Suh, J. S. Effectiveness of CALL Writing Instruction_The Voices of Korean EFL Learners

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS * VOL. 35, NO. 6 669

Effectiveness of CALL Writing Instruction: The Voices of Korean EFL Learners Jae-Suk Suh Keimyung University

Abstract: In spite of the widespread use of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) and its perceivedfacilitative role in second language (L2) learning, there is little data on how learners feel, experience, or think about CALL in the L2 learning context. This study investigated the reactions of Korean students studying English as a Foreign Language (EFL) to computer-mediated writing instruction. Students participated in a CALL program framed on the process approach to teaching writing. Students selected a writing topic, navigated the Internet tofind relevant information, wrote drafts, evaluated peers essays via e-mail, and revised their work. Students were also asked to write down everything that thgrfelt, thought about, or experienced during classes in a journal. Analysis of these journals indicated that CALL was a helpful tool for learning writing despite some limitations. Some suggestions for creating better CALL-based instruction in L2 education are given.

Introduction The development of computer and information technologies has given rise to the use of Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) in the educational disciplines. In the field of second language (L2) education, Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) has been proposed as an alternative to traditional teaching methods and techniques in the hopes that it will revolution- ize the way students learn a second or foreign language. Such hopes are presumably based on the assumption that CALL will facilitate language learning and become an important instructional medium (Singhal, 1998).

In some respects, CALLS contribution to language learning is already apparent (Lee, 2000). Through a variety of software and Internet resources, CALL gives the L2 learner opportunities to practice language skills, for both linguistic and communicative purposes. CALL on the Internet enables learners to overcome spatial and temporal limitations by allowing them to log onto remote sites whenever they choose to. A large amount of information becomes readily available to them within a short period of time. CALL has also been popular when used with e-mail because it offers learners rarely exposed to natural face-to-face interactions in everyday life a valuable chance to communicate with target language speakers or nonnative speakers with dif- ferent first language (Ll) backgrounds (Cunningham, 2000; Gonglewski, Meloni, & Brant, 2001; Jung, 1999; Oxford, 1990).

Another advantage of CALL is that it can develop learners pragmatic competence - the ability to use a language in a way appropriate to the social and cultural norms of the target community - presently considered the ultimate goal of L2 learning (Mitchell & Myles, 1998). CALL gives the learner fast and easy access to a target society and the opportunity to gain rich

Jae-Suk Suh (PhD, Indiana University) is Fulltime Instructol; Department ofEnglish and English Literature, Keimyung University, Daegu, Korea.

670 NOVEMBEWDECEMBER 2002

and authentic information. This experience may be especially conducive to learning the sociocultural aspects of a target community, which in turn enhances the learners understanding and awareness of the differences between the cultural patterns of language use in the L1 and the L2 (Kasper, 1997).

For these reasons, it has been assumed that CALL will take a central position as a tool in L2 learning. In Korea, where L2 input resources are limited and where the teacher plays a major role in providing input by selecting textbooks and the type of classroom interaction used (i.e., student- centered or teacher-centered), CALL is expected to make a great contribution to the development of learner proficiency in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classes.

Although a cursory glance at literature on computer- mediated language learning provides abundant evidence for the facilitative role of information technology in L2 learning, CALL is not problem-free (Singhal, 1998). Some researchers argue strongly that the use of the computer does not always guarantee effective, successful language learning - casting doubts on the value and usefulness of CALL. Pennington (19911, Chen (19961, Lee (20001, and Busbee (2001) are among those opposed to computer- mediated language learning.

In a critique of the computerization of the classroom, Busbee (2001) cogently addressed several reasons for the general lack of acceptance of CALL. The expense of the software, the inconvenience of installing and the immo- bility of the computers, and the high amount of skill, time, and energy required from the teacher all seriously impair the effectiveness of CALL. In the same vein, according to Lee (20001, financial considerations, lack of high-quality software, and reluctance to accept innova- tion and new technology are barriers to the effective practice of CALL.

Chen (1996) took a cautious attitude toward the use of CALL in educational institutions, saying CALL approaches will not, and should not, spread until measurable bene- fits can be seen not only for students but also for teachers. More research into actual results of CAI application must be performed (p. 3) . A similar concern was expressed by Pennington (19911, who warned against a blind preference for CALL in L2 teaching without clear empirical evidence of its strengths.

Furthermore, Van Aacken (1996) provided evidence as to CALI3 ineffectiveness in a study that investigated the relationship between computer use and language proficiency It was reported that Australian subjects who studied Japanese without the computer achieved a higher proficiency than those who used computers in their studies.

These test results and views of computer-mediated language learning are contradictory, reflecting a lack of consensus among researchers about the effectiveness and

usefulness of CALL. In other words, the fundamental question, How effective and beneficial is CALL for L2 learning? remains unanswered (Busbee, 2001; Han, 1998; Ryu, 1998).

In Korea, the Seventh National Curriculum for Education was initiated in 2002. This program has the pri- mary aim of helping students develop the knowledge and skills necessary to lead a creative, self-regulating life in the upcoming age of information and technology (Ministry of Education and Human Resources, 2002). The Korean gov- ernment has invested heavily in nationwide high-speed broadband communication, creating a classroom environment that enables students to use Internet resources (e.g., Internet search, e-mail, listsery and computer conferenc- ing) as a significant part of their elementary and secondary education. Using a variety of Internet resources, CALL- based instruction will thus be readily available to students and teachers, most of whom seem eager to employ it in their EFL classrooms.

