Abstract
The reading response journal has been valued as an effective tool for involving students in authentic reading and writing activities. As the internet has become an essential medium in today’s English classroom, it is advisable to integrate both the web and the journal when approaching our EFL students. In order to motivate and engage my low-achieving students, I implemented a reading response electronic journal in my freshman English course. This article presents the rationale behind the use of a reading response e-journal in language learning and the context of my instruction. Data collection focused on the participating students’ journal entries and their perceptions of their reading and journal-writing experiences. Findings obtained from data analysis show that my goals for the course design were generally achieved, and that more attempts of such an implementation in EFL classrooms should be endeavored in the future.
I Introduction
Prominent language learning educators emphasize that students learn to read by reading (Allington, 2001; Smith, 2010) and write by writing (Atwell, 1987; Graves, 1983). They propose that it enhances learning when English language learners are provided with opportunities to connect reading and writing activities (Krashen, 1984; Spack, 1985; Zamel, 1992). Among the various reading and writing activities, keeping a reading response journal has long been viewed as a vital tool to engage students in both learning practices. Plenty of research and classroom practices have demonstrated how the implementation of a reading response journal benefits English language learners. For instance, it aids students in gaining meaning from texts (Au, Mason, & Scheu, 1995; Beach, 1998; Hurst, 1999; Roessing, 2009), allows students to use writing to clarify and organize thoughts when approaching texts (Cohen, 2007; Langer, 1992; McIntosh, 2006), provides a forum for students to employ reading and writing strategies and communicate with peers (Farris & Fuhler, 1996; Leki, 2001), and inspires aesthetic and critical thinking toward literary work (Bean & Rigoni, 2001; Farris & Fuhler, 1996; Kuhrt & Farris, 1990; Runkle, 2000).
In 2009, I started teaching a freshman English course at my university in south Taiwan. Based on a school-wide English placement test, this class was determined to be a Level B, an average level amongst the school’s student body. In reality, few of my students passed GEPT (General English Proficiency Test), a nationwide general English competence test viewed appropriate for students who have studied English through junior high school. The reasons for my students’ low English proficiency can be attributed to the fact that they were non-English majors, and that the English training in their vocational high schools was limited. As a result, the background check I gave in the beginning of the semester showed that more than half of my students (57%) were not confident English learners.
Creating a low-risk environment and accordingly engaging my students in meaningful and productive English learning thus became a major concern as I designed my curriculum. It has been reported that, in Taiwan, the age group of 16–20 years old had the highest percentage of internet users, at 98.90% or 1.57 million people (Taiwan Network Information Center, 2006), and this suggested to me a high level of motivation amongst students who were presented with a web-based learning approach. Furthermore, the most recent empirical studies done by other teachers of EFL (English as a Foreign Language) students strengthened my belief. Their research results showed that the use of Web 2.0 in classrooms benefited students by adopting innovative learning tools, such as a class blog (Soares, 2008) or wikis and chats (Elola, 2010), to invite collaborative learning and to enhance cross-culture understanding (Xing & Wang, 2008). As it is widely accepted that the emergence of the internet promises an important alternative method to learn English, I decided to ride the tide and implement a reading response electronic journal (e-journal) in my class.
In this article, I share a current analysis of data that complements findings from earlier, related, year-long action research, and present the rationale behind the use of a reading response e-journal in language learning. Data collection focused on the participating students’ journal entries and perceptions of their reading and journal-writing experiences. Findings obtained from data analysis showed that the implementation of the reading response e-journal motivated and engaged my low-achieving EFL students and therefore successfully reached the goals I set for the course.
