See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/274193419

A Study of the Use of Social Network Sites for Language Learning by University
ESL Students

Chapter · January 2013

DOI: 10.1057/9781137023384_8

CITATIONS READS
14 1,711

7 authors, including:

J. Hannah Park Kunwoo Lee

University of Texas at San Antonio Seoul National University
19 PUBLICATIONS   56 CITATIONS    624 PUBLICATIONS   6,693 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Claire Meadows Parrish

2 PUBLICATIONS   19 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

D-team View project

All content following this page was uploaded by J. Hannah Park on 29 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

Liu, M. Evans, M., Horwitz, E., Lee, S. McCrory, M., J. Park, and Parrish, C. (in press), A Study of the
Use of Social Network Sites for Language Learning By University ESL Students. In M. Lamy & K.
Zourou (Eds.) Social networking for language education, NY, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
 2

A Study of the Use of Social Network Sites for Language Learning by University ESL
Students

Min Liu, 1Mathew Evans, Elaine Horwitz, Sunjung Lee, Monica McCrory, Jeong-bin Park, and
Claire M Parrish

Abstract

This study examined how university students of English as a Second Language (ESL) use social
network sites for language learning (SNSLL), and their perceptions of their learning experiences.
Twenty-one ESL students from 11 countries with different English proficiency levels
participated in this research. They were asked to use three carefully selected SNSLL, Busuu,
Livemocha, and English Café, to perform a set of learning tasks both in-class and out-of-class.
The findings demonstrated both benefits of SNSLL to extend learning beyond classrooms into
online language learning communities as well as challenges associated with their use. We hope
the findings can provide valuable insights into how social networking technologies can function
as teaching and learning tools for language learners. (116 words)

1
The second through sixth authors are listed in alphabetical order.
 3

As a web 2.0 technology, social network sites (SNSs) hold much potential for education in
different content areas. However, there is little empirical research on whether or how SNSs can
be used to facilitate the learning of a second language (Stevenson & Liu, 2010; Zourou, 2012)
even though they could provide an abundance of hitherto unavailable opportunities for second
language learning. Understanding learners’ use of and reactions to web-based learning
experiences can provide valuable insights into how technologies can function as teaching and
learning tools for language learners. In this study, we examined how university students of
English as a Second Language (ESL) use social network sites for language learning, and their
perceptions of these learning experiences.

Theoretical Framework

The use of SNSs to facilitate social relationships between members can potentially create
heretofore unimaginable learning resources (Conole & Alevizou, 2010). Duffy (2011) identified
five common features of SNSs: a user can (a) create a profile, (b) find peers online, (c) publicly
erect or confirm peer connections, (d) collaborate to share content, and (e) form online
communities (p. 286). boyd and Ellison (2007) stated that SNSs “allow individuals to (1)
construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other
users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and
those made by others within the system" (boyd and Ellison, n.p., in Zourou 2012). In these
networked social spaces, users with different interests are encouraged to improve their individual
ability in communicating with others and share their knowledge so everyone in the community
can benefit.

The user-centered, participatory, and collaborative practices associated with web 2.0 applications
are consistent with the sociocultural understanding of SLA. Influenced by Vygotsky (1978),
sociocultural SLA theory posits that the source of language learning is social interaction, and that
learners incrementally internalize socially acquired language, moving from egocentric, cultural
ambivalence toward more socialized speech (Lantolf, 2006; Piaget, trans.1932). In this view,
language learning takes place through scaffolded interactions where language learners use the
social assistance of more expert language users to incorporate new linguistic features into their
developing language competence (Cook, 2008). SNSs, designed to allow learners world-wide to
exchange ideas, seem to be an ideal platform for scaffolded language interactions. Indeed, many
second language researchers contend that SNSs have considerable potential for L2 pedagogy
(Brick, 2011; McBride, 2009; Reinhardt & Zander, 2011). McBride (2009) suggested that SNSs
naturally facilitate the development of second language skills and communicative competence,
and Horwitz (in press) believes that learners can use SNSs to find online tools for their personal
language learning needs.

Despite much enthusiasm about the potential of SNSs, there is little evidence-based research on
their use as teaching and learning tools for second language learners (Clark & Gruba, 2010;
Stevenson & Liu, 2010; Zourou, 2012) or on whether learners perceive networked experiences to
be useful. As perceptions can influence learners’ future use of the learning sites, it is important to
understand students’ responses to SNSs.

Therefore, this study intended to address these research questions:

 4

1. When social network sites for language learning (SNSLL) are used as a tool for
classroom and off-site language practice, and what do university ESL students think of
them and how do they use them?
2. What features of these sites do students find most useful in helping them develop
language skills and why?

Method

To address these questions, survey research was employed. A survey, comprised of both Likert
scale and open-ended questions, was designed to seek participants’ usage as well as perception
of the selected SNSLL.

Participants and Research Setting

Twenty-one ESL students from 11 countries attending an Intensive English Program in a large
public university in the southwestern US participated in this study in Fall 2011. They ranged in
age from 18 to 40. Ten participants were female and eleven were male. Participants were
enrolled in three ESL courses: Listening/Speaking – Advanced Level (L&S); Writing – Beginner
Level Low (Writing), and Grammar – Beginner Level High (Grammar). (Detailed demographic
information is presented in the ‘Results’ section).

Procedure

boyd and Ellison (2007) discussed the difference between the terms social “network” vs
“networking” and cautioned that networking implied active “relationship initiation“ while
network is a more neutral term. We followed this convention and use ‘network’ in this paper.
Given our language learning focus, our selection involved only language learning sites that have
SN characteristics as discussed above and excluded generic SNSs such as Facebook, Twitter, and
Ning. This study included the following three steps.

Step 1. Selecting SNSLL

Having constructed a list of possible sites from the literature on the topic, we evaluated each
potential site using the SN criteria proposed by boyd and Ellison (2007) and Duffy (2011). Sites
that had few or no free materials (e.g. Babbel, iTalki), did not enable user-generated content (e.g.
Verbling.com), were only for teachers (e.g. CO13), had no or limited network possibilities (e.g.
ESL Café, English Central, SharedTalk), were not specific to language learning (e.g. Study Zone,
MeetUp), or had too many advertisements (e.g. English Club) were eliminated. We also wanted
the content of the sites to align well with the learning objectives of the participating ESL classes.
This selection process resulted in the choice of three sites: Busuu, Livemocha, and English Café.
These sites are not simply web 2.0 language learning communities (Zourou, 2012), they offer
specific SN features as defined by boyd and Ellison (2007) and Duffy (2011). That is, the three
sites allow users to: 1) create a profile, 2) add friends to their network, 3) search for new friends,
4) create a circle of friends, 5) communicate with others in their network via multiple means
such as email and chat in different modes and 6) receive feedback from friends in their network.
 5

Step 2: Generating the Learning Tasks

Guided by our research questions, we created tasks for each of the participating ESL classes and
aligned the tasks with the content topics and language skills the participants were learning when
the study took place. In creating the tasks, we took care to include SN features of the sites. For
example, one task asked students to network with classmates and another asked them to network
with someone in the larger network (see Appendix A).

Step 3: Implementing the Learning Tasks

During Fall 2011, participants in the three ESL courses used the sites over a six-week period and
performed the learning tasks both in-class and out-of-class as well as free exploration outside
class.

For each course, an introductory session was offered during which two to three researchers were
present, one providing an introduction for this study and the other(s) helping students log in and
begin the task as described in a handout. Students were given 40 to 60 minutes to complete in-
class tasks and up to 10 days to complete out-of-class tasks. They were also encouraged to
explore the sites freely on their own, to build their own networks outside of the class, and to chat
with anyone, in addition to their classmates, they found online.

Data Collection and Analyses

Surveys are the primary data source for this study. At the beginning of the study, the participants
completed a demographic survey to describe their language learning backgrounds and typical use
of the Internet and SNSs. At the end of a series of tasks for each site, surveys were distributed to
elicit students’ use and perceptions of the site. These surveys contained a mix of general
questions regarding each site and specific questions tailored to each assigned task. Survey
responses were tallied and organized by demographic categories, sites, and tasks. An iterative
comparative approach was used in sorting and analyzing the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
Findings were organized by emerging themes as guided by the two research questions.

Results

Demographic Information

Since some participants were enrolled in more than one course and not all participants responded
to all questions, the response rate for each question varied. A 5-point Likert scale was used for
some questions (1 being low and 5 being high); and average scores are reported.

Table 1.1 Participants’ Demographic Information

Course Age Gender Country Years of

English
learning
 6

L&S 20-30 (n=5) Male (n=4) China (2) <=5 (n=1)

31-50 (n=1) Female (n=2) Japan (1) >5 (n=5)
Kazakhstan (1)
Saudi Arabia (1)
South Korea (1)
Grammar 20-30 (n=7) Male (n=3) South Korea (2) <=5 (n=6)
31-50 (n=1) Female (n=5) Chile (1) >5 (n=2)
Guinea (1)
Kazakhstan (1)
Mexico (1)
Saudi Arabia (1)
Thai (1)
Writing 20-30 (n=8) Male (n=5) Saudi Arabia (3) <=5 (n=8)
31-50 (n=3) Female (n=6) South Korea (3) >5 (n=3)
Chile (1)
Kazakhstan (1)
Mexico (1)
Thai (1)
Venezuela (1)
Note: Four students took both the Grammar and Writing courses.

Students indicated that on average, they spent about 3 hours per day using the Internet and 2.5
hours per week studying English using the Internet. They had an average of 3.5 years computer
experience. Their most frequently visited sites included Facebook, Google, Gmail, youtube, and
several country-specific sites. The participants also mentioned Twitter and some country-specific
SNSs.

Students’ Use and Perception of Three SNSLL

To explore the perceived affordances of SNSLL, ESL students were given specific tasks to
perform both in and outside of class. Each learning task intentionally included the use of one or
more SN features from the selected site (see Appendices A and B). The results are organized by
the themes that emerged from the data and the findings concerning SN for the three sites are
highlighted. Student comments are unedited.

Busuu

A total of 21 participants (L&S, n=14; Grammar, n=7) completed the Busuu survey.

Use of Busuu in class. 64 percent of L&S and 71 percent of Grammar participants indicated
they made friends other than their classmates on Busuu, and 71 percent of L&S and 57 percent of
Grammar participants were comfortable making Busuu friends online. These participants viewed
Busuu as an opportunity to interact globally with English speakers and learners commenting: “I
want to make a lot of friends in all over the world” and “because I love making new friends.”
However, 28 percent of the participants offered conflicting responses: 14 percent indicated they
had made unknown friends on Busuu but were not comfortable, and 14 percent though
 7

comfortable adding friends, said they had not made any unknown friends and had added only
classmates to their networks. A few were hesitant about using SNSs: “I don’t feel comfortable
with being online friends with total strangers. No offense to others, it's just my opinion about
online friends” and “I don't use social networks in order to make friends.” When adding friends,
age was the factor considered most important by the participants in both courses (see Table 1.2);
country of origin was another crucial factor.

Table 1.2 When adding a friend, what factors did you consider?

Age Country Gender Language Name Profile L1 Other

of origin learning picture
L&S (n=14) 57% 43% 29% 29% 29% 21% 7% 7%
Grammar (n=7) 43% 43% 43% 29% 29% 29% 0% 0%
Total (n=21) 52% 43% 33% 29% 29% 24% 5% 5%
Note: As the participants were allowed to choose as many factors as desired, the total
percentages for this question do not add to 100. This is also the case for Tables 1.7 and 1.10.

Merely having students connect with others in a network was not the primary goal of this study.
Rather, this study sought to encourage students to use SNSLL as a means to communicate with
others in order to practice English. Thus, several tasks specifically required participants to
conduct a synchronous live chat with classmates, friends they made through the network or even
strangers. The average comfort level for text chat was ML&S=4, Mwriting=3; for audio chat
ML&S=3.21, Mwriting=2; and for video chat ML&S=2.86, Mwriting =2. In general, participants found
text chat to be the most comfortable mode. However, the more proficient L&S participants were
more comfortable than the less proficient Writing participants in all chatting modes.

An important affordance of SNSLL is getting help from others in a networked circle. Participants
from the three courses had different experiences receiving and giving feedback while chatting:
Only 14 percent of the advanced proficiency L&S participants reported receiving corrective
feedback while 71 percent of the Grammar participants provided feedback. Moreover, 49 percent
of L&S and 57 percent of Grammar participants reported noticing a chatting partner’s English
errors, and 91 percent of those who noticed the errors pointed out their partner’s mistakes.

Use of Busuu outside class. We encouraged the participants to use Busuu outside of class. 52
percent of the participants indicated that they had used Busuu in their free time, including 38
percent of L&S and 85 percent of Grammar participants. When asked the participants how long,
most reported using between 30 minutes to an hour while a few used more than 60 minutes (see
Table 1.3).

Table 1.3 How long did you use Busuu/Livemocha/English Cafe over the past week outside
class?

0 30 60 90 120 More
minutes minutes minutes minutes minutes than
3 hours
Busuu L&S (n=14) 36% 50% 14% 0% 0% 0%
 8

Grammar (n=7) 14% 29% 29% 0% 14% 14%

Total (n=21) 29% 43% 19% 0% 5% 5%
Livemocha L&S (n=9) 44% 33% 11% 11%
Writing (n=7) 29% 29% 43% 0%
Total (n=16) 38% 31% 25% 6%
English Café Writing (n=9) 22% 56% 22% 0%
Grammar (n=4) 25% 25% 50% 0%
Total (n=13) 23% 46% 31% 0%

Different types of communication are available in these three sites to connect to others in the
network. Busuu offers chat, through text, audio, and video, as a means for language learners to
communicate with friends or strangers within their network. All participants –especially the
Grammar participants—felt comfortable using text, but they were all less comfortable with either
audio- or video-chat (see Table 1.4).

Table 1.4 Outside of class, how did you use Busuu?

Language content Social networking N/A

Listening Vocabulary Grammar Make Help Chatting
exercise exercise exercise friends others
learn
Video Audio Text
your
L1
L&S 36% 36% 29% 21% 21% 21% 7% 36% 14%
(n=14)
Grammar 14% 29% 29% 14% 0% 0% 86% 57% 0%
(n=7)
Total 29% 33% 33% 19% 14% 14% 33% 43% 10%
(n=21)

Perception of Busuu. Compared to the Grammar participants, L&S participants found the site
more helpful (ML&S=3.57 v. Mgrammar=2.71) and enjoyable (ML&S=3.36 v. Mgrammar=2). One
student, however, expressed mixed feelings about Busuu: “It was interesting to talk with other
people who I don't know, but I think there are some problems with people who are available to
talk with. I tried more than 10 people to busuutalk, but no one answered. Except for this point, I
think Busuu is an interesting website that helps learning English.”

Participants identified a variety of favorite Busuu features. 57% of Grammar participants

appreciated the social networking aspect, as reflected in responses such as: “easy to make a
friends” and “Because you can talk with many people at the same moment and from different
place.” L&S participants’ responses addressed various features of the site: “because I learned
more [grammatical] rules”, “this [translator tool] is a very useful tool for chat” and “I might get
the feedback from other people that I’ve never met before [using recording tool].” Participants’
least favorite features included video chatting: “I don't feel comfortable talking with other person
who I don't know.”
 9

64 percent of L&S participants and 57 percent of Grammar participants said that they would like
to use Busuu in the future. Additionally, 86 percent of L&S and 57 percent of Grammar
participants reported that they would recommend Busuu to someone learning English. In terms of
their future use of Busuu, L&S participants most often selected learning new vocabulary and
helping others, but Grammar students indicated they would use the site in the future to practice
reading and grammar (see Table 1.5).

Table 1.5 How will you use Busuu in the future?

Language content Social networking Fun Other

Practicing a skill Question Learn Make Help

about new friends others
Write Speak Listen Read grammar vocab learn my
L1

L&S 57% 43% 36% 43% 36% 43% 14% 43% 21% 21%
(n=14)
Grammar 71% 14% 29% 57% 57& 29% 43% 29% 14% 0%
(n=7)
Total 67% 33% 33% 48% 43% 38% 24% 38% 19% 14%
(n=21)

On the whole, 38 percent of the participants preferred practicing English on Busuu over face-to-
face communication (see Table 1.6). While 57 percent of Grammar participants preferred face-
to-face interaction, only 21 percent of L&S participants selected this option.

Table 1.6 Which do you prefer for practicing English?

Using Busuu Face-to-face Both

L&S (n=14) 36% 21% 43%
Grammar (n=7) 43% 57% 0%
Total (n=21) 38% 33% 29%
Using Livemocha
L&S (n=9) 33% 44% 33%
Writing (n=7) 17% 29% 57%
Total (n=16) 25% 38% 44%
Using English Café
Writing (n=9) 33% 44% 22%
Grammar (n= 4) 75% 0% 25%
Total (n=13) 46% 31% 23%

Livemocha
 10

A total of 16 participants (L&S n= 9, Writing n=7) completed the Livemocha survey.

Use of Livemocha in class. 44 percent of L&S and 86 percent of Writing participants reported
making friends in addition to their classmates on Livemocha. 78 percent of L&S and 100 percent
of Writing participants felt comfortable making friends. Consistent with their feelings about
Busuu, some L&S participants were hesitant about making friends via a SNS: “I don’t usually
make friends out of social networks,” “I’m not used to having online friends,” and “As I
mentioned before, I don't like being friends with strangers that I've never talked or met before.”
Whereas 38 percent of Livemocha participants reported conflicting views on adding strangers as
online friends, most participants’ expressed a desire to make new friends. Some participants
explicitly commented positively on using a SNSLL: “Because I make friend to practice English,”
“It’s nice to make friends who wants to learn Chinese,” and “Because is interesting know about
other countries.”

When adding friends, practicing/learning language(s) and age were the factors considered most
important by participants in both courses, with 52 percent each selecting these factors (see Table
1.7). L&S participants also highly valued a potential friend’s country of origin.

Table 1.7 When adding a friend, what factors did you consider?

Learning or Age Country Profile Gender Name

practicing of origin picture
language(s)
L&S (n =9) 43% 50% 50% 21% 21% 21%
Writing (n =7) 71% 57% 43% 57% 43% 43%
Total (n =16) 52% 52% 48% 33% 29% 29%

Participants in L&S conducted a live chat and posted audio recordings on Livemocha to get
feedback though its SN feature. Unfortunately, only two of them actually received feedback on
their audio postings, but both of these participants found the feedback to be helpful. In
communicating with others in the network via chatting, L&S participants again reported higher
comfort levels with text only (Mtxt=3.89, Mvoice=3.33, Mvideo=2.44). Participants favorably rated
the helpfulness of giving and receiving feedback: ML&S=3.67, Mwriting=3. 44 percent of L&S
participants reported that their Livemocha chatting partner had explicitly corrected an error in
their L2 production. Additionally, 78 percent of L&S participants reported noticing a chatting
partner’s English error, but only 67 percent reported pointing out the error.

Use of Livemocha outside class. 50 percent of the participants indicated that they had used
Livemocha in their free time, including 44 percent from the L&S class and 57 percent from the
Writing class. Considering both courses together, the most popular features used outside class
were vocabulary exercises (38 percent) and adding friends (31 percent) (see Table 1.8). 25
percent of the participants, mostly from the Writing class, worked on grammar exercises outside
class.

Table 1.8 Outside of class, how did you use Livemocha?

 11

Language content Social networking N/A

Chatting

Making friends

Helping others
learn your L1
Vocabulary

Grammar
Listening
exercises

exercises

exercises

Audio
Video

Text
L&S
0% 22% 0% 22% 22% 0% 22% 0% 33%
(n 9)
Writing
14% 57% 57% 43% 0% 29% 14% 43% 29%
(n =7)
Total
6% 38% 25% 31% 13% 13% 19% 19% 13%
(n=16)

Perception of Livemocha. In general, the participants reported that Livemocha was helpful for
improving their English: ML&S=4, Mwriting=4. 19 percent of the participants mentioned that they
enjoyed the tandem-learning aspect of Livemocha while others commented on the SN features in
particular, which allowed them to make “friend with people from all over the country” and
“make a lot of relations from other country.” One participant was pleased that the site allowed
him to share information about his native country with others including strangers in the network.

Responses varied when participants were asked to name their favorite Livemocha feature. One
reported enjoying helping other others to learn their native tongue: “My favorite part of
Livemocha was that I can give feedback to other people... I was surprised that there are a lot of
people who are interested in my language.” When asked for their least favorite feature of
Livemocha, one participant lamented that she did not receive any feedback on her audio
recording: “Since I didn’t get any feedback from no one, it was disappointing.”

When asked if they would use the site in the future, all participants in Writing and 67 percent of
the L&S class responded positively. 88 percent of the participants said that they would
recommend Livemocha to someone learning English, and 50 percent indicated that they would
return to the site in the future to help others learn their native language (see Table 1.9).
Interestingly, details of future use differed between participants in the two courses, possibly
reflecting different content focus of the courses.

Table 1.9 If yes, how will you use Livemocha in the future?

Social
Language content
networking
Entertainment
Making friends

learn my L1
Help others

Other

None
vocabulary
Learn new
Grammar
questions
speaking

listening
Practice

Practice

Practice

Practice
reading
writing

L&S (n=9) 22% 33% 22% 11% 0% 11% 22% 56% 22% 11% 11%
 12

Writing (n=7) 43% 43% 43% 57% 71% 71% 57% 43% 29% 0% 0%
Total (n=16) 31% 38% 31% 31% 31% 38% 38% 50% 25% 6% 6%

In terms of learning preferences, 38 percent preferred practicing English face-to-face and 25

percent preferred practicing via Livemocha (see Table 1.6). However, 44 percent of the
participants indicated that they liked both modes of practice equally. There were variations in
responses between the two courses, with L&S participants preferring face-to-face practice and
Writing participants expressed a preference for both.

English Café2

A total of 13 participants (Writing n=9, Grammar n=4) completed the English Café survey.

Use of English Café in class. 33 percent of Writing and 50 percent of Grammar participants
responded that they made friends on English Café in addition to their classmates, and 44 percent
of Writing and 75 percent of Grammar participants were comfortable making friends using
English Café. Similarly to the use of the other two sites, participants had inconsistent responses
about making friends: 31 percent who only made friends with classmates felt comfortable while
15 percent who had made unknown friends felt uncomfortable. 50 percent of positive comments
on adding friends focused on the utility of the site, with one student commenting directly on the
SN aspect: “I think I can find some people if I have question about English.” Of the 31 percent of
participants who expressed reluctance in adding friends, only one participant admitted hesitance
to engage with the SN aspect of the site. When adding friends, learning or practicing languages
was the most common factor to consider (77 percent), as shown in Table 1.10.

Table 1.10 When adding a friend, what factors did you consider?

Learning or
practicing Profile Country of
language(s) picture Age Sex Name origin Other
Writing
(n=9) 78% 44% 33% 33% 33% 22% 0%
Grammar
(n= 4) 100% 25% 50% 50% 25% 50% 25%
Total
(n=13) 77% 38% 38% 38% 31% 31% 8%

Finally, the participants indicated that they were neutral or slightly uncomfortable with posting
comments on other users’ content on English Café: Mwriting=2.67, Mwriting=3.

Use of English Café outside class. Only 11 percent of Writing and 25 percent of Grammar
participants indicated that they used English Café outside class. Of those who did use the site for

2
This study was completed in Fall 2011 and English Café site was closed in Spring 2012 (after
we completed the study).
 13

extracurricular purposes, 77 percent of participants spent at least 30 minutes using the site
outside of class (see Table 1.3).

62 percent of participants reported that they recorded and posted or reviewed a video during their
free time, making this the most popular of the SN features (see Table 1.11). Additionally, 62
percent used English Café to do grammar exercises outside class.

Table 1.11 Outside of class, how did you use English Café?

Language content Social networking

Forum discuss-
review a video

learn your L1

Make friends
Comment on
others’ posts
Help others
Record or
Grammar

Listening
exercise

exercise

exercise
Vocab.

ion
Writing
56% 22% 22% 78% 0% 11% 11% 0%
(n=9)
Grammar
75% 25% 25% 25% 25% 0% 0% 25%
(n= 4)
Total
62% 23% 23% 62% 8% 8% 8% 8%
(n=13)

Perception of English Cafe. Participants reported that English Café was useful for improving
their English: Mwriting=3.5, Mgrammar=3.33. Their favorite features of English Café were similar
across both courses: 38 percent mentioned the class video feature, citing the usefulness of this
feature and their level of enjoyment. Comments included “many pictures and videos. They are
very useful to me,” “Classes' video. Because they are very useful to learn more English” and
“video, more fun.” In contrast, participants’ least favorite features were less clear. 31 percent
reported not having a least favorite feature, and another 23 percent offered ambiguous responses
such as “I don’t know.” One participant reported discomfort with the SN feature of adding online
friends to the profile.

78 percent of Writing and 50 percent of Grammar participants indicated that they would like to
use English Café in the future. In terms of specific purposes, 62 percent indicated that they
would return to find help with grammar-related questions, while 54 percent chose writing
practice (see Table 1.12).

Table 1.12 If yes, how will you use English Café in the future?

Social
Language content
networking Fun
Questions
Practicing a skill
about Learn Make Help
new friends others
 14

Practicing a skill
grammar
vocab Make learn
Write Read Listen Speak friends my L1

Writing
67% 44% 44% 44% 44% 22% 22% 33% 11%
(n=9)
Grammar
50% 75% 50% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%
(n= 4)
Total
62% 54% 46% 38% 38% 15% 23% 31% 15%
(n=13)

In terms of learning preferences, 46 percent of all participants preferred practicing English via
English Café as compared with 31 percent who preferred face-to-face practice (see Table 1.6). 75
percent of the Grammar participants preferred to use English Café, whereas 44 percent of the
Writing participants preferred face-to-face communication.

Overall, 67 percent of Writing and 75 percent of Grammar participants reported that they would
recommend English Café to someone learning English. When asked for final comments
regarding English Cafe, most participants offered positive responses, describing the site as
“useful for people learning English.” Only 15 percent of the responses were negative.

Discussion

SNSLL reflect the social, personalized, interactive, and participatory nature central to the web
2.0 technology. Two main affordances of SNSLL are to enable users to connect to others, either
someone they know or strangers, and to encourage learner autonomy and collaboration in a
digital social space so that users with different abilities and skills can serve as the knowledgeable
other in building a distributed knowledge base for meeting their language needs. We were
particularly interested in determining what ESL students think when they were asked to perform
purposeful learning tasks on SNSLL. We wanted to explore how such sites could be used as
teaching and learning tools both in formal and informal language learning contexts.

Because our goal was to examine the extent SNSLL can facilitate the learning of English, each
learning task was intentionally created for students to perform using SN features offered by the
selected sites. It is, therefore, important to point out that the design of this study introduces a
specific learning context where both pre-assigned closed as well as open-ended tasks were
included in formal instruction. In addition, completely free exploration was encouraged outside
of class.

Overall the participants reported positive experiences interacting with peers via SNSLL,
although some were less positive. The results revealed several factors played important roles in
participant satisfaction with their networking experiences in the social spaces provided by the
three sites: overall comfort level, language proficiency levels, preferred communication modes
for connecting with others, and the design of the sites.
 15

Comfort Using SNSLL

Although there was some variation, in general, two-thirds of the participants made friends and
reported feeling comfortable making friends using these SNSLL. This finding is consistent with
research by Lloyd (2012). However, about one-third of the participants had mixed views about
making friends through SNSLL: They were reluctant to make friends with strangers, but were
comfortable making friends with a classmate or someone they knew. This finding does not
appear to be site-specific and is consistent with previous findings (Brick, 2011; Harrison &
Thomas, 2009). When considering adding a friend to their circle, finding people who are similar
in age and country of origin were important factors. Given these results, when designing
classroom activities, instructors who wish to incorporate SNSLL may want to pay particular
attention to students’ comfort level in using such tools and encourage them to begin with their
classmates, then move to a circle of friends in their age group before reaching out to complete
strangers.

The positive feedback provided by the participants about their experiences using the three sites
highlight the affordances of using SN features to connect to native or other target language
speakers to form a learning community and practice language skills in an authentic setting.
Participants particularly valued language practice opportunities provided by the sites. These
findings indicate that the participants were receptive to SNSLL as tools for language learning
(Forlano, 2009).

Communication Modes Preferred In Connecting With Others

A fundamental aspect of SNSLL is that they allow people to extend their physical circles that
make it possible for language learners to practice their new skills in authentic interactions with
friends or strangers. Networks, for example, can provide opportunities for language learners to
chat with and receive feedback from others. The three SNSLL in this study provide a variety of
means for communication including email, forums, and chat (text, audio, and video). Although
chatting by itself is not a SN feature, web 2.0 applications including SNSs are inextricably
connected and most web 2.0 applications are used in combination to achieve a particular learning
goal. In this case, ESL students connected to others in their circle via SNSLL and practiced
English skills via chat. Of the three chatting modes available on these sites, participants were
most comfortable with the text mode, as also shown in Lloyd (2012), and least comfortable with
video, especially when connecting with strangers. Although some participants were comfortable
sharing photos and videos, they were reluctant to connect to strangers using video in real-time.
Responses also showed that those with higher proficiency levels were more comfortable than
novice participants in all modes. The reluctance to use video to connect with others indicated the
challenge of connecting to unfamiliar people through SNSLL and suggests that instructors need
to consider learners’ preferences when incorporating SNSLL as teaching tools. Website
designers should consider making a variety of communication modes available to facilitate
language instruction and delivering content using multimedia can help learners who have
different preference for their learning mode.

Influence of Language Proficiency Level

 16

Content topics and proficiency level also appeared to influence the participants’ use of the sites.
Participants’ use of the sites outside the class varied according to proficiency level: Lower-
proficient participants spent more time practicing their English than the advanced level students.
Not surprisingly, they all tended to look for activities related to the specific class content they
were studying such as listening or grammar. All participants intended to return to the sites in the
future to practice English skills. This finding indicates the potential of using SN tools for
language learning outside the classroom, especially for beginners. Most language learners visit
sites such as the ones studied here to improve their language skills. SNSLL can help them
connect with fellow learners of more expertise beyond their immediate circles. In developing
language learning sites, creating interactive and useful language learning activities should be the
primary goals, but web 2.0 tools can offer language learners significant new opportunities for
language interaction.

Importance of Receiving Feedback

Consistent with a sociocultural view of SLA, receiving feedback from others, especially more
proficient speakers, is a very important affordance that SNSLL can provide (Brick, 2011).
Participants had particularly favorable perceptions toward the sites when they received feedback.
However, actually receiving feedback is challenging since network participants are not obligated
to respond to others (Jee & Park, 2009). Herein lies an important challenge of using SNSLL.
Many participants reported that they did not receive feedback, and the quality of feedback
responses varied among the three sites. While chatting on Busuu, Grammar participants received
more explicit correction on accuracy than L&S participants. Grammar participants also noticed a
chatting partner’s error slightly more often than those in the L&S course, but all participants
perceived feedback to be very useful. Reciprocal feedback (Schmidt, 2010), when it occurs,
illustrates the benefits of SNSLL as a tool in mediating language development (Harrison &
Thomas, 2009). The lack of feedback, however, can negatively influence users’ perception of a
site and interest in its future use. Therefore, when instructors consider using SNSLL in their
classrooms, they themselves need to be diligent in providing feedback and encourage students to
provide peer support when the online feedback is lacking. As shown in this study, feedback is
especially important for those who are less comfortable or do not see the potential value of
SNSLL.

Design Features

All three sites allowed participants to make friends and collaborate with other users. However,
the participants’ responses showed differences based on the site designs. For instance,
Livemocha and Busuu have embedded chat features, whereas English Café does not. Busuu users
are free to personalize their learning by choosing the order in which they complete each lesson,
whereas Livemocha users have to follow a more linear track from one lesson to lesson, making
the learner less autonomous and learning less personalized (De Weber et al., 2007; Solomon &
Schrum, 2007). On the other hand, English Café does not provide its own lessons but is a space
for users to post theirs for learners, thus relying on user-generated content (Duffy, 2011).
Regarding participants’ expected future uses of the sites: Busuu was chosen for future writing
and reading practice, Livemocha for building SN for language learning purposes as well as to
practice speaking English and learn new vocabulary, and English Café was chosen for grammar
 17

questions and to practice writing and reading. Such findings revealed that although the learners
may be intrigued by new technology tools, their ultimate purpose for using these sites is to
practice language skills, not just socializing.

So we end with a question about SNSLL: which design features actually facilitate language
learning? A possible direction for future research would be usability studies on site-specific
features to determine which design features are most accessible or useful for language learners.

Conclusion

We examined university ESL students’ use and perception of three popular SNSLL. The findings
demonstrated a number of benefits that the can offer to extend learning beyond classrooms into
online language learning communities. The results also found important challenges associated
with the use of SNSLL. When incorporating such sites as teaching and learning tools, instructors
need to be aware of their limitations and take measures to provide support for learners to develop
their language proficiency.

References

boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13. Retrieved from
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html

Brick, B. (2011). Social networking sites and language learning. International Journal of Virtual
and Personal Learning Environments, 2(3), 18-31.

Clark, C., & Gruba, P. (2010). The use of social networking sites for foreign language learning:
An autoethnographic study of Livemocha. Proceedings of the 2010 ASCILITE
conference "Curriculum technology transformation for an unknown future" (pp. 164-
173). http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney10/procs/Cclark-full.pdf

Conole, G., & Alevizou, P. (2010). A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in higher
education. A report commissioned by the Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from
from:http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/EvidenceNet/Conole_Alevizou_2010.pdf

Cook, V. (2008). Second language learning and language teaching. London: Hodder Education.

De Weber, B., Mechant, P., Veevaete, P., & Hauttekeete, L. (2007). Web 2.0: Social software for
educational use. Paper presented at the ninth IEEE International Symposium on
Multimedia, Taichung, Taiwan.

Duffy, P. (2011). Facebook or faceblock: Cautionary tales exploring the rise of social networking
within tertiary education. In C. McLoughlin & M. Lee (Eds.), Web 2.0-based E-learning:
Applying social informatics for tertiary teaching (pp. 284-300). Hershey, PA:
Information Science.
 18

Forlano, D. (2009). Social networking for language learning. The Language Educator, 4(1), 43-
45.

Harrison, R., & Thomas, M. (2009). Identity in online communities: Social networking sites and
language learning. International Journal of Emerging Technologies & Society, 7(2), 109-
124.

Horwitz, K. E. (in press). Becoming a language teacher: A practical guide to second language
learning and teaching (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Jee, M. J., & Park, M. J. (2009). Livemocha as an online language-learning community. CALICO
Journal, 26(2), 448-456.

Lantolf, J. (2006). Sociocultural theory and L2: State of the art. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 28, 67-109.

Lloyd, E. 2012. « Language Learners' "Willingness to Communicate" through Livemocha.com ».

In F. Demaizière & K. Zourou, (coord.) Special issue “language learning and social
media: (r)evolution?” Alsic, Vol. 15, n°1,http://alsic.revues.org/2437

McBride, K. (2009). Social networking sites in foreign language classes: Opportunities for re-
creation. In L. Lomicka & G. Lord (Eds.), The next generation: Social networking and
online collaboration in foreign language learning (pp. 35-58). San Marcos, TX:
CALICO.

Piaget, J. (1932). The language and thought of the child (M. Gabain, Trans.). London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul Ltd. (Original work published 1923).

Reinhardt, J., & Zander, V. (2011). Social networking in an intensive English program
classroom: A language socialization perspective. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 1-19.

Schmidt, C. (2010). Livemocha and the power of social language learning. International House
Journal of Education and Development, 28(4), Retrieved from
http://ihjournal.com/Livemocha-and-the-power-of-social-language-learning

Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools. Washington, DC:
International Society for Technology in Education.

Stevenson, M., & Liu, M. (2010). Learning a language with Web 2.0: Exploring the use of social
networking features of foreign language learning websites. CALICO Journal, 27(2), 233-
259.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures
and techniques. Newbury Park Calif.: Sage Publications.
 19

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Zourou, K. (2012). On the attractiveness of social media for language learning: a look at the state
of the art. In F. Demaizière & K. Zourou, (eds.) Special issue “language learning and
social media: (r)evolution?” ALSIC. 15(1). http://alsic.revues.org/2436
 20

Appendix A

Description of Sample Learning Tasks

Website Class Tasks

Busuu Speaking & After selecting a vocabulary lesson from Busuu’s English courses,
Listening students find a stranger online to do a video chat with, using the
vocabulary that was just learned. This activity gives students the
opportunity to put vocabulary into a meaningful context and test
out new words.

Grammar To revise grammar covered in class, the student chooses a friend

and writes him/her a message about personal plans over the winter
break. Students are encouraged to use the structures: a ‘be going
to’ - with a time frame and indicate specific dates. b. 'will'- with a
time frame, to show various uses of the future . Students ask for
feedback about their grammar.

Livemocha Speaking & Students listen to a native speaker’s audio sample, taking note of
Listening stress patterns in English sentences. Then, they record themselves
reciting the practice sentences. Students submit their recording to a
friend in their network so that a native speaker can comment
suggestions. Students check this feedback. In turn, they respond to
material submitted by others.

Writing Students share information about their own culture with the online
community. First, as a model, they read the posts of other members
about culture in the United States. Then they add to the user-
generated content of the site by posting their own stories about life
and culture in their home country. Students check back a week
later for comments.

English Writing Students join a group called “World Culture,” where they share
Café their culture with friends from different countries. Students post
comments by uploading a photo that shows some aspect of their
culture and writing sentences to describe the people and objects in
the photo. They also reply to one of their group members’
comments. (See screenshot in Appendix B)

Grammar Students join a group called “The English Forum” and learn the
“present perfect tense.” Students watch the video of the present-
perfect grammar lesson created by one of the group members.
They then write at least two sentences using the present perfect
tense about a place they have been. Students also provide feedback
to others. In addition, on the Ask & Answer page, they ask a
grammar question and find answers offered by native speakers.
 21

Appendix B

Screenshots of social network features available in the selected sites

Busuu

Listening & Speaking:

Students identified a topic
of interest, listened to a
brief audio recording, and
recorded the sentences on
the website for feedback.

Livemocha

Speaking: After practicing

pronunciation and
reviewing other members’
submissions, students
recorded a speech, then
submitted this audio to the
website for feedback.
 22

English Café

Writing: Students joined a

group called “World
Culture” and shared their
culture with friends from
different countries by
describing pictures they
had posted.

View publication stats