A comparative study of Facebook vs. paper-and-pencil writing to improve L2 writing skills
Abstract
Facebook has best leveraged the rapid technological and societal changes over the past decade to grow into the world's largest social-networking site (SNS). However, research of Facebook has lagged behind other Web 2.0 technologies, particularly in regards to investigating its efficacy versus a control group to improve L2 writing. This study, which involved 30 Japanese university English as a foreign language (EFL) students, aims to fill this gap in the literature by examining three areas of L2 writing, namely – writing fluency, lexical richness, and grammatical accuracy – in an experimental group using Facebook (n = 16) and a control group (n = 14) using paper-and-pencil. Both groups underwent a 12-week treatment of two in-class focused freewritings a week. Three writing assessments were administered at the start, middle, and end of the treatment to assess its effectiveness. Results from the Mann–Whitney test showed that the experimental group made more significant gains in terms of writing fluency. On the other hand, neither group made significant progress in lexical richness nor grammatical accuracy. These findings strengthen previous research in support of the use of Facebook in L2 classes and highlight the need for additional studies comparing Facebook with other writing mediums.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Examining the impact of Grammarly on the quality of mobile L2 writing
Dizon, G., & Gayed, J. M. (2021) · The JALT CALL Journal · doi:10.29140/jaltcall.v17n2.336 · Cited by 138 · see citing works
Self-citationComputer-mediated and face-to-face peer feedback: student feedback and revision in EFL writing
Pham, H. T. P. (2022) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2020.1868530 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
“More recently, Dizon (2016) and Pham et al. (2020) examined the effects of peer feedback on Facebook and F2F peer feedback on writing quality among Japanese ( n ¼ 30) and Vietnamese university students ( n ¼ 72), respectively.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialElgort, I. (2018) · CALICO Journal · doi:10.1558/cj.34554 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
“Dizon (2016), for example, investigated Facebook-mediated writing development, using focused freewriting, in which participants received peer feedback.”
Background
- Authors
- Dizon, G.
- Affiliations
- Himeji Dokkyo University (JP)
- Corresponding author
- Dizon, Gilbert
- ORCID
- Dizon, Gilbert
- Venue
- Computer Assisted Language Learning
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2016-11-16
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1249-1258
- ISSN
- 0958-8221 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-3210
- OpenAlex
- W2562430402
- Cited by
- 83
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 3
- FWCI
- 20.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Computer Assisted Language Learning (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › English Language Learning and Teaching
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Mobile Learning in Education
- Keywords
- Facebook, social networking sites, second language writing, English as a foreign language, writing fluency, lexical diversity, grammatical accuracy, Japanese university students
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review