Introduction
Computer technology advances have framed novel opportunities and possibilities beyond traditional educational settings (Warschauer & Healey, Reference Warschauer and Healey1998) so that the development and implementation of digital facilitators seem to have accompanied every stage of language education progress. Drawing on Levy et al.’s (Reference Levy, Hubbard, Stockwell and Colpaert2015) term of attaching significance to real needs rather than false goals, the implementation of technology into the classroom needs to be practically tackled and realistically viewed. Regarding the role of digitalization in education, Chapelle (Reference Chapelle2007) rightly indicated that the turning point of the computer-assisted language learning (CALL) boom highlights varying numbers of options, tools, and engaging and interactive tasks provided through internet software, communication tools, instruction tools, CD-ROMs, and web pages. Subsequently, applying technology to writing instruction renders the writing process easier (Williams & Beam, Reference Williams and Beam2018). Similarly, Vanderplank (Reference Vanderplank2010) argued that since the late 1990s, we have witnessed a revolution together with a swift evolution in language teaching and language learning, specifically in writing instruction. Likewise, Jonassen (Reference Jonassen2005) and Kern (Reference Kern2006) argued that the appearance of digital technologies, such as email, web conferencing, internet, multimedia, and other digital devices, has dramatically changed the ways people interact and communicate in written fashion and in the way they write.
Garrett (Reference Garrett1991) struggled with some key issues and trends in connection with the use of the computer. As she indicated, a couple of decades ago, the most apparent and immediate considerations were, for example, the issues and questions related to efficacy and effectiveness: Does using technology truly help the learners to develop their writing? Is it worth the cost, time, and effort? However, at present, digital devices are a rule of thumb; their crucial role in developing and improving writing skills has been approved. As supported by Basak, Wotto, and Belanger (Reference Basak, Wotto and Belanger2018), nowadays, all educators, writers, learners, teachers, and professionals are invited to reengineer or redesign the whole body of training and education system to communicate orally or in writing. On this basis, as a communicative and educational tool, digital technology quickly revolutionizes the varying ways that writing activities are performed and the way that learners and teachers communicate with each other through writing. Therefore, CALL in writing has its long-lasting tradition and legacy, specifically in the no-child-left-behind era; as with oral skills, written proficiency is assumed to be effectively instructed via computer-assisted and digital-mediated tools. Thus, the operationalization of Egbert’s (Reference Egbert, Egbert and Petrie2005) definition of CALL fits in the era where we are dealing with digital life. In summary, the introductory notes on the significance and expansion of technology-assisted second language (L2) writing are enlightened by the more detailed historical background of technology-assisted L2 writing instruction appearing below.
Background
Tracing the progress and process of CALL and the role digital technologies have played in teaching writing would potentially help us to gain further insights into technology assistance in writing instruction. As Warschauer and Healey’s (Reference Warschauer and Healey1998) categorization indicated, the role of computers ranges from providing drill and practice and using language for communication to integrating all language skills into the educational context. On this ground, digital technologies have strongly affected and shaped writing genres, forms, and purposes (Chun, Kern, & Smith, Reference Chun, Kern and Smith2016). Therefore, inspired by and moving in parallel with behavioristic psychology, cognitive theories, communicative language teaching, task-based language teaching, a socio-cognitive view and an integrative approach, computers have been in use and have potentially provided appropriate activities for teaching writing. For example, one of the initial technologically assisted implications of writing development may have been on the revision process (Bloch, Reference Bloch2018); instead of retyping the entire paper, writers could easily edit their work with word processors at different stages. More clearly, however controversially, Warschauer (Reference Warschauer2000) indicates that the approximate chronological paradigms and stages for digital technologies include behavioristic CALL, focusing on drill practice activities, communicative CALL, concentrating on language use activities, and integrative CALL, placing emphasis on the integration of all skills.