II Prior empirical studies on the reading response journal
The theoretical framework that guided my curriculum design was the related research done on the reading response journal. Reading response theorists emphasize the importance of responding from literature, of literature, and about literature (Probst, 1992). They advocate that more than simply analysing texts, students should also be given opportunities to respond by creating meaning from their experience with the text (Beach, 1993; Iser, 1980; Rosenblatt, 1978/1994). Rosenblatt (1978/1994) particularly stresses the significance of ‘aesthetic reading’, which focuses mainly on the ‘lived through’ experience a reader has during the actual reading event (p. 27). According to Rosenblatt (2005a), ‘aesthetic reading happens if students have repeatedly found that, in approaching a text called a ‘poem; or a ‘story’, they can assume that they are free to pay attention to what the words call to consciousness’ (p. 37). In such cases, students read with attention mainly on what they are experiencing, thinking, and feeling during the reading (p. 35).
Responding to Rosenblatt’s (2005b) theory that students should be encouraged to ‘talk freely about the experience with peers and with the teacher’ (p. 44) so that aesthetic reading can be initiated, literacy teachers have adopted journal writing in their classes. Their empirical studies have shown insightful understandings about response journal writing:
The teacher can have an easier and more holistic access to students’ reading and writing experiences. Reading students’ journal entries helps the teacher see ‘how the text unfolds for the reader’ (Golden & Handloff, 1992, p. 175). The journal offers information about how a student is developing as a reader and a writer (Golden & Handloff, 1992, p. 184). The ongoing collective journal can also be used to evaluate student comprehension of the literature (Runkle, 2000).
Writing in the response journal helps to engage students in reading. The journal allows students to record their feelings about a certain character or incident in the book, or to predict the development of the plot. Students also write down their favorite words and things they notice and wonder about (Lindsey, 1996). All these actions help students become more involved in the reading process, leading them to be motivated to read (Hurst, Fisk, & Wilson, 2006) and comprehend the text better (Glenn, 2007).
The reading response journal offers students ‘a means of articulating, exploring, and extending their responses to literature’ (Golden & Handloff, 1992, p. 183). It serves as a vehicle for students to continue to live inside and move through the story world (Martinez & Roser, 2008, p. 208). Students do not stop reflecting once the act of reading comes to an end. The sustained opportunities to write about literature in the reading journal ‘support students’ meaning construction and nurture shifts in their responses to literature (Martinez & Roser, 2008, p. 196). Students continue thinking of the literature and therefore extend their reading experience.
When journal writing becomes a consistent part of students’ learning, it motivates them to write more in length and richer in context. For example, with constant practice, Gammill (2006) saw her second-graders became more comfortable expressing their thoughts through writing and making connections with texts without prompting (Writing to Learn section, paragraph 2). Roman-Perez, an ESL (English as a Second Language) teacher, also was amazed to see that her students were able to write longer pieces with a much wider range of vocabulary (2003, p. 312).
The journal encourages students to respond to literature through writing about personal reactions and emotional connections. Consequently, the writing becomes less threatening. For example, Roman-Perez (2003) noticed that her ESL students became less fearful of writing and ‘began to view it as a tool for articulating their own humanity’ (p. 313). Writing gives students ownership of their literacy experiences (Runkle, 2000). Students see that they are not writing to summarize or recall facts, but, instead, to synthesize and interpret the text. This motivates students to read and promotes critical thinking (Hurst et al., 2006).
The reading journal serves as a collaborative learning tool when students share their entries with peers. Kooy and Kanevsky (1996) invited their students to exchange journals and respond with short comments. The brief written interactions with peers began ‘the social interaction with the thinking of other students’ (p. 47). Students with diverse experiences and backgrounds communicate ‘in a collegial social and collaborative context’ (p. 49). As a result, they learn to reshape their thinking and modify their interpretations.
The reading response journal can function as a ‘springboard’ for group and class discussions. Classroom teachers find journal writing prepares their students for book discussions during class sessions (Hall, 2009). Hurst et al. (2006) noticed that the students piggybacked on one another’s topic, appearing enthusiastic in joining the discussion as they had noted the same topics in their journals. Or, their ‘different reflections about the text deepened the discussions’ (p. 40).
