A preview of this full-text is provided by IGI Global.
Content available from International Journal of Smart Education and Urban Society
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
DOI: 10.4018/IJSEUS.297063
Volume 13 • Issue 1
Copyright © 2022, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
*Corresponding Author
1
Hasan Selcuk, University of Latvia, Latvia*
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8098-1088
Jane Jones, King’s College London, UK
In this article, the authors report on a study investigating the perceptions from Turkish high school
English as a foreign language (EFL) students of using the social media platform Facebook group
to undertake a collaborative writing task. Opportunities for these students to advance their writing
skills are often limited in classrooms because of curriculum restrictions. This study explored how
students in two small groups of three might use their smartphones to collaboratively write a short story
outside of the classroom over several weeks. The researchers gathered data from group interviews
and online written researcher-participant chats. With minimal support, the students organised
themselves enthusiastically for the FB task. Their perceptions of the task were positive, the students
feeling comfortable with the FB medium and with each other. Student agency was pivotal in creating
an informal social affinity and smart learning space, suggestive of extended writing affordances in
other contexts.
Affective, Foreign Language, Group Writing, Online Writing, Peer Collaboration, Social Media, Writing Anxiety,
Writing Skills
With the rapid growth and increasing accessibility of Web 2.0 technologies, web-based learning
environments have gained prominence in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing practice.
Ciftci and Aslan (2019) identified studies that showed learners employing blog formats, Facebook
(FB) groups, forums, Google Docs, Instant messaging, text chat, wikis, and Skype as web- based
EFL writing environments. FB groups, the social networking site and the focus of the current study,
have been used extensively as an environment to promote EFL writing.
Previous studies on FB-based EFL writing have shown that the use of FB groups has enabled
learners to develop their writing performances through collaborative writing (CW) and peer feedback
Volume 13 • Issue 1
2
in a community of learners (Razak & Saeed, 2014; Bani-Hani, Al-Sobh & Abu-Melhim, 2014;
Wichadee, 2013). Most empirical studies on FB-based EFL writing to date have focused on university
undergraduate students with a dearth of studies on FB-based CW among high school EFL learners. To
address this gap, the purpose of this study was to explore the potential for learning space, specifically
in respect of high Turkish school secondary EFL students, to expand opportunities for CW in a FB
setting. CW is defined as “an activity where there is a shared and negotiated decision- making process
and a shared responsibility for the production of a single text” by Storch, (2011, p.275) and has been
widely used through web-based settings in EFL instructional settings.
The use of FB for student collaborative writing needs a focus if it is to serve to enhance language
learning. A study by Mazman and Usluel (2010) on how 606 Turkish FB users aged 18 to 25,
used FB for educational purposes led them to postulate three main types of educational functions:
communication, collaboration and resource/material sharing. Blattner & Fiori’s study (2009) proposed
three benefits of the use of FB groups in foreign language learning: enhanced learners’ socio-pragmatic
awareness of the target language, an introduction to realistic and authentic language and an awareness
that foreign language learning and practice can take place outside of classroom learning environments.
In Kitsis’ study (2008), FB was utilised by high school students to undertake their English subject
assignments and to give feedback to each other. Students were asked to post their assignments on a
FB group and, later, they would have an assigned peer provide feedback. The study showed that the
FB group format had a positive effect on motivation and increased the students’ engagement with
their assignments. Northcote and Kendle’s (2001) study revealed that discussion in online groups and
searching for online information provided opportunities for learners to learn language skills implicitly.
There was more feedback during discussion and greater communication in online situations owing
to the high level of confidence felt by the learners in this setting.
Regarding the affective influence of the use of FB on learning, Kabilan, Ahmet and Abidin (2010)
investigated how FB groups might support, enhance and/or strengthen Malaysian university students’
English language development. Three hundred undergraduate English as a second Language (ESL)
students were involved in the study and it was found that FB groups developed the participants’ self-
confidence in ESL writing as a by-product of their online socialisation such as sharing views and
exchanging ideas on FB. In Shih’s study (2011), FB was used as a setting to enhance Taiwanese EFL
learners’ writing skills through peer feedback. Twenty-three first year undergraduate students were
divided into six groups with an assigned a group leader for each group. Participants were asked to post
their writing assignments weekly over 8 weeks in their groups and to provide feedback and comments
to their group partners. The study findings showed that peer feedback sessions conducted in the FB
setting increased participants’ interest and motivation for learning. Moreover, participants’ friendship,
communication and sense of trust were enhanced through Facebook-based peer feedback sessions.
Yunus and Selahi (2012) investigated the use of FB groups in enhancing the writing skills of 43 ESL
learners in a Malaysian university. The study findings showed some aspects of affective influence
in the FB groups on the participants’ writing development. Some participants felt encouraged when
their partners liked their ideas and opinions and felt comfortable discussing the writing activity, also
sharing ideas and opinions with their partners. Ushioda (2011) suggests that technology-enhanced
communication has increased learners’ motivation towards foreign language learning due to multimedia
affordances such as visuals, videos, and audio resources.
