Assessing an innovative advanced academic writing course through blog-assisted language learning: Issues and resolutions

Fan Wei Kung*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

The development of Web 2.0 technologies has made a multitude of educational innovations possible in language classrooms. The aim of this inquiry is to explore advanced English language learners’ perceptions, motivation and confidence along with their perceived strengths and weaknesses of learning academic writing through blog-assisted language learning (BALL). Data were collected from a research-based university in the USA in which BALL was mandated for writing instruction, and analysed qualitatively using the principles of inductive analysis in which research propositions and interpretations were processed concurrently. Data reveal that though learners perceive their writing instruction through BALL positively, their learning confidence and motivation are not strengthened. It is also discovered that learners are acutely aware of the advantages and disadvantages that BALL possesses based on their writing instruction. This article further argues that instead of jumping on the bandwagon of Web 2.0 technologies for BALL to be implemented at many higher institutions, programme directors and teachers are advised to be cognizant of the potential ramifications that might adversely influence students’ learning trajectory.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)348-356
Number of pages9
JournalInnovations in Education and Teaching International
Volume55
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018 May 4
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • academic writing
  • Blog-assisted language learning
  • English language learners
  • Web 2.0 technologies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Assessing an innovative advanced academic writing course through blog-assisted language learning: Issues and resolutions'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this