Technological tools accompany language education and educational development; as Tschirner (Reference Tschirner2001) contended, new digital facilitators make provision for enriching the mental capacity and memory, coining meaning-based activities, that is, focusing on form, maximizing input flood, encouraging pushed-output and learning in context or situated learning. Clearly, it fails to stand to reason to sketch a very tight or exact timeline and taxonomy for CALL stages, standings, and kinds. Bloch (Reference Bloch2018) indicated that numerous technological tools could potentially provide more opportunities for writing development. These tools can contribute to a move away from product-oriented to process-oriented writing; they can facilitate the transformation of various modes of printed, aural, and visual texts into new modes. On the other hand, macros, screen recording applications and lecture capture software are used to automate comments on writing: These all indicate the potential, relative, and tentative contribution of digital devices to writing instruction and development. However, since the trend of development and research in the field is in progress and various settings and idiosyncratic contextual factors need to be considered, no deterministic role can be attributed to the absolute effectiveness of the digital tools in all contexts: A one-size-fits-all perspective is not appropriate for the whole issue.
To establish the effect of technological tools on writing further pieces of evidence are required to discuss more evidentially and self-confidently. As some researchers (e.g. Malahito & Quimbo, Reference Malahito and Quimbo2020) have indicated, in the era of digital media, (writing) instructors strive to satisfy, engage, and even impress their learners. The writers and the writing instructors use digital technology informally or formally, as they used to employ a pen and pencil. A more empirical justification and practical consideration for the prevalence and effectiveness of digitalization of writing instruction and development can be interpreted in Bax’s (Reference Bax2003) concept of normalization. Taking the concept as a reference point, one can envision that technology is used undauntedly in people’s everyday lives for writing purposes; technology is used like a book, pen, or pencil. Hence, nowadays, digitalization indicates that technology is moving beyond formal writing or composition, dealing with people’s routines and daily lives.
Primary Themes
We elaborate here on the main themes to map the landscape of contemporary issues on technology-assisted L2 writing instruction, aligning with the preferences, needs, interests, and contextual and contemporary demands of the individuals, educators, and policy-makers. As Birgili, Seggie, and Oğuz (Reference Birgili, Seggie and Oğuz2021) suggested, today’s learners and educators are digital natives and must obtain skills and competencies to meet the new requirements locally and globally. Similarly, Hsu and Lo (Reference Hsu and Lo2018) cogently advised of the necessity of developing computer-based technologies for language education, mainly writing instruction. Since numerous variables potentially demotivate the feedback process, technological devices create a positive base for education in general and for writing in particular (Cunningham, Reference Cunningham2019b). Therefore, writing researchers should conceive and perceive technology’s themes, types, and roles in developing writing. Before dealing with the primary themes, Table 27.1 provides some overall research themes, trends, and general findings on technology-assisted L2 writing instruction.
Table 27.1 Some research themes and trends on technology-assisted L2 writing
| General issues | Specific issues | Some results |
|---|---|---|
| Feedback | Automated writing evaluation; computer-automated metalinguistic corrective feedback; automated essay scoring feedback; automated measurement of syntactic complexity; implicit and explicit; video-impact; peer e-feedback; screencast; formative (process-tracing based); computer-assisted rating; teacher electronic feedback; text-video modes; graduated feedback | These issues have been investigated widely, but further research into them is required (Ene & Upton, Reference Ene and Upton2018; Gao & Ma, Reference Gao and Ma2019). In general, Gao and Ma’s (Reference Gao and Ma2019) findings indicate the effectiveness of feedback; likewise, Ene and Upton’s (Reference Ene and Upton2018) findings show that teacher electronic feedback has a positive impact and supports L2 writing. |
| Flipped learning | A severe paucity of (or no) research into L2 writing instruction | A review of 316 research articles published from 2012 to 2018 was conducted by Birgili et al. (Reference Birgili, Seggie and Oğuz2021). Their results indicate that most research in flipped learning has been conducted in higher education, specifically in Asia. On the other hand, meta-analysis concludes the discussion with the positive outcomes of flipped learning. |
