pennington’s study (1996), where students held positive attitude toward process writing on the condition that the teacher thought highly of process writing in class.
Based on the fact that this writing class was designed by this present researcher in the spirit of process writing, it was very likely that students’ attitude changes were
positively correlated with the teacher’s attitude toward process writing. On the other hand, the inconsistency between the questionnaire results and interview data created some doubts on the truthfulness of their responses in the interviews. There were a lot of probabilities that students’ responses in the interview was meant to cater to the teacher’s needs.
5.1.6 Research Question Six
The following findings on the blog-mediated process writing in term of the content of classroom were discovered. The findings will be discussed in terms of the six aspects: 1) the comparison of usefulness among peer editing sheets, checklists and journals, 2) the commenting function on the blog, 3) attitude toward errors, 4) the nature of blog-mediated writing class – workshop format, 5) the learner type, and 6) the writing process.
When referring to the usefulness of peer editing sheet, checklists and journals in
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
this writing class, journals came out first. The four participants all confirmed the usefulness of journal, which helped them review their writing process and indirectly enhance their writing ability as well. The use of journal in this study proved that journal can serve as a means to develop reflective practice, thus helping students to build up the process of their own learning (Caroll, 1994). From the teacher’s
observation, journals writing though full of grammar mistakes or wrong expressions did help them develop individual learning process through self-expression.
The commenting function of the blog should be a forum for participants to offer revision-related comments. However, its function was far beyond that. Chatting became the dominant function in commenting. The “chatty” style of comments of the blog was also mentioned in Smith’s study (2008). Participants talked about whatever came to their mind and saw it as another way to talk to friends. For these students in the present study, commenting became another means of communication with others instead of a source of revision-related suggestions. Although they were asked to leave only revision-related comments, the chatting function inevitably appeared. Moreover, the chatting function was also another form of self-expression. Even though leaving comments was part of required assignment, these students still chose to use comments for self-expression. Another possible reason for leaving “chatting” comments came from the reluctance to criticize others. Carson & Nelson (1994) discovered that
Chinese students were more reluctant to criticize peers because of the specific culture.
In order not to ruin the harmonious relationship with peers, these students chose to leave chatty comments lest their revision-related comments should hurt their friends’
feelings.
Concerning their attitude toward errors, these four EFL writers still held a rather conservative view that errors should be found and corrected. This finding was quite opposite to the concept of process writing that errors should be deliberately neglected
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
lest “considering form and accuracy too soon obstructs the mental activity necessary to generate and communicate ideas (Barnett, 1989). In the eye of the four EFL learners, form (language) is as important as content (meaning). Smith (2008) discovered that writing on the blog helped students free their voices and take risks making errors in the cyberspace. Based on the fact that the four EFL writers insisted that errors be found and corrected, it seemed that the writing on the blog didn’t help them to realize the purpose of writing on the blog: self-expression.
Designed in the workshop format, the blog-mediated process writing class presented many advantages worth mentioning. Several striking advantages were listed as below: 1) students became active learners when correcting errors, 2) the audience was expanded to many, 3) a diversity of activities designed to satisfy different demands, 4) access to many resources, and 5) more ample time to write and revise.
Just as Yagelski (1995) observed, “the workshop style format of the course allowed students to do their planning, drafting, and revising during class meetings, giving students ample time to work on revisions and providing ready access to their peers and to the teacher for advice about their revisions.” The present study proved that the workshop format was the suitable context for process writing where students
developed writing ability with the help from the teacher and peer in the process writing cycle.
Gender and personality difference also determined what strategies these four participants took when dealing with problems. The only male student preferred to solve problems through self-learning rather than through discussion with others. In contrast, the other three females would rather get helps from friends and take part in the discussion sessions. Logical thinking may be another gender difference because the only male’s essays were more logical and better organized than those of these females. The personality trait also divided these participants into independent learners,
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
who preferred solving problems by themselves, and cooperative learner, who would like to get answers through discussion or outside help. These four participants in this study were very like Raimes’ students (1985) who didn’t possess some features characterizing themselves as a group. Considering the fact that this study was a case study in nature, this present researcher paid much more attention to individual differences rather than similarities characterizing them as a group.
Concerning the writing process, two features were covered: the habit of
re-reading and “thinking in English.” Re-reading was used to help writers to think up better connected sentences while writing (Perl, 1984). Perl (1984) further stated that the habit of re-reading best signified the recursive feature of writing process.
Therefore, the habit of re-reading determined the quality of organization. The girl who didn’t always re-read proved to make the least progress in organization while the only boy with the habit of re-reading beat the other participants with the tightly connected organization. The other feature caught my eye was the increased percentage of
“thinking in English.” At the beginning of the semester, all of the four participants admitted that they translated their ideas from Chinese into English in writing.
However, in the mid-semester, the percentages of “thinking in English” grew ranging from 30% to 50% respectively among these participants. Over decades of practice of process writing, Leki (1990) concluded that “the shifting to L1 can be a very useful strategy for generating ideas and stimulating more complex thinking in L2.” In this study, the growth of “thinking in English” seems to imply that these participants were in the beginning stage of second language acquisition.