Given the doubts about the value of CALL on one hand, and the ready availability of CALL for the learning of English in Korean educational institutions on the other, this study investigates how Korean students of English reacted to CALL instruction designed to promote EFL writing. It focuses on determining the effectiveness of computer-mediated writing instruction on the basis of students feelings, experiences, or thoughts about the instruction, and on providing suggestions for designing better CALL- based instruction in EFL classes.

Previous Studies Existing research on computer-mediated writing can be classified roughly into two groups. The first group focuses on the effects that specific software (e.g., word processing or CD-ROM) has on writing skill. Common findings among this group of studies indicate that CALL software had a positive effect on the development of L2 writing proficiency (Neu & Scarcella, 1987). Lee (2000) found a considerable increase in the writing fluency of Korean EFL students in a study in which students used Bulletin Board System (BBS) software on the Internet. Similarly, Cunningham (2000) asked EFL Japanese students to use word processing software in their writing class for one semester. Cunninghamb findings show that students strongly prefer computer-based writing and made greater improvement using a word processor than with other tools.

Using software called Quick Business Letters (QBL) TOOLS, Chen (1997) examined how computer-generated feedback from QBL TOOLS influenced the writing behaviors of Taiwanese EFL writers. Using the software increased the subjects awareness of editing, resulting in fewer text errors. Kim (2000) reached a similar conclusion in a study

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS . VOL. 35, NO. 6 671

of Korean EFL learners using CD courseware, in which the software had positive effects on learners writing skill.

A second group of studies examined the effect of Internet resource use on L2 writing, and overall demonstrated that these resources improved learners writing proficiency. Cho (2001) reported that his subjects showed significant development in EFL writing after using Web-based instruction for a year. The advantages of Web-based instruction were also demonstrated by Kim (2001), whose study results suggested that Web-based English education increased students interest in a course, promoted learning efficiency, and provided opportunities to discuss and write about a given topic.

Cononelos and Oliva (1993) and Ho (2000) demonstrated that e-mail is an effective tool in L2 writing classrooms. According to Cononelos and Oliva, e-mail exchange among a class of students resulted in improvement of writing skill and facilitation of target culture learning. Similarly, in an international information technology- based collaborative project, Ho (2000) reported various positive effects of e-mail. Through a electronic exchange of information with British students, Singaporean students were found to develop a positive attitude towards writing and become sensitized to the intercultural concerns and differences between the two societies.

As stated earlier, although there are numerous reports of CALlls positive effects, this technology does not necessarily bring about successful learning or use of the L2. Specifically, little information about the effectiveness of CALL in an EFL context is available. It would be helpful to examine learners reactions to CALL writing instruction, that is, their experiences, feelings, and thoughts about this form of study. Thus the author conducted a study in which Korean EFL students participated in CALL instruction framed on the process approach to writing. Data were collected by means of students journal writing.

CALL with Internet resources was believed to be an appropriate medium to promote the writing skill of Korean students, who have usually been described as reticent or shy in class, or nervous in face-to-face interactions. A reason for this perceived Korean learner characteristic may be that nearly all the students come from teacher-fronted classrooms and are given few opportunities during class to practice what they learn for communicative purposes. However, in the Internet context, students are likely to actively participate in communicative interaction. For example, because e-mail does not pressure students to provide an immediate response to an interlocutor, students may feel a sense of security absent from face-to-face classroom interactions. They also have the luxury of writing at their own pace and are thus able to convey meaning to their full capacities (Belisle, 1996; Gonglewski, Meloni, & Brant, 2001).

Methods Participants The subjects of the study were 19 undergraduate Korean students learning English as a foreign language at a university in southern Korea. They majored in a variety of fields, and their age range was 18 to 27 years. Among the 19 students, 9 were female. All the students had been learning English for more than seven years. According to an English test similar to the TOEIC (Test of English for International Communication) administered at the beginning of the semester, their proficiency ranged from the intermediate- low to intermediate-high level. Though most students had not had any experience with CALL in high school, nearly all of them had a basic working knowledge of computers.

Instruments and Procedure Rationale for using the process approach to writing. Among a variety of approaches to writing (for a full discussion, see Omaggio-Hadley, 2001, and Raimes, 19831, this study used the process approach as a guiding framework in designing a computer-mediated writing program. Compared with traditional approaches concerned with producing a final product - a perfect piece of text - the process approach, as its name implies, highlights the process of how a writer goes about writing, from the very beginning (getting started with writing) to the end (editing and submitting a final version or draft) (Carter, Bishop & Kravits, 1998).

Students in process-oriented writing classes go through several stages in a cyclical fashion, during which they preplan what to write, make drafts, give and take feedback through peer editing, make revisions, and realize a final version of text. Such a process-oriented writing task is likely to be conducive to increasing writing motivation and building accountability for and a critical stance towards both ones own work and the works of peers (McDonough & Shaw, 1993). This in turn should enhance students self- monitoring capability and lead them to reflect on the process involved in a writing task - in this case, writing with the aid of CALL instruction. Hence, it was expected that the students would be able to describe their experiences with, and their thoughts and feelings about, partici- pation in the CALL writing program.

