The introduction of digital literacy practices has created a tension in academia, with many academics challenging the view that critical thinking can be fostered on social networks. A quasi-experimental study was conducted on two sections of university-level writing classrooms to determine if there were meaningful differences in the quality of writing and peer feedback generated through in-class draft workshops using traditional methods as compared to draft workshops using a blogging platform. The results indicated that blogs produced a higher quality of writing as measured by grades, f(42)?=?11.512, p?<?0.002 and acceptance scores, f(42)?=?8.364, p?<?0.006. Furthermore, blog-mediated peer workshops produced a statistically significantly higher number of critical comments, f(42)?=?120.438, p?<?0.000; and directive comments, f(42)?=?33.861, p?<?0.000. There were no statistically significant differences in the number of editing comments, f(42)?=?0.001, p?<?0.974, and traditional draft workshops produced a statistically significant higher number of naïve comments, f(42)?=?14.119, p?<?0.001. Within the study, critical comments were found to correlate positively with learning outcomes, b?=?1.115, t(41)?=?2.716, p?<?0.01. The findings suggest that blogging software improved learner performance and fostered complex literacy skills.