Extramural English in the Classroom: Intersecting Spaces for

Interest-driven English Learning

by

Yu Jung Han

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Supervised by Professor Jayne Lammers

Margaret Warner Graduate School of Education and Human Development

University of Rochester

Rochester, New York

April 14, 2022

 ii

Dedication

I dedicate this dissertation to my parents who have shown me unconditional and enduring

love and support.

 iii

Table of Contents

Dedication ........................................................................................................................... ii

Biographical Sketch .............................................................................................................v

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ vi

Abstract ............................................................................................................................. vii

Contributors and Funding Sources................................................................................... viii

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ix

List of Figures ......................................................................................................................x

Chapter 1. Extramural English in the Classroom: Intersecting Spaces for Interest-driven

English Learning ............................................................................................................1

Chapter 2. Literature Review .............................................................................................11

Chapter 3. Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................33

Chapter 4. Methodology ....................................................................................................53

Chapter 5. Documentation of the Course Design and Iteration Process ............................95

Chapter 6. Learner-driven Knowledge Construction through Increased Situational L2

WTC ...........................................................................................................................122

Chapter 7. Discussion and Conclusion ............................................................................179

References ........................................................................................................................202

Appendix A. Preliminary Survey and Responses ............................................................232

 iv

Appendix B. Transcripts for the Course Introduction Video ...........................................236

Appendix C. General Study Information Letter ..............................................................238

Appendix D. Pre-term Questionnaire ..............................................................................240

Appendix E. Interview Information Letter ......................................................................243

Appendix F. A Sample of the Codes, Categories, and Theme (R2) ................................245

Appendix G. Interview Protocol with Guiding Questions ...............................................248

Appendix H: Formative Summary Activity Example of Class 4 ....................................250

Appendix I. Full Homework Assignment for Class 2......................................................252

Appendix J. Full Homework Assignment for Class 7 .....................................................255

Appendix K: Full Transcripts of Conversation on The Umbrella Academy ....................262

Appendix L: Full Transcripts of Summer Plan Conversation in Class 10 .......................263

 v

Biographical Sketch

Yu Jung Han is an English teacher with nearly two decades of international teaching

experience in her native country of Korea, along with Japan and the United States. She

received a Master of Arts degree in TESOL at Teachers College, Columbia University

and completed her Ph.D. at Warner School of Education, University of Rochester, where

she also worked as adjunct faculty. She has presented at multiple international and

national conferences, and served as chair of the New York State TESOL Applied

Lingusitics SIG. Her service work includes chairing the social media subcommittee on

Online Education and Outreach for the American Association for Applied Linguistics

(AAAL) from 2019 to 2022.

 vi

Acknowledgements

So many people around the world have worked together to support me in reaching

this point. I would like to express my sincere appreciation to them.

I am thankful for Dr. Jayne Lammers, the academic advisor that every doctoral

student needs. Her wisdom, insights, and endless encouragement have been my guidling

light throughout this journey. Just being able to watch and learn from her mentorship has

made it worth it to come and study at Warner school. I am also thankful for Dr. Mary

Jane Curry and Dr. Rebecca Black for their ingishts and support.

I am thankful for my dearest participants in this study. It would not have been

possible to complete this study without their support and contribution.

I am thankful for my academic family and weekly writing group members.

Meeting with you regularly and sharing thoughts, information, knowledge, and support

have been a huge part of my driving force to complete this dissertation journey.

I am thankful for Warner School of Education, and all professors and staff

members who have supported me throughout my doctoral study.

Last but not least, I am thankful for my family, friends, colleagues, and students

around the world who have shown me incredible love and support. I am who I am today

because of you.
 vii

Abstract

The field of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) has observed

how interest-driven extramural English (EE), an outside-of- classroom engagement with

English (Sundqvist, 2009), can facilitate language development. Research supports the

potential EE has when brought into formal English language teaching (ELT) settings;

However, such research usually brings EE that may be promising into formal settings

rather than pulling out EE that is directly connected to English language learners’

(ELLs’) individual and specific interest.

This is a design-based research study exploring an online adult English language teaching

(ELT) course the author designed and taught. This study incorporated multimodal

popular culture content to purposefully triangulate the potential of three key elements: 1)

target content as learning material, 2) students’ familiarity and interest in the target

content, and 3) the author’s own familiarity with the target content, as the teacher. She

studied the ways students engaged with class activities and carefully documented the

course design and iteration processes. This qualitative analysis reveals what it means for

a teacher to consider all three elements in a language classroom. This study also

addresses how the course better enabled ELLs to engage with their out-of-classroom

activities using English. Subsequently, the study offers design principles for effective

integration of EE into formal ELT settings. All of this was grounded in the framework of

affinity space theory (Gee, 2005; 2007; Gee & Hayes, 2012) and the concept of L2

willingness to communicate (Kang, 2015; MacIntyre, et al., 1998).

 viii

Contributors and Funding Sources

This work was supervised by a dissertation committee, Dr. Jayne Lammers (advisor), Dr.

Mary Jane Curry of the University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, and Dr. Rebecca

Black of the University of California, Irvine. All work for the dissertation was completed

independently by the author. There was no funding source for this research.
 ix

List of Tables

Table 1 .............................................................................................................................. 28

Table 2 .............................................................................................................................. 59

Table 3 .............................................................................................................................. 68

Table 4 .............................................................................................................................. 72

Table 5 .............................................................................................................................. 79

Table 6 .............................................................................................................................. 83

Table 7 .............................................................................................................................. 85

Table 8 .............................................................................................................................. 86

Table 9 ............................................................................................................................ 100

Table 10 .......................................................................................................................... 107

Table 11 .......................................................................................................................... 115

Table 12 .......................................................................................................................... 138

Table 13 .......................................................................................................................... 139

Table 14 .......................................................................................................................... 144

Table 15 .......................................................................................................................... 150

Table 16 .......................................................................................................................... 153

 x

List of Figures

Figure 1 ............................................................................................................................. 38

Figure 2 ............................................................................................................................. 43

Figure 3 ............................................................................................................................. 64

Figure 4 ............................................................................................................................. 76

Figure 5 ............................................................................................................................. 87

Figure 6 ............................................................................................................................. 88

Figure 7 ............................................................................................................................. 88

Figure 8 ........................................................................................................................... 103

Figure 9 ........................................................................................................................... 104

Figure 10 ......................................................................................................................... 108

Figure 11 ......................................................................................................................... 110

Figure 12 ......................................................................................................................... 114

Figure 13 ......................................................................................................................... 116

Figure 14 ......................................................................................................................... 117

Figure 15 ......................................................................................................................... 117

Figure 16 ......................................................................................................................... 126

Figure 17 ......................................................................................................................... 127

Figure 18 ......................................................................................................................... 130

Figure 19 ......................................................................................................................... 136

Figure 20 ......................................................................................................................... 141

Figure 21 ......................................................................................................................... 147

 xi

Figure 22 ......................................................................................................................... 158

Figure 23 ......................................................................................................................... 163

Figure 24 ......................................................................................................................... 168

Figure 25 ......................................................................................................................... 172

 1

Chapter 1. Extramural English in the Classroom: Intersecting Spaces for Interest-driven

English Learning

From listening to the American boy band New Kids on the Block to watching

American TV show Friends (NBC, 1994–2004), I have enjoyed a variety of English-

medium pop-culture since I was 12 years old. I grew up in South Korea. At first, I did not

know English at all, nor what the lyrics in the music and lines in movies/ TV shows

meant, but I dictated them in Korean (my native language, hereafter L1) as it sounded to

my ears, and I mimicked the sounds.

Among the various forms of English-medium pop-culture in which I have

engaged, I spent the biggest amount of time and energy with Friends. It was my favorite

TV show in English; I watched each episode repeatedly for years. Although I could

remember almost every quote and tell which episode a given quote came from, I never

thought I was good at English, and I had no interest in formal English classes at school.

According to school-based measures of success, my English was not good because I

rarely scored higher than 40 out of 100 on tests of my English ability. For this reason, I

assumed I was bad at English and lost interest in English classes. For me, English as a

school-based subject and English as the language of my favorite pop culture media were

two different things with no overlap. However, when I went to university and had

opportunity to speak English with people from different countries, I noticed that my

English was good enough to communicate with them. People said my pronunciation and

expressions sounded natural. Also, since Friends was a popular TV series that aired from

1994 to 2004 (Korostenskienė & Pakrosnytė, 2017), I could easily find others who also
 2

loved Friends. When I met such a person, my mastery of Friends episodes provided me

with enough topics to initiate a conversation in English and keep it going. This was when

I realized the power of linguistic (e.g., expressions and idioms) and content resources

(e.g., cultural references) that I could access and use, thanks to my favorite pop culture

show.

My experiences with unexpected English language acquisition drove me to pursue

interest-driven English learning in formal learning settings; eventually, I designed and

taught an English language teaching (hereafter, ELT) course where students could bring

and use such pop culture and interest-based resources. That course is at the heart of this

research study.

Extramural English

As evidenced in my experience, many English language learners (hereafter,

ELLs) engage with English in out-of-school contexts to pursue things they enjoy (e.g.,

Sundqvist, 2009). Some read and write fanfiction in English based on their favorite

novels or TV shows (e.g., Black, 2005, 2007, 2009a, 2009c; Sauro, 2017). Others enjoy

pop music and share their love through interaction with other fans around the world

through various online platforms such as YouTube (e.g., Oh, 2017; Ono & Kwon, 2013)

and Twitter (e.g., Aisyah, 2017; Faiza, 2020; Malik & Haidar, 2020); still more spend a

significant amount of time playing globally popular online games in English (e.g., Ryu,

2011, 2013). Such engagement can promote unexpected and unintended English language

learning (Kuppens, 2010; Kusyk & Sockett, 2012).

 3

There are various terms to describe this unexpected learning; the broadest

umbrella term is incidental learning (e.g., Haider & Frensch, 2005; Rieber, 1991).

Incidental learning can be defined as “unintentional or unplanned learning that results

from other activities” (Kerka, 2000, p. 3). Incidental language learning can also be “a by-

product of other cognitive exercises involving comprehension” (Gass, 1999, p. 319).

Incidental language learning can contribute to language acquisition as individuals “pick

up” (Hulstijn, 2008, p. 1) words and structures through various target language-medium

activities, particularly when they are more attuned to understanding the meaning of their

pursuit, rather than doing so in order to learn language.

ELLs’ incidental language learning while pursuing out-of-school interests has

evoked attention among researchers in the field of Teaching English to Speakers of Other

Languages (hereafter, TESOL). Researchers have sought a more specific term to describe

ELLs’ out-of-school practices and incidental learning that supports English language

acquisition. Sundqvist (2009) coined the term Extramural English (hereafter, EE), which

she defined as “any type of situation in which learners come in contact with or are

involved in English outside the walls of the English classroom” (p. 66).

EE is usually strongly interest-driven; many EE studies suggest learners pursue

EE activities in order to be “entertained, challenged, [or] to communicate” (Jensen, 2017,

p. 2). Many researchers have studied various types of EE, such as digital gaming

practices (Sylvén & Sundqvist, 2012), along with their influence on ELLs’ English

language (hereafter, L2) development and agree that EE exposure and engagement

facilitates L2 development (e.g., Leona et al., 2021; Sylvén & Sundqvist, 2012). ELLs in
 4

these studies performed better on language assessments compared to peers with lower EE

engagement. While not all researchers use the term EE, studies indicate how much it

benefits ELLs to engage with English outside of the classroom as they pursue personal

interests (e.g., Jensen, 2017; Scholz, 2017). Findings from such studies also indicate that

EE engagement facilitates not only ELLs’ incidental L2 development (e.g., Murray,

2008), but also various types of literacy competencies (e.g., Kim & Omerbašić, 2017;

Ryu, 2011, 2013; Vazquez-Calvo, 2018), and strengthens their global identities (e.g.,

Black, 2009b).

Current Approaches to Bringing EE into ELT

With such promising potential for EE engagement to support English language

learning, researchers have sought effective practices for how education can appropriate

EE to support formal language learning (e.g., Butler, 2014; Hamilton, 2010; Henry et al.,

2018; Sauro & Sundmark, 2016; Suh et al., 2010). In this study, I define formal learning

as a type of learning that is “intentional, organized and structured” by educational

institutions or programs, private or public, which seek to teach English within specific

learning goals and objectives (Eaton, 2010, p. 6). These ELT settings and formal English

classrooms are interchangeable terms for the type of formal language learning settings

relevant to this study.

Bringing EE into formal ELT settings is not new. Significant study took place in

the early 1980’s examining how English classrooms might best appropriate popular

media such as movies (e.g., Stoller, 1988), TV series (e.g., Moss, 1987), and pop music

(e.g., Domoney & Harris, 1993). These studies focused on the potential of popular media
 5

as supplementary aids to formal ELT curriculums (Stoller, 1988). Thus these studies

highlighted teachers’ roles in choosing and using these materials, such as pre-selecting

vocabulary or expressions to teach. In contrast, recent studies centralize EE as the

curriculum and key learning activities, and consider formal learning materials as

supplementary (e.g., Lu & Chang, 2016; Nath et al., 2017; Ranalli, 2008; Sauro &

Sundmark, 2016). Such approaches to prioritizing EE in formal ELT can be viewed as

"bridging activities" by Thorne and Reinhardt (2008, p. 558), whose pedagogical model

proposes the prioritization of ELLs' interest-driven EE practices within the pedagogical

guidance of formal ELT, in order to acknowledge and respect ELLs’ interests.

Statement of the Problem

My preliminary literature review for this study revealed a gap in current research

on how to incorporate EE into the ELT classroom. While I elaborate on this issue in

Chapter 2, it is important to note here how it guided the focus of this study.

Much of the research I found seemed to leave unaddressed the topic of ELLs’

interests in selecting target EE to incorporate into ELT settings. Instead, studies on this

topic primarily focused on EE selections based on its potential as a language

learning/teaching material (e.g., Bonsignori, 2018; Lee, 2019b; Miller & Hegelheimer,

2006), rather than beginning with students’ interests or passions. In these studies,

students must engage with EE, whether or not they are familiar with or interested in the

target EE. Lack of attention to students’ familiarity and interest in target EE can result in

demotivated and disengaged students (e.g., Vosburg, 2017). Another issue with this trend

is that these studies did not pay much attention to teachers’ familiarity with EE (i.e.,
 6

content expertise) or to the ways they might plan to purposefully integrate it into their

instruction (i.e., pedagogical skill). Corso et al. (2013) suggest three primary elements

that are essential for high-quality learning engagement: teacher, student, and content.

They claim that a teacher’s content expertise is critical to helping to create learning

opportunities that students perceive “to be relevant” and therefore to evoke high student

engagement (p. 58).

Researchers and practitioners in the field of ELT presently understand how

problematic it is for students to be disengaged and unmotivated if target EE is a poor

match for their interests (e.g., Galvis Guerrero, 2011; Vosburg, 2017). It is also clear that

ELT teachers can have negative perceptions toward using EE in ELT if they are not

familiar with the technology used or cultural references embedded in the EE material

(e.g., Toffoli & Sockett, 2015). This suggests the helpfulness of a study like this one that

is devoted to rebalancing attention to all three elements: 1) EE’s potential as a language

learning/teaching material; 2) students’ familiarity and interest in EE; and 3) teachers’

familiarity with EE.

However, considering the three elements at the same time is an arduous task.

Finding one EE that most students in class may engage with is challenging; every ELL

brings “anything from very little to vast experience in communicating, interacting, and

learning English through different media and digital devices outside of school”

(Sundqvist & Olin-Scheller, 2013, p. 335). Sometimes teachers encounter individuals in

their classroom with “little commonality of interest” (Shenton, 2007, p. 77). Even if
 7

teachers could identify a common EE for the ELLs in their classroom, it may not be one

with which the teacher is familiar.

Purpose of the Study

Therefore, this study explored a particular learning environment where the teacher

purposefully prioritized EE that met all three of these criteria: 1) the potential (P) of a

target EE as a language learning/teaching material; 2) students’ (S) familiarity and

interest in the target EE; and 3) the teacher’s (T) familiarity with the target EE. In the

balance of this paper, I use the acronyms P, S, and T to refer to these three elements.

The Necessity for Exploratory Research through a Qualitative Approach

As my preliminary review of literature revealed no study that prioritized all three

elements, I worked to find an ELT context where I could observe such an approach in

action. This, too, was difficult to find. With no “predetermined information” or results

from the literature I could use (Creswell, 2013, p. 48), and no ELT context of which I

was aware where I could observe this approach, I decided to explore this unknown world

through a qualitative, design-based methodology. Creswell (2013) argues that a

qualitative approach is necessary when a problem or issue “needs to be explored” (p. 47).

Exploratory research allows researchers to investigate a new research problem or

phenomenon from multiple angles (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). Similarly, Creswell

(2013) states that a qualitative approach allows researchers a “complex, detailed

understanding” (p. 48) of a phenomenon by enabling them direct contact with and

exploration of research site and participants. I decided to design and teach a language
 8

class myself where I could explore this phenomenon via a qualitative design-based

research approach (Collins et al., 2004).

Design-based Research

Design-based research (DBR) is a methodological approach that focuses on the

development of innovative pedagogies and new theories that may result in educational

improvement and transformation of existing institutions (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012).

DBR shares similarities with action research “in terms of collaboration, researchers

having multiple roles, and reflection on practice” (Shattuck & Anderson, 2013, p, 189).

Yet, they are different approaches. Action research usually aims to respond to local

needs. However, DBR goes beyond local needs and aims to “advance a theoretical

agenda, to uncover, explore, and confirm theoretical relationships” (Barab & Squire,

2004, p. 5).

DBR frequently appears among educational studies that aim to explore innovative

teaching practices (e.g., Joseph, 2004) such as interest-driven learning studies (e.g.,

Collins et al., 2004). Such studies usually require unconventional and unique settings,

which are rare and challenging to find. Given that this study’s aims were unrealized in the

TESOL field, DBR became an effective approach to understanding these elements in

action.

While I elaborate further on DBR in Chapter 4, it is important to note a

terminology difference. In most DBR studies, the term intervention stands for “the object,

activity, or process that is designed as a possible solution to address the identified

problem” (Shattuck & Anderson, 2013, p. 187). A similar definition indicates

 9

intervention can refer to “different kinds of solutions that are designed” (McKenney &

Reeves, 2012, p. 14). In this study, I use the term initiative to denote the exploratory

nature of this study’s approach to EE. As I was not seeking a solution, I wanted to use a

term that reflected the uniqueness of a learning space I designed and explored in order to

better understand all three elements (P, S, and T) of EE integration.

Research Question

The exploratory nature of this study called for a research question that was open

and broad enough to allow me to observe and analyze what happened in the initiative. My

broad question was How did an ELT course that I designed construct a space in which

ELLs could engage with EE activities using English? This study aimed to expand

possible options for researchers and teachers interested in incorporating EE into ELT

classrooms by exploring and adding to knowledge on what it might mean to consider all

three elements in a language classroom.

Organization of the Dissertation

This dissertation has seven chapters. This chapter offered an introduction of

background information and research questions. In Chapter 2, I review the literature to

identify the research conversations into which this study fits. In Chapter 3, I explain my

theoretical framework and how it helped me design, observe, and explore the initiative. In

Chapter 4, I introduce the research context and the initiative, and describe how I set up

and ran a fully online, five-week adult ELT course. Chapter 4 also includes an

explanation of the methodological decisions that helped me study the initiative.

 10

Chapters 5 and 6 share the study’s findings. Chapter 5 serves a dual purpose:

First, it documents the initiative’s implementation and the iterative ways I monitored and

adjusted my approach throughout the study. It also shares my findings about what I did

during the design/iteration process: my own familiarity with the target EE and the ways it

influenced my design and instructional decisions in the course. In Chapter 6, I introduce

what happened in the initiative and describe how the participants engaged in EE activities

using English. I present theoretical interpretations of participants’ practices that reveal the

influence of considering all three elements in the initiative. In Chapter 7, I summarize key

findings and discuss them in relation to the existing literature and offer implications for

practice along with thoughts for further research.

 11

Chapter 2. Literature Review

The literature review is a critical process in design-based research (DBR1), as it

informs not only the theoretical framework of a study, but also the initial design

principles for an initiative (Herrington et al., 2007a). This review draws on two relevant

bodies of literature: the first is studies exploring general out-of-school interest-driven

practices across various fields (e.g., Azevedo, 2013; Priniski, et al., 2018; Vos et al.,

2011; Woo, 2012). It was important to study these areas since they enriched my

understanding of findings from interest-driven extramural English (EE) studies in the

formal learning context, which are at a relatively emergent stage. The second area of the

literature was studies examining EE in formal English language teaching (ELT) settings,

which I have termed EE in ELT studies. Near the end of this chapter, I identify some gaps

in the EE in ELT literature before introducing the two key design ideas I drew from this

review. These ideas became the basis for the initial design principles that I refine in

Chapter 3 through an explanation of my theoretical framework.

Research on Interest-driven Practices across Disciplines

To address the fundamental question of why researchers have tried to bring EE

into ELT, I first reviewed cross-disciplinary literature on interest-driven out-of-school

practices. Such studies have focused on what people do and gain from interest-driven

1 This study uses multiple acronyms such as DBR and EE. To increase readability, this study

reintroduces acronyms when they reappear for the first time in each chapter.
 12

practices and why they are so helpful to learning. After a summary of the findings of

interdisciplinary studies, I discuss EE related to English language learning.

Focus on What People Do and Learn

When looking for literature focused on interest-driven practices outside of formal

education settings, I constantly ran into informal words such as nerds and fans. They

indicate how society often labels those who become deeply involved in their interests and

hobbies when they are for entertainment purposes. While the term nerd originally had

negative connotations referencing stereotypical, subculture characteristics, the term is

now becoming “more mainstream” (Woo, 2012, p. 665). According to Woo (2012),

participants in nerd cultures constantly involve themselves in intellectual practices to

amass knowledge and mastery of their target content. Another common categorization of

interest-driven practices are fan practices. Fans are defined as “like-minded people” who

are “inherently social, enjoying the discursive interactions that come with discussing and

debating their areas of interest” (Price & Robinson, 2017, p. 651). Within the significant

body of literature on nerd/fan culture, several pop culture media practices stood out,

including their connections with TV shows (e.g., Chin, 2013; Kustritz, 2016; Matthews,

2018; Todd, 2011), movies (e.g., Ogonoski, 2017), books (e.g., Jenkins, 2012; Sanna,

2017), online games (e.g., Ball, 2017; Zimmerman, 2019), and music (e.g., Fremaux,

2016; Jin, 2021). Duffett (2013) defines media fandom as “the recognition of a positive,

personal, relatively deep, emotional connection with a mediated element of popular

culture” (p. 2). As such, people involved in interest-driven fan practices engage with pop

culture media in personally meaningful ways.

 13

In Chapter 1, I briefly mentioned that participating in EE practices often results in

unexpected or unintended gains in English language competence and other skills, such as

increased competence in various types of literacy (e.g., Black, 2009c; Ryu, 2011; 2013).

As such, these general interest-driven practices involve some sort of gains. For example,

people may begin watching videos about their interest target domain on YouTube, before

moving to create their own fan videos, or they may begin reading fan fiction and decide

to write their own. From these experiences, they develop transmedia skills, which are a

“series of competences related to digital interactive media production, sharing and

consumption” (Scolari, 2018, p. 8). Terms such as pro-ams (which stands for professional

amateurs; see González Reyes, 2021) and prosumers (which stands for

producers/consumers; see Scolari, 2018) were coined to describe people who acquire

such skill sets.

Among these kinds of skill set gains, fans also build knowledge of and related to

the target domain (Brown, 1997; Woo, 2012). People who enjoy these practices engage in

“performances of intertextuality” by sharing and demonstrating their mastery of

knowledge in various forms, such as facts and trivia (Woo, 2012, p. 661). Similarly,

people engage with their target interests and acquire knowledge mastery. Subsequently,

when they encounter learning contexts or topics that require them to use such knowledge,

they participate more readily because they are familiar with the context and topic.

Context/topic familiarity forms a content schemata, which represents a person’s

comprehensive knowledge structure about a certain content domain (Ausubel et al., 1978;

Carrell, 1987; Liu, 2015; Qiu & Lo, 2017). Content familiarity may also support people’s
 14

critical thinking by shaping "both the range and depth of argumentation" (Stapleton,

2001, p. 530). This implies people might spend less time, effort, and cognitive load to

comprehend how to function in a space in favor of applying their knowledge (Glaser,

1984).

Why People Gain Knowledge and Skills from Interest-driven Pursuits

Some studies focus on why people may gain so much from interest-driven

practices; in short, it is because they are interested in a target domain that is meaningful

for them. A number of multidisciplinary studies suggest that students’ personal interests

could result in a deeper level of learning (e.g., Azevedo, 2013; Vos et al., 2011); some

studies have tied participants’ intense interests in a hobby (Azevedo, 2013) or a passion

(Joseph, 2000) with formal learning. Azevedo’s (2013) work focused on learning gains

when hobby became a focus of science education because he perceived hobbies as an

“excellent window” of interest-related learning and practices (p. 462). Another example

is the Passion School Project (Joseph, 2000), which generated school curricula based on

students’ personal interests and choices. Both studies confirm that when participants

work on tasks that are meaningful and important to them, they tend to have positive

learning outcomes. Learning that is meaningful and useful enables people to see the value

of their efforts and more actively engage in it (Priniski et al., 2018).

In a similar sense, tapping into an individual’s specific interest can result in deep

learning, which Vos et al. (2011) conceptualize as a learning approach that “focus[es] on

integration, synthesis, and reflection” (p. 128). Deep learning enables individuals to

critically analyze new ideas and make connections between new knowledge/concepts and
 15

their pre-existing ones (Vos et al., 2011). Also, deep learning can help individuals better

retain and integrate new ideas (Laird, et al., 2008). Interest is entwined with deep

learning; adding an element of students’ interest into formal instruction can result in deep

learning (e.g., Kim et al., 2009; Wideman et al., 2007).

Second Language Learning with a Focus on EE

When focusing on the interest-driven practices of English language learners, these

aforementioned practices and benefits are evident in specific features of language

learning. For example, context/topic familiarity from interest-driven EE practices can

facilitate better language performance (Chou, 2011; García, 1991; Mahmoudi &

Mahmoudi, 2017; Zhaohua, 2004). Such studies pinpoint what is in some cases

outstanding improvement in ELLs’ linguistic competence, particularly in speaking skills.

When ELLs engaged with a familiar topic or content, they showed an increased speech

rate with fewer pauses in their speech patterns (Bui & Huang, 2018). When a second

language learner uses their content knowledge, they benefit by spending less effort to

gather information in order to conceptualize and formulate their spoken discourse; this

base leads to a better lexical encoding process (Bui & Huang, 2018; Levelt, 1999).

Studies have also focused on the frequency, recursiveness, and quality of

language interactions in situated contexts (e.g., Gee, 2013; Jensen, 2017). Gee (2013)

reports that EE activities such as online games can provide “many more instances in a

short time of important cases” compared to the real-life situations (p. 5). Researchers

studying frequency of language use indicate that the speaker’s “accumulated experience

with language across the totality of usage events” (Tomasello, 2000, p. 62) is related to
 16

contextualized and situated language learning. Interest-driven EE practices can meet

criteria for both quality (e.g., authentic language interaction in situated contexts) and

quantity (e.g., frequent and recursive language use) of beneficial linguistic experiences

(Behrens, 2009; Jensen, 2017). Behrens (2009) notes that an accumulation of usage

events and linguistic experiences can help learners move from learning abstract linguistic

patterns to producing concrete and particular patterns. Also, ELLs who engage with their

EE tend to be less anxious and more willing to speak English in contexts outside the

classroom than those who do not (e.g., Horowitz, 2019; Lee, 2019a).

In sum, the benefits of EE practices for language learning have captured

researchers’ attention; research is evolving now to better understand how best to

incorporate EE practices into formal ELT settings. These EE in ELT studies have

potential to change a great deal about language learning and teaching, and now I shift to

discuss them.

EE in ELT Studies

This portion of the literature review explores researchers’ most findings from

studies connecting ELLs’ interest-driven EE activities with formal academic settings.

Researchers use various terms to describe the engagement resulting from ELLs’ interest-

driven interactions with English. Some use the term EE (e.g., Jensen, 2017), while others

use OILE (online informal learning of English; e.g., Kusyk, 2017) or take a narrower

focus to understand particular forms of EE practices such as DGBLL (digital game-based

language learning; e.g., Scholz, 2017). I have chosen to use EE as an all-inclusive term to

describe learners’ interest and engagement in a particular topic or practice in English.

 17

More and more studies seek to combine EE with formal ELT settings, especially

those in Scandinavian regions such as Denmark (e.g., Jensen, 2017) and Sweden (e.g.,

Sundqivist & Sylvén, 2012), as indicated by a significant volume of bachelor’s and

master’s theses2 from that region in recent years. However, not every study brought what

I call ‘raw’ EE activities into the classroom. I define ‘raw interest-driven EE activities’ as

EE activities based solely on entertainment purposes and are not altered for instructional

purposes, such as taking components of popular EE practices and converting them to fit a

pedagogical frame. As a result, this review excludes studies that focused only on EE-

related learning activities that were specifically designed for instructional purposes. For

example, I excluded studies that used an instructionally-oriented massively multiplayer

online role-playing game (e.g., Suh et al., 2010), while including studies that used

commercial games within a formal ELT learning environment (e.g., Galvis Guerrero,

2011; Miller & Hegelheimer, 2006; Ranalli, 2008; Wang et al., 2009).

Most of the studies seeking to observe and understand the learning potential of EE

in ELT point out challenges to the feasibility of implementing this approach within

2 While this study did not include bachelor’s and master’s thesis for the review, you can access them

in the following link: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/resultList.jsf?dswid=-

5082&language=en&searchType=SIMPLE&query=Extramural+English&af=%5B%5D&aq=%5B%5

B%5D%5D&aq2=%5B%5B%5D%5D&aqe=%5B%5D&noOfRows=50&sortOrder=author_sort_asc

&sortOrder2=title_sort_asc&onlyFullText=false&sf
 18

current education systems. For instance, instructional games have relatively higher

pedagogical compatibility with formal academic settings because of their intrinsic

pedagogical characteristics, compared to asking a curriculum to accommodate raw EE

activities. Introducing EE activities with no pedagogical intention into formal

pedagogical settings can be challenging. It forces an examination of how the interest-

based nature of EE and the formal/academic requirements of an ELT setting can meet.

What deserves academic attention within these amalgamations is a source of ongoing

debate within academic communities.

From a review of research on EE in ELT, I found the degree to which an EE could

provide situated learning for students is important. Also, there was overall consensus that

combining EE and pedagogical guidance from formal ELT classrooms can be beneficial

for supporting ELLs’ linguistic development (e.g., Lu & Chang, 2016; Miller &

Hegelheimer, 2006; Ranalli, 2008), literacy development (e.g., Sauro & Sundmark,

2016), and psychological factors (e.g., Nath et al., 2017). While the research indicates

primarily positive results, some studies suggested students and teachers have mixed

feelings about the usefulness of EE in ELT (e.g., Hamid et al., 2015; Toffoli & Sockett,

2015; Wang et al., 2009).

EE’s Potential on Creating Situated Learning Opportunities

Educators who bring EE into formal ELT classrooms may expand the focus of

formal ELT settings, expanding it from an emphasis on enhancing individual learners'

linguistic/literacy competence to promoting socio-culturally situated learning (Comas-

Quinn, et al., 2009; Sauro & Sundmark, 2016; Sundqvist & Olin-Scheller, 2013). Situated
 19

learning emphasizes that learners’ thinking is inseparable from the situations and contexts

in which the thinking occurs (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Therefore, learning should be

meaningful, based on knowledge acquired within in real-life situations (Choi &

Hannafin, 1995; Gee, 2005). Studies oriented to these priorities typically incorporate EE

in order to create situated learning opportunities relevant to their local ELT settings.

Many studies (e.g., Galvis Guerrero, 2011; Lu & Chang, 2016; Miller &

Hegelheimer, 2006; Ranalli, 2008; Vahdat & Behbahani, 2013) chose EE in the form of

commercial games such as massively multiplayer online role-playing games

(MMORPGs), as these provide ELLs with “a linguistically rich and cognitively

challenging virtual environment that may be conducive to L2 learning, as learners get

ample opportunities for L2 input and scaffolded interaction in the L2” (Sylvén &

Sundqvist, 2012, p. 302). With their ever-developing technologies, games offer sites to

study situated learning; research is accumulating around how simulation games such as

The Sims (Miller & Hegelheimer, 2006; Ranalli, 2008) and Second Life (Wang et al.,

2009) offer virtually situated environments for facilitating authentic language and cultural

exchange.

Some key examples of these studies are Galvis Guerrero’s (2011) work, which

used Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (GTA SA) with ELLs at a military academy in

Colombia to explore students’ perceptions of how useful the video game felt in their ELT

classroom. GTA SA is an English-medium commercial game. Players control the main

character who must “deal with police corruption, racism, gang wars, and other

stereotypical factors of contemporary American society” (p. 60). The game provided
 20

missions and tasks to the military students, asking them to contend with these upcoming

real-life situations. Providing students with an “augmented reality” learning experience

(Galvis Guerrero, 2011, p. 64) was found to lead to an increase in student engagement.

Students were “more attentive and more engaged’ with class activities based on the game

(p. 65). Students also self-reported that they were more entertained and engaged with

classroom activities by using the game in the ELT classroom than they would have been

without it.