CALL instruction. The CALL program for this study was designed in such a way that students met once a week, for a total of three classes, with each class 50 minutes in length.

On the first day of class, the students selected traveling abroad as the writing topic, and they were asked to think about what location they would like to visit and what they would like to do there. Time was allotted for Web surfing to obtain information about traveling to the chosen

672 NOVEMBE WDECEMBE R 2002

country (e.g., hotels, foods, museums, historical sites, etc.). Students were instructed to log onto either English or

Korean search engines such as Lycos, Yahoo, AOL, Daum, or Hanmir. During navigation, students were asked to jot down or print out information that they would later use in discussion with their partners (they would talk about what they had found and try to persuade their partners to travel with them). Once students in each pair reached an agreement about where to go and what to do, they returned to the Internet to search for detailed information about their trips.

During the second class period, based on the information they had gathered, the pairs of students were given time to think about what they would include in their essays and how they could organize it to best express their ideas. They were instructed to consider the intended audience for their essays, since writing with an audience in mind is likely to make the essay more lively and more meaningful than writing without consideration of the reader (Elbow, 1981).

Then student pairs worked cooperatively to produce a first draft. Students were told that during the following class, they would have the opportunity to read the drafts of other pairs for peer editing. In an effort to have a productive feedback session, students was strongly encouraged to exchange their drafts with another pair via e-mail; read the peers essays carefully, focusing on meaning (i.e., clarity of message, effective transitions between sentences and paragraphs, and appropriate vocabulary selection); and prepare comments or suggestions for the draft in advance (Shrum & Glisan, 2000). In this way, students were asked to work hard to make their essays attractive, interesting, and easy to read.

During the third class, students were given time for peer editing, with pairs of students working with other pairs to help each other revise drafts. They were advised to give constructive, positive feedback that would encourage revision of peers essays. Many pairs had offered feedback via e-mail before the class. The before-class preparation and hard work performed during peer editing was evidence that the students took the writing task seriously, and they appeared to be satisfied with the peer editing session.

Based on feedback, each pair of students prepared a second draft. Later, since the feedback session focused primarily on the meaning of the essays, individual pairs were instructed to visit Web sites related to English composition or consult writing books to check grammatical errors, punctuation, and spelling. At the end of class, students were told that a final version of the essay should be turned in by the next class period.

Journal writing a5 a data collection method. To investi- gate how subjects experience CALL writing instruction, and what they feel and think about it, students were asked

to write down their reactions to the instructional task in journals. Journal writing is arguably a type of retrospection, and restrospection is often used as a research tool, with informants instructed to report what they did, felt, or thought either immediately after or at a given time after the completion of a task.

It is obvious that the gap between the actual time of experiencing, feeling, or thinking during a given task and the time of reporting about it can greatly influence the validity and reliability of data gathered (Ericsson & Simon, 1980, 1993). A useful strategy to enhance the quality of retrospective data is to reduce the length of this gap. This study employed immediate retrospection by asking the subjects to write down their reactions immediately before the end of each class.

An immediate retrospective technique provides rich information, because it allows subjects to edit or analyze what they experienced during the instructional period (Cohen, 1996). Moreover, according to Faerch and Kasper (1987), in immediate retrospection, subjects retain traces of relevant information in their short-term memories, so the accuracy and reliability of the information obtained is likely to be higher than that produced by delayed retrospection (e.g., questionnaires or interviews).

In light of the advantages of the immediate retrospective technique, it was assumed that journal writing is an appropriate means of eliciting personal reactions or responses to learning activities or teaching events (Richards & Lockhart, 1994). In this study, journals were written in Korean and submitted on the last day of class for later analysis.

Data Analysis The first step in analyzing subjects written data was to translate it into English. To make sure that everything the subjects had written in their journals was included in the English transcript, an original, Korean version of the transcript was compared with the English version by an assistant researcher. Then, following coding procedures suggested by Lincoln and Guba (1985) and Merriam (1988), the English transcript was content-analyzed.

First, the transcript was unitized so that its content could be quantified. This procedure ylelded units of information, each taking the form of a sentence or a paragraph and revealing a comprehensible, whole meaning relevant to the study Second, the units of information were grouped according to similarity of ideas or concepts; thus, categories began to gradually reveal themselves. Third, individual categories were reviewed and compared to determine whether they overlapped or were linked to one another. Fourth, each category was given an appropriate name.

Finally, to attain intercoder reliability, an assistant researcher was instructed in how to conduct content analy-

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS * VOL. 35. N O . 6 673

sis. This second coder developed his own categories, which were compared with the categories developed by the researcher. On the whole, the two coders reached a rela- tively high degree of agreement. In cases of disagreement, a consensus was achieved by discussion.

Results Analysis of the data yielded four distinct categories that characterized Korean students experiences, feelings, or thoughts regarding CALL instruction in the EFL writing classroom: (1) the multimedia classroom as an environment that facilitates writing ( 2 ) CALL as an effective tool for learning writing, (3) advantages of the process approach to writing, and (4) undesirable aspects of writing instruction. Since the focus of the study was primarily on discovering students personal reactions to CALL instruction, student writing samples and writing fluency are not examined here.

