An Investigation of Linguistic and Localised Features of Thai in English Writing on Facebook Closed Group

The research aimed at 1) To investigate students’ linguistic features of Englishes found in writing in the Facebook closed group’s posts and comments, and 2) To investigate types of characteristics of localised features of Thai in English writing found in students’ writing in the Facebook closed group’s posts and comments. The participants were the second-year English major students who enrolled the course entitled “Teaching English Writing skill 1” at Bansomdejchaopraya Rajabhat University in 2018. The data were collected from the students’ writing in the Facebook closed group’s posts and comments and analysed with the qualitative method. The finding showed that the posts were mainly about life-learning. For linguistic features, syntactic features were mostly found in parts of speech, punctuation, verb tenses, and capitalisation, and lexical features were mostly found in word choices and spelling. In the aspects of localised features of Thai in English writing, the characteristics of translation and transfer were found the most, and the rest were code-switching, code-mixing, shift, and reduplication.


INTRODUCTION
As an EFL teacher, two of the most important problems found in the EFL classroom are teaching writing and motivation in writing as the writing skill is the hardest and most challenging skill of four (Salma, 2015;Choudhury, 2013;Negari, 2011;Nik, Hamzah & Rafidee, 2010). For teaching writing, most teachers are nowadays teaching with the traditional or classical techniques as summarised by Tickoo (2003as cited in Choudhury, 2013 consisting of 1) a teacher set an assignment; 2) students write their paragraph or essay and submit to the teacher; 3) the teacher corrects errors, such as grammar and spelling with a red pen; 4) The students revise their work with regard to what their teacher corrected; and 5) the students rewrite or make changes to be like what the teacher has corrected. This causes the harmful washback to students in terms of perspectives, elaboration and teacher-centredness, and limits students' creativity, motivation and interaction. With regard to this, it comes to the main problem why most EFL students, particular for Thai students, do not like writing skill. Actually, the reason may not be because it is the most difficult skill, but we have long taught our students in the same way as the native speaker (NS) students have. The writing techniques developed by NS researchers, professors or teachers have been brought to be implemented to EFL students. In fact, this big failure is from a kind of imitation.
To examine the traditional techniques of teaching writing by Tickoo (2003 as cited in Choudhury, 2013), it is found that these techniques fall into Process Approach (Hyland, 2003). It is one of the approaches that put emphasis on writers (or students in this case). Moreover, there are still some writing approaches developed by Hyland. For example, Product Approach is an approach focusing on text or text-oriented teaching. Social Practice Approach (also known as Social Approach) is an approach emphasising readers as ones who read a writer's work. It is also called reader-oriented teaching.
In order to endorse Social Practice Approach into the classroom, technology has become influenced as a means to link the 21 st -century students with the education. With its rapid advancement and development, it has been used in multidisciplinary profession (nurses, doctors, engineers, tour guides, etc.). For education, it is certain that technology has been applied to improve and develop learning and teaching by making use of it and building online learning community, such as mySpace, YouTube, Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, etc., called Social Software (Dudeney & Hockly, 2014: 86) which is ones of Social Networking Sites (SNSs). SNSs are online platforms where they have been used to establish social relations and interactions (Yunus, Salehi & Chenzi, 2012), and they are suitable for those who would like to share interests and activities (Wikipedia, 2010). Therefore, adopting social networking sites into educational communities is a way to foster students' opportunities in learning or even teachers themselves in producing an active way of teaching to motivate, elaborate and engage activities with students in both individuals, pairs, and groups, as well as to support learning outside classroom (Razak, Saeed & Ahmad, 2013).
Facebook is one of the social networking sites that permit members to post, share their opinions, photos and events on their walls or give comments, and it is considered as today's most popular online community (Queens Liberty, 2017). In English language teaching, many researchers have used Facebook as an interactive tool to enhance students' English proficiency and promote learning (Schoper & Hill, 2017;Tahir & Suriaman, 2014;Yunus et al., 2012;Yu, 2014;Bissoonauth-Bedford & Stace, 2015;Rodliyah, 2016;Ping & Maniam, 2015;Tananuraksakul, 2014). One of the means that researchers use Facebook for building online communities is using Facebook Group or Facebook Discussion Group to teach writing (Yu, 2014;Bailey, Park, & Haji, 2017). A discussion group provides an online location where documents, files, and photos can be stored for learning (Dudeney & Hockly, 2014). Dudeney and Hockly also claim that members who join this group can interact with people, messages and group builder by posting what is happening to their lives, sharing photos and video, adding files, and so on, which create communities of practice (p.145), a platform where groups of people who share the same interest or expertise can discuss and share their experience towards a particular topic.
Communities of Practice, also known as CoP, are "groups of people informally bound together by shared expertise and passion for a joint enterprise" (Wenger & Synder, 2000, p.139). Within such groups, "each participant in a community of practice finds a unique place and gains a unique identity" (Wenger, 1998, p. 76). Researchers who have investigated how communities of practice can influence the context of teaching have revealed, such as communities for professional development (Carter, 2009;Looi, Lim & Chen, 2008), as support for retention of novice teachers (Cuddapah & Clayton, 2011), and as bridges between disciplines (Spalding & Wilson, 2006). Communities of Practice have theoretical framework underlying their principles which can be separated into four components. Firstly, the meaning is a way of learning as experience and talking about capability. Secondly, practice is a way of learning as doing and talking about the shared knowledge, framework, and perspective. Thirdly, the community is a way of learning as belonging and talking about the social problem-solving. Lastly, identity is a way of learning as becoming and talking about how learning develops who we are (Wenger, 2008).
When in a community or a group, it is certain that there are a lot of varieties of English used in the group, particularly if they are students. At least, they can be catagorised into three groups: most-able students, able students, and least-able students, meaning that there are mixed abilities of students in a group. World Englishes, therefore, come and play a vital role for the expanding-circle writers in be considered of how the writing skill will be taught and implemented to students, or even how students learn the writing skill by linking the use of world Englishes and writing pedagogy together. To achieve the ultimate goal of teaching and learning writing skill as world Englishes, there are four linguistic features of Englishes in Southeast Asian contexts by Kachru and Nelson (2006) and eight elements of localised features of Thai in English writing by Chutisilp (1984) and Singhasak and Methitham (2016) used to investigate the undergraduate students' English writing in Facebook Closed Group as a discussion group.

