






































citation


AsiaCALL Online Journal Received: 01/09/2021 

ISSN 1936-9859; https://asiacall.info/acoj Revision: 06/10/2021 

Vol. 12, No. 5,  2021  Accepted: 07/10/2021 

pp. 54-76  Online: 08/10/2021 

 
CITATION | Tran, T. M. L., & Nguyen, T. T. H. (2021). The Impacts of Technology-based Communication on 

EFL Students’ Writing. AsiaCALL Online Journal, 12(5), pp. 54-76. EOI: 

http://eoi.citefactor.org/10.11251/acoj.12.05.005 

The Impacts of Technology-based Communication on EFL Students’ Writing 

Tran Thi My Linh1, Nguyen Thi Thanh Ha*1 

 

1 University of Economics – Technology for Industries, Vietnam 
*Corresponding author’s email: nttha.khoann@uneti.edu.vn 

EOI: http://eoi.citefactor.org/10.11251/acoj.12.05.005 

 

Abstract 

Digital techniques play a significant role in stimulating EFL students’ collaboration during the 

Covid-19 pandemic. The shift from face-to-face interaction to technology-based 

communication is regarded to foster language learning, especially writing classes. An action 

research design was employed to explore the influences of technology-based communication 

on either students' writing performances or their perceptions towards the new teaching method 

application. Data triangulation analyzed from three types of collecting instruments in terms of 

testing, questionnaire, and reflective journal indicates that the integration of Paragraph Punch, 

ProWritingAid, and LMS web-based platform boosts a more collaborative learning 

environment among online-engaging participants. The calculated mean scores indicated there 

was a decrease in students' difficulties regarding cognitive, emotional, and socio-cultural 

aspects after the intervention. Besides, it was respectively measured a potential trend on online 

collaborative group's writing performance concerning the task response, coherence & 

cohesion or the idea for writing development. Nevertheless, there was no significance in 

promoting students' lexical resources plus grammatical range and accuracy. The results also 

conveyed participants’ optimistic feelings on technology-based communication, their higher 

self-confidence in accordance with positive attitudes towards writing lessons thanks to their 

awareness of their promoting critical thinking as well as error identification. 

 

Keywords: LMS platform, Paragraph Punch, ProWritingAid, technology-based 

communication, writing skills.  

 

1. Introduction 

Technology is used in virtually every area of life, including education. As mentioned in the 

higher education curriculum, technology has become a new idea of teaching and learning 

activities (Kern, 1995; Quintero, 2008; Cifuentes & Shih, 2001; Pumjarean et al., 2017; 

Nasution & Fatimah, 2018). Universities have started offering technology-based courses where 

instructors educate students. According to Alias & Hussin (2002), Chau & Nguyen (2021), Bui 

et al. (2021), ICT has become a significant problem in many linguistic discussions nowadays. 

Chung et al. (2005) claim that the growing usage of computer-based learning resources helps 

http://eoi.citefactor.org/10.11251/acoj.12.05.005


ACOJ- ISSN 1936-9859 AsiaCALL Online Journal  Vol. 12; No. 5; 2021  

55 

students gather proof of their use of information technology inside their subject study (in this 

instance, communication skills) rather than needing to do it separately. Van et al. (2021) state 

that when students utilize technology to communicate, such as email, they also demonstrate 

their communication abilities. The existence of coronavirus illness (COVID-19) has had a 

profound effect on human life across the globe (Nguyen et al., 2021). In education, the spread 

of this virus has had a fundamental influence. It exposes students to 'home-schooling conditions 

in every country, including the University of Economics - Technology for Industries (UNETI). 

This circumstance exposes students to the growth of online learning and the distant delivery of 

instruction through digital platforms. This forced digital transition is the most secure method of 

halting the spread of coronavirus outbreaks. As a result, the right of students to education 

remains paramount without jeopardizing their mental health or safety. For English as foreign 

language (EFL) students, navigating this online pedagogical environment throughout their term 

was also a problem. 

In the writing course at UNETI, writing is a complicated skill that cannot be learned separately. 

Generally, students need a thorough grasp of writing theories and practical assistance from the 

instructor throughout their writing practice (Lin, 2009; Ndoricimpa & Barad, 2021; Le, 2021). 

They need guidance, criticism, and perhaps improvement throughout the writing process. Le 

(2021) and Nguyen et al. (2021) share the same view that long-distance learning from home is 

ineffective in assisting students in improving their writing abilities. According to Ly et al. 

(2021), this happens as a result of the short time available to students during virtual learning 

sessions with lecturers, errors in the presentation of content, and insufficient feedback on 

students' work. Meanwhile, online learning caused students to feel disconnected from their 

classmates and lecturers, less assisted by their professors, and disheartened by the technical 

demands associated with online study (Le, 2021). As a result, it requires suitable online writing 

tool platforms and websites to connect online learning activities between students and lecturers 

in order for students to get complete feedback and practice in online writing courses. 

Elola & Oskoz (2010) and Ware & O'Dowd (2008) shed light on the improvement of students' 

fluency and accuracy with the assistance of peer-reviewing, thanks to online collaborative 

writing. Online discussions, stated by Black (2005), have the prospect to boost student curiosity 

and promote collaborative learning while also promoting reflection and critical thinking. 

Numerous studies by Chung et al. (2005), Cheung et al. (2006), Yunus et al. (2012), Khabbaz 

& Najar (2015), Pumjarean et al. (2017), Ariyanto et al. (2019), and Ly et al. (2021) have 

investigated the effectiveness of technologies such as Paragraph Punch, ProWritingAid, and a 

web-based learning management system in increasing student involvement and simplifying the 

peer review process. Students in online learning communities may create, share information, 

critical practice reflection, negotiate meaning, test synthesis, and build agreement to the central 

content. Students' knowledge construction abilities may be honed via online collaborative 

writing assignments, debates, arguments, and group discussions. As a result, constructive 

criticism is said to enhance the quality of student-student or student-teacher discussion 

responses. The virtual learning environment has a variety of merits, including improved 



https://asiacall.info/acoj Tran, T. M. L., & Nguyen, T. T. H. Vol. 12; No. 05; 2021  

56 
 

feedback timeliness, additional learning opportunities for both feedback providers and 

recipients, humanization of the environment, and community building via online participation. 

In the context of UNETI, utilizing technology in teaching writing skills has not been drawn 

much attention. Although lecturers are aware of the potential benefits of digital advances to the 

teaching and learning process, educators have not integrated technology into their writing 

classes. Not until the outbreak of Covid-19 has technology been applied into language classes. 

This urged the researchers to examine the effects of online writing tools concerning  Paragraph 

Punch, ProWritingAid, and LMS platform on English – majored students' writing performance 

at the university as well as their perceptions towards writing English and technology-based 

communication. 

2. Literature review 

2.1. Writing as a process 

To give meaning to the multitude of thoughts racing through our brains, Quintero (2008) defines 

writing as a process during which a writer connects lexis by using grammatical structures to 

make it meaningful. For Mitch (quoted in Quintero, 2008), it is a process of discovery and 

creation. Writing requires students to think critically about the process of writing, including 

task responses, coherence & cohesion, lexical resources, and grammar range and accuracy 

acquired via language exposure. Quintero (2008) notes that both instructors and students value 

excellent writing abilities. 

The process of teaching can be quantified as a process-oriented writing approach. It is more 

focused on the production of meaning than the task's primary goal. Nowadays, many English 

instructors organize their courses using a process approach, which emphasizes the different 

phases of writing (Harmer, 2004). It also demands instructors and students to plan, draft, edit, 

and finalize their work. 