The Multimedia Classroom as an Environment that Facilitates Writing It has been acknowledged that the learning environment plays a major role in the development of language. In particular, classroom environment or atmosphere in foreign language learning situations is an important factor influencing an individual learners motivation, anxiety, self-con- fidence, inhibition, and other affective states. As many researchers (e.g., Ellis, 1994; Lee, 1996) have suggested, for language learners to fully focus on a given learning task, they need a classroom environment or atmosphere in which they feel comfortable, secure, and stress-free.

In the same vein, through his innovative teaching method, Suggestopedia, Lozanov argues that learners must be mentally focused, but relaxed at the same time, for language learning to take place. He also strongly recommends that teachers provide an optimal learning environment reinforced by the decoration, furniture and the arrange- ment of the classroom, the use of music.. . (Richards & Rodgers, 1986, p. 142), to create and maintain such a men- tal state.

In this category, students mentioned the atmosphere of the multimedia room where the CALL classes were held; they considered it conducive to the learning of writing. One student said, I felt at ease when I entered a multimedia room because it was nicely decorated and organized, and was equipped with brand-new computers that I had wanted to use long before. Sitting on my chair, I was comfortable and cozy, and realized I was eager to study.

Several students remarked that the atmosphere of the multimedia room was friendly and comfortable, thus conducive to learning because it helped them concentrate on what they were doing.

The learning-conducive, friendly, comfortable atmos-

phere of the classroom appeared to reduce anxiety and increase students motivation to participate in the learning task. Here are some examples of their journal writings:

On the first day of class, I thought 1 had done the right thing to take this course. I got the impression that people in the class were nice and helpful, and had strong motivation for studymg. The classroom atmosphere cheered me up and encouraged me to positively take part in class activities.

The atmosphere of this class is to my liking. It is friendly, gives me peace of mind, and helps me a lot in many ways. So I feel inclined to work hard in the class. Everyone including me here in the class appears to be well-motivated.

I like studying in this room, but I dont know exactly why. I am able to understand and follow what is said during the class. I remember what I did in the class clearly Probably, for all this, I think its because the atmosphere of the room is collaborative and autonomous, and thus makes me feel at ease and comfortable. Accordingly, I can follow the instruc- tions well and work with my partner actively and energetically.

One student reported that she usually felt ill at ease when asked questions in other courses and was anxious about whether her answers were right or wrong. However, because of the friendly, encouraging atmosphere of the multimedia classroom, she did not feel anxiety, was more confident, and was more able to participate in class.

CALL as an Effective Too2 for Learning Writing As with other studies of CALL, the results in this category reveal that CALL played a facilitative role in the learning of writing. According to the students, CALL stimulated interest, allowed for easy and convenient gathering of information, and provided exposure to various types of English text. Several students noted that, in contrast to classroom lectures, their interest has been stimulated by the CALL- specific features of colorful images, animations, and moving images, as well as the overall attractive designs of Web sites. One student said:

I was fascinated by colorful images and graphics on sites, which kept me concentrated. So I could focus on what I was doing without tedium and fatigue. 11 think] those high-quality colorful images and pic- tures drew my attention, and helped increase my interest in this class.

Another student reported: My partner and I became interested in using the com-

674 N OVEMREWDECEMBER 2002

puter and navigating to gain information at our pleasure. In my opinion, this is because most sites we vis- ited are nicely designed, look good, and offer information in audio-visually convenient ways.

In contrast to the low-quality and monotonous black- board of a teacher-fronted class, CALL-specific features appeared to draw the attention of students, increase their interest, and promote effective learning (Ryu, 1998; Lee, 2000).

As stated earlier, one great advantage of CALL on the Internet is speedy, convenient access to information. Many students talked about the Internet; as a whole, many thought of it as a useful learning resource. Most students expressed surprise at the huge amount of information that was available at their fingertips. They said that the use of the Internet was helpful in learning English, particularly in reading and writing, and felt that the Internet should be used much more frequently in English class. One student expressed his excitement about navigating the Internet, remarking:

When we were in English class in high school, the teachers explanation of grammar and vocabulary and reading activities in a textbook were all the major things we could have. It [English class] made us become bored and distracted within ten minutes after the start of class. I remembered vividly when I hap- pened to visit a PC (Personal Computer) room in town with my friend. There, we discovered that another, completely new world was on the monitor, with numerous sites on information, games, and chatting. Since then, Ive enjoyed logging into the Internet whenever I have time. I hope that it can give me a lot of help, leading to success in my [English] learning.

Likeyise, other students mentioned the advantages of using the Internet to help them learn English. Here are a few examples:

If you want to improve [English] reading skill, I strongly suggest that you turn to a variety of English sites on numerous topics on the Internet. There, you can not only get all the information you need, but practice your reading comprehension skill. You can do it either on the spot or later by printing out a given text. Its just good for you.

To me, one great advantage of using the Internet is that it helps my composition a great deal. When writing my drafts in the class, I experience considerable difficulty finding appropriate structures and vocabulary expressing specific ideas. When this happens, it strikes me sometimes that a few English sites I visit-

ed before include texts using similar structures and vocabulary which I want to use. Then I immediately go back to those sites, and check them out to see if I can use the structures and words in them to express meaning in my draft. In this way, I can solve some problems.

On the other hand, some students talked about the difficulty of finding sites containing the information they were looking for and determining the most relevant site among many similar ones. One student said:

The Internet is easy to use, and is very convenient for getting information. But often I experience difficulty in searching for exactly what I want, feel frustrated, and even stop searching because there are so many similar sites out there, and because a considerable amount of time is needed to check out each of the sites. As a result, I dont know what to do with similar sites and which one to choose.