Research Objectives
The study aims to 1) investigate students' linguistic features of Englishes found in writing in the Facebook closed group's posts and comments, and 2) investigate types of characteristics of localised features of Thai in English writing found in students' writing in the Facebook closed group's posts and comments. The hypotheses of this study are 1) Are there any linguistic features of Englishes found in students' writing in the Facebook closed group's posts and comments? and 2) What types of characteristics of localised features of Thai in English writing found in students' writing in the Facebook closed group's posts and comments? Kachru and Nelson (2006) investigated the varieties of English used in Southeast Asian countries. They also studied history, education and how language has been taught in each country interestingly and outstandingly. Particularly in Thailand, English was initially taught in the public school in 1913, and it has influenced and used more and more in some certain contexts, such as in schools, conferences, shopping centres, etc. They found that there are three characteristics of Southeast Asian Englishes. Firstly, phonological features are the shared characteristic among South Asian and African Englishes. Some shared phonological features of Thai in English speaking and pronunciation are some consonants, stress, and intonation (Narksompong, 2007). Secondly, lexical features have been conducted as research for many years, and it found that vocabulary that is used for communication in Thailand is normally understood among Thai people only or whoever has knowledge of Thai language, society, and culture. Borrowing was found the most (Mathias, 2011). Lastly is the syntactic feature. Bennui (2008) found that there were some syntactic features of Thai in English writing, and he called it L1 interference which consisted of 1) literal translation focuses on the characteristics of L1 lexical interference in the students' English writing; 2) structural borrowing from Thai language structures, such as word order, subject-verb agreement, and determiners indicated the characteristics of L1 syntactic interference; and 3) levels of language style and Thai cultural knowledge. Chutisilp (1984) conducted her research on "A Sociolinguistic study of Additional Language: English in Thailand" by investigating the Thai government documents in English version about Thailand Statistical Year Book and The Census of Thailand, the two English newspapers -Bangkok Post and The Nation Review, and the four Thai novels which translated into English, namely Little Things, The Politician and other Thai Stories, The Judgement, and Before the Buds Have Opened. She found that English is used variously according to each context and society. Therefore, using English has influenced from Thai language and cultures, which socalled "Thainess", and there are six characteristics of Thai English found as follows:

