Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ncal20

Download by: [Curtin University Library] Date: 06 September 2016, At: 19:13

Computer Assisted Language Learning

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

The effects of authentic audience on English asa second language (ESL) writers: a task-based,computer-mediated approach

Julian ChengChiang Chen & Kimberly Lynn Brown

To cite this article: Julian ChengChiang Chen & Kimberly Lynn Brown (2012) The effectsof authentic audience on English as a second language (ESL) writers: a task-based,computer-mediated approach, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25:5, 435-454, DOI:10.1080/09588221.2011.606224

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.606224

Published online: 14 Sep 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2060

View related articles

Citing articles: 10 View citing articles

The effects of authentic audience on English as a second language (ESL)

writers: a task-based, computer-mediated approach

Julian ChengChiang Chena* and Kimberly Lynn Brownb

aCurriculum and Instruction, University of Maryland, USA; bMaryland English Institute,University of Maryland, USA

The majority of writing tasks assigned to second language (L2) learners tend totarget an abstract audience and the writing generated is not meant for real ormeaningful purposes. The emergence of Web 2.0 concepts has created a potentialeducational environment where students have access to a widely distributed,authentic audience with a simple click of the mouse. This study examines theimpact that targeting an authentic audience within a task-based, computer-mediated environment may have on L2 learner motivation toward English as asecond language (ESL) writing. Student perceptions on progress in writing and onmotivation to improve their writing were assessed through a semi-structuredinterview, triangulated with student web-based project work and participantobservation. Analysis of interview data reveals that students were motivated tofocus on sentence complexity and variety and engaged in the autonomouslearning of vocabulary in an effort to communicate information they perceived tobe important. The qualitative results also indicate that the participants’ awarenessof audience and sense of ownership were raised through engagement in this task-based, computer-mediated approach.

Keywords: task-based language teaching; computer-mediated communication;ESL writing; authentic audience; learner motivation

1. Introduction

1.1. Statement of general issues

Drawing from participant observation as both English as a second language (ESL)and English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers and from communication withprevious and current students, we have found that students often feel as though theEnglish language courses they have taken in the past have failed to prepare them touse English in real-life settings. Even in the ESL context, students expressed that theready-made, textbook-based curricula to which they have been exposed in the pastfall short of engaging them, and fail to accommodate the diverse purposes for whichthey are learning English. These observations and comments raised the followingconcerns: How can ESL instructors (1) design authentic tasks in ways that alignEnglish language learning with students’ interests and learning styles, and (2)

*Corresponding author. Email: jucchen@umd.edu

Computer Assisted Language Learning

Vol. 25, No. 5, December 2012, 435–454

ISSN 0958-8221 print/ISSN 1744-3210 online

� 2012 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.606224

http://www.tandfonline.com

capitalize on this technological repertoire since many students today are so-called‘‘digital natives’’ (Prensky, 2001), who are comfortable using different modes ofdigital technologies on a daily basis (Carlson, 2005; Dede, 2005).

The concerns raised above are echoed by task-based language teaching (TBLT)research in that many ESL classes are still quite scripted and do not contain thecompletion of tasks for authentic purposes (Skehan, 1998a, cited in Ellis, 2000).Despite the fact that computer-mediated communication (CMC) has the potential toengage second language learners and promote second language acquisition(Chapelle, 2005; Warschauer, 1997; Warschauer, Turbee, & Roberts, 1996), studiesfocused on investigating the effects that integrating authentic audience for real-lifetask-based purposes in a CMC-infused curriculum, have on L2 writers’ motivationand perceptions on ESL writing are still lacking. Even though research in L2 writinghas shown that L2 writers who develop an awareness of audience can improve theirwriting and become more confident in their writing abilities (Choi, 2008), theaudience is usually the instructor and students’ peers, and the purpose is commonlydictated by the teacher in an academic ESL setting. Consequently, students’ writingis frequently shaped by a narrow range of audiences and purposes (Strange, 1988).Since research in the field of second language writing usually operationalizes theconstruct of ‘‘authentic audience’’ through feedback provided by ‘‘peers’’ (Rollinson,2005; Tsui & Ng, 2000) or ‘‘teacher’’ (Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994) or ‘‘both’’(Paulus, 1999), studies using native English speakers outside the class walls asauthentic audience for meaningful real-life tasks are still less explored – let alone in aCMC environment. Some CMC studies, on the other hand, have utilized email as aCMC tool to examine L2 learners’ writing after feedback provided (Hackett, 1996;Hoffman, 1994; Kupelian, 2001), but the audience again is only limited to peers(Leppanen & Kalaja, 1995; Shang, 2007) or teachers (Gonzalez-Bueno & Perez,2000; Wang, 1998). Although other CMC studies use authentic audience outside theclassroom through different cross-cultural projects (Hellebrandt, 1999; Ho, 2000;Rooks, 2008), their foci are aimed not so much at L2 writing per se as atcommunicative competence and cross-cultural awareness.

1.2. Purpose of the study

Motivated by the issues addressed above from both pedagogical and theoreticalperspectives, we conducted an action research/case study to further examine theimpact that the presence of an authentic audience in the purposeful completion oftasks may have on student writing in a CMC environment, with the ultimate goal ofempowering and motivating students and generating findings that will aide ESLteachers in creating higher-quality task-based CMC lessons. Hence, the purpose ofthis research study is to explore the effect of task-based writing instruction targetingan authentic audience in a CMC environment on six ESL adult learners’ perceptionsabout their English writing skills and motivation to work to improve their Englishwriting skills.