As some scholars (e.g., Busbee, 2001; Singhal, 1998) have pointed out, one of the drawbacks of the Internet is the vastness and randomness of available information. While browsing, Internet users are highly likely to be over- loaded with information and have difficulty determining what information is most relevant (Busbee, 2001). Hence being able to select the right information from the right place in a speedy manner on the Internet is a prerequisite for efficient learning during CALL-based instruction.

In addition, several students mentioned the value of electronic mail. One said:

I dont know how an e-mail system works. Anyway, its so mysteriously fast and convenient that I dont have to meet classmates to exchange drafts and feedback. It saves us a lot of time and money during our writing task, and is a wonderful medium all of US need to make the best use of in our studying.

Others saw e-mail as a communication tool capable of promoting their English writing skill. One student suggested:

I hope that we can communicate with each other in English by sending messages via e-mail on a regular basis. Since [I believe that] we are at differing levels of [English] proficiency, we can help each other learn more about how to make ourselves understood in writing.

Another merit of CALL instruction involves the constant exposure of students to various types of English text. According to some students, they had seldom read books, magazines, or newspapers written in English. They were

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS - VOL. 35, N O . 6 675

glad that the CALL writing class exposed them to various types of English text while they were surfing the Web for information. One student remarked that even though English texts on the Internet contained new words and somewhat long sentences, he tried to comprehend as much as he could because he believed that such experiences would increase his reading power.

Advantages of the Process Approach to Writing Unlike traditional methods, the approach used in this study stressed the process of writing. In this category, students reported that this approach had several features that helped them learn writing.

The first advantage involved topic selection. Compared with traditional classrooms where the writing topic is determined by the teacher, process writing classes allow students to write about whatever they want or decide a topic by voting. A student said:

This is my first time in this kind of class in which we can select a topic by ourselves. In high school, we were forced to write about a topic chosen unilateral- ly by the teacher. It was kind of unfair, and quite hard to write about something you are not familiar with, or never think about.

Another student added, Usually in writing classes in which I had to write about something that I didnt know much about, I felt frustrated and helpless, and didnt feel like writing at all. In this class, however, such is not the case. I have a freedom to compose what I want, so that I feel full of ideas and thoughts to put together, and above all, Im confident of what Im supposed to do in the class.

The second advantage students mentioned was the benefit of working in pairs. Students regarded partner work as helpful and useful for writing, especially when dis- cussing and working together to gain information and to write and revise drafts. Here are some examples:

Since this is the first time that I have taken a course in writing, I see that without working together with my partner, I would have much difficulty in this class. I guess two heads are definitely better than one. Partner work makes the composition much easier than I thought it would be, even though both of us cant express our meaning clearly in many cases.

I usually had a hard time getting started in writing because I didnt have any idea of what to include. But this class reduces this burden to a great extent. Through discussion and cooperation with a partner, I am guided in brainstorming about a topic, and am

able to overcome my bad experiences. I feel much better about writing.

I hated writing class in high school because it was I who had to take care of everything, i.e., getting started, finding errors, correcting them, and receiving poor scores. I didnt have any fun, and instead, lost interest in writing. However, in this class, getting together, my partner and I help each other, and make every effort to produce grammatically correct sentences and to connect one sentence [or paragraph] with another semantically and logically correct.

The third advantage of the process approach reported by the students was peer evaluation. Many subjects considered peer evaluation conducive to a positive attitude toward writing, making them feel more responsible for their own and peers work. One student said:

I dont like the way I was corrected in the past. A teacher was the only person I could turn to for feedback, and to make matters worse, I sometimes could- nt figure out what was said on a sheet of paper. In contrast, it has been a pleasure to be in this course, because I have several chances to learn where I am wrong, get feedback, and correct errors - not by myself alone, but with partners and others, including the teacher. I think my attitude toward writing in English has changed positively since I took this class.

Similarly, another student became interested in peer editing because during the editing session she could satis- fy her curiosity about what others wrote and how they developed their essays. However, one student expressed some discomfort with peer editing, commenting, Basically I agree with the idea of getting feedback from classmates since 1 can get criticism or advice about my essay. But it still makes me a little uncomfortable to have my essay read and criticized by others.

Another student described a sense of responsibility to perform peer editing well, saylng Since we have to read drafts from other pairs, I feel obliged and nervous. I have to read them very carefully, and jot down constructive, informative feedback to give to my fellows.

Still other subjects mentioned a two-way system of being corrected in the class, and talked about getting feedback on grammatical aspects of the essay:

I enjoy the way that we correct drafts [i.e., we focused on meaning first and grammar later]. Whenever I do a composition, I am busy searching for grammatical structures that I need to use to make sentences, and retrieving appropriate vocabulary, rather than making conveying ideas and thoughts and putting them together in logical, intelligent

676 NOVEMBEWDECEMRER 2002

ways. As a result, I often feel nervous and tired, and even give up the task in the long run. In contrast, this class is nice and suits me well because grammar is treated mostly by Web sites later, not by me.