Similarly, Wang et al. (2009) used the game Second Life for a five-week English

program that took place at both a Chinese university and an American one. ELL

participants in the Chinese group interacted with American undergraduate ELLs through

online individual/group activities in Second Life. The learning themes for each session

were directly related to the participants in both universities (e.g., university life, idea jobs,

and technology use). In the post-program survey, participants expressed their satisfaction

about using Second Life in this course because they believed their interactions in the

game went beyond language learning to provide them with the real-life experience of

interacting and becoming friends with students on the other side of the world. This study

was an example of how the “close cultural connectivity” between the simulation games

and real-life situations allows ELLs to experience language and culture in daily routines

through the virtual world they create (Miller & Hegelheimer, 2006, p. 322).

Games are not the only form of EE lending to studies of situatedness; Sauro and

Sundmark’s (2016) work shows how using authentic fandom tasks such as blogging

fanfiction projects can motivate undergraduate ELL participants in Sweden to write in a

 21

“socially situated context” (p. 419). The authors used the Hobbit by J. R. R. Tolkien to

initiate a blog-based fanfiction project via task-based language learning instruction. They

carefully sequenced authentic fanfiction activities to provide ample language learning

opportunities. Throughout the class, students analyzed the original text, collaboratively

created role-play stories, and posted them on a blog to interact with people in online

spaces. The authors reported that this collaborative work enabled students to develop

their ideas and share feedback “within the contexts of a literary wok and a fanfiction

framework” (p. 422) while simultaneously developing their linguistic competence.

Facilitating Linguistic Competence

EE in ELT studies indicate that ELLs generally develop increased linguistic

competence and lexical development as they interact with interest-based content.

Vocabulary competence is a “major aspect” of language learning (Ellis, 1999, p. 33), as

well as a support for comprehension of a target language (Pearson et al., 2007). Major

high-stakes English proficiency tests such as the Test of English as a Foreign Language

(TOEFL) require a significant level of vocabulary competence. As a result, many formal

ELT settings focus on instructing and assessing for lexical development. This strong

emphasis on vocabulary development may explain why many studies have explored the

relationship between EE in ELT and vocabulary development.

Studies investigating ELLs’ English proficiency within EE in ELT settings have

usually explored participants’ vocabulary competence, comparing lexical learning

outcomes (e.g., vocabulary assessment) between conventional ELT practices and EE in

ELT via vocabulary assessments (e.g., Lu & Chang, 2016; Miller & Hegelheimer, 2006;
 22

Ranalli, 2008; Vahdat & Behbahani, 2013). One example of this approach is work by

Miller and Hegelheimer (2006), who used the popular simulation game The Sims in a

five-week adult ELT program. The authors blended linguistic support into the cultural

and interactive components of The Sims. To do so, they used extensive supportive

materials ranging from vocabulary/grammar exercises to cultural notes that evaluated

participants' linguistic development. They also analyzed participants' reflections on their

own learning. They compared linguistic development among three groups: One was

assigned mandatory tasks requiring the active use of supportive materials while playing

The Sims. The second group played the game but were not required to use the supportive

materials; the third group played the game with no supportive materials. Quantitative

analysis of vocabulary assessments from all three groups revealed that the groups with

mandatory EE (The Sims) tasks showed a significant increase in vocabulary competence

compared to the groups who either played with no supportive materials or only had the

option to use them. Ranalli (2008) reported similar results in a replication of Miller and

Hegelheimer’s (2006) study with a longer survey that explored pariticipants’ perception

on the supportive materials.

This finding of superior vocabulary learning has been borne out by other studies.

Lu and Chang (2016) brought a Facebook online role-play game (RPG) called ChefVille

(Zynga, 2012) into an English for specific purposes (ESP) class for high school students

in Taiwan. Vahdat and Behbahani (2013) brought an adventure video game titled

Runaway: A Road Adventure (Pendulo Studios, 2003) to a five-week ELT program. Both

studies reported that ELLs who used EE tasks to engage with learning materials
 23

outperformed ELLs who did not on assessment measures of vocabulary. Taken together,

these studies’ findings suggest EE in ELT promotes ELLs’ lexical development,

especially when the educators in these formal learning spaces provide well-designed,

extensive supportive materials. Indeed, the participants in Ranalli’s (2008) study

indicated how helpful they found the pedagogical guidance and reported appreciation for

the supportive materials to engage with the target EE. These studies suggest the

importance of pedagogical ELT guidance, indicating that it can enhance the already

powerful benefits of EE for language learning.

Using EE in the language classroom tends to support more authentic lexical input,

meaning input that is not altered or simplified for instructional purposes for language

learners (Crossley et al., 2007). Such authentic lexical input can form situational sets, or

“conceptually related words" (Lu & Chang, 2016, p. 365). Interaction with such language

situations indicate ELLs benefit from this contextualized vocabulary, because they can

use both newly acquired and previously possessed lexical items (Lu & Chang, 2016).

Increased lexical development has also been found in EE in ELT studies that did

not specifically focus on lexical development (e.g., Nath et al., 2017; Sauro & Sundmark,

2016). These studies identified lexical development through participants’ self-reports and

interviews. One example was a study by Nath et al. (2017), in which participants reported

in reflective notes and interviews that they witnessed significant improvement in their

vocabulary acquisition.
 24

Facilitating Literacy Competence

In addition to linguistic competence, EE in ELT studies have reported that ELLs

increase their linguistic performance in writing and other literacy-based expressions (e.g.,

Sauro & Sundmark, 2016). Researchers interested in ELLs’ literacy development in EE

in ELT usually observe ELLs’ linguistic performance as a barometer of literacy

development (e.g., Sauro & Sundmark, 2016; Vale, 2017). Studies exploring fanfiction

practices (e.g., Black, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c; Sauro, 2017) have shown how fanfiction

involves “sophisticated forms of literacy” (Black, 2009c, p. 75) that enhance ELLs’

literacy skills outside of formal educational settings. Sauro and Sundmark (2016)

examined how the positive influence of fanfiction on literacy development practices

translated into participants performing better in school. Working from a definition of

literacy competence as “a critical understanding of literature and a practical ability to

produce literature,” they documented ELLs’ “critical and creative skills” in analyzing and

writing fanfiction (Sauro & Sundmark, 2016, p. 417) using the Hobbit. Participants

reported being able to employ different writing techniques and strategies based on the

multiple layers of academic support within the learning environment, while enjoying the

support of writing about the Hobbit, a book they knew and enjoyed. When a teacher

offers authentic content that appeals to students’ interest and motivation, ELT classrooms

can bridge this divide by facilitating participants’ writing techniques and literacy analysis

skills (e.g., analyzing and mimicking the old-fashioned and formal writing style and

language of the original version of the Hobbit) through carefully sequenced ELT

activities.
 25

Effects on Psychological Factors

Using popular EE content in EE in ELT can also positively influence

psychological factors that affect language learning for ELLs. Nath et al. (2017) observed

the multiple psychological benefits of using EE activities in English classrooms by

focusing on students’ affective filter, which is an emotional block that prevents a

language learner from processing language input (Dulay & Burt, 1977; Krashen, 1982).

According to Krashen (1982), low levels of motivation and self-confidence, along with

high levels of anxiety are all believed to interfere with the affective filter, thus

interrupting language acquisition. Nath et al. found that using two popular English-

medium movies in English classroom could lower ELLs’ affective filter and foster

language use and acquisition. This study took place in a Malaysian private tertiary

education institution. The authors collected data from three sources: 1) the class’s

Facebook group page, where students discussed what movie to watch and why; 2)

students’ discussions after watching the movie, along with a one-page reflective note

students wrote; and 3) a semi-structured focus group interview with students following

each movie. Findings indicate that watching these popular movies lowered participants’

affective filter, resulting in better language use and learning. Participants reported that the

interesting and entertaining elements of the target EE raised their motivation to learn

English while lowering their anxiety. Participants also experienced a slight improvement

in their self-confidence to use English. Thus not only can EE benefit ELLs’ psychological

factors (e.g., Qiu & Lo, 2017), it can also reduce their cognitive load as they build

language competence (e.g., Stiller & Schworm, 2019). Overall, the entertainment-based
 26

elements of EE seem to provide a psychological benefit by lowering ELLs’ affective

filter, resulting in better language learning (Nath et al., 2017).

Mixed Perceptions and Reactions to EE in ELT by Students and Teachers

However, research indicates an EE in ELT approach does not always result in

positive findings; some studies have noted participants’ mixed perceptions about the

usefulness of EE in ELT, especially for ELT teachers. Educators have more complicated

reactions to using EE in formal ELT settings and feel more hesitant about the required

use of the target EE knowledge and technology than their ELL students do. ELT teachers

who are forced into using unfamiliar EE can be hesitant and frustrated, and perpetuate

negative attitudes (e.g., Toffoli & Sockett, 2015). In contrast, ELLs, especially young

ELLs, indicate a preference for digital format learning, along with positive perceptions of

EE in formal ELT classrooms (e.g., Hamid et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2009).

Overall, these studies show that ELL participants felt positively toward the

integration of EE into language learning and noted increased interactions (student-

student, student-teacher, and student-content) as a key benefit. However, if the target EE

did not fit an individual’s interest, they were more reluctant to participate (Galvis

Guerrero, 2011; Ranalli, 2008). In Galvis Guerrero’s study of Columbian military

academy ELLs who engaged with GTA SA, while most participants reported increased

engagement with learning activities because of the game, one student disagreed with the

idea that using a video game contributed to more effective language instruction. Ranalli’s

(2008) replication study of Miller and Hegelheimer’s (2006) work in increasing

vocabulary competence by using The Sims, suggested a similar result. While most of the
 27

ELLs in Ranalli’s study reported appreciation of the supportive language materials to

better participate in the game and enjoyed the game play, others did not agree that the

game adequately substituted for formal ELT instruction.

Opportunities for Further Research

While the literature offers promising findings on EE in ELT, one significant

research gap is underexplored—namely a consideration of the three elements articulated

in this study as: the potential of the target EE as a language learning/teaching material

(P); students’ familiarity and interest in the target EE (S); and a teacher’s familiarity with

the target EE (T). Research to date has focused more heavily on the potential (P) of a

target EE and underemphasized how all three elements deserve consideration during the

process of EE selection.

Reading about how students and teachers can indicate contrasting perceptions

about EE in ELT made me wonder about the balance among these three elements. Thus I

revisited the literature to see how much researchers had attended to EE, students, and

teachers when selecting EE. Table 1 encapsulates these studies’ rationale for EE

selection.
 28

Table 1
Rationale for Selecting EE in the Reviewed Studies

Study Target EE Considered Rationale

Element
Bawa et al. Game P (learning “Based on the need for enhancing
(2018) (MMOG) potential) motivation in ways that positively
S (to affected cognition and knowledge
compensate retention, using commercial video
for games was deemed the appropriate
participants’ technology” (p. 178)
unfamiliarity “[as] … projected participants were
with target comprised of novice gamers. Since
EE – there was an anticipation of serious
multiplayer pushback with respect to imposing
online mandatory gameplay, a new approach
games) was used, by giving full autonomy to
participants over how they wanted to
use the games in terms of playing
them or merely browsing through
game related contents such as
information on game sites, wikis, and
blogs” (p. 178)
Bonsignori Films (e.g., The P (learning “A selection of clips cut from films and
(2018) Iron Lady) & potential) TV series was purposefully chosen as
TV series they pertain to different genres and are
clips (e.g., characterised by the use of English in
The Good specialised domains (i.e., law, politics,
Wife) economics, tourism, and medicine)”
(p. 58)
Lee (2019b) Game (Her P (learning “A murder mystery game, Her Story,
Story) potential) was selected because it provides a
springboard for creative writing due to
its fragmented and ambiguous
narrative” (p. 242)
“Another reason for using Her Story is
that the format provides rich language
input to the extent that the interview
videos contain a considerable amount
of authentic English” (p. 242)
 29

Miller & Game (The P (learning “The Sims meets Chapelle’s (2001) ‘six
Hegelheimer SIMs) potential) criteria for computer assisted language
(2006) learning (CALL) task appropriateness:
language learning potential, learner fit,
meaning focus, authenticity, positive
impact, and practicality’” (p. 314)
Sauro & Fan Fiction for P (learning “The Hobbit, one of several young adult
Sundmark The Hobbit potential & books taught periodically on this
(2016) general course, was selected as the source text
popularity) for two reasons. First, the course
coincided with the release of the
second of Peter Jackson’s Hobbit
films, making it potentially more
current and relatable to students.
Second, The Hobbit is already the
source text for much online fan
fiction, suggesting it would lend itself
to a fan fiction inspired project” (p.
416)
Nath et al. Two movies P (learning “English movies are easily accessible to
(2017) (Moana, potential), S language learners and this activity in
Hacksaw (partially) fact is one of the most common
activity the learners do during their
Ridge)
free time” (p. 1362)
Students selected two movies to watch
(the reason not specified), but the
study did not specify if watching
movies were the target students’
common interest or not. The study
does not tell us why students selected
the two movies. Yet the study
introduces the benefit of using movies
as an English learning resource.
Vahdat & Game P (learning “The game not only presents new
Behbahani (Runaway: A potential) vocabulary items, it also provides
(2013) Road ample situations for gamers to
Adventure) practice and produce the newly
learned vocabulary items” (p. 65)
 30

As Table 1 shows, the potential of EE (P) was at the center of these studies’

consideration, with less emphasis on the importance of S and T elements, with only a few

studies focusing on S and none on T.

Earlier in this chapter, I introduced studies on interest-driven practices, which

indicated how content/topic familiarity facilitates better L2 learning and use. Studies also

indicated how personal interest, meaning, and engaging with the target interest domain

can play a critical role in learning (e.g., Azevedo, 2013; Vos et al., 2011). These findings

suggest that it is critical for EE in ELT to consider S to bring such benefits of interest-

driven EE practices into the classrooms. Given that S did not receive much attention in

the current literature, it raises a point of potential conflict for bringing EE into ELT. If

students are not motivated to engage in the EE, their potential for learning may be

reduced, as suggested by Vosburg’s (2017) study, where participants indicated lack of

interest in a selected game, despite the game’s popularity among their peers. Every ELL

brings various personal interests, hobbies, previous experiences, and wants and needs into

the classroom. Sometimes, this becomes a collection of individuals sitting in the same

classroom “with little commonality of interest” (Shenton, 2007, p. 77). In these cases, no

matter how interesting or popular the EE might be, some students will be demotivated. It

is also risky to assume that ELLs have a certain level of familiarity and interest in a target

EE just because it is popular for their demographic (Sundqvist & Olin-Scheller, 2013).

Not every ELL knows Harry Potter or how to blog. As Sundqvist and Olin-Scheller

(2013) point out, ELLs bring “anything from very little to vast experience of
 31

communicating, interacting, and learning English through different media and digital

devices outside of school,” which must be taken into consideration (p. 335).

Additionally, ELT settings in the studies heavily relied on the direct use of the

target EE without leaving any other option for participants (e.g., Bawa et al., 2018;

Galvis Guerrero, 2011). Such immersion-based nature of EE implementation means

students often have no option for learning but to gain familiarity with a target EE. For

example, the military academy students in Galvis Guerrero’s (2011) study had to play the

game GTA SA to work on three language exploratory activities that required students to

heavily engage with the game: The activities were to (1) describe the main character and

the space that the game simulated; (2) identify music from in-game radio stations; and (3)

focus on location of places (e.g., downtown hospital) by using prepositions and game

characters actions by using present progressive (-ing) forms. Despite the diverse level of

interest for the target EE, ELLs worked on the same EE activities without any alternative

options to achieve the learning goals. This lack of flexibility for ELLs to engage with EE

might contribute to mixed perceptions among students. If students are not interested in

the EE or do not have alternative options, they may resent this lack of flexibility.

Finally, most of the EE in ELT literature has not attended to teachers’ familiarity

with a target EE (T). In order for teachers to teach the target subject/content, they must

first have a certain level of subject matter knowledge (Ball et al., 2008; Ben-Peretz, 2011;

Park & Oliver, 2008). From here, a teacher must also develop a certain level of

pedagogical content knowledge (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999), enabling them to

develop useful learning activities and materials based on the EE. However, without
 32

identifying how well a teacher knows a target EE, requiring them to integrate it into

formal ELT settings becomes problematic.

Given these identified potential challenges for students or teachers, integrate EE

in ELT requires careful planning. Making thoughtful pedagogical decisions mean that EE

content, such as comics, become a “part of a pedagogy of exposure, not immersion” to

minimize the possible friction with conventional teaching practices and values

(Clydesdale, 2006, p. 10). Taken together, these under-researched areas suggest the

importance of EE implementation taking place in a flexible manner, allowing students to

engage with EE via more various options rather than complete immersion that only

provides one option to engage (e.g., Clydesdale, 2006).

Conclusion

Overall, this review has indicated ideas on the importance of design principles

that would prioritize considerations of all three elements (P, S, and T) to inform EE

selection, while informing a flexible approach to EE integration. In the next chapter, I

elucidate the theoretical framework emerging from this literature review and describes

the initial design principles informing the initiative.

 33

Chapter 3. Theoretical Framework

In design-based research (DBR), a theoretical framework should offer practical

guidelines to inform the design and implementation of an initiative (Herrington et al.,

2007a). Reviewing the literature helped me formulate two initial ideas on the design

principles. First, I recognized that the initiative should prioritize extramural English (EE)

according to the three elements (P, S, and T; as in Potential of the target EE, Students’

familiarity and interest in the target EE, and Teacher’s familiarity with the target EE).

Second, I knew I needed to carefully set the EE integration level. Finding a single theory

to inform both of these design principles was challenging. I needed a framework that

could help me enact several steps within the design research process: 1) to refine the two

design ideas and develop them into an initial draft of the design principles; 2) to actualize

them; 3) to explore if and how the design principles were manifested in the initiative; and

4) to observe, understand, and interpret what happened in the initiative. I decided to use

the concept of L2 willingness to communicate (e.g., Clément et al., 2003; Kang, 2005;

MacIntyre, et al., 1998) in combination with affinity space theory (e.g., Gee, 2005; 2017;

Gee & Hayes, 2012) for this study. In brief, L2 willingness to communicate (hereafter,

L2 WTC) is a concept that reflects “a readiness to enter into discourse at a particular time

with a specific person or persons, using a L2” (MacIntyre et al., 1998, p. 547). An affinity

space (AS) is a space where people with overlapping personal interests interact and

collaboratively accumulate knowledge and skills of the target interest through discourse

(Gee, 2005).
 34

In this chapter, I outline how I reached the decision to use L2 WTC and AS as the

framework for this study while further discussing the study’s design principles derived

from the literature. First, I introduce L2 WTC with a specific focus on situational factors,

which are the immediate factors that influence language users to communicate in English

more willingly in a given context. Following that, I trace the sociocultural perspectives of

L2 WTC to show how it fits with AS theory, with a specific focus on various types of

knowledge construction in AS. I also offer the initial design principles for this study that I

developed as a result of these considerations. Finally, I conclude the chapter by

summarizing how L2 WTC and AS are complementary for both the design and

exploration of the initiative.

How This Study Defines Learning

As discussed in Chapter 2, the main focus of general EE studies is to understand

how English language learners (ELLs) use English while pursuing their interests and

passions. In many cases, ELLs gain incidental English language competence and

increased literacy through EE engagement. Researchers have tended to focus on

situations where ELLs need to use English in order to effectively interact with EE (e.g.,

Lee, 2019a; Lee, 2019b; Rothoni, 2017). These concepts helped me define in this study

how learning happens and counts in the initiative.

Several EE in English language teaching (ELT) studies are based on social

constructivism (e.g., Comas-Quinn et al., 2009) and socioculturalism (e.g., Vosburg,

2017). Both perspectives are grounded in concepts developed by Vygotsky (1978, 1997),

emphasizing the importance of social spaces and social processes for learning. Ortega
 35

(2009) states that social constructivists see how “human agents and social groups” create

reality (p. 217), which indicates what social constructivists value in research. They focus

on collaborative individual knowledge construction by human agents, especially as it is

facilitated by interaction in social groups. Socioculturalism “goes beyond” social

constructivism with its specific focus on social communities as a “source of learning”

(Ortega, 2009, p. 217).

In this study, I take a holistic view that human cognitive processes link what

happens within individuals as well as what surrounds them (Barsalou et al., 2007).

Therefore, this study views learning as a process of interaction among individuals whose

cognitive processes constantly influence and are influenced by surrounding factors in a

social space. Specific to language learning, learning interactions that focus on facilitating

L2 use are vital. The concept of L2 WTC contributes important ideas to what motivates

language learners to use L2.

L2 Willingness to Communicate

EE in ELT studies hold consensus that constant exposure to rich L2 use and

engagement opportunities in authentic EE practice can account for students’ incidental

learning of language and literacies (see Chapter 2). This notion directed me to organize

the study’s initiative around the goal of creating and encouraging this kind of L2 use.

When used as a lens to consider the three elements (P, S, and T), L2 WTC makes

it clear that the classroom context is essential to this type of L2 language use. This view

includes everything within a classroom space, such as students, class topics, lessons, and

activities; each of these immediate factors may influence students’ L2 WTC. I decided to
 36

design learning engagements that would support these elements (P, S, and T) to create

learning spaces where students were willing and excited to use English.

Introduction to L2 WTC

McCroskey and Baer (1985) introduced the concept of willingness to

communicate (hereafter, WTC), which they defined as the “probability of engaging in

communication when free to choose to do so” (McCroskey & Baer, 1985, as cited in

MacIntyre et al., 1998, p. 546). WTC focuses on identifying the elements and factors that

positively or negatively influence one’s WTC. Yet McCroskey and Baer’s (1985) work

focused on WTC in L1 communication and language users’ personality traits, rather than

situation-dependent traits or contexts. They considered them influencing factors but did

not focus on changing them to intentionally facilitate language use. Their research

indicated that when people communicate in L1, their L1 WTC is fairly consistent,

regardless of context. This finding seemed to shape their analysis to focus on learners’

WTC as related to personal characteristics such as introversion or extraversion (Eysenck

& Eysenck, 1987).

As studies accumulated, WTC researchers began to put more emphasis on the

situational traits of WTC (e.g., McCroskey & Richmond, 1991). WTC researchers

particularly noticed that L2 WTC was under much heavier influence from situational

factors than is L1 WTC. MacIntyre et al. (1998) assert that L2 WTC is not “a simple

magnification” of L1 WTC, but rather the “uncertainty inherent in L2 use” interacts “in a

more complex manner” (p. 546). Studies like this led researchers to agree that WTC in

L1 as opposed to L2 is different, requiring new and different ways of conceptualizing

 37

what makes speakers willing to communicate in their first or additional language (e.g.,

MacIntyre et al., 1998; MacIntyre, 2007).

Shifting the focus to L2 WTC changed researchers’ perceptions about WTC from

a “stable, trait-like concept” to “a consequence of the coaction of competence, situational

factors, and intergroup tendencies” (Mystkowska-Wiertelak & Pawlak, 2017, p. 6). A

heuristic model (Figure 1) put forward by MacIntyre et al. (1998) illustrates the situation-

based factors of L2 WTC (e.g., the influences of a particular time with a specific person).

The authors proposed six layers of factors 3 that influence L2 WTC. The lower three

layers (Layer IV, V, and VI) represent “stable, enduring influences on the process” while

the top three layers (Layer I, II, and III) represent "situation-specific influences on WTC

at a given moment in time” (p. 547).

3 While the authors use the term variables to refer to the components in the model, I chose to replace

the term with factors. The term variable serves different purposes and roles depending on the research

type (Siegle, n. d.). For example, variables in quantitative research can refer to “ones that exist along a

continuum that runs from low to high” with measurable quantity (Siegle, n.d., para. 5). Such

multiplicity of the term usages can confuse the readers, so I decided to use factors instead and marked

it with * to specify the replacement.

 38

Figure 1

Heuristic Model of Factors* Influencing WTC by MacIntyre et al. (1998, p. 547)

In this model, I paid significant attention to Layer III (situated antecedents)

because while L2 WTC is influenced by the complex interplay of the elements in the

layers below, Layer III shows "two immediate precursors of WTC," which are the desire

to communicate with a specific person (Box 3), and state communicative self-confidence

(Box 4). The interlocuter considerations indicated in Box 3 are critical to WTC because

people tend to show higher WTC when they talk to someone they know, either someone

they encounter frequently, or someone who is similar to themselves “in a variety of

ways” (MacIntyre et al, 1998, p. 549).

 39

Desire to communicate with a specific person thus indicates two critical motives:

affiliation and control, as key to shaping situational L2 WTC. These motives are

interlocuter-sensitive and can change based on who a person is talking to. MacIntyre et

al. (1998) suggest affiliation occurs when interlocutors are physically nearby, when they

meet frequently, when opportunities to communicate are attractive, and when speakers

have and demonstrate similarities. I discerned the importance of ensuring the last

condition (interlocutor with similarities) as part of the initiative because I believed if

students could practice L2 with interlocutors who share a mutual EE interest, this could

create a sense of affiliation among them and increase situational L2 WTC.

Control is "any task-related situation where interlocutors seek to influence each

other's behavior" (MacIntyre et al., 1998, p. 549). MacIntyre et al. claim that people often

communicate for a specific purpose, which requires the use of discourse that is

"characterized by a certain degree of sophistication” and “worded with precision and

targeted to a particular recipient” (p. 549). Examples of such situations can be asking for

help or cooperation, making suggestions, and sharing knowledge and experiences.

These two motives of control and affiliation are closely related to state

communicative self-confidence in Box 4. State communicative self-confidence means

“the feeling that one has the capacity to communicate effectively at a particular moment”

(p. 549). It increases when a person encounters a familiar context, and it suggests that a

person uses language knowledge and skills from previous experiences to communicate

when contexts are familiar and comfortable. Self-confidence has two constructs of “(a)

perceived competence and (b) a lack of anxiety” (p. 549). State language anxiety can
 40

emerge by various factors such as prior experiences, fear of making mistakes and

potential humiliation, or the number of interlocutors listening. Therefore, MacIntyre et al.

claim that when the state anxiety increases, ELLs’ state self-confidence will decrease and

eventually reduce L2 WTC. This concept further supported the notion that if students

could bring their interest-based EE into a learning situation, they would conceivably have

both content familiarity supporting their willingness to communicate.

When situational antecedents in Layer III are set properly, people denote their

intention to communicate (Layer II). The authors indicate then that WTC directs one’s L2

use (Layer I), or communication behavior. They suggest that “a proper objective for L2

education is to create WTC” and “the ultimate goal of the learning process should be to

engender in language students the willingness to seek out communication opportunities

and the willingness to actually communicate in them” (p. 547).

They also warn that setting a goal of L2 instruction to facilitate linguistic and

communicative competence may “produc[e] students who are technically capable of

communicating, particularly inside the classroom, but who may not be amenable to doing

so outside the classroom” (p. 558). This consideration meant I needed to design an

initiative that did not solely focus on facilitating communicate competence or

evaluating/assessing students’ language development. Instead, I needed to facilitate

students’ L2 use by increasing their willingness to communicate in English.

In short, this model indicates the difficulty of intentionally adjusting elements in

the lower layers, suggesting that adjusting the situational factors* in Layer III could have

a stronger and more immediate influence in supporting language learners’ situational L2

 41

WTC with the “cumulative influence of the layers” underneath (MacIntyre et al., 1998, p.

549). I recognized that by intentionally manipulating the initiative’s situational factors to

evoke ELL’s situational L2 WTC, I could anticipate the initiative would facilitate

students’ L2 use.

The model has been the focus of many L2 WTC studies which have tried to

explore, challenge, and expand the model’s situational factors (e.g., Dewaele & Dewaele,

2018; Kang, 2005; Yashima et al., 2018). Yashima et al. (2018), for example, reported

that “context, including topic, group-level affective state, ambience, other students’

reactions, and exquisitely contingent processes” dynamically interact to increase a

learner’s momentary self-confidence and L2 WTC (p. 132). However, L2 researchers

with a focus on L2 WTC within classroom settings have stated that the model is

insufficient to explain the specific situational and contextual factors of classrooms.

Therefore, it became important to observe “the construct of WTC as situated in L2

classrooms” (Cao, 2011, p. 469). Cao (2011) insists:

From a context-sensitive perspective, we can expect that learners' situational

WTC in the L2 classroom will dynamically change as their situational WTC

interacts with factors in the classroom environment (including the teacher, their

peers, topics, and tasks) that mediate their psychological condition. (p. 792)

I recognized the significance of how situational antecedents are not sufficient or

detailed enough to set P, S, and T in a way that is guaranteed to promote L2 WTC and L2

use. This led me to focus on the research reporting on what is known about L2 WTC in

classrooms.
 42

L2 WTC in the Language Classrooms

The common focus of L2 WTC studies in the classroom settings is on identifying

situational factors in the classroom that influence L2 WTC, in particular, psychological

influences (e.g., excitement, anxiety, motivation, self-confidence, security, responsibility,

etc.) and contextual influences (e.g., topic knowledge/familiarity, task type, classroom

norms, relationship and interaction among classmates, group size, etc.) that are specific to

L2 WTC in classroom settings (e.g., Cao & Philip, 2006; de Saint Légar & Storch, 2009;

Kang 2005; MacIntyre et al., 2011; Pawlak et al., 2016). Among them, Kang (2005)

provides a useful starting point for this study. In her research with four adult ELLs from

Korea who were her students, she identified three positive psychological constructs

(excitement, responsibility, and security) among participants. These constructs were

influenced by situational factors in her classroom (interlocutor, topic, and conversational

context) that facilitated participants’ situational L2 WTC. L2 researchers have also

focused on psychological constructs such as language anxiety (e.g., Baran-Łucarz, 2014;

Bashosh, et al., 2013; Lee, 2018; Liu, 2018), emotion (e.g., Dewaele & Pavelescu, 2021;

Khajavy, et al., 2018; Wang, et al., 2021), and self-perceived communicative competence

(e. g., Croucher, 2013). These ideas were examined either as a single construct or as a

combination, revealing that low language anxiety can result in increased L2 WTC, and

high self-perceived communicative competence is also related to high L2 WTC.

However, Kang’s research suggests there is a wide variety of psychological

constructs generated from dynamic interactions of situational factors in any given

classroom context. In Figure 2, Kang illustrates a “multilayered construct of situational

 43

WTC in L2” that she observed in her research (p. 288). The figure is preliminary,

indicating with dotted lines some of the emerging potential factors and their possible

influence.

Figure 2

Preliminary Construct of Situational L2 WTC by Kang (2005)

Based on this construct, Kang (2005) claims that “the emergence of situational

WTC is subject to the joint role of three interacting psychological antecedents, each of
 44

which is co-constructed by interacting situational [factors]” (p. 288). Her point on the

changeability of situational factors in the classroom “through pedagogical intervention”

(p. 278) informed me that I could purposefully set situational factors in the classroom in

an attempt to generate positive psychological conditions and to facilitate students’ L2

WTC and L2 use.

In line with how I perceive learning, L2 WTC integrates “psychological,

linguistic, education and communicative dimensions of language that for a long time

were investigated in isolation” (Mystkowska-Wiertelak & Pawlak, 2017, p. xii).

Therefore, I determined to observe the interdependence among the situational factors

created from my manipulation of P, S, and T, along with participants’ psychological

conditions.

Tracing Sociocultural Perspectives within L2 WTC

The main question within L2 WTC research is “Why does a person decide to

initiate communication at a particular time and place?” (Yashima et al., 2018, p. 118).

While it is important to observe what happens for individuals, I also needed to observe

interpersonal engagement and interaction among the participants within the initiative,

which I designed the initiative around the three elements (P, T, and S), along with the

priority of creating a space where people with mutual EE interests could interact

effectively. Therefore, I also needed to study the sociocultural-based notions of what

happens within the space.

Many L2 WTC researchers have associated the concept of L2 WTC with

sociocultural perspectives (e.g., Jamalvandi et al., 2020; de Saint Léger & Storch, 2009;
 45

Suksawas, 2011). Jamalvandi et al. (2020), especially, effectively establish the

connection between L2 WTC and sociocultural perspectives:

[Sociocultural theory] pays special attention to interaction, negotiation, and

collaboration. At the heart of this perspective lies participation in social

interactions and culturally organized activities that play influential roles in

psychological development (Scot & Palincsar, 2013). [Sociocultural theory]

reasons that our mental functioning is basically a mediated process, organized by

means of activities, cultural artifacts, and concepts (Ratner, 2002). (p. 451)

Thus for my study, sociocultural perspectives indicate the importance of

intentionally establishing situational factors for the initiative.

My next question was to consider how, as a teacher, I could set up the conditions

to facilitate these aims. How might students use English within those conditions? As a

result, I sought a theory to add to the theoretical framework for this study that could help

me observe what students were doing when they used English and explain the

complexities of those interactions.

Affinity Space theory (Gee, 2005; Gee & Hayes, 2012) offered a helpful lens that

enabled me not only to design my course to capitalize on students’ EE interests, but also

to observe and analyze the complex interactions related to students’ interests. It enabled

me to see and articulate the culture of the initiative as I established “a record of the

space’s practices” (Lammers et al., 2012, p. 52).

 46

Affinity Space

An affinity space (AS) is a space where people with overlapping personal

interests interact and collaboratively accumulate knowledge and skills of the target

interest through discourse (Gee, 2005). AS theorizes learning in spaces where having a

sense of belongingness or membership is not required, and therefore individual

classifications such as race, age, and gender are backgrounded in determining who

contributes and how; rather, it emphasizes the importance of participants sharing a

particular affinity.