2. Literature review

2.1. Task-based language teaching (TBLT)

In the area of instructed second language acquisition (SLA), research has shown thatTBLT has the potential to bolster students’ linguistic and communicative

436 J.C. Chen and K.L. Brown

competence through collaboratively working with peers on authentic problem-solving tasks and negotiating meaning in the course of interaction (Ellis, 2000, 2005;Willis, 1996). Willis (1996) defines tasks as ‘‘activities where the target language isused by the learner for a communicative purpose (goal) in order to achieve anoutcome’’ (p. 23). When tasks are adopted for pedagogical purposes in languageclassrooms, the language teacher’s job is to ‘‘select topics and tasks that will motivatelearners, engage their motivation, present a suitable degree of intellectual andlinguistic challenge and promote their language development as efficiently aspossible’’ (ibid.). As such, Skehan (1998a, in Ellis, 2000, p. 195) suggested that taskdesign should meet the criteria that (1) meaning is primary; (2) there is a goal whichneeds to be worked towards; (3) the activity is outcome-evaluated, and (4) there is areal-world relationship.

2.2. TBLT in CMC environments

In this new information technology era, language learning has been channeledinto an innovative computer networking avenue, and many language teachershave witnessed the potential of computer-assisted language learning as anenhancement to second/foreign language acquisition (Son, 2007). The use ofcomputer as a medium of communication (CMC) on the Internet, for instance,can operationalize interactionist concepts in L2 teaching and learning due to itsability to provide learning opportunities in interactive environments which fosterlanguage learners’ communicative competence as well as cross-cultural andmetalinguistic awareness through interaction with peers or native speakers of thetarget language (de la Fuente, 2003; Peterson, 2006; Skehan, 2003). Additionally,CMC empowers student language learning, encourages a sense of autonomy, anddevelops learning skills as well as equality in participation (Backer, 2001; Cheon,2003; Gonzalez, 2003; Schwienhorst, 2003). Warschauer et al. (1996), forexample, suggest that task-based approach is the ideal method to fostercooperative learning, sense of engagement and accomplishment in electroniccommunication. Jarvis (2005) also argues that traditional product-oriented syllabithat focus on what is to be learned should shift toward a more process-oriented,task-based teaching pedagogy that emphasizes experiential learning. Doughty andLong (2003) concur by illustrating how task-based CMC can be beneficial forlearning:

TBLT is an example of learning by doing, and of integral education, at several levels. Itaims to equip learners to meet their present or future real-world communicativeneeds. . .Computer simulations of target environments and tasks constitute a goodexample of the promotion of learning by doing. (p. 58).

Nevertheless, the question regarding whether or not the integration ofTBLT in different CMC settings can genuinely suit the real needs of languagelearners, particularly ESL beginners, requires closer scrutiny across studies thathave been done in this vein. In particular, it is worth examining the impactthat task-based CMC targeting an authentic audience has on learnerperceptions about their writing progress and motivation to improve theirwriting quality after interacting with their audience, to which we will now shiftour lens.

Computer Assisted Language Learning 437

3. Motivation

3.1. Motivation framework

What motivates students to learn is likely as varied as the different types of learnersthat exist. Regardless, clearly understanding relevant theories of motivation iscritical to applying any sort of methodology in the classroom. While studiesexplicitly linking motivation and authentic audience within a task-based, CMCenvironment are limited, research has shown that effective use of computertechnology in the classroom can lead to increased student motivation (Warschauer,1996). However, much of this research has been focused on computer assistedinstruction in general and has not yet ventured toward an exploration of motivationand its relationship to computer technology use in SLA, which involves social,psychological, and cognitive phenomena differing significantly from other types oflearning (Alm, 2006; Warschauer, 1996).

The emergence of Web 2.0 concepts has catalyzed a shift in the Internet’spurpose from an informative tool to a means for interaction within a user-generated community. These tools warrant new explorations into how computertechnology can serve as a motivator to learn (Warschauer & Grimes, 2007).When considering motivation in relation to task completion, findings suggest thatthe variables involved in task performance are complex and constructedhierarchically, which demonstrates the need for a motivational theory that canaccommodate for this complexity (Dornyei, 2002). Consequently, the examinationof motivation to write, and the impact that this motivation may have on writingquality in second language learners, as related to a task-based, computer-mediated approach, is framed primarily by self-determination theory (Deci &Ryan, 2000), and a synthesis of motivation theories that contribute to a L2 self-perspective (Dornyei, 2005).

3.1.1. Motivation generated by computer use

Warschauer (1996) claimed that students have positive opinions regarding the use ofcomputer technology in a L2 classroom. However, the motivating factors identified,which likely contributed to the articulation of these opinions, extend beyond thescope of either instrumental or integrative motivation (Gardner, 1985). For instance,students were motivated by a desire to develop their own ideas, to become a part of acommunity, and to learn from internationally distributed students, as well as theirimmediate peers and their teacher. Additional factors outside the normal realm ofinstrumental or integrative distinctions involved motivation generated by a desire forempowerment and learner autonomy.

In addition to expanding the scope of motivation types, the potential thatcomputer technology has to motivate students can be examined using a self-determination theory perspective. According to Deci and Ryan (2000), humanmotivation is related to needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness aswell as natural tendencies to learn. A learner feels competent in a situationwhere there is a perceived effectiveness regarding interactions with the socialenvironment and, as a result, may engage in greater academic challenges. Learnerautonomy is achieved when student actions are based on individual interests anddesire to accomplish goals, and when the student is the perceived origin of aparticular behavior. Relatedness refers to one’s feeling of inclusive membershipwithin a larger community, and because computer technology has dramatically

438 J.C. Chen and K.L. Brown

altered the definitions of community, examining relatedness as a motivationalelement is rather fascinating in that it exposes a significant way inwhich computer technology can in fact be used as a catalyst to motivation(Alm, 2006).