Finding out grammatical errors is one of the difficult things for me in English composition. In many cases, though we were able to spot grammatical errors, we didnt know how to correct them because we were not confident about how a given grammar rule was used in a specific context, or we were confused with other grammar rules. For this reason, we wanted the professor to help us with grammatical errors, giving full explanations of the rules involved,

The last advantage mentioned by subjects involved the cyclic nature of process writing stages. A student com- mented:

From my experience, once I get started, I tend to go forward without looking back to produce a final version, whereas in this class I can move back and forth among stages of writing [i.e., prewriting, writing, sharing and revising], talk about a problem with a partner, and correct errors again and again whenever I want, or when I have difficulty.

Another student wrote: To me, English composition has been a difficult task. Approaching writing in this way [i.e., thinking about the topic, writing drafts, getting feedback from classmates, and revising accordingly] is new to me, and makes the composition an easy, simple task.

Undesirable Aspects of Writing Instruction Despite favorable comments and responses regarding CALL writing instruction, students also noted some limitations and disadvantages. Several students addressed problems with pair work, remarking:

I think pair work is problematic when a student of higher proficiency is paired with a partner of lower proficiency. In this case, a student of higher proficiency is highly likely to do most of the work including writing drafts by himselmerself while hidher partner with lower proficiency is engaged mostly in Web searching, or other simple, trivial things.

While working together with my partner, I have felt that pair work is not the best way to perform our task, because my partner and I seem to differ considerably from each other in the way we think and work. Most of the time, it was hard to reach an agreement as to what to do.

Other students expressed their hope for more assis- tance from the teacher during the task, or complained about the unavailability of various L2 writing software:

I wish that the teacher gave us more help and assis- tance during the class, so that we could work more efficiently, for instance, by understanding the English text as fully as possible and selecting appropriate websites relevant to our task. Also, before submitting the essay, I had hoped that 1 would be able to get feedback from the teacher.

I learned a lot in this course, and have developed an interest in writing in English, but I think we need to have a variety of software that we can refer to indi- vidually for the study of writing.

Still, others expressed concern over the difficulty of giving feedback to fellow students. One student wrote, I am not sure that I can do a good job in offering helpful, valuable feedback to classmates because I am worried that I might be wrong, or hurt them unwillingly. Likewise, another subject, who had a hard time following the teachers advice to concentrate on the meaning of sentences rather than on grammar during the feedback session, wrote:

When I read classmates drafts, I tend to pay attention to grammar unconsciously, and try to look for grammatical errors. I know it is not the right thing to do in this class, but it just happens. The reason for this is that I was taught English by focusing mainly on grammar, vocabulary, and reading comprehension. Its very hard to avoid this kind of behavior even though I work hard to.

Discussion Classroom Environment It was clear that the students considered the atmosphere of the multimedia room, where the instruction took place, to be an important factor in their success in learning English writing. The findings suggest that even small, trivial things influencing classroom circumstances might have a significant effect on learning. For instance, the novelty and availability of educational materials and tools, the amount of light, and the decoration and organization of the classroom can directly affect learning efficiency, by increasing or decreasing student motivation (Lee, 1996).

Moreover, classroom environment in an EFL context, where students rarely have the opportunity to get input in a natural setting, may play a more significant role in L2 learning than it does in the English as a Second Language (ESL) context. Hence careful consideration should be given to the environment classroom environment, to create a

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNAI,S * VOL. 35, N O . 6 677

comfortable, friendly, encouraging atmosphere that is conducive to conducting CALL-related programs.

Advantages and Disadvantages of CALL Writing Instruction Many students described the advantages of using the computer and the Internet to learn EFL writing. Most students had a positive attitude towards CALL on the Internet, stat- ing that it promoted their interests on both the instruction and learning sides. Thus there is good reason to believe that CALL assumed a facilitative role in teaching writing in an EFL context.

Despite these good points, it should be noted again that the mere use of CALL does not necessarily result in better learning. Besides the availability of well-designed software, an important factor that affects the efficacy and success of CALL is the teacher (Shin, 1999; Singhal, 1998). Teachers need to be sufficiently skilled in the use of computers and must be able to develop curriculum that reflects student needs and proficiency, and stimulates students interest at the same time.

One way for teachers to prepare themselves for teaching with CALL is to regularly take part in in-service teacher training programs, workshops, or conferences that involve this technology. At these meetings, teachers can obtain up- to-date information on the application of newly introduced CALL software and programs. Teachers who keep current with the field will be better able to design programs that reflect student needs and proclivities, and that are work- able for themselves as well (Lee, 2000).

A significant problem with CALL, mentioned by the students in this study involves the vastness of information on the Internet. Although a great strength of the Internet lies in the amount and variety of information it contains, this vast quantity of data is likely to burden many users, who struggle to extract what they actually need (Busbee, 2001). Students who are unfamiliar with searching the Internet, or who lack guidance, are more likely to run into this type of difficulty.

Another problem with the Internet, frequently addressed in literature, is related to the appropriateness of English texts to learners at various levels of proficiency (Busbee, 2001). Texts on most Web sites are written for native English speakers. They are not edited or adapted for nonnative speakers, particularly language learners at the beginning or low-intermediate proficiency levels. It is not surprising that learners at the low level of proficiency cannot fully understand the texts and become frustrated when visiting English language sites.

Although the Internet is a valuable source of authentic material that can play a central role in L2 learning, authen- ticity is just one of the many factors influencing L2 learning and use. One way for teachers to solve the above-men-

tioned problems is to select in advance several Web sites that are appropriate to a given task, taking into account the proficiency levels of the students.