The reading journal can ‘fulfill an important bridging function as students develop a critical response to a text before addressing formal written tasks’ (Evans, 2008, p. 242). Many teachers of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) find it challenging for their ESL students to write academic essays. ESL students need to overcome not only difficulties caused by comprehension of the text, but also those resulting from limited linguistic competence (Paltridge et al., 2009). Keeping a reading journal engages ESL students in the ‘reading-to-write’ process and gradually equips them with appropriate skills for later academic writing tasks (Evans, 2008, p. 242).
III Implementing a reading response e-journal in my freshman English class
1 Purposes
The discussion above shows that when the reading response journal is implemented in the English class, it benefits language learning students. In most pedagogical practices, journal entries are shared between the teacher and students. The teacher’s comments about the journals motivate students and are appreciated by them (Runkle, 2000). However, since peer social learning has long been promoted by educational theorists (Dewey, 2005, originally published in 1916; Halliday, 1977; Rogoff, 1995; Vygotsky, 1962, 1978; Wertsch, 1995), I find it essential to create a learning environment where my students can collaborate and grow with their peers. Moreover, as the internet and other ICTs (Information and Communication Technologies) have transformed the nature of reading, writing, and communicating (Karchmer, 2000; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003; Leu et al., 2004), I feel obliged to integrate internet-based learning in my curriculum, so that I can help my students to become ‘fully literate’ in an ‘information-centered world’ (Castek, Bevans-Mangelson, & Goldstone, 2006, p. 727).
I chose the electronic journal instead of a conventional paper-and-pencil journal primarily because I wanted to engage my low-achieving EFL students in meaningful, innovative, and non-threatening learning activities. I believed that having my students keep an electronic journal could attain the following objectives:
Providing a peer social learning environment, where students write to share their thoughts and feelings with their classmates.
Encouraging my students to write more spontaneously. The nature of journal writing is more expressive and ‘first draft chat’ like (Fuhler, 1993, p. 403), rather than rigid and academic-like in format.
Offering my students the flexibility to revisit the text and formulate their responses when they feel ready. An internet-based approach is free from the time and space limits that classroom writing practices usually cause.
Promoting ‘reading for interests’, since the students respond in the journal about their personal feelings and emotions rather than memorizing facts or preparing for a test.
Motivating English learning, through offering a medium that matches what my ‘internet-savvy’ students can and want to use (Cavanaugh, 2006).
Allowing myself a convenient way to archive and document the students’ reading and writing developments, and later use the records as assessment items.
2 Project context
a The participating students
Forty-four freshman students (forty-one males and three females, majoring in either Shipping Technology or Marine Engineering) enrolled in the class. The school’s program required them to take a two credit general English course during their freshman year. Although almost all the students had studied English in junior high and high school, the academic training they received was mostly vocationally oriented, and English learning was not a priority. Therefore, a majority of my students had low English proficiency and confidence. However, as the nation is making efforts to promote university students’ English proficiency and the job market is demanding more capability in this area, most of my students recognized the importance of mastering English and were willing to improve their English ability.
b Instruction
The freshman English course lasted one school year, with eighteen weeks in each semester. Every week my students and I met at the language lab for two hours. I selected simplified English literature for our reading material, based on my understanding of the students’ English levels and their general interests. We read The Withered Arm (Oxford Library), a mystery, in the first semester, and in the second semester we read Robinson Crusoe (Fast Track Classics), an adventure story. During the class sessions, we read the individual chapters of the book together, and I assisted the students with vocabulary usage and translation of complex sentences. The purpose of the teacher-guided reading instruction was to ease frustration my students might have had, since few of them had prior independent reading experience. I also demonstrated how to use reading strategies, such as visualizing, asking questions, making predictions, inferring, and referring to prior knowledge, to help comprehend the text. The students were required to use their home computers to post reading responses on the electronic journal during the week.
I created a board on the school’s e-learning platform and asked the students to log in and post their journal entries on there (see Figure 1).
The online board for student journal entries.
The posting task was assigned for 20 of the 36 weeks in the school year, or about every other week. As a course requirement, the students were asked to post two entries reflecting upon each chapter read, by either initiating a comment or replying to someone’s posting. In the first semester I gave specific topics, such as ‘What I know about the main character so far’ or ‘What makes me sad/ happy/ surprised/ disappointed’, to help my students focus. In the second semester, as my students became used to journal writing, I encouraged them to self-select their topics, although I still provided a list of prompts on the board as a back-up. Most prompts aimed to invite the students to make aesthetic responses to the literature. See Appendix 1.
Students were required to post in English. However, during the first several weeks, posting in Chinese was allowed as a means of reducing stress. I did not ask for perfect editing, but I encouraged the students to use language tools, such as dictionaries or Google translation, to help with their spelling and grammar. During class hours, I gave 10–15 minute mini-lessons, using student postings from the previous week to show examples of good content and sentence structure.
The students posted their journal entries by chapter. I could also separately archive each student’s responses when I wanted to assess individual writing (see Figure 2). This helped me see each student’s development in writing.
An example of archiving individual student journal entries.
At the end of the school year, an 18-question survey was given to all students, which included eight questions based on a five-point Likert scale, and 10 open-ended survey questions which focused on students’ perceptions of the project and their reflections on the reading and writing experiences (see Appendix 2).
I also collected students’ pre-project and post-project writing samples to examine if the students improved in writing skills. Two experienced English composition teachers helped grade the students’ writing by using TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language, widely acknowledged and taken by an average of 25,000 people per year in Taiwan) Writing Scoring Guide (Educational Testing Service, 2010). I adopted the TOEFL Writing Scoring Guide because I found that it served my purpose of evaluating important elements in student writing: organization, development, thesis, supporting details, sentence structure, and vocabulary. The inter-rater reliability of the two English teachers was calculated using Pearson Correlations and the figures indicated a statistically significant relationship (for pre-project writings: r = 0.858, n = 44, p = .000; for post-project writings: r = 0.680, n = 44, p = .000). Then I compared the students’ averaged pre- and post-project writing scores.
IV Results
The reading response e-journal project was completed at the end of the school year. I had the students’ journal entries, survey answers, and pre-and post-writing grades as the research data. I used the constant comparative method and an inductive research strategy (Merriam, 2002) to closely examine the data and determine major themes, with the following results.
1 Students’ perceptions of the project
The students’ answers to the questions on the five-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’, revealed their perceptions of the project. In general, the students were happy about it, with 66.67% of the students agreeing that they liked the project. In addition, 66.67% of the students appreciated the teacher’s instruction, while only 2.08% gave a negative opinion. Although the students were not as positive when evaluating their personal improvement, still more than one-third of the students (35.42%) thought their English improved and only 16.67% of the students thought it did not. A greater number of students (54.16%) agreed that their learning outcomes were satisfying, suggesting that although some students had doubts about the improvement of their English proficiency, they still believed that they learned in other ways.
Students’ answers to the open-ended question, ‘My overall opinion toward the project is …’ supported my analysis of the Likert scale. Thirty-six (82%) students specifically stated that they thought the project was good. Eight students (18%) held a neutral attitude while no student expressed any negative opinion of the project. Among the 36 students holding positive opinions, various reasons were given, such as the project helped them with their English learning (nine students), the project was interesting (five students), the project helped them read in English (two students), write in English (two students), and learn some things (three students). Tan (all names in the article are pseudonyms) wrote: ‘The project helped me with my English skills. I did not just recite the reading passages in the textbook. Instead, it helped me improve my English reading, writing, listening, and speaking skills.’ (Note: All the survey answers appearing in this article were translated from Chinese into English.) Hsu wrote, ‘I am satisfied with the project. After all, learning English should involve more reading, more writing, more listening, and more speaking.’ Therefore, the students’ general perception of the project was positive, because the project offered them more opportunities to meaningfully practice the four skills in English.
What is interesting to note is that not all the students felt they actively participated in the project (18.75% stating that they had not done so). This concurred with the conditions of previous online projects, whose success relied heavily on students’ self-regulation, and while students found the project interesting and beneficial, they needed to better manage the time and energy they devoted to the project. Another interesting result was that while 18.75% of the students did not think they were devoted enough to the project, only 6.25% of them felt the same way about their classmates. This might have resulted from my sharing students’ good writing examples in class, leading many to believe their peers were doing a great job. However, as no further follow-up interview was conducted, my assumption here would still require a further examination.
As for their reading and writing performances, 44.68% of the students were satisfied with their reading performance and 19.15% were not. 40.43% of the students were satisfied with their writing performance, and 21.38% were not. The greater confidence in reading over writing was not surprising as writing demands more productive ability than reading. Students had to have sufficient English language knowledge and writing skills to translate their thoughts into written journal entries. Recalling the background check given at the beginning of the semester, in which 57% of the students stated that their English was poor, I was happy to see that the students’ confidence in their English proficiency one year later seemed boosted. Only 19.15% of the students were unsatisfied with their reading performances and 21.38% unsatisfied with their writing performances, suggesting a smaller number of students who maintained that their English was poor.
Students’ answers to the open-ended survey question, ‘Compared to last semester, I feel my overall reading and writing performances in this semester are …’, gave more detailed information. Eighteen (41%) students indicated that they felt the book became more comprehensible or more appealing to them and eight (18%) students commented that the writing became less challenging. In addition, five (11%) students felt that their English improved. Huang commented, ‘My reading comprehension improved. I could see the main ideas in the text and could write about them.’ Peng wrote, ‘I became more careful. In order to write down what I felt, I had to learn many new words, and I felt good about that.’ Therefore, although 10 (23%) students remained unsure about the progress of their reading or writing performances, giving comments like ‘I did not feel any improvements, since what had been difficult to me remained to be difficult’ (Hao), 31 (70%) students did point out that they sensed progress in their reading or writing performances.
In the survey, the students answered what they thought they had gained through the writing activity. All students but one stated that they gained something by participating in the writing activity. Among them, the greatest number of students (12 or 27%) indicated that their English improved grammatically and their vocabulary expanded. The second biggest number of students (11 or 25%) thought that posting online helped them enhance their writing skills. They indicated that they were more capable of making English sentences and expressing their thoughts in simple English. Lin commented, ‘I would ponder on how to write a sentence that is correct and semantically clear. When I encountered difficulties or had questions, I would try to find the answers, which helped me learn more.’ Constant writing gave the students opportunities to practice and therefore helped them become more capable writers, echoing writing theorists’ belief that we learn to write through writing.
Eleven students (25%) also appreciated the opportunity to interact with their classmates. They indicated that they learned by viewing their peers’ postings while also feeling encouraged to share their own thoughts with others. From the students’ reflections I knew that the electronic journal functioned not only as a publishing tool but also as a reservoir for them. Five students (11%) stated that they gained a sense of achievement by posting online and, compared to other categories, this figure accounted for only a small part of the students’ answers. However, it can still be viewed as an achievement since most of the students began as unskilled writers and rarely had English writing experiences prior to this project. Writing in the e-journal granted them the ownership of learning and hence made them feel proud about themselves.
2 Students’ growth in writing
A paired-samples t-test was conducted to evaluate the impact of the e-journal-writing project on students writing skills. There was a statistically significant increase in students’ writing skills score from before the writing project (M = 1.41, SD = 0.884) to after the writing project (M = 2.33, SD = 0.707), t(43) = 6.9, p < .001.
On average, however, the students’ writing scores still remained low (at 2.4 level), indicating that the students’ writing had one or more of these weaknesses: disorganization, little detail, errors in sentence structure, and problems with focus (Educational Testing Service, 2010). It is worth noting that the low-achieving students, who had rarely tried academic writing before, made a big leap in their writing performance from level 1 to level 2. (Note: a level 1 essay, according to ETS, 2010, may be incoherent, undeveloped, or may contain severe and persistent writing errors.)