Localised Features of Thai in English Writing
The first characteristic is transfer. There are two types of the transfer elements: 1) cultural and social elements. For example, Sawasdee, how are you, Fon? In this case, Sawasdee is used as greeting instead of saying hello; and 2) transferring from L1 to L2 in word and discourse levels, such as minor wife, a two rowed bus, etc. (Chutisilp, 1984). In addition to these two elements, Singhasak and Methitham (2016) also found that there is one more element that is catagorised into this characteristic, i.e., religious element. For example, Yoms, I am now chanting for your best wishes. Yoms here refers to all laymen.
The second characteristic is translation. There are two elements of translation -semantic interpretation and word by word. Semantic interpretation is the process of thinking of the meaning of a sentence first. Then, it will be translated, but it is still influenced by Thai language. For example, when he went sleep, it was four parts over. The word-by-word translation is used a lot by unexperienced English learners. For instance, "when I entered to the university, I knew I had to intend study", whereas it should be "when I entered the university, I knew I had to study hard." The third characteristic is hybridisation. Hybridisation is formed by compound noun of Thai and English, such as pump numman (gas station/petrol), rot bus (bus), ramwong dance (folk dance), etc.
The fourth characteristic is Shift. Shift occurs when it is the translation of Thai to English idioms, sayings, or proverbs that could rarely or never find in English proverbs. For example, "I don't want to put lice into your head;" "What he is doing is like riding an elephant catching a grasshopper," etc.
The fifth characteristic is lexical borrowing. It is used when the English language doesn't have that word. For example, Ajarn, where are you going? Ajarn (or Kru) is a lexical borrowing word. Somdej Chaopraya Borom Maha Sri Suriyawongse was good at English. Somdej Chaopraya Borom Maha is the highest title of a government officer in the past.
The sixth characteristic is reduplication. It is often found in Thai contexts, and it is the process of repeating a constituent of the sentence. For example, "this mango is very very cheap." "It's very long long time ago." Very very and long long refer to reduplication.
Besides these six characteristics of Thai English found in the different types of texts, Singhasak and Methitham (2016) also found one more characteristic of Thai English, i.e. code-mixing. Code-mixing occurs when Thai lexical words are used to mix with English, or it is the use of more than one language or variety intra-sententially (Kirkpatrick, 2007: 127). Moreover, Kirkpatrick (2007) also explained one more characteristic found in Southeast Asian English, i.e. code-switching. Code-switching is the use of more than one language or variety inter-sententially (Kirkpatrick, 2007: 127). For instance, "I would like to visit Wat Prakaew. Would you like to go with me?" Wat Prakaew is an example of code-mixing (instead of saying the Temple of Emerald Buddha. "Chan waa raan nii mai aroi, shall we look for a new restaurant?" Chan waa raan nii mai aroi is an example of Thai sentence together with English sentence (instead of saying "I think the food in this restaurant is not delicious". The speaker may be in the English environment and want to use Thai so that other people will not know what he/she is speaking.)