| MALL | Limited research into MALL and task design and MALL and feedback on writing. | A review of twenty years of MALL was carried out by Burston (Reference Burston2015). The results indicate that there are few statistically reliable learning outcome measures; over 40% of MALL publications are unrelated to language learning applications, and there are methodological shortcomings. To add more to a more recent result, some researchers (e.g. Stockwell, Reference Stockwell2021) indicate that MALL has played some role in and changed the face of education inside or outside the class. However, as Stockwell and Hubbard (Reference Stockwell and Hubbard2013) suggest, the greatest challenge for MALL is task design. |
| Collaborative writing | Wiki-mediated; task-based; attitudes and perceptions toward it; digital annotators; open source-mining tool | The findings in the field show that learner-to-learner engagement and cooperation is effective and motivates meaning-making (Abrams, Reference Abrams2019; Godwin-Jones, Reference Godwin-Jones2018; Hsu & Lo, Reference Hsu and Lo2018). |
| Computer-assisted assessment | A severe paucity of research into L2 writing instruction | The findings in the field indicate the effectiveness of computer-assisted assessment. However, there need to be rich pieces of evidence and further research to put more confidence into the findings (Cummins & Davesne, Reference Cummins and Davesne2009) |
| Machine translation | A growing field prompted by recent technological developments that have greatly improved accuracy; concerns remain over issues of cheating and over-reliance on machine translation tools | An increasing body of research is exploring pedagogies and provision of strategies to capitalize upon the affordances and provision of strategies of machine translation (Lee, Reference Lee2020, Reference Lee, Colpaert and Stockwell2022). While it has been shown to enhance grammatical accuracy in writing, learners are aware of the limitations (Chung & Ahn, Reference Chung and Ahn2022). |
Many context-specific factors are involved in researching the themes for technology-assisted L2 writing. The primary themes in this field seem to have stemmed from what Garrett (Reference Garrett2009) called the relationship of theory, pedagogy, and technology, that is, infrastructure and the interrelatedness and mutual effect they exert on each other. The use of technology in writing is revealed in various themes, such as computer-automated metalinguistic corrective feedback (Gao, & Ma, Reference Gao and Ma2019), automated written corrective feedback (Ranalli, Reference Ranalli2018), validity arguments for diagnostic assessment using automated writing evaluation (Chapelle, Cotos, & Lee, Reference Chapelle, Cotos and Lee2015), automated essay scoring feedback (Dikli & Bleyle, Reference Dikli and Bleyle2014), automated measurement of syntactic complexity in corpus-based L2 writing (Lu, Reference Lu2017), computer-delivered feedback in processing instruction (Sanz, Reference Sanz and VanPatten2003), video impact and written feedback (Tseng & Yeh, Reference Tseng and Yeh2019), feedback provision enhancement and multimodal video technology (Hung, Reference Hung2016), video feedback and process approach–based writing instruction (Özkul & Ortaçtepe, Reference Özkul and Ortaçtepe2017), Facebook-assisted L2 writing (Dizon, Reference Dizon2016), studies on peer e-feedback (Schultz, Reference Schultz, Warschauer and Kern2000), L2 writing and technology-assisted peer feedback (Chen, Reference Chen2016), teacher electronic feedback (Ene & Upton, Reference Ene and Upton2018), and the impact of e-feedback on linguistic accuracy (Tolosa, East, & Villers, Reference Tolosa, East and Villers2013).
Another area that has been widely researched is developing web-based collaborative writing using digital devices (e.g. Cho, Reference Cho2017; Storch, Reference Storch2011; Strobl, Reference Strobl2014). Some of the technological devices that have been investigated in the context of writing development and instruction include automated writing evaluation software, digital annotators, multimedia (Godwin-Jones, Reference Godwin-Jones2018), an open-source mining tool (i.e. SCAPES), visual representations of collaborative writing, such as DocuViz or AutoVIZ (Yim & Warschauer, Reference Yim and Warschauer2017), employing online glosses to support corrective feedback (Yeh & Lo, Reference Yeh and Lo2009), attitudes toward online feedback on writing (Strobl, Reference Strobl2015), the impact of teachers’ corrective feedback and peer review on online writing performance (Tai, Lin, & Yang, Reference Tai, Lin and Yang2015), online peer interaction (Peeters, Reference Peeters2018), technology-assisted peer feedback in L2 writing classes (Chen, Reference Chen2016), and the influence of digital choices on feedback quality, that is, the modes of video and text change feedback language (Cunningham, Reference Cunningham2019a). Furthermore, considering the interpersonal impact of feedback and the learners’ perception in technology-assisted writing classes, researchers (e.g. Cunningham, Reference Cunningham2019a, Reference Cunningham2019b) indicate the significance of screencast feedback as one of the main themes researched so far and suggest it be further investigated.