3.1.2. Motivation generated by TBLT

Gardner’s (1985) approach to examining motivation, which introduced the conceptof integrativeness and affective disposition to the target languaculture, emphasized amacro-perspective, socio-cultural dimension to motivation, and has given research-ers and educators a valuable tool in looking at a wide range of motivational patternswithin entire learning communities. A more micro-level, or situated approach maybe best suited for examining motivation in a particular instructional context.Looking at course-specific motivational components, such as task motivation, mayallow researchers and educators to gain greater insight into student motivationbecause tasks comprise basic building blocks of classroom learning and are thereforecritical in impacting students’ enthusiasm and interest (Dornyei, 2003). Furthermore,research suggests that task completion involves motivational processing where taskmotivation is co-constructed by the task participants (Dornyei, 2002) andcorrelations have been made between meaningful input as provided via task-basedinstruction and increased motivation (Tamponi, 2004). In order for educators tocreate motivating tasks, characterized by a process oriented design approach inwhich students are engaged as a result of situation-specific factors such as the degreeof difficulty associated with a task (Dornyei, 2002), additional research regardingstudent motivation as generated by a task-based approach to language teaching isneeded.

3.1.3. Motivation generated by authentic audience

Researchers have examined blogs to gain an understanding of how Web 2.0platforms have influenced the concept of audience, and how this audience mayimpact the writing presented via these platforms. For example, Bloch (2007), in hisstudy of blogging in an academic ESL context, determined that not only did writingquality improve, but that students became contributors to the knowledge on theInternet rather than merely consumers of information. Similarly, Oladi (2005)discovered that blogging gave her students a ‘‘voice’’ (p. 147). It is this voice – theviewing of students as contributors (or experts if you will), and the motivationgenerated by assuming this role – that drives this study. Ultimately, newtechnologies, which in turn lead educators toward new methodological approaches,require fresh analyses. The analysis of motivation in a CMC environment is noexception. Dornyei’s (2005) synthesis approach, a Motivational Self-System, is usefulin examining the varied types of motivation that exist within the L2 learner in that itmoves motivational theory toward greater process orientation and proposes a broadconstruct of L2 motivation comprised of three dimensions: (1) the ideal L2 self,which involves motivation generated through a desire to reduce discrepancy betweenone’s real and ideal self; (2) the ought-to L2 self, which refers to attributes onebelieves one should possess; and (3) the L2 learning experience, which is concernedwith specifics of the learning situation and how this situation may contribute tostudent motivation.

Computer Assisted Language Learning 439

The motivational theories explored in the previous sections provide a usefulframework through which we may examine what drives students to learn. In order togain insight into second language learner motivation as it relates to engagement inthe completion of computer mediated writing tasks in the presence of an authenticaudience, it is necessary to expand the scope of motivational theory used in theanalysis. That is, tasks designed in a CMC environment have potential to inspire newgenres of motivation within learners and consequently, contribute to a newlyconceptualized view of motivational theory.

4. Research questions

Two major research questions are raised: (1) what are L2 students’ perceptions aboutthe task-based instruction, targeting an authentic audience in a CMC environment?(2) does the authentic task-based CMC instruction facilitate or debilitate theirmotivation toward ESL writing?

5. Methods

5.1. Research design

In order to capture students’ attitudes and perceptions about the authentic task-based approach, and to examine how their perceived attitudes toward task-basedCMC influenced their writing development, a qualitative approach through semi-structured interviews was employed. The rationale for using a semi-structuredinterview as a research protocol to better address our research questionsqualitatively is that ‘‘[i]nterviews can allow researchers to investigate phenomenathat are not directly observable, such as learners’ self-reported perceptions orattitudes’’ (Mackey & Gass, 2005, p. 173). In order to gain insight into students’motivation to write in the presence of an authentic audience in a task-based, CMCapproach, participants were invited to participate in a 30-minute interview sessionwhere they were given the opportunity to elaborate on their learning experiencesabout this approach. Also, a semi-structured format was employed to gather thedata in that we could use the planned questions as guidance but had the flexibility toask open-ended and spontaneous questions to further ‘‘probe for more information’’(ibid.). In addition to the semi-structured interview, students’ web-based projectwork and teacher observation notes were gathered to triangulate with the interviewdata.

5.2. Participants and setting

The study involved six adult English language learners enrolled in an intensiveEnglish language program at a research-oriented university on the east coast.Students ranged in age from 18 to 33 and were learning English for academic andprofessional reasons. Four of the six students were either admitted or applying toAmerican universities and two were attempting to improve their English languageskills in order to engage more competently in international business conducted inEnglish. All students were placed into a high beginning-level, reading, writing, andgrammar course that incorporated task-based language teaching techniques withinthe writing instruction. Table 1 summarizes the demographic information of the sixparticipants.

440 J.C. Chen and K.L. Brown

Table

1.

Backgroundinform

ationoftheparticipant.1

Heesung

Rosa

Pabo

Secil

Dinh

Amir

Age

Early20s

Late

20s

Late

teens

Early30s

Early20s

Early20s

Homecountry

South

Korea

Ivory

Coast

Spain

Turkey

Vietnam

SaudiArabia

Native

language

Korean

French

Spanish

Turkish

Vietnamese

Arabic

Educational

background

CollegeSenior

Urban

Planning

HighSchool

Ph.D

.Economics

Bachelor

Journalism

Bachelor

Inform

ation

Technology

Bachelor

RealEstate

Development

First

exposure

toEnglish

Secondary

school

Secondary

school

Secondary

school

Secondary

school

Secondary

school

Secondary

school

Years

inESL

classes

1Sem

ester

1Sem

ester

2Sem

esters

(not

consecutive)

1Sem

ester

1Sem

ester

1Sem

ester

Note:1Allparticipants’names

are

pseudonymsin

order

toprotect

theirconfidentiality.

Computer Assisted Language Learning 441

Participants were assigned to complete three authentic tasks for real andmeaningful purposes, which involved creating informative websites for variousaudiences. Their sites were all created using CMC tools and stored in personalWikispaces, required as part of the course assignments by their instructor, who isalso one of the researchers in this study.