Planning: Using essential words and terminology to start writing. Harmer (2004) claims 

participants select what material to discuss before writing or typing. Some participants may 

need extensive information, while others may just need a few notes (Harmer, 2004, p. 4). So, 

while planning, the writer must consider the goal, audience, and content structure which are 

regarded as key elements driving to the writing stage. 

Drafting:  A draft is the initial version of writing work (Harmer, 2004). During the writing step, 

competitors must persuade and demonstrate their ability to combine words logically. They may 

now reuse language and resources to enhance their paragraphs, improving their writing fluency. 

Editing: It refers to students revising their work after getting instructor criticism. Editing means 

that the text will be changed as many times as possible before it is finalized. According to 

Harmer (2004), writers typically look it over to evaluate and locate its significance after writing 

a draft. 



ACOJ- ISSN 1936-9859 AsiaCALL Online Journal  Vol. 12; No. 5; 2021  

57 

Final draft: Students have to complete the final writing version based on instructor input. At 

this level, students are required to write w, considering grammar, topic, and vocabulary. 

According to Harmer (2004), authors create their final version after editing their draft and 

making the required adjustments. 

2.2. Online collaborative writing 

Definitions  

Ede and Lunsford (1990) define collaborative writing as any writing done with others. These 

include brainstorming, outlining, note-taking, organizational planning; writing; revising; 

editing; and publishing. Farkas (1991) proposes four kinds of writing collaboration when two 

or more people firstly compose a text, secondly contribute components to a document, thirdly 

edit or review other's textual form and finally work interactively and conduct drafting. 

Serial cooperation is added by Jaszi (1994), which claims two or more individuals work 

sequentially to brainstorm, correct mistakes, and expound on common subjects at the same 

time. With the advent of the Internet, cooperative writing has evolved to include the Internet as 

a writing medium. That the human mind can control a networked computer as a mediator of 

communication may change the way writing is taught and learned. Writing courses use 

technology-based communication because of the interactive, dynamic, and collaborative 

learning opportunities it provides (Ede and Lunsford, 1990). The prospect of networked 

computer technology along with the researchers' definition of collaborative writing may be 

extended to online collaborative writing. Online collaborative writing is face-to-face 

interaction. However, any activities and communication happening before, during, or after the 

online collaborative writing process may be considered online collaborative writing, which 

definitely is part of technology-assisted collaborative learning. 

Online collaborative learning benefits and difficulties 

In terms of cognitive aspects, Lindblom-Ylanne and Pihlajamaki (2003) investigating ate 

whether a computer-mediated learning environment that enables students to share drafts and 

get feedback enhances their compositions. This qualitative research included 25 law students. 

Interviews with students and teachers provided data for this research. The students gained 

knowledge, acquired critical and independent thinking abilities and self-regulatory skills. 

Implementing a technology-mediated class was also linked to excellent essay scores. Tuzi 

(2004) investigated the effect of electronic feedback on second-language authors' 

modifications. This research included 20  college authors. Students drafted, reacted, and edited 

on a database-driven website intended for writing. Students got spoken comments from friends 

and classmates, as well as face-to-face tutoring from university writing centers. Interviews, 

observations, written drafts, and participant answers were used to gather data. The research 

recognized students’ preference towards vocal feedback, e-feedback but indicated their 

enhancement in revision via the process of focusing authors on uniting with new material to the 



https://asiacall.info/acoj Tran, T. M. L., & Nguyen, T. T. H. Vol. 12; No. 05; 2021  

58 
 

original work. Online feedback also influenced greater structural changes, such as sentence and 

paragraph alterations. Kern (1995) notes that networked computer systems have issues with 

grammatical correctness, conversation coherence, and continuity. 

Regarding emotional aspects, Alias and Hussin (2002) investigated the efficacy of E-learning 

activities in students' writing processes. A stratified sample of 20 college students participating 

in an EFL writing course was chosen. The questionnaire was given out at the conclusion of each 

session, as were the logbooks containing student records of their online activities. A mood 

survey was also given at the start and conclusion of the program to assess the students' 

emotional changes. Email and online conversation increased students' drive, confidence and 

decreased anxiety. However, Alias and Hussin's (2002) research only had 20 individuals, which 

might not be generalized to other groups. Weasenforth and Meloni (2002) utilize constructivist 

concepts to assess how well-threaded conversations meet constructivist educational objectives. 

This qualitative research included 52 foreign students from advanced ESL reading/writing 

courses for three semesters. The research found that the technology reduced threatening 

emotions and increased motivation. 

Concerning socio-cultural aspects, Beuchor and Bullen (2005) conducted a longitudinal study 

using a mixed-method approach to determine the amount and kind of interaction and 

interpersonal content in messages sent by online graduate EFL students. The qualitative data 

includes discussion forum content analysis. Quantitative data included counting and classifying 

content analysis units given to explanatory and response factors. This research included 16 

doctorate students in education. The research found that fostering interactive and reactive online 

communications increases participation and debate depth, thereby facilitating online collective 

knowledge creation. The cultural problems of students' communication processes, for instance, 

interaction complexity and group cohesiveness, may influence their cognitive learning results. 

In an international languages class, Chung et al. (2005) used computer-assisted communicative 

activities to examine language acquisition as a socially mediated process. This research 

included 26 high school students. The research matched Korean and English-speaking 

classmates who worked together on chat homework tasks. The research found that online 

collaborative conversation helps cross-linguistic knowledge development. Using the meaning-

making tools inside their local learning community, these students were encouraged to acquire 

and teach contextually relevant and acceptable language and social conduct. In other words, 

one partner's beliefs, language, and cultural practices may become the other's. Specifically, 

students gained self-awareness in regard to others. According to Cifuentes and Shih (2001), 

qualitative research was performed to identify certain online teaching methods, advantages, and 

limits of online education, as well as cultural factors connected with cross-cultural cooperation. 

37 Taiwanese students were partnered with 37 American university pre-service instructors. Data 

were gathered through correspondence printouts, formative assessments, reflective diary 

entries, and surveys of Taiwanese partners. Participants highlighted difficulties related to virtual 

teaching and learning, such as reliance on an unresponsive partner and a feeling of alienation. 

Students were dissatisfied by the absence of quick or no peer response. A sense of alienation 



ACOJ- ISSN 1936-9859 AsiaCALL Online Journal  Vol. 12; No. 5; 2021  

59 

caused by not knowing when an answer will arrive contributed to several students' complaints. 

Curtis and Lawson (2002) used a mixed-method approach to examine whether students' textual 

exchanges in an online learning environment revealed signs of collaborative learning. The 

research included 24 college students. The results showed that there are no visible difficulties 

in online contact since the majority of participants want to debate with what they agree, but 

they skim over concepts that contradict their background knowledge and are consequently 

unable to engage. 

2.3. Paragraph Punch, ProWritingAid, and LMS platform as technology-based communication 

used in EFL writing classrooms 

First and foremost, online writing assistance Paragraph Punch may help youngsters learn to 

write from home. This method aids students in organizing their ideas and learning to express 

themselves through writing. Besides, Paragraph Punch is an online tool for improving 

paragraph writing skills (Yunus, Salehi, & Nordin, 2012). Providing students with writing 

processes from conception to publishing. One of the most obvious advantages is its free charge 

to utilize the trial version of this site. This site offers 15 writing topics, and 1,548 writing 

prompts to help students write. It teaches students to write paragraphs utilizing logic and facts 

as w as causes and effects. Paragraph Punch teaches learners efficient paragraph construction. 