Overall, the studies reviewed show evidence of favourable outcomes when ICT especially the
use of FB was fully integrated into foreign language learning. This, in part, reflects how ICT is fully
a part of language learners’ lives and FB an inclusive and regular medium of communication that
Volume 13 • Issue 1
3
learners have embedded into their daily habits. The studies testify to the power of the use of Facebook
in motivating learners in collaborative learning, in promoting affective skills and confidence as well
as decreasing stress and anxiety through familiarity with and trust in the peer group. The studies also
indicated evidence of more ‘careful’ and confident writing, as a result of respecting the peer feedback.
Although FB has generally been embraced enthusiastically and to good effect as a learning
medium, at least according to students’ perceptions, the use of FB is not without its caveats. Barrot’s
review (2018) of FB use in learning settings stresses the need for guidelines to ensure the necessary
etiquette and respect for privacy. Technology issues were found to be a constant concern, and technical
fails were both disruptive and demotivating. As with all initiatives, overuse of FB was deemed
‘boring’ by pupils (Aydin, 2014) and worrying by shy pupils. Monitoring and evaluation of FB use
are thus essential.
The study was underpinned by the social constructivist perspective of learning (Vygotsky, 1978)
in relation to EFL writing. Storch (2005) states that collaborative work undertaken with peers or
in small groups in an EFL writing context is mainly supported by a social constructivist learning
framework in which there are affordances for interactive learning and knowledge-sharing. In addition,
the process-oriented approach to teaching EFL writing (Hyland, 2009) was considered the most
suitable for the present study for the following reasons. This approach is a non-linear and recursive
approach to writing that comprises planning, drafting and revision as well as editing activities. The
process-oriented approach concentrates on teaching writing through its process and stages according
to Tribble (1996) and, as argued by Steele (1992), this approach would involve peer collaboration
during the process of writing involving learners in brainstorming, group discussion, peer feedback
and collaborative writing. Writing in this approach is considered as a creative and learning- centred
process. In this study, Turkish public high school EFL learners in small groups of 3 undertook a short
story collaborative writing activity, the purpose being to explore these learners’ perceptions of a FB
group as a way to enhance their writing skills through the various stages of writing through peer
collaboration. A final theoretical consideration drew on a sustainable smart pedagogy framework as
Daniela (2019) (also Lytras et al., 2018) defines it in the context of online social networks. This is
shown in Table 1, and aptly fits the pedagogical design of this study.
The FB-based CW activity was designed to be undertaken synchronously anywhere and anytime,
students opting in were considered ‘intellectually smart’, social, and motivated when doing the activity
and the learning environment was technologically enhanced with the use of up-to-date laptops and
smart phones. The ‘smart pedagogy’ aligned with the writing process and group members’ roles as
Table 1. Smart pedagogy framework
Ssmart (in the sense of intellectual smartness), social
Mmeta-cognitively developed and motivated
Aanywhere, anytime (in the sense of a learning process that is flowing across the temporal and spatial
borders)
Rrapidly changing
T
technology enhanced, which takes into account the peculiarities of human development, the taxonomy
of the educational process where the next generations are using the benefits of technology, and Smart
Pedagogy bringing the students of the next generations in front of progress to serve as developers for new
levels of innovation.
Source: (Daniela, 2019, p.16)
Volume 13 • Issue 1
4
fluid and dynamic, enabling students to develop meta-cognitively during the writing process and to
be developers of technology use in this context.
According to Aydin & Ozdemir (2019), EFL learners in Turkish secondary schools generally have
insufficient writing practice in English lessons due to factors such as time constraints, inadequate
writing instruction, exam-oriented classrooms, grammar/reading-based textbooks and teachers’
attitudes towards EFL writing, all of which serve to reduce opportunities for students to develop
their writing skills. Against this backdrop, it was decided to utilise a FB group as the technological
setting of the study. Turkey, where the study is based, is ranked number 10 with roughly 44 million
Facebook users according to World Population Review (2021). Demirtas (2012) points out that
about 50% the online social networking users in Turkey are documented as being children between
9 and 16. A study by Aydin (2014) focusing on EFL learners’ interactions with their teachers on FB
highlighted that FB is commonly used as a Web 2.0 among Turkish learners enabling EFL learners
to foster their communicative and productive skills.
In this study, the aim was to investigate Turkish high school EFL learners’ perceptions of using
FB group during their CW process in English. The participants in the study were divided into two
groups of three and asked to produce a short story in English within 10 sessions using FB group as
a setting to undertake the activity. Specifically, the research questions were:
1. How do the EFL learners describe their experiences in using FB group during their CW process?
2. Based on EFL learners’ accounts, how does FB-based CW influence their perceptions towards
writing in English?