5.3. Tasks

During the 16-week study, students were familiarized with using Internet tools,specifically, Wikispaces, and Weebly1 and asked to complete three writing tasks thattargeted a specific, authentic audience. The task content was chosen in order toestablish an environment where the student writing would be potentially useful forthe audience, in essence, putting the second language learner in the role of the expert.Feedback on the writing provided by the audience was focused on communicativeeffect and usefulness rather than on syntactic elements. Additionally, all writing wasdelivered to the audience via one of the collaborative platforms with which thestudents were familiar. The three task descriptions2 are as follows:

(1) Travel websites: Students were asked to collaborate with a classmate andcreate a travel website. The audience members for this task were otherinternational students and program faculty and the content of the site andwriting was to be tailored to fit their interests in that the destination writtenabout was to be a place where these students and faculty may like to travelsomeday. Students and faculty audience members were asked to vote on thequality of the websites using the assignment description as a guide.

(2) State department websites: Students were asked to research the role of StateDepartment English Language Officers and create an informative websiteabout their own countries that would be useful for a business traveler goingabroad to train English teachers. The content of the site was determined bythe students through analysis of their research and through class discussionregarding what type of information would be most useful for the targetedaudience. Two State Department employees viewed their sites and providedthe students with feedback on the usefulness of the sites.

(3) Culture gap websites: Students were asked to create a needs analysis surveyusing an online program and administer it to a group of American students oncampus participating in a program called ‘‘Global Communities.’’ Part of thesestudents’ curriculum involved bridging their own culture gaps. Consequently,the goal for the students was to discover through their needs analysis what theAmerican students needed to know about the various cultures represented inthe class and to create an informative site using the platform of their choice thatwould address this determined, ‘‘gap.’’ Because this task also involved writingabout the native culture, the emphasis was prominently on audience awarenessand how the writing and content, even within the same general topic, can betailored to fit the audience needs and interests.

5.3.1. Data analysis

Qualitative data were generated through the semi-structured interview (see Appendixfor the interview questions), corroborated by participant observation notes and

442 J.C. Chen and K.L. Brown

students’ web-based project work. Both researchers transcribed the interview dataand employed the open-and-axial coding approach from the grounded theory(Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Initially, the transcriptions were frequently perused byeach researcher in order to identify emerging thematic patterns and create anopen-coding scheme to categorize the coded data independently. The initialcodings were then revisited to determine if the identified patterns pointed to thesame theme. An axial-coding scheme, after using the teacher researcher’sobservation notes to verify the coded patterns, was created to expand the existingthematic categories. In addition to the researcher’s observation notes, students’created websites in each task-based project work were also documented to furtheridentify how students modified their writing drafts before publishing them ontheir sites after receiving feedback from different authentic audiences throughouttask completion. To ensure reliability of the data analysis, coded data wereconstantly compared and contrasted by the two researchers and discrepancieswere discussed so that consensus was reached.

6. Findings

After a systematic analysis of interview data with thorough examination andcomparisons of transcripts, triangulated with teacher researcher’s observation notesand students’ web-based project work, four major thematic categories wereidentified:

(1) Perceptions about the technology use in the CMC environment(2) Perceptions about the task-based instruction(3) The impact of authentic audience on the writing quality(4) The link between motivation and writing

The first three themes were gleaned from the interview data that addressed thefirst research question of this study, regarding the participants’ perceived attitudestoward the task-based, CMC approach and their thoughts about how authenticaudience embedded in this approach affected their writing quality. The last themeemerged from axial coding of interview data related to the second question, whichunearthed the underlying motivation held by each participant. Also, sub-themescentering on each thematic category are presented in the following tables andfigures to further exemplify the nuanced patterns emerging from each maintheme. A model that illustrates the interrelationship between and across the fourmajor themes is presented in section 6.1.

Table 2. Students’ perceptions about the CMC approach.

Positive perceptions Negative perceptions

CMC as a sharing and stimulatingenvironment

Concerns regarding the relevance of tasksto learning goals

Building self-esteem as a digital technologyexpert

Tasks that are overused andtime-consuming

Computer Assisted Language Learning 443

Research question 1: What are students’ perceptions about the task-based instruction,targeting an authentic audience in a CMC environment?

Since the participants’ project work required them to use technology to completeeach task in the CMC environment, their perceptions about the CMC approach wereimportant and revealed through the analysis of the interview data and categorized inTable 2.

The participants’ perceptions about the use of CMC in the classroom werelargely positive and they indicated that the CMC environment created through theuse of technology was interesting and stimulating. Students enjoyed learning how touse various collaborative platforms in class and used these platforms to share theirwork with families and friends at home. As Rosa said,

Yes I think it’s [technology] good because we learn many computer like analyze things. Ilike that. Like I like we post our work online, and my family can see all my work. I thinkit’s a good thing. My family is very happy with that. They can see my evolution.

Students progressed from being initially intimidated by the approach, to feelingcomfortable using digital technology to complete their task. Technology providedthem a way to assume the role of an expert. For instance, they took pride in the factthat they were able to use multimedia to complement their writing to ‘‘impress’’ theiraudience and furthermore, they viewed their writing as interesting and useful to theaudience. As Amir illustrated,

I use more multimedia and I spend a little bit more time. They [Americans] like itbecause I put some videos, songs [about] Arabic clubs. Maybe they don’t know about itso they find it interesting.

Even though all students found the use of technology in the class to bestimulating, Pablo commented that he did not see the link between the use oftechnology and learning English. This student had very specific goals in that he hadbeen conditionally accepted to an MBA program and needed to pass TOEFL inorder to be accepted. In his case, the use of technology appeared to be a luxury thathe could not afford rather than a valid language learning tool. In addition, Secil alsoexpressed the idea that although computer technology was useful in reaching widelydistributed audiences, the technology may have been overused. She went on to saythat it appeared that students were devoting too much time and effort to websitedesign, and not enough to learning English, ‘‘Sometimes online task [are] very much,too much, because sometimes I feel about my classmates also thinking about notwriting skills, thinking about [only] prepare website’’. Her comment about the factthat the CMC approach was time-consuming was also echoed by another participantin the interview.