On this site, prewriting is needed. The students choose their own subjects, which apparently 

encourages them to utilize current terms as well as offers questions to help students brainstorm. 

Unlike traditional courses, when students collaborate with the teacher, students on this site use 

writing software. Next, the program shows a sample topic sentence that could help start a 

paragraph. Moreover, lessons involve creating sentences using pre-written words, which 

encourages writers to bring them up to sentences. The sentences must also be arranged in a 

paragraph. Not only may overlong sentences be deleted, but Paragraph Punch also offers 

transition words as well. In addition, the program initially provides an example of a conclusion. 

The students are then asked to compose a conclusion. Input objects may be moved around the 

screen, so this content may be edited by students. Then they may save or print their work. 

Several studies indicate that Paragraph Punch improves writing skills. Lin (2009) states that 

ParagraphPunch helps with spelling and writing, Yunus, Salehi and Nordin (2012) claim that 

Paragraph Punch is a great way to teach writing to young children. Paragraph Punch teaches 

new writers how to create paragraphs step-by-step. Lin (2009) investigated the effect of 

Paragraph Punch and other technological aids on the self-perception of writing difficulties 

among English-language learners. She mentioned many benefits of Paragraph Punch, including 

spelling check and process reinforcement. Additionally, she discussed some of the software's 

shortcomings and the consequences of technology in the writing classroom (Lin, 2009). 

Nevertheless, this research maintains that it is crucial as the instructor's views of the software's 

value as a writing tool are no less significant than students' opinions, giving the teacher's pivotal 

role in the classroom. Sharing the same view, Yunus, Salehi, and Nordin (2012) examined pre-

service instructors' views of Paragraph Punch for helping novice writers. This program was 

intended to assist English language learners in developing and organizing paragraphs for essay 



https://asiacall.info/acoj Tran, T. M. L., & Nguyen, T. T. H. Vol. 12; No. 05; 2021  

60 
 

writing. Through a questionnaire survey of third-year students at a public institution in 

Malaysia, this study ascertained their attitudes about the usage of Paragraph Punch as a possible 

writing aid. The data analysis revealed that respondents owned a favorable taste of this writing 

application for novice writers. The author additionally highlighted its design should be 

improved to be more interactive and visually appealing in ESL writing. 

In the second place, ProWritingAid is a new free online tool that checks the text for correctness 

(Ariyanto, Mukminatien, & Tresnadewi, 2019). This program helps self-editing writers by 

assisting with SPAG evaluations (Spelling, Punctuation, and Grammar). Students may self-

assess their writing skills by running this program and getting a report and score. To be more 

illustrated, ProWritingAid is a useful tool for students who study at home. This program enables 

students to revise and test their work without waiting for comments. They may instantly verify 

their piece of writing for spelling, grammatical, and punctuation problems. Additionally, 

students are corrected and explained their errors. Corrective feedback comprises the sign, 

correct form, and metalinguistic information regarding a student's linguistic mistake (Loewen 

& Erlam, 2006). As a result, they may self-evaluate their writing, which enriches students' 

writing development. Teachers and students alike praised ProWritingAid and instructor 

comments in class, according to Ariyanto, Mukminatien, and Tresnadewi (2019). It aided 

teachers in providing feedback and allowing them to devote more time to the content and 

organization of students' paragraphs and students in detecting, learning, and correcting their 

papers. ProWritingAid has been recognized the benefits of online writing tools to EFL students 

during the Covid-19 epidemic in Natution and Fatimah (2018) and Handayani (2020). Those 

researchers investigated that the difficulties students encountered while learning to write stem 

from the instructors who were not innovative in their approach to teach writing. ProWritingAid 

is tasked with the responsibility of resolving the issues. By incorporating professional writing 

assistance into the writing instruction process, students could become more engaging. The web 

was user-friendly and aided instructors in communicating with students about the contents. 

Teachers may successfully educate students about writing by using professional writing aids, 

and students can study on their own to acquire the knowledge as well. 

Last but not least, LMS stands for Learning Management System, which is regarded a server-

assisted software. To be more specific, LMS can tackle database information about users, 

courses, and material for a specific purpose, for instance, a business or education. Sidney 

Pressey invented the LMS in 1924, dubbed the "teaching machine. Whether open-source or 

proprietary, LMS software provides users with four primary features: content production, 

communication, assessment, and administration. As a result, instructors and administrators may 

effectively administer the LMS depending on their unique requirements. In the educational 

context, LMSs are developed in response to teachers' needs for managing students' paths of 

learning in an online classroom, monitoring their performance, creating and distributing 

content, organizing e-learning activities, evaluating, and providing tools for communication, 

collaboration, which means that LMSs are robust technologies that teachers can use to create 

their own online courses, administrative purposes, documentation, reports on activities, virtual 



ACOJ- ISSN 1936-9859 AsiaCALL Online Journal  Vol. 12; No. 5; 2021  

61 

teaching, and learning activities, e-learning, and provision of training materials to their students. 

Additionally, this function of LMS, what they referred to as an e-learning platform, is a very 

flexible technology that enables teachers or lecturers to submit course content and manage a 

large amount of online course information in a single integrated LMS really offers space or 

atmosphere for virtual teaching, learning, and activities that is self-contained and devoid of time 

and space constraints. Additionally, the use of LMSs in the pedagogical field is well-known. Its 

benefits have been experimentally shown; particularly, language learning via LMS-based 

teaching materials impedes the procedure of becoming independent language learners 

(Khabbaz & Najjar, 2015). In Malaysia, LMS has aided higher-education students in improving 

their writing skills as well as their comprehension of certain subjects via explanations and 

examples provided by either classmates or professors (Hamat et al., 2014). Additionally, LMS 

has enabled a number of advantages over conventional systems for teaching a foreign language, 

most notably in arranging individual work. The use of LMS in writing class has resulted in good 

and encouraging student responses. This demonstrates that students in Hong Kong who used 

LMS truly appreciated the incorporation of technology (Cheung et al., 2006), in accordance 

with positive views about the use of LMS platform in productive-skill courses in Iran (Ma'azi 

& Janfeshan, 2018). Meanwhile, research conducted in Thailand by Pumjarean et al. (2017) 

discovered that LMS is a viable and affordable, and effective educational tool for improving 

EFL students' writing and grammar abilities in a blended-eLearning environment. 

2.4 Research Questions  

This research will discuss firstly the influences of online writing tools in terms of  Paragraph 

Punch, ProWritingAid and LMS platform on English – majored students' writing performance 

at UNETI and secondly investigate students' perceptions towards writing English and 

technology-based communication. Hence, three research questions were addressed. 

a) What are students' perspectives towards writing in English at UNETI? 

b) To what extent does the use of Paragraph Punch, ProWritingAid, and LMS platform 

influence the students' writing performance at UNETI? 

c) What are the students' perceptions towards the use of Paragraph Punch, ProWritingAid, 

and LMS platform in writing classes at UNETI? 

3. Methods 

3.1 Pedagogical Setting & Participants 

The research included 18 UNETI English-major freshmen which are evaluated to be at a pre-

intermediate level of English proficiency via the entrance exam and their academic transcript 

at high school. Their textbook is "Writing" published by Collins. They have to pass the V-step 

standardized exam at the end of the semester to accomplish this required subject. The writing 

exam assesses students' ability to construct basic phrases, compose memos, messages, 

postcards, letters, and emails. It lasts 35 minutes and has three tasks. Task 1 is building 

sentences in which test-takers complete five sentences with suggested words or phrases. Task 



https://asiacall.info/acoj Tran, T. M. L., & Nguyen, T. T. H. Vol. 12; No. 05; 2021  

62 
 

2 is writing a memo or a message that test-takers have to complete an everyday writing task, 

such as a short note, a memo or a message. Task 3 is writing a letter or a postcard: test-takers 

may complete a variety of communication tasks by writing a letter or email. 

3.2 Design of the Study 

Creswell (2014) defines action research as combining research with action. Action research 

aimed at addressing issues, bringing about social change, or taking practical action should be 

done by all instructors at any time. To cope with multi-cultural groups, it included four steps: 

planning, acting, observing, and reflecting. Creswell (2014) examines action research's main 

features. Firstly, action research studies real-world problems and seeks to address them. 

Secondly, action research helps them better understand and enhance their teaching methods. 

Action research also includes numerous individuals and groups whose responsibilities may 

change and be negotiated. Furthermore, action research is a cycle of issue contemplation, data 

gathering, and action. Finally, action research findings are readily disseminated and utilized by 

teachers, school staff, parents organizations, and other stakeholders. On the basis of those 

typical characteristics, the researchers decided to investigate action research with the aim of 

exploring the use of technology-assisted communication on students' writing at UNETI. 

3.3 Data collection & analysis and research procedure. 

Data collection and analysis 

The first data collection instrument is a 42-item questionnaire that measured self-perception of 

writing problems on three scales: cognitive, emotional, and socio-cultural difficulties. Writing 

in a foreign language requires integrating cognitive and linguistic elements of writing 

concurrently, making an apparent distinction between linguistic and cognitive characteristics. 

There were 25 questions assessing the cognitive dimension, 5 measuring the social component, 

and 12 measuring the emotional dimension. The questionnaire ranged from "strongly disagree" 

to "highly agree." For each item, the highest score (6) represented the most difficulty in writing, 

while the lowest score (1) indicated the least difficulty. When a neutral opinion is provided, 

almost all the questionnaire-takes may prefer to accept this view; thus, no definitive opinion is 

expressed (Brown, 2001). To prevent this, the researchers gave responders an equal number of 

choices. A six-point Likert scale included (1) Strongly Disagree, (2) Disagree, (3) Somewhat 

Disagree, (4) Somewhat Agree, (5) Agree, and (6) Strongly Agree. Multiple versions of the 

questionnaire were evaluated, revised, and edited by lecturers from the Faculty of Foreign 

Languages to ensure content validity. Besides, the Cronbach's Alpha was calculated via SPSS 

version 22 at 0.81 to varify the reliability of the questionnaire, which is shown in Table 1 

 

 

 



ACOJ- ISSN 1936-9859 AsiaCALL Online Journal  Vol. 12; No. 5; 2021  

63 

Table 1: Reliability statistics of the questionnaire. 

Cronbach’s 

Alpha 

No. of 

items 

.81 42 
 

Cronbach’s alpha Internal 

consistency 

α ≥ 0.9 Excellent  

0.9 > α ≥ 0.8 Good 

0.8 > α ≥ 0.7 Acceptable 

0.7 > α ≥ 0.6 Questionable 

0.6 > α ≥ 0.5 Poor 

0.5 > α  Unacceptable 
 

The second data set consisted of students writing tests. The researchers administered pre- and 

post- Vietnamese standardized writing tests of English proficiency (Vstep) to the participants 

to determine the differences between students' writing performances before and after the 

intervention with technology-based communication. The writing tests were academically 

chosen from the exam bank designed and revised by Faculty of Foreign Languages lecturers 

for Writing 1. The tests were assessed and evaluated with four criteria in terms of task response, 

coherence & cohesion, lexical resource, grammatical range, and accuracy.  

Another important data collecting tool is the reflective journal. All reflection diaries were 

thoroughly reviewed several times and then classified. On the first reflection notebook, the 

researchers started by making notes on possible themes relating to writing problems and 

problem-solving methods. Following that, a separate list of topics for the second reflection diary 

was created. The two lists of emerged categories were found to be condensed when compared. 

First, the reflection journals were evaluated using this master list, and then additional categories 

were included as needed to support the research themes. To verify the data's reliability, the 

researchers had the coded data evaluated independently by one qualified qualitative analysis. 

Research procedure 

The research was conducted as in the table below 

Table 2: The procedure of the research 

Week/ date Class activities 

Week 1 

(March 29th – April 3rd) 

Researchers: 

- Identified problem and planned the action research. 

- Introduced writing classes with technology-based 

communication. 

- Carried out the questionnaire and the pre-test. 

Week 2 

(April 5th – April 10th) 

Writing instructions: 

- Teacher instructed students with specific topics writing tasks 

relating to the textbook. 

- Teacher guided students to use Paragraph Punch, ProWritingAid, 

and LMS. 



https://asiacall.info/acoj Tran, T. M. L., & Nguyen, T. T. H. Vol. 12; No. 05; 2021  

64 
 

Week 3 – Week 10 

(April 12th – June 19th) 

Students: 

- Used LMS to check for teacher's instruction, assigned tasks or 

requirements, online discussion, or conversation. 

- Practiced writing step-by-step with Paragraph Punch, completed 

the first draft. 

- Checked errors and mistakes on ProWritingAid. 

- Peter checked their mates' drafts. 

- Discussed the comments and feedbacks to find the most 

appropriate way to fix the errors. 

- Wrote the second draft. 

- Posted both drafts on LMS. 

- Wrote reflective journals every week. 

Week 11 

(June 21st – June 26th) 

- Carried out post-test. 

 

4. Results 

4.1. Students’ self-perceptions about writing in English. 

The participants completed a questionnaire in which they were asked to rate items on a 

questionnaire titled 'Self-Perceptions of Writing Difficulties' from strongly disagree to strongly 

agree. The questionnaire assessed three facets of writing difficulty: emotional, social, and 

cognitive. Although some questions may span dimensions, they were classified in this 

questionnaire according to their literal meanings without regard for the interconnections 

between these three aspects of writing. Three open-ended questions were added to the 

questionnaire to allow for a more in-depth analysis of English writing problems. Table 2 

presents descriptive statistics indicating the relative importance of specific items from the most 

difficult to the least in terms of three-dimensional aspects. 

Table 3: Descriptive analysis of Self-Perceptions of Writing Difficulties 

No. Dimension Items Mean Std. 

Deviation 

Rank 

1 Emotional I like to write in English 3.03 1.31 34 

2 Cognitive It is easy for me to get started writing 

English 

3.92 1.28 15 

3 Cognitive It is easy for me to keep my English 

writing going and write smoothly 

3.92 1.02 15 

4. Cognitive I write short and simple English sentences 3.88 1.30 20 

5 Cognitive It is easy for me to write my ideas into 

English paragraph 

3.79 1.02 23 

6 Cognitive I find it difficult to generate ideas for 

writing 

4.04 1.08 11 

7 Cognitive I find it difficult to use articles 3.50 1.45 28 

8 Cognitive I find it difficult to use prepositions 4.08 1.10 10 

9 Cognitive I find it difficult to use verb tenses within 3.04 1.12 33 



ACOJ- ISSN 1936-9859 AsiaCALL Online Journal  Vol. 12; No. 5; 2021  

65 

a paragraph 

10 Cognitive I find it difficult to order words in English 

sentences 

3.21 1.29 32 

11 Cognitive I have difficulty with word choice 5.01 .97 1 

12 Cognitive I find it difficult to usepunctuation 3.33 1.34 30 

13 Cognitive I use few idioms 4.50 1.69 5 

14 Cognitive I find it difficult to sp correctly 4.21 1.18 7 

15 Cognitive I find it difficult to generate ideas for 

writing 

4.04 1.08 11 

16 Socio-cultural  I find it difficult to adjust my way of 

writing in native language writing 

4.97 1.07 2 

17 Cognitive I am aware of what sentence fragments are, 

but I still use them 

4.00 1.14 14 

18 Cognitive I am aware of what sentence fragments are, 

and I don’t use them 

3.58 1.35 26 

19 Cognitive I know what run-on sentences are, but I 

still use them 

3.38 1.61 29 

20 Cognitive I know what run-on sentences are, and I 

don’t use them 

3.38 1.44 20 

21 Cognitive I find it difficulty to go from one paragraph 

to another with smooth, w-connected 

transitions 

3.79 1.21 23 

22 Cognitive I feel that I find it hard to write logically 

and systematically in English 

3.92 1.25 15 

23 Cognitive I find it difficult to write a topic sentence 4.21 1.18 7 

24 Cognitive I find it difficult to focus on the main 

points 

3.92 1.10 15 

25 Cognitive I find it difficult to organize ideas 3.88 1.44 20 

26 Cognitive  I find it difficult to summarize my points to 

conclude the writing 

4.17 1.13 9 

27 Cognitive When writing a paragraph, I find it difficult 

to write a topic sentence, body sentences, 

and a concluding sentence 

4.04 1.08 11 

28 Cognitive What I write in the beginning and at the 

end of the paper is not consistent and 

logical 

3.54 1.22 27 

29 Cognitive I stop many times to think about what to 

write during my writing process 

4.78 .87 3 

30 Emotional I am anxious when writing in English 4.58 1.18 4 

31 Emotional I am confident in my English writing 1.64 1.02 41 

32 Emotional  I have confidence in English writing 3.71 1.49 25 

33 Cognitive I don’t have enough time to finish my 

English writing papers 

3.92 1.18 15 

34 Emotional I feel comfortable with reviewing my 

papers in English 

3.33 1.31 30 

35 Emotional I like to use technology-based apps in my 

writing class 

2.45 1.27 36 

36 Cognitive I am a skillful English writing 4.25 1.32 6 

37 Socio-cultural I feel comfortable with sharing my English 

writing with my peers 

2.28 1.01 37 



https://asiacall.info/acoj Tran, T. M. L., & Nguyen, T. T. H. Vol. 12; No. 05; 2021  

66 
 

38 Socio-cultural  I like to share my English writing with my 

English teachers 

1.68 .77 40 

39 Socio-cultural I feel comfortable with sharing my English 

papers with lecturers 

1.92 1.06 39 

40 Socio-cultural I like to give feedback and comments to 

my peers’ papers 

2.03 1.07 38 

41 Emotional I think my writing papers are well-written 

and meaningful 

2.47 1.35 35 

42 Emotional I am motivated to learn English writing in 

the future 

1.27 .46 42 

Participants agreed that the primary writing problem (M=5.01; SD=.97) was word choice. 

Participants stated in their open-ended responses that they typically looked up unfamiliar 

English terms in the bilingual dictionary when they were unsure. However, students often 

reported that translations from a multilingual dictionary came out as a mishmash of words.  

Adapting to native thinking patterns (M=4.97; SD=1.07) was the second most challenging 

aspect of writing. Numerous participants stated that they struggled to adapt their native 

language writing styles to American thinking processes. Students continued to think in their 

original language and utilized their first language's rhetorical tendencies while writing English 

essays. Numerous students said that they struggled to transition from their native language's 

linear rhetorical aspects to English linear rhetorical ones. Because writing patterns or styles are 

either linguistic or culturally entrenched, several respondents in this research discovered that it 

requires some effort to adjust to new thought patterns while communicating in written English. 

Writing fluency (M=4.78; SD=.87) was the third most challenging kind of writing. Students 

indicated that they often pause to consider what to write while writing English essays. They 

often ponder for long amounts of time yet come up with just a few words to describe a very 

complex concept; as a result, they have significant difficulties with fluency. 

The least difficult item is defined by the mean score of all items that are less than or equal to 3 

(3.54 - .44=3). Participants generally struggled less with emotional and social elements of 

writing. For instance, students hardly find writing in international language tedious or 

meaningless (M=2.47; SD=1.35), nor did they hate technology-based apps (M=2.45; SD=1.27). 

Students had no difficulties sharing writing with other English language learners (M=2.28; 

SD=1.01), providing feedback to others (M=2.03; SD=1.07), or reviewing with professional 

writers (M=1.64; SD=1.02). 

In general, participants dealt with the next eight elements of writing at the least frequency. The 

least challenging aspect of learning English writing was motivation (M=1.27; SD=.46). While 

participants are aware that they may not be excellent English writers, they are driven to improve 

their English writing skills in order to succeed in academic writing. 

Confidence in native language writing (M=1.64; SD=1.02) was the second easiest writing 



ACOJ- ISSN 1936-9859 AsiaCALL Online Journal  Vol. 12; No. 5; 2021  

67 

problem to solve. All participants said that they were more confident in their native language 

writing than they were in English writing. They had been writing in their original language for 

a lengthy period of time and were familiar with the structure, conventions, and vocabulary. 

Sharing writing with English instructors was rated as the third least challenging writing problem 

(M=1.68; SD=.77). The majority of participants stated that they were used to writing for a grade 

and therefore had no reservations about allowing English instructors to view their work or 

sharing their essays with English teachers. 

The mean for cognitive, emotional, and socio-cultural elements of writing was calculated using 

the average score of all 18 participants on questions classified in each of these categories. Table 

4 demonstrates the mean score and standard deviation of three dimensions. 

Table 4: Rank on the overall mean score and standard deviation of three dimensions 

 Overal Mean Score Std. Deviation Rank 

Cognitive Dimension 3.92 .54 1 

Emotional Dimension 2.79 1.21 2 

Sociocultural Dimension 2.56 1.02 3 

Further examination of the questionnaire data demonstrated that students struggled the most 

with cognitive elements of writing (M=3.92; SD=.54). The emotional dimension of writing 

(M=2.79; SD=1.21) was the second-ranked writing difficulty categorization, followed by the 

sociocutural component of writing (M=2.56; SD=1.02). 

4.2. The influences of Paragraph Punch, ProWritingAid and LMS on students’ writing 

performance. 

The Vstep standardized pre- and post-writing tests were analyzed to see if the participants 

scored substantially higher on the post-test. Students' pre-test and post-test were graded using 

the four-criteria assessing rubric. Table 4 shows the means and standard deviations for the pre- 

and post-test administrations of the writing performance measure, as was the % increase from 

pre- to post-test for the participants.  

 

 

 

 



https://asiacall.info/acoj Tran, T. M. L., & Nguyen, T. T. H. Vol. 12; No. 05; 2021  

68 
 

Table 5: Mean score, Standard Deviations and Percent Gain of the pre- and post- test  

 N Mean score 
Std. 

Deviation 

Percent 

Gains 

Score on Test before treatment 18 2.64 1.13 
51% 

Score on Test after treatment 18 4.01 .42 

When the time effect was examined for the online writing students, the tests of within-subjects 

effects revealed a significant main influence for treatment over time, F = 37.63, P=.00 (.01), 

Partial Eta Square=.63. This indicates that the participants had substantially higher mean 

writing scores (performance) on the post-test than on the pre-test. Figure 1 displays the 

distribution of scores on pre- and post-intervention test. This distribution represents the change 

in rating scores from pre-intervention and post-intervention test. 

Figure 1: Distribution of scores on pre- and post-intervention test 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comparing mean writing scores from pre-test to post-test, students' post-test writing paper 

demonstrated improvement in the following areas: ideas (from analyzing the topic and task, the 

restraints to addressing the requirement well); organization (from decent organization to well 

organized); and multiple opinions (from using insufficient to sufficient explanations, or details). 

Additionally, when raters' feedbacks about students' writing weaknesses and strengths between 

pre-test and post-test writing samples, it was discovered that students made progress in terms 

of ideas (84%), organization (100%), multiple perspectives (92%), and adequate arguments 

(92%) (100%). Students wrote more (the average amount of words written increased by 82% 

between pre-test and post-test). However, as shown by raters' remarks, students continued to 

struggle with word choice (100%) and grammar (articles and run-on sentences). 91.5% of 

participants continued to struggle with articles, while 77% struggled with run-on sentences. 



ACOJ- ISSN 1936-9859 AsiaCALL Online Journal  Vol. 12; No. 5; 2021  

69 

4.3. Students’ perceptions towards the use of Paragraph Punch, ProWritingAids and LMS in 

writing classes. 

Through the analysis from reflective journals, most e-writing participants said that they 

promoted their views, reasoning, and substance in writing by reading from the writings of other 

people, from comments and feedback on the technology-based discussion forum, and from 

journal entries reflecting the activity on those online resources. Having comparable cultural 

backgrounds, the students were better able to grasp their roles and significance. Many students 

reported learning the concepts of organization, word choice, transitional words, coherence and 

cohesion, and grammar from reading online native speakers' feedback. The survey revealed 

that, in general, they felt that they had built up their organization, since their organization was 

quite similar to many other organizations they had encountered. But most thought it would take 

longer to enhance their writing by choosing better words, or by editing and revising. Even after 

considering a multitude of terms, they still found it difficult to choose the most suitable one. 

Students still struggled with how to properly use articles in run-on sentences. One of the 

students reported that:  

I always write what I believe. My reasoning, thoughts, and examples are often 

subjective. Reading other online posts frequently gives me additional arguments and 

instances to defend my own viewpoint. Also, some peers may point out my poor 

arguments or thoughts and propose ways to modify them to include other viewpoints. 

Other mates may grasp my meaning and culture better than I do. And then there are the 

online native-speaking instructors who give me advice on how to improve my grammar 

and organization. Online practice with corrected academic feedback is extremely 

beneficial. I frequently make these unintentional errors, and self-editing these errors is 

difficult for me. Online immediate feedback may help me improve my writing. 

In addition, these writing software programs assist writers in fixing fundamental grammatical 

mistakes and provide recommendations for improvement. Statements regarding spelling and 

grammar check were written as follow: 

As soon as I recognize the word's pronunciation, Paragraph Punch may verify my 

spelling and grammar. I don't have to stress spelling and punctuation. 

The process of brainstorming ideas, creating drafts, rewriting, editing, and posting online helped 

six participants develop the habit of writing. 

Paragraph Punch and ProWritingAids encourage me to compose a draft, rewrite, edit, 

and finally publish. It helps me develop the habit of writing. Writing takes time, but when 

you complete it, you feel accomplished. 

All nine participants' data collected in the writing program and online discussion helped them 

see trends in their writing faults. This type of writing mistake awareness lets individuals self-



https://asiacall.info/acoj Tran, T. M. L., & Nguyen, T. T. H. Vol. 12; No. 05; 2021  

70 
 

evaluate their writing issues and find solutions. 

I used to think I had a problem with word choice. However, my Paragraph Punch error 

record and internet comments revealed that I have a lot of issues utilizing articles. My 

feeling of choosing the correct option is like speaking English with an accent.  

Most of the participants said that reading others’ writing papers and responses on LMS-based 

forum gave them numerous ideas and insights. Online writing and conversation offered them 

more options for editing and enhancing their work than writing alone. Moreover, online 

comments and recommendations provided opportunities for correcting grammar, sentence 

structure, and word choice. Peer criticism and comments improved participants' knowledge of 

grammar rules. 

Online peers' comments may help me identify poor reasoning and instances and provide 

alternative suggestions. Some of my online peers even disagree with me. It helps me see 

things from a different viewpoint and get a better overall grasp of a situation. 

Several students said they liked threads. They said a comment thread from every draft they 

uploaded online helped foster critical thinking abilities. The numerous suggestions/comments 

from discussion topics/concerns helped them improve their critical thinking abilities. 

Participants typically have to read feedbacks and recommendations attentively, assess the input, 

and decide which suggestions to implement and which to reject. Participants had to think 

critically while providing constructive comments on other people's drafts and subjects to assist 

their peers in improving their writing quality and providing recommendations for writing issue 

solving methods. The online comments encouraged participants to think critically about how to 

improve their writing for their peers.  

Feedback and recommendations help me think about my exemplification in more critical 

ways and thoughts and select those that fit mine. To help me think critically and make 

choices, I sometimes study my subject on the Internet. 

In short, students’ writing performance increased between pre-test and post- assignments. 

Paragraph Punch, ProWritingAid and LMS as online tools contributed to students’ writing 

quality, organization, and utilization of various viewpoints. However, the technology-based 

communication had no effect on students’ word choice, articles or run-on sentences. 

Almost everyone stated they felt more relaxed and confident while writing and chatting online. 

It was important to them that they were able to communicate and share their thoughts. They 

were writing in an online setting, they did not have to worry about embarrassing themselves. 

One respondent stated: 

My criticism helps me improve my writing skills and understand why I make 

recommendations. It makes me question why these ideas are superior. Others may have 



ACOJ- ISSN 1936-9859 AsiaCALL Online Journal  Vol. 12; No. 5; 2021  

71 

opposing views. They debate on the LMS forum. Like sharing ideas and resolving 

conflicts. 

They were able to think and write better after reducing their anxiety levels. It encouraged them 

to keep writing when they saw their ideas put down. So they started writing more like they were 

speaking, and they improved their online writing and conversation skills. 

Participants are additionally more self-assured in their English writing. Most participants were 

insecure about their English composition before the intervention. They gained confidence in 

their English writing after participating in internet forums and writing contests. They realized 

they could benefit themselves by using online English websites. A collaborative online learning 

community where everyone may edit, rewrite, and improve English writing was created by 

Paragraph Punch, ProWritingAids and LMS. 

Incorporating technology-based into writing teaching seems to be gaining popularity among 

students. Participants reported benefits in their writing processes as a result of technology-based 

techniques. Cognitive, emotional and socio-cultural aspects were all benefited. Grammar and 

spelling checks, writing process reinforcement, pattern recognition, strengthening various 

viewpoints, and critical thinking abilities are some of the cognitive merits. Structure and logic 

were gained by the socio-cultural component. Furthermore, the advantages of decreasing 

anxiety and boosting confidence were psychologically significant. The learning community 

discussed and exchanged problem-solving and writing techniques throughout the writing 

process. Online conversation and engagement helped foster metacognitive and higher-level 

cognitive skills. It also highlighted students' roles in classrooms. The instructor just facilitated, 

not designed activities and objectives individually. Students negotiated and contributed to their 

own learning objectives and activities. 

5. Discussion 

Many of the top writing problems reported in this research match earlier results regarding 

students' writing difficulties, particularly linguistic (Lindblom & Pihlajamaki, 2003; Lin, 2009, 

Le, 2021) and rhetorical (Tuzi, 2004; Kern, 1995).  students have unique writing requirements 

since they are transitioning from one writing culture to another.  Students have the greatest 

challenges in terms of cognitive dimension (Handayani, 2020). Writing fluency was rated third 

in writing difficulty. Due to a lack of functional repertoire vocabulary,  students had to pause 

often to choose an English term.  Students also tended to think in their native language before 

writing in English. They often had to pause to consider word choice, word order, phrase 

structure, and organization. However, culturally engendered rhetorical problems go beyond 

cognitive limitations (Farkas, 1991). When students write, their vocabulary is restricted. They 

go to the bilingual dictionary because of the certainty in native language. Using a multilingual 

dictionary does not completely address the issue since they must again select between various 

interpretations of the term. The research found word choice to be the most challenging to write. 

Term choice demands authors to choose the word that best conveys the intended meaning. This 



https://asiacall.info/acoj Tran, T. M. L., & Nguyen, T. T. H. Vol. 12; No. 05; 2021  

72 
 

pick considers the word's meaning, the communication's goal, and the audience. Language must 

be chosen according to the goal and audience. This needs traditional and cultural information 

that may not be able to quickly learn (Jaszi, 1994). The majority of students struggle with this 

re-learning process. This study's results also indicate that students' second most significant 

writing challenge is emotional deficit. This supports earlier research (Alias & Hussin 2002; 

Weasenforth & Meloni, 2002) showing students were challenged with writing due to emotional 

issues. Writing anxiety is common among s due to a lack of confidence in English writing. 

Emotional issues may negatively affect s' writing processes and performances. 

This study's results are consistent with prior research on students' writing problems. Most 

participants blamed their writing problems on cognitive deficiencies. The research found that 

students exhibited second-level involvement in affective writing inadequacies and third-ranked 

needs in socio-cultural writing issues. Few prior research focused on students' emotional or 

socio-cultural writing problems. This study's findings suggest that perceived writing problems 

are greatest in cognitive, second highest in emotional, and lowest in socio-cultural dimensions. 

The first reason is that most students' essays are graded and given feedback on cognitive 

elements of writing. Generally, students' writing experiences and views concentrate on 

performance and product writing. 

The findings additionally show that when students are taught utilizing technology-based 

communication, there are statistically significant changes between pre- and post-test writing 

proficiency. Students improved in amount of writing, structure, topic sentence, concepts, 

spelling, and utilization of different viewpoints. Less fluency, organization, clear concepts, 

spelling, and numerous thoughts are associated with technology-based communication, 

according to prior research (Cifuentes & Shih, 2001; Lindblom-Ylanne & Pihlajamaki 2003; 

Tusi 2004). However, students' grammatical structures (run-on sentences and articles) and word 

choice did not improve. The findings partly support Kern's (1995) conclusions that networked 

writing settings have grammatical drawbacks due to the rapidity of writings. The impact of 

technology-based communication on students' writing performance may be explained in many 

ways. It could be explained that they were led to producing a paragraph via personalized online 

tutoring writing courses and activities like Paragraph Punch, ProWritingAids. Students stated 

they improved their writing skills in these areas because they were led step by step through the 

process of writing. Secondly, viewing their peers' online work and comments helped them 

revise and improve their own writing. Thirdly, students thought online writing was like chatting 

to friends. Thus they were less concerned about grammar and had stronger thinking-writing 

connections. In other words, seeing their thoughts in words encouraged them to keep writing 

and promote their writing skills. Fourthly, post-test data revealed that online writing students 

still struggled with the greatest difficulties in word choice. Students realized they had trouble 

with run-on phrases and articles. Few students had difficulties picking the proper terms since 

they were unfamiliar with the process in their own language. The word choice is also entrenched 

in culture and customs language, and they had known how to select acceptable terms in writing. 

It might possibly be explained that they frequently thought in their first language then 



ACOJ- ISSN 1936-9859 AsiaCALL Online Journal  Vol. 12; No. 5; 2021  

73 

transcribed their thoughts into English, causing difficulties in sentence structure and writing 

faults in run-on sentences. 

6. Conclusion 

This study's main goal was to explore how students' interactions, communication, knowledge 

construction, and peer collaboration impacted their writing ability in the context of shifting 

from teacher-centered instruction to a student-centered model using digital technology and 

advancement. The technology-assisted devices utilized in this research were Paragraph Punch, 

ProWritingAids, and an online discussion forum (LMS). To enhance English writing processes 

and results, technology-based communication offered limitless class time and a learning 

environment. 

The findings of the questionnaire revealed that most participants attributed their greatest writing 

problems to cognitive, emotional, and social limitations. After a technology-based 

communication intervention intended to address students' attitudes towards writing problems, 

socio-cultural, cognitive, and emotional elements of writing were decreased the most. There 

was an improvement in student writing performance. Students improved in writing volume, 

organization, subject phrase, concepts, and various viewpoints. However, most students' 

grammar (run-on sentences and articles) and word choice did not improve. Using technology-

based communication in writing classes had some advantages. Students felt they improved in 

many perspectives, critical thinking, identifying writing errors, spelling, grammar, 

implementing writing processes, and adapting to native writing conventions. 

Participants emphasized the benefits of writing on the brain. On the other side, cognitive 

drawbacks included contradictory input, revision time, and difficulty. The writing software 

lacked originality and versatility. It took considerably more effort to establish an e-community 

for effective assistance and information exchange. Initially, students were hesitant to share their 

English writing with their peers for fear of being judged or because they did not trust their peers' 

capacity to provide constructive or relevant comments and recommendations. Gradually, 

students formed an e-learning environment where they not only helped each other write, but 

provided emotional support by demonstrating empathy and proposing problem-solving 

methods as well. Students learned to use writing to communicate ideas, resolve conflicts, 

support others' emotional needs, and solve issues. Online discussion and engagement improved 

metacognitive and higher-order cognitive processes. 

For further studies, teachers should continuously assess to determine if technology-based 

communication would assist in meeting students' needs and attain their own pedagogical goals. 

Moreover, while using those digital communications in the writing process, students would 

considerably be affected by their mindset and emotion. Hence, their writing habit or style would 

consequently be influenced. This could appropriately suggest lecturers directing students to be 

conscious of their target writing tasks and utilizing technology as a means of writing and 

interacting with others. Last but not least, technology-mediated communication should be 



https://asiacall.info/acoj Tran, T. M. L., & Nguyen, T. T. H. Vol. 12; No. 05; 2021  

74 
 

investigated more comprehensive insights for pedagogical purposes, not only in writing classes 

but in other language ones as well. 

References  

Alias, N., & Hussin, S. (2002). E-learning in a writing course at Tenaga National 

University. TEFL Web Journal, 1(3), 44-67. 

Ariyanto, M. S. A., Mukminatien, N.  & Tresnadewi, S. (2019). Students’ and Teachers’ 

Perceptions towards the Implemention of ProWritingAid and Teacher Feedback. Journal 

Pendidikan: Teori, Penelitian, dan Pengembandan, 49(10), 1353-1363. 

Brown, J. (2001). Using Survey in Language Programs. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University 

Press. 

Beuchot, A., & Bullen, M. (2005). Interaction and Interpersonality in Online Discussion 

Forums. Distance Education, 26(1), 67-87.  

Bui, T. X. T., Ha, Y. N., Nguyen, T. B. U., Nguyen, V. U. T., & Ngo, T. C. T. (2021). A Study 

on Collaborative Online Learning among EFL Students in Van Lang University 

(VLU). AsiaCALL Online Journal, 12(3), 9-21. Retrieved from 

https://asiacall.info/acoj/index.php/journal/article/view/32 

Chau, T. Q., & Nguyen , T. T. H. (2021). A Theoretical Study on the Genuinely Effective 

Technology Application in English Language Teaching for Teachers and 

Students. AsiaCALL Online Journal, 12(5), 17-23. Retrieved from 

https://asiacall.info/acoj/index.php/journal/article/view/63 

Cheung, L., Fong, N., & Wong, C. (2006). A new english writing curriculum for tertiary 

students: The use of moodle to construct a community of learners. APERA Conference, 

(November), 1–9. 

Chung, Y., Graves, B., Wesche, M., & Barfurth, M. (2005). Computer-Mediated 

Communication in Korean-English Chat Rooms: Tandem Learning in an International 

Languages Program. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 62(1), 49-86. 

Cifuentes, L., & Shih, Y. D. (2001). Teaching and learning online: A collaborative between U.S. 

and Taiwanese students. Journal of Research on Texhnology in Education, 33(4), 456-475. 

Curis, D. D. & Lawson, M. J. (2001). Exploring collaborative online learning. Journal of 

Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(1), 21-34. 

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating 

quantitative (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. 

Ede, L.S., & Lunsford, A. A. (1990). Singular texts/plural authors: Perspectives on 

Collaborative writing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. 

Farkas, D. K. (1991). Collaborative writing, software development, and the universe of 

https://asiacall.info/acoj/index.php/journal/article/view/32
https://asiacall.info/acoj/index.php/journal/article/view/63


ACOJ- ISSN 1936-9859 AsiaCALL Online Journal  Vol. 12; No. 5; 2021  

75 

collaborative activity. In M.M. Lay & W. M. Karis (Eds.), Collaborative writing in 

industry: Investigations in theory and practice (pp. 13-30). Amityville, NY: Baywood 

Publishing Co. 

Hamat, A., Azman, H., Noor, N. M., Bakar, K. A., & Nor, N. F. M. (2014). Evaluation of an 

LMS for productive language skills. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 118, 134–

139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.02.018 

Handayani, F. (2020). The potential of online writing tools for EFL university students during 

the Covid-19 pandemic. Journal of English Education, 6(1), 9-18. 

Harmer, J. (2004). An introduction to the practice of English language teaching: How to Teach 

writing (4th ed.). United Kingdom: Longman Group UK Limited. 

Jaszi, P. (1994). On the author effect; Contemporary copyright and collective creativity. In M. 

Woodmansee & P. Jaszi (Rds.) The construction of authorship: Textual appropriation in 

law and literature (pp. 29-56). Durham: Duke University Press. 

Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring Classroom Interaction with Networked Computers: Effects on 

Quantity and Characteristics of Language Production. Modern Language Journal, 9(4), 

157-176. 

Khabbaz, M., & Najjar, R. (2015). Moodle-based distance language learning strategies: An 

evaluation of technology in language classroom. International Journal of Applied 

Linguistics and English Literature, 4(4), 205–210. 

https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.4n.4p.205 

Le, T. T. M. (2021). A Case Study of Students’ Views on Effective Online Learning. 

AsiaCALL Online Journal, 12(5), 24-33. Retrieved from 

https://asiacall.info/acoj/index.php/journal/article/view/73 

Le, M. T. (2021). Students’ Attitude Towards Using Smartphones and Portable Devices for 

Studying Writing. International Journal of TESOL & Education, 1(3), pp. 54-64. EOI: 

http://eoi.citefactor.org/10.11250/ijte.01.03.004 

Lin, S. M. (2009). How computer-mediated communication affects EFL students' writing 

processes and writing performance. University of Oklahoma. 

Quintero, L. (2008). Blogging: A way to foster EFL writing. Colombian Applied Linguistics 

Journal, 10(1), 7-49. 

Lindblom-Yanne, S., & Pihlajamaki, H. (2003). Can a Collaborative Network Environment 

Enhance Essay-Writing Processes? British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(10), 17-

30. 

Ly, T. N. L., Nguyen, T. L., & Nguyen, H. N. (2021). Using E-Learning Platforms in Online 

Classes: A Survey on Tertiary English Teachers' Perceptions. AsiaCALL Online Journal, 

12(5), 34-53. EOI: http://eoi.citefactor.org/10.11251/acoj.12.05.004 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.02.018
https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.4n.4p.205
https://asiacall.info/acoj/index.php/journal/article/view/73
http://eoi.citefactor.org/10.11250/ijte.01.03.004
http://eoi.citefactor.org/10.11251/acoj.12.05.004


https://asiacall.info/acoj Tran, T. M. L., & Nguyen, T. T. H. Vol. 12; No. 05; 2021  

76 
 

Nasution, A. & Fatimah, S. (2018). The use of ProWritingAid web in editing students writing. 

Journal of English Language Teaching. 7(2), 362-368. 

Ndoricimpa, C., & Barad, D. P. (2021). Does online instruction in discourse conventions of 

literary analysis affect L2 students’ critical stance in academic writing? A longitudinal 

study: A longitudinal study. AsiaCALL Online Journal, 12(4), 66 - 87. Retrieved from 

https://asiacall.info/acoj/index.php/journal/article/view/66 

Nguyen, T. K., & Nguyen, T. H. T. (2021). The Acceptance and Use of Video Conferencing 

for Teaching in Covid-19 Pandemic: An Empirical Study in Vietnam. AsiaCALL Online 

Journal, 12(5), 1-16. Retrieved from 

https://asiacall.info/acoj/index.php/journal/article/view/77 

Pumjarean, W., Muangnakin, P., & Tuntinakkhongul, A. (2017). The development of blended 

e-learning using moodle’s LMS for EFL grammatical and writing instruction for first-year 

students in the english major. Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 7(1), 81–89. 

Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing 

course. Computers and Composition, 21(2), 217-235. 

Van, L. K., Dang, T. A., Pham, D. B. T., Vo, T. T. N., & Pham, V. P. H. (2021). The Effectiveness 

of Using Technology in Learning English. AsiaCALL Online Journal, 12(2), 24-40. 

Retrieved from https://asiacall.info/acoj/index.php/journal/article/view/26 

Weasenforth, D., & Meloni, C. (2002). Realizing Constructivist Objectives through 

Collaborative Technologies: Threaded Discussions. Language Learning & Technology, 

6(3), 58-86. 

Yunus, M. M., Salehi, H., & Nordin, N. (2012). ESL pre-service teachers' perceptions on the 

use of paragraph punch in teaching writing. English Language Teaching, 5(10), 138-164.  

 

Biodata 

Tran Thi My Linh who is keen on studying new theory in linguistic has been an English 

teacher in 15 years at University of Economics – Technology for Industries, Vietnam. Here 

she has carried out 10 scientific research projects to help improvement teaching and learning 

English as a foreign language. 

 

Nguyen Thi Thanh Ha has been teaching higher education at University of Economics – 

Technology for Industry for more than eight years. Her main research interests are 

collaborative learning, MALL, CALL, digital game-based learning and language learning 

strategies.  

 

https://asiacall.info/acoj/index.php/journal/article/view/66
https://asiacall.info/acoj/index.php/journal/article/view/77
https://asiacall.info/acoj/index.php/journal/article/view/26