To explore the research questions, a small-scale study was designed in which a qualitative approach was
employed (Creswell, 2003) with a planned intervention of a CW task. This involved six participants
in the task which was monitored closely followed by a series of face-to-face group interviews and
subsequent online chats. The intervention comprised an out-of-classroom collaborative writing task
where the participants used FB group to record their discussion, their ICT use and their ongoing
writing developments. The group interviews held at regular intervals were designed to identify what
ICT tools the participants used, how they used them and for what purpose in a shared space. The
one-to-one individual online chats allowed for individual participants to share personal insights,
reflections and concerns in a private space.
The design of the study was judged to be the most effective method to gain insights into how the
participants, keen users of technology and capable EFL students, might organise and self- regulate
their EFL learning in a collaborative writing task. The definition of self-regulation is in line with
Schunk and Zimmerman (2008) as ‘the process by which learners personally activate and sustain
cognitions, affects and behaviours that are systematically oriented toward the attainment of goals’
(p.vii). In this study, the focus was on the way the participants used ICT tools to pursue their goals.
A prime consideration was to give maximum time and space to the participants to conduct their task
at times and in spaces of their choice, resonating with the assertion by Moore and Vonkova (2021)
that technology provides creative opportunities to exploit digital spaces.
The participants had not previously undertaken a self-regulated learning task outside of the
classroom, and their experience of writing in their secondary school classroom was limited to rather
perfunctory text-book exercises with little collaboration. The limitations imposed by the Turkish
Volume 13 • Issue 1
5
Ministry of Education guidelines about how English is expected to be taught in Turkish high schools
and thus the restricted practices and experiences of the participants required research “contextual
sensitivity” as advocated by Silverman (2006, p.17), regarding cultural pedagogical traditions.
However, it is noteworthy that as prolific users of social media, Turkish secondary- age students, in
fact, make considerable, almost incessant, use of the written form of language in their messaging
and texting on their phones and PCs. Although six participants constitute a very small sample, Punch
and Oancea (2014) assert: “the value of small-scale studies, both for their contribution to knowledge,
insight and professional practice” (p.47).
The seven-week study took place in Turkey where one of the researchers was based for the duration
of the study. An ordinary non- selective typical high school in Izmir known to that researcher was
selected- thus as a convenience sample -and permission obtained from the Provincial Directorate
of National Education and the school’s Principal. With the help of an English teacher, the purpose
and task were explained to a class of 10th graders (aged 16) and volunteers invited to engage in the
research. Six EFL learners, 4 females and 2 males, volunteered to participate in the study and formed
two groups of three with peers of their choosing to undertake the CW task. The task comprised writing
a short story in English in a FB group outside of school hours over seven weeks. Henceforth, the first
group (participants are P1, P2 & P3) is known as group A, while the second (participants are P4, P5
& P6) group B. For ethical considerations, pseudonyms have been used throughout, and permission
granted by the participants’ parents for the study.
Before starting the task, the participants were asked to self-assess their level of English proficiency
on a scale of five (see Table 2). As this study was conducted in a Spring term, the participants’ Autumn
term final grades in their English language lessons were also collected, as displayed in Table 2. There
is a high degree of congruence evident between the self- assessment and the school assessment that
gave us confidence in the participants’ potential to engage meaningfully in the study.
A pilot study had been conducted prior to the main study, of two groups of three participants and over
seven weeks. The group size of six participants was found to be feasible and fit for the purpose of
the study in allowing a detailed exploration of the group interactions. Four weeks having been found
inadequate in the pilot, seven weeks for the collaboration was decided upon as an adequate timeframe,
not too long but short enough to maintain motivation and momentum and time to undertake the pre-
writing, while-writing and post-writing stages. Seven weeks would also enable the researchers to
explore the participants’ writing processes over a period of time. The participants were asked to write
a short story in English collaboratively with their group members in a FB group created specifically
for the study and to do this outside of school hours online. During the writing activity, participants
Table 2. Participants’ English language self-assessment in proficiency and their final grades
Group A Group B
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6
Self-
assessment
result
Intermediate Intermediate
Pre-
intermediate
/Intermediate
Elementary/
pre-
intermediate
Pre-
intermediate Intermediate
Final grade
result.
1 lowest – 5
highest
4 5 3 2 4 5
Volume 13 • Issue 1
6
reported that they used their smartphones and/or laptops to engage and interact in the discussion
sessions in their FB groups. One of the researchers as a Turkish speaker served as a facilitator of this
writing activity, providing participants with writing instructions at the beginning of the task then
withdrawing from any direct interventions.
Altogether, there were 10 sessions over the seven weeks (see Table 5 in the Appendix for timeline).