Facebook as a Discussion Group
Facebook is social software or SNSs that is popular and used in the U.S. and more than half of the world's Internet users engaged with Facebook in 2011 and approximately 3 in every 4 minutes spent on Facebook (Queens Library, 2017). In Thailand, Facebook has become more influential over a decade, and it has been recently used as an educational tool to develop learning and teaching, particularly to develop students' English skills. Tananuraksakul (2014), for example, conducted his research on "Use of Facebook Group as Blended Learning and Learning Management System in Writing" with undergraduate students and found that students could write better, but one recommendation was that some students merely clicked "Like" rather than commented their friends' post, just because they wanted to inform the teacher that they always followed the newsfeeds of their friends. Tananuraksakul (2014) also claims that Facebook group is a tool to learn with, not to learn from, so teachers have to change their role to be facilitators. Similarly, Schoper and Hill (2017) who did their research on "Using Facebook to Promote Learning: A Case Study" found that Facebook was used to make announcements for the course, ask for help from peers, post videos when doing the reading, encourage each other, and share news feeds from the Internet. With its interactive and communicative functions, such as finding and adding friends, creating and sharing posts, photos, videos and files, playing online games, checking in to locations, creating free pages, etc., Facebook gains more and more popularity and enhance students' motivation, particularly because a closed group can be created to serve a particular purpose. Montoneri (2015) emphasises the use of Facebook group to motivate students' learning that Facebook can assist educators to organise the courses and use it as a teaching material because members of a Facebook group can interact with each other and increase motivation. Likewise, Tahir and Suriaman (2014) summarised in their research about improving students' writing skill through Facebook that Facebook can endorse learning outcomes of students in writing, as well as increase students' enthusiasm, motivation and active learning, which is consistent to Bissoonauth-Bedford and Stace (2015) who did research on "Building a Writing Community through Learning of French" and found that Facebook provided opportunities to consolidate classroom discussions with online interactions. However, Facebook group is a discussion group where students may or may not comment on the post; they must click "like" or comment with stickers to the post, or even just lurking to the feeds and posts, like Shafie, Yaacob and Sing (2015) whose research was on lurking of L2 students on a Facebook group and concluded that there are many reasons why some students don't comment anything, but just lurking on Facebook groups. For example, students are not good at online communication skills. Some lack confidence and a sense of belonging to the group, and some of them said that they just want to learn from observing. Consequently, in order to solve this problem, Montoneri (2015) suggested in his conclusion that teachers should set up rules for participation in Facebook group first before a discussion group started. To sum up, for the point, a discussion group provides a location online where documents, files, and photos can be stored for learning (Dudeney & Hockly, 2014), and it would be most beneficial if a teacher can use it for educational purposes. For this research, Facebook group will be created and used as part of integration into learning to the Teaching English Writing Skill 1 course to investigate students' linguistic features and localised features of Thai in English writing found in writing in the Facebook closed group's posts and comments. The next section discusses the use of Facebook group to develop writing skill. Stanley (2013) suggests the five steps of teaching writing in online communities, and I have read through the steps with a little change of information so as to match with the title of this research as follows:

Facebook Group to Develop Writing Skill
Step 1: Teacher introduces students about the writing communities, the awareness of digital literacy, communities of practice, and objectives of creating the group. Then, invite the students to join the group (you can probably send an email to invite them or talk to them in the class). Also, you have to introduce the functions and tools of Facebook closed group.
Step 2: Tell the students that you would like them to compose a paragraph every week (any day of the week) about anything they prefer. At the first few weeks, the teacher can set the topics for students' writing, and the topic can be anything you want them to share with their friends, such as daily life, TV programme, holiday trip, job or school work, links shared by other unknown people, etc. However, remember that the topic must be appropriate to their level. Also, you have to encourage other students to share ideas or perspectives towards other friends' posts in which they are interested, too.
Step 3: Ask the students to post their paragraph on the group's wall, and make sure that you respond in the comment section to what your students' posts with at least a few words of positive motivation to encourage them.
Step 4: Respond on the content -do not correct the students' language immediately on the comment section, but you should print the paragraph out and mark them up with corrections and descriptions of errors occurred in each paragraph.
Step 5: In class, be sure that you talk about their writing.
Creating a strong connection between what they write online and what you do in the class.

METHOD Participants
This Study will be carried out with the second-year English major students who enroll the course entitled "Teaching English Writing skill 1" at Bansomdejchaopraya Rajabhat University in 2018. A qualitative method will be employed to the study with content analysis to investigate students' linguistic and localised features of Englishes found in writing in the Facebook closed group's posts and comments. All students will be added to a Facebook group created by the researcher called "English Community of Practice for Writing". The students are required to participate and write their everyday life journal by their own anytime they want to share something with their friends at least one post per week. Moreover, they have to comment or contribute ideas and opinions actively to their friends' post too (Stanley, 2013), and there will be two more experts joining the group to observe and comment the students' posts for their writing to open up the students' ideas and make the post more communicative. All of these will be fulfilled with the virtual learning environment. Researcher will be acting as a facilitator (Rodliyah, 2016) and data collector only, except there will be some requests or mentions from students for help. The content analysis will be employed to be used for analysing the students' writing in the posts and comments with the characteristics of the three linguistic features of Englishes in Southeast Asian contexts by Kachru and Nelson (2006) and eight elements of localised features of Thai in English writing by Chutisilp (1984) and Singhasak and Methitham (2016). All the posts with their comments were collected to analyse to investigate the linguistic and the localised features of Thai in English writing found in their paragraph.