Table 3. Students’ perceptions about the task-based approach.

Positive perceptions Negative perceptions

Authentic tasks: useful and motivating Insufficient focus on formsTask completion: challenging, but rewarding

444 J.C. Chen and K.L. Brown

Given the fact that this study was grounded in TBLT, it is also crucial tounderstand how the participants perceived the role task-based instruction played intheir writing development. Perceptions regarding TBLT are categorized in Table 3.

The participants’ attitudes toward the task-based approach were mostly positive,and task design was an important factor in forming their perceptions. Becausestudents felt as though the audience, as well as the topics, were important, theybegan to view their writing as something useful for others. As Amir commented,

I feel that I want to be more professional in writing; I like it. Maybe in the beginning Iam not interested in writing because I don’t know what to write before. But, now it’sdifferent.

Usually, second language learners are placed in the novice role and their use ofEnglish is viewed merely as practice. Because the tasks in which these studentsengaged put them in an expert role, relaying information about which they weretruly knowledgeable, they felt as though they were more professional in their writing.Additionally, the authenticity of the tasks increased student interest in writingbecause the audience abstraction associated with more traditional assignments wasremoved. They were able to see their work as purposeful and began developingmeaningful identities as writers in the target language.

Despite the overall positive attitudes toward TBLT, the idea that the tasks didn’tfocus sufficiently on forms was expressed. Since some students believed thatgrammar should be a major element in English learning and teaching, the principleof focus on form, not forms (Doughty & Long, 2003), was not congruent with theirassumptions and was consequently viewed as deficient in addressing grammaticalaccuracy. Although the instructor drew their attention to forms when grammaticalerrors were present, and encouraged them to use/practice in their writing thesentence and grammatical structures they learned in class, concerns remainedamongst some of the participants that there was not enough explicit grammarinstruction.

Because authentic audience was a key element infused into this approach,students’ perceptions about whether writing for an authentic audience influencedwriting quality justified exploration. Figure 1 shows a visual representation of theemerging thematic patterns centering on this issue.

Even though the targeting of an authentic audience was the major focus of thetask design, the comments made by students about their interaction with theaudience warrant the separate treatment of authentic audience as a concept. Studentsgenerally expressed positive feelings regarding working in the presence of anauthentic audience. The audience made the process more personal in that the

Figure 1. The impact of authentic audience on perceptions of writing quality.

Computer Assisted Language Learning 445

students were well aware of the specific interests and needs of their audience, whichin turn fostered their sense of ownership as a writer. For example, when asked howhe felt about writing for a real audience, Dinh voiced that, ‘‘Oh, ya. . .because when Iwrite, I must know who will read, and, what English ideas (I should provide) for thereaders’’. In addition, most participants acknowledged that they were more aware oftheir own potential for errors and that they felt a sense of obligation to communicateinformation accurately and clearly to the audience. For instance, Rosa stated, ‘‘Ithink in the beginning I was very nervous because I don’t know if my writing will begood. But ultimately I think to write was better because I wanted to show a goodwriting’’. Rather than serving as a stumbling block, their concerns about theaudience viewing their writing became a stepping stone that afforded them theopportunity to carefully choose appropriate words or phrases to express their ideasand deliberately use sophisticated structures in order to avoid ‘‘losing face’’, as Amirhighlighted,

Ya, you know because you write for Americans, they know how to read; they know howto write, so I have to do my best. So I have to be more careful when I write. Sometimes Ifeel how it looks like if they. . .hmm, you don’t want them laugh about you.

Students in general expressed some surprise about the feedback given by theaudience because it did not resemble the types of feedback they had received inthe past. Because the audience members were instructed to comment on theusefulness and communicative effect of the sites, rather than on lexical orsyntactic elements, the feedback was perceived to be more authentic by thestudents. Additionally, because the students were placed in the expert role, theywere subject to more blunt and direct comments than what they had expected asshown in Table 4.

The feedback given in this case was particularly blunt, due toaudience personality and spontaneity, but gives some insight into the way inwhich the audience viewed the students. Regardless of students’ surprise,the comments they received caused them to feel as though they were equals inthe dialogue and that they were being treated the same as any other speaker ofEnglish. Although negative feedback has been shown to be a detriment tointrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000), the tasks were presented to thestudents in such a way that they were aware that they were truly ‘‘out there’’ inthe real world, and therefore vulnerable to a real critique. It appears that theauthenticity of the tasks diminished the potential negative impacts of criticalfeedback.

Table 4. Example of negative feedback given to a student’s initial writing.

Student writing Audience feedback

Spain has quite a portfolio of cheese, somemade from raw and other from pasteurizedmilk, such as lightweight and smoothtasting Cebreiro, Manzano, Cigarral andTetilla. This cheese is wide varied andexciting.

‘‘Portfolio’’ of cheeses was mixingmetaphors. Using the word portfolio madethe cheeses unappealing. YUCK.

446 J.C. Chen and K.L. Brown

Throughout their involvement in the task-based, CMC approach targetingauthentic audience for the whole semester, the participants not only sensed that theirwriting had changed, but also took pride in their progress. As Rosa reflected on herwriting journey,

I see many changes. . .now I think. . .I’m very comfortable when I talk with anotherpeople. . .even if I do many mistakes I don’t’ take care of that. My writing is verygood. . .I’m very proud of me because of that.

Research Question 2: Does the authentic task-based CMC instruction facilitate ordebilitate their motivation toward English writing?

The final question attempted to unearth the interrelationship of causal chainsregarding whether task-based, CMC approach would positively impact motivation,which was in turn considered to be conductive to their writing quality. Table 5represents how motivation was fostered by three aspects (i.e. CMC, TBLT, andauthentic audience):

Using CMC tools gave students the opportunity to view each other’s Wikispaces,and although their peers were not members of the specifically targeted audience,students were encouraged to view the wikis in order to learn more about one anotherand to foster a sense of community in the classroom. Students were motivated by aform of perceived competition with their peers and used their peers’ sites as guidancefor their own work. Because viewing their peers’ sites was their choice, studentsexhibited intrinsic motivation which has been shown to exist more abundantly innon-controlling contexts where students autonomously engage in competition (Deci& Ryan, 2000). This friendly competition amongst peers manifested itself inincreased content on the sites and more creativity in the site presentation. Forexample, when Heesung noticed that one of her peers had more categories on hersite, she conducted more research to include more relevant categories on her ownsite. As she said, ‘‘I sometimes worry about my project because other people also dovery well. So when I look at (theirs), I will tell myself to work harder.’’ Additionally,students’ identities as learners were shaped by this ability to selectively view theirpeers’ sites. They were motivated by a perceived obligation to emulate aspects oftheir peers’ work which they considered to be ideal, necessary, and relevant to theirown goals and identities and L2 learners (Dornyei, 2005).

Table 5. Motivation generated by CMC, TBLT and authentic audience.

CMC Task-based approach Authentic audience

Writing sharing via CMCtriggers inherent peercompetition and dynamicmotivational process

Cultural and authenticcontent reinforcesintrinsic motivation towrite

Sense of audience raisesawareness of writingquality

Taking challenge tocomplete a task as aopportunity to betterEnglish writing

Learner autonomy isfostered

Desire to save face drawsattention to forms

Computer Assisted Language Learning 447

Regarding TBLT, the participants displayed a rather dynamic motivationalprocess throughout the various task stages, which points strongly to theimportance of task design. The fact that motivation was maintained throughoutthe completion of the task indicates that the task content: (1) generatedmotivation, (2) prevented or at least dissipated effects of various during-taskdistractions such as anxiety or difficult life experiences that could limit tasksuccess, and (3) allowed for retrospective evaluation of task performance whichmay have led to greater motivation to proceed with subsequent tasks (Dornyei,2002). The cultural content placed the student in the role of the expert, whichfulfilled a fundamental need for competence and lead to effectance motivation(Deci & Ryan, 2000), significant in that this type of motivation is not frequentlyassociated with second language learners who are generally ascribed to the role ofnovice, and thus subject to the identities associated with this rather subjugatedposition. Although the students expressed concern over their abilities tocommunicate their messages accurately, they took their role as cultural insidersseriously, as expressed by Secil,

I’m worried honestly. I’m worried, not my English skill; I worry they misunderstandTurkey. Maybe they misunderstand my mean. This is very worry and this is also verypride thing because I feel represent Turkey.

Additionally, students expressed that they were motivated by the challengingnature of the tasks and the fact that they were able to successfully complete them. Italso indicates that the tasks were optimally challenging and thus, closely aligned withthe need for competence (Deci & Ryan, 2000), which was echoed by Rosa, ‘‘I spent alot of time, like because of my homework and it’s difficult, but I think it’s goodbecause I’m very motivated.’’ Because the students perceived their audience to beimportant, particularly with the State Department task, they made significant effortto write more accurate and complex sentences. Students’ explanations of their effortsto control grammatical structures and to utilize various discourse markersdemonstrate an awareness of audience and a genuine sense of relating to audienceexpectations. Although, the desire for relatedness when considering motivation cancompete with a desire for autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 2000), it appeared that thestudents in this case were able to reconcile their own communicative goals anddesires with the perceived and explicitly stated needs and expectations of theiraudience. In other words, they were able to internalize the audience needs andbecome motivated based not only on their own desire to communicate informationabout their respective cultures accurately, but also based on what they knew theiraudience wanted. The students were motivated by an ought to self concept (Dornyei,2005), which guided their task completion in terms of the characteristics theybelieved they should be able to exhibit as producers of the English language.

Task design comes into play again when considering learner autonomy. Becausestudents were engaged in a task they perceived to be meaningful, they went to greatlengths to communicate their ideas as accurately as possible. In order to do this, theyneeded to learn new words and phrases that would allow them to make precisestatements about culture, as Secil articulated,

People outside [Americans], I wanna do good grammar. Because a lot of people outsidein the institute (State Department) will look at our website, so we have to do our best ingrammar for writing. Maybe it’s hard; the quality, word we choose.

448 J.C. Chen and K.L. Brown

This striving for precision in linking what was in their minds with what theywanted to communicate led to autonomous learning of new vocabulary and to alearning environment where students were in control and electing to do more thanwhat was required for mere course completion.

6.1. Model

Drawing from the qualitative results discussed above, a visual model (see Figure 2)was developed to better illustrate the interrelationship between writing quality andthe impact of authentic audience in task-based, CMC instruction, and how learnermotivation and autonomy interact in this relationship.

As Figure 2 exemplifies above, the presence of an authentic audience within achallenging, task-based, computer mediated approach to writing may lead tomotivation generated by (1) learner controlled competition between peers, (2) desireto achieve goals which the learner perceives to be either ideal or necessary, and (3)feelings of competence elicited by placement in an expert role, which may in turn

Figure 2. A model that visually represents the interrelationships of all the constructs.

Computer Assisted Language Learning 449

contribute to development of learner autonomy. Furthermore, learner autonomymanifests itself in the ownership of writing, striving to learn skills that will improvethe ability to communicate effectively, and personal fulfillment resulting from taskcompletion. Ultimately, the completion of computer-mediated writing tasks in thepresence of an authentic audience may lead to improvement in writing quality in thatthe learner develops increased audience awareness and is compelled to acquire newvocabulary, and to focus on sentence precision and complexity. Throughout thetask, the learner is engaged in a dynamic motivational process, which facilitates taskcompletion and allows for reflection upon the completed work, which in turncontributes to motivation to engage in subsequent tasks. The causal chain, centeredon the impact of authentic audience and comprised of learner motivation andautonomy, results in a stimulating and empowering writing process.

7. Limitations

The results of the present study require examination within the context of itslimitations. Because isolating motivating factors is difficult, it is possible thatstudents were motivated for reasons other than the approach used. For instance, thestudents had a good working relationship with the instructor and responded verywell to her positive feedback, so it is difficult to determine which behaviors may havebeen motivated by the approach and which may have been motivated by a desire toplease the instructor. However, we believe strongly that the data elicited from theinterviews was honest and thoughtful, as students were not hesitant to criticizeelements of the course with which they were not satisfied. Furthermore, theinterviews were conducted by the other researcher, who was not the instructor of thiscourse, which likely mitigated the Hawthorne effect in that the participants wouldnot necessarily feel obliged to ‘‘please’’ the researcher.

Additionally, the small sample size also made quantitative data analysis difficult.Students’ writing quality before and after the CMC, task-based writing approachwas evaluated against an analytic scoring rubric that measured the levels of content,organization, mechanics and audience. Because of the small sample size, statisticalanalysis was neither statistically viable nor meaningful. Consequently, thequantitative data gathered was not useful to generalize to a bigger population,although clear improvements were demonstrated in their writing quality as assessedagainst the scoring rubric. Furthermore, comparing the results with a control groupwith no CMC, task-based approach would have yielded more useful pedagogicalimplications for both the fields of CALL and L2 writing.

8. Concluding remarks

Based on the interview data, students’ web-based project work and participantobservation, it appears that students have positive perceptions and attitudes towarda task-based, CMC approach to writing. Their positive perceptions may be attri-buted to motivation generated by the task-based, CMC approach and by theremoval of audience abstraction. In order for students to be motivated by theapproach, educators must carefully consider three factors: (1) task design, (2)audience identity, and (3) student goals. Concerns were expressed regarding linksbetween the approach and second language acquisition as well as the potential over-use of technology in the course. As a result, tasks must be designed with student

450 J.C. Chen and K.L. Brown

needs and expectations firmly in mind. Furthermore, tasks must be related to contentthat is meaningful to the students and that puts them in the position of the expertwhere he or she is given the opportunity to feel competent in the use of the language.Additionally, audience members must be targeted with the student populationclearly in mind. If the audience is perceived to be irrelevant or unimportant, studentsmay not exhibit motivation to complete the task. Finally, student goals must becarefully considered. Using a task-based approach aims to develop communicativecompetence in the learner. However, the ultimate goal of many ESL students inintensive programs is closely related to passing standardized tests (e.g. TOEFL),required in most US universities for admission. These tests may not assesscompetence in the language as defined by those who support the use of authentictasks in the classroom. The link between task accomplishment and passing astandardized test may not be clear to the student, and may not completely exist, butspecial effort must be made on the part of the educator to meet students’ needswhatever they may be.

Above all, targeting of a specific audience takes a great deal of maintenance by theinstructor. In order to provide students with a reliable and useful audience, carefulmonitoring of all tasks together with both student and audience participation isrequired. We believe that this approach activated the participants’ awareness of audi-ence when they wrote for real and meaningful purposes. It also empowered them byawakening their sense of ownership, pronounced in this final comment from Heesung,

Task is really hard, but in the end it’s pretty good because we develop ourselves quicklyand we grow our English more than we can. And, we learn a lot of things we don’t knowbefore

Notes

1. Weebly, a free website creator, can be accessed at http://www.weebly.com2. Samples of the three task sites can be accessed at: (1) travel websites: http://marcongo-

travel.weebly.com (2) state department websites: http://theseoul.weebly.com/; and (3)culture gap websites: http://ivorianculture.weebly.com/.

Notes on contributors

Julian ChengChiang Chen is a PhD candidate in the Second Language Education and Cultureprogram at the University of Maryland College Park. His research interests include computer-assisted language learning (CALL), computer-mediated communication (CMC), task-basedlanguage learning (TBLT) and language learning and teaching in 3-D multi-user virtualenvironments (e.g. Second Life).

Kimberly Brown is a lecturer at the Maryland English Institute at the University of MarylandCollege Park. Her research interests are primarily directed towards technology in languagelearning and the development of academic communicative competence.

References

Alm, A. (2006). CALL for autonomy, competence and relatedness: Motivating languagelearning environments in Web 2.0. The JALT CALL Journal, 2, 29–38.

Backer, J. (2001). Using a modular approach to schMOOze with ESL/EFL students. TheInternet TESL Journal, 7. Retrieved July 26, 2011 from http://iteslj.org/Lessons/Backer-SchMOOze.html.

Bloch, J. (2007). Abdullah’s blogging: A 1.5 generation student enters the blogoshpere.Language Learning and Technology, 11, 128–141.

Computer Assisted Language Learning 451

Carlson, S. (2005). The net generation goes to college. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52.Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i07/07a03401.html.

Chapelle, C.A. (2005). Interactionist SLA theory in CALL research. In J. Egbert & G.M.Petrie (Eds.), CALL research perspectives (pp. 53–64). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Cheon, H. (2003). The viability of computer mediated communication in the Koreansecondary EFL classroom. Asian EFL Journal, 5. Retrieved July 26, 2011 from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/march03.sub2.php.

Choi, J. (2008). The role of online collaboration in promoting ESL writing. English LanguageTeaching, 1(1), 34–49.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons andevaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13, 3–21.

Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and theself-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.