Advantages of the Process Approach to Writing In general, the students enjoyed the process writing approach used in this study. In particular, they favored pair work and peer evaluation, and liked working on their essays in a cyclic manner, moving back and forth among writing stages. These features of the process approach con- tributed considerably to increasing students motivation and fostered better attitudes toward writing in English (Kastra, 1987).

One of the difficulties that Korean students had during peer editing involved giving feedback to their classmates. Students were concerned about providing meaningful and constructive feedback and felt that they were under pressure to do a good job when editing their peers drafts. Students were more accustomed to the grammar-oriented instruction that they received in middle and high school, and some of them found it difficult to focus on the meanings of the writings.

To make peer evaluation sessions more productive and less stressful, teachers should provide their students with worksheets or checklists to refer to during peer editing, and conduct a practice session in which students learn how to peer edit properly. This is exactly what many researchers (e.g., Allaei Q Connor, 1990; Leky, 1990; Stanley, 1996) suggest for productive peer evaluations. A practice session is likely to be useful for learners like EFL Korean students, who have received form-focused instruction in teacher- centered classes, and as a result may not work well in a cooperative learning context. When conducting practice sessions, teachers should be careful not to counterproduc- tively impose anxiety or stress on students.

Journal Writing us a Means of Gathering Data In this study, in light of the rich information gained, journal writing was found to be a useful tool for documenting learners personal reactions to classroom events and learning activities. The data produced by journal writing may be of a somewhat lower quality that that elicited by concur- rent verbal techniques such as think-aloud procedures; however, truthfulness, accuracy, and reliability of data were enhanced in this study because subjects were asked to write in their journals immediately prior to the dismissal of each class.

As mentioned earlier, immediate retrospection enables subjects to retrieve pertinent information still present in their short-term memories, and thus produces a higher quality of data than does delayed retrospection, whereby data are collected some time after the completion of the classroom activity (Ericsson & Simon, 1980, 1993).

678 NOVEMBEWDECEMBER 2002

Conclusion This study investigated the reactions of Korean EFL learners to computer-mediated writing instruction. Overall, the study showed that computer-based instruction can facilitate the learning of writing. This study supports the existing evidence that CALL serves a useful role in L2 learning (Choi, 1999; Cunningham, 2000; Lee, 2000; Neu & Scarcella, 1987).

As discussed earlier, doubts about CALL by some researchers linger on. One of the most unfavorable aspects of CALL is that it requires a constant investment of time, money, and effort by teachers and schools. For optimal learning to occur, teachers must select software that suits their students in terms of proficiency levels, interests, and learning styles. Ultimately, teachers could develop unique CALL-based instruction tailored to their specific require- ments, leading to greater gain for learners.

This study has several weaknesses. First, among many approaches to writing, the researcher used the process approach as the framework for instruction. The process approach may have influenced the way Korean subjects perceived or reacted to the CALL instruction. In other words, it is not clear whether the same results would be obtained if other approaches to writing (e.g., controlled-to- free approach, free-writing approach, or paragraph-pattern approach) were used to frame the computer-mediated instruction. Further research is needed to examine how learners react to CALL built on other approaches to writing. Such research could provide infomation about which writing approach is most effective in the context of CALL writing instruction. Second, it is not clear whether Korean students affective states (positive attitude towards writing; increased motivation and interest) resulted from the use of CALL or from the specific writing approach (process approach), or from a combination of both. Though it is likely that a combination of CALL with the process approach influenced the students affective states, it would be helpful to determine the relative contributions of these aspects. Such information would be useful not only in fully understanding Korean students behaviors related to CALL activities, but also in designing CALL programs that develop other language skills, such as listening, reading, and speaking.

Finally, due to the small number of subjects, all of whom had the same L1 background (Korean), the findings of the study cannot be generalized to other groups.

Despite these limitations, the study has some pedagog- ical implications for EFL writing classrooms. Most impor- tantly, because CALL writing instruction was shown to increase students motivation and interest in writing, EFL teachers are encouraged to use CALL in the teaching of writing - if they are prepared in terms of computer skills and knowledge of CALL technology.

In light of the students many favorable comments, the process approach to writing is highly likely to suit Korean students well. The process approach is expected to con- tribute much to the promotion of students writing fluency, since it allows students to discover the best way of expressing their meanings, increases reader awareness through collaborative work with peers, and ultimately positions writing as a tool of communication (Carter, Bishop, & Kravits, 1998; Rooks, 1999). The finding that subjects had difficulty in obtaining pertinent information on the Internet implies that certain reading skills such as skimming and scanning would be of benefit to them. This in turn indi- cates the need for the incorporation of reading strategy training into CALL instruction (Singhal, 1998). Through strategy training sessions, teachers could enable students to read through a text more quickly and accurately, and help them to more readily obtain desired materials from the sea of information on the Internet.