Features of AS

Gee and Hayes (2012) outline key features of AS, namely that it is a space where:

(1) those in the space are characterized by a common passion or endeavor, rather than by

common characteristics, such as race, class, gender, or age, or gender, (2) newbies,

masters, and everyone in between can participate; (3) everyone can, if they wish, produce

and not just consume; (4) content is transformed by interaction; (5) the development of

both specialist and broad, general knowledge are encouraged, and specialist knowledge is

pooled; (7) both individual and distributed knowledge are encouraged; (8) the use of

dispersed knowledge is facilitated; (9) tacit knowledge is used and honored; explicit

knowledge is encouraged; (10) there are many different forms and routes to participation;

(11) there are many different routes to status; (12) leadership is porous and leaders are

resources; (13) roles are reciprocal; (14) a view of learning that is individually proactive,

but does not exclude help, is encouraged; (15) people get encouragement from an

audience and feedback from peers, though everyone plays both roles at different times.
 47

Features 6, 7, 8, and 9 of AS emphasize various types of knowledge valued in

such spaces. And people in AS use, share, and construct various types of knowledge for a

common passion or common endeavor of the space (feature 1). Individual knowledge (7)

is what people bring to affinity spaces. Dispersed knowledge (8) is “knowledge that is not

actually on the site itself but can be found at other sites or in other spaces” (Gee & Hayes,

2012, p. 17). Distributed knowledge (7) is “an aggregate of knowledge possessed by

individuals associated with community or within a space, and available for problem-

solving” (p. 15). Knowledge can be specialized or broad and general, or

intensive/extensive knowledge (Gee, 2005). Intensive knowledge is “specialized

knowledge in one or more areas” of AS, and extensive knowledge is “broader, less

specialized, knowledge about many aspects of the space” (Gee, 2005, p. 226). This

specific distinction of various types of knowledge is informative for this study because

each type of knowledge can be identified as taking place within particular elements of the

initiative.

Gee and Hayes (2012) indicate “affinity spaces are, in a sense, knowledge

communities” where people “build, transmit, sustain, and transform knowledge” (p. 26).

Sharma and Land (2018) add that affinity space can serve as “significant knowledge

repositories, distributing knowledge across people, and providing important social

affordances that maintain and reproduce knowledge tied to practice” (p. 250). There are

many interdisciplinary studies of knowledge construction in various AS such as game

discussion forums (Davis & Marone, 2016), parking lots (Neely & Marone, 2016), and

online health networking site (Sharma & Land, 2018). The key tenet of these studies was
 48

their focus on knowledge practice in a research context, with attention to how participants

constructed collective knowledge through interaction.

ELLs gain and bring linguistic resources and knowledge of the target EE into an

ELT classroom, as reported in EE in ELT studies (e.g., Sylvén, 2006), yet the lack of AS

research on EE in ELT studies makes it useful to observe how these types of knowledge

might be intentionally designed for a formal learning space that can help ELLs bring their

interest and competence in particular areas to the work of learning a language.

Ecological Notion: Give and Take between EE and the Initiative

AS has appeared in interdisciplinary literature observing and exploring online

literacy practices (e.g., Curwood, et al., 2013; Padgett & Curwood, 2016) and with more

specific focus on L2 learners (e.g., Black, 2007; 2009a, 2009b, 2009c; Rama, et al., 2012;

Thorne et al., 2009). AS has made only a few appearances as a theoretical framework in

the literature on EE in ELT (e.g., Scholz, 2017), though it does frequently appear in

general EE studies that focus on the merits of EE as a learning focus (e.g., Henry, 2013).

One possible explanation is that the different nature of EE and academic settings has

prevented EE in ELT researchers from considering the academic setting as a possible

extension or a part of an affinity space.

Recently, researchers have suggested the value in perceiving AS as being

inclusive of overall learning environments that can interact and influence one another

(e.g., Barden, 2016; Halaczkiewicz, 2020; Marsh, 2018; Pauw et al., 2017; Savva, 2016).

Such a perspective was discussed as a possibility by Gee (2007; 2008) in discussions of

video games and learning. Gee suggested that “the relationship between games and
 49

learning is not one way” and “while games are good for learning, learning is good for

games” (Gee, 2008, p. 3).

Marsh (2018) also suggests a new type of AS oriented to formal academic spaces,

termed classroom affinity space:

A theory of classroom affinity spaces acknowledges that everyone in the space—

students and teachers alike—can move in and out of roles such as expert,

contributor, writer, encourager, and editor, thereby gaining opportunities to

contribute to and draw from the classroom’s knowledge pool. (p. 166)

From this perspective, classrooms provide opportunities for people in the space to

both “contribute to” and “draw from” the knowledge pool that they collaboratively

construct. This notion of give and take, or mutual benefit offers a way to conceptualize

how EE can be good for formal ELT. Also, formal ELT spaces can be also good for EE if

they are purposefully designed to create a learning space and class activities that not only

invite learners’ interest-driven EE practices but seek to enhance them. This notion

engendered another design principle for the initiative: to create a space where students

can not only bring their EE to participate in class activities but leave the classroom space

with something that benefits their EE engagement outside that space. This necessitated

consideration of what students already did within their EE engagement alongside the

features of AS in order to determine what students might take away from a formal

learning space.
 50

Combining L2 WTC and AS in the Present Study

In this study, I viewed students’ L2 use (conceptualized as L2 WTC) as the

equivalent of them sharing their EE knowledge construction efforts because they speak in

English when doing so. This meant that when I analyzed students’ EE knowledge

construction within the initiative, I was also analyzing what made them willing to

communicate in their L2 and construct EE knowledge.

Understanding and identifying various types of knowledge helped me track the

generation, accumulation, and diffusion of EE knowledge within the initiative since each

type of knowledge offered insight into the situational factors of the initiative that

engendered it. Use of AS theory guided me to observe how students, both as individuals

and as a whole, navigated and constructed the initiative through knowledge for and

around EE.

AS also provided specific guidelines on the second design idea named in Chapter

2, which called for a careful setting of the EE integration level. I designed the activities

and supportive materials to target specific types of knowledge. I also tracked and

monitored which type of knowledge facilitated L2 WTC. For this reason, I refined my

initial design ideas to reflect the priority that EE integration levels ought to target

different types of EE knowledge.

To observe what happened in the initiative, I needed to first observe students’

knowledge construction activities to identify situational factors involved in the activities.

I stayed open to emerging situational factors rather than maintaining previously identified

factors from the literature. This led me to attend to how the situational factors (generated
 51

from considering P, S, and T) influenced the students’ psychological conditions within

the initiative. This not only helped me understand what influenced students’ L2 use but

also how the P, S, and T elements functioned to influence such communication behavior.

Chapter 4 explains how I analyzed and interpreted these elements within the initiative.

Initial Design Principles

Using the knowledge and principles derived from the literature review in Chapter

2 and an exploration of the theoretical framework in this chapter, I generated and refined

the design principles for this study:

1. The initiative should consider the three elements (P, S, and T) in selecting EE.

2. The initiative should carefully set the EE integration level by targeting different

types of EE knowledge.

3. The initiative should facilitate students’ L2 use.

4. The initiative should aim to create a space where students can bring their EE in

order to participate in the class activities, with the expectation that students will

do so. At the same time, the expectation is that students leave the learning

experiences with something that benefits their EE engagement.

In Chapter 5, I elaborate on how I actualized these design principles in the initiative with

detailed documentation of the course design and implementation.

Summary

In this chapter, I have introduced L2 WTC and AS, which together formed the

central framework for this study. Kivunja (2018) suggests an analogy of how conceptual
 52

and theoretical frameworks function that proved helpful for articulating the role and

relationship between of L2 WTC and AS in this study:

While the conceptual framework is the house, the theoretical framework is but a

room that serves a particular purpose in that house. The purpose of the room

could, for example, be the kitchen, or living room, or bathroom or bedroom, or

garage. While each room has a unique purpose, no single room can serve all the

functions that a house serves. (p. 47)

Application of this analogy to my study means that I built this research to study

an initiative, or house, which I designed and taught. Students (residents) engaged with EE

activities by using English, which I deemed as an outcome of L2 WTC. I was curious to

know why and when people engaged and what made them use English in the space.

While there were many things happening in various rooms of the house that I observed, I

was particularly interested in a particular room of the house such as an office space,

where students shared and constructed knowledge for and around EE. Based on what I

learned from studying students’ knowledge construction in this room, this study enabled

me to answer a house-level question: How did the initiative help participants use and

construct their knowledge and engage with the space by using English?
 53

Chapter 4. Methodology

This study used qualitative design-based research (QDBR) to explore how

English language learners (ELLs) engaged with extramural English (EE) activities in an

English language teaching (ELT) course I designed and taught. The first step in

conducting the study was to design and launch the initiative. This chapter is divided into

four sections. In the first section, I present a detailed explanation of the QDBR

methodology. In the second section, I describe the research context (the “initiative”) by

explaining how I set up and implemented the initiative. In the third section, I describe

how I studied the initiative. In the fourth section, I discuss my researcher role, and

explain how I addressed trustworthiness in the research, along with ethics and my exit

strategy.

Research Methodology: Qualitative Design-based Research

Design-based research (DBR) aims to develop innovative pedagogies and new

theories that can improve and transform existing pedagogies, curriculum, and institutions

(Anderson & Shattuck, 2012). Related research uses terms such as design-based research

(e.g., Hake, 2008), education design research (e.g., McKenney & Reeves, 2012), and

design research (e.g., Collins et al., 2004) to describe it. Regardless of terminology, such

studies have several common characteristics, which are 1) theoretically oriented, 2)

interventionist, 3) collaborative, 4) responsively grounded, and 5) iterative (McKenney &

Reeves, 2012, p. 13).

DBR is theoretically oriented, meaning existing theory becomes the theoretical

grounding for DBR. This approach is useful not only for helping researchers frame a
 54

research study, but in informing the design of initiatives which seek to address the

problems identified by theoretically informed research. DBR is iterative because it

continuously designs and develops initiatives alongside the participants who take part in

them. DBR researchers constantly evaluate and modify through "multiple iterations of

investigation, development, testing, and refinement" (McKenney & Reeves, 2012, p. 15).

In this way, DBR evolves to introduce new ideas and innovative change for the issue at

the center of a study. Effective DBR requires collaboration among various stakeholders

to address phenomemon holistically. Researchers and participants learn from and help

one another. The term “responsively grounded” refers to the ways DBR is “shaped by

participant expertise, literature and especially field testing" (McKenney & Reeves, 2012,

p. 15). DBR researchers closely observe participants' responses and modify or redirect

their focus and direction accordingly.

Rationale for the QDBR

As discussed in Chapter 1, my study called for an exploratory and qualitative

DBR approach. Qualitative research allows researchers to explore “little-known

phenomena or innovative systems” in order to “understand experience” (Marshall &

Rossman, 2016, p. 100). This process does not require hypothesis generation or the

ability to ensure any particular phenomenon or tendency. Rather, the focus is on

“capturing [the] context, personal interpretation, and experiences” of people who

participated (Marshall & Rossman, 2016, p. 101). This approach is aligned with QDBR,

which aims “not to prove the merits of any particular intervention [initiative], or to reflect

passively on a context in which learning occurs, but to examine the practical application
 55

of theories of learning themselves in specific, situated contexts” (Dominguez, 2017, p. 1).

DBR researchers emphasize the importance of natural settings for generating principles

and guidelines that can be applied to other natural settings (e.g., Azevedo, 2013).

Therefore, I used initial design principles based on theory and research and

applied them to a real-world educational setting to explore how people interacted. As

indicated in Chapter 1, many DBR studies use the term intervention which suggests an

aim to find a prescribed solution to a problem (McKenney & Reeves, 2012; Shattuck &

Anderson, 2013). Since this was not the purpose of this study, I have chosen the term

initiative to describe what I designed and studied alongside my participants.

Iterations in This Study

Iteration is a critical feature of DBR. This means researchers implement an initial

design and modify the design in question “based on ongoing assessment” in order to

“extend the field’s knowledge about the theory, design, learning, and the context under

examination” (Dominguez, 2017, p. 11). This approach requires an extensive amount of

resources and time; few DBR dissertations have conducted multiple rounds of iterations

because of these constraints, according to Anderson and Shattuck (2012). Many DBR-

based dissertations conduct a single iteration (e, g., Boyer, 2010; Drexler, 2010) or two

iterations over a short timeframe, such as a one-month or one-semester gap between

iterations (e.g., Elizalde, 2018).

I initially set this study as a single-iteration study scheduled to take place across

ten class sessions. I planned for the possibility of additional iteration(s) if I observed the

need to make changes; in fact, I encountered that situation after the third class session. I
 56

closely studied data from the first to the third class meetings and modified the goals,

objectives, and lesson activities for the rest of the course. This meant classes one through

three constituted an initial iteration, and class sessions four to ten became a second

iteration. I explain these iterations in detail in Chapter 5.

Research Context: The Friends Course (The Initiative)

I designed an ELT course for adult ELLs (the initiative) delivered through ten

class sessions over a five-week period. It was a fully online ELT course that I designed

and taught during the summer of 2020. I named it the Friends course since the American

TV show Friends constituted the target EE for the course. Below I explain aspects of how

I selected Friends, set up the course, taught it, and studied it. I elaborate on these details

further in Chapter 5.

Setting Up the Initiative

The first step in setting up the initiative was to identify possible students. Second,

I chose the target EE by triangulating three course elements: the language

teaching/learning potential of a target EE (P), students’ familiarity and interest in the

target EE (S), and teacher’s familiarity with the target EE (T). After deciding to use

Friends, I recruited students.

Identifying Prospective Students

My priority was identifying target participants. At the time of this study, the

COVID-19 pandemic was causing abrupt and unforeseen changes to educational settings

everywhere, including my research design. I decided to target adult ELLs who had taken
 57

my course entitled ELP404 Learning and Speaking about the U.S. in the English

Language Program (hereafter, ELP) at the university for three reasons.

First, implementing the initiative as one of the ELP courses was my original plan

since it allowed me access to adult ELLs. I taught the ELP courses from 2016 until

March 2020, when the COVID19 pandemic meant that non-essential face-to-face

activities on campus were suspended and the ELP program was discontinued. In this

context, I launched the initiative as a private and as fully online course. My research

timeline meant a severely tight schedule to make the conversion. I expected inviting

previous ELP students would take less time and effort than offering the course to a

general, unknown population.

Second, I wanted to create my own online ELT course to provide free English

language learning opportunities to the communities, especially as there were very limited

opportunities to learn English due to the COVID-19 situation. In addition, several former

students reached out to me expressing their needs for English learning opportunities and

asked me if I could continue the course. Thus inviting them to the initiative provided

mutual benefit.

Finally, I had planned for the initiative to be a face-to-face course, but the

pandemic necessitated an online version. Because I had never taught a fully online ELT

course before the pandemic, I decided to offer the class to students I already knew from

previous courses. This seemed less stressful than trying to establish a classroom

community with strangers in a remote teaching context. I believed the initiative could

provide the learning opportunity my students desired, and though it needed to be held
 58

fully online, the fact that we knew one another gave everyone a sense of safety and

familiarity amidst all of the uncertainty of the time.

EE Selection

I designed the initiative by considering all three elements (P, S, and T) when

selecting a target EE. To briefly revisit literature discussed in Chapter 2 here, research

has primarily focused on the potential of the target EE (e.g., Bonsignori, 2018; Lee,

2019b). Lacking consideration of students’ familiarity and interest and teachers’

familiarity with the target EE has resulted in mixed perceptions among students (e.g.,

Galvis Guerrero, 2011; Ranalli, 2008) and teachers (e.g., Toffoli & Sockett, 2015) about

the benefit of using EE in ELT settings. In this section, I discuss how I triangulated the

three elements to select Friends as the target EE for this course. I then introduce key

considerations to demonstrate how Friends met each element.

Table 2 offers a visualization of my process of triangulating the three elements.

The horizontal double-sided arrow means I considered the items on the same row at the

same time. The vertical down-sided arrow indicates the sequential nature of these

considerations. Thus the overall process was iterative; it was impossible to isolate and

consider only one element at a time.

 59

Table 2

Reconstruction of the EE Selection Process to Triangulate P, S, and T

Sequence P S T Other thoughts

1 Given the What can I bring?

COVID-19 (listing pop-
disruption to culture contents
ELP, I decided that are my EE)
to send out
student
recruitment to
my previous
ELP students.
Then what EE
would be
popular with
most of them?
2 Literature seems to How many of my The games I am
mainly bring previous familiar with
popular games students said may not be
to ELT settings. they played appropriate for
games? I don’t situated
recall many. learning that
my students
need.
3 Friends? I used it I remember many How about
in my previous ELP students Friends? I
ELT courses for said they loved know Friends.
so many times. Friends. I SPEAK
It is a great Friends.
material.
 60

4 But wouldn’t it be But there is no But I can select How about

too old? The guarantee those and curate the sending out a
show is already students episode/scenes preliminary
25 years old. (Friends fans) for the target survey to see
Some would register topics. I know how many
expressions are this time. where to look people would
outdated, and and what to be interested?
some jokes are use.
now considered
to be
inappropriate.
5 Action: I sent out the preliminary survey (Appendix B) to my previous students

6 I know some TV 15 people said I don’t really So maybe I can go

shows the they are know the pop with Friends?
students listed, interested in culture content
but they are not the Friends they listed such
so good for course! And as daily shows
learning daily they also listed (e.g., James
expressions. many other TV Corden).
shows, but they
vary and do not
really overlap.

I sent an email to 32 students inviting them to join an ELT class focused on

Friends content; 15 expressed their interest within 24 hours (see Appendix A for full

responses). The invitation also asked them to make lists of popular culture content they

were interested in so that I could ascertain whether there was other overlapping EE I

could use to support course design. Sequence 6 indicates how I studied these lists to see if

there were any better alternatives to Friends. I excluded shows that I had no familiarity

with and would not know how to use them for ELT material. In the end, I decided to use

Friends as the target EE, and began refamiliarizing myself with the show from the

perspective of the three elements.

 61

Potential of Friends for Language Learning and Teaching. Research indicates

Friends has been widely used as content for language instruction by many English

teachers around the world (Konus, 2020). From lexical acquisition (Akahori, 2008; Chen,

2012) to using it to help students develop cultural awareness (Mudawe, 2020),

researchers have explored the show’s potential for supporting students learning American

culture and the English language. Friends became a cultural forum providing a “thirty-

minute window” (Todd, 2011, p. 864) into “the issues of contemporary urban life for

members of white, middle-class Generation X living in New York City" (Curry, 1999, p.

4). It is especially valued for how it provides situated language and cultural learning

opportunities, as indicated in ELT studies whose main criterion for EE selection is the

situated nature of EE (e.g., Lu & Chang, 2016; Miller & Hegelheimer, 2006; Ranalli,

2008; Vahdat & Behbahani, 2013, see Chapter 2).

Since the show is more than 25 years old, there was some risk of students learning

outdated linguistic and socio-cultural expressions. Indeed, some of the jokes that were

socially acceptable in 1994 (when the show was first aired) may be considered offensive

now. I myself have experienced mild social trouble by using these outdated expressions

or inappropriate jokes. Yet I viewed this not as a danger, but as an opportunity to use

Friends to elicit meaningful discussions on the ever-changing landscape of language and

culture.

Prospective Target Students’ Familiarity and Interest with Friends. Since

Friends was one of the TV shows that my previous ELP students constantly mentioned as

their favorite show, I was aware of its enduring popularity. The preliminary survey I
 62

emailed to the prospective students confirmed this. Question 1 in the survey asking about

students’ interest was, If I open the summer online English conversation course for the

TV show "Friends" fans, are you willing to join? I assumed that specifying the course

would be for Friends fans would act as a filter for those who might not be familiar with

the show. Two students indicated they were not big fans, but said they knew the show

quite well. When they asked if they could still join, I welcomed them.

Teacher’s Familiarity with Friends. Identifying the pedagogical potential of

Friends was easy for me because of my familiarity with the show. As I said in the

opening pages of this dissertation, I attributed my English language proficiency to my

consistent and repetitive engagement with the show. I memorized many lines and used

them regularly in conversation with others. After becoming an ELT teacher, I frequently

used clips from Friends in my classes, so I had prior pedagogical experience with using

Friends content. Thus, this show sat at the intersection between my students’ pop culture

interests and my own. It was not just a TV show with which I was familiar; it was the

means by which I myself had learned English.

Recruiting Students

Immediately after receiving Research Subjects Review Board (RSRB) approval

for this study, I sent out a student recruitment email to students who indicated interest on

the preliminary survey. I used a Qualtrics link, which is a survey platform recommended

by the RSRB. Clicking on the link allowed students to register for the course and see two

additional links. The first link was a course introduction video I created

(https://youtu.be/aQmwHHYqNn4, see Appendix B for transcript). The second link

 63

offered a general information letter about the study (Appendix C). The video explained

the goal, purpose, and characteristics of the Friends course and the associated research

study. The video also emphasized that participation in the study was completely

voluntary and would not affect whether they could participate in the Friends course.

In the student recruitment email, I outlined the criteria for involvement in the

course. Students who wished to take the Friends course needed to identify themselves as

an English language learner with access to Internet and ability to attend synchronous

online class sessions. They also needed to know about Friends as one of their EE. I

indicated that whether a student had only watched several episodes or had a great deal of

experience with the show and participated in Friends-related online communities (for

example), they should either regularly engage with Friends or at least be willing to learn

about the show if they were new to it.

Twelve students from seven nationalities registered. Nine students were living in

the United States and three students registered from Japan, Turkey, and Poland, as they

had returned to their respective countries during the pandemic. In my first course email to

them, I shared a welcome message, asked them to fill out a pre-term questionnaire

(Appendix D) and offered the general study information letter for their review.

Running the Friends Course

I used the term term to refer to the five-week session period for the Friends

course, which met synchronously twice a week (Thursdays 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. and

Saturdays 11 a.m. to 12 p.m., Eastern time) from Tuesday, June 30, to Saturday, August

1, 2020. We used the web conference tool Zoom because it was an institutionally
 64

sanctioned course meeting platform with which I was very familiar. I strictly followed

institutional guidelines for Zoom courses for privacy and security.

I created a course website (https://yhan183.wixsite.com/friends/) where I

uploaded supplemental course materials (e.g., video clips, transcripts, PPT, etc.) so that

students could preview and review them at their own pace. I also recorded each Zoom

session and shared these session recordings on the website. Figure 3 shows screenshots of

the page associated with our fourth class meeting. All course materials and student works

were password-protected; only the students and I shared the password.

Figure 3

Screenshots of Class 4 Page on the Course Website

 65

The course had three major themes: 1) what Friends offers in terms of learning

the English language (Classes 2-4); 2) American cultural content embedded in the show

(Classes 5-8); and 3) what Friends reveals about social norms and issues in the United

States (Classes 9-10). In Chapter 5, I provide a detailed description of the course

structure, language and content focus, and class activities since the iterations in the

course structure became a part of the findings. This background information on the

course offers a context for the research; I turn now to an explanation of the research

process.
 66

Conducting the Study

In this section, I elaborate on how I conducted the study. I first explain the

participant recruitment process, which I conducted at the end of the course. Then I move

on to data collection.

Research Participant Recruitment

Although I informed the students the research nature of the Friends course from

the recruitment stage, I waited until the conclusion of the course to recruit research

participants from those who took the class minimize the possibility of pressuring students

to participate in the study, as required by research ethics. This is congruent with warnings

about conducting studies in a cross-cultural setting, where participants’ “cultural beliefs

and values [that] may be collectivist and hierarchical” could cause their unwilling

participation (Marshall & Rossman, 2016, p. 55). In an effort to ameliorate this tension, I

structured consent to participate in the study in the following way. In our first class

meeting, I introduced the purpose of the study and distributed the general study

information letter. I told the students that I would ask for their decision on whether or not

they wanted to participate in the research at the end of the course. In Class 8, I distributed

and explained an interview information letter (Appendix E). The interview information

letter offered further details about the study and asked participants for permission to use

their student work and class recordings to analyze for the study. After Class 8, I emailed

students the interview information letter again with a Qualtrics link

(https://qfreeaccountssjc1.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_a5WjHgQ66BJX1cN), where

students could specify their willingness to participate and availability for an interview.
 67

Students who were willing to participate submitted the Qualtrics form by the end of our

last class session as a confirmation to participte in my study. I did not check these results

until after the class concluded to prevent my knowledge of students’ agreement (or not)

to participate from affecting my interactions with them.

Participants in The Study

Six of 12 students agreed to participate in the study. Five students were native

Spanish speakers who resided in Rochester, New York, at the time of the course. One

participant was a native speaker of Japanese who joined the course from Japan. Everyone

was within the age range of their late 20s to mid 30s. I did not exclude anyone who

indicated willingness to participate.

Table 3 offers a brief summary of participants, listed in an alphabetical order by

their self-selected pseudonyms. Two participants (Joey and Rachel) selected their

pseudonyms from Friends. To avoid confusion, I put c after the name when I talk about

the characters from the show. For example, Rachel is one of the participants of this study

while Rachelc is one of the main characters in Friends for the rest of this paper. During

the class activities and a post-term interview, participants reported various levels of

interest and familiarity with the TV show, as indicated in Table 3. The table also shows

the participants’ level of interest and familiarity with Friends that they self-identified

during the post-term interview. Based on this information, I categorizsed them as

Friends-fans, New-Friends-fans, and Not-Friends-fans.

 68

Table 3

Information about Participants

Pseudonym L1 Level of Level of Classes Fanship for

(Nationality) interest in familiarity attended Friends
Friends with Friends (out of 10) (Interview
Excerpts)
Joey Spanish High High 1 “I love it.”
(Spain)
Klaus Spanish Low Moderate 6 “Not my cup
(Spain) of tea.”
Percy Spanish Low Moderate 8 “I am not a
(Peru) big fan.”
Rachel Spanish High High 6 “I am a big
(Argentina) fan.”
Sarah Spanish High Low 4 “I love
(Mexico) Friends…I
saw maybe
five or six
episodes”

Sam Japanese High Low 9 “I love

(Japan) watching
Friends…I
am new to
Friends.”

Joey: Friends-fan. Joey was a laboratory technician/graphic designer from Spain

who worked at a local retail store. He was living in Rochester because his wife was a

researcher at the university. He had been a member of my previous ELP courses since

Spring 2018. However, due to schedule conflicts, he could only join Class 10 of the

Friends course. When I asked him what motivated him to join the Friends course for the

last class session, he stated, “I like to, I like to be in touch with the, these classes because,

um, I really like the way you expose the topics and um, it's like really uh, good for me,
 69

and, for my fluency, uh, be in touch with people with the same kind of, uh, troubles,

speaking, you know?” (Interview). He also said he joined the course because of his love

for Friends, in particular its humor and plot twists. He also enjoyed watching various

American TV shows mainly for entertainment purposes.

Klaus: Not-Friends-fan. Klaus came from Spain and was a friend of Joey’s. He

had taken my previous ELP courses since Spring 2018. Klaus worked at a local retail

store. He also came to Rochester for his wife’s study at the university. Klaus attended

seven out of ten class sessions. Klaus said he watched many episodes of Friends but was

not very into the show. However, he was aware of the potential of Friends as a resource

to learn English and American culture and felt “positive” about Friends since it was “one

of the TV shows he could understand” with support of English subtitles. (Interview).

Another reason he joined the Friends course was because he “really need[ed] to improve

his English” for his work. He also enjoyed watching various TV shows such as a popular

American TV show The Umbrella Academy, which informed his selected pseudonym

based on the character Klaus Hargreeves.

Percy: Not-Friends-fan. Percy was a doctoral student at the university from

Peru. He had taken my previous ELP courses since Spring 2019. He attended eight of the

ten class sessions. He said he was not a big fan of Friends, but he watched many episodes

with his friends and knew the characters and basic storylines. He joined the course to

have social interaction with people and to learn “some expressions and some stuff” that

he did not know (Interview). Percy watched numbers of American and British TV shows

and enjoyed various forms of related pop-culture content such as comic books.
 70

Rachel: Friends-fan. Rachel was from Argentina, and living in Rochester at the

time of this study for her husband’s degree program at the university. She had taken

multiple ELP courses since Spring 2019. She attended five class sessions. She identified

herself as a huge Friends fan. Her love for Friends was well known among her

classmates. Throughout the Friends course, she had expressed her love for the show

multiple times.

She had already watched the entire series multiple times in her country; she began

to watch it all over again after she came to the U. S. in 2016 to "understand new things"

(Interview). She expressed that watching Friends in America felt different from watching

it in her country. Her love for Friends was evident in her pseudonym choice, which came

from another main six characters of Friends, Rachel Green. Rachel also watched various

TV shows for both educational and entertainment purposes.

Sarah: New-Friends-fan. Sarah came to Rochester from Mexico for her

husband’s study at the university. While she had taken ELP courses before, the Friends

course was her first class with me. She attended five class sessions. She was new to

Friends, having just finished watching five or six episodes in the first season when the

Friends course began. She said she really loved the episodes she watched. For her,

Friends was “a kind of series that you can find everything in the series […] that happened

in our days, our daily lives” (Interview). She spoke highly of Friends as an English

learning resource since she was learning various expressions and phrases that she could

"apply in [her] real-life” (Interview).

 71

Sam: New-Friends-fan. Sam was a visiting scholar from Japan who researched at

the university from 2018 to 2020. He went back to Japan in March 2020 and took the

Friends course from Japan. Just like Percy, he had taken multiple ELP courses, including

two of mine in 2019. He attended nine class sessions. Friends was the only English-

medium TV show he had ever watched with a specific interest in the storylines and

characters. He watched occasional short clips of other TV shows that appeared as

YouTube-suggested videos, but not full episodes and seasons as he did with Friends. He

was new to Friends and just started watching the second season when he heard about this

course. However, he said he intensely watched each episode by thoroughly studying

every single line on the show transcripts he found on the internet. He also used Google

searches to explore particular cultural references he encountered in the show and

repeatedly read transcripts to understand the ideas. Such intensive watching of Friends

took time, but he reported confidence in his expertise on the episodes he watched. He was

always looking for “the best [way] to learn” English while watching Friends (Sam,

Interview, August 8, 2020).

Data Collection Methods

It was important for the data I collected to allow me to explore the multiple

aspects of what happened during the Friends course. In qualitative research, it is critical

to address the research questions through various perspectives by analyzing multiple

forms of data (Creswell, 2013). In my study, research question guided me in terms of

what and where to observe and therefore what data to collect (Charmaz, 2014). As my

research question had a broad scope, it was critical to take an in-depth look at various
 72

forms of data such as documents, archival records, interviews, observations, and artifacts

(Creswell, 2013; Yin, 2009). Table 4 shows an overview of the data I collected in the

Friends course. Following the table I provide a rationale for each type of data collected.

Table 4

Overview of the Data Collection Methods and Sources

Data Resulting Data Quantity of Purpose Data

Collection Sources Data Collected Collection
Method Period
Class After-class Main room To observe how the In Zoom class
observations reflective recordings x course might sessions
memos 10 construct space in during the
Zoom audio/video Breakout room which participants term
files recordings recordings x can engage with
Observation notes 8 EE activities by
Reflective sharing and
memos and constructing
observation knowledge and
notes per using English
class x 10
Pre-term Questionnaires One To capture Right after
questionnair questionnaire participants’ student
e per demographic recruitment
participant x information and information
3 their initial session and
thoughts and before Class
reflection on how 1
they perceive EE
before they join the
Friends course
Post-term Zoom video/audio One interview To capture Post-term:
interview recordings per participants’ within 7
Fieldnotes participant x reflections and days from
Transcripts 6 perception on their Class 10
experiences in the (Participants
Friends course only)
 73

Artifacts Student Work One set per To capture how In-class during
Assignments class x 10 participants might the term
Posters use their
Student reflective knowledge,
journals information, and
skills from their
EE.

(Reflective journals) After each

To capture class
participants’
feedback on their
experiences, class
activity, and lesson
design
Class materials One set per To capture the goals During the
Curriculum class x 10 and objectives in term
Lesson plans Friends course
Documents given
to students
from the
teacher
Teacher reflective One set for To document Before/During
journals early-design teacher’s the term
stage thoughts/reflection
One set per s and track the
class x 10 design/iteration of
the course

Class Observations

Observation is one of the key tools that researchers use to collect data in

qualitative studies (Creswell, 2013). Observing participants’ discourse, interactions, and

verbal/non-verbal cues is “the act of noting a phenomenon” as a researcher uses their

senses to interpret action (Creswell, 2013, p. 166). In this study, the purpose of class

observation was to identify how the course might construct a space in which participants
 74

could engage with EE activities. More specifically, I conducted class observations to 1)

explore how participants used, shared, and constructed various types of knowledge about

Friends; 2) identify what situational factors might be facilitating such knowledge

construction; and 3) locate any verbal/non-verbal signs that signified participants’

psychological conditions related to their willingness to communicate in English (L2

WTC). I also observed each participant’s interactions during group/whole class sessions.

Observations also allowed me to document the climate and culture of the Friends course.

Beginning with Class 2, I started using the breakout room feature in Zoom, which

required me to use additional computers to record each breakout room. Klaus and Percy

volunteered to record the breakout room discussions for me, using their computers. Once

class was over, they shared the recordings with me, and I posted them on the course

website for students to consult. I also told Klaus and Percy to delete the class recordings

from their computer as soon as I posted the videos.

At the conclusion of each class session, I watched the recordings while taking

field notes. I then saved recordings and field notes in my database in Box, an online

archive system used by the university. I used Creswell’s (2013) observation protocol with

three sections descriptive notes, reflective notes, and additional notes, to structure my

field notes of class sessions. In the descriptive notes section, I described what happened

in the course recordings to “summarize, in chronological fashion, the flow of activities”

(Creswell, 2013, p. 169). I took notes on participants’ behaviors, interactions, and

conversational moves as recorded in the videos (Mulhall, 2003). I also transcribed

participants’ dialogue if I thought it was important and meaningful. In the reflective notes
 75

section, I wrote about the class activities and my reflection on them for “later theme

development” in data analysis (Creswell, 2013, p. 169). I chose this protocol because it

offered flexibility in recording my observations; I used both words and sketches to

visualize things like room formation to record my moment-to-moment observations.

I took descriptive and reflective notes immediately after each class, but I did not

know until the course was concluded who my participants would actually be. I used the

additional notes portion of the protocol on my second review of videos, once I had

identified the study participants. In this round of field notes, I replaced the names of

participants with their selected pseudonyms and obscured notes involving non-

participating students by concealing their identity. I made additional notes by adding

specific information on participants (e.g., excerpts from the conversation) as shown in

Figure 4.
 76

Figure 4

Screen Capture of the Class Observation Notes in Class 6

Pre-term Questionnaire

Questionnaires are “extremely flexible” and “provide insights into social trends,

processes, values, attitudes, and interpretations” (McGuirk & O'Neill, 2016, p. 246). In

this study, the pre-term questionnaire (Appendix D) helped me capture participants’

demographic information as well as their initial thoughts and perceptions about Friends

before they joined the course.

Although I asked every student to respond to the pre-term questionnaire shared

via Qualtrics, only four of 12 students submitted responses. Three of these respondents

turned out to be participants in the study. I followed up with the remaining three

participants to ask those questions and elicit their responses during interviews.
 77

Post-term Individual Interview

I conducted one individual interview with each participant following the

conclusion of the course, once they agreed to participate in the study. Interviews are one

of the most important and common methods of data collection in qualitative research

(Creswell, 2013; Taylor, 2005). Whether conducted individually or in focus groups,

interviews are widely used in most EE in ELT studies (e.g., Galvis Guerrero, 2011;

Sundqvist & Olin‐Scheller, 2013). In this study, I used interviews to garner participants’

reflections on their experiences in the Friends course. Especially, this individual

interview was critical in capturing influences of the attending the Friends course on

participants’ psychological conditions in their own words. During the interview, I was

able to hear reflections on participants’ verbal/non-verbal cues that they showed during

the class observation. Participants reported when and why they felt the positive feelings

and were willing to use English and share their knowledge during the class activities.

Also, interviews allowed access to participants’ EE engagement outside of the Friends

course. Although observing what participants did outside of the Friends course was not a

focus of this study, participants shared how the course influenced their daily EE

engagement. Such reflection became one of the findings of this study that I illustrate in

Chapter 6.

Semi-structured interviews are a commonly used interview technique in

qualitative studies (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). I generated and structured the

interview questions for this study (see Appendix G) by using findings from the literature

review and theoretical framework as guidance (Kelly, 2010; Taylor, 2005). Interview
 78

questions helped me stay focused and enabled participants to know where to begin and

what was important (Kallio et al., 2016). I also remained open to and welcomed new

themes and topics that emerged during interviews. I conducted all individual interviews

within a week after the course’s conclusion, based on participants’ availability. I

interviewed Rachel, Sarah, and Joey on August 4, Klaus on August 6, and Sam on

August 8, 2020. This means participants’ memories of course experiences were relatively

fresh. I digitally recorded interviews via Zoom and took field notes during our

conversations to capture any information “not presented verbally” (Jones, 2007, p. 266).

After each interview, I transcribed the interview files verbatim within a day or two of

conducting them.

Artifact Collection

I collected three types of artifacts during the Friends course: student work, course

materials, and teacher reflective journals. Student work included everything students

created during the Friends course, such as Google doc posters they created for

presentations. It also included students’ reflective journals, which students completed

after each class session. Reflective journals are an “annotated chronological record […]

of experiences and events” (Wellington, 2000, p. 118) and have been commonly used in

EE in ELT studies (Nath et al., 2017; Sauro & Sundmark, 2016). Analyzing student work

enabled me to capture participants’ use of knowledge, information, and skills from their

EE in the Friends course. Students’ reflective journals informed me of student feedback

on their experiences, class activities, and lesson designs. After each class, I sent out an

email with a reflective journal submission link via Qualtrics, along with other materials
 79

for preview/review. However, the number of reflective journal submissions was low. By

the end of the term, there were a total of 13 journal submissions from four participants.

Two participants did not any reflective journal entries. Table 5 offers details of the data I

accumulated from participants.

Table 5

Data Corpus by Participants

Participants Pre-term Class attended (Zoom Student reflective Poster

questionnaire recordings) journals Presentation
Joey No Class 10 Class 10 None
Klaus Yes Class 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10 None Class 4, 8
No Class 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9,
Percy None Class 8
10
Rachel Yes Class 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10 Class 2, 4, 5, 10 None
Yes Class 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, Class 1, 2, 4, 7, 9,
Sam Class 4, 8
9, 10 10
No
Sarah Class 3, 5, 9, 10 Class 3, 10 None

The second type of artifact in this study was course materials. These

encompassed documents such as curriculum, lesson plans, materials, and any other

documents I gave to students. Collecting these enabled me to keep track of the goals and

objectives in the Friends course.

The final artifact was my teacher reflective journal. Reflecting on one’s teaching

has been identified as an effective strategy and critical professional skill (e.g., Korthagen,

2001). I journaled reflectively to document my thoughts and reflections before and after

each class session, and to track the development and iteration process of the course. I

wrote this reflective journal from a course designer and facilitator’s perspective. This was

different writing from the analytic memos I composed during data analysis (see the Data
 80

Analysis section). In the words of Mulhall (2003), this journal included “both my

thoughts about going into the field and being there, and reflections on my own life

experiences that might influence the way in which I filter what I observe” (p. 311). I

reflected on the course designing process, class activities, class atmosphere, students’

reactions, and the ways I made decisions within the course.

Data Management

I stored all these forms of data in three different secure spaces by following the

Backup Rule of Three (Hanselman, 2012), that is, the idea that data are protected from

loss when backed up in three different spaces. I used my password-protected laptop as

my primary data storage space, and ensured data was safely secured within 24 hours of

generating it. I also backed up my data in my institutional Box account associated, in a

folder that was not shared with anyone else. Finally, I also kept my data on an external

hard drive, which was also password-protected. Data for this study will be stored for

three years after the completion of my degree, before being destroyed using a

professional program such as SafeWiper that renders data untraceable and unrecoverable.

Analytic Framework

I took an iterative, inductive approach to qualitative coding as I began data

analysis. This means I explored and studied the data trying to identify themes/categories

and understand how they were related (Thomas, 2003). To understand what occurred in

the Friends course, it was critical for me to stay open to what I observed in the data

without any presumptions. However, I needed a starting point – a hunch to begin the

exploration, along with sensitizing concepts that could assist my analysis (Charmaz,
 81

2014). The theoretical framework for course design that I explained in Chapter 3 played a

critical role in the analytic process by offering me sensitizing concepts. The notion of

affinity spaces (AS) enabled me to locate various types of knowledge use. L2 WTC

informed me to look for situational factors and psychological conditions that influenced

and facilitated participants’ knowledge construction practices, which I considered as a

communicative behavior (L2 use) caused by increased L2 WTC. While sensitizing

concepts offered valuable starting points for analysis, I documented new categories of

observable ideas that lay outside the sensitizing concepts. Throughout data analysis,

therefore, I revised and modified my sensitizing concepts so that I could generate

increasingly specific and clear categories of codes. If certain sensitizing concepts did not

agree with or showed little connection to what I saw in the data, I considered those

concepts to be irrelevant to the study and “dispense[d] with them” (Charmaz, 2014, p.

30).

L2 WTC and AS served as the key interpretive frameworks for two rounds of

analytic work. The AS lens enabled me to observe and understand participants’ overall

EE knowledge practices and identify situational factors that influenced participants’

engagement in the Friends course. I then interpreted those features through the L2 WTC

lens to see how the situational factors generated from my intentional course design

influenced participants’ engagement in the Friends course via L2 use. I discuss findings

from this analytic work in Chapter 6.

 82

Data Analysis

I analyzed data by using Nvivo12, a qualitative data analysis software. I

conducted two rounds of data analysis, first by focusing on how participants constructed

knowledge in the Friends course from the AS framework. Then based on categories and

themes from the first round, I conducted the second round of coding by focusing on what

facilitated participants’ knowledge construction using English from the L2 WTC

framework.

First Round of Coding: Focus on Knowledge Construction Practices

For first cycle coding, I used two different coding methods based on the types of

the data. First, I analyzed class recordings and artifacts (with the exception of

student/teacher reflective journals) using descriptive coding (Saldaña, 2015). Descriptive

coding means to summarize what is being observed “in a word or short phrases” (p. 88),

sometimes using other words to identify data topics. I used descriptive coding for two

reasons. First, I did not transcribe the entire class recordings, only meaningful and

important excerpts (Saldaña, 2015), so descriptive coding enabled me to track the action

of an entire class session. Second, since this was an exploratory study, I decided to

observe data with the question, “What is going on here?” (Saldaña, 2015, p. 88). Saldaña

points out the usefulness of descriptive coding to identify and trace basic topics across

data sets (p. 88).

When analyzing class recordings, I first watched the videos and took class

observation notes to identify meaningful scenes. I then summarized them into a sentence

or a phrase to make them suitable for descriptive coding. I identified my criteria for
 83

meaningful data as elements that were a) easily subdivided and categorized into a certain

topic (Dey, 1993), and b) relevant and related to my sensitizing concepts. Then I went

through my descriptive summaries to generate codes. I referred to student work and class

artifacts to cross-reference meanings when necessary. Table 6 shows an example of a

code I generated from a descriptive summary of a moment during class session ten.

Table 6
Example of Code Generation from Class 10 Observation Note

Code Datum
Student sharing experiences with Student A (non-participating student) shares his
TV shows other than Friends experience [on using English subtitles] with the show
Blacklist, and Percy follows up with his experience
with Sherlock Holmes and how difficult it was for him
to understand the English.
After I analyzed class recordings and artifacts, I analyzed interviews and

student/teacher reflective journals by using in vivo coding. In vivo coding derives a code

from participants’ own words, allowing exploratory research to be framed in participants’

thoughts, responses, and ideas (Saldaña, 2015). To conduct in vivo coding, I looked for

what seemed to be meaningful and significant statements and used these verbatim

expressions as codes.

When I completed the initial coding cycle, I used all codes from this first round to

inform a round of focused coding (Charmaz, 2006; Saldaña, 2015). Focused coding helps

researchers to search for “the most salient categories” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 46). I coded the

interview transcripts more selectively and conceptually by creating categories of codes

that went together. I went through three rounds of focused coding to make sure I did not

miss meaningful data. I analyzed the frequency and meaning of frequently occurring
 84

codes in the line-by-line coding and synthesized them to represent trends in the larger

data corpus. This means I paid attention not only to which codes occurred most

frequently, I also attended to low-frequency codes if they seemed to be meaningful to

participants or relevant to my theoretical framework. After creating a list of categories, I

continued analyzing the data, including student work and class artifacts “to build and to

clarify [the] category by examining all the data it covers and by identifying the variations

within it and between other categories” (Charmaz, 1996, p. 42).

Following this, I conducted axial coding, which allowed me to further synthesize

categories and subcategories (Strauss, 1987; Charmaz, 2006, 2014). Axis stands for a

category (Saldaña, 2015), and axial coding is a process of relating and developing

categories into more specified subcategories in order to articulate “the properties and

dimensions of a category” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 60). In other words, axial coding helps

researchers to “strategically reassemble data that were ‘split’ or ‘fractured’ during the

initial coding” (Saldaña, 2015, p. 218). Axial coding was an effective analytic step in this

exploratory study since it guided me to see “if, when, how, and why” something

happened in the Friends course (Charmaz, 2006, p. 62). This enabled me to generate a

theme, which Saldaña (2015) defines as “an outcome of coding, categorization, or

analytic reflection” (p. 14). Table 7 shows an example of how I moved from data to code,

to category, to theme.
 85

Table 7

Example of First-round Coding of Percy’s Interview

Theme Categories Code Datum

Using Sharing Participants It helps a lot. For instance, when I was talking
intensive knowledg can share about, uh, The Office in the second or the third
knowledg e on other more class, I remember that you, you told me that,
e for TV TV shows information you asked me 'the British or American
shows
on their version?' So I am pretty sure that no, not many
favorite TV people know about the fact that there are two
show when different versions. So for instance, you
the teacher knowing that helped me a lot to, to put more
knows what information in the table about The Office, (PI:
they are Umm.) because I know that you are aware that
talking what happens in this TV show.
about

In total, I identified 195 codes from my initial coding, 24 categories from the

secondary coding, and five themes from the axial coding round. This was congruent with

other researchers’ numbers of codes (120-300, see Friese, 2012), categories (15-20, see

Lictman, 2012), and themes (5-7, see Lictman, 2012). The five themes were: 1) using

intensive knowledge for TV shows; 2) looking for knowledge on the Internet; 3) building

knowledge of constructive TV show engagement; 4) exchanging knowledge about living

in the U.S.; and 5) using knowledge on technology tools used for class activities to

support peers. I took the first three themes, because they most directly involved

knowledge in and around EE that I could use as a basis for conducting the second round

of coding.

Second Round of Coding: Focus on Factors and Conditions

For the second coding round, I traced back from the three themes to their

categories and codes. By doing this, I was able to focus on data for the three themes.
 86

Then I conducted axial coding again, but this time my focus was on identifying factors

that facilitated the three themes (three different types of knowledge construction

practices) and psychological conditions related to the factors. Next, I regrouped the codes

and categories into new categories. Table 8 shows an example of how I conducted the

second-round coding and drew new connections from the code and category. From the

same datum and code as Table 7, I generated a new category and a new theme: influence

of the teachers’ familiarity with participants’ EE on participants’ knowledge use. That

means I identified the teacher’s familiarity with the participant’s TV show as a factor that

influenced and facilitated participant’s intensive EE knowledge use in English.

Additional codes and categories encapsulated in this theme of Influence of the teacher’s

familiarity with participants’ EE can be found in Appendix F.

Table 8
New Theme Generated from Percy’s Interview in Second-round Coding

Theme Categories Code Datum

Influence of Facilitating to Participants It helps a lot. For instance, when I was
the speak more can share talking about, uh, The Office in the
teachers’ when the more second or the third class, I remember
familiarity teacher information that you, you told me that, you asked me
with knows on their 'the British or American version?' So I
participants’ participants’ favorite TV am pretty sure that no, not many people
TV show favorite TV show when know about the fact that there are two
(EE) show the teacher different versions. So for instance, you
knows knowing that helped me a lot to, to put
what they more information in the table about The
are talking Office, (PI: Umm.) because I know that
about. you are aware that what happens in this
TV show.
 87

Taking Analytic Memos

During the coding process, I wrote analytic memos to record, question, revisit,

and reconsider data, codes, and categories. Writing analytically also helped me capture

ideas, insights, and questions that emerged throughout the data analysis (Charmaz, 2006,

2014; Saldaña, 2015). The following images show how I took analytic memos in

NVivo12 in two ways: I either composed a note directly on the data (Figure 5) or used a

separate memo feature that I updated each time I did analysis (Figure 6). I wrote in both

English and Korean, switching languages so that I could best express my thoughts at any

given moment. These analytic memos helped me revisit, reanalyze, and refine my

analysis and findings.

Figure 5

Screen Capture of Analytic Memo on Data in NVivo from Class 3 Observation Note
 88

Figure 6

Screen Capture of Analytic Memo on the Memo Feature in NVivo

I stayed open and flexible throughout the data analysis process. Occasionally, I

found data elements that required additional analysis. For example, I felt the need to

visualize speech overlaps to understand how participants’ situational L2 WTC changed

during the course, so I implemented a data visualization technique inspired by medical

research to analyze conversations between doctors and patients (e.g., Angus et al., 2012;

Wong et al., 2020). I created Figure 7 to visualize the conversation among participants,

which I explain further in Chapter 6.

Figure 7

Visualization of Conversation Used in Chapter 6

 89

Researcher Roles

I played three key roles in this DBR study. First, I was the course designer for the

Friends course. I designed the course structure and syllabus, and planned the lessons. I

stayed flexible with the course design and constantly reflected and revised, based on

student feedback as the course progressed. My second role was course instructor. I taught

the classes, gathered student feedback, and reflected on the ongoing course development.

Finally, I was a researcher who observed the course and participants’ actions in order to

collect and analyze data. In any given moment, I was operating in more than one role

(e.g., taking mental notes on students' in-class reactions for teaching and research

purposes). However, when I was instructing, I minimized my researcher role as much as

possible. I prioritized maintaining a focused classroom environment dedicated to

language learning to ensure it would be a good course experience for all attendees,

regardless of whether they agreed to participate in the study.

As the researcher, I explained the purposes and goals of the study through

multiple ways (course introduction video, course website, and different conversations

throughout the term). Participants had access to this information throughout the term and

after, until data collection and analysis ended.

Study Trustworthiness

To establish trustworthiness for this study, I relied on Lincoln and Guba’s (1985)

trustworthiness criteria: credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability, and

their associated techniques to establish each criterion. Their criteria overlapped with what

Marshall and Rossman (2016) recommend as validation strategies for qualitative research
 90

such as triangulation, peer review, member checking, rich/thick description, and external

audits. In this section, I discuss how I used various techniques to increase the study’s

trustworthiness.

Credibility

Credibility comes from research participants (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), meaning

my analysis, interpretation, and findings should accurately reconstruct participants’

experiences and reflections in the Friends course. I was cautious to avoid creating a study

where I could only see what I wanted to see (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). As a designer

and instructor of the course, I had a strong desire and hope to see students’ learning

outcomes; I worked to stay aware of this risk throughout the study. Barab and Squire

(2004) named this danger when researchers are intimately involved with the

“conceptualization, design, development, implementation, and researching of a

pedagogical approach,” noting it can be challenging to draw assertions that are both

credible and trustworthy (p. 10). I employed tools to keep separate my roles as

designer/instructor from my researcher role. Tools like analytic memos helped me

constantly reflect on and question my assertions throughout the research process (Ravitch

& Riggan, 2016).

I used the techniques of member checks, triangulation, and peer debriefing to

increase the credibility of this study. I conducted member checks of my interpretations to

make sure what I described and interpreted in this study aligned with participants’ actual

experiences. Upon completion of data analysis in March 2021, I emailed all my

participants to ask for their feedback on my analysis and interpretation of their data. All
 91

participants replied saying they agreed with the interpretations I shared with them.

Triangulation took place in this study in the form of multiple data collection methods and

theoretical lenses. I also consulted with peers throughout the research process,

participating in three peer debriefing groups. First, I attended a weekly online check-in

with my advisor and other doctoral students who were also in the dissertation stage where

I updated my progress, shared my questions, and sought insights and ideas. My other two

debriefing opportunities took place with doctoral students in different programs and

universities. The focus of these meetings was primarily to have others’ eyes help me

locate “disconfirming evidence” to make sure I did not only see what I wanted to see

(Marshall & Rossman, 2016, p. 46).

Dependability

My consideration of credibility was deeply related to the concept of

dependability, which refers to the somewhat unpredictable nature of qualitative design.

This DBR study was fundamentally iterative (McKenney & Reeves, 2012), and therefore

I had to be ready to change the direction of the study, as necessary. This involved my

practice of openness, flexibility, and continual revision to this DBR study. While it is

impossible to achieve an exactly similar context in a qualitative study, I sought to support

the consistency of the findings by offering detailed and rich descriptions of my methods.

I have done so in this chapter and in Chapter 5, where I outline the design/iteration

process of this DBR. By providing explicit information on my study, researchers of a

similar topic and approach would be able to compare their own research contexts and

mine to explore the consistency of findings.

 92

For dependability, I conducted external audits (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). This

meant I recruited an outsider with no connection to my study to examine my study and

give me feedback. Lincoln and Guba (1985) claim that audits for dependability should

focus on the process of the research (e.g., how the data was collected, stored, and

managed). Two fellow researchers from different programs played a role as auditors and

provided feedback on the study process.

Confirmability

I sought confirmability for this study by confirming the study design, progress,

and findings with “another person or another study” (Marshall & Rossman, 2016, p. 253).

Throughout a regular sharing of my progress with my peers, as well as professors in and

outside of my graduate school, I constantly sought to confirm my assertions with others. I

conducted external audits (Marshall & Rossman, 2016) by focusing on “whether or not

the findings, interpretations, and conclusions are supported by the data” (p. 252). Such

focus was in line with what Lincoln and Guba (1985) term confirmability audits. I

worked with several fellow researchers from a different programs who provided feedback

on my analysis and interpretations. When I shared about my study, I offered clear records

of the data collection process (audit trails) and honest self-reflection (reflexivity) via

analytic memos and reflective journals (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). This process helped

me to stay transparent about my study.

Transferability

Creating and teaching the Friends course was a new approach to see if focusing

on all three elements of EE, student interest, and teacher familiarity could yield students’
 93

engaged language learning. I considered the transferability features of the initiative to

consider how other contexts with similar situations and practices might benefit from this

study (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). As a result, I implemented the initiative in an ELT

setting using a course structure inherited from a previous ELP model. I believe this offers

the possibility for practical applications in other ELT settings. To increase transferability,

I created rich and thick descriptions of the research setting, along with data collection and

analysis processes. I also considered and here articulate the usefulness and

consequentiality of the study. Barab and Squire (2004) suggest that design-based

researchers should demonstrate these ideas carefully and in detail in order to “directly

impact practice while advancing theory that will be of use to others” (p. 8).

Research Ethics

From an ethical perspective, I was careful to acknowledge the important role of

participants and not take their participation for granted. I avoided “dehumanizing them”

by treating them first as humans and language learners in my class, rather than as sources

of data. I chose to use pseudonyms, rather than nonidentifying variables (e.g., numbers)

to deidentify participants. Participants’ willingness to join the class and discuss their

learning enabled me to create and iterate the course design. Throughout the course, I

considered students as co-designers of the course and reminded them frequently how

important their feedback and reflections were to the study. I also offered accurate

information to help them understand their roles and rights, encouraged them to freely

express their willingness to participate/withdraw, and actively protected their identities

(Marshall & Rossman, 2016).

 94

I also protected the non-participating students who were incidentally included in

class recordings. I ensured that no person could be identified, and I did not transcribe,

summarize, or analyze any of their discourse and behaviors in the course recordings

except to the extent they interacted with participants and it was necessary for preserving

the meaning of an interaction they had with participants. In these cases, I recorded their

actions with pseudonyms that I randomly chose.

Exit Strategy

Once the Friends course and the post-term interview was over, this constituted a

natural exit for the research. Yet I did not immediately end my communication with nor

availability to students, because I was also their instructor. As such, I continued to

interact with students as many of them tend to keep in touch with me about their struggles

in a new country/culture, the COVID19 pandemic, and language learning. I also needed

to ensure that no conflict of interest would occur if some participants decided to take a

course with me in the future. I maintained my researcher role with participants until I

concluded data analysis and member checks in April 2021. At that point. I stepped away

from my researcher role by expressing gratitude to each participant with a thank-you

note.
 95

Chapter 5. Documentation of the Course Design and Iteration Process

Many educational design-based research (DBR) studies provide rich descriptions

of project profiles and iteration processes. This approach is important for documenting

initiatives and refining designing principles (e.g., Boyer, 2010; Elizalde, 2018). In

keeping with this precedent, this chapter offers a detailed overview of the Friends course,

along with the documentation of how I set up the course as the instructor and iterated it. I

implemented and refined the extramural English (EE) course based on the initial design

principles named in Chapter 3: considering all three elements (P as potential of the target

EE as a language learning/teaching material, S as students’ familiarity and interest in the

target EE, and T as teacher’s familiarity with the target EE).

This chapter offers background information on the context of the Friends course

to support readers’ interpretation of the findings I will discuss in Chapter 6. This chapter

also constitutes part of the findings of this study as it addresses my experience as a

teacher, answering the research question: How did an English language teaching (ELT)

course that I designed construct a space in which English language learners (ELLs)

could engage with EE activities using English? As the teacher, my familiarity with

Friends was crucial in helping me consider my students’ interest in the EE content,

particularly when I found that students’ familiarity and interest in Friends was much

lower than I anticipated.

In the first section, I discuss how I designed the Friends course and determined

the course’s themes and topics alongside elements I reused from previous course. In the

second section, I explain how I designed and iterated the class structure with a focus on
 96

activities and supportive materials informed by the principles of affinity spaces (AS; Gee,

2005; Gee & Hayes, 2012).

Designing the Friends Course

Wang and Hannafin (2005) claim that DBR is context-specific enough that such

studies must detail “both the classroom where design research is conducted and larger

system influences (e.g., the environment and culture of the school, student backgrounds)”

(p. 18). In this section, I first describe the larger system influences before explaining the

course structure.

As nine of the 12 students who attended the Friends course had taken one or more

of my previous English language programs (ELP) courses, they expected the Friends

course would be similar, according to their responses on a pre-term questionnaire I

administered as a needs assessment: Students expressed their desire to practice speaking

as they learned about American culture. Such expectations were also evident in the post-

term interviews. Rachel said she imagined the Friends course would focus on American

culture because she knew I liked “working with American culture” (Interview). Joey said

he joined the Friends course because he liked the way my previous ELP courses had

“expose[d] the topics” of American culture (Interview). Klaus expressed how “the regular

vocabulary, the regular grammar could be a little bit tedious” in other course but reported

that my ELP courses “never go in that kind of course” (Interview). As for Percy, he

expected the Friends course would be more than just about Friends but “something

behind [it]”:
 97

I think that at the end these TV shows are like an excuse to … put the subject in

the table but it's not exactly what you are talking about. So, it's like an object of

study, but we are trying to learn something that is behind. (Interview)

In the following section, I explain the characteristics I took from previous ELP

courses, and how they shaped the way I structured the course and its focus.

Characteristics from Previous ELP Courses

The Friends course was under the influence of the ELP courses designed for adult

English language learners (ELLs) around the university community (e.g., students,

spouses, visiting scholars) in two ways. First, it was low stakes, like other ELP courses.

Since many students had inflexible schedules, the ELP created a free 10-week module,

ELP404 Learning and Speaking about the U.S. Life and Culture, where people could

drop in and engage with speaking-centered activities. The topics were variable each class

to facilitate this drop-in model. Students did not have to take a placement test,

demonstrate a particular level of English proficiency, or take formative/summative

assessments in order to participate. As students had experienced this approach, they

seemed to expect this same level of flexibility in the Friends course.

Second, the Friends course syllabus was speaking- and culture-centered, in line

with other ELP courses that aim to provide “a context for participants to converse in

structured and opportunistic manners, improving their spoken English” while discussing

topics related to American culture (ELP404 Spring 19 course syllabus, p. 1). The

emphasis on providing enriching English speaking opportunities aligned well with the

design principle #3 of this study, which called for the facilitation of students’ L2 use. The
 98

university’s ELP program called its instructors facilitators and allowed them a high level

of flexibility to design their syllabi as there were no fixed programmatic expectations or

established curriculum. Thus in all of my previous ELP courses, I began with a needs

assessment during the first class meeting to help me determine which aspects of

American culture students wanted to cover during that term, which helped me choose a

focus for the course.

Focus of the Course: Facilitating Constructive TV Show Engagement

The focus of the Friends course served the initial design principle #4 that the

initiative should aim to create a space where students can bring their EE in order to

participate in class activities. As the preliminary survey responses showed that students’

major EE was watching English-medium TV shows, I decided the Friends course ought

to focus on facilitating students’ constructive engagement with TV shows. According to

Johnson (2005), the decision about which aspects of culture should be the focus of a

course comes from “teachers’ own sense of the students' needs, as well as their

questions” (p. 10). My experiences as an ELL who learned English from Friends and

other pop culture media helped me anticipate my students’ interests in engaging with TV

shows. Since I began to live in foreign countries (Japan and the U.S.), I have actively

used expressions, jokes, and cultural references I acquired from popular media. In many

cases, these were well-received and helped me in my communicative exchanges. With

time, however, I encountered several troublesome situations where my jokes or

references were perceived as inappropriate or offensive; I felt traumatized by these

experiences, as I never intended to elicit this response. I considered how I might help my
 99

students take a critical lens on their popular media consumption, perhaps helping them to

avoid the same troubles I experienced. I wanted to help them recognize that even if they

watch up-to-date content (compared to the historical perspectives in Friends), they must

still be aware of the cultural implications and incomplete representations of culture these

shows might offer. I wanted to help them build critical perspectives within their TV show

engagement that goes beyond the media consumption.

Literature backs up my experience by claiming educational settings should focus

on facilitating students’ TV show engagement in a productive way (e.g., Levin, 2005;

Yang & Fleming, 2013): Formal ELT learning can and should help students to better

access the English-medium TV shows by enhancing learners’ linguistic and cultural

knowledge, helping them actively analyze and criticize the messages in the TV shows,

and encouraging them to be self-reflexive the way they engage with them. Yet, literature

also calls for researchers not to devalue the entertainment ELLs derive from EE

engagement by focusing too heavily on education (Curry, 1999; Galvis Guerrero, 2011;

Vosburg, 2017). Therefore, I aimed to design the course so students could practice

“accessing, analyzing, evaluating, and creating messages” from Friends content

(Livingstone, 2004, p. 4) while still enjoying the show’s entertaining elements in the

hopes that it would help them approach other TV shows in a similar manner.

The Course Structure

I designed the course around three themes to cultivate students’ constructive TV

show engagement: What Friends tells us in terms of learning the English language

(Classes 2-4); What Friends tells us in terms of learning American culture (Classes 5-8);
 100

and What Friends tells us in terms of social norms and issues in the U.S. (Classes 9-10).

Each theme had sub-topics and learning activities that invited students to explore the

themes in detail. Table 9 gives an overview of the course structure.

Table 9
An Overview of the Friends Course Structure

Clas
Theme Topic Content Focus Language Focus
s
1 Introduction Course Students explore the Students use English to
Introduction course structure and introduce themselves.
features.
2 What Friends Natural and Students describe the Students learn and use
tells us in authentic six main characters’ authentic expressions to
terms of vocabulary characteristics. describe Friends
learning and personalities and
English expressions characteristics.
language

3 Various usages Students learn how a Students learn and use the
in various word can be used in seven most common
situations different contexts English expressions
with different used in Friends.
meanings.
4 Reviewing the Students review the Students review and
theme previous classes (2- actively use the
3) and make a expressions from the
presentation on two previous classes for
strategies to watch their presentation
TV show for
effective English
language learning.
5 What Friends Daily lives in Students discuss the Students learn and use
tells us in Friends various portraits of expressions that are
terms of American culture in commonly used in three
learning Friends. different daily
American situations.
culture
 101

6 Fact vs. Fiction - Students discuss the Students learn and use
Distinguishin fictional and non- expressions that are
g what is real fictional portraits of commonly used in
and what is real-life found in different daily
not Friends. situations.

7 What makes Students explore Students analyze the

Friends different types of linguistic/non-linguistic
funny: jokes and humor in features in jokes in
Understandin Friends and discuss Friends (e.g., tone of
g jokes in the things to keep in the voice).
show mind to make jokes.
8 Students review the Students review and use
previous classes (5- the expressions from
7) and make a the previous classes (1-
presentation on the 7) for their presentation.
characteristics of
American culture
evident in the show.

9 What Friends Was Friends Students analyze the Students learn and use
tells us in ahead of its clips from the expressions for
terms of time? previous classes and persuasion.
social explore the recent
norms and conversation on
issues in Friends and how
the U.S. social norms have
changed since the
days when those
clips first aired.

10 Reviewing the Students review and Students review and

theme + reflect on their actively use the
Course wrap takeaways on the expressions from the
up learning potential of previous classes (1-9).
Friends (and other
TV shows), and
strategies to use it
for language and
culture learning.

During classes 4, 8, and 10, which constituted the end of each course theme, I

asked students to review their learning by making a presentation. This assignment created

a formative self-evaluation opportunity for students to reflect on their understandings of

 102

each theme. At the same time, I aimed to increase students’ language use through the

cooperative nature of the presentation activity. A sample of a presentation activity from

Class 4 is available in Appendix H.

Class Structure and Iterations

Initiatives in DBR are “rarely if ever designed and implemented perfectly; thus,

there is always room for improvements in the design and subsequent evaluation”

(Anderson & Shattuck, 2012, p. 17). While the overall course structure remained the

same, I changed the class structure significantly through the iteration process.

I initially designed each class session around a YouTube video from Friends as

the main course content. In preparation for each class, I sent students an email with links

for the video clip(s) along with a Google Doc, where I offered linguistic input about the

video, such as a list of expressions in the video or explanations of cultural references.

During the synchronous class meeting via Zoom, students worked on these video-related

activities in small groups. After each class, I emailed students the recording of our class

meeting and homework in preparation for the next class. At this stage, I implemented

initial design principle #2 (The initiative should carefully set the EE integration level by

targeting different types of EE knowledge), which entailed paying careful attention to the EE

integration that targeted specific EE knowledge. This design held for the first iteration,

which included class sessions one through three. But as I encountered challenges in these

initial class sessions, I adapted and revised the class structure, activities, and supportive

materials for sessions four to ten. In the next section, I use examples from classes two and

seven to illustrate each iteration.

 103

Setting up EE Integration in the First Iteration

From my engagement with Friends over the past two decades, I have come to

know various fan practices that have evolved around the show. As Friends was a world-

famous TV show, its world-wide fandom has engaged in various fan practices. I knew of

online forums and fan-fiction communities where Friends fans talked and wrote about the

show. I had read research on how Friends was being used as motivating ELT content for

teaching both the English language and American culture. I also knew there were online

discussion forums criticizing Friends as an inappropriate cultural representation of

American culture (e.g., Dray, 2019); several iconic scenes from the show could constitute

helpful places to start conversations around culture. My familiarity with the show gave

me many options for types of educational content and practice that could work for the

course. Figure 8 indicates my planning for how to incorporate these practices.

Figure 8

A Screenshot of Memo Listing Various Fan Practices of Friends

 104

Different Fan Practices, Different Knowledges

I recognized that each listed practice required students to have different types of

knowledge and familiarity with the content. One example was an experience I had several

years ago when I started reading controversial conversations about using Friends as an

example of American culture. I explored web articles (e.g., Althouse, 2019; Woodward,

2018), online forums (e.g., Suchapain, 2018), and YouTube videos (e.g., MsMojo, 2017)

where people problematized the show such as its handling of LGBTQ issues (e.g., Ross

making fun of male nanny, see Woodward, 2018). I evaluated the potential of bringing

these conversations to the Friends course and considered the required knowledge if I

were to create a class activity around them (Figure 9).

Figure 9

A Screenshot of my Memo Evaluating a Friends Controversy Practice

)
 105

In designing class activities, the theory of AS (Gee, 2005; Gee & Hayes, 2012)

helped me recognize intensive knowledge (specialist knowledge) and extensive

knowledge (broad, general knowledge) that the class activities would require. In order for

my students to understand discussions about the problems with Friends, they needed to

have intensive and specialist knowledge of the Friends plots, characters, and the

particular episodes at the center of the criticism. They also needed broader knowledge of

American social norms and values at the time Friends was produced and when they

attended the Friends course. I considered how a class activity requiring students’

intensive knowledge would increase the level of EE integration. Conversely, if I

prioritized students’ extensive knowledge about social norms, I would lower the EE

integration. This is an example of how I considered my priorities for EE integration by

trying to anticipate the types of intensive and extensive knowledge required for various

class activities.

First Iteration (Class 1-3)

I designed the class activities/materials to have students use and enrich

their Friends-specific knowledge by planning for a high integration level of the EE

content because students enrolled in the course knowing it would focus on Friends.

Therefore, I anticipated students would have a certain level of familiarity and interest

in Friends.

Heavy EE Integration Level in the First Iteration

I initially created a heavy EE integration by bringing in Friends fandom content,

including videos where fans analyzed and critiqued the show from various angles. I used
 106

YouTube videos with high view counts and rich discussions in the comments to help

students analyze characters’ personal characteristics in Class 2 and analyze common

expressions in Class 3. I prioritized these analysis tasks to help students participate in

more complex thinking tasks that went beyond simply understanding the show (e.g.,

Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Bloom et al., 1956). These activities required students to

use their intensive knowledge of Friends to understand the analysis videos.

I designed supportive materials to facilitate students’ understanding of English

language input (e.g., expressions, idioms, etc.) from the videos (extensive knowledge). I

deemed language input as extensive knowledge as those expressions are commonly used

in Americans’ daily lives. Thus I put more weight on students’ use of intensive

knowledge than extensive knowledge. As speaking opportunities was one of the main

goals of the course, having the students speak English around the Friends content seemed

appropriate. Table 10 provides an example from Class 2 of how this initial iteration was

designed and functioned; in the next section, I offer details of this class session to explain

why I needed to iterate the course partway through. Table 10 contains the Friends-

specific supportive materials and class activities from the second class meeting.
 107

Table 10

Overview of Class 2

Consideration Details

Theme What Friends tells us in terms of learning English language

Topic Students will use natural and authentic vocabulary and

expressions (to describe personalities and characteristics)

Focus Content focus: Students describe the six main characters’

characteristics.
Language focus: Students learn and use authentic expressions to
describe personalities and characteristics.

Video clip(s) What Enneagram Types are the cast of FRIENDS? (10:07)

Types of the video clip(s) The video creator (a YouTuber) discussed personality and
characteristics of the six main characters, drawing parallels to
the Enneagram.

Supportive materials Vocabulary lists with video timestamps (Full assignment in

provided as homework Appendix I)

Examples of questions I Who would you choose to be your roommate and why? And who
asked in class would you NOT want to choose?

Video Clips and Homework Assignments in Class 2. This class session focused

on asking students to describe the personalities of characters in Friends, along with their

own personalities (content focus) by using authentic expressions from the video

(language focus). I selected a 10-minute YouTube video titled What Enneagram Types

are the cast of FRIENDS? (Howe, 2020). The speaker analyzed the six main Friends

characters as Enneagram types, which classifies individuals “as possessing one of the
 108

nine personality types or fixations” (Kale & Shrivastava, 2003, p. 313). For example, the

YouTuber introduced Ross in this way:

(02:22~02:39) Ross is intelligent, intensely curious, and a textbook overthinker.

That's why I think that Ross is an Enneagram Type Five. Type Fives usually

become an expert in some area and Ross loves dinosaurs. So naturally he got a

Ph.D. in paleontology (Howe, 2020).

The video showed collages of decontextualized Friends scenes to support her

point about each character. As she spoke of Ross, the video shows multiple scenes of

Ross teaching at his university as she underscored her point: “naturally he got a Ph.D. in

paleontology.”

I told students not to worry about the Enneagram numbers or jargon but instead to

focus on the descriptive expressions she used. In a Google Doc, I listed several useful

expressions I identified from the video and added timestamps to alert students to when

those expressions were used in the YouTube video. Figure 10 is a screenshot indicating

various expressions used in the video to describe/discuss Ross. Appendix I includes the

homework assignment students completed in relation to this class activity.

Figure 10

Screenshot of Selected Expressions for Ross

 109

Whether students agreed or disagreed with the YouTuber’s classification of Ross

and other main characters, students needed to know all the characters well in order to

understand the character analysis. Since studies suggest that linguistic inputs in a

“meaningful and personally significant context” can better facilitate vocabulary learning

(Skrinda, 2010, p. 18), I hoped these expressions could appeal to my students and

facilitate their vocabulary learning.

Class 2 Activities. In the first half of our second class meeting, we did a warm-up

activity using Zoom’s anonymous poll feature to have students demonstrate their

vocabulary knowledge from the homework assignment (Figure 11). After this, I put

students in breakout rooms to discuss which Friends character they might prefer to have

as a roommate and asked them to use expressions from the list to support their

conversation.
 110

Figure 11

A Screenshot of Poll Questions from Class 2

One student, Rachel, used her intensive and extensive knowledge to say that she

thought Chandler would be her preferred roommate:

He is extremely loyal, he put, uh, his family, his friends at first, and I am like this,

too. It is true that he has many problems with his relationships (looking at her

study notes, trying to find expressions to use). He is loyal, because I remember in

one seasons, that he like Joey’s girlfriend but at first, well he was so worried

about the situation (Rachel, Class 2, Class observation note).

 111

This response shows how Rachel used a Friends-specific example (Chandler feeling

worried and guilty about going out with Joey’s girlfriend) to demonstrate her intensive

knowledge. She also practiced her extensive knowledge to use a new expression from the

video (“extremely loyal”), to accomplish the activity’s aim.

Identified Issue

Although Rachel was able to do this highly integrated EE activity well, not all my

students were actually familiar with or interested in Friends. This meant I needed to

rethink not only these learning activities, but the entire course. My teacher reflective

journal and class observations from the second and third course meetings documented

several moments where students had disengaged or confused looks on their faces, as an

excerpt from my observation notes from Class 2 indicates:

Some students were taking notes, some looked pretty bored while I was going

through the vocabulary. Some might get overwhelmed by thinking the course is

only for hardcore Friends fans, since we were very specifically talking about the

Friends characters. Would it have been better if I also add the clips that could

show the real scene where the new people could get the gist of each character's

personality? (Class 2, Class observation note)

I considered several possible explanations for students’ apparent disengagement

and concluded that I inaccurately anticipated how familiar or interested (S) students

would be in the content. Several students appeared uninterested in Friends and unfamiliar

with the show. I also believe students expected the same low-stakes characteristics of

previous ELP courses when it came to the homework assignments, which were optional
 112

in previous ELP courses. Even if they had completed the homework, I realized the video

would have been challenging to understand if they lacked sufficient intensive knowledge

of Friends. Added to that, the Enneagram content complicated the learning activity.

Going Back to the Literature

Together, each of these things indicated I was inadvertently replicating a common

challenge identified in EE in ELT studies (e.g., Galvis Guerrero, 2011; Vosburg, 2017);

some students were disengaged and demotivated because they had low levels of

familiarity and interest in the target EE. I was surprised by this since I had promoted the

course to students as specific to Friends content. Yet I discovered my prospective student

pool was too small to find a single EE that applied to all the students who agreed to

participate in the course. While some of my Friends-fan students were expressing

satisfaction with the class activities, those with less familiarity were struggling to

participate fully.

After Class 3, I initiated the second iteration by closely analyzing recordings of

our class meetings to that point, along with teacher reflective journal entries, and student

reflective journal entries from Classes 1 to 3. To inform my iteration, I also revisited

literature that gave me insights about how EE should be a “springboard for students’

ideas and interests” (Curwood et al., 2013, p. 684; see also Lee, 2019b). Clydesdale’s

(2006) suggestion to use EE “as part of a pedagogy of exposure” (p. 10) rather than

heavily immerse it into an ELT course also helped me redesign things. Each of these

studies helped me understand I needed to use Friends as a starting point to help students
 113

develop constructive TV show engagement, which could serve all my students, regardless

of their familiarity with this particular show.

Connecting to the Theoretical Framework

With regard to how the theoretical framework informed my initial course design,

L2 WTC (e.g., Kang, 2005; MacIntyre et al., 1998) led me to carefully set up the

situational factors to directly enhance students’ L2 WTC. I believed that inviting students

who were interested in Friends was sufficient consideration of S, since the course could

be a space where students could interact with peers with “the same reference points and

interests” (Duff, 2003, p. 235) (interlocutors with mutual EE interest) by engaging in the

Friends-centered content they like and know well (being able to use intensive knowledge

of Friends). However, I inaccurately anticipated S, and the course began to malfunction.

To reset the situational factors, I first attended to the problems by changing the

type of knowledge students needed to participate in class activities. My first course

iteration focused on students using and enriching intensive knowledge about Friends. On

the other hand, the second iteration prioritized students’ extensive knowledge, inviting

students to flexibly use their EE knowledge about other popular media. In short, I

redesigned class activities and supportive materials so that students could discuss a target

theme/topic related to American culture and English language (extensive knowledge) by

bringing and sharing examples/references from their own EE (intensive knowledge).

Second Iteration (Classes 4-10)

This decision meant I needed to revisit the suitability of the class activities; I

decided to move away from Friends fandom activities in favor of using short highlight
 114

clips of Friends on YouTube. This meant that even if someone was not familiar with

Friends, they could watch such scenes and understand what was going on. I had used

such clips as a springboard to help students discuss aspects of American culture in my

previous ELP courses, and immediately created a list (Figure 12).

Figure 12

A Screenshot of Teacher Reflective Journal from Class 3

I selected three-to-five-minute clips, focusing on accessibility for people who

might be unfamiliar with the episode or characters. For example, in Class 6, I used a

video clip of Phoebe trying to call the customer service but never being able to reach

anyone. The clip could easily elicit students' relevant experiences (fruitlessly accessing

customer service in the U.S. or in their home countries) and expertise (connection to their

knowledge of similar scenes/situations from their respective favorite shows).

Example from Class 7

The seventh class meeting offers a good illustration of what this iteration looked

like. Our class activities were less Friends-specific and contained room for students to
 115

discuss relevant examples from other EEs. Table 11 shows an overview of this meeting

and is followed by a detailed description of the learning materials and class activities.

Table 11
Overview of Class 7

Consideratio
Details
n
Theme What Friends tell us in term of American culture

Topic What makes Friends funny? Understanding jokes in American TV shows

Focus Content focus: Students explore different types of jokes and humor in Friends
clips and other TV shows and discuss things to keep in mind when making
jokes.
Language focus: Students analyze the linguistic/non-linguistic features in
jokes in the Friends clips (e.g., tone of the voice, body languages)
Video clip(s) Monica Cheats on Rachel (02:38)
Will hates Rachel (04:37)
Ross plays the bagpipes (03:20)
Types of the Short highlight scenes from Friends
video
clip(s)
Supportive Background information that explains the situation (Full assignment in
materials Appendix J)
provided Questions to consider while watching the clips
as Transcripts of the clips with highlighted expressions
homework
Examples of What makes this scene funny? Did you get the humor behind it? What kind of
questions I humor is it?
asked in How are the show writers making people laugh in this scene?
class What is your overall impression of jokes in American TV shows?
What do you think of their English? Does it require perfect, well-structured
sentences to make a good joke?
What do we need to have a good sense of humor when we use English in the
US?
Class 7: Video Clips and Homework Assignments. In Class 7, the theme was

What makes Friends funny? Understanding jokes in American TV shows. The content

focus was on exploring different types of jokes and humor in the Friends clips and other
 116

TV shows, along with things English learners might keep in mind to make a joke

successful. The language focus was on analyzing the linguistic/non-linguistic features of

jokes in the Friends clips (e.g., tone of voice). I emailed students three video clips, as

indicated in Table 11, along with an accompanying Google Doc (Appendix J contains the

full homework assignment).

In the Google Doc, I asked students to watch the video clip and read the

background information to support their understanding of what happened in the clip. I

offered some questions to consider while watching the video clip, enabling them to

practice for these questions during synchronous sessions. I also offered transcripts for

each clip, with links to the full episode transcripts, if they wished to see the context of the

clip. Useful expressions in the clip were indicated in red (see Figure 13).

Figure 13

A Screenshot of Class 7 Homework Assignment

 117

Class 7: Class Activities. During our synchronous Zoom session, students

completed a warm-up question about their impression of jokes and humor in the US. In

breakout rooms, students had a five-minute free talk on the question. After that, I shared a

PPT screen with the content in Figure 14.

Figure 14

A Screenshot of PPT in Class 7

One student volunteered to read the situation. After that, different students

volunteered to read the transcript of the clip as a role-play (Figure 15).

Figure 15

Screenshot of PPT in Class 7

 118

As class proceeded, I occasionally asked students if anyone had questions about

the expressions and clarified confusing points. After reading the script, I asked the whole

class to discuss questions from their homework: What makes this scene funny? Did you

get the humor behind it? What kind of humor is it? How are the show writers making

people laugh in this scene?

This activity served two purposes. First, for students who were familiar with

Friends or were able to do the homework assignment, they activity reminded them of the

target scenes and language input. For students who did not do the homework assignment

or know much about Friends, this activity gave them enough background knowledge to

participate in the conversation.

In the second half of the class, I asked students questions that were not video

clips-specific and could be answered with examples from their own EE interests. In

breakout rooms, students took about ten minutes to discuss these questions: What do you

think of their English? Does it require perfect, well-structured sentences to make a good

joke? What do we need to have a good sense of humor when we use English in the U.S.?

After watching and studying these scenes, do you have any thoughts or ideas on why this

TV show has been so popular? And it is not just popular in the U.S. It has been popular

all over the world!!! With your partner, discuss why it has been so popular. These

questions were designed to evoke students’ attention to the importance of English

proficiency in making good jokes, along with the fundamental features of humor evident

in their examples.
 119

Percy’s example from this discussion was a good example of how this was

possible for students who were less familiar with Friends:

I think that this kind of TV shows are based on situations. That's why the name is

"sitcom." So basically, you are laughing because the character is doing something

that you make him to do, for instance, The Big Bang Theory. They are not making

many jokes, but they are just doing some stuff, that stuff they did is fun for us.

Not the joke. (Percy, Class 7, Class observation note)

Since the question required a broader and general knowledge of how jokes

function in American culture, Percy was able to use The Big Bang Theory to express his

ideas about jokes and humor. He also used his extensive knowledge on sitcoms by

pointing to situations where characters do funny things to make people laugh. Percy’s

response helped me recognize this second course iteration successfully lessened the EE

integration level in ways that helped all students develop their ways to constructively

engage with the TV shows, which was the focus of the course.

I also used the short highlight video clips to give students access to iconic and

well-known pop-culture moments that might help them make conversation in their

broader lives. I have experienced how these well-known scenes and punchlines could

help me break the ice or begin a conversation with someone. I viewed these clips as a

conversational resource for students, as I reflected in my reflection journal:

I realized that I am also focusing on super popular, iconic scenes and lines.

Something like "Oh. My. God" from Janice that everybody knows and

understands even if they do not watch the show. So, I have to choose the scenes
 120

that people can talk about when the topic Friends is on the table. That can be an

ice breaker, conversation starter, or conversation keeper. Something that I have

always found useful as an ELL. Something that (I hope) my students could find

useful. Hmm.. Like Will episode? (Class 7, Teacher reflective journal, July 20,

2020)

The Will hates Rachel clip was an episode where actor Brad Pitt appeared as a

cameo in season 8 episode 9 (favorite video, 2016). The plot was entertaining and

amusing, but what made that episode famous was Pitt playing a guy (Will) who hated

Rachel, portrayed by Jennifer Aniston. At the time this episode was filmed and aired,

Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston were husband and wife in real life. When Brad Pitt first

appeared in the studio where the episode was filming, the audience began to scream; this

moment became one of the most iconic scenes in Friends. From my personal experience,

it is a “most memorable moment” for fans of the show; I decided to include this scene in

Class 7.

These examples from Class 7 show how I made it easier for participants to engage

in the class activities in this second iteration, where S was considered in a way I intended.

Class activities previously centered around students’ extensive knowledge moved the

spotlight to culture-centered topics. Friends content became a starting point for topics

that invited students to bring their own EE examples. This meant students had

opportunities to interact with their classmates with mutual EE, because it helped students

talk about what they liked and knew well.

 121

Conclusion

This chapter discussed the design and iteration process of the Friends course by

offering specific examples of course structure and class activities illustrating the changes.

From my observation of the entire process, several things bear mentioning. I found it very

challenging to anticipate S in terms of knowing what they would bring, and I learned I

needed to meet and interact with my students in the first few class sessions in order to

know how to adjust the level of EE to accommodate their needs. As the teacher, my role

was critical for setting/adjusting the EE integration level appropriately. And I was able to

do this based on my own knowledge of Friends fandom and reflecting on what the

various class activities would require of students.

I contextualize these observations further in the next chapter, where I explain

more of what happened during the second iteration, which was where I established the

learning space this study and course set out to create.

 122

Chapter 6. Learner-driven Knowledge Construction through Increased Situational L2 WTC

This study explored the ways that the English language teaching (ELT) course I

designed created a space where language learners (ELLs) could engage with extramural

English (EE) activities. I designed the course using the three elements of P, S, and T: the

Potential of the target EE as language learning/teaching materials; Students’ familiarity

and interest in the target EE; and the Teacher’s familiarity with EE. I constructed this

course using the conceptual framework of willingness to communicate in second

language (L2 WTC) in order to understand what happened with regard to students’ L2

use. The particular room of the house where I focused could be likened to an office space,

where participants work, think, construct, and interact around ideas. I call this room and

the processes that take place in it knowledge construction, and I used the theory of

affinity space (AS) to describe the activities I saw taking place there. This chapter

encompasses my answer to the research question on how the course functioned to support

language learners. I focus on the learner-driven knowledge construction practices that

took place within the course. I view such practices as learner-driven because participants

took “an active role in which they propel[ed] their own learning” (Herranen et al., 2018,

p. 2). Using an AS lens enabled me to identify the various ways participants used, shared,

and constructed various types of knowledge within the course. Once I identified these

knowledge construction practices, I extended the conceptual framework to encompass the

L2 WTC lens to help me interpret how and why students used English within the course.

In short, the answer to my research question about how the course facilitated

students’ English use is evident in the ways students enthusiastically engaged in course
 123

activities to use English to share and use knowledge about their favorite TV shows. The

course supported students in feeling comfortable to use English because they could

communicate about topics they knew and loved. As I purposefully constructed the course

to include situational factors (such as the invitation for students to bring knowledge about

any TV show to share with peers who liked the same TV shows), these factors facilitated

the psychological conditions for students to speak in English.

I identified four situational factors that seemed to have a great deal of influence

on students’ willingness to communicate: 1) students’ intensive knowledge about the TV

shows; 2) class activities oriented to EE use; 3) interlocutors who shared a mutual EE

interest; and 4) EE with entertaining and fictional elements (in the form of TV shows).

These situational factors helped facilitate the psychological conditions supportive of

language learners to use a target language (Kang, 2015). In this study, I observed seven

psychological conditions resulting from the situations I created within the course: fan

excitement, fan connectedness, fan marketing, fan curiosity, fan interest, safety, and

helpfulness.

I turn now to detail these findings in the three major sections of this chapter,

which are centered around the main knowledge construction practices that took place

within the course. In each section, I discuss the psychological conditions and situational

factors that I observed within the practice and analyzed through the data I collected about

the practice.

The first section of this chapter shares how participants used knowledge of their

favorite TV shows either to participate in the class activities or to promote their TV

 124

shows to classmates. Such knowledge sharing indicates the existence of specialized

knowledge (Gee & Hayes, 2012), which took the form of students’ knowledge about

character profiles or storylines for particular TV shows. In the balance of this paper, I use

the term intensive EE knowledge use to describe these forms of knowledge and associated

practices. Analysis revealed several psychological conditions which both facilitated and

reinforced participants’ intensive EE knowledge use. First, participants felt excited when

their classmates used an example or reference from their favorite TV shows during class

activities (fan excitement). Second, participants felt connected when their interlocutors,

especially when I, as their teacher, shared a mutual interest in the same TV shows (fan

connectedness). Third, participants actively promoted their TV shows to their classmates

who showed interest (fan marketing). This portion of the findings illustrates how inviting

students’ EE can facilitate the active use of their knowledge through English.

In the second portion of this chapter, I share how students who were interested but

unfamiliar with the show Friends became inspired to gain new knowledge about it

outside of the course. When I offered short Friends clips during class activities, students

wanted to know more and sought out the context for these clips outside of class time.

This example indicates how participants sought dispersed EE knowledge (Gee & Hayes,

2012) in order to make sense of the clips. I term this phenomenon knowledge

enhancement outside of the Friends course. I identified two psychological conditions

within this practice. First, fan curiosity was evident as students used their own time to

seek out the full story of short clips shared during class. Second, I located a variation of

fan curiosity, which I named fan interest, which shows how participants’ affection for
 125

and interest in a TV show had a stronger influence on their language use than did their

familiarity with the TV show. This finding underscores the importance of inviting

students’ own EE into the course.

In the third section, I introduce how participants shared and acquired knowledge

that enabled them to engage more effectively with their favorite shows. In designing the

course, I intentionally constructed spaces where students could use English to facilitate

their constructive TV show engagement to access, analyze, and evaluate the messages in

the TV shows. By participating in the class activities, participants built extensive

knowledge (Gee & Hayes, 2012), also known as a general or broader knowledge, about

how to engage with TV shows in a way that could help them understand and enjoy the

shows better. This meant that by interacting with scenarios in their shows, students

effectively expanded their vocabulary and knowledge of cultural expressions, helping

them better access social and cultural norms in the U.S. Gaining these skills meant

students moved from simply consuming TV shows to a place of actively constructing

their knowledge. Some students took notes on new expressions and cultural references,

searched for clarifying information on fan sites, and critically analyzed the

appropriateness of cultural references, comparing their meaning at the time of show

airing to present day notions. I term this extensive knowledge building practice, meaning

that students changed the way they watched their favorite TV shows and began to take a

more active role in their viewing and thinking habits. I located two psychological

conditions that facilitated participants’ extensive knowledge building in constructive TV

show engagement, especially in a way that explore, evaluate, and analyze the meanings
 126

and messages in the show. First, participants felt safe to explore sensitive topics because

they emerged from fictional characters in TV shows (safety). Second, participants found

class activities helpful for their overall engagement with TV shows outside of the Friends

course (helpfulness).

Figure 16 offers a visual representation of how the findings are connected to each

other, showing the relationship between the psychological conditions and situational

factors that facilitated participants’ knowledge construction practices.

Figure 16

Organization of the Chapter

Within my discussion of each psychological condition, I use a construct illustrated

in Figure 17, which shows the relationship between the situational factors and

psychological conditions that appeared to support participants’ willingness to share

 127

knowledge through English. These ideas are derived from Kang’s (2005) L2 WTC study,

discussed in Chapter 3.

Figure 17

Construct of L2 WTC Observed in the Friends Course

From left to right, this illustration shows how and which of the four situational

factors in the Friends course (blue oval) generated psychological conditions (light blue

rectangle) that facilitated students’ willingness to communicate (gray triangle). Together,

these things supported students’ L2 use and knowledge sharing (yellow rectangle). There

were undoubtedly other situational factors that were co-constructing psychological

conditions alongside these findings that did not appear in my data. Yet this construct is

helpful for illustrating the complex process of L2 WTC in ways that may support other

educators working with language learners.

Intensive EE Knowledge Use

Within this course, students used their intensive knowledge about their favorite

TV shows to interact with others in English. These interactions generated feelings of

excitement (fan excitement), connectedness (fan connectedness), and the desire oriented

to shared experience (fan marketing).

 128

Characteristics of Intensive EE Knowledge

There were two key characteristics of intensive EE knowledge deserving

explanation: a) as participants shared their knowledge about TV shows, they increased

their competence with English, based on self-perceptions; b) participants’ affection for

their favorite TV show seemed to be a driving force for intensive EE knowledge use. I

identified these characteristics as being present apparent throughout the data; I offer a

focused explanation of each in the next section before discussing how these

characteristics were tightly interwoven with participants’ individual EE knowledge use.

Increase in Perceived English Competence

As participants talked about their favorite TV shows, they felt they increased their

English competence, specifically, increased ease with using English and a feeling that

their interlocutors understood them and responded appropriately. Since participants were

familiar with their respective TV shows, they felt at ease communicating about them.

Joey’s words illustrate this phenomenon:

It's easier when I know the topic because, um, that makes me speak faster and I

am more relaxed, you know? […] I think when you are enjoying, when you are

speaking about something you like, um, it's easier to, carry on and, and, keep

going. I think. (Interview)

For Joey, using English to share his individual EE knowledge influenced his

performance in speaking English. He reported that he could “speak faster” while feeling

“more relaxed.” In contrast, in the interview Joey had frequently expressed his feelings of

pressure in using English in other settings. For example, he constantly mentioned his
 129

focus on “los[ing] the fear” and building “more fluency.” He appreciated how in the

Friends course we did not “speak… about mistakes” in English but focused on the “best

way to express ideas” by using TV shows. For him, the Friends course was a “safe

space” where he could enjoy talking about his favorite TV shows and “buil[d] some

confidence” in his English skills (Interview).

In addition to feeling increased ease with communicating in L1, participants

appreciated when their interlocutors liked the same TV shows and could understand show

references well enough to keep a conversation going. During the course, five key TV

shows emerged as significant for participants besides Friends; these included The Office

(U.S. version), The Big Bang Theory, Game of Thrones, and The Umbrella Academy.

Figure 18 gives a visual representation of participants’ (white circle) familiarity with

multiple shows (gray circle), sharing connections across these shows.

 130

Figure 18
Overlapping EE Interest among Participants

Percy reported he felt it “easier” to speak English and share his knowledge

“without problem” when he could talk about his EE with interlocutors who also knew the

show:

Percy: I could share my knowledge about this TV show without problems,

because I knew that you, you knew about the TV show.

PI: Um-hmm.

Percy: So, it helps a lot to the communication. (Interview)

Percy’s excerpt suggests that interlocutors who shared a mutual EE were more likely to

understand what he was trying to say, thus Percy felt more competent communicating in
 131

English when his interlocutor understood him. Sam shared a similar experience when

describing an experience with Klaus:

The pitch, for, and speed, or word choice, or the background, 'why I choose the

word or expression.' Then your face change. Then I feel, 'ah, you understand,

include the background of the word, or what I said. No, not just what, like just

translation. […] When I discussed one separate classroom with Klaus, his facial

expression is kind of different from, uh, usual. […] And his face totally changed.

‘Oh’, his face said, ‘it’s easy to understand, man. More natural, man’, his face

says. (Interview)

Sam’s sharing his intensive EE knowledge strengthened his ability to speak in English;

he could speak faster because his partner had shared knowledge and could fill in the

blanks. He also named an increased ability to work with his interlocutor to choose more

appropriate words to share his knowledge. Sam attended to feedback from Klaus’ facial

expressions, indicating his English was easy and natural to understand. Thus participants

were able to use their intensive EE knowledge effectively with people sharing their EE

interest, which gave them increased confidence in speaking English.

Students’ Affection for the TV Shows

Talking about the TV shows they liked helped participants deeply engage in

conversations about them. Relatedly, I have used the term interest as a general, umbrella

term to signify students’ positive emotions towards EE. In the Friends course,

participants’ interest for their favorite TV show was indicative of their affection for their

favorite TV show. Their affection was crucial in their intensive EE knowledge use,
 132

because affection involved personal meaningfulness for participants. Participants got

excited to talk about what they cared about, and their affection enabled them to persevere

in deeply engaged conversation. When Rachel was talking about the TV shows/movies

that she “really like[d]” (e.g., Star Wars and The Big Bang Theory) with Percy who

shared mutual intensive EE knowledge, she was “so focused on the conversation”:

I think I talked with Percy about Star Wars, uh, about something, and Sheldon 4 t-

shirts, you know, well, this kind of things, I, I talked with Percy, I think in a

breakout room. So well yeah, for me, it's, it's the same when I am talking about

some TV show that I really like it … When you are, um when you are, uh,

without your mind, I don't know how can explain, um, you are so excited with

some topic, when you are talking, so you are so focused in this, in this

conversation. (Interview)

When Rachel was “excited” to talk about her EE, she was “so focused in the

conversation.” When she was so focused in the conversation that she felt “comfortable”

and “easy” to talk about EE in English, as she explains:

When you are really focused in, in some, because you are, um, you are in showing

this conversation, so the other things are outside your mind, I don't know. …

Because if I am comfortable with some topics, like TV shows, uh, maybe it's

easier for me to, to talk about this, to talk about this TV show, for example, or any

4
Sheldon Cooper is a character from the American TV show The Big Bang Theory.
 133

topic that uh, that makes me feel comfortable when you are, when I am speaking

or talking with somebody (Interview).

In Rachel’s excepts, her expressions saying, “without your mind” and “the other things

are outside your mind” are noteworthy, suggesting what was important for her at that

moment was talking about her EE rather than worrying about “other things” such as

getting the vocabulary or grammar correct.

Sometimes participants used intensive knowledge about TV shows for which they

had not expressed affection. For example, some participants had watched a TV show

before and used to like it but lost interest. Some participants watched a show just because

their spousse was watching it. Some participants were not interested in a show but knew

the show quite well because of their rich social/cultural knowledge about American

culture. In this case, participants may have had intensive EE knowledge but did not have

affection for the show. Such intensive EE knowledge did not seem to influence any

psychological conditions to facilitate English use. Therefore, I understand the the term

intensive EE knowledge to includes participants’ affection for EE.

Characteristics Combined

Together, these two characteristics of intensive EE knowledge use (increase in

self-perceived English competence and affection for EE) interacted together to facilitate

participants’ active sharing of their ideas in English. Because participants had high levels

of familiarity with the TV shows, it made it easier for them to share their intensive EE

knowledge. Additionally, their affection for the TV shows helped them to deeply engage

in conversations, to the extent that they could get into the flow of using another language,
 134

rather than worrying about conventions. Percy’s words indicate how these characteristics

interacted to make speaking English easier:

I think it's easier when, when you like something, and you are trying to explain it

to some other people. I think you, you feel good, it's easier for you because you

are familiarized with that topic. So, I think it helps you to, to improve your ideas

or I don't know, it's easier for you to share your ideas. (Interview)

Similarly, when using intensive EE knowledge, Sam felt he was having a

conversation “in a deep and correct way”:

So, if I say, when I say something, they, you get excited, 'oh, I know the

situation!' 'I love it!', I feel my, the word just I said, uh, is uh, if you change the

face, you get excited, like you, 'oh, you understand what I want, I wanna say, in

really deep, correct way.' So, I feel, not just word-to-word communication.

(Interview)

And when Sam perceived an increase in his English competence and ability to

communicate more deeply, such experiences made him “want to speak more:”

I feel I want to talk more, like, or because talk to the person, the person, I feel,

um, interested. I feel excited. I can enjoy talking to the person. So, it facilitates to

talk in English. (Interview)

From an L2 WTC perspective, both characteristics suggest that participants

experienced decreased language anxiety, although they did not make specific reports of

this. L2 WTC researchers claim that language competence and language anxiety act in an

inverse relationship: the higher one’s language competence climbs, the lower their
 135

anxiety tends to be, resulting in an increase of L2 WTC (Mystkowska-Wiertelak &

Pawlak, 2017). The findings of this study support these ideas. Additionally, participants’

affection for EE helped them focus on the conversations, deepening their experience of

communicating in English.

In sum, when participants were using English to share their intensive EE

knowledge, these two characteristics appearted to interact simultaneously. The term

intensive EE knowledge thus seemed to became a situational factor that facilitated

particular psychological conditions in support of participants’ learning.

Fan Excitement

The first psychological condition I located in participants’ intensive EE

knowledge use was a feeling of excitement when participants encountered examples and

references from their favorite TV shows during class activities. When excited,

participants were more willing to share their intensive EE knowledge in English.

I term this phenomenon fan excitement because participants’ affection for EE led

to their excitement. When participants were familiar with the references but were not

interested in them, they did not usually get excited. For example, not-Friends fans Klaus

and Percy were familiar with certain Friends clips I used during class and had rich

knowledge of American pop culture. They occasionally displayed their knowledge of

certain Friends clips, but they did not show signs of excitement. This finding suggests,

from an L2 WTC perspective, that participants’ affection and interest for EE can be a

stronger factor than their familiarity, to facilitate L2 WTC.

 136

Altogether, the lass activities, students, and intensive EE knowledge facilitated

the emergence of fan excitement for some participants. In turn, fan excitement facilitated

some participants’ willingness to use and share their knowledge in English. Figure 19

shows the construct of fan excitement in this study.

Figure 19
Construct of Fan Excitement

In the next section, I briefly discuss how each factor influenced the emergence of

fan excitement before presenting what fan excitement looked like and describing how it

facilitated intensive EE knowledge-sharing during the course.

Influence of Class Activities, Interlocutors, and Intensive EE Knowledge on Fan

Excitement

Class activities seemed to facilitate fan excitement about the show Friends in part

because I built them around short clips several weeks into the course, as described in

Chapter 5. I also readjusted class activities to use references from various TV shows,
 137

such as from The Big Bang Theory during Class 6. When participants encountered

examples from their TV shows, they showed signs of excitement. Classroom activities

created the context for the interaction of the other two situational factors (interlocutors

and intensive EE knowledge).

When participants used references from various TV shows, eliciting fan

excitement, I observed unequal levels of excitement between participants. Sometimes a

brief mention of a TV show was enough to trigger a student’s excitement, even if

someone mentioned the show for a negative reason. Fans were still excited when their

TV show entered the conversation. They also participated more readily to share their

intensive EE knowledge and keep the conversation going. This was a particular feature of

participants regarding fan excitement. In other psychological conditions, students only

influenced the condition when participants shared mutual interest in a particular TV

show. However, in this condition, interlocutors prompted fan excitement, regardless of

whether or not they shared an appreciation for the show.

Fan Excitement and Sharing Knowledge in English

Participants showed both verbal and non-verbal signs of fan excitement. Some

participants showed vivid signs of fan excitement to Friends references, such as Rachel

uttering “YES!” in a high-pitched tone with a big smile, laughter, and nodding head.

Sometimes she also pointed to the camera, enthusiastically shaking her finger to show her

excitement.

During Class 7, we worked with a video clip, "Monica cheats on Rachelc” (see

Appendix A) to deconstruct what made the scene funny. In the scene Rachelc caught
 138

Monica secretly having lunch with her brother’s new girlfriend even though Monica

knew Rachelc had feelings for Monica’s brother. The scene paralleled a different and

common scenario; their conversation sounded like a couple fighting because one cheated

on the other. As I shared a screenshot of the dialogue for this scene in the PowerPoint,

Rachel immediately began smiling, laughing, and saying, “Oh, I love!” Noticing Rachel’s

excitement, I asked Rachel to read Monica’s lines and Percy to read Rachel c’s. After they

began to read the dialogue, I commented on how Rachel mimicked the exact tone of

Monica’s voice in the scene. The excerpt of this exchange is in Table 12.

Table 12
Rachel Mimicking the Tone of Monica in Class 7

Turn Speaker Excerpts

1 Teacher See? Rachel already saw this episode maybe many times.
(PI)
2 Rachel (Laughter, nodding her head) Yes!

3 Teacher So, she knows how the actress acted that way. I could see the resemble, it
(PI) sounds so similar. (Laughter)
4 Rachel (Laughter with a big smile) Yeah, I really love!

Rachel’s fan excitement evoked her knowledge about the scene in this moment in class,

through mimicry. Her imitation of Monica demonstrated “nonverbal commentary on

pragmatic language use, such as expressing surprise, dismay, glee, or other feelings”

(Washburn, 2001, p. 23). Later in the class, Percy pointed out that Rachel’s voice and

tone helped her classmates understand how “Monica really cheat on Rachelc”, and “they

had a relationship, and she was meeting another man or something" (Percy, Class 7, Class

observation note). Thus Rachel helped the class understand why the scene was funny.
 139

Students who had not seen the video clips in advance may have otherwise found it

challenging to understand the humor.

In addition to expressions of fan excitement, participants also gave indications of

wanting to extend conversations about their EE. For example, in Class 10, Rachel, Joey,

and I were in a Zoom breakout room discussing strategies to productively engage with

TV shows. When Rachel began to share her experience of feeling isolated when she was

the only person in the conversation who had not watched the show Game of Thrones,

Joey, a Game of Thrones fan immediately showed signs of interest, as Table 13 shows:

Table 13

Joey Showing His Excitement with Game of Thrones in Class 10

Turn Speaker Datum

1 Rachel I didn’t see Game of Thrones.

2 Joey Joey: Oh!! Oh, oh, oh!!! (Excited with a big smile, widely swing
his body front and back, then sits close to the monitor)
3 Rachel Yes, I know. I know. (Raising both hands gesturing to calm down
while smiling and nodding) Everyone tells me, ‘How?!!!’

In turn 2, Joey demonstrated both verbal cues (saying “oh!” multiple times in a high-

pitched voice) and non-verbal cues (moving his body and sitting closer to the monitor)

indicating his excitement about Rachel referencing his EE. Rachel seemed to expect

Joey’s excitement since she immediately smiled and nodded as if she understood his

feelings and gestured for him to calm down in Turn 3. Joey followed her gesture and

quietly listened to her until she said how her friends complained about the show’s ending.

Joey reacted by closing his eyes with a clenched jaw and nodding in agreement with
 140

Rachel’s assessment of the show’s conclusion. After this breakout discussion, when we

reentered the main room, Joey immediately brought up the controversial ending of Game

of Thrones:

I, it was a lot of social media behind pushing, so I understand what happened. But

I am a little bit angry because the writer is still behind the script of the last season.

So it was, it was the first time I think in the history that the, the adaptation of on

TV was farther than the, you know, the writing novel. And it was, it’s like, ‘this is

not happening in the books! This is not! Oh, it cannot be!’ like, you know? (Joey,

Class 10 Observation)

In this example, Joey’s words also signal fan excitement. He patiently waited until

Rachel was done and maintained his desire to say something even after we had

transitioned back to the main classroom space. Once he had opportunity, he shared his

opinions and knowledge of the show. Joey’s example also shows how an interlocutor

who does not share mutual interest in the show (Rachel) could trigger fan excitement

with such a simple statement as, “I didn’t see the Game of Thrones.”

Thus class activities provided the context for participants to initiate and

demonstrate fan excitement. These examples indicate how fan excitement led participants

to share their intensive EE knowledge in English. On many other occasions, participants

showed similar verbal and nonverbal cues regarding their willingness to share their

intensive EE knowledge, but involving different situational factors and psychological

conditions. Therefore, I distinguished these as fan connectedness and fan marketing,

which I discuss next.

 141

Fan Connectedness

Participants seemed to feel connected when they talked to others who liked the

same TV shows. I named this condition fan connectedness to capture the ways

participants identified this quality of feeling in the post-term interviews, as opposed to me

observing it in the verbal and non-verbal cues that indicated fan excitement. While

related, fan connectedness requires speakers to share a mutual EE interest. Figure 20

shows a visual representation of this idea. Class activities, interlocutors, and participants’

intensive EE knowledge influenced fan connectedness that led to the contribution of

intenstive EE knowledge.

Figure 20

Construct of Fan Connectedness

Influence of Class Activities, Interlocutors, and Intensive Knowledge on Fan

Connectedness
 142

Class activities fostered fan connectedness by inviting participants to share their

EE and inviting participants to interact with others who liked the same TV shows. Fan

connectedness only occurred within interactions where both people shared an interest.

When participants identified and expanded on this shared interest, they exchanged

reactions affirming each other’s knowledge (e.g., me recognizing and reacting to

Rachel’s mimicking of Monica’s tone). When participants talked about their EE, and

their interlocutors reacted sympathetically, participants seemed to feel a strong sense of

connectedness. In addition, some participants appeared to feel especially connected when

the teacher shared a mutual EE interest with them.

Fan Connectedness and Sharing Knowledge in English

The Friends course aimed to generate positive emotions in a context where people

with mutual EE interest could interact together, as other studies of fan communities have

reported. (e.g., Despain, 2020). This proved to be the case for our class, also, as

exemplified in Joey’s claim that interacting with interlocutors around a mutual EE felt

like:

one of the easiest and straightforward ways to connect … because, um, if you

know, if you meet another people that actually likes the same TV show, it's funny

just remember together, some, some, um, jokes or you know? (Interview)

Participants reported experiencing positive feelings such as a sense of connectedness

when they shared jokes and references with another who shared their mutual EE. It

seemed participants had increased feelings that their intensive EE knowledge was

welcome and appreciated when they knew the teacher was also familiar with the TV
 143

show. During interviews, participants shared multiple such moments; one example was

when Rachel expressed that my recognizing her Friends references made her feel

“connected,”

It was awesome for me. It was, uh, great because I feel that we were connect, you

know. […] I am really, I always, yes, I am really, uh you know, happy and, and

you understand me, exciting. […] I am a crazy fan like that with Friends, um, but

it was, uh, great for me because I, I yes, I, I, I felt that we were connect,

connecting or connect, and (PI: 'connected'.) in the course, connected. (Interview)

Fan connectedness generated emotions she expressed as “awesome,” “great,” and

“happy.” I view Rachel’s experience of fan connectedness as reliant upon all three

situational factors. The class activity created a space where Rachel could use her

intensive Friends knowledge of how Monica acted in the target scene. She was excited

when I as the teacher became the interlocutor who reacted to and appreciated the way she

used her intensive EE knowledge to resemble Monica’s tone.

The influence of a teacher as an interlocutor to facilitate fan connectedness also

occurred during a breakout session during Class 7. Sam asked Percy if Percy could

recommend any TV show for him (Table 14). Percy brought up the American TV show
 144

The Office. As a person who enjoyed watching the British 5 version of The Office, I asked

him if he was talking about the American version or the British version of the show:

Table 14
Excerpts from Class 7 on Percy Recommending The Office to Sam

Speaker Excerpts
1 Sam What about you? What do you recommend?

2 Percy Well now I am watching series The Office and for me I think it’s really
good and really, really, funny. I am in the season number 7, it’s really
good.
3 Sam I will check that. (Takes notes).
4 Teacher (PI) (Suddenly joins the conversation) Sorry Percy, Season 7 of Friends?
5 Percy No, no, no. I said The Office.
6 Teacher (PI) Oh, which one? (excited) American one or British one?
7 Percy The American one.
8 Teacher (PI) Oh, okay. I only watched the British version.
9 Percy I started with the American one and it’s really funny (with emphasis) I
heard the American version is better.
10 Teacher (PI) Really? I should check. Sorry I jumped in! (Gestures to zip her mouth)
11 Percy Yes, I recommend you to watch that series if you have free time.
12 Sam (Takes notes again) Okay. Great.
13 Percy Any chapter is basically 20 minutes so you can watch it when you are
eating or doing something.
14 Sam Okay. It’s on Netflix. (Takes notes)

5
The Office is a mocumentary sitcom that was originally aired by The British Broadcasting

Corporation (BBC) from 2001 to 2003. Then there was an U.S.- adapted version of the show that

was aired by America’s National Broadcasting Company (NBC) from 2005 to 2013 (Reuters,

2013).
 145

In Turn 4, I thought Percy said he was watching the 7th season of Friends and

wanted to confirm if he was really watching Friends when he had clearly stated that he

was not a fan. When Percy said he was watching the American version, I apologized for

interrupting the conversation (“Sorry, I jumped in!”) in Turn 10. However, Percy did not

consider it an interruption. A few weeks later, during his interview with me, he expressed

appreciation for this exchange, saying it made him happy that the teacher knew details

about the Office:

When I was talking about, uh, The Office in the [class], I remember that you, you

told me that, you asked me 'the British or American version?. So, I am pretty sure

that no, not many people know about the fact that there are two different versions.

So, for instance, you knowing that helped me a lot to, to put more information in

the table about The Office, because I know that you are aware that what happens

in this TV show. So […] it helps a lot. So, it gives me more confidence to, to talk

about this and knowing that you can answer, or I don't know. (skip) When you, I

would say that I felt uh, happy. I felt that I was listened by you. (Interview)

Percy felt that he was “listened [to] by” the teacher and gained confidence to

share his EE when the teacher expressed her knowledge of and excitement for his EE. As

mentioned, one of the differentiating factors between fan excitement and fan

connectedness is that fan connectedness required participants and interlocutor to share a

mutual interest in the EE. In the excerpt above, Percy perceived me as an interlocutor

with a mutual EE, even though I had not seen the American version of The Office. For

him, the teacher’s intensive EE knowledge of The Office from watching the British
 146

version counted as sufficient mutual EE interest. When Percy thought the teacher

revealed deeper-than-surface-level knowledge about the show, he considered the teacher

to be a fan. He knew that I would be somewhat “aware of what happens in The Office”

due to the connections between the two versions.

From this moment in the class, Percy began to use more TV show examples. In

Class 8, he named his fandom for the Umbrella Academy for the first time. Before then,

he only talked about it during the informal moments before class session officially

started. In Class 9, he used Umbrella Academy and The Big Bang Theory. In Class 10, he

named Sherlock Holmes. For Percy, feeling connected to me, as the teacher, appeared to

inspire him to speak more English and bring more intensive EE knowledge.

Regarding this point on how Rachel and Percy emphasized the helpfulness of my

knowing their EE, it is important to understand that L2 WTC says that ELLs tend to have

high L2 WTC when their interlocutor has a higher level of L2 proficiency then they do

(e.g., MacIntyre et al., 1998). This suggests their increased L2 WTC may have happened

because their teacher was their interlocutor, a person who they perceive to have higher

English proficiency. It could have also resulted from a cultural construct that attributes

authoritative power to teachers; I do not have data to identify a clear explanation. What is

clear in this construct of fan connectedness was that a teacher sharing mutual EE evoked

a sense of connectedness that appeared to facilitate Percy and Rachel’s L2 WTC. More

studies are needed to explore this; I come back to this issue in Chapter 7.
 147

Fan Marketing

The third and final psychological condition I located in participants’ intensive EE

knowledge use was fan marketing, or a desire to promote a TV show to their classmates.

Sometimes students showed interest in certain TV shows and began to query classmates

who were familiar with them. All participants who were asked about their shows were

more than willing to share their intensive EE knowledge and tried to convince others to

watch the show. This effort to persuade others was different from fan excitement or fan

connectedness because it was directed to a particular purpose. Fan marketing emerged

from two situational factors: intensive EE knowledge and interlocutors. Figure 21 shows

the construct of fan marketing:

Figure 21
Construction of Fan Marketing

Influence of Class Activities, Interlocutors, and Intensive EE Knowledge

Class activities and particularly breakout sessions were sites of fan marketing. As

the term went by, students brought increasing amounts of intensive knowledge about

their favorite TV shows to participate more effectively in class activities. References to

 148

TV shows like The Office, The Big Bang Theory, Game of Thrones, and The Umbrella

Academy appeared multiple times alongside Friends throughout the course, and students

began to accumulate knowledge and familiarity with those shows. For example, Sam had

never heard of Umbrella Academy or The Office until he heard about them from his

classmates. By the end of the term, he had an increased level of familiarity with these

shows (e.g., learning from Percy that the Office is available on Netflix, an online

streaming service). Such accumulation of EE familiarity could explain why fan marketing

appeared most prominently in the last class session (Class 10).

As previously noted, participants sharing an EE interest with others was a critical

factor for fan marketing, whether they had just begun to watch a show or had never

watched a show but were interested in it. Their interest created an opportunity for masters

of these shows to share what they knew.

Fan marketing appeared among participants who had high levels of intensive EE

knowledge about their TV shows. Those masters knew the selling points for these shows

and selectively shared the most appealing aspects. Masters also prepared their classmates

for potential challenges they might encounter to inspire them to keep watching. Again,

affection for EE played a critical role; students’ enthusiasm led them to try and convince

others would have same enjoyable, entertaining experience.

Fan Marketing and Sharing Knowledge in English

A particular sign of participants’ increased L2 WTC was concurrent utterances, or

overlapping speech (e.g., Hilton, 2016) as they engaged in fan marketing. Some

researchers view concurrent utterances as a sign of engagement with what is being said
 149

(e.g., Hilton, 2016). Overall, concurrent speech was not common in the Friends course; it

occurred occasionally in small spurts. In many cases, concurrent speech seemed to be a

matter of unfortunate timing with Zoom technology. Zoom made it challenging for

students to read non-verbal cues to anticipate whether their classmates were about to

speak. When more than one person spoke at the same time, participants usually paused

and yielded their turn with apologies.

However, on two occasions during Class 10 I observed concurrent speech patterns

happen and persist. Both occasions constituted fan marketing by students whose strong

desire to convince others to watch their show seemed to be expressed through multiple

concurrent utterances. The first was when Rachel asked if The Umbrella Academy was a

good show to watch, and three students (Joey, Percy, and Klaus) were eager to share their

intensive EE knowledge. Table 15 offers the exchanges among these speakers to show

the concurrent speech. I color-coded each participant to visually represent how many

people were trying to speak at the same moment. The size of each color block represents

the number of words in the participant’s utterance during each turn.

 150

Table 15
Visualization of Conversation on Umbrella Academy from Class 10

Turn Utterances Speaker(s) Excerpt (Marked with “” if only taking a part of excerpt6)
1 Teacher After watching Umbrella Academy first episode of season
(PI) one, you can call your friend like, ‘Percy! thank you for
your suggestion. I, I'm, I'm really enjoying this TV show!’

2 Rachel “Sorry, is it, it's a really good TV show? Because I, I just

know about this, uh, yesterday. I, I saw in the screen, you
know, and I have to, to start a new TV show and I don't
know”
3 PI & Percy PI: So
Percy: Yeah (rubbing hands, moving his torso front and
back & Klaus began to smirk)
PI: I can, I can see Percy
Percy: Actually
PI: is ready to speak. Percy, go.

4 Percy Percy: If you like, if you like Heroes…

5 Rachel, Oh, no no no, I don’t like Heroes. (Percy: Well then..)

Percy, (Klaus: Well,) But [Rachel’s husband] is saying, uh, ‘Yes,
& Klaus it's really good.’ Okay, no, no, but I don't like Heroes so
(Klaus: Haha, yeah.)

6 Klaus, Klaus: Yeah. You like people with superpowers (Rachel: Oh

Rachel, no no no no no) (Joey: Oh)
Joey

7 Teacher But I watched the quick review video and it's not like
(PI) Marvel or DC comics.

6
Appendix K provides the full transcripts of the conversation in Table 10.
 151

8 Rachel, (Joey: Yeah) I was thinking about like adventures it's not
Klaus,& like this (Joey: No./Klaus: Not.) Well, Well maybe.
Joey

9 Joey There are, there are actually people with supernatural skills
that actually have to face them as a normal people with
their normal struggles so it's half and half is there is like a
story about the superpowers and all what what's
happening and also there is like a drama (Rachel: Ah!) we
have all the all the how you manage in a normal life you
know because you cannot be like a superhero 24 hours
(Rachel: Ahh.) and integrate in the rest of the society as
well.
10 Rachel You are convinced me, convince me? Is like… convinced,
okay. Maybe I can try, I can try.

In this conversation, I was talking to the class about how Tony reported he began to

watch The Umbrella Academy because Percy mentioned the show multiple times during

the course (Turn 1). Then Rachel suddenly asked whether The Umbrella Academy was a

good TV show to watch (Turn 2). Immediately, I noticed Percy was showing clear signs

of wanting to speak (Turn 3). While I was in the middle of speaking, Percy interrupted; I

yielded my turn.

Percy initially tried to ask Rachel’s personal preference by referencing a similar

example from another American TV show Heroes in Turn 4. But Rachel immediately

replied that she did not like that TV show. In Turns 5, 6, and 8, The Umbrella Academy
 152

masters tried to identify what Rachel liked and what might appeal to her. Their attempts

created multiple concurrent utterances. When it became apparent that Rachel did not like

any TV shows with superheroes, Joey named a different side of the show to appeal to

Rachel’s preferences (Turn 9) by saying:

There are, there are actually people with supernatural skills that actually have to

face them as a normal people with their normal struggles so it's half and half is

there is like a story about the superpowers and all what what's happening and also

there is like a drama (Rachel: Ah!) we have all the, all the, how you manage in a

normal life you know because you cannot be like a superhero 24 hours (Rachel:

Ahh.) and integrate in the rest of the society as well. (Joey, Class 10)

Joey brought up the “normal people, normal struggles, and normal life” side of the show

to help her understand a more holistic picture of the show; he presented this EE

knowledge in a way that was ultimately appealing to Rachel, who said she might give the

show a try (Turn 10). Although not every master of The Umbrella Academy had the

opportunity to contribute their EE knowledge as Joey did in this interaction, the

concurrent speech patterns indicated they were eager to do so if they had opportunity.

The second occasion of fan marketing relevant to this discussion suggested a

similar concurrent speech pattern. Yet, this case shows how the teacher switched the roles

from a teacher to one of the passionate interlocutors who were eager to promote the TV

show. In a breakout session from Class 10, Joey and Sarah were working on a course

wrap-up question about their summer plan. I was in the same room because I usually

moved between breakout room sessions to ensure everything was fine. I rarely
 153

interrupted students’ conversations. However, I interrupted the conversation when Sarah

mentioned Friends (Table 16):

Table 16

Summer Plan Conversation in Class 10

Turn Speaker Excerpt (Marked with “” if only taking a part of excerpt7)

1 Sarah In my case, I, I would like to study more English. I want to see more
episodes of Friends.
2 Joey & Joey: Oh! that’s the plan! / PI: Wooooooo!
Teacher
(PI)
3 Teacher Any, any favorite seasons? Like, I personally love season three, four,
(PI) five. What about you?
4 Sarah I would like to see, uh, the second season because I just see one, the
first season. And then I really uh, because I hear, uh, that you really
enjoy it and I wanted, and I want to see all the seasons and then see
and then understand why you said a lot of things about that.
5 Joey & Joey: Yeah, yeah. / PI: “there's one thing I would like you to know.”
Teacher I'm not sure if Joey agrees with me or not, but for me, Friends season
(PI) one and two? (Joey: Um-hmm) I think the characters are still
developing.”
6 Joey “Yes. Also, I don't think by the first season and second season, they
could imagine they were gonna be like having sensation, you know?
I don't think they, I, I think they just were casting like a comedy and
see it's, ‘Let's see what's happening!’”
7 Teacher Yes, yes.
(PI)
8 Joey People is really, really like a TV show, everybody wants to be there you
know.
9 Sarah Oh!

7
You can find the full transcripts of the conversation in Table 16 in Appendix L.
 154

10 Teacher “So many people that, there are some people give up after watching
(PI) season one […] I think later the season goes, […] it really becomes
good English learning material. (Joey: Um-hmm)”
11 PI & Joey PI: Okay. & Joey: And they also, oh I'm sorry.
12 PI Yes, yes. (Gesturing Joey to go ahead)
13 Joey “And also, they have internal and recurring jokes and plots (PI: Um-
hmm). You can, ‘Oh! Ah! Yes! We are on a break!’ (PI: Yes!) Yes.”
14 Teacher So be patient until you go to the later season because the show gets
(PI) much, much better.
15 Sarah Okay, okay. I will pat, I will be patient. Yes. But that's the thing that I
really want, too.

When Sarah said her summer plan was to watch Friends, two big Friends fans

immediately reacted. I knew Sarah had only begun to watch the first season, but I

intentionally named later seasons to help her know the show got even better after Season

3. In Turn 5, both Joey and I began to speak, but I dominated the turn again. As soon as I

was done, Joey immediately elaborated on my point by saying how the show was still in

the developmental stage in the first two seasons. In Turn 10, I explained that the jokes

and dialogue in earlier seasons might be harder to understand since they tend to speak

longer and explain things in more detail due to the lack of character development. I then

said the show “really becomes good English learning material” once it reaches Season 3.

I intentionally said this because earlier in the course, Sarah expressed how much value

she put on studying English and improving her skills even when watching TV shows. In

Turn 11, Joey was eager to share more information with Sarah that he spoke concurrently

with me. I immediately stopped and gestured for Joey to continue by spreading my hands

towards the camera.

 155

In this example, there was less concurrent speech happening compared to the first

example, but it offers insights into how a teacher can immediately switch her role as a

passionate Friends fan who were ready to share her knowledge. Although Sarah already

had a high level of interest in Friends, Joey and I fan marketed to prepare her for a

potential obstacle that might interfere with her willingness to persevere with the show.

This shows the strong power of fan marketing in L2 WTC.

One possible explanation on why masters indicate strong marketing tendencies

and increased L2 WTC is a sense of control (MacIntyre et al., 1998). As a reminder,

control in L2 WTC is a motive within "any task-related situation where interlocutors seek

to influence each other's behavior" (MacIntyre et al., 1998, p. 549). In the first example,

Joey, Klaus, and Percy all explored Rachel’s interest to identify what aspects of their

intensive knowledge might influence her to start watching Umbrella Academy. In the

second example, Joey and I tried to influence Sarah to continue to watch Friends by

giving her a preview of what would come in the upcoming seasons. MacIntyre et al.

(1998) also claim that control is “often established by using discourse characterized by a

certain degree of sophistication” and “is achieved via powerful speech: by delivering an

explicit message, worded with precision and targeted to a particular recipient” (p. 549). In

both examples, the TV show masters selected precise and targeted knowledge that would

appeal to their interlocutors. They could do so because of their intensive knowledge and

affection for their TV shows.

I have so far introduced the first type of knowledge construction practices in the

Friends course that evolved around participants’ direct contribution of intensive EE

 156

knowledge. This section explored how class activities, interlocutors, and participants’

intensive knowledge interacted together to elicit particular psychological conditions (fan

excitement, fan connectedness, and fan marketing) that were propelled by participants’

affection for EE. I turn now to the second type of knowledge construction practices: how

participants explored and enhanced their knowledge outside of the course.

Knowledge Enhancement Outside of the Friends Course

Some students chose to enhance their intensive knowledge about their favorite TV

shows outside of the Friends course, which was significant because it suggested that a

low level of intensive knowledge stimulated students’ L2 use when combined with a high

level of interest.

This is somewhat contradictory to L2 WTC perspectives, which suggest that when

people are asked to talk about something with which they have limited familiarity, their

L2 WTC decreases. My explanation of this finding illustrates how such suggestion fomr

L2 WTC may not always be the case. I identified this second type of knowledge

construction practice based on my observations of two new-Friends-fans, Sam, and

Sarah. As new fans, they had a high level of interest and affection for Friends but

relatively low familiarity with it since both of them had only seen the first season(s).

Short clips from Friends in the class activities triggered their feelings of what I call fan

curiosity, which motivated them to seek more information outside of class in order to

better understand the context of these clips. Fan curiousity is exemplified in Sarah’s

choice to use and enhance her emergent Friends knowledge throughout the class, rather

than rely on her intensive knowledge about other TV shows. Thus she chose her EE
 157

interest (fan interest) over her EE familiarity; her choice was meaningful from an L2

WTC perspective since it shows that, in Sarah’s case, interest and affection overpowered

familiarity to facilitate L2 WTC.

While the Friends course facilitated Sam and Sarah’s knowledge enhancement

practices, they enacted those practices outside the course. This means their psychological

conditions of fan excitement and curiosity moved beyond increased English use during

the course. MacIntyre et al. (1998) claim that the ultimate outcome of increased L2 WTC

is individual’s L2 use (or communication behavior), and such L2 use should be

considered in a broad sense that includes “such activities as speaking up in class, reading

L2 newspapers, watching L2 television, or utilizing a L2 on the job” (p. 547). This

perspective supports the view that Sam and Sarah’s knowledge enhancement practices

outside of class constituted L2 use.

Unlike intensive EE knowledge use that I could observe within class observations

and interviews, I came to know of Sam and Sarah’s knowledge enhancement practices

from what they described in their interviews. As a result, I identified some situational

factors that facilitated their fan curiosity but lack data to understand all they did to

enhance their EE knowledge outside of the course.

Fan Curiosity

Sam and Sarah’s strong curiosity about Friends was based on their affection for

this show. This curiosity constituted a psychological condition that supported their EE

knowledge enhancement. As they engaged with Friends clips during class, they realized

they did not have much knowledge about the show, which led them to expand their
 158

intensive knowledge of Friends; as Sarah said, “you want to see, 'oh I need to see the

whole episode. I need to see what happens with that!' (Interview). Sam shared a similar

thought that the short clips “motivated [him] to keep watching, keep learning English.”

(Sam, Interview, August 8, 2020). Their statements point to the way class activities

served as a catalyst for further L2 use. It also demonstrates the other situational factor of

intensive EE knowledge; watching the clips helped them identify how much they did not

know about the show, inspiring them to research further. Together, these situational

factors created a psychological condition that I named fan curiosity. Figure 22 contains

the visual construct of fan curiosity.

Figure 22

Construct of Fan Curiosity

Influence of Class Activities and Intensive EE Knowledge

Predictably, the clips used in class activities only provided fragments of

information. The clips worked like a teaser and evoked Sarah and Sam’s curiosity on

what happened in the full story of the short video clips from the episodes/seasons they

had not yet watched. Although Sam and Sarah had low levels of intensive Friends
 159

knowledge, their affection for the show was high. They wanted to know what was going

on with their beloved characters and make sense of the clips in context.

Fan Curiosity and Enhancing EE Knowledge

Sam reported that not really knowing the full story of Friends motivated him to

search for full episodes on YouTube:

You send one short clip like three-minutes one, and if I feel uh, 'I, I don't know

the, what they say or what they mean', then I watch the full version, kind of a full

version or longer version of YouTube. (Interview)

Sam found a fan-made website for Friends with full transcripts, English-to-Japanese

translations, and explanations on expressions, idioms, and cultural references from

various episodes. Sarah also reported how watching only short clips motivated her to

“find a webpage” and watch the whole episode of the short clips to be able to say, “okay,

next episode” ' (Interview). The way each of them sought additional knowledge from fan

communities is an example of seeking dispersed knowledge (Gee & Hayes, 2012); all of

this took place outside the course and was not a requirement for success within the class.

I considered the possibility that Sam and Sarah felt had to seek more information

because the video clips did not provide enough information for them to understand what

was going on and may have been insufficient for them to bring their intensive EE

knowledge. However, not-Friends-fans (Klaus and Percy) reported that the short clips

provided them with enough information to understand what was happening and

comprehend the joke or cultural reference “even for a person who didn’t know at all

about Friends” (Percy, Interview). Given that the short clips were comprehensible
 160

enough for not-fans, this suggests the clips enabled all students to participate in the class

activities regardless of their familiarity with Friends. It appeared Sam and Sarah sought

additional knowledge on the Internet because their curiosity led them to want to know

more.

Chain Reaction for More Fan Curiosity

Not only participants’ curiosity lead them to build their intensive knowledge, it

also seemed to generate additional research and knowledge-seeking behavior. Sam and

Sarah both reported seeking out collective clips (compilation or mashup videos) of

Friends episodes on YouTube as their knowledge and familiarity on Friends grew. Sam

said he enjoyed how the compilation videos provided him with a general "before and

after story" about the series (Interview). The more they got to know about the series and

characters through their knowledge enhancement practices, the more interest they had, as

Sarah recounted:

Now I know more the characters and then I, I, and then I was interesting to follow

and then also I look in my computer some episodes, like the, the top, uh, of the

best moments in the series. (Sarah, Interview, August 4, 2020)

These YouTube videos such as “the best moments from Friends” created a chain reaction

for further and deeper explorations of the show. Sometimes the compilation clips led

them to seek out a “full episode for the clip or full transcripts on the Internet” (Sam,

personal communication, February 3, 2021). Sam gained new Friends knowledge from

this research, and he brought this new knowledge back to class. In Class 7, Sam brought a
 161

similar example to a short clip where Ross was playing a bagpipe as a surprise wedding

gift for Monica and Chandler (Favorite Videos, 2016). He said:

Oh, I watched the similar situation in Friends. Um.. Joeyc.. um, I am not sure but

maybe Joeyc or Chandler give the gold chain bracelet (Both the teacher and

Rachel immediately respond and nod with a huge smile.) (Sam, Class 7, Class

observation note)

Rachel, looking surprised, excitedly shouted, “I was thinking what you were thinking!

Same episode!” (Rachel, Class 7, Class observation note). She looked surprised because

the golden bracelet episode appeared in season 2 episode 14, and Sam had said he was

still watching the beginning of Season 2. According to Sam, he first encountered the short

clip about the golden bracelet in one of the compilation videos on YouTube. He said he

felt “nice” to “use that knowledge” in the Friends course (Sam, personal communication,

February 3, 2021). Sam's search for dispersed knowledge enhanced his individual

knowledge, which he could then contribute to the collective intelligence and distributed

knowledge within the course.

I got a hint from Sam’s golden bracelet example that Sam and Sarah likely

brought their newly gained Friends knowledge to class activities more than once,

implying that their EE knowledge emerged and disseminated within the course. I call

such practices knowledge circulation. It is challenging to know which class activity clips

triggered Sam and Sarah’s curiosity to seek dispersed knowledge and when they brought

this knowledge to class because it was an internal process. When I revisited this with
 162

them to see if they could recall any other specific examples of knowledge circulation,

they were unable to remember other instances.

Fan Interest

The second psychological condition, termed fan interest, was evident within

Sarah’s knowledge enhancement practices. While her fan curiosity motivated to gain

more knowledge through English use, she also chose to enhance her Friends knowledge

rather than relying on her high intensive knowledge on other TV shows. Sarah

occasionally mentioned how she watched many TV shows and studied English from

them, including Umbrella Academy, The Big Bang Theory, and The Office (the U.S.

version). Yet, she did not use references from those TV shows during the class activities.

When her classmates used references from those TV shows, she simply reacted them with

smiles and nods or short rejoinders such as “Yes” and “Um-hum” (e.g., constantly

reacting, smiling, and nodding head when Percy explained the issue around the diversity

in characters from the Big Bang Theory in Class 9).

I believe Sarah’s choice is significant from an L2 WTC perspective because it

meant she gave up the benefits of relying on what she already knew, such as increased

language competence. Because she liked Friends, she chose interest over familiarity. For

this reason, I believe Sarah’s case deserves extra attention. Figure 23 shows how the three

factors (interlocutors, class activities and, in Sarah’s case, a lack of intensive knowledge)

led to Sarah intentionally enhancing her knowledge of Friends. I included her intensive

EE knowledge about other TV shows and marked it with a dashed line to specify that

although it existed, Sarah opted not to use it.

 163

Figure 23

Construct of Fan Interest

Influence of Class Activities, Interlocutors, and Intensive EE Knowledge

Class activities, with their short clips, offered an effective teaser for Sarah. Such

fragmented knowledge triggered her interest, leading her to seek out more context. Sarah

expressed multiple times how much value she put on Friends. She seemed to derive this

value from her peers’ and teacher’s love for Friends. Sarah focused on how people

“really enjoy[ed]” the show and wished to know “all the secrets” (Sarah, Class 10, Class

observation note). She saw how Friends became the center of conversation among

classmates and teacher; she wanted to join in these conversations. Although Sarah only

had low intensive EE knowledge, her high affection for Friends induced fan interest.

Sarah pursued greater knowledge even though she had intensive knowledge about other

TV shows and was invited to bring it to the class.

 164

Fan Interest and Enhancing EE Knowledge

Both Sarah and Sam had fan interest that led them to enhance their intensive

Friends knowledge outside of class, based on what they expressed to me in their

interviews. Yet Sarah’s case was different from Sam’s because Friends was the only

English-medium TV show about a stroyline and characters that Sam had ever watched

with focused interest about a storyline and characters. In contrast, Sarah had other options

from which to choose. In her interview, for example, she compared the two TV shows,

Friends, and the Big Bang Theory, demonstrating her intensive EE knowledge for the Big

Bang Theory, a show she had been watching with her husband:

For example, if I compare, uh, Friends with the Big Bang Theory. Big Bang

Theory, they are from, um, Los Angeles or LA, and they talk different, different

voices and they talk more like this. (Mimicking the accent of the characters from

the Big Bang Theory) (Interview)

The fact that Sarah could identify the different accents of the characters of the Big Bang

Theory and mimic them shows that her intensive EE knowledge for the Big Bang Theory

was much higher than her knowledge of Friends. This suggests her choice to study

Friends meant that her curiosity and interest for Friends won over the benefits she could

have experienced if she had chosen to utilize her high intensive EE knowledge about

other TV shows. It would have made it easier for her to participate in the class activities

using English. However, Sarah focused on using and enriching her intensive Friends

knowledge, based on her interest in the show, along with the value she observed others in

the Friends course had for the show.

 165

Sarah’s case was interesting from an L2 WTC perspective because it meant she

relinquished certain benefits of using her high-intensive EE knowledge. As seen in the

previous section, most participants used their intensive EE knowledge, such as Rachel

using Friends and Percy using The Office. By doing so, they experienced increased self-

perceived communicative competence, decreased language anxiety, and affection for a

familiar EE. However, Sarah’s decision to use and enhance her low-intensive Friends

knowledge suggests that interest and affection was a stronger factor for her than

familiarity. This finding is also relatable to fan excitement, which showed how affection

for EE was critical for participants to get excited, while familiarity alone did not evoke

any excitement.

So far I have offered Sam and Sarah’s knowledge enhancement practices and the

two psychological conditions, fan curiosity and fan interest, that motivated them to seek

additional knowledge outside the course. I turn now to the final type of knowledge

construction practice that was evident in the Friends course, extensive knowledge

building on constructive TV show engagement.

Extensive Knowledge Building on Constructive TV Show Engagement

Participants built their extensive knowledge about how to engage with the TV

shows in a constructive way. As a brief reminder, extensive knowledge can also be

viewed as general or broad knowledge that exists outside of any particular EE context but

can serve a learner who uses it for their EE or another aspect of their life. In the Friends

course, this meant students developed certain strategies or means by which they could

engage with their EE both inside and outside of class. This included changing the way
 166

they watched TV shows to benefit themselves educationally or seeking out increased

understanding of linguistic features like idioms or cultural references embedded in the

shows. Such extensive knowledge strategies were not limited to a particular TV show but

constituted general knowledge applicable to various settings.

While building their extensive knowledge in constructive TV show engagement,

participants reported experiencing two psychological conditions: safety and helpfulness.

Participants felt safe to explore sensitive topics related to cultural and social norms in the

U.S. by discussing the fictional characters and storylines of TV shows. This sense of

safety helped them to share their thoughts and opinions actively in English. Participants

also experienced the helpfulness of flexibly engaging with content in the course that

translated to more effective EE engagement outside the course. This created mutual

influence and benefit between the Friends course and their EE engagement in the world.

Experiencing Safety

Participants reported psychological comfort in the Friends course. First of all, use

of intenstive knowledge gave them less anxiety. Second, the entertaining elements of

using TV shows as a content for the course created a relaxing enviromentment. Third,

participants said the flexible environment of the Friends course also contributed to the

feeling of safety. Such feeling of safety frequently has been reported by other EE in ELT

literature which observed increase in students’ L2 use (e.g., Reinders & Wattana, 2015).

Yet, such positive feelings were mainly related to the use of L2, such as fear of making

mistakes.
 167

However, what stood out in this study was a sense of safety related to building

extensive knowledge on sensitive topics on American culture and social norms.

Participants reported feeling safe to engage in discussions on sensitive topics related to

daily life and American culture because these conversations took place in the Friends

course around fictional characters and situations. These topics may have felt sensitive to

students given their limited familiarity with cultural and social norms in the U.S. Such

norms rapidly change, and participants feared making unintentional mistakes and

possibly causing offense. Klaus expressed how “speaking English the whole day

during…work” at a local store put him in a different working culture and norms, which

made him feel pressure to “start speaking [English] properly” and find “the right way to

speak” to avoid any issues at work (Interview).

Klaus used the word “fight” later in the interview to describe his efforts to build

familiarity with American culture and improve his English skills. Similarly, Rachel

shared her experiences of speaking to Americans about certain things, when they warned

her with “oh no, no, no. I don't like to talk about this” or “oh, it is like a taboo.”

(Interview). Such experiences made her fear that she might inadvertently raise distasteful

topics. Sam also indicated how challenging it was for him to be involved in a

conversation about topics with which he had little familiarity. He said he was “really

worried” to share honest opinions for a fear of making others “feel bad, angry or sad”

(Interview). Studies report how learners can feel vulnerable about language use stemming

from a lack of understanding about social and cultural norms (e.g., Xiong & Smyrnios,

2013). Thus it is useful for ELLs who live in the U.S. to build extensive knowledge of
 168

social norms and issues in the country. For this reason, I designed the class activities to

help students explore sensitive topics through TV shows. As participants shared and

enhanced their knowledge on sensitive topics, I located safety as being the first

psychological condition for extensive knowledge building practices. The class activities

and EE seemed to influence participants’ sense of safety, as shown in Figure 24. Below I

analyze data that support this claim.

Figure 24

Construct of Safety

Influence of Class Activities and EE on Safety

As mentioned, Friends clips prompted conversations about daily life in the U.S.

For example, the activities in Class 4 helped students explore how meaning and

appropriateness of certain expressions and vocabulary in daily lives can shift over time

and why participants should be careful when picking up expressions from TV shows.

Activities in Class 9 asked students to compare the cultural and social norms

portrayed in Friends during the late 1990s/early 2000s and analyze them based on their

understanding of current social norms.

 169

Participants seemed to feel safe to participate in these conversations. The TV clips

prompted them to speak and share their thoughts and experiences in English. Unlike other

psychological conditions that required affection for the show as a prerequisite for

effective EE engagement, here all participants were deeply engaged with the discussion

regardless of which TV show was under discussion (e.g., Percy using Friends references

to demonstrate how social norms changed in Class 9). EE thus helped participants build

extensive knowledge about American culture and norms.

Safety and Extensive Knowledge Building

Feeling safe led participants to actively explore sensitive topics as they built

extensive knowledge in English. Participants used the fictional characters from TV shows

to explore unfamiliar cultural and social norms. They compared norms portrayed in

shows to things they experienced and heard in their real lives. For example, students

explored the issue of diversity in the U.S. and how media reflected it. Percy and Sam

used characters from The Big Bang Theory and Friends to discuss this issue. Sam

indicated the “six main characters [of Friends] were all white but it doesn’t matter,” since

for him, Friends was “just one TV show” and that showed “just one group of friends”

who could be happened to be of the same race (Sam, Class 9, Class observation note).

Sam said the TV show was not obligated to “mix up” diverse characters because friends

could be a group of the same race or same age in real life. Percy replied that The Big

Bang Theory showed more character diversity to more accurately reflect international

student populations in U.S. universities:

 170

For instance, there are other series that, in that other series, you need some

variety. For instance, The Big Bang Theory, they have different people from

different countries because that's usually in a university you have people from

America but also people from China, or from India or, I don't know, so.. It

depends on the series, I think. (Percy, Class 9, Class observation note)

Percy continued by saying how the Friends course was “a group of friends” from Latin

America, Japan, Korea, and China who met in the university community, and such

international diversity of the university settings should be reflected on TV shows (Percy,

Class 9, Class observation note). Throughout discussions such as these, participants

expressed their sense of safety to voice their opinions.

EE became a situational factor that helped participants explore linguistic and

cultural elements in ways that were slightly (and safely) removed from their personal

experience. For example, Joey suggested that using TV shows to discuss sensitive topics

provided him with a safety net, enabling him to feel “more free to express [their]

opinions…if we are speaking about characters in a TV show and you know, it's not

directly, you know? (Interview). This suggests that using EE removed the pressure of

potentially offending interlocutors; EE lowered participants’ anxiety and increased their

willingness to share their opinions in English.

Similar to Joey, Sam had trouble in expressing his opinion on “sensitive themes”

if he felt unsure about cultural differences. In Class 9, he discussed how certain practices

among Friends characters (e.g., Rachel and Ross having a baby together without getting
 171

married) were rare in his country. His lack of familiarity with such cases made them

“sensitive topics” for him (Sam, Class 9, Class observation):

If we use Friends to discuss a sensitive topics, it’s useful for us to talk and give

some opinion to other person with other background, cultural background. So, if

he says, ‘no, it's rude' then I … can make excuses, 'Uh, no. Not just in my

opinion. It's a kind of Friends story.' So, I feel uh, a bit comfortable to discuss in

that sensitive topics. So, Friends course make it more uh, much uh, make it easier

to discuss a lot of topics, I think. (Interview)

Here Sam expressed his experience of feeling more comfortable to discuss sensitive

topics, knowing that even if he unintentionally upset his interlocutor, he could “make

excuses” that his examples were not his own opinions but from Friends. In this way, he

felt the Friends course “made it easier” for him to discuss and explore “lots of topics.”

This points to how the feelings of safety derived from using the fictional characters in

Friends facilitated Sam’s L2 use.

In sum, using EE to discuss sensitive topics resulted in participants feeling a sense

of safety, leading to lowered language anxiety and increased L2 WTC. Using references

from TV shows lowered participants’ anxiety about unintentionally making mistakes or

offending their interlocutors. This aspect of the course helped participants share more

freely and build their extensive knowledge about cultural and social norms.

Helpfulness of the EE-related Class Activities

The second psychological condition related to extensive knowledge construction

practice was participants’ sense of helpfulness of the EE-related class activities. Students
 172

engaged with the course in various and selective ways that they could direct to other

activities in their daily lives. The course offered them opportunities to support their

overall EE practices, namely watching and benefiting from other TV shows, on their own

time.

Two situational factors seemed to contribute to a sense of helpfulness. Extensive

knowledge-focused class activities focused on facilitating constructive TV show

engagement and provided supportive materials. Interlocutors who engaged with the TV

shows in various ways also inspired participants.

Figure 25 shows my conceptualization of the construct of helpfulness. The

construct of helpfulness is different from other constructs since it questions to what

extent the course shaped L2 WTC (marked with dashed lines) and elicited L2 use or

constructive EE engagement outside of the Friends course from participating in class

activities (marked with dashed lines). As I did not collect data on participants’ EE

engagement outside the course, this finding is based only on what participants reported in

their interviews.

Figure 25

Construct of Helpfulness
 173

In this section, I first introduce the two situational aspects and then come back to

the construct to explain how I conceptualized the potential emergence of L2 WTC and L2

use.

Influence of Class Activities and Interlocutors

Class activities with a focus on facilitating students’ extensive knowledge of

constructive TV show engagement appeared to contribute most to helpfulness. Some

participants focused on improving their English proficiency and gaining familiarity with

American culture by studying supportive course materials. This helped them better

understand their EE. Class activities offering strategies for EE engagement also inspired

some participants to reflect on and change the ways they interacted with TV shows on

their own time. Interlocutors also contributed to feelings of helpfulness because when

participants could interact with classmates who enjoyed TV shows, they often found new

or different ways to engage with the show. Some participants indicated they felt inspired

at the ways their classmates studied English and American culture within TV shows.

Helpfulness and Potential Emergence of L2 WTC

Participants felt the Friends course was helpful because it helped them better

understand shows they may or may not have encountered previously. I built activities that

would enhance their constructive TV show engagement, such as pointing out students’

ability to access, analyze, and evaluate messages in TV shows. Rachel wanted to cultivate

her knowledge of English, so she studied these supportive materials seriously:

I always, I always, um, read the assignments before the course, maybe not the, not

an hour before the course, maybe one day ago, one day before the course. And I
 174

watch the episodes of course, and I really tried to, to understand the expressions.

(Interview)

Her wish to engage with the Friends course for both entertainment and

educational purpose helped her “understand the show better” with newly gained

expressions:

I think I learned uh many expressions. For example, uh, last week I was watching

a movie with my husband, and I heard one of the expressions that we learned with

you, like, uh, 'give it a shot' you know, 'take a risk', 'give it a shot' and I told my

husband, 'oh, I learned this with my teacher of the Friends course!' Uh, you know,

so, well, it's, it, it was great for me. (Interview)

Those expressions (e.g., give it a shot and take a risk) were references to class activities

that introduced frequently-used expressions in Friends, she could easily memorize them.

This helped her easily locate and recognize them in other TV shows.

Sarah also shared a similar focus on how feelings of helpfulness enabled her to

build her extensive knowledge. She reported carefully studying the homework materials

and memorizing new vocabulary and cultural references in the supportive materials. At

the end of the course, Sarah found herself better understand Friends and enjoy it because

she now “knew the words” and “could understand better” (Interview).

Other participants took a slightly different approach and focused on sharing and

building extensive knowledge with regards to how they engaged with TV shows. These

students participated in class activities in order to build a critical viewpoint rather than

simply consuming the messages portrayed in the TV shows. For example, Class 4
 175

focused on things to keep in mind when learning new expressions from a TV show. We

worked with identifying how mindset could help watchers be discerning; Klaus reported

later,

We need to keep in mind if it is appropriate to use or not. Sometimes you are

watching Friends, sometimes you are watching TV shows, and they have some

kind of bad language […] so, you need to know if it is appropriate or not.

(Interview)

Klaus pointed out that language learners need to pay attention to the “appropriate[ness]”

of the language they acquire in a TV show, which the course helped him do so. Similarly,

Sam pointed out the importance of understanding how language and cultural meanings

fluctuate over time by saying,

Like TV show Friends. It is such a classic now. For example, what if the

expression is too old, and no one uses it because of it’s not, we don’t use it

anymore at that time. How can we know what is too old, and what is still used?

[…] When we learn a new words or expression from TV show, then we don’t

know the meaning or the correct meaning. And we are not sure if it is still

ongoing, we can use it in real life. (Sam, Class 4, Class observation)

Sam and Klaus then suggested their classmates’ strateges to use Google to collect

information and evaluate the timeliness of expressions. They also pointed out that Google

may not tell you the exact answer since expressions “depends on situation or place, or

who speak such as the age, the person is adult or kids or child” (Sam, Class 4, Class

observation). Klaus also added his strategy how he always looked for an opportunity to
 176

ask a native speaker of English about a new expression and how to use it within speaking

practice.

These quotes indicate how students exchanged strategies for navigating these

language issues; class activities helped them reflect on how to engage with EE most

effectively. From those opportunities, some participants gained new insights about things

they thought they knew very well. For example, Rachel reported how the class activities

on jokes in Class 7 “surprised” her with a new perspective about jokes in Friends:

You surprised me when we, when you talked to us, or we, we talked uh, together

about American jokes. I never heard any explain, explanation, you know, about

this kind of jokes, but for me, it's, it's a big problem. (Interview)

Although Rachel was very familiar with the short clips and jokes, our discussion helped

her analyze and evaluate the jokes from various angles. With time, she came to recognize

discrepancies between her own values and those portrayed by the show. She reported that

while she used to focus on memorizing and using the jokes from Friends the way they

were, she had begun to revisit the jokes in the show by considering their meaning,

function, and appropriateness.

Klaus was not interested in developing an intensive knowledge of Friends, but he

watched how other classmates used the supportive materials and shared their educational

engagement with the TV show during class. For example, Sarah showed everyone her

“special note,” where she recorded all the expressions and references from Friends that

were new to her. This inspired Klaus to change the way he engaged with TV shows:
 177

For me the, the important part was [to] see that other people was um using the TV

shows as a, as a way to learn. So not just to have fun and see they don't do this

just with Friends, they are doing this with other TV shows. That is for me, is the

thing, interesting, the really interesting fact. […] It was an important, an important

fact for me, uh, see how other people was watching TV show to learn English,

yeah. (Interview)

I observed this in my course as well; EE was good for the Friends course, as an

ELT course. Purposeful incorporation of the three elements of P, S, and T enabled the

course to support students’ intentional EE knowledge development. It also was reported

to support participants with more effective EE interactions outside the course. Not only

did the course build on participants’ EE knowledge, but it also contributed to two

extensive knowledge-centered situational factors (activities and interlocutors) evoking the

psychological conditions of safety and helpfulness. While I do not have data regarding

what happened outside the course, it seems reasonable to expect these conditions had

some carryover to the ways participants interacted with EE in their own time. It seemed

to shape their EE practices for better engagement with media outside the class. Not only

did the course facilitate rich L2 use, which is the ultimate goal of L2 education

(MacIntyre at el., 1998), it also benefitted participants’ EE engagement outside of the

Friends course, spilling over from the course into other spaces where students engaged

with TV shows and their messaging. This finding ties back to the ecological notion I

introduced in Chapter 3 (e.g., Black, 2007; 2009a, 2009b, 2009c; Curwood, et al., 2013;

Rama, et al., 2012; Padgett & Curwood, 2016; Thorne, et al., 2009): This study utilized
 178

EE in ELT that enabled participants to engage with media differently outside the course.

The Friends course benefited participants’ EE engagement while establishing collective

knowledge about the EE because of what participants did outside the course. This

suggests the Friends course was positioned in particiapnts’ EE continuum, offering

mutual benefit both inside and outside the course.

Conclusion

The findings I have presented in this chapter aimed to show how the course

design created specific situational factors that both incorporated and supported

participants’ EE. Such situational aspects evoked psychological antecedents to help

language learners use an additional language. This chapter demonstrates the potential

outcomes for teachers who design with the three elements (P, S, and T) in mind. Not only

does it help participants enjoy learning because of the EE focus, it seems to help them

feel safer and more willing to communicate in their L2. Together, Chapter 5 (which

describes course design) and Chapter 6 (how participants engaged with the course) point

to noteworthy elements of discussion. In Chapter 7, I explore the significance of these

findings in relation to current EE in ELT literature.

 179

Chapter 7. Discussion and Conclusion

This study has explored an English language teaching (ELT) experience where I

designed and taught an English course based on the popular television show, Friends. In

doing so, I considered the potential (P) of extramural English (EE) as the language

learning/teaching material, the students’ (S) familiarity and interest in the target EE, and

my familiarity with the EE, as the teacher (T). Upon designing, studying, iterating, and

analyzing the course experience, I concluded that, as I anticipated, the course became a

space in which English language learners (ELLs) could engage with EE activities using

English.

In this final chapter, I review key findings from Chapters 5 and 6. Chapter 5

encapsulated how I conceptualized, designed, taught, and iterated the Friends course.

Chapter 6 described what happened as students engaged with the course. Following that,

I introduce how the findings from this study contribute to and extend the theoretical

framework, which is one of the aims of design-based research (DBR) (Wang & Hannafin,

2005). I then refer to the related literature to explore how my findings contribute to the

conversation about how language teachers might construct engaging learning

opportunities for ELLs using EE. Incorporated into this is a discussion of the initial and

revised design principles. I offer thoughts on limitations of the study before suggesting

implications for further research, along with suggestions for practice.

Review of Key Findings

Chapter 5 offered a rich description of the course and three key findings about the

design process. First, I learned that there are multiple ways to consider and accommodate
 180

students’ familiarity and interest in a target EE. I accommodate this Student element in

two ways. In the first design iteration, I recruit students who reported liking the target EE,

Friends, which I had selected Friends because of its potential as language

learning/teaching material, and my familiarity with the show. I expected that by

recruiting prospective students who were interested in it, I had covered each element (P,

S, T) sufficiently. However, as students were less familiar with the show than I expected,

I accommodated the S element by deemphasizing the role of Friends, effectively

lowering its integration level. I was still able to use Friends as teaching material, but I

also invited students to bring their knowledge of other TV shows to participate more

effectively in the class activities.

The second major finding in Chapter 5 was the adjustments I made to the EE

integration level by focusing on different types of knowledge in class activities. In the

first iteration that focused on Friends, class activities required students have a high level

of familiarity and knowledge about the show (intensive EE knowledge) to participate

effectively. By deemphasizing Friends in the second iteration, class activities drew on

students’ broader and general knowledge, rather than their intensive EE knowledge about

a particular show.

The third finding is that my familiarity with the target EE played an important

role in designing, iterating, and teaching the course. It enabled me to make necessary

design-related decisions in a timely and flexible manner. Even though I opened the

course to additional EE content with which I was less familiar, I was still able to use my

Friends knowledge by providing appropriate clips for the topics on constructive TV show
 181

engagement under discussion. My familiarity with the show enabled me to identify the

best clips and scenes to initiate conversations and create class activities that could target

specific intensive/extensive knowledge for students. This indicates the benefits for

educators to design and course and teach something with which they have both high

familiarity and interest.

Chapter 6 described how participants engaged with the course, constructing their

knowledge of various TV shows through their use of English. The course design evoked

four situational factors that influenced participants’ willingness to communicate in

English: 1) students’ intensive knowledge about the TV shows; 2) class activities oriented

to EE use; 3) interlocutors who shared a mutual EE interest; and 4) EE with entertaining

and fictional elements (in the form of TV shows). These situational factors helped

generate seven psychological conditions that supported participants in constructing

various types of knowledge. The seven conditions were fan excitement, fan

connectedness, fan marketing, fan curiosity, fan interest, safety, and helpfulness.

Participants used their knowledge of specific TV shows (their intensive EE

knowledge) to participate in class activities and sometimes promote their favorite shows

to classmates. Students’ use of intensive EE knowledge indicated they had affection for

their EE and it increased their self-perceived communicative competence. When using

their intensive EE knowledge, participants felt excited by encountering examples or

references from their favorite TV shows, and they felt more connected when their

interlocutors, especially the teacher, shared an interest in the same show. Students also

marketed their shows to others that I observed via their concurrent speech patterns. Taken
 182

together, the finding on intenstive EE knowledge indicate the importance of inviting

students to bring EE knowledge that is personal and important to them.

Students also reported enhancing their intensive EE knowledge outside of the

Friends course when they felt strong curiosity about what happened to characters in the

Friends clips used in class activities. This fan curiosity even led one student with low

Friends knowledge to pursue her fan interest for Friends, rather than capitalizing on her

preexisting intensive knowledge of other TV shows (fan interest). Her case showed how

high interest in a TV show could be a stronger factor than existing familiarity in terms of

facilitating L2 WTC.

The course also enabled students to build extensive knowledge in constructive TV

show engagement. Extensive knowledge was not specific to a certain TV show, yet it

helped students build skills in English expressions, cultural norms, and strategies for TV

show watching. As a byproduct of engaging in the EE activities, participants reported

feeling safer to discuss sensitive topics experienced by fictional characters in simulated

contexts of American daily lives than having to discuss their own opinions. They also

found class activities centered on extensive knowledge beneficial for their EE

engagement (helpfulness). Since they reported transferring these skills outside the course

to other TV shows, they found the course helpful.

Discussion

This study originated from my discerning a gap in the EE in ELT literature, a lack

of attention to how courses were sometimes designed without careful consideration of S

and T in a target EE. Most of the literature has focused on the potential of EE and what
 183

benefits it might yield to English language teaching (e.g., Bonsignori, 2018; Lee, 2019;

Miller & Hegelheimer, 2006; Vahdat & Behbahani, 2013). Such unequal attention to the

three elements often meant students and teachers felt unmotivated or reluctant to the idea

of bringing EE into ELT settings (e.g., Galvis Guerrero, 2011; Vosburg, 2017). This

study contributes to theory and literature by sharing outcomes resulting from a course

designer giving equal consideration to each element within the design process.

The findings provide more detailed observations on what drove participants to use

English and share their knowledge. Combining the L2 WTC perspectives with AS offers

a better understanding of what situational factors and psychological conditions can

facilitate participants’ knowledge construction. L2 WTC focuses on why and when

people become willing to use L2 (MacIntyre et al., 1998). Yet L2 WTC research has not

paid much attention to the content of that communication (what people talk about) now

how it impacts what follows. This is because L2 WTC does not aim to answer the

question, “They used English, so what?” This study reveals that there are several reasons

to bring EE into ELT: 1) to enrich situated language use opportunities (e.g., Miller &

Hegelheimer, 2006; Ranalli, 2008; Vahdat & Behbahani, 2013), and 2) to benefit ELLs

as they experience incidental L2 learning (e.g., Lu & Chang, 2016; Nath et al., 2017) and

literacy development (e.g., Sauro & Sundmark, 2016; Vale, 2017) through EE

engagement. Combining L2 WTC and AS in this study helped me see not only when and

why students used L2 but also what their L2 use was about. It also revealed outcomes

from their L2 use; it enabled them to engage with something meaningful related to their
 184

EE. Also, I have not seen AS literature that uncovers the situational factors and

psychological conditions that impact participation or learning in an AS.

The Friends course showed several knowledge-related features of AS.

Participants shared and constructed various types of knowledge individually and

collectively around a shared interest or a common endeavor, consistent with AS theory

(Gee & Hayes, 2012). Yet, the findings suggest there were multiple common endeavors

at play. Participants shared a sustained common endeavor, or passion to learn English and

American culture. I call it a sustained common endeavor since every participant shared it,

and it lasted throughout the term. Yet the psychological conditions from the L2 WTC

perspective suggest that the course had another common endeavor related to EE.

Five of the seven psychological conditions (fan excitement, fan connectedness,

fan marketing, fan curiosity, and fan interest) were shaped by participants’ intensive EE

knowledge, which included both their familiarity and affection for EE. Interest and

affection for EE was particularly critical for these five conditions, as denoted by the label

fan. Participants’ strong interest and affection for their favorite TV shows became a

driving force for them to: 1) deeply engage with the class activities and conversations

with their classmates, 2) contribute their intensive EE knowledge to the course, 3)

promote their TV shows by providing a targeted pitch to their classmates when given a

chance, and 4) enhance their intensive EE knowledge on the internet outside of the

course. Participants increased their English language competence by lowering their

anxiety to speak. The influence of such conditions all fall under the category that I

call fannishness. And the other two conditions (safety and helpfulness) were indirectly
 185

related to fannishness since the outcome of those two conditions were knowledge

construction practices benefitting their EE engagement.

This fannishness-based common endeavor appeared to have smaller and

segmented groups of participants. This suggestes a fannishness-based common endeavor

is more situational, only appearing when specific people interacted with specific

interlocutors in specific situations. Such characteristics align with the definition of L2

WTC by MacIntyre et al. (1998), enabling me to assert L2 WTC occurred at the moment

when participants were sharing a situational common endeavor with their interlocutors

who stimulated their L2 WTC. Designing for these dual common endeavors enabled the

course to function as an affinity space.. Participants used English while building and

gaining knowledge that would benefit their EE engagement.

The Importance of the EE’s Potential

This study supports and confirms the field’s understanding that using EE in ELT

classrooms can provide great potential benefit to students. The course at the heart of this

study created a learning opportunity for students to explore some of the sensitive topics

that they encountered in their daily lives by engaging with clips from Friends that

introduced real-life (as well as entertaining) situations. Those clips became a starting

point for showing students how they could bring in relevant and relatable examples from

other TV shows. Such situated learning opportunities are in line with other studies that

use EE to work within real-life contexts, demonstrating how beneficial it can be to not

only support ELLs’ English use, but to expand their cultural knowledge (e.g., Lu &

Chang, 2016; Miller & Hegelheimer, 2006; Ranalli, 2008; Saruo & Sundmark, 2016;
 186

Sylven & Sundqvist, 2012; Vahdat & Behbahani, 2013; Wang et al., 2009). While the

aforementioned studies used real-time contexts simulating daily life, this study used an

older TV show. This effectively enabled students to time travel by giving them

comparisons between their understanding of current social norms and those of 20 years

ago. I believed the differences between the show’s situations and current social context

would be helpful for students to explore relevant changes in language, culture, and

society. This study illustrates EE’s potential to provide much-needed situational contexts

for language learners.

The EE in ELT literature has also reported how the use of EE might lower ELLs’

fear of making mistakes, which can hinder their language learning and use (e.g., Nath et

al., 2017). Such studies report that using EE can have a positive psychological influence

due to its entertaining characteristics. In my study, participants also reported that a sense

of safety came from being able to discuss sensitive topics based in fictional characters

and TV-based situations rather than real-life situations.

Some studies have emphasized the importance of considering the general

popularity of the target EE in their selection process, in the hopes that popularity will

guarantee a certain level of engagement of ELLs. For example, Sauro and Sundmark

(2016) chose The Hobbit as the target EE, because the book was available in different

formats such as films and fan fiction. Students in their study benefited from these well-

developed resources that existed outside the course. This study similarly supports the

benefit of such considerations. Since Friends has such wide appeal and popularity,

students were able to access a great deal of fan-generated and fan-targeted content on the
 187

internet, which sustained students’ interest and exploration outside of class. This would

not necessarily have been the case had the course used a more obscure EE topic. This

suggests the importance of teachers considering how relatable, accessible, and relevant a

particular EE might be outside the context of their particular learning experience. In sum,

the findings of this study support current research suggesting that careful consideration of

EE’s potential is critical.

The Importance of S (Target Students’ Familiarity and Interest in EE)

Findings in this study also contribute to the EE in ELT literature by suggesting

how important it is to understand and accommodate students’ interest and familiarity with

the target EE. This element has not yet been fully studied in the EE in ELT literature.

However , findings on fannishenss is consistent with literature that explored general

interest-driven practices: Literature exploring interest-driven practices, also known as fan

practices, has reported how such practices involve “performances of intertextuality”

(Woo, 2012, p. 661). In my study, interest-driven practices involve participants’

knowledge building and mastery of their favorite TV shows while interacting and sharing

such knowledge with people who share mutual interest (Brown, 1997; Duffett, 2013;

Woo, 2012). These psychological conditions under fannishness in my study facilitated

participants’ active knowledge sharing in English, which ties into the literature in three

key ways. First, participants reported feeling an increase in English competence when

talking about their favorite TV shows. Such benefit to language performance is consistent

with the literature that suggests the importance of using EE that participants know well:

L2 WTC studies have identified content/topic familiarity or topical knowledge as an

 188

important factor that positively influences L2 WTC (e.g., Cao & Philip, 2006; Peng,

2014). L2 WTC studies reported that topic/content familiarity can enhance ELLs’

language use (e.g., Cao, 2011; MacIntyre et al., 1998) and increase recall of high-level of

information and ideas (Schiefele & Krapp, 1996). Such studies highlight what appears to

be improvement in ELLs’ linguistic competence, especially in their speaking skills.

When ELLs engage with a familiar topic, they often indicate increased speech rates with

fewer pauses in their speech (Bui & Huang, 2018). This positive influence of

context/topic familiarity on language performance is aligned with the experience of

participants in this study, who reported increased English language competence. They

also reported deeper levels of communicative engagement, which they attributed to their

affection for EE and lowered language anxiety when they interacted with interested

interlocutors.

The second way fannishness contributed to students’ active sharing in English

was in the difference between EE interest and EE familiarity. It appeared that for at least

one student, interest and affection for EE had a greater influence on their L2 WTC

compared to their familiarity with other EE. In my discussion of fan excitement and fan

interest, I pointed out how participants’ affection for their EE typically overrode their

familiarity. When participants could talk about TV shows they both knew (familiarity)

and liked (interest/affection), their L2 WTC increased significantly. And when

participants talked about a show with which they were only familiar but not interested,

they did not increase their L2 WTC. When students discussed a show for which they had

interest/affection, but not familiarity, they felt motivated to look for more information to
 189

enhance their knowledge. This finding is significant for L2 WTC literature since it

suggests interest and affection may be more powerful than familiarity, unlike other L2

WTC studies that present them as individual and equal factors (Cao, 2011; Kang, 2005;

Peng, 2014). Also, it suggests that we need to prioritize students’ interest in EE if a

teacher has students who are choosing between familiarity and interest. This study

indicates that if students can engage with EE that they have high interest/affection for,

they are likely to have deep learning engagement, despite their level of familiarity.

Finally, this study shows the importance of having interlocutors who share mutual

interest in, affection for, and experiences of EE. Such interlocutors encouraged and

facilitated the psychological conditions related to fannishness. Participants in this study

conducted interest-driven practices in an interest-driven setting that was similar to an

authentic fan community. For example, Rachel’s expressions of fan excitement of “Yes!”

(Chapter 6) exemplifies Black’s (2009a) Oh My God (OMG) standard, which she defined

as “enthusiastic statements of appreciation” (p. 692). Black claimed that OMG from

readers “provide[s] authors with hearty encouragement to continue writing and can be a

crucial element for helping ELLs feel comfortable composing in this space”, and it is “the

short and sweet support” (p. 692). In a similar sense, Rachel’s reaction constituted hearty

encouragement for participants to continue to bring and use EE references, facilitating

feelings of fan connectedness. This demonstrates the importance of an interlocutor who

shares mutual EE interest. Since everyone in the Friends course had some knowledge of

the TV shows, multiple overlapping EE emerged among students. Everyone eventually

 190

interacted with someone who shared a mutual EE interest, which yielded deep levels of

engagement in conversations and class activities.

The psychological condition of helpfulness also illustrates the importance of

considering S in the process of EE selection. Participants indicated they found the course

helpful for teaching them how to engage with TV shows outside the course, due to its

focus on constructive TV show engagement. As a result, the course appeared to enrich

students’ EE practices outside of the course, fueling more competent interactions and

engagements. To my best knowledge, such benefit and influence have gone unreported in

other EE in ELT studies.

The Importance of T (Teacher’s Familiarity with EE)

This study offers rich documentation of how my familiarity with Friends played a

crucial role in the course. I was able to respond quickly to emerging challenges

throughout the design/iteration process because I knew the show and could adjust the

level of the target EE appropriately. This demonstrates a counterpoint to current literature

suggesting teachers can have a mixed perception of EE in ELT (e.g., Toffoli & Sockett,

2015). Such studies have reported teachers often feel understandably frustrated when

asked to use EE content in their classrooms, even if they are not familiar with it. This

approach can result in a lack of success, even with high-potential target EE. Many studies

have suggested the importance of teacher knowledge to effectively teach a target domain

(e.g., Ben-Peretz, 2011; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Park & Oliver, 2008). Such

studies warn that if a teacher lacks general or pedagogical knowledge about the content

they teach, they have a challenging time making the content accessible for students. In
 191

contrast, the teacher (I) was familiar with Friends and possessed pedagogical knowledge

of how to use Friends for language learning and teaching as she had used the show to

learn English and American culture. Especially when the teacher had previous teaching

experience using the target EE, the teacher was able to sidestep the frustrations that can

result when teachers do not know the EE they are using to teach.

Indeed, the finding shows the importance of teacher’s interest and affection for

EE in influencing participants’ positive psychological conditions. The teacher with

mutual EE played a role of an interested interlocutor, contributing to fan excitement, fan

connectedness, and fan marketing. My teacher reflective journals documented this course

as a joyful experience; my affection for Friends enabled me to voluntarily and happily

dedicate time and energy to finding the best clips and cultural references that would

appeal to students. I did this in part because I liked the show and wanted them to like it,

too.

This analysis suggests a revised definition of T ought to include both a teacher’s

familiarity and interest in the target EE. I saw the need for this revision when I reviewed

the design principles I discuss in the next portion of this chapter. Considering both

teacher’s interest and familiarity for the target EE admittedly makes it challenging to

appropriately consider and balance all three elements. Yet this study’s findings indicate

such approach could positively influence the learning experience for both students and

teacher, and therefore deserves careful consideration. Altogether, this study provides a

rationale for why an EE in ELT approach should balance a consideration of all three

elements.
 192

Revisiting and Revising Initial Design Principles

In Chapter 3, I offered an explanation of the four initial design principles guiding

the learning initiative for this study, based on my review of the literature and the

priorities derived from my theoretical framework. To review, these principles were, 1)

The initiative should consider the three elements (P, S, and T) in selecting EE; 2) The

initiative should carefully set the EE integration level by targeting different types of EE

knowledge; 3) The initiative should facilitate students’ L2 use; and 4) The initiative

should aim to create a space where students can bring their EE in order to participate in

the class activities, with the expectation that students will do so. At the same time, the

expectation is that students leave the learning experiences with something that benefits

their EE engagement.

Other design-based research (DBR) studies clearly articulate the design principles

they derived from their work at the end of their paper (e.g., Boyer, 2010; Lacro, 2013). I

revised these initial design principles based on my experiences with the full term of the

Friends course, along with the analytic work to determine findings. These revised design

principles are a part of implications for future practice and research, which I discuss

implications later in this chapter. However, I introduce the revised design principles here

since they were directly influenced by the key findings and discussion I have just

presented.

1) The initiative should consider the three elements, the potential of EE, students'

interest and familiarity in the target EE, teacher's familiarity and interest in the target

EE, in selecting EE.

 193

I suggest revising the meaning of T. My initial principle defined T as the teacher's

familiarity with the target EE. My revised principle includes the notion that T should

include not only a teacher’s familiarity with EE, but also their interest in the target EE.

2) The initiative should consider S in a flexible manner. Based on students’ level

of interest and familiarity with the target EE, the initiative should carefully set the EE

integration level. And the initiative can adjust the EE integration level by targeting

different types of EE knowledge.

I revised this second design principle to articulate more detailed guidance on how,

exactly, a teacher-researcher might consider S. The initiative can utilize EE with class

activities focusing on intensive EE. The initiative can also simply set EE as a starting

point and invite students’ EE into class activities focusing on extensive EE knowledge.

3) The initiative should facilitate students' L2 use by creating rich opportunities

for students to use and share their knowledge. The initiative can create such

opportunities by designing class activities that target a specific type of knowledge.

I believe appropriate revision to this third principle should specify how to

facilitate students’ L2 use. The findings showed participants actively used their L2 to

exchange and expand knowledge when they were invited to use their own EE. Such

knowledge can be intensive EE knowledge or extensive knowledge that can be beneficial

for EE engagement, and class activities can target specific types of knowledge (as shown

in the second design principle).

4) The initiative should aim to create a space where students can bring their EE

in order to participate in the class activities, with the expectation that students will do so.
 194

At the same time, the expectation is that students leave the learning experiences with

something that benefits their EE engagement.

This fourth design principle remains unchanged, based on the findings of this

study. I believe it does not require modification.

Limitations

At least three limitations for this study are worth mentioning. The first is that this

small-scale study was conducted in a context of flexibility and creativity. inherited the

issue of compatibility and efficacy in “bringing about large-scale and far-reaching

systems reforms” that DBR could suffer from (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012, p. 24). It is

questionable how easily other ELT classes may be able to implement these revised design

principles within different educational settings, especially in contexts where teachers

must follow a fixed curriculum in order to meet requirements. Questions of the

compatibility and affordances of EE have been noted as limitations in other studies (e.g.,

Bui & Huang, 2018; Chou, 2011; Mahmoudi & Mahmoudi. 2017; Sauro, 2017). This

research was based in a relatively flexible ELT setting. Since I inherited flexible

characteristics from a previous language program and was able to have full control to

create a private ELT course, I had great freedom to design and iterate the course as I saw

fit. This raises the issue of transferability (Marshall & Rossman, 2016), especially for

educators in ELT settings who have constraints in time and curriculum.

To address this limitation, I have prioritized rich documentation and descriptions

of my research setting, processes, and interpretations by creating a separate chapter

(Chapter 5) dedicated to these issues. I believe the second iteration of this study is
 195

particularly useful for illustrating how a course can be made more compatible for other

ELT settings. This study also exemplifies one way that a course can centralize particular

extensive knowledge (as required by a curriculum plan), and simultaneously use students’

EE as a resource to explore this knowledge. From this perspective, I sense this study

achieved the dual goals of DBR, which are “refining locally valuable innovations” and

“developing more globally usable knowledge for the field” (Design-Based Research

Collective, 2003, p. 7).

The second limitation arises from my intimate involvement with my participants

in the process of designing and implementing DBR. DBR researchers warn that such

involvement can threaten the credibility and trustworthiness of research (Barab & Squire,

2004). As a qualitative researcher, I brought my personal experiences and beliefs to the

Initiative; it is likely my personal feelings influenced the ways I observed and analyzed

data. I had to be careful not to see only what I wanted to see. I worked to ameliorate

skewed interpretations of my data by equipping myself with “comradeship, enthusiasm,

and a willingness to actively support the intervention [initiative]” that DBR requires

(Anderson & Shattuck, 2012, p. 18). I also actively implemented multiple strategies

oriented to trustworthiness in research, as discussed in Chapter 4.

Lastly, this study underwent situational constraints (e.g., the global COVID-19

pandemic) that significantly shaped my methodological choices. Since I wanted to reduce

pressure and potential stress for participants, I taught the course without knowing which

of my students might volunteer to allow me to use their data for this study. Once the

course concluded, I recruited participants by requesting they allow me to use their

 196

existing participation data from the course and conduct interviews with me about their

experience. Not knowing who would participate limited my methodological options. For

this reason, I tried to take notes on all students, given the potential that any of them may

have said “yes” or “no” to participating. Once I identified my participants, I immediately

went through their data multiple times to discern what follow-up questions would be

pertinent during the post-term interview. Since I taught the whole course and attended to

every student, it was challenging to make claims that only encompassed my participants.

I may have observed class-wide agreement and evidence among all the students for a

particular claim, but I have been careful to use and present data from those who agreed to

participate in the research study. This limited the amount of data I could present. To

compensate for this limitation, I focused on the claims for which I had enough data to

provide support.

Implications and Suggestions

In this section, I present theoretical, methogological, and practical implications

and suggestions based on the findings of this study.

Theoretical Implications and Suggestions

The combination of L2 WTC and AS, which were complementary, widened and

deepened my understanding of the Friends course more than if I had used only one or the

other. L2 WTC was especially useful for understanding the layers of language learning

and teaching for an AS lens. As such, combining L2 WTC and AS enhanced the design

and depth of this study.

 197

Future studies could benefit from focusing on different aspects of AS in relation

to L2 WTC. This study focused on participants’ knowledge construction practices by

deriving features of various types of knowledge from AS. Future studies could focus on a

different aspect of AS, such as leadership and its relation to L2 use/knowledge practices.

I previously mentioned that I perceived participants’ L2 use as the equivalent of their

knowledge construction practices. While sharing, enhancing, and building their

knowledge for and around EE, they were “providing resources” to their classmates and to

themselves (Gee & Hayes, 2012). From an AS perspective, this could mean participants

were taking a leadership role in that moment of L2 use, enabling L2 use/knowledge

construction practices to signal situational leadership. Taking this stance (L2 use related

to EE knowledge = knowledge construction practices = leadership) from both L2 WTC

and AS perspectives can allow researchers a means of further exploring the “so what”

question so often asked of learners’ English use.

Methogolodical Implications and Suggestions

Although this was a short-term study, it nevertheless contributes to DBR research

by illustrating what during-term iteration looks like. It also brought together L2 WTC and

AS in a rigorous study design, which addresses the challenge often-leveled against DBR,

that is is often “under-theorized and over-methologized” or does not “…[develop] robust

knowledge claims about learning” (Domingerez, 2017, p. 13).

Through the rich description and documentation of the course design and iteration

process, this study exemplifies how the EE selection process should be integrated into the

design process in EE in ELT studies taking a DBR approach. Considering the three
 198

elements (P, S, and T) was an arduous task and required close observation and rapid

iterative responses. Since this approach has been understudied, people who try to

implement this approach may find it challenging to select EE that meets all three

elements. Therefore, it is vital that researchers track the process of EE selection and

iteration in order to construct further examples of how to balance the three elements in

different educational settings.

Also, this study conducted two iterations in a short period of time (5 weeks) and

illustrated what in-term iteration looked like. It calls for future research that conducts

multi-layered iterations of this approach. That is to say, the goal of iterations should not

be to figure out a particular pedagogical model applicable to any setting. Rather,

research-based iterations should aim to 1) polish and tailor the design principles to be

applicable and compatible in various ELT settings, while also providing very detailed

guidelines and insights, 2) analyze and acknowledge the potential and benefit that this

approach brings to both ELT settings and students, and 3) document and disseminate the

iteration process and outcome to a broader audience. This research agenda calls for long-

term collaborative work and the development of a "multi-layer DBR agenda" for research

communities interested in EE in ELT (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012, p. 18). I also believe

it would be useful to focus on how an initiative influences students’ L2 proficiency in the

long term. This exploratory study sought to understand how a course considering P, S,

and T might function. From L2 WTC perspective, this study offers promising potential

and achieved the objective of L2 education – to facilitate rich L2 use. It would be

 199

beneficial to explore the longer-term effects of such situational and temporal increases in

L2 WTC.

Similarly, ELT researchers may try a different methodological approach (such as

case study or action research) while using the revised design principles. This would

generate additional examples benefiting researchers and practitioners who seek empirical

actualization of these design principles.

Findings in this study have several implications for future research. While I was

only able to understand it incompletely in this study, new-Friends fans indicated what I

have tentatively termed knowledge circulation, which meant they brought their enhanced

knowledge newly gained from extra-curricular internet exploration back to share with

peers inside the Friends course. There was also indication of mutual benefit between the

course and participants' EE. Future research would benefit from methodologies that

access and observe ELLs’ EE engagement inside and outside formal ELT settings.

Practical Implications and Suggestions

This study proposes several practical implications and suggestions for ELT

educators and researchers. This study demonstrates how formal ELT settings can invite

EE into their classrooms and provides a vision for what it might yield, in terms of student

enthusiasm and learning. ELT educators and researchers can benefit from applying the

revised design principles in a flexible manner. For example, it could be beneficial for

educators to use extensive knowledge-centered class activities that evolve around a

required curricular focus while inviting people’s intensive EE knowledge as a means of

engagement. In this study, our course focused on constructive TV show engagement, and
 200

invited students to bring any show they wished to the class activities. EE can be

incorporated into a one-time class activity or a term-long course, or anything in between.

ELT settings that enjoy a relatively flexible format such as short-term programs, after-

school programs, or English language institutes may offer even better implementation

sites.

Although this study had a limited pool of prospective participants, programs with

a larger student pool could try to recruit students who share mutual EE. This could result

in multiple small groups in one class or school. Additionally, the extensive-knowledge

centric activities could be applicable to various EE groups. This means each small group

could build extensive knowledge while sharing and enhancing EE with peers who share a

mutual interest.

These principles may also be helpful for those who wish to bring EE into ELT

settings. I trust the findings enable other ELT educators to implement revised design

principles in their local settings. This study outlined the possibilities within a single, free-

of-charge English conversation program for adult ELLs. If other ELT educators and

researchers actualize the revised design principles in various ELT settings, explore their

own challenges, and share their unique course designs and iterative processes, this could

greatly benefit the field.

Conclusion

This study confirms the importance of why consideration of all three elements (P,

S, and T) is critical in successfully incorporating EE in ELT. This study also confirms

how EE can benefit ELLs and ELT settings, as other research has reported. It adds new
 201

insights on what happens when the S and T elements are given increased attention.

Prioritizing students’ and teachers’ familiarity and interest/affection for EE is critical for

facilitating students’ willingness to communicate in English and construct knowledge that

is meaningful and helpful for their EE engagement. This study offers innovative

pedagogies and detailed design principles to the current interest-driven curricula and

programs, inviting others to participate in the joy and effort of bringing EE into formal

ELT settings for themselves.

 202

References

Aisyah, A. (2017). Korean-English language translational action of K-Pop social media

content: A case study on Bangtan Sonyeondan’s (BTS) official twitter. 3L:

Language, Linguistics, Literature®, 23(3). 67-80.

Akahori, N. (2008). Use of a TV drama, Friends, for vocabulary learning. Gakuen, 817,

14-21.

Althouse, S. (2019, September 13). 26 Really inappropriate "Friends" moments that

don't hold up in 2019. BuzzFeed.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/spenceralthouse/problematic-friends-tv-show-

moments

Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and

assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives—Complete

edition. Addison Wesley Longman.

Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in

education research?. Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16-25.

Angus, D., Watson, B., Smith, A., Gallois, C., & Wiles, J. (2012). Visualising

conversation structure across time: Insights into effective doctor-patient

consultations. PloS One, 7(6), 1-12. (e38014). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038014

Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A

cognitive view (2nd ed.). Rinehart and Winston.

 203

Azevedo, F. S. (2013). The tailored practice of hobbies and its implication for the design

of interest-driven learning environments. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(3),

462-510.

Ball, K. D. (2017). Fan labor, speculative fiction, and video game lore in the

"Bloodborne" community. Transformative Works and Cultures, 25.

https://journal.transformativeworks.org/index.php/twc/article/download/1156/808

?inline=1

Ball, D., Thames, M., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes

it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 389–407.

Barab, S., & Squire, B. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground.

Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.

http://website.education.wisc.edu/kdsquire/manuscripts/jls-barab-squire-

design.pdf

Baran-Łucarz, M. (2014). The link between pronunciation anxiety and willingness to

communicate in the foreign-language classroom: The Polish EFL

context. Canadian Modern Language Review, 70(4), 445-473.

Barden, O. (2016). Heterotopic affinity spaces. Power and Education, 8(3), 222-236.

Barsalou, L. W., Breazeal, C., & Smith, L. B. (2007). Cognition as coordinated non-

cognition. Cognitive Processing, 8(2), 79-91.

Bashosh, S., Nejad, M. A., Rastegar, M., & Marzban, A. (2013). The relationship

between shyness, foreign language classroom anxiety, willingness to

 204

communicate, gender, and EFL proficiency. Theory and Practice in Language

Studies, 3(11), 2098-2106.

Bawa, P., Watson, S. L., & Watson, W. (2018). Motivation is a game: Massively

multiplayer online games as agents of motivation in higher education. Computers

& Education, 123, 174-194.

Behrens, H. (2009). Usage-based and emergentist approaches to language acquisition.

Linguistics, 47(2), 383-411.

Ben-Peretz, M. (2011). Teacher knowledge: What is it? How do we uncover it? What are

its implications for schooling?. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 3-9.

Black, R. W. (2005). Access and affiliation: The literacy and composition practices of

English‐language learners in an online fanfiction community. Journal of

Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(2), 118-128.

Black, R. W. (2007). Fanfiction writing and the construction of space. E-Learning and

Digital Media, 4(4), 384-397.

Black, R. W. (2009a). English‐language learners, fan communities, and 21st-century

skills. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(8), 688-697.

Black, R. W. (2009b). Online fan fiction, global identities, and imagination. Research in

the Teaching of English, 43(4), 397-425.

Black, R. W. (2009c). Online fan fiction and critical media literacy. Journal of

Computing in Teacher Education, 26(2), 75-80.

 205

Bloom, B., Englehart, M. Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of

educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I:

Cognitive domain. Longmans, Green.

Bonsignori, V. (2018). Using films and TV series for ESP teaching: A multimodal

perspective. System, 77, 58-69.

Boyer, J. T. (2010). Using scratch for learner-constructed multimedia: A design-based

research inquiry of constructionism in practice [Doctoral dissertation, University

of Florida]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. (Order No. 3436320).

Brown, J. A. (1997). Comic book fandom and cultural capital. The Journal of Popular

Culture, 30(4), 13-31.

Bui, G., & Huang, Z. (2018). L2 fluency as influenced by content familiarity and

planning: Performance, measurement, and pedagogy. Language Teaching

Research, 22(1), 94-114. doi:10.1177/1362168816656650

Butler, Y. G. (2014). The use of computer games as foreign language learning tasks for

digital natives. System, 54, 91-102.

Cao, Y. (2011). Investigating situational willingness to communicate within second

language classrooms from an ecological perspective. System, 39(4), 468-479.

doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.10.016

Cao, Y., & Philp, J. (2006). Interactional context and willingness to communicate: A

comparison of behavior in whole class, group and dyadic interaction. System,

34(4), 480-493.
 206

Carrell, P.L. (1987). Content and formal schemata in ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly,

21(3), 461–481.

Charmaz, K. (1996). The search for meanings - Grounded theory. In J. A. Smith, R.

Harre, & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 27-

49). Sage Publications.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through

qualitative analysis. Sage Publications.

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Chen, S. (2012). TV drama as an effective method for lexical instruction: a corpus-based

lexical richness study. In P. Caxaj (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2012 annual

conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association (pp. 1-10). Canadian

Linguistic Association. http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-

acl/actes2012/Chen_2012.pdf

Chin, B. (2013). The fan-media producer collaboration: How fan relationships are

managed in a post-series X-Files fandom. Science Fiction Film and

Television, 6(1), 87-99.

Choi, J. I., & Hannafin, M. (1995). Situated cognition and learning environments: Roles,

structures, and implications for design. Educational Technology Research and

Development, 43(2), 53-69.

Chou, P. T. M. (2011). The effects of vocabulary knowledge and background knowledge

on reading comprehension of Taiwanese EFL students. Electronic Journal of

Foreign Language Teaching, 8(1), 108-115.

 207

Clément, R., Baker, S. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2003). Willingness to communicate in a

second language: The effects of context, norms, and vitality. Journal of Language

and Social Psychology, 22(2), 190-209. doi:10.1177/0261927X03022002003

Clydesdale, J. (2008). A bridge to another world: Using comics in the second language

classroom. Language & Literacy Graduate Student Conference. 1-12.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.568.6729&rep=rep1&t

ype=pdf

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Chapter 8: Relationships of knowledge and

practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in

Education, 24(1), 249-305.

Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and

methodological issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15-42.

Comas-Quinn, A., Mardomingo, R., & Valentine, C. (2009). Mobile blogs in language

learning: Making the most of informal and situated learning opportunities.

ReCALL, 21(1), 96-112.

Corso, M. J., Bundick, M. J., Quaglia, R. J., & Haywood, D. E. (2013). Where student,

teacher, and content meet: Student engagement in the secondary school

classroom. American Secondary Education, 50-61.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

approaches. Sage Publications.

 208

Crossley, S. A., Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). A

linguistic analysis of simplified and authentic texts. The Modern Language

Journal, 91(1), 15-30.

Croucher, S. M. (2013). Communication apprehension, self-perceived communication

competence, and willingness to communicate: A French analysis. Journal of

International and Intercultural Communication, 6(4), 298-316.

Curry, M. J. (1999). Media literacy for English language learners: A semiotic approach.

Literacy and Numeracy Studies, 9(2), 29-46.

Curwood, J. S., Magnifico, A. M., & Lammers, J. C. (2013). Writing in the wild: Writers’

motivation in fan‐based affinity spaces. Journal of Adolescent & Adult

Literacy, 56(8), 677-685.

Davis, D., & Marone, V. (2016). Learning in discussion forums: An analysis of

knowledge construction in a gaming affinity space. International Journal of

Game-Based Learning, 6(3), 1-17.

de Saint Léger, D., & Storch, N. (2009). Learners’ perceptions and attitudes: Implications

for willingness to communicate in an L2 classroom. System, 37(2), 269-285.

Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging

paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.

Dewaele, J. M., & Dewaele, L. (2018). Learner-internal and learner-external predictors of

willingness to communicate in the FL classroom. Journal of the European Second

Language Association, 2(1), 24-37.

 209

Dewaele, J. M., & Pavelescu, L. M. (2021). The relationship between incommensurable

emotions and willingness to communicate in English as a foreign language: a

multiple case study. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 15(1), 66-

80.

Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis. A user-friendly guide for social scientists.

Routledge.

DiCicco-Bloom, B. & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical

Education, 40(4), 314-321. Doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02418.x.

Dominguez, M. (2017). Qualitative design research methods. Oxford Research

Encyclopedias, Education. 1-28.

https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.170

Domoney, L., & Harris, S. (1993). Justified and ancient: Pop music in EFL classrooms.

ELT Journal, 47(3), 234-241.

Dray, K. (2019, August 23). Friends at 25: Is the sitcom really as problematic as people

say? Stylist investigates. Stylist. https://www.stylist.co.uk/life/friends-netflix-

woke-millennials-problematic-plot-sexism-feminism-homophobia-

transphobia/186201

Drexler, W. (2010). The networked student: A design-based research case study of

student constructed personal learning environments in a middle school science

course [Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida]. ProQuest Dissertations

Publishing. (Order No. 3416700).

 210

Duff, P. A. (2003). Intertextuality and hybrid discourses: The infusion of pop culture in

educational discourse. Linguistics and Education, 14(3-4), 231-276.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2004.02.005

Duffett, M. (2013). Understanding fandom: An introduction to the study of media fan

culture. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.

Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1977). Remarks on creativity in language acquisition. In M. Burt,

H. Dulay, & M. Finocchiaro (Eds.), Viewpoints on English as a second language

(pp. 95-126). Regents.

Eaton, S. (2010). Formal, non-formal and informal learning. The case of literacy,

essential skills and language learning in Canada. Eaton International Consulting

Inc.

Elizalde Sr, R. O. (2018). Connected learning and academic language scaffolds: A

design-based research study with long term English learners [Doctoral

dissertation, Pepperdine University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. (Order

No.10748834)

Ellis, R. (1999). Learning a second language through interaction. John Benjamins

Publishing Company.

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1987). Personality and individual differences.

Plenum.

Faiza, D. (2020). Stimulating English learning in Global KPOP community on

Twitter. Journal of Applied Linguistics (ALTICS), 2(1). 22-34.

 211

Fremaux. (2016). Popular music fandom: Identities, roles and practices // Fan identities

and practices in context: Dedicated to music. IASPM@Journal, 6(1), 143–146.

https://doi.org/10.5429/2079-3871(2016)v6i1.9en

Friese, S. (2019). Qualitative data analysis with ATLAS. ti. Sage.

Galvis Guerrero, H. A. (2011). Using video game-based instruction in an EFL program:

Understanding the power of video games in education. Colombian Applied

Linguistics Journal, 13(1), 58-74.

García, G. E. (1991). Factors influencing the English reading test performance of

Spanish-speaking Hispanic children. Reading Research Quarterly, 26(4), 371-

392.

Gass, S. (1999). Discussion: Incidental vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 21(2), 319-333.

Gee, J. P. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces: From the age of mythology

to today’s schools. In D. Barton & K. Tusting (Eds.), Beyond communities of

practice: Language, power and social context (pp. 214-232). Cambridge

University Press.

Gee, J. P. (2007). Good video games+ good learning: Collected essays on video games,

learning, and literacy. Peter Lang.

Gee, J. P. (2008). Surmise the possibilities: Portal to a game-based theory of learning for

the 21st century. Clash of Realities, 33. 1-27.

Gee, J. P. (2013). Games for learning. Educational Horizons, 91(4), 17-20.

http://www.geez.byethost17.com/pdfs/Games%20for%20Learning.pdf
 212

Gee, J. P. (2017). Affinity spaces and 21st century learning. Educational Technology,

57(2), 27-31.

Gee, J. P., & Hayes, E. (2012). Nurturing affinity spaces and game-based learning.

Games, Learning, and Society: Learning and Meaning in the Digital Age, 123, 1-

40.

Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. American

Psychologist, 39(2), 93-104.

González Reyes, R. (2021). The other faces of the prosumer: A review of the

foundational concepts of pro-am (professional amateur) and

maker. Comunicación y Sociedad, e8072.

https://doi.org/10.32870/cys.v2021.8072

Haider, H., & Frensch, P. A. (2005). The generation of conscious awareness in an

incidental learning situation. Psychological Research, 69(5-6), 399-411.

Hake, R. (2004). Design-based research: A primer for physics-education researchers.

American Journal of Physics, 1-35.

Halaczkiewicz, M. D. (2020). Harnessing writing in the wild: Practical applications of

affinity spaces for English language instruction. TESOL Journal, 11(1), e00453.

https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.453

Hamberg, K., Johansson, E., Lindgren, G., & Westman, G. (1994). Scientific rigour in

qualitative research—examples from a study of women's health in family

practice. Family Practice, 11(2), 176-181.

 213

Hamid, S., Waycott, J., Kurnia, S., & Chang, S. (2015). Understanding students'

perceptions of the benefits of online social networking use for teaching and

learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 26, 1-9.

Hamilton, R. (2010). YouTube for two: Online video resources in a student-centered,

task-based ESL/EFL environment. Contemporary Issues in Education Research,

3(8), 27-32.

Hanselman, S. (2012, November 14). The computer backup rule of three. Hanselman.

https://www.hanselman.com/blog/TheComputerBackupRuleOfThree.aspx

Henry A. (2013). Digital games and ELT: Bridging the authenticity gap. In E. Ushioda.

(Ed), International perspectives on motivation. international perspectives on

English language teaching (pp. 133-155). Palgrave Macmillan.

Henry, A., Korp, H., Sundqvist, P., & Thorsen, C. (2018). Motivational strategies and the

reframing of English: Activity design and challenges for teachers in contexts of

extensive extramural encounters. TESOL Quarterly, 52(2), 247-273.

Herrington, J., McKenney, S., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2007a). Design-based

research and doctoral students: Guidelines for preparing a dissertation proposal.

In C. Montgomerie & J. Seale (Eds.), Proceedings of world conference on

educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications 2007 (pp. 4089-

4097). AACE.

Hilton, K. (2016). The Perception of overlapping speech: Effects of speaker prosody and

listener attitudes. Interspeech, 1260-1264.

 214

Horowitz, K. S. (2019). Video games and English as a second language: The effect of

massive multiplayer online video games on the willingness to communicate and

communicative anxiety of college students in Puerto Rico. American Journal of

Play, 11(3), 379-410.

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom

anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125-132.

Howe, A. (2020, January 16). What enneagram types are the cast of FRIENDS? [Video].

YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msEmFm1CXsg

Hulstijn, J. H. (2003). Incidental and intentional learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long

(Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 349-381). Blackwell

Publishing.

https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/1919275/165053_Hulstijn_Ch_for_Doughty_Long_O

ctober_2002.pdf

Jamalvandi, B., Jafarigohar, M., Jalilifar, A., & Soleimani, H. (2020). Mediation and EFL

learners’ willingness to communicate: A micro sociocultural study. Applied

Research on English Language, 9(4), 449-476.

Jenkins. (2012). “Cultural Acupuncture”: Fan Activism and the Harry Potter Alliance.

Transformative Works and Cultures, 10, 206-229.

https://doi.org/10.3983/twc.2012.0305

Jensen, S. H. (2017). Gaming as an English language learning resource among young

children in Denmark. CALICO Journal, 34(1), 1-19.

 215

Jin. (2021). An analysis of the Korean Wave as transnational popular culture: North

American youth engage through social media as TV becomes

obsolete. International Journal of Communication, 15(2021), 4147–4164.

https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc

Johnson, D. (2005). Classroom focus: The US midwest teaching culture in adult ESL:

Pedagogical and ethical considerations. TESL-EJ, 9(1). 1-12. http://www.tesl-

ej.org/ej33/cf.pdf

Jones, J. (2007). Connected learning in co-operative education. International Journal of

Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19(3), 263-273.

Joseph, D. M. (2000). The passion curriculum design approach: A framework for the

design of interest-centered curricula [Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern

University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. (Order No. 9974302)

Joseph, D. (2004). The practice of design-based research: Uncovering the interplay

between design, research, and the real-world context. Educational Psychologist,

39(4), 235-242.

Kale, S. H., & Shrivastava, S. (2003). The enneagram system for enhancing workplace

spirituality. Journal of Management Development, 22(4), 308–328.

https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710310467596

Kallio, H., Pietilä, A. M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic

methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi‐structured

interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954-2965.

 216

Kang, S. J. (2005). Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a

second language. System, 33(2), 277-292.

Kelly S. E. (2010). Qualitative interviewing techniques and styles. In I. Bourgeault, R.

Dingwall, & R. De Vries (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative methods in

health research (pp. 307-327). Sage Publications.

Kerka, S. (2000). Incidental learning. Trends and Issues Alert, 18, 3-4.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED446234.pdf

Khajavy, G. H., MacIntyre, P. D., & Barabadi, E. (2018). