Feature Article
Reading and Summarizing in L1 andL2 Using a Social Networking Website
Eri Fukuda
Chugokugakuen University
Shinichi Hashimoto
The University of Electro-Communications
Hironobu Okazaki
Akita Prefectural University
This research adopted a case study approach to examine changes of first (L1) and second
language (L2) writing skills of two Japanese university students. A social networking site,
Facebook, was introduced in a writing class as a learning platform. In this research, theparticipants were assigned to read news articles in L1 and L2 on the same topic and write
summaries over the course of one semester. Slight changes in the participants’ L1 and L2
writing skills were observed.
本研究は、ケーススタディを用い、日本人大学生二名の第一・第二言語でのライティングスキルの変化を調査したものである。ライティングのクラスにおいて、ソーシャルネットワーキングサイト（フェイスブック）を学習プラ
ットフォームとして使用した。研究協力者は、一学期間に渡り同じトピックに関し第一・第二言語の両方でニュース記事を読み、その要約を書くことを課題として行った。研究協力者の第一・第二言語でのライティングスキルにわずかな変化が見られた。

Academic writing skills are essential for university students; however, Japanese83

Fukuda, Hashimoto & Okazaki

university students often do not receive enough writing instruction even in theirfirst language (L1) throughout primary to tertiary education (Okabe, 2004).
Regardless of this limited writing instruction in L1, to equip students withEnglish as a second language (L2) writing skills to logically state their opinions
is increasingly set as a goal in higher education in Japan (Tateno et al., 2011).
Nevertheless, the discrepancy between the goal and the reality is undeniable(Tanabe, 2003). Tateno et al. (2011) specifically points out the importance andthe lack of Japanese university students’ writing skills to provide support for theiropinions. Takada (2004, as cited in Kimura, Kimura, & Ujiki, 2010) reports
the result of a questionnaire survey collecting data from 120 schools on L2
instruction time spent on four skills at universities. The result shows that 38.6%
of time is spent on reading, 23.2% on listening, 14.5% on speaking, and 5.0% on
writing in L2 classes. Significantly less time is spent on L2 writing even though
Inoshita (2002) claims that more opportunities are needed for the learners tothink more actively and express their opinions in writing courses.
In addition to opportunities for writing, linguistic inputs are also important interms of cognitive perspective in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) (Krashen,1980). Specifically for the development of writing skills, inputs from reading are
essential (Krashen, 1984). However, many Japanese university students are notsufficiently exposed to linguistic inputs even in L1. Sato, Chikamori, and Sakai(2008) investigated L1 reading habits among Japanese university students andreported that the disparity of reading time between readers and non-readers is
stark. Furthermore, time spent on reading L2 texts would be even less, and somestudents could be overwhelmed by L2 reading.
L2 reading is a challenging task for many, and its solitary nature makes it
especially difficult for learners to maintain reading habits in L2. Nevertheless,learners could be encouraged if social interaction occurs while reading. Social
Networking Web sites (SNSs) allow learners to interact with their classmates by
sharing reading materials they have read and making comments on each other’s
posts.
Using Facebook as a learning platform would be a useful measure to provide
learners with opportunities to read and write in interactions. The importance of84

Reading and Summarizing in L1 and L2, OnCUE Journal, 8(2), pages 83-105

social interactions is stressed in sociocultural perspectives (Vygotsky, 1978; Swain,
1985; Long, 1996) in that interactions enhance learning as learners become moreaware of the gaps in their linguistic knowledge. Social interactions should not belimited to the classroom but extended to outside of the classroom as well.
Therefore, in the present case study, students chose and read L1 and L2 news
articles and wrote summaries, and these assignments were shared on Facebook
based on both cognitive and sociocultural perspectives, following the current
trend of a balanced view of SLA. Pre- and post-writing assessments in both L1and L2 were conducted to observe how the students’ writings changed.
Since the 1970s, the cognitive perspective dominated the SLA field until
Firth and Wagner (1997). They criticized the perspective for ignoring the context
where the language is used, which views the language as linguistic knowledge tobe acquired individually, not as a tool to convey meaning in social interactions(Zuengler & Miller, 2006). Influenced by Vygotsky (1962), researchers such as
Flawley and Lantolf (1984) put forward the same point, but Firth and Wagnerintensified the ongoing debate between cognitive and sociocultural perspectives(Zuengler & Miller, 2006; Larsen-Freeman, 2007). Although the cognitive
perspective is still a prominent position in the field, sociocultural perspective
has gained support and has grown to balance the conception of SLA (LarsenFreeman, 2007).
Sociocultural perspective
According to Vygotsky (1978), two aspects of development must be considered inorder to understand the developmental level of the child: the actual developmentlevel and the potential development level. The potential development level is“determined through problem solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration
with more capable peers.” (Vygotsky, 1978, p.86) Thus, social interactions are thekey in this view, and Vygotsky believes that cognitive skills and strategies can be
developed more effectively through social interactions.
Later, Swain (1985) formulates the comprehensible output hypothesis
which claims utterances generated in the process of negotiation of meaning withcomprehensible output could result in language development. Comprehensible
85

Fukuda, Hashimoto & Okazaki

output is the language which the more proficient speaker has produced for theless proficient speaker to get the message across. By focusing on conveying themessage to the interlocutor in speaking or the reader in writing, learners can be“pushed” to generate language which requires deeper processing of language interms of grammar and syntax (Swain, 2000).
Of the three functions explained in the comprehensible output hypothesis,
namely, noticing, hypothesis-testing, and metalinguistic functions, the noticing
function seems to be especially relevant in a study of writing skills. Noticing
occurs when the learner realizes what she can or cannot express due to her limited
linguistic knowledge, in other words, she notices the gaps in her knowledge.
In a similar vein, Long (1996) argues in his interaction hypothesis thatthe language learner becomes aware of the gap in her linguistic knowledge
by interacting with a native speaker or a more proficient language learner.
Negotiation of meaning is also important in this hypothesis, but the difference
from the comprehensible output hypothesis is that the emphasis is placed on
how a comprehensible input is learned through social interactions. The learnerreceives negative feedback from miscommunication and notices the gap in her
knowledge. In addition, the native speaker may use various strategies to help
the learner understand the message, which eventually makes the native speaker’s
utterance comprehensible.
Cognitive perspective
In the scope of first language writing, Krashen (1984) differentiates writing
competence and writing performance, borrowing the terminology from
Chomsky. Krashen argues that writing competence includes linguistic knowledge
to express ideas in a comprehensible manner to the reader. This knowledge can begained through pleasure reading as the learner reads and is exposed to texts thatare written in consideration of the reader. Some linguistic inputs are stored as arepertoire of expressions that can be used when writing. Writing performance,on the other hand, describes writing behaviors that the writer learns throughinstruction, which helps the writer to verbalize abstract ideas in writing. Krashen(1984) claims whether the writer has acquired the knowledge and behaviors
86

Reading and Summarizing in L1 and L2, OnCUE Journal, 8(2), pages 83-105

determines her writing proficiency. Therefore, even if the linguistic knowledge issufficient, that knowledge may not be appropriately utilized when the knowledgeof effective writing behaviors has not been learned.
L2 writing instruction
Kimura et al. (2010) argue that in Japan, L2 writing instruction lags behind the
instruction of other skills. They point out two reasons for Japanese students’lower L2 writing proficiency: the grammar-translation method is still themainstream approach in Japan; and writing skills are taught last among the four
skills. Thus, the overall time of instruction spent on writing is limited. Kobayashi
and Rinnert (2002) conducted a survey to investigate L1 writing instruction thatJapanese high school students have received at school in comparison with that ofAmerican students. The result revealed that nearly half the Japanese students had
never had L1 writing instruction while almost all the American students had. In
addition, only 20% of the Japanese high school students had written long papers.
Moreover, another cause of Japanese students’ low L2 writing skills explainedby Kimura et al. (2010) is the difference of writing instruction in Westerncountries and Japan. In Western countries, students are trained to think critically.
However, in Japan, writing instruction is limited to reflection on experiences andbook reviews in high schools (Kimura et al., 2010; Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2002).
On the other hand, in the U.S. writing with references is a norm at tertiary level,
as Leki and Carson (1997) demonstrated that the majority of writing assignmentsin academic courses requires the writer to be responsible for her argument by
supporting the opinion with references.
Finally, differences in rhetorical styles in Western and Japanese cultures are
discussed in contrastive rhetoric studies, but it is questionable if most Japanese
students fully understand and use the traditional Japanese rhetorical styles.
Kaplan (1966) argued that distinct thought patterns are apparent in rhetoricalstyles in each culture. In particular, Hinds (1983) explains that Japanese
expository composition is characterized by the sudden twist of theme evident in
ten in Japanese traditional rhetorical style called ki-sho-ten-ketsu (introductiondevelopment-turn-conclusion). However, contrastive rhetoric has been criticized87

Fukuda, Hashimoto & Okazaki

in articles such as Kubota (1997), Matsuda (1997), and Fukuoka and Spyridakis(2000) for its fixed conceptualizations of written texts and the writer. Rhetoricalstyles are stereotyped, and the writer is considered as a product of a culture(Leki, 2000). When this view is adopted, it is assumed that the Japanese cultural
background does not necessarily result in learner’s writing in ki-sho-ten-ketsu
style.
Furthermore, although the ki-sho-ten-ketsu structure is still often introduced
in expository composition textbooks (Cahill, 2003), the text organization
mainly taught in Japan is joron-honron-ketsuron style, the introduction-bodyconclusion pattern, according to Maynard (1998). In addition, although the termjoron-honron-ketsuron may be briefly mentioned in class, no explicit instruction
is given in many high schools in Japan (Sasaki, 2001).

Social Networking Web site
In terms of L2 writing instruction, both cognitive and sociocultural perspectives
are important. Specifically, based on the sociocultural perspective, learners
could benefit from making output in interactions with other learners. Webbased instruction using Facebook provides learners with such opportunities tointeract with each other through sharing their work and opinions (Grey, Lucas,& Kennedy, 2010). The Web-based collaborative learning environment enhanceslearning (Wang, 2009). Easy and instant sharing of materials with other learners
has become possible through online applications such as Facebook, Line, andTwitter (Magnifico, 2010).
Even though learning management systems (LMSs) have been used in
instruction for similar purposes, their unidirectional nature is criticized.
Commonly, the instructor takes the main role of uploading materials for students
on an LMS, and students take the passive role of uploading files only in response
to instructions. Hosny and Fatima (2012) point out, due to this limitation of
LMSs, students could lose interest in assigned tasks. On the other hand, when
SNSs are used, students can be active participants in learning as students decide
what information to post on the site (Kayri & Çakir, 2010; Hosny & Fatima,
2012).
88

Reading and Summarizing in L1 and L2, OnCUE Journal, 8(2), pages 83-105

Among other SNSs, for instructional purposes, Facebook is most appropriate
because Twitter and Line are developed mainly for use on smartphones, andposts are expected to be short and concise. Therefore, the smaller screen designed
for Line to fit on smartphones makes it unsuitable for posting relatively longsummaries. Additionally, privacy issues might be more prevalent on Twitter
because anyone can follow students’ accounts.
Furthermore, on Facebook, comments are shown immediately under the post(in a thread format); whereas on Line and Twitter, comments accumulate as they
are posted, which makes it difficult to see which comments refer to which posts.
Facebook is equipped with various features, and McCarthy (2010) argued thatthese features (such as “like” and comment) as well as its interface outperform
other SNSs and allow learners to communicate with greater ease.
Also, Facebook is often used to share links to Web sites including news articles
with the purpose of spreading the information to others. In addition, SNSs allow
the users to post their writing, so they gain an audience for their work (Marco& Pueyo, 2006). This sense of audience adds meaning to reading and writing
assignments, as both are done partially for others, to entertain, to educate, or tosimply inform.
In relation to the reading aspect, when considering which articles areinteresting for the learner and the audience, the learner has to briefly readseveral news articles and carefully read the articles of her choice. In addition tothese articles, she can also read the ones posted by classmates, which are more
approachable for the learner in terms of language level and topics.
Concerning the writing aspect, the awareness of audience puts writers in asocial context; in other words, writers have to write, asking themselves whether
or not their expressions are comprehensible to others (Magnifico, 2010). Face-toface peer reviews are often employed in writing courses, but it is usually done inpairs. By using Facebook, a student can read all the submitted work, and her work
is also reviewed by the rest of the class. Feedback that learners receive from peers
includes “like” and comments on the content. This “like” function on Facebook
complements the comments feature as a way to communicate one’s feeling tothe original poster more casually (Phillips, 2011). Also, students can see how
89Fukuda, Hashimoto & Okazaki

many students have seen their posts. Therefore, even if they do not receive any
comments, they can still see that their posts have been viewed.
In addition, compared to blogs, Facebook creates a community when thegroup is made for the class and shared by the registered students (Kent, 2014).
Posts are made on a shared wall which could decrease the fear of offending
personal work. Wu (2006) examines how blogs affect students’ revising in a
writing course when used for peer review in Taiwan. The author finds that the
majority of comments are encouragement and compliments even though thestudents learned how to peer review. Miyazoe and Anderson (2010) reportthat their students did not make comments on their classmates’ posts on blogs
because blog posts seemed private, although the students reported that they readthe posts. Mazzocchi (2014) compares blogs and SNSs and states, “the blog is astandalone website, where communication is primarily one-to-many and whereusers actually ‘have to go’, while the social network is a site where anyone caninteract with anyone else, where users ‘already are’” (p.7).
In the current research, a case study was conducted to investigate 1) How do
L1 and L2 writing skills change after reading L1 and L2 news articles? 2) How do
L1 and L2 writing skills change after sharing the articles and student-generated
summaries on Facebook?

Materials and Methods
Participants
At a middle scale private university in Tokyo, the study was conducted in arequired 15-week writing course for sophomore engineering students. Basic
writing skills were taught including writing styles and essay organization suchas main and supporting points. The course was leveled on the basis of TOEIC
scores, and this class was for students with TOEIC scores under 280. The classmet once a week.
There were 15 students in the class (11 males, 4 females), and two students,
Keiko (pseudonym) and Yui (pseudonym), agreed to participated in the research.
They studied English throughout their secondary education and freshman
English courses at the university.
90

Reading and Summarizing in L1 and L2, OnCUE Journal, 8(2), pages 83-105

Writing ability assessments and social participation writing
assignments
Students’ writing ability in English and Japanese was assessed before and after thecourse. In addition, they were given assignments to write summaries in L1 and L2
which were used with social interactions.
Writing assessments were conducted as the pre- and post-assessments of thecourse, utilizing writing prompts from the Test of Written English in the Testof English as a Foreign Language (http://www.orangutanenglish.com/Adobebklts/
writingtopics.pdf ) to induce persuasive-type writing. The pre-assessment wasadministered in the first week of the course and the post-assessment in the last.
Each assessment was limited to 10 minutes. No word limit was specified, and thestudents were instructed to write as much as they could for the given 10 minutes.
Although identical prompts were used in the pre- and post-assessments,
separate prompts were selected for English and Japanese, respectively. The
English prompt was “Some students like classes where teachers lecture (do all of
the talking) in class. Other students prefer classes where the students do some of
the talking. Which type of class do you prefer? Give specific reasons and details to
support your choice.” The Japanese prompt was “When people move to anothercountry, some of them decide to follow the customs of the new country. Others
prefer to keep their own customs. Compare these two choices. Which one do you
prefer? Support your answer with specific details.”
The two students’ pre- and post-assessments were analyzed using thefollowing codes: thesis statement, support, counter argument, refutation of thecounter argument, support for the counter argument, detail, concluding sentence,
irrelevant idea, and N/A. N/A was used when a sentence was not complete.
The coding was reviewed by the current authors including two native Japanesespeaking instructors and a native English-speaking instructor. Each sentence wasseparated as a response and categorized using the codes.
The assignments given in the course were reading L1 and L2 news articles
on the same topic, writing two summaries of the articles, one pointing out
differences of information in the L1 and L2 articles and the other integrating
the information in the articles, as well as posting the summaries on Facebook.
91

Fukuda, Hashimoto & Okazaki

Facebook was used for two purposes: to create an online learning platform wherestudents can interact with each other and to support reading and writing tasks
that could be challenging for learners by adding interactivity. Majid, Stapa, andKeong (2012) integrate Facebook in writing instruction to support developmentof writing skills and writing process and investigate students’ perception toward
the approach. The researchers said that the students liked the approach using
Facebook when combined with classroom instruction. Moreover, the students
found Facebook made learning more interesting and helped their learning.
Through Facebook as a learning platform, students can easily share articles
they have found and select these articles with the expectation that their classmates
will see them. Thus, they do not merely submit homework to the instructor but
actively select articles which they think will be of value to others in the class.
Furthermore, as the posted articles and summaries can be read immediately
both by the teacher and students, the students would be more careful writing asummary of the articles. If sentences are copied or the contents erroneous, they
can be easily recognized. This awareness of audience also encourages students
to write in a more comprehensible manner (Magnifico, 2010), and it motivates
students (Griffith & Liyanage, 2008).
Within Facebook, a private group was created where only the instructor andthe students enrolled in the current class had access. For the reading portion of
the assignments, students were asked to search online to find articles of personal
interest. While they were allowed to choose any topic, the number of charactersfor L1 and words for L2 had to exceed 1000 Japanese characters and 400 English
words, respectively. The students were required to select separate original articles,
not translated versions of one another, from different Web sites for each language.
Then the students wrote two types of summaries of the articles: a combined
summary of the two and a summary pointing out similarities and differences of
the articles. As they were beginner level learners, L1 was allowed in summary
writing (Murray & Hourigan, 2008; Mason & Krashen, 1997), but the students
chose whichever language they preferred for summaries. The number of Japanesecharacters required was 150 in L1 and 50 English words in L2. They posted
these summaries along with the links of the original articles on Facebook.
92

Reading and Summarizing in L1 and L2, OnCUE Journal, 8(2), pages 83-105

The assignments were shared in the Facebook group created for the course.
The students were asked to “like” at least one student’s post and encouraged
to comment on each other’s posts on Facebook. The students completed theassignments once every two weeks.

Results and Discussion
Writing assessments
Keiko’s case: English writing
Comparing Keiko’s L2 pre- and post-assessments, improvement was observedin organization and development of ideas. The pre-assessment is shown in
Table 1 and post-assessment in Table 2. During the semester, Keiko wrote allseven summaries in Japanese. Although there were many grammatical mistakes,
sentence length became longer; average sentence length changed from 8.29
words to 12.57 words. Also, the total word counts also increased from 57 to 88
words. In addition, compound sentences (e.g., “I’m hearing teachers lecture when
I’m funny”) appeared in the second assessment. In terms of organization, there
was no structure in the first assessment: the thesis statement was followed byirrelevant ideas and supporting ideas were postponed to the last. However, in thesecond assessment, transitions were used more effectively to organize ideas. Even
though no refutation was included, a counter argument and its support wereTable 1
Keiko’s L2 Pre-writing Assessment and Codes
Code

Response

Thesis statement

I like other students prefer classes where the students do some of the talking.

Irrelevant idea

I don’t speak to teacher in lesson.

Irrelevant idea

After lesson, I question to teacher.

Irrelevant idea

But I dislike teachers do all of the talking in class.

Support 1

Because, students and teachers communication in class.

Support 2

Student ask to teacher early solved problem.

N/A

Also, the situation ask teacher

93

Fukuda, Hashimoto & Okazaki
Table 2
Keiko’s L2 Post-writing Assessment and Codes
Code

Response

Thesis statement

I like classes where teachers lecture do all of the talking in class.

Support 1

Because, I may be understand.

Support 2

Then, I'm hearing teachers lecture when I'm funny.

Support 3

Teachers give students for questions when I'm easy speaking and answer.

Counterargument

However, in people, other students prefer classes where the students dosome of the talking.

Support forthe counter
argument

This type is talking all of the classmates, and teacher may be smooth lecture
in class.

Concluding
sentence

Finally, two type is very important, but I like classes where teachers lecture
do all of the talking in class.

added to the second assessment. In addition, this could be because of her limited
L2 language proficiency, but she seems to differentiate English and Japaneseorganization styles in both assessments. In other words, in L2 writing, simpler
supports are included using transitions; in contrast, her Japanese argument is
non-linear and the conclusion is delayed.
Keiko’s case: Japanese writing
As sentence structures are alternated to avoid monotonal writing in English,
different sentence endings are used in rotation for the same reason in Japanese.
Looking at Keiko’s first assessment (Table 3), she mostly used “I think” and aquestion form, which goes to the end of sentences in Japanese. In contrast, thesame sentence ending (“thought to be”) was used only twice in the post-assessment(Table 4). Although she used “I think” several times, slight changes were madeto add variations to the sentences, i.e., “kangae rareru (thought to be)”, “kangaeru(I think)”, and “kangaeta (I thought)”. This change is important in improvementof L1 writing since adding variations to sentence endings is necessary not to bore
the audience. This change might be encouraged by the use of Facebook as Keikowrote all her summaries in Japanese, which were viewed by all her classmates, and94

Reading and Summarizing in L1 and L2, OnCUE Journal, 8(2), pages 83-105
Table 3
Keiko’s L1 Pre-writing Assessment and Codes
Code

Response

Irrelevant idea

海外に移り住むということは、国籍を移すということでもある。

Irrelevant idea

私はその行為こそが、移住先の習慣に従うという表れなのではないかと考える。I think this conduct itself is the expression [of the will] to

Immigrating overseas also means transferring your nationality.

follow the customs of the destination country.
Support 1

現地の様々な習慣を身につけ、覚えていき、順応すべきではないか。Should we not practice, learn, and adopt the local customs?

Support 2

移住先で学んだことを、母国に持ちかえり、伝えるということもでき
るではないか。Can we not bring back and transmit what we have learnedin the destination country to our native countries?
Support 3

この行動により、世界とまた１つの国がつながるという活動にもつながるのではないだろうか。Does not this behavior result in the activity toconnect a country to the world?
Refutation of thecounter argument 1

また、移住先で自国の習慣を頑なに守り続ける人の場合を考えてみると、極端に言うと、その考え方は、移住先になじむまたは、理解し合おうという気がない現われだと私は考える。Also, considering a person

who rigidly maintains the customs of the home country, ultimately, this is
the manifestation of a reluctance to blend in or to understand each other.
Refutation of thecounter argument 2

移り住むからには、まずお互いの信頼関係を築かなければいけないのではないか。If you are immigrating, should you not first build a mutual

Support 4

国境を越えるということは、自身のそのような姿勢が大切になってくるであろう。When crossing borders, that kind of attitude would betrust?

important.
Irrelevant idea

これは、もう１つの意見であるが、移り住むわけではなく、研修ホー
ムステイなどの短期期間の場合、母国のことを存分に伝える時間がな
いのではないかと私は思う。This is another perspective. When you are

not immigrating but staying for a short term such as training or homestay, I
do not think there would be enough time to fully communicate about yourown country.
Irrelevant idea

むしろそういった活動があってからこその海外研修なのではないか。Rather, does not that kind of activity make overseas training [moremeaningful]?
Thesis statement

以上のことから私は、海外へ移り住む際、移住先の国の習慣に従うべきだと考える。From these reasons, I believe we should follow the customsof the destination country when we immigrate overseas.

95

Fukuda, Hashimoto & Okazaki
Table 4
Keiko’s L1 Post-writing Assessment and Codes
Code

Response

Support 1

初めに二つの習慣の利点を考察すると、移住先の国の習慣に従う人というのは、その国のことを尊重し、自分が現地の人たちとたくさんのことを共有し合い、これからも仲良くしていくという態度を良く感じとれるところである。Firstly, when considering the advantages of two customs,[from] those who follow the customs of the destination country, [we canfeel] the attitude to respect that country, share many things with the local
people and get along well [with them].
Support 2

こちらのタイプはすぐにでも現地の方々となじんでいけるのではないかと考えられる。This type [of person] is thought to blend in with the local

people quickly.
Irrelevant idea

自国の習慣を守り続ける人というのは、海外へ移り住んだとしても母国の誇りを忘れずに強く生きていこうという現われに見えると私は考える。Those who continue to keep the customs of their countries seem to betrying to live strong without forgetting the pride of their origins even after
they immigrate.
Thesis statement

以上のことから、私は、移住先の習慣に従おう方を選択する。From

these reasons, I choose to follow the customs of the destination country.
Support 3

なぜなら、協調性を見出すことにより、信頼をより速く勝ちとることができるからではないかと考えられる。This is because, throughcooperativeness, we can gain trust more quickly.
Support 4

また、習慣付けしていくことによって、現地の様子、行事や態度、様々なことを自分の中で理解し確立することができる。Also, by being

familiar with the customs, we can understand and establish various things
such as the local situation, events, and attitudes.
Support 5

しかし、自国の習慣を守り続けていると、母国のことを理解してくれ
る現住人の方ならよいが、仮に理解されなかった場合、いつまでも信頼を勝ちとることができず、新しく移り住んだ移住先での生活を困難にしがちにしてしまうと私は考えた。

However, if you keep the customs of the mother country, local people who
understand your country would not mind, but in case [the customs of yourcountry] are not understood, it takes longer to gain trust, and it will makethe life in the destination country more difficult.

received comments and “like” twice each.
For organization, less irrelevant ideas were written, while more transitions
were used in the post-assessment. The pre-assessment started with irrelevant
points, and Keiko lost sight of the argument when she discussed overseas
96

Reading and Summarizing in L1 and L2, OnCUE Journal, 8(2), pages 83-105

trainings and home stays; nonetheless, she concluded with a thesis statement.
The organization of the post-assessment did not follow either Japanese or English
organization style, as the thesis statement was placed in the middle of the essay,
but Keiko might have written the first three sentences as an introduction. The useof transitions increased in L1 post-assessment as well. These transitions were usedeffectively to connect sentences, as they were used in L2 post-assessment.
Yui’s case: English writing
Although the length and the organization of Yui’s paragraphs were approximately
the same in pre- (Table 5) and post-assessments (Table 6), the quality of argument
seemed to be slightly more advanced at the end of the semester. She also wrote
all the seven summaries in Japanese. In the first assessment, the reasoning forher choosing a lecture style class over a communicative style class was based on
her preference and smoothness of class management. In contrast, in the postTable 5
Yui’s L2 Pre-writing Assessment
Code

Response

Thesis statement

I like classes where teachers lecture do all of the talking in class.

Support 1

Because I don’t like to speak to every.

Support 2

Moreover, teachers can lecture smoothly class.

Detail 1

When I was a junior high school student I don’t like class like a game.

Counter argument

However, classes where teachers lecture do all of the talking get sleepy.

Refutation of thecounter argument

But I like to listen to teachers talk.

Table 6
Yui’s L2 Post-writing Assessment
Code

Response

Thesis statement

I like other students prefer classes where the students do some of thetalking,because this classes is watched other students caracter,and students don’t get sleepy.

Support 1
Support 2

Counter argument 1 However, crass room is noise.
Counter argument 2 If any student don’t like talking.
Refutation of thecounter argument

He or she didn’t like this crass, but those are important students
thinking that talks everyone.

97

Fukuda, Hashimoto & Okazaki

assessment, she supported her argument for a communicative style class, with theideas that students can learn classmates’ characters and students would not fallasleep. Again, her refutation against the counter argument in the first writing
assessment was her preference; however, in the second assessment, she claimed
that talking with other students would be important even if some students do
not like noisy classes.
Considering her limited English proficiency, reading L2 news articles wasdifficult. Nevertheless, she completed all her reading and writing assignments.
Yui’s posts on Facebook were also viewed by all the classmates and received twocomments and “like” from her peers. Thus, these reactions from her classmatesmight have helped her continue the work.
Yui’s case: Japanese writing
In terms of organization, Yui’s L1 writing pieces did not show much difference
between the first (Table 7) and the second assessments (Table 8). She quoted
a proverb in the pre-assessment, and this proverb was not actually connectedto the following sentences. She did not depend on a proverb in the later
assessment; instead, she directly addressed her reasoning using transitions. Useof transitions could also be indicative of her increased awareness of the audience
because transitions help the reader to follow the logic of a text and make it morecomprehensible.
Although the organization looks similar in both pre- and post-assessments,
supporting ideas are more developed in the latter. For example, in the preassessment, her argument was that following the local customs would cause
less trouble, and we can experience the local culture. On the other hand, in the
post-assessment, she added that we can make friends at events in addition toexperiencing the local culture. Further, she explained that we should follow the
local custom to avoid stereotyping. Although her command of transition words
did not show much difference, she started to include more ideas, using longer
sentences. Linguistic inputs may have provided resource of expressions to write
longer sentences. Also, as she wrote her summaries using news articles written byprofessional writers, she gained the opportunity to learn how comprehensible
texts are written skillfully and practice writing using these models as springboards.
98

Reading and Summarizing in L1 and L2, OnCUE Journal, 8(2), pages 83-105
Table 7
Yui’s L1 Pre-writing Assessment
Code

Response

Thesis statement 私は移住先の国の習慣に従うほうが良いと思う。I think following thecustom of the destination country is better.
Support 1

郷に入っては郷に従えという言葉のように、習慣に従えば、その地域の近所ともトラブルが少なくなる。As it is said, “When in Rome, do as

the Romans do,” you will have less trouble with neighbors if you follow thecustom there.
Support 2

さらに、その地域での文化を体験する形で学ぶこともできる。In

addition, you can learn the culture of the area by experiencing it.
Detail 1

確かに、その地域によっては自分の文化とは全く異なり、とまどったり、驚いたりするだろう。Surely, depending on the area, [the local

culture would] totally differ from your own, so you might be bewildered or
surprised.
Concluding
sentence

それでも、相手の文化を尊重し、移り住んだ地域の文化にとけこむことも大切だと思う。But still, I believe it is important to respect their culture

and to blend into the culture of the area you immigrated to.

Table 8
Yui’s L1 Post-writing Assessment
Code

Response

Thesis statement

私は移住先の国の習慣に従うほうが好ましいと思う。I think following

the custom of the destination country is preferable.
Support 1

なぜなら、移住先の国の習慣を実際に体験できて、さらに、周りの住民
とも、行事や祭りなどで仲良くなれる。This is because you can actuallyexperience the customs of the destination country; moreover, you can get
closer to local neighbors at events or festivals.
Support 2

自国の習慣と違いすぎて混乱したり、許せないこともあったりするだ
ろうが、広い視野を持ち、一つの固定観念にとらわれないようにするためにも、移住先の国の習慣に従うほうが良い。You might be confused

because the customs are so different, and you might not be able to accept thedifference, but it’s better to follow the customs of the destination country inorder to have a wider worldview and avoid being trapped by a stereotypicalidea.
Support 3

もし移住先の国に慣れたのならば、そこから少しずつ自国の習慣を紹介したり、話したりすれば、さらに移住先の住民とも仲良くなれると思う。Once you are accustomed to the destination, if you gradually introduce

your own custom or talk about it, I think you can be friends with the local
people.
N/A

しかし、互いにゆずれない文化もあるはずなので、そこはHowever,there must be some culture that you cannot give up

99

Fukuda, Hashimoto & Okazaki

Conclusion and Implications
The current study described how two students’ L1 and L2 writing changed
after online L1 and L2 reading and summary writing supported by a social
networking site. They read and wrote in two languages on a regular basis, andthese assignments were shared on Facebook. Views, “likes”, and comments fromthe classmates were expected to create interactivity in those activities and makerather difficult tasks more interesting as Majid et al. (2012) claimed. Indicationof the awareness of audience was seen in both students’ writings.
Moreover, some improvement in the students’ writing skills in both languages
was observed. As Maranto and Barton (2011) argued, literacy activities on SNSs
could provide opportunities to raise rhetorical awareness. Keiko used morevarious sentence endings in the post-assessment, and Yui’s writing assessment
showed transformation of supporting ideas from personal feelings to moreobjective reasoning.
As a means to develop L2 writing skills, materials are not necessarily limited
to the target language. L1 could be utilized as a resource to aid L2 reading. The
use of Facebook enables easy incorporation of L1 materials into L2 instruction,
as both L1 and L2 articles on the same topic can be posted for the instructor andstudents to review the appropriateness.
Nevertheless, there are some limitations in this case study. The number ofparticipants was small. Also, the actual writing assignments (summaries) posted
on Facebook were not analyzed for progressive changes in writing over time. In
addition, commenting on posts was not emphasized in instruction even though
the students were asked to “like” at least one student’s post each week and makecomments on posts to motivate their classmates. However, some students in theclass constantly left comments on posts, and exchanges of opinions were seen.
Accordingly, future research should involve more participants in order to
conduct quantitative analysis. Moreover, interactions among learners on a SNS
should be closely studied along with reflections from students on their work.
However, the present research offered a practical approach to extend resources of
linguistic input and opportunities for learners to write for the audience.

100Reading and Summarizing in L1 and L2, OnCUE Journal, 8(2), pages 83-105

References
Cahill, D. (2003). The myth of the “turn” in contrastive rhetoric. Written
Communication, 20(2), 170-194.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some)fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81, 285300.
Flawley, W., & Lantolf, J. (1984). Speaking as self-order: A critique of orthodox
L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acqusition, 6(2), 143-159.
Fukuoka, W., & Spyridakis, J. H. (2000). Japanese readers’ comprehension ofand preferences for inductively versus deductively organized text. IEEE
Transactions on Professional Communication, 43(4), 355-367.
Grey, K., Lucas, A., & Kennedy, G. (2010). Medical students use of Facebook to
support learning: Insights from four case studies. Medical Teacher, 32(12),971-976.
Griffith, S., & Liyanage, L. (2008). An introduction to the potential of social
networking sites in education. In I. Olney, G. Lefoe, J. Mantei, & J.
Herrington (Eds.), Proceedings of the Emerging Technologies Conference2008 (pp. 76-81). Wollongong: University of Wollongong. Retrieved fromhttp://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=etc08
Hinds, J. (1983). Contrastive rhetoric: Japanese and English. Text, 3, 183-195.
Hosny, M. I., & Fatima, S. (2012). Facebook in education: Students, teachers,
and library perspectives. Journal of Computing, 4(6), 78-86.
Inoshita, C. (2002). Kangaeru process wo shien suru bunshou hyougen
shidouhou no teian [Proposal of writing pedagogy to assist thinking
process]. Journal of the Liberal and General Education Society of Japan,
24(2), 76-84.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education.
Language Learning, 16(1-2), 1-20.
Kayri, M., & Çakir, Ö. (2010). An applied study on educational use of
Facebook as a Web 2.0 tool: The sample lesson of computer networks andcommunication. International Journal of Computer Science & Information
Technology, 2(4), 48-58. Retrieved from http://airccse.org/journal/
101

Fukuda, Hashimoto & Okazaki

jcsit/0810ijcsit05.pdf
Kent, M. (2014). What’s on your mind? Facebook as a forum for learning andteaching in higher education. In M. Kent & T. Leaver (Eds.), An educationin Facebook? Higher education and the world’s largest social network (pp.5360). London, England: Routledge.
Kimura, H., Kimura, T., & Ujiki, M. (Eds.). (2010). Reading to writing no riron
to jissen: Eigo wo shutaiteki ni yomu, kaku [Theory and practice in reading
and writing: Nurturing independent learning]. Tokyo, Japan: Taishukan
Shoten.
Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (2002). High school student perceptions of first
language literacy instruction: Implications for second language writing.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(2), 91-116.
Krashen, S. (1980). The input hypothesis. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown
round-table on languages and linguistics (pp.168-180). Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Krashen, S. (1984). Writing: Research, theory and applications. Oxford, England:
Pergamon Institute of English.
Kubota, R. (1997). A reevaluation of the uniqueness of Japanese written
discourse. Written Communication, 14(4), 460-480.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2007). Reflecting on the cognitive-social debate in second
language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 773-787.
Leki, I. (2000). Writing, literacy, and applied linguistics. Annual Review ofApplied Linguistics, 20, 99-115.
Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1997). “Completely different worlds”: EAP and thewriting experiences of ESL students in university courses. TESOL
Quarterly, 31(1), 39-69.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language
acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bahtia (Eds.), Handbook of second
language acquisition (pp. 413-68). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Magnifico, A. M. (2010). Writing for whom? Cognition, motivation, and awriter’s audience. Educational Psychologist, 45(3), 167-184.
Majid, A. H. A., Stapa, S. H., & Keong, Y. C. (2012). Scaffolding through the102Reading and Summarizing in L1 and L2, OnCUE Journal, 8(2), pages 83-105

blended approach: Improving the writing process and performance using
Facebook. American Journal of Social Issues & Humanies, 2(5), 336-342.
Maranto, G., & Barton, M. (2010). Paradox and promise: MySpace, Facebook,and the sociopolitics of social networking in the writing classroom.
Computers and Composition, 27, 36-47.
Marco, M. J. L., & Pueyo, M. I. G. (2006). Using the Internet to promoteautonomous learning in ESP. In E. A. Macià., A. S. Cervera., & C. R.
Ramos (Eds.), Information technology in Languages for Specific Purposes:
Issues and prospects (pp. 177-190). New York, NY: Springer Science &Business Media.
Mason, B., & Krashen, S. (1997). Extensive reading in English as a foreign
language. System, 25(1), 91-102.
Matsuda, P. K. (1997). Contrastive rhetoric in context: A dynamic model of L2
writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(1), 45-60.
Maynard, S. (1998). Principles of Japanese discourse: A handbook. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Mazzocchi, J. (2014). Blogs and social networks in libraries: Complementary
or antagonistic tools? Library Philosophy and Practice, 1-12. Retrieved from
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska – Lincoln.
McCarthy, J. (2010). Blended learning environments: Using social networking
sites to enhance the first year experience. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 26(6), 729-740.
Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2010). Learning outcomes and students’
perceptions of online writing: Simultaneous implementation of a forum,
blog, and wiki in an EFL blended learning setting. System, 38(2), 185-199.
Murray, L., & Hourigan, T. (2008). Blogs for specific purposes: Expressivist or
socio-cognitivist approach? ReCALL, 20(1), 83-98.
Okabe, J. (2004). The nature of L2 writing by Japanese learners of English. In V.
Makarova, & T. Rodgers (Eds.), English language teaching: The case of Japan(pp. 181-201). Munich, Germany: Lincom Europa.
Phillips, N. K. (2011). Academic library use of Facebook: Building relationships
with students. The Journal of Acadmic Librarianship, 37(6), 512-522.
103

Fukuda, Hashimoto & Okazaki

Sasaki, M. (2001). An introspective account of L2 writing acquisition. In D.
Belcher & U. Conner (Eds.), Reflections on multiliterate lives (pp. 110-120).
Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Sato, Y., Chikamori, S., & Sakai, K. (2008). Daigakusei no dokusho jittai toseikyou soshiki wo tsuujita gakusei shutai no dokusho shuishin undou no
kouchiku [University students’ reading habits and a student-led reading
promotion campaign through the Co-operative Society]. Daigaku Gyosei
Kenkyuu, 2, 61-73.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible
input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C.
Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-256). New
York, NY: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition
through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory
and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Takada, Y (Ed.). (2004). 21 seiki ni fusawashii daigaku eigozou no soushutsu
to jitsugen ni muketa ishiki chousa: anketo shukei, chukan hokoku [Survey
towards the creation and actualization of college level English suitable forthe 21st century: data collection and interim report]. Tokyo, Japan: English
Studies Lab, Tokyo University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
Interdisciplinary Cultural Studies.
Tanabe, Y. (Ed.). (2003). Wagakuni no gaikokugo, eigo kyouiku ni kansuru
jittai no sougouteki kenkyuu: Daigaku no gaikokugo, eigo kyouin kojin hen[Comprehensive research on current situation of our country’s foreign,
English education: Tertiary level foreign, English instructor edition].
Tokyo, Japan: The Japan Association of College English Teachers.
Tateno, Y., Oura, H., Mochizuki, T., Nishimori, T., Yamauchi, Y., & Nakahara,
J. (2011). Academic writing wo shien suru ICT wo riyou shita kyoudou
suikou no jissen to hyouka [Practice and evaluation of collaborative revision
via ICT as a support of academic writing]. Japan Society for Educational
Technology, 34(4), 417-428.
104

Reading and Summarizing in L1 and L2, OnCUE Journal, 8(2), pages 83-105

Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind is society: The developmental higher psychologicalprocesses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, M. J. (2009). Web based projects enhancing English language andgeneric skills development for Asian hospitality industry students.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(5), 611-626.
Wu, W. S. (2006). The effect of blog peer review and teacher feedback on therevisions of EFL writers. Journal of Education and Foreign Languages andLiterature, 3, 125-139.
Zuengler, J., & Miller, E. (2006). Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives: Twoparallel worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 40, 35-58.

Author Bios
Eri Fukuda is a lecturer in Faculty of International Liberal Arts at Chugokugakuen
University. She received her B.A. in International Liberal Studies from Waseda
University and her M.A. in Education (TESOL) from Soka University in 2011.
Her research interests include the writing process and writing pedagogy. efukuda@
cjc.ac.jp
Shin’ichi Hashimoto got his M.A. in TESOL from Soka University of America,
Calabasas Campus. Having taught various levels of EFL for over 15 years, his recent
focus centers on ESP curriculum design, vocabulary development and the genreapproach to understanding texts. He is currently a Specially-Appointed Associate
Professor at the University of Electro-Communications, Tokyo. shin.hashimoto@uec.ac.jp
Hironobu Okazaki received an M.A. in Literature from Soka University, 1990.
Professor at Akita Prefectural University. In addition to teaching, he has authored
several books for Japanese learners of English. okazaki@akita-pu.ac.jp
Received: October 14, 2014
Accepted: April 6, 2015105