Tweeting by Saudi EFL Learners: A Study of English in Use at Qassim University

Language use patterns in electronic messaging have the potential to reveal much about the vocabulary corpus, syntax, and general proficiency of non-native users. This is of relevance to teachers as learners’ academic performance and success is dependent on English language proficiency, especially in higher education. Using a mixed methods approach, this study examines the English language use characteristics evident in the morphosyntactic and paralinguistic features such as clipping, neologisms, language deformation in a corpus of text messages totalling 3600 words from class conversations of 68 EFL undergraduate students at Qassim University, Saudi Arabia. Patterns of Twitter messaging (named Twitterese in this study) using the GroupTweet function of the app were studied as it is easier for group members to follow one account rather than rely on hashtags of each and every peer. Findings show that the participants exhibit remarkable English language proficiency as they use novel (and sometimes complex) language forms including modified/ deformed spelling, syntax, word selection, and massive abbreviations. Moreover, amongst the morphosyntactic features under study, the highest number of non-standard use/deformities were seen in deletion or overuse of punctuation marks, Verb use (38% non-standard), occurrence of non-standard English in the form of phonetic replacement of words (62%), non-standard spelling with deletion of vowels inside the word (59%), a departure from norm that appears to be intentional (for example, abl* for able), massive clipping in the form of abbreviations, acronyms, and shortening of words. Voluntary interviews with thirteen participants helped gather specific data on the language acquisition, communicative proficiency, and general confidence in language use that the participants claimed was attributable to Twitterese. The study concludes that while this variety of language is not a substitute for Standard English, it adds to the language corpus of the users and aids their communicative proficiency

TRADITIONAL VS. WIKI: SAUDI STUDENTS\u27 PERFORMANCE IN AND PERCEPTIONS OF COLLABORATIVE WRITING IN A WIKI

This research study was a quasi-experimental study that investigated the impact of collaborative writing on 76 male EFL students\u27 writing performance in an online (wiki) classroom compared with a traditional (paper-and-pencil) collaborative writing classroom. The subjects were enrolled in a semester-long advanced English writing course at Qassim University, Saudi Arabia, and were equally divided into two classrooms---online/wiki (experimental) and traditionally-taught (control). In the experimental classroom, students used wiki to collaborate; in the control classroom, students used face-to-face communication and notebooks. Both treatments were compared analyzing data collected from a pretest and post-test of individual writing, three collaborative writing assignments, a collaborative writing questionnaire, and individual interviews. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (i.e., frequency, maximum, minimum, mean, and standard deviation) and inferential statistics (repeated measures ANOVA and t-test). Analysis of individual writing in the pretest and post-test showed that the number of words and grammatical form scores significantly increased in both the experimental (wiki) and control (paper and pencil) classrooms. In total score, content, diction and tone, and mechanics, the students’ scores in both classrooms significantly increased regardless of the treatment the students received. Additionally, there was a significant difference in the post-test scores between the treatments, with the wiki classroom scoring higher than the traditional classroom. In rhetorical structure, the scores in both classrooms significantly improved from the pretest to the post-test, yet, they were also slightly different between treatments. Analysis of the collaborative writing assignments showed that the writing quantity (i.e., word count) and quality (i.e., total score, content, rhetorical structure, grammatical form, diction and tone, and mechanics) significantly increased over time in both treatments. However, there was no significant difference between treatments and time by treatment. The students’ perceptions of writing collaboration were significant but were not for the rest of the measurements. They responded similarly in writing performance, writing apprehension, and its future use. Qualitative analysis of student interview data showed that both treatments yielded positive responses toward collaborative writing in terms of its usefulness, ease of use, and process writing. However, there were some limitations regarding this experience (i.e., participation, technical problems)