References Allaei, S., Q Connor, U. (1990). Exploring the dynamics of cross-cultural collaboration. The Writing Instructol: 10, 19-28. Belisle, R. (1996). E-mail activities in the ESL writing class [online]. The Internet TESL journal, 2, 12. Available: http:// www.aitech.ac.jp/ iteslj/articles/belisle-email.htm1. Busbee, E. (2001). The computer and the Internet: Are they really destined to play a major role in English Teaching? English Teaching, 56, 1, 201-225. Carter, C., Bishop, J., Q Kravits, S. (1998). Keys to effective learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Chen, J. F: (1996). CALL is not a hammer and not every teaching problem is a nail [online]. The Internet TESL Journal. Available: http:// www.aitech.ac.jp/ iteslj/articles/chen-call. html. Chen, J. E (1997). Computer generated error feedback and writing process: A link [online]. TESL-EJ, 2,3. Available: http:// www.writing. berkeley.edu/tesl-ej/ej07/al .html. Cho, D. W. (2001). A study on a web-based English composition class. English Teaching, 56, 2, 287-307. Choi, S. Y. (1999). Teaching writing of English in high school. Unpublished manuscript. Cohen, A. (1996). Verbal reports as a source of insights into second language learner strategies. Applied Language Learning,

Cononelos, T., & Oliva, M. (1993). Using computer networks to enhance foreign languagekulture education. Foreign Language Annals, 26(4), 527-34. Cunningham, K. (2000). Integrating CALL into the writing cumculum [online]. The Internet TESLjournal, 4, 5. Available: http://www.aitech.ac.jp/- teslj/articles/cunningham-allwriting. Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with powet: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition.

7, 5-24.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS * VOL. 3 5 , N O . 6 679

Oxford University Press. Ericsson, K., & Simon, H. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215-51. Ericsson, K., & Simon, H. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1987). From product to process: Introspective methods in second language research. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Introspection in second language research (pp. 5-23). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Gonglewski, M., Meloni, C., & Brant, J. (2001). Using E-mail in foreign language teaching: Rationale and suggestions exchange [online]. The Internet TESL Journal, 7, 3. Available: http://iteslj.org/tech-niquedmeloni-email. html. Han, J. I. (1998). The effects of learning strategy instruction on the performance of CALL tasks. English Teaching, 53(4), 155- 73. Ho, M. L. (2000). Developing intercultural awareness and writing skills through email exchange [online]. The Internet TESL Journal, 6, 12. Available: http://iteslj.org/articles/ho- email.htm1.

Jung, Y. (1999). How to use Internet resources for EFL Teaching. English Teaching, 54(3), 213-38. Kasper, G. (1997). The role of pragmatics in language teacher education. In K. Bardovi-Harlig & B. Hartford (Eds.), Beyond methods: Components of second language teacher education (pp. 113-136). New York: McGraw-Hill. Kastra, J. (1987). Effects of evaluation on attitude towards writing fluency of ninth graders. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 168-72. Kim, Y. S. (2000). Experimental study on ESL learning with technology English Teaching, 55(4), 315-43. Kim. D. B. (2001). Web-based education for Dractical business

ELT: A teacher's guide. Oxford: Blackwell. Merriam, S. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualita- tive approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ministry of Education and Human Resources (2002). About the 7th national curriculum for education [online]. Available: http://www.moe.go. kr.

Mitchell, R., & Myles, E (1998). Second language learning the- ories. London: Arnold. Neu, J., & Scarcella, R. (1987). Word processing in the ESL writing classroom: A survey of student attitude. In P Dunkel (Ed.), Computer-assisted language learning and testing; Research issues and practice (pp. 169-83). New York: Harper Collins. Omaggio-Hadley, A. (2001). Teaching language in context, 3rd ed. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Pennington, M. (1991). An assessment of the use and effectiveness of computer-based text analysis of non proficient writers [Research Report No. 41. City University of Hong Kong, Department of English.

Raimes, A (1983). Techniques in teaching writing. Oxford University Press.

Richards, J., & Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. Cambridge University Press. Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching: A description and analysis. Cambridge University Press. Rooks, G. (1999). Share your paragraph: An interactive approach to writing. Prentice Hall Regents. Ryu, S. H. (1998). Language teaching through multimedia. In K. Park (Ed.), Introduction to English education (pp. 483-5091, Seoul: Hankook Publisher. Shin, H. J. (1999). English education through the Internet. The Journal of Teaching English Literature, 3, 273-93. Shrum, J., & Glisan, E. (2000). Teacherk handbook: Contextualized language instruction, 2nd ed. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Singhal, M. (1998). The Internet and foreign language education: Making the most of the information superhighway Language Education, 26(2), 125-39. Stanley, J. (1996). Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. In B. Leeds (Ed.), Writing in a second language: Insightsfromfirst and second language teaching and research (pp. 81-94). Longman. Van Aacken, S. (1996). The efficacy of CALL in Kanji learning [online]. On-CALL, 10, 2. Available: http://www.cltr.uq.oz/ oncalVaacken 102.html.

English. Korean journal of English Languag'e and Linguistics, 1(2), 227-42. Lee, K. W. (2000). English teachers' barriers to the use of computer-assisted language learning [online]. The Internet TESL Journal, 6, 12. Available: http://iteslj.org/articles/lee-callbarri- ers.htm1. Lee, S. Y. (2000). Teaching writing using a bulletin board on the 1nternet:'A preliminary study English Teaching, 55(3), 171- 91. Lee, W. K. (1996). English education in elementary school. Seoul: Moonjinmedia. Leky, I. (1990). Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classes. CATESOLJournal, 3, 5-17. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. McDonough, J., & Shaw, C. (1993). Materials and methods in

Documents

Suh, J. S. Effectiveness of CALL Writing Instruction_The Voices of Korean EFL Learners