One of the main recent themes has been the effect of wiki-mediated collaborative writing on the development of learners’ individual writing in a second language (Hsu & Lo, Reference Hsu and Lo2018; Kessler, Reference Kessler2009). Similarly, many researchers (e.g. Lee, Reference Lee2010) have considered wiki-mediated collaborative L2 writing and learners’ attitudes and revisions using wikis. More recently, in connection with process training technologies, there has been another theme concerning the affordances of process-tracing technologies for supporting L2 writing instruction in light of formative feedback based on a cognitive-developmental perspective (Ranalli, Feng, & Chukharev-Hudilainen, Reference Ranalli, Feng and Chukharev-Hudilainen2019). Moreover, recent research in this field has been conducted by Rogerson-Revell (Reference Rogerson-Revell2021). The study was conducted in the context of technology and feedback, and the result was positive. The usefulness of graduated corrective feedback in the context of a computerized environment, which the learners can self-correct, is another line of research (Ai, Reference Ai2017). Additionally, the influence of technology-assisted professional development on teacher learning, practice, and leadership skills has also been in focus (e.g. Scott & Mouza, Reference Scott and Mouza2007).
Concerning the context of assessment, computer-based testing (CBT), computer-adaptive testing (CAT) and writing assessment (Cummins & Davesne, Reference Cummins and Davesne2009) are considered another strand of the theme. For example, TOEFL iBT and the internet-based IELTS are globally recognized tests connected to computer-assisted rating. A somewhat related theme is mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) in writing. As Burston (Reference Burston2015) asserted, more than 600 MALL publications have appeared over the past twenty years. Out of 575 MALL publications between 1994 and 2012, only 347 describe implementation projects in MALL (Burston, Reference Burston2013). Additionally, a different theme driven by constructivists (Marshall et al., Reference Marshall, Smart, Lotter and Sirbu2011), supported and implicitly evidenced by the cognitive load theory (Clark, Nguyen, & Sweller, Reference Clark, Nguyen and Sweller2011), is flipped learning, reported to be effective by some researchers (e.g. Birgili, Seggie, & Oğuz, Reference Birgili, Seggie and Oğuz2021). However, in the context of writing instruction, flipped learning has not been widely implemented so far.
There have been enormous developments in machine translation in the past several years and its presence in the language classroom has made it a theme of ongoing research (Wang & Panahi, Reference Wang, Panahi, Mohebbi and Wang2023). There has been work that explores the range of tools that are freely available, including Google Translate (Chang, Reference Chang2022) and DeepL (Klimova et al., Reference Klimova, Pikhart, Benites, Lehr and Sanchez-Stockhammer2022), highlighting not only potential constructive pedagogies using these tools, but also the need for learners to have sufficient training to understand both their strengths and limitations Another tool that uses similar technology to many of these machine translation tools is Grammarly (Kawashima, Reference Kawashima2023), which can be used to prompt suggestions to learners to correct errors in their written texts. As an emerging area, there is still research needed to explore how best to use these, along with raising awareness of how to avoid problems with inappropriate and unethical usage.
There should be a one-to-one correspondence between technology and pedagogy in terms of empirical studies so that digital progress aligns with pedagogical outcomes. However, instead of engaging with learners, suiting their interests, preferences, needs, wishes, and purposes, tasks delivered by digital tools are limited to rote learning. There seems to be a tension here between pedagogy and technology. As Pennington and Rogerson-Revell (Reference Pennington and Rogerson-Revell2019) indicate, a lack of correspondence between language learning pedagogies and technological affordances creates hardships and narrows the performance zone.
Current Research and Practice
With the leading role of digital media now being social networking, it is natural that writing instruction targeting computer-mediated communication has been focused on more than ever. For example, giving feedback on L2 writing via electronic chats, wikis, blogs, files, and other digitally oriented pedagogies has been a commonly used activity (Elola & Oskoz, Reference Elola and Oskoz2017; Hyland & Hyland, Reference Hyland and Hyland2006). Elola and Oskoz (Reference Elola and Oskoz2017) note that a significant affordance of twenty-first-century literacy and pedagogy is digitally-mediated feedback associated with L2 writing, demanding more qualified teacher training. On closer inspection, when designing tasks, the learners’ goals and needs should be more seriously clarified (Stockwell, Reference Stockwell2010). On this basis, giving written feedback can be more effectively tackled. Gao and Ma (Reference Gao and Ma2019) conducted more informative studies on corrective feedback; they investigated the different impact of two computer-automated metalinguistic corrective feedback types in a foreign language context. The participating groups completed writing tasks before the drills, immediately after the drills, and two weeks later. The results indicated that metalinguistic corrective feedback on L2 writing affects learners’ accuracy in error correction. However, it did not give rise to higher accuracy on the subsequent writing tasks. On the other hand, drills that focused on the form did not improve the learners’ performance on error correction. Furthermore, consistent with computer-automated corrective feedback, Saricaoglu (Reference Saricaoglu2018) investigated the influence of automated formative feedback on ESL learners’ written causal explanations within the framework of cause-and-effect writings. The feedback reports for the revised and first drafts from the screen-capturing videos and the automated writing evaluation system were analyzed. The findings indicated significant changes in learners’ causal explanations within one cause-and-effect essay.
Regarding the impact of digital tools on L2 writing, Ene and Upton (Reference Ene and Upton2018) examined teacher electronic feedback in online and face-to-face ESL writing classes. Their findings indicated the effectiveness and successful implementation of teacher electronic feedback. Moreover, even more beneficial was a combination of synchronous and asynchronous focusing on critical and higher-order thinking. One of the challenges of teacher electronic feedback and CALL is that even though the students benefited from feedback, they were emotionally biased toward face-to-face feedback. Ranalli et al. (Reference Ranalli, Feng and Chukharev-Hudilainen2019) explored integrating technology into L2 writing instruction, and they indicated that using process-tracing technologies in L2 writing instruction was effective.
Another line of research comes from Cunningham (Reference Cunningham2019a), who investigated the influence of technological choices on the language and nature of feedback in interpersonal terms. He researched the way the modes of video and text affect and change the feedback language. The study indicated that promoting feedback practices, the mode of feedback affects the interpersonal aspect. In a similar vein, more recently, Tseng and Yeh (Reference Tseng and Yeh2019) investigated the influence of video and written feedback; their study, in general, explored the differences in performance resulting from written feedback and video feedback. The findings indicated the usefulness of both written and video feedback. One of the research agendas concerning technology-assisted writing improvement is collaborative writing. Hsu and Lo (Reference Hsu and Lo2018) explored the influence of wiki-mediated collaborative writing on learner’s writing skills. The study was conducted in Taiwan with a wiki-collaborative writing group and an individual writing group. For producing expository writing, the learners in the wiki group worked in pairs via wikis, and the learners in the individual group wrote their essays alone. The results were positive, but the impact on the complexity and organization of the writing was less noticeable.
Similarly, Abrams (Reference Abrams2019) researched the connection between computer-mediated writing and task-based collaborative L2 writing. Using Google Docs as an effective pedagogical tool, the study explored the text-related linguistic features and collaboration patterns during a computer-supported collaborative writing task. With qualitative analyses, some insights into the writing process of successful collaborative groups were obtained. To develop a creative writing task, the participants worked in groups. As a result, the collaboration-based group developed texts with higher coherence and more propositional content than those with less collaboration. What Abrams indicates is the fact that learner-to-learner engagement motivates meaning-making, and collaboration accelerates L2 output. Consistent with Abrams’s findings, some researchers (e.g. Storch, Reference Storch2011) indicate that collaboration contributes to L2 development via editing and recursive planning. Most importantly, Abrams (Reference Abrams2019) and Lee (Reference Lee2010) contend that engagement leads to increased production, and the teachers should consider that engagement in the pre-writing task contributes to the subsequent writing process.
Tolosa, East, and Villers (Reference Tolosa, East and Villers2013) performed a study into an online reciprocal peer tutoring program, specifically on the effectiveness of written corrective feedback. The findings indicated that the participants were inclined to peer correction and employed various techniques and strategies to correct linguistic mistakes. For peer correction, as some scholars (e.g. Mackey & Polio, Reference Mackey and Polio2009) point out, learners can be engaged in input-based and output-based tasks, and their attention should be concentrated on the form to develop accurate feedback. In connection with the usefulness of cooperative writing, peer feedback, and peer correction in technology, Warni, Aziz, and Febriawan (Reference Warni, Aziz and Febriawan2018) indicate that computerized context and digital tools assist the learners in cooperating and working independently when needed. More recently, Atabek (Reference Atabek2020) indicates that CALL-assisted instruction is beneficial and contributes to the productive learning outcome.
Precisely speaking, it should not go unnoticed that when there is a discussion of technology-assisted writing instruction, there should be mentioned some general issues or details concerning digitally assisted writing assessment, too. In assessment terms, CAT has been around since the 1970s and tailors the difficulty of the test items to the test taker’s ability to be tested (Lord, Reference Lord1971). As Ockey (Reference Ockey2009) cites, CBT assesses L2 ability, and as Garret (Reference Garrett1991) detailed, CBT can successfully deliver more authentic tests than traditional paper-and-pencil tests.
Recommendations for Research and Practice
Contrary to the fact that more research has been done into technology-assisted L2 writing, there still seems to be a long road ahead. Therefore, tentatively, we could suggest the following research questions and practices: Is there any significant relationship between digital tools and their application to writing instruction in various contexts? How can digital devices affect the teaching of writing to various age groups? To what extent has teaching writing through technology considered human beings’ humanistic aspects, taking into account learners’ needs, preferences, and interests? Another recommendation for further research and practice relates to the computer literacy of the teachers.
If we aim to enhance language learning and teaching quality, we should establish an international agenda to educate teachers about new technologies (Barge, Reference Barge2009). It is too simplistic to take teachers’ computer literacy for granted based on what we observe in teachers’ performance in pioneering educational settings in metropolitan cities. There are numerous teachers in far-distant towns and villages in every corner of the world who have no access to technologies, and even if they are given the high-tech gadgets, they are not capable of using them effectively. Therefore, we do need longitudinal and mixed-methods research to delve into these critical issues.
Moreover, one of the gaps in research on technology and writing is related to automated writing evaluation (AWE). As Saricaoglu (Reference Saricaoglu2018) indicated, there is a paucity of research evidence in the AWE literature, and more research needs to be conducted into AWE in various contexts using various digital tools. The next suggestion regards the influence of e-feedback on linguistic accuracy and content, which has been mostly ignored and requires further research. For example, the extent to which teachers rely on linguistic accuracy in content-based courses demands further research. Moreover, future research could investigate various technological feedback modes in different contexts to see how different modes compare. For example, e-feedback across different instructors based on various contextual and individual factors could be investigated to see how timing, technological exposure, or other factors might change the interpersonal considerations in the feedback. Additionally, teacher electronic feedback and its effectiveness have been noted. However, as Ene and Upton (Reference Ene and Upton2018) indicate, further research is needed to investigate teacher electronic feedback. Another point to consider is oral feedback and MALL (Xu, Dong, & Jiang, Reference Xu, Dong and Jiang2016). MALL in writing has been seriously ignored, and research into writing on smaller, portable devices is desperately needed.
Future Directions
As a general future direction, digital literacy skills in a range of technologies – including hardware, generic software/applications such as word processors and machine translation tools, and specialized tools for research such as keystroke-logging and eye-tracking – are needed for all writing instructors (see (Ranalli et al., Reference Ranalli, Feng and Chukharev-Hudilainen2019, for a discussion). Such skills comprise the technical, audiovisual, behavioral, social, and critical competencies that are needed to allow educators to socialize, communicate, instruct, and contribute in a digital context (Reyna, Hanham, & Meier, Reference Reyna, Hanham and Meier2018), and access to these tools is almost essential in the current educational climate. However, in many, if not most, less-developed countries, many teachers and learners just do not have access to sophisticated technological tools; even access to Zoom is a challenge in some countries. Seeking ways to make these tools more readily available to teachers and learners across a broad range of socioeconomic circumstances can allow us to know more about what technology can achieve in assisting the teaching and learning of L2 writing of not just a privileged minority and allow learners to take advantage of the evolution of writing technologies on a global scale.