In session 1, participants met with the facilitator in a FB group and discussed ways of writing a short
story in English. They were then given a short story topic and asked to work together from the second
session onwards. In the second session, the participants expressed a need to select a leader to guide
the group from the stage when the facilitator’s guidance was mainly withdrawn. In Group A, P1 was
elected as the group leader and in Group B, P6 elected. As is shown in an earlier study (Selcuk, Jones
& Vonkova, 2019), the participants selected peer leaders in their groups for three reasons. First, group
leaders were deemed to be more confident and knowledgeable about chairing group discussions, for
the first priority of getting discussions going. Second, group leaders seemed more comfortable with
making decisions about what to write in a session and third, according to the participants’ estimation,
group leaders had a better knowledge of English than the other group members. In sessions 2-9,
the groups produced their short story with the guidance of the group leaders. After each group had
completed their story, participants in session 10 created another FB group for both groups where
each group posted their final version of their story and gave peer-feedback to the other group’s story.
Data were gathered mainly from four group interviews, and online written facilitator-participant (F-P)
chats, nine chats each from the 6 participants, in total 54 chats. In order to gain deeper understanding
from the participants’ group interviews and online written F-P chats, both groups’ written discussion
threads were collected from the FB groups, 985 discussion threads from Group A and 1,084 threads
from Group B, thus in total 2,069 discussion threads.
The group interviews, along with the online written F-P chats and the FB discussion boards enabled
the authors to gather different types of qualitative data sets. Each data set was analysed using an
open coding analytical approach because there was no existing parallel research in the Turkish high
school context and therefore no previously existing analytical framework with which to compare.
In this section, a summary of the findings is presented in relation to three key conceptual categories
that emerged from the analysis as shown in Table 3.
Ease of Access Through Mobile Phones
Most participants reported that they mainly used their mobile phones when undertaking the CW in
their FB group, some also using their laptops/desktop computers. Some participants reported that
they used their laptops/desktop computers in addition. As indicated in Table 4 on the variations, P3
and P4 used their mobile phones 100% whereas P1 and P6 used 40% their mobile phones and 60%
their laptops during the CW process. P2 used 70% mobile phone and 30% desktop computer. P5 on
the other hand, used 60% mobile phone and 40% laptop during the CW activity.
Accessibility to technology is not something to be assumed. Participants reported that they had to
use only or mostly their mobile phones throughout the FB-based task since laptop/desktop computers
were shared among other members of the household and was, therefore, limiting of participants’ use.
P3 stated, “We are a family of four. Everybody wants to use the laptop, so I couldn’t use the laptop
Volume 13 • Issue 1
7
all the time for the activity. However, I’m fortunate that FB can be used on my smartphone and so, I
could join in written discussions” (group interview, 4). P5 added, “As there is only one shared laptop
in the household, I had to use my mobile phone to do the activity. However, when I needed to use the
laptop, my family gave me some time to use it. I needed to use the laptop especially in the editing
stage of our story” (online written F-P chats).
P4 said that he chose P6 as the group leader because she has both personal mobile phone and
laptop. “I was thinking that P6 could monitor our collaborative story better as she has both a mobile
phone and her own laptop” (group interview, 2). P1 reflected this thinking and the need for a laptop
in the later stages said, “In some stages of the writing activity especially the editing stage, we had
to use laptops to monitor our collaborative story. As I had my own laptop, I had to lead the writing
process” (group interview, 4).
From a social perspective, some participants explained that using the FB group for the task not
only enabled them to engage fully with the writing activity but also to socialise with their classmates.
P4 commented, “Personally I get stressed and bored doing writing. I found this activity more enjoyable
than other writing because while writing, I was chatting with my classmates and felt motivated to
write something in English with their help” (online written F-P chats).
Flexibility to Set Up Group Meetings Independently
With regard to the flexibility of setting up group meetings without teacher guidance, the participants
made insightful comments about their control of digital spaces for the activity. P2 stated, “We can
Table 3. Coding scheme from the analysis of three data collection methods
Codes Categories
Ease of access through mobile phones (1, 2) Convenience and flexibility
Flexibility to set up group meetings independently (1, 2, 3)
The use of text speak (1, 2, 3)
Informal language use in group discussionsTerms of endearment (1, 2, 3)
The use of emoticons (1, 2, 3)
Feeling comfortable doing the writing exercise in the FB group (1, 2) Reducing writing anxiety
Sharing writing-related fears and problems (1, 2)
Note1: (group interviews), 2 (online written F-P chats), 3 (FB discussion boards)
Table 4. Frequency of using mobile phones and laptop/desktop computers between sessions 1-10 by the participants
Note: Black=laptop/desktop computer, Grey=mobile phones
Volume 13 • Issue 1
8
always do the writing activities in a FB group as long we can decide when to meet.... Our parents
always tell us what to do at home and so do our teachers at school... Social networking sites are the
only places where we can breathe so we want to be the decision-makers if we need do something for
our own learning” (group interview,4). P1 commented, “As group leader, it was not easy for me to
arrange the meeting dates and times to coincide with the other group’s leader [P6]. We scheduled the
meetings at the same time so that we could complete the writing activity together (group interview,4).