Research Design
The research design of this study is explanatory research with the qualitative method by using the content analysis as shown in Figure 1: As in Figure 1, it is the matrix design, consisting of three phases in column and three steps in row (in total 9 activities). Phase 1 is activities. It is the phase that describes what is going to happen in each step. The step one of phase 1 is knowledge implementation. In this step, the teacher discusses the objectives of setting this community on Facebook closed group, as well as provide them some basic knowledge of Communities of Practice and the awareness of digital literacy. Therefore, the teacher must design the course this first period (Step 1 Phase 2) and also check the students' understanding whether they comprehend what Communities of Practice are, or what digital literacy is, etc. (Step 1 Phase 3).
Step 2 is knowledge use and reflection. With this step 2 phase 1, students play an important role as a post-writer and comment-replier. The teacher works as a facilitator to support learning throughout the course. Within this step, there will be the online interaction between student-student and student-teacher (Step 2 phase 2). During the step, teacher collects the data by observing, commenting, and encouraging students. The last step (step 3) is knowledge analysis and implication. The step 3 phase 1 is for the teacher. The teacher will select the first 20 posts with their comment for analysis. It is the evaluation step (Step 3 phase 2) which makes use of the content analysis to analyse the data obtained with the three linguistic features of Englishes in Southeast Asian contexts by Kachru and Nelson (2006) and eight elements of localised features of Thai in English writing by Chutisilp (1984) and Singhasak and Methitham (2016) (Step 3 phase 3).

Instruments and Data Analysis
The research of the study is the qualitative method with data obtained from students' posts and comments. The data were analysed with content analysis by using three linguistic features of Englishes in Southeast Asian contexts by Kachru and Nelson (2006) and eight elements of localised features of Thai in English writing by Chutisilp (1984) and Singhasak

Analysis of General Information and Data Obtained
The Facebook closed group was established on the 8 th of February 2018. After establishing, the researcher spent one week to explain what the community was for, how students had to do, and other aspects, such as Communities of Practice, Digital Literacy, and Social Practice Approach of Writing. The first post was on the 22 nd of February 2018. The researcher had collected the data (posts and comments) since the first day until the 27 th of April 2017. There were in total 20 posts for 372 entries, comprised of 51 posts, 130 comments, and 191 replies as examples of data are shown in Figure 2. When considering the genres of students' writing, it found that 30 percent of the posts were related to the topic of life learning, 15 percent was about philosophy, and 10 percent was about weather. The rest 45 percent of the posts were miscellaneous, such as drama, singer, job, games, pet, language, etc.

Analysis of Linguistic Features
According to Kachru and Nelson (2006), there are three linguistic features: Phonological feature, lexical feature, and syntactic feature. However, this research is focused on the writing skill. Therefore, the phonological feature is not counted. After analysing all the posts and comments, it found that there were a lot of errors occurring in lexical and syntactic features as follows: The students' posts and comments contain four lexical errors, i.e. spelling, word choices, reduced forms, and relaxed forms as shown in Figure 3. To elaborate, there was 60.61 percent using the inappropriate word choice. For example, I have limited time, so I take time to make worth one life, where it should be I have limited time, so I spent time making worth one life. Personally I believe life in high education is a good time, whereas it should be Personally, I believe life in university is a good time. Moreover, there were 30.30 percent making spelling mistakes, such as your self (yourself), nam (name), aready (already), etc. The rest were reduced and relaxed forms. For example, U r the apple of my eyes, whereas it should be You are the apple of my eyes. Im surely gonna die by diabate, whereas it should be I'm surely going to die by diabetes. Even though there were a lot of mistakes found in vocabulary usage, it showed that Thai undergraduate students had their own thoughts to select the words they are familiar the most although the words used were, they were understandable.
In the aspect of the syntactic feature (see Figure 4), it also found that there were 159 errors categorised into 19 types. The rest errors were about overusing of "be", subject-verb agreement, fragment, comma spice/run-on sentence, infinitives/gerunds, plurality, etc. Although there were too many errors, it revealed that the most three outstanding syntactic features are parts of speech, punctuation, verb tenses, and capitalization that shared among Thai English-major undergraduate students.

Analysis of Localised Features
With regard to literature review, there are at least 8 localised features in English writing, which those researchers called "Thainess" or "Thai English", i.e. transfer, translation, hybridisation, shift, lexical borrowing, reduplication, code-mixing, and code-switching. From the data collection, it revealed that there were six localised features of Thai in English writing as shown in Figure 5. In other words, hybridisation and lexical borrowing were not found from the data. The most found localised feature was translation (60.47 percent). Should we consider into detail, it found that 46.15 percent was the word-by-word translation. For example, we should buy a mask type N95 …, whereas it should be we should buy an N95 respirator (or gas mask)…. From this picture,… whereas it should be In this picture. 26.92 percent was the semantic translation, and 15.38 percent was the transcreated translation. For example, They are suitable without argument, whereas it should be They are a perfect match (semantic interpretation). I was in secondary education, whereas it should be I was in high school/secondary school (transcreated style). The second-most localised feature found in English writing by Thai English-major undergraduate students was transfer (27.91 percent). According to Singhasak and Methitham (2016), there are three elements of transfer: cultural element, social element, and religious element. However, it is surprising that there were only 16.67 percent found in cultural element, and the rest could not fit in any categories. With these problems found, the researcher categorised the rest 83.33 percent into L1 interference element (or Thai language structures transferring to English language structures). For example, Jealousy P' Weir, whereas it should be I'm jealous of Mr Weir. The letter 'P'' shows cultural element. I and you are different styles, whereas it should be You and I have different styles. The pronouns 'I and you' showed cultural element in Thai society while western culture it normally mentions other people first and then I. Carefully what you say with your friends and your family, whereas it should be Be careful of what you say with your friends and your family. This is because in Thai language structure there is no need to put preposition after the word careful (L1 interference). Another example is "When she smile like a cat make me feel fresh", whereas it should be "Her smile looks like a cat, and it makes me fresh." This is because Thai language structure influences their writing (L1 interference). In addition to translation and transfer features, code-switching was found in 4.65 percent. For example, Guu yom la, meaning I give in. Absolutely sure. Eiei (nork jark ja mee phon ploy dai), meaning that Absolutely sure, except I will get some benefits. Code-mixing, shift, and reduplication were found 2.33 percent each. For example, Pim tok kha I'm sorry, meaning that My typo, I'm sorry (code-mixing). The shift was found in this interjection: So shave, meaning that so sharp. Lastly, the reduplication was found in this interjection: Wow wow wow, meaning of Wow!

CONCLUSUION
This research aimed at investigating students' linguistic features of Englishes and types of characteristics of localised features of Thai in English writing found in writing in the Facebook closed group's posts and comments. For the first aim investigating the students' linguistic features of Englishes, Kachru and Nelson (2006) found that there are some phonological, lexical, syntactic and discoursal features in the characteristics of Southeast Asian Englishes. However, for this research results it revealed that there were some errors found in linguistic features, and it implicates that Thai language and culture were still influencing students in English writing. By this means, syntactic features were found mostly in parts of speech, punctuation, verb tenses, and capitalisation, and lexical features were found mostly in word choices and spelling. With regards to the linguistic features, the phonological and discoursal features were not found as the research were not conducted on sound systems and textual relationship. In fact, they could be the limitations for further research. The second aim was to investigate the localised features of Thai in English writing, and it found that the characteristics of translation and transfer were found the most in the students' writing, and the rest were code-switching, code-mixing, shift, and reduplication.
This research showed its own significance to bridge the gap between the students' fear of writing and how to improve students' writing skill, which has never been researched before in Thailand. The results can also be used as the database to find out the way to solve the students' problem in writing English paragraphs and essay in the future. Therefore, this research is helpful for all non-native teachers of English in terms of seeing the problems of most Thai students have and the way we can provide help to stimulate students in learning writing skill by using Facebook closed group as a means of community of practice to endorse students to write the post or share their opinion. However, the limitation of this research concerns the use of the students' learning achievement. In other words, a pre-test and a post-test were not used before and after the research. Therefore, it is suggested for any further research that the use of pre-and post-tests should be added to measure the progress of students' English proficiency in writing. One more recommendation towards the use of Facebook as a medium of enhancing students' writing is that using Facebook closed group may be outdated because it is limited to a specific group of members who are interested in a particular topic; instead of using hashtag (#) is a new and better way to enhance students in writing because students can show ability in writing on their wall through posts, and everyone who is their friends can see those posts. Then, comments and replies from the outside will be increased, and students can examine the students' posts from the hashtag. By this means, hashtag is used like a code to investigate students' writing; therefore, a teacher should set a hashtag word/ phrase first before assigning students to post their writing on their wall.