Dede, C. (2005). Planning for neomillennial learning style: Shifts in students’ learning style willprompt a shift to active construction of knowledge through mediated immersion. EducauseQuarterly, 28. Retrieved July 26, 2011 from http://www.educause.edu/apps/eq/eqm05/eqm0511.asp?bhcp¼1.

de la Fuente, M.J. (2003). Is SLA interactionist theory relevant to CALL? A study on theeffects of computer-mediated interaction in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Computer AssistedLanguage Learning, 16, 47.

Dornyei, Z. (2002). The motivational basis of language learning tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.),Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 137–159). Amsterdam: JohnBenjamin’s.

Dornyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning: Advances intheory, research, and applications. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Dornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in secondlanguage acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Doughty, C.J., & Long, M. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distanceforeign language learning. Language Learning and Technology, 7, 50–80.

Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Learning Research, 4,193–220.

Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed second language acquisition: A literature review. Wellington, NewZealand: New Zealand Ministry of Education.

Gardner, R.C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning. London, UK: EdwardArnold.

Gonzalez, D. (2003). Teaching and learning through chat: A taxonomy of educational chat forEFL/ESL. Teaching English with Technology, 3. Retrieved July 26, 2011 from http://www.iatefl.org.pl/call/j_review15.htm.

Gonzalez-Bueno, M., & Perez, L.C. (2000). Electronic mail in foreign language writing: Astudy of grammatical and lexical accuracy, and quantity of language. Foreign LanguageAnnals, 33, 89–197.

Hackett, L. (1996). The internet and email: Useful tools for foreign language teaching andlearning. On-Call, 10(1), 15–20.

Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity toteacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 141–163.

Hellebrandt, J. (1999). Virtual collaborations in the Spanish class: From email to Web designand CD-ROM development. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20, 59–70.

Ho, M.L.C. (2000). Developing intercultural awareness and writing skills through emailexchange. The Internet TESL Journal, 6. Retrieved July 26, 2011 from http://www.aitech.ac.jp/*iteslj/Articles/Ho-Email.html.

Hoffman, R. (1994). Powerful, personal: Electronic mail and the L2 writing process. ReCALLJournal, 6, 53–62.

Jarvis, H. (2005). Technology and change in English language teaching (ELT). The Asian EFLJournal Quarterly, 7, 213–227.

Kupelian, M. (2001). The use of email in the L2 classroom: An overview. Second LanguageLearning and Teaching, 1(1). Retrieved September 3, 2010, from http://www.usq.edu.au/opacs/cllt/sllt/1-1/Kupelian01.htm.

452 J.C. Chen and K.L. Brown

Leppanen, S., & Kalaja, P. (1995). Experimenting with computer conferencing in English foracademic purposes. ELT Journal, 49, 26–36.

Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design (pp. 162–184). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Oladi, S. (2005). Study of Tehran medical students’ social interaction in cyber bloggingenvironment and its effects on IELTS writing proficiency (Unpublished master’s thesis).Tehran University, Tehran, Iran.

Paulus, T.M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal ofSecond Language Writing, 8, 265–289.

Peterson, M. (2006). Learner interaction management in an avatar and chat-based virtualworld. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19, 79–103.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9, 1–2. Retrieved July26, 2011 from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/default.asp.

Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59, 23–30.Rooks, M.J. (2008). A unique opportunity for communication: An intercultural email

exchange between Japanese and Thai students. CALL-EJ Online, 10. Retrieved July 26,2011 from http://www.tell.is.ritsumei.ac.jp/callejonline/journal/10-1/rooks.html.

Schwienhorst, K. (2003). Learner autonomy and tandem learning: Putting principles intopractice in synchronous and asynchronous telecommunications environments. ComputerAssisted Language Learning, 16, 427–443.

Shang, H.F. (2007). An exploratory study of email application on FL writing performance.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20, 79–96.

Skehan, P. (2003). Focus on form, tasks, and technology. Computer Assisted LanguageLearning, 16, 391–411.

Son, J. (2007). Learner experiences in web-based language learning. Computer AssistedLanguage Learning, 20(1), 21–36.

Strange, R.L. (1988). Audience awareness: When and how does it develop? ERIC Digest, 4.Retrieved July 26, 2011 from http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-929/develop.htm.

Tamponi, R. (2004). Content and language integrated university course: A task-based approach.Paper presented at the Navigating the New Landscape for Languages Conference,University of London.

Tsui, A.B.M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journalof Second Language Writing, 9, 147–170.

Wang, Y.M. (1998). Email dialogue journaling in an English as a second language (ESL)reading and writing classroom. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications,4, 263–287.

Warschauer, M. (1996). Motivational aspects of using computers for writing andcommunication. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign language learning:Proceedings of the Hawai’i symposium (Technical Report # 12; pp. 29–46). Honolulu:University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.

Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. TheModern Language Journal, 81, 470–481.

Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2007). Audience, authorship, and artifact: The emergentsemiotics of web 2.0. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 1–23.

Warschauer, M., Turbee, L., & Roberts, B. (1996). Computer learning networks and studentempowerment. System, 24(1), 1–14.

Willis, J. (1996). Aspects of tasks. In J. Willis (Ed.), A framework for task-based learning(pp. 22–37). London: Longman.

Computer Assisted Language Learning 453

Appendix. Semi-structured interview questions

(1) Was this class different from classes you have taken in the past? If so, how was itdifferent?

(2) What are some positive or negative points about this class that you like to share withme?

(3) How did you feel about sharing your writing with the audience members?(4) How did you approach your writing when you knew the audience members would

read it?(5) What is your opinion about using technology in class projects?(6) How much effort did you put into your writing tasks?(7) How well were you able to use grammatical structures and new vocabulary in your

writing? Did you try to do this?(8) Tell me about any tasks that you liked or did not like.

454 J.C. Chen and K.L. Brown