P5 also highlighted, “When writing in the classroom, I was feeling rushed and overwhelmed as our
teacher only gives us a bit of time to complete the task but in a FB group and also with my classmates,
I felt more flexible in terms of time and that helped me plan what I wanted to say in my writing bit”
(online written F-P chats).
In short, most of the participants commented that they found the FB group as a medium for
carrying out CW personally convenient, because of ease of access through mobile phones and
flexibility in terms of time. In addition, there was limited availability to use laptops/desktop computers
because of one shared laptop/desktop computer per household. It is noticeable that it was participants
who had personal laptops who led and managed the CW writing process. Participants said they
appreciated being able to attend the group anywhere they wished, as long as they could access the
Internet, to discuss with their peers or to do the writing. The participants set up group meetings online
without the need of any teacher support.
Based on the participants’ accounts in group interviews, online written F-P chats and each group
of participants’ FB discussion board threads, informal language such as text speak (e.g., ILY, I love
you; OFC, of course; THX, thanks), terms of endearment (e.g., darling, honey and love), and the
use of emoticons in group discussions helped build good rapport among their group members when
doing the CW.
The episode below was taken from group A’s sixth session.
P1: Hello my sweethearts ♥♥♥, are you ready for today’s writing?
P2: Yes, my love, I am ready. ♥♥♥
P1: Is P3 late again? ☺
P2: She is almost here.
P1: Okay. Let’s wait for her then. By the way, we need to edit our common text today.
P3: Sorry for being late. Here I am my darlings. ILY both ♥♥♥
P2: ILY
P1: ♥♥♥
As seen in the above episodes, Group A’s group members used informal language in group
discussions, writing terms of endearment, using text speak as well as inserting emoticons to express
their emotions. When analysing the discussion threads, we found that group A’s group partners were
using more terms of endearment than Group B’s group members. For example, in Group A, three close
female friends, words and phrases, such as ‘darling’, ‘sweetheart’, ‘love’, and ‘my lovely friend(s)’
were used extensively. In group B, two male friends P4 and P5 addressed each other as ‘mate’, ‘buddy’
and ‘pal’. P4 and P5 usually addressed the female student, P6, by her name, but sometimes called her
‘princess’, ‘beauty’ and ‘love’ seemingly in order to pay her a compliment. P6 usually addressed P4
and P5 by their names, but sometimes used the words ‘guys’, ‘boys’ and ‘folk’.
Most participants commented that the fact that the FB group setting made them ‘feel comfortable’
and therefore, they decided to use informal language when discussing with group partners. P4 said,
“Usually, when I chat with my friends on Facebook, I use informal language. For example, I say ‘slm’
instead of selam [Hello in Turkish]. I felt comfortable doing the Facebook group writing, because
Volume 13 • Issue 1
9
we used informal language in our group discussions, and I thought this helped us to work together
better with friends” (group interview,1).
To summarise, this category, informal language use in group discussions, showed extensive use
of terms of endearment, text speak and emoticons, revealing the merging of real life highly informal
FB communication and the language of friendship and camaraderie of students of this age in their
learning conversations. Participants’ decisions to use informal language – sometimes quite intimate
as in the use of affectionate names like ‘honey’ and ‘darling’ – created and developed exponentially
the participants’ feeling of being comfortable with each other in this FB CW activity.
Feeling Comfortable Doing the Writing Exercise in the FB Group
Feeling comfortable with each other in the FB writing activity was a code that emerged from the
participants’ accounts of group interviews and online written F-P chats. P2, for example, commented
“If you’re planning an online writing activity, I think teachers should consider how comfortable the
learning environment is for students and also teachers should take into account whether the students
are working with people we feel comfortable with. This activity satisfied both of these needs and that
is why I prefer FB group to other online settings”(group interview, 2).
P3 also said, “I felt comfortable when working with P1 and P2, because both of them are my
darlings and my best friends. I love them so much… I wouldn’t imagine that I could write something
in English and at the same time learn new things from my best friends. However, I did because
Facebook and being with my best friends helped me write something in English” (group interview, 2).
Extensive reference to feeling ‘comfortable’ can be linked from the data to their use of shared
informal language, being able to combine chat with task, being in control of time and place of
collaboration and, crucially, working on a familiar social medium on their own private phones, assured
of peer support. P2 pointedly commented on the need, as she saw it, for teachers to take account of
the ‘comfort factor’ in the classroom environment and in ensuring students can collaborate with peers
with whom they feel at ease. This does, however, raise the question of group work organisation that
is never without its interpersonal problems (Blatchford et al, 2003).
