Enhancing students’ L2 writing skills online: a case study of an introductory English literature course for ESL students

1 Introduction

Language teaching and learning in higher education, as with other humanities subjects, have incorporated advanced forms of learning that are machine-based, AI-assisted, and instrumental, as well as favoring linguistic approaches over literary training.^[1] Understandably, English literature and literary studies are marginalized in the English as a Second Language (ESL) curriculum in Chinese Hong Kong as English literature is often associated with British canonical works that are to be downplayed in the English language curriculum in the Special Administrative Region^[2] and a more pragmatic, instrumental attitude towards the language is favored, viewing it as a lingua franca, or a convenient tool of communication. Secondly, the study of English literature in-depth is predominantly confined to students from elite local and international schools, resulting in a comparatively narrow audience at the tertiary level. This is even more pronounced in associate degree programs and self-financed institutions, which predominantly enroll students from Chinese-medium instruction secondary schools (Rogers & Ho, 2014). Finally, most ESL teachers nowadays have their scholarly training in linguistics. For instance, in the institution where this study takes place, there are currently 52 full-time English language lecturers, with only 5 of them having a background in literary studies, comprising less than 10 % of the entire English discipline team. Despite such marginalization, the value of teaching English literature should not be undermined as it has an irreplaceable role in creative use of the language and higher order thinking. The case study presented in this paper also demonstrates how an English literature course, when planned and executed using appropriate Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) tools, can improve L2 students’ writing and criticality in the post-secondary setting. Essentially, through this case study, we wish to stress that teaching English literature is of vital importance as it fosters creative expression and advanced cognitive abilities, both of which are crucial competencies within the context of higher education.

As is well established, the pedagogical benefits of using imaginative literature in ESL instruction are widely recognized among scholars. Gaskins (2015), through a case study, advocates adding literary essays to the usual choices of the short story, novel, poem and play in the ESL curriculum. McKay (1982) believes that literature can provide a key to motivating students to read in English. Costello (1990) considers literature an invaluable adjunct to ESL composition because students do not simply gather information in the target language. Instead, “they are asked to analyze the literary selection not only for its content but also for its aesthetic qualities and relevance to their own lives” (Costello, 1990, p. 22).

When considering the adoption of CALL, literature educators are notably hesitant to embrace technological integration, often opting for traditional approaches over digital innovation. This resistance is partly rooted in the discipline’s historical reverence for physical books, which are seen as timeless classics, and partly rooted in the well-established, low-tech methodologies of literary studies. For example, many literary scholars maintain that the nuanced practice of close reading and a personal engagement with texts cannot be adequately substituted by data-driven approaches like big data analysis (Wang, 2022) or “distant reading” methods (Moretti, 2013). Furthermore, the pedagogical nature of literature courses, which differ from the more skill-centric English language courses, is another factor. Literature is often taught as content-based second language instruction (Byrnes, 2005), where traditional, teacher-centered lectures prevail. In such settings, the use of technology is not deemed crucial for content delivery, as the conventional methods are considered more than sufficient. As Porter puts it (2000), though “computers have so clearly proved their value for language teaching, fuel is added to the anti-technology stance common in some of the other areas of specialization” (p. 312). English literature is certainly an area of such specialization.

However, the recent pandemic impacted the higher education sector significantly and forced institutions to transition from physical and traditional education to online education (Tafazoli & Meihami, 2022), and literary educators were no exception. Indeed, CALL necessitated teaching in the most critical moments (2020–2021), and teachers had to adjust quickly to the “new norm” and become competent CALL practitioners despite various challenges such as technological support, online management, and online teacher interactional competence (Moorhouse et al., 2023). Hence, it also became an important opportunity for literature teachers to incorporate CALL in their virtual classrooms.

The introductory English literature course investigated in this paper adopted CALL throughout the course in 2020–2021. The lecturer transformed the course into an online teaching mode, employing innovative digital pedagogical tools like Google Forms, Padlet, and Zoom to actively engage students and support the development of their critical thinking skills in essay writing that critiques literature. Although literature of online feedback and essay writing during the pandemic is abundant (Brudermann et al., 2021; Ennis et al., 2021; Lee, 2021; Noroozi et al., 2023), relatively little has been done to investigate the use of online tools and online feedback-giving in the context of Chinese Hong Kong’s tertiary institutions during that period, let alone the area of CALL and English literary education at a post-secondary level. The existing scarce research also highlights the students’ needs for feedback in the online setting (Yeung & Yau, 2022). Furthermore, Chinese Hong Kong is a valuable research site on CALL not only because of its swift adaptation to full implementation of online teaching during the pandemic (Wu & Shi, 2021; Yeung & Yau, 2022), but also because its experiences can serve as a useful benchmark for other Chinese and Asian regions who wish to further extend L2 education beyond the traditional classroom in the post pandemic era.

This case study focuses on the 2020–2021 cohort for the following reasons: First of all, the course was conducted solely online using Zoom, making it an exclusive period to collect valuable data on CALL. Secondly, it was the third time the subject lecturer (first author) taught the course, so the course content had been stabilized. Yet, it was the first time for the lecturer to move the content entirely online, having to adapt to a completely different teaching mode. She was experimental with her online pedagogical instruments and implemented various online tools. Such first-hand experience is worth investigating. Finally, throughout the semester, students’ literary criticism essays on three different literary genres (fiction, poetry, drama) demonstrated recognizable changes in terms of lexical and structural improvements, as well as argumentative and rhetorical effectiveness in English, proving the efficacy of CALL in a literature course for L2 students.

2 Literature review

Studying literature plays a critical role in improving L2 students’ writing. Although debates over the advantages and disadvantages of using English literature in composition instruction persist, literature has always managed to attract some teachers of L2 writing and maintained an essential presence in the long history of L2 teaching (Belcher & Hirvela, 2000). When systematically reviewing use of literature and L2 composition, Belcher and Hirvela assert, “Literature has demonstrated a unique staying power in language teaching history as other methodologies and text types have come and gone” (2000, pp. 33–34). When engaging with literary works, L2 learners can extend their knowledge of the source language and its nuances (e.g. varied sentence structures, patterns, and precise diction), deepen their understanding of cultural context through passionate narratives, as well as developing their critical thinking skills (Ghosn, 2002), which are hard to acquire in other texts or materials. More recent studies emphasize the integration of literature into L2 instruction as a powerful language acquisition strategy (Barrette et al., 2010; Bloemert et al., 2017; Mart, 2021; Nance, 2010; Tsang et al., 2023; Weist, 2004). This body of work further posits that language and literature are mutually reinforcing experiences that can make a significant contribution to L2 students’ development of advanced language competencies.

As a matter of fact, literature used to be an inseparable part of academic training before English for academic purposes (EAP) was introduced as a concept in 1974 (Jordan, 2001, p. 181). Duff and Maley (2007) discovered that the use of literature fosters language learners’ sensitivity to different styles and genres of writing, hence expanding their own repertoire. Furthermore, they argue that literary genres, with their emphasis on character development, narrative, dialogue, and symbolism, etc., can provide students with models to emulate in their own writing. This could potentially move students beyond basic language forms and explore more sophisticated and creative expressions. Duff and Maley’s argument is consistent with Littlewood’s (2023) advocation to balance the creative aspects of language learning while instilling conventions of academic writing into “lively young minds” (p. 4). Literary criticism, therefore, can be a space where both creative and critical thinking are exercised by L2 students.

For reasons mentioned in the introduction, the interaction between CALL and literature teaching is an under-researched area. Nonetheless, an extensive body of research explores CALL in enhancing L2 writing skills. Grgurovic et al.’s (2013) meta-analysis found a positive effect of CALL on L2 writing, highlighting improvements in fluency, organization, and content. One important phenomenon to note among these literatures is that CALL contributes significantly to collaborative writing in L2 learning environments (Abrams, 2019; Kessler, 2009; Li, 2018; Shehadeh, 2011; Zhang, 2019), which was difficult to achieve in a traditional pen-and-paper classroom environment. A study by Kessler (2009) showed that the use of CALL encourages L2 learners to engage in collaborative writing tasks, improving, in particular, grammatical accuracy and language fluency. Kessler also points out that CALL platforms are low-stress environments, allowing learners to focus on their writing. These important findings on collaborative writing also inform our present study.

Since two essential CALL tools, Padlet and Zoom, are examined in this paper in relation to students’ literary essay writing performances, it is necessary to provide a brief review of them here. Padlet is mostly used as a virtual wall for brainstorming, process-writing, pre-writing exercises, and simple feedback giving (AbdAlgane & Ali, 2023; Dollah et al., 2021), while Zoom is more associated with content delivery and student-teacher conferencing. Yastibaş’s study (2023) used a single case study to examine the experiences of a language instructor who conducted online writing meetings via Zoom during the Covid-19 pandemic. The research was based on a semi-structured interview and the results suggest that online writing conferences have benefits such as time efficiency, but also face challenges like technical issues. Furthermore, while the feedback content in online sessions resembled that of in-person conferences, differences such as student prejudices were noted. Another study explores the motivational strategies used by college EFL learners in an online writing course conducted via Zoom (Kim & Kim, 2021). Data were drawn from questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. The research findings demonstrate that students with higher proficiency level of English utilized feedback better and responded more positively to the Zoom context, while lower proficiency level students struggled with motivational strategies due to the lack of understanding of feedback given online. The existing literature on these two tools’ adequacy for L2 writing is still limited in that research so far is mostly based on surveys and interviews. Very few close analyses of student writing are done to provide evidence of positive changes in student writing using these tools.

Finally, we would like to explain the use of narrative inquiry in this case study. Narrative inquiry is a qualitative research methodology that seeks to understand and interpret people’s experiences through their personal stories and narratives. This approach, as demonstrated by Clandinin and Connelly (1999), places emphasis on the personal and social aspects of experience over time, and it sometimes involves a process of collaborative story-making between the researcher and the participants. In the social sciences, a narrative turn to study experience has taken place since the late 1980s and early 1990s (Pinnegar & Daynes, 2007). According to Clandinin (2016), one of the pioneers and advocates of narrative inquiry in educational research, anyone can use a narrative inquiry method to approach any aspect of teaching and learning. It is particularly valuable in language learning research for its ability to capture the complexity and individuality of learners’ experiences. It enables researchers to explore the personal, social, and cultural factors influencing language learning and use, which can provide a richer understanding than pure quantitative measures. Additionally, Barkhuizen et al. (2013) assert that narrative inquiry is particularly valid in language teaching and learning research: teaching memoir, students’ learning history, and oral narratives provide a rich repertoire for the study of L2 education. For the present study, it is appropriate to use narrative inquiry as we study a literature course where detailed, personal narratives can be viewed as a literary form of research that is not just about literature, but a form of literature itself. Besides the students’ learning history as collaborated between the researchers and the research participants, another narrative data was the teacher’s teaching memoir (Barkhuizen, 2014; Barkhuizen et al., 2013) which recorded the teacher’s constant reflection on the students’ performance and insights into the influences of technology used during the teaching period from September to December 2020. To sum up, in this case study, we see the value of narrative inquiry methods as forms of creative and critical response as well as narrative response to our research questions.

3 Methodology

This research paper is based on a case study of a highly regarded introductory literature course^[3] that has been offered at a community college in Hong Kong, China for four years (2018–2022). It is a discipline-specific elective course for Associate in English for Professional Communication. About 90 % of these students are later admitted to government-funded universities in Chinese Hong Kong, higher than the college’s already impressive average articulation rate (65.8 % in 2020) (The College’s Graduate Survey, 2020, see Appendix A). Among them, quite a few secured senior year placements at top universities in Hong Kong, China. The course focused on three literary genres (poetry, fiction, and drama), close reading skills, essay writing skills, and critical thinking skills.^[4] No lengthy or heavy reading was assigned to students, and students were required to respond to each literary genre by writing a literary criticism every four weeks.

The case study’s uniqueness is threefold: First, the introductory literature course itself is positioned at the intersection of second language acquisition and content-based instruction (Belcher & Hirvela, 2000; Gajdusek, 1988; Gaskins, 2015; Hall, 2005; Vandrick, 2003). Second, the time and context are unique. It was the second semester where the subject lecturer attempted full online teaching at the community college. Unlike the emergency remote teaching (ERT) that was urgently implemented in the first quarter of 2020 (Wu & Shi, 2021), CALL teachers had more time to adjust to the new norm, and the subject lecturer took this opportunity to experiment with various online pedagogical tools. In other words, the ERT had been exercised and practiced once and was no longer “emergent”. In this context, CALL teachers were no longer forced to react to a major crisis but could better practice CALL strategies. Third, literature scholars and teachers, who are not formally trained as language teachers, often do not pay much attention to either English language pedagogy or educational technology. As Porter (2000) points out, language teaching by nature tends to reflect and describe methodologies and pedagogies much more than literary and cultural studies. The present study, however, recorded the lecturer’s full teaching experience in the form of a teaching memoir, detailing her pedagogical choices, interactions with students, and first-hand experience of applying CALL.

Essentially, this paper reports and highlights how individual Zoom essay consultations, together with collaborative writing on Padlet, scaffolds and enhances students’ essay writing skills in English using qualitative methods of narrative inquiry, semi-structured interviews, and textual analysis of student essays to present a full picture about L2 students’ essay writing experience facilitated by CALL. The paper specifically addresses the following research questions (RQs):

• RQ1: What are the lecturer and students’ perceptions towards the two CALL tools, namely Padlet and Zoom, in facilitating L2 writing?

• RQ2: What are the students’ specific improvements in their writing before and after the use of the CALL tools?

In addressing these research questions, we utilized a case study methodology (Miles, 2015). This approach was deemed appropriate given the fact that the course under investigation is offered annually to a relatively limited number of students. The manageable size of the 2020 class, which comprised 13 students in total, facilitated an in-depth examination and analysis, affording richness and detail that may not be achievable with larger samples. To ensure the authenticity of the data and to gain nuanced, insider perspectives, we employed a triangulation of qualitative methods, incorporating narrative inquiry, semi-structured interviews, and textual analysis of the essays written by students. The subsequent section provides a comprehensive overview of the research procedures and documentation utilized in this study.

4 Results and discussion

To address the research questions in a thorough manner, this section is divided into four subsections. Subsections 4.1 and 4.2 use findings from the teaching memoir and the student interviews to answer RQ1, while Subsections 4.3 and 4.4 analyze students’ in-class online writing and three literary criticisms respectively to answer RQ2, providing evidence for the two CALL tools’ efficacies in terms of L2 writing.

5 Implications and conclusion

Anyone who is trained in English studies knows the difficulty of writing literary critical essays: literary criticism appears very subjective, and there are no clear, standard ways of approaching literature per se. Writing literary criticism is no easy task for L2 students because they need to read and interact with the literary texts, relate them to their life experiences, interpret the meaning in their own words, cite relevant textual evidence, and evaluate the work using appropriate language. As Halliday and Matthiessen (1999) rightly assert, ESL students who study content-based subjects in English have the double jeopardy of tackling both content knowledge and the language use. However, it is precisely because of this challenge, once students overcome it, they would find it doubly rewarding. In this study, the teaching of conventions of literary criticism (lexical, grammatical, and rhetorical), facilitated by two important CALL tools, was able to address students’ needs of writing about literature in their second language.

This study has also shown teacher-student consensus on the importance of using online collaborative writing tools (Padlet in particular) and online individual essay consultations (via Zoom) to facilitate student writing in addition to face-to-face teaching. Although the teaching memoir and student interview data have different emphases, both demonstrate the joint effort to experiment with new tools online to enhance L2 writing. L2 learners report Padlet to be a highly effective tool for brainstorming, perspective-taking, and positive interdependence while writing casually in class. Compared to online peer review exercises, learners find individual essay consultations via Zoom more constructive in feedback-giving, to the point that some regard it even more effective than face-to-face consultations. Results of students’ performance in their three critical essays witness visible improvements in terms of diction, organization, and analytical skills.

The study has its limitations mainly due to the small sample size. However, for a course that is offered as a discipline-specific elective course, it is normal to have 10–25 students in a class. Thorough textual analysis and in-depth narrative inquiry, therefore, give the case study its research rigor. Student participants also shared their genuine and first-hand experience of learning to write literary criticism online, which was a rare and singular research opportunity. To inform ESL and CALL teachers more fully, it is necessary to conduct a longitudinal study in future to explore students’ experience of similar interventions.

Although as of now face-to-face teaching and consultations are still favored across tertiary education, our study proves that Zoom individual consultations can work well when the teacher and student have the same marked essay to work with. Such Zoom sessions can compensate for lack of attention or immediacy by utilizing on-screen synchronized annotations and student-teacher interactions with the camera and microphone turned on. We agree with Yeung and Yau’s (2022) argument that as students leverage technology for online learning, it is important for educators to address these technological requirements. By doing so, educators can ensure that the potency of students’ self-regulated learning strategies is fully realized.

Finally, we would like to stress that online technologies expand the dimension of literary education and empower literature as a form of content-based second language instruction for tertiary level students in an ESL context. Therefore, literature teachers should actively embrace CALL methodologies that broaden their teaching and research arena in order that neither their field nor their teaching becomes obsolete in this technology-driven world.