A paired samples t-test was also calculated to see whether or not there was a statistical difference in the number of words students used in their first and last e-journal entries. There was an increase in the number of words students used from the first journal entry (M = 37.41, SD = 21.314) to the last journal entry (M = 44.00, SD = 20.776), although not statistically significant t(43) = 1.6, p = .12. The growth of the average length indicated that the students were generally able to post longer entries as time went by.
A closer examination of individual students’ postings gave more information about their growth in writing. Gao was a low achiever in class compared to his peers. Figure 3 shows the two journal entries he posted at the beginning and the end of the school year, respectively. (The journal entries have not been edited.)
Gao’s first and last journal entries.
As can be seen here, both entries had many grammatical errors. However, the last entry was more accurate in terms of the writing format (such as spacing, punctuation, and paragraphing). Both entries had fragments as the subjects were always missing, a common error perceived in Chinese students’ English writing. However, whereas the first entry displayed a more word-by-word Chinese to English translation, the last entry exhibited an understanding of English sentence structure (i.e. ‘I like him and the fighting spirit of partnership.’). More importantly, in the first entry, the student expressed that he was struggling with the text since his English was not good. In the last entry, however, he was able to confidently describe his feelings about the ending and tell what he had learned from the text by using big words and phrases, such as ‘partnership’, ‘cooperation’, ‘in need of’, and ‘in order to’. Figure 4 is another example by a low-achieving student, Chiou.
Chiou’s first and last journal entries.
Compared to his first entry, where not a single complete English sentence was present, the last entry excelled in exhibiting student Chiou’s ability to construct an almost error-free English sentence, such as ‘And Robinson sold his farm to change lots of money.’ As the two examples show, with constant practice students who previously failed to write correct and complete English sentences were able to write short plausible passages to express their thoughts.
3 Thinking strategies that students exhibited
While reading through the students’ postings, what struck me most was their sophisticated thought processes. The students’ English ability might not have been mature enough to accomplish a polished article, but when encouraged to write about their personal feelings and emotions, they demonstrated the capability of comprehending the text and, moreover, coming up with remarkable insights.
Odell (1998) indicates that writing is an act of thinking and that it is possible to find the thinking strategies reflected in a completed writing. After closely examining the students’ journal entries, I realized that the six thinking strategies Odell listed in his article – dissonance, selecting, encoding, drawing on prior knowledge, seeing relationships, and considering different perspectives – were frequently found in students’ writing. The following list presents the strategies perceived in students’ example entries and my interpretations.
4 Challenges that students encountered
The reading response e-journal project lasted one school year. Altogether the students created 3,146 journal entries. Table 1 gives the description of the numbers of student entries. As the posting task was assigned for 20 of the 36 weeks in the school year, a dutiful student had to complete 40 journal entries (20 personal opinions and 20 comments on their peers’ work). However, as Table 1 shows, only 13 (29.5 %) students were able to meet the requirement. Among them, 10 (22.7%) went beyond the teacher’s expectation by posting more than 50 entries. Other than that, most (31 or 71.5%) failed to post the required number of entries. On the other hand, the cumulative percentage shows that 36 or 81.8% posted more than 20 entries in total. So, on average, they posted at least one entry whenever a posting task was assigned. Only eight (18.1%) students did poorly in meeting the minimum requirement by posting fewer than 20 entries. Therefore, in general, while most students were able to participate in the writing activity at a basic level – that is, posting at least once when required – many of them did not meet the course requirement of posting twice.
Frequency of the entry number students posted.
In the survey I asked an open-ended question about the difficulties students encountered when writing. Students’ answers to the question helped explain why they failed to actively participate in the writing activity. The students’ answers fell into a few big categories: 16 students (32%) for grammar, 10 (20%) for limited vocabulary, and eight (16%) for translating their thoughts into English. One student wrote, ‘Sometimes I tried to type something but I did not know how to express it in English. I felt blocked. Then I used the translation tool and the sentence became awkward’ (Chiu). Five students (10%) had problems coming up with writing ideas, while another six (12%) stated that they were unable to get online, did not understand the contents of the books, or had no time to post, etc. Only five (10%) felt no difficulty when posting. In short, students’ answers showed that their biggest obstacle was deficient English skills (34 or 68% in total). They had limited vocabulary, insufficient grammar knowledge, and therefore could not find the right words and sentences to precisely and correctly express themselves. Young explained it so well: ‘I don’t know how to express my thoughts. I had great ideas when I thought in Chinese, but I just failed to type them out in English. I felt really frustrated.’
5 Help students would like to receive
When asked what kind of help they would like to receive to improve their writing, students’ answers fell almost evenly into four major groups. Twelve (27%) stated that they did not need extra writing help. This suggested that almost one third of them considered writing their responsibility and did not seek to rely on other kinds of help to improve. It might also indicate that the students became more confident writers, who believed that they were capable enough to independently accomplish the writing task.
Eleven (25%) indicated that they would like to receive help with their grammar. A typical answer sounded like this: ‘If someone could help correct my grammar that would be great’ (Huang). Moreover, nine students (20%) mentioned that they needed a powerful and handy translation tool around to help them express their thoughts in English. Therefore, altogether 45% of the students (20) would like to receive help with their English expression. Such a request apparently resulted from the students’ perceived deficient English proficiency.
In addition to a need for assistance with the target language, 10 students (23%) pointed out that they would like to read more other people’s responses to the reading texts. Such an answer suggested that hearing or viewing others’ comments helped inspire the students and provided them with ‘food for thought’. Lin wrote, ‘We helped each other by reminding details [about the books] or giving suggestions. This allowed me to come up with better posting entries.’ The students appreciated the opportunities to learn with and from their peers as well as their teacher. They therefore demanded peer discussion or the teacher’s demonstration so that they could know more about the texts, think deeper, and consequently write better.
V Conclusions
Students’ comments about the project and their journal entries demonstrated that the purposes I set for the course were generally achieved. My students appeared to be motivated and engaged in the reading and writing activities. They enjoyed learning with peers through the innovative tool, the online journal. Their writing skills improved and they grew into more confident English learners. However, there is still room left for improvement in my course design. For example, Glenn (2007) advocates that students should be encouraged to write creative responses in their reading journals. Some of my students voluntarily wrote poems or made up different endings to the story in their journals. However, none of them ever tried fiction writing as they were not aware it could be an option. Glenn (2007) states that the act of engaging in an authentic creative writing process helps students ‘pay different attention to the texts they were reading and to analyse them through a distinctive lens – that of a writer’ (p. 18). Therefore, in addition to providing prompts, I should also invite more creative writing so that more aesthetic responses to the text will be evoked.
Additionally, I should also check the progress of my students’ reading competence at the end of the project. My instruction during the course ensured that my students had sufficient support in reading: I assisted with vocabulary, made sentence-to-sentence translation when the text became difficult, and modeled in class certain reading strategies. Since my students did not always read independently, I did not examine if their reading comprehension improved. Although students’ journal entries demonstrated that they were able to use various comprehension strategies to approach the text, I could not tell if that was solely the outcome of the implementation of the reading journal. Therefore, the effect of the reading journal on students’ reading comprehension remains uninvestigated. A more careful course design regarding this aspect will be necessary if I want to examine the development of my students’ reading skills.
Using the electronic journal proves to be a beneficial method to engage students in authentic and meaningful reading and writing activities. It also offers an alternative way to evaluate students’ learning. Not too many EFL teachers have attempted this approach before. Therefore, my study should serve to initiate such a curriculum design, and hopefully in the near future it will invite more discussions about this alternative yet effective approach.
Footnotes
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Acknowledgements
I would like to gratefully acknowledge Dr. Dick Allwright for his indispensable advice in preparing this article.