Revealing Writing-Related Fears and Problems to Their Peers
The code, feeling comfortable, referenced explicitly at length in the views of three participants and
implicitly in the comments of the other three, seemingly enabled participants to approach their
peers to reveal their writing-related problems and difficulties when writing in English to their group
members. They actively sought advice and help from their group leaders during the writing exercise,
once they had established a bond of trust and consciously made a decision to contribute to the task
of their own volition. P4 said, “Sometimes we don’t talk about our problems when we feel that we’re
not comfortable with the environment which is about the setting and the people. However, I think we
[P5, P6 and himself] created a friendly environment in our Facebook group. At first, I didn’t want
to be involved very much in the writing exercise, because I was thinking that P6 [the group leader]
would do most of the work for us, but in time, I noticed that I could learn something from this study,
because I saw that P5 was having problems in writing in English like me and P6 was sharing her
experiences and she was helping him to write on his own. Later, I decided to tell P5 and P6 that I
needed some help with my writing” (online written F-P chats). P4 clearly demonstrates how trust
developed based on his observations of how the group leader helped another participant who had
shared his concerns. This gave him the courage to ask for help and further encouraged him to take
an active role in the group writing.
The group partners, having revealed their writing-related fears to their peers, and asked for the
support of the leader, found that not only was moral support provided in abundance but practical
solutions to their writing problems were suggested. Again, P4 who had needed help elaborates on
this in detail: “I cannot spell words correctly and that mostly stops me from writing in English. I
Volume 13 • Issue 1
10
shared this problem with P6… She suggested I use an app [mobile application] called ‘Spell checker’.
I downloaded this app onto my phone and after that P6 explained how to use it [...] This is what
collaboration in this writing exercise is for me because when P6 helped with my spelling problem
she was not only helping me, but also helping us as a group to write our short story better (focus
group discussion, 1).
In summary, based on the participants’ narratives about writing anxiety, decisions and actions
taken by the participants had a positive impact on participants’ perceptions of EFL writing development
based on friendship, social affinity and trust. There was visible evidence of development of writing
skills as in the use of extended vocabulary and grammatical understanding although this was not the
focus of the research and is, therefore, not reported on. In the focus group discussions and online
one-to-one chats, participants related how the rapport that developed among group partners in the
outside of classroom social setting of the FB group reduced apprehension about writing in English
and encouraged them to reveal and solve their writing-related difficulties.
This study set out to explore student perceptions of using a social network environment in a
collaborative writing task outside of the classroom. Facebook (FB) proved a popular choice given the
attachment that young Turkish students have to social media and FB. The FB activity chimed with
the students’ everyday use of digital technologies and social media. The participants were digitally
literate in terms of using PCs, laptops and smart phones and were able to join in and benefit from the
study affordance as they were all confident and prolific users of their smartphones. FB, we conclude,
is an effective and rich Smart space for learning. We recommend this type of student collaboration
and suggest teachers consider extended, personalised and flexible digital learning outside of the
class-allocated timetabled school time. This could be a pre- or post-class task or extended learning
and would boost the time for writing practice that the students’ teachers said was limited and in
which the students felt insecure and under-rehearsed. We advocate for EFL teachers to think about
including more imaginative collaborative writing activities in class enabling more student autonomy,
allowing the use of mobile phones or other online support. Key issues for teachers would be to ensure
equitable access to laptops and phones by the learners and to scaffold inclusive group organisation.
With reference to our research aims, the participants provided rich descriptions that validate the
success of the FB activity according to the participants’ perceptions. Their perceptions were entirely
positive in terms of self- reporting of writing skill improvements, but especially affective considerations
enveloped in the frequently cited phrase of ‘feeling comfortable’. This psychological construct was
clearly evidenced in the students’ informal exchanges and grounded in a feeling of being in control
through flexible and personalized learning arrangements. It denoted feeling at ease with peers who
encouraged and motivated, in a shared space defined by trust, friendship, humour and mutual peer
respect. These factors reflect adolescent concerns and the need for peer support and endorsement in
both their private lives and in their learning. This need was met in the FB activity through a feeling
of what Osterman (2000, p.323) describes as “belongingness in a group”. Gee (2018, p.8) calls this
an “affinity space” that we find apt for this research. In their affinity space, the participants embraced
a common endeavour and co-created knowledge; group leaders acted as resources in various ways.
Student agency and involvement were pivotal in the student perception of the learning of collaborative
writing skills in a technologically- enhanced learning environment largely created by themselves.
The intersection of psychological factors and digital competence underpinned the success of this
Smart collaborative learning space. A valuable skills-set comprising communication, interpersonal
relationships, empathy, respect and crucially trust resonates with the findings of Hong and Gardner
(2019) in which students put great store on trust in their FB learning conversations. Such skills
positioned these Turkish high school EFL learners as smart innovative thinkers in the creation of
trustful social and learning affinity spaces.
Volume 13 • Issue 1
11
A small-scale study, conducted with a small number of 16-year-old EFL learners in one high
school, presents as a limitation and restricts any generalisation of the findings to other contexts.
However, the insights gained were substantial for this particular context and the outcome of such a
small-scale research adds nuanced understanding of the EFL teaching and learning context in Turkey.
These insights have been received enthusiastically by teachers in Turkey in research dissemination
activities, thereby validating the research impact. The value of a small-scale study is in enabling
critical reflection on whether practices might have potential transfer value to other similar educational
contexts- EFL high school learners of other ages, in different types of schools, different group
arrangements, less motivated students, in other cultural contexts- which the authors suggest would
be useful in further research in the field.
Volume 13 • Issue 1
12
Aydın, S. (2014). Foreign language learners’ interactions with their teachers on Facebook. System, 42, 155–163.
doi:10.1016/j.system.2013.12.001
Aydin, S., & Ozdemir, E. (2019). A qualitative research on foreign language learners’ perceptions of Facebook
as a Learning Environment. Language and Technology, 1(1), 16–29.
Bani-Hani, N. A., Al-Sobh, M. A., & Abu-Melhim, A. R. H. (2014). Utilizing Facebook groups in teaching
writing: Jordanian EFL students’ perceptions and attitudes. International Journal of English Linguistics, 4(5),
27–34. doi:10.5539/ijel.v4n5p27
Barrot, J. S. (2018). Facebook as a learning environment for language teaching and learning: A critical analysis of
the literature from 2010- 2017. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(6), 863–875. doi:10.1111/jcal.12295
Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P., Baines, E., & Galton, M. (2003). Towards a social pedagogy of classroom groupwork.
International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1-2), 153–172. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00078-8
Blattner, G., & Fiori, M. (2009). Facebook in the Language Classroom: Promises and Possibilities. International
Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 6, 17–28.
Ciftci, H., & Aslan, E. (2019). Computer-mediated communication in the L2 writing process: A review of studies
between 2000 and 2017. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 9(2),
19–36. doi:10.4018/IJCALLT.2019040102
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage
Publications.
Daniela, L. (2019). Smart pedagogy for technology-enhanced learning. In L. Daniela (Ed.), Didactics of smart
pedagogy (pp. 3–21). Springer.
Demirtas, M. (2012). An analysis in purpose to the Facebook and Twitter users in Turkey. British Journal of
Arts & Social Sciences., 9(2), 116–125.
Gee, J. P. (2018). Affinity Spaces: How young people live and learn online and out of school. Phi Delta Kappan,
99(6), 8–3. doi:10.1177/0031721718762416
Hong, Y., & Gardner, L. (2019). Undergraduates’ perception and engagement in Facebook learning groups.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(4), 1831–1845. doi:10.1111/bjet.12672
Hyland, K. (2009). Teaching and researching writing (2nd ed.). Longman.
Kabilan, M. K., Ahmad, N., & Abidin, M. J. Z. (2010). Facebook: An online environment for learning of
English in institutions of higher education? The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 179–187. doi:10.1016/j.
iheduc.2010.07.003
Kitsis, S. M. (2008). The Facebook generation: Homework as social networking. English Journal, 98(2), 30–36.
Lytras, M. D., Visvizi, A., Daniela, L., Sarirete, A., & Ordonez De Pablos, P. (2018). Social networks research
for sustainable smart education. Sustainability, 10(9), 2974. doi:10.3390/su10092974
Mazman, S. G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2010). Modeling educational usage of Facebook. Computers & Education,
55(2), 444–553. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.008
Moore, A., & Vonkova, H. (2021). Use of arts-integrated multimodal technology in the English as a foreign
language classroom to engage student creativity and enhance motivation and achievement. INTED2021
Proceedings, 18541-1847.
Northcote, M., & Kendle, A. (2001). Communication skills for online students: An evaluation of a website.
Proceedings of the 10th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, 7-9.
Osterman, K. F. (2001). Students’ need for belonging on the school community. Review of Educational Research,
70(3), 323–367. doi:10.3102/00346543070003323
Punch, K. F., & Oancea, A. (2014). Introduction to Research Methods in Education. Sage Publications.
Volume 13 • Issue 1
13
Razak, N. A., & Saeed, M. A. (2014). Collaborative writing revision process among learners of English as
a foreign language (EFL) in an online community of practice (CoP). Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 30(5), 580–599. doi:10.14742/ajet.786
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning: Theory, Research, and
Applications. Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
Selcuk, H., Jones, J., & Vonkova, H. (2019). The emergence and influence of group leaders in web-based
collaborative writing: Self-reported accounts of EFL learners. Computer Assisted Language Learning. Advance
online publication. doi:10.1080/09588221.2019.1650781
Shih, R.-C. (2011). Can Web 2.0 technology assist college students in learning English writing? Integrating
Facebook and peer assessment with blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(5),
829–845. doi:10.14742/ajet.934
Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction (3rd ed.).
Sage Publications Ltd.
Steele, V. (1992). Product and Process Writing: A Comparison. Newbury House.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 14(3), 153–173. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002
Storch, N. (2011). Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Processes, outcomes, and future directions. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 275–288. doi:10.1017/S0267190511000079
Tribble, C. (1996). Writing. Oxford University Press.
Ushioda, E. (2011). Language learning motivation, self and identity: Current theoretical perspectives. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 24(3), 199–210. doi:10.1080/09588221.2010.538701
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge University Press.
Wichadee, S. (2013). Peer feedback on Facebook: The use of social networking websites to develop writing
ability of undergraduate students. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(4), 260–270.
World Population Review. (2021). Facebook users by country 2021. Retrieved from https://worldpopulationreview.
com/country-rankings/facebook-users-by-country
Yunus, M., & Salehi, H. (2012). The effectiveness of Facebook groups on teaching and improving writing:
Students’ perceptions. International Journal of Education and Information Technologies, 6(1), 87–96.
Volume 13 • Issue 1
14
Hasan Selcuk, PhD, is currently working as a visiting lecturer at the Faculty of Education, Psychology, University
of Latvia. Previously, Dr. Selcuk worked as a postdoctoral researcher and lecturer at the Faculty of Education,
Charles University, from January 2018 until August 2020. Dr.Selcuk earned his PhD in Education from King’s
College London in 2017. In his PhD thesis, he specialised in student perceptions of peer collaboration through
web-based collaborative writing among English learners as a Foreign Language. Among his research interest
topics are self-assessment of ICT and foreign language skills of secondary school students, digital creativity and
autonomous learning, and affective factors in social media-based small group learning.
Jane Jones is Head of MFL Teacher Education at King’s College London that includes Initial Teacher Education,
MA programmes and PhDs. Dr. Jones previously taught MFL in schools for 16 years. She has published widely
on teaching, learning, assessment and leadership issues in languages. Jane has led 16 EU-funded projects that
have enabled her to develop a cross-cultural overview of language learning and pedagogies including the use of
technologies. Her main research interests focus on assessment in language learning contexts and the inclusion
of the student voice. She collaborates with school and university colleagues on teacher research projects in many
EU countries. Dr. Jones is a keen advocate of teacher research in a critically engaged community of practice in
order to enhance teacher agency and professional development.
Table 5. Timeline of Group A’s (P1, P2 & P3) and Group B’s (P4, P5 & P6) writing
Week Session
Group A Group B
Descriptions Descriptions
1 1 The facilitator discussed with the group how to
write a short story in English. (40 minutes)
The facilitator discussed with the group how to write a short story
in English. (50 minutes)
2 2
P1 was elected as a group leader by her group
members. The group did not produce any writing
in this session. (60 minutes)
P6 was elected as a group leader by her group members. The
group did not produce any writing in this session. (65 minutes)
3 3
P1 allocated individual writing tasks to P2, P3
and herself.
P1 combined all group members’ writing tasks
including her own and asked P2 and P3 to check
the grammar, vocabulary, spelling and meaning.
(80 minutes).
P1 allocated individual writing tasks to their group members
including herself.
The group undertook the writing tasks. (50 minutes)
4 4 P1allocated individual tasks to each member
including herself. (110 minutes)
P6 started to give directions to P4 and P5 how to lead the story.
The group collectively continued with adding to their story. (120
minutes)
5
5This group continued with adding to their story
under the leadership of P1. (50 minutes)
This group continued with adding to their story under the
leadership of P6. (110 minutes)
6This group continued with adding to their story
under the leadership of P1. (40 minutes)
This group finalised their short story under the leadership of P6.
(90 minutes)
6 7 This group added more to their story and finalised
their story. (60 minutes) This group edited the draft of the story together. (43 minutes)
7
8This group edited their whole story together (30
minutes) This group edited their whole story together. (34 minutes)
9This group further edited their whole story and
collectively decided on its title. (45 minutes)
This group further edited their whole story and collectively
decided on its title. (50 minutes)
10
Another discussion board was created for both groups.
Each group posted the final version of their story here and gave peer-feedback to the other group’s story.
(90 minutes)
Content uploaded by Hasan Selcuk
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hasan Selcuk on Feb 25, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Hasan Selcuk
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hasan Selcuk on Feb 25, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Hasan Selcuk
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hasan Selcuk on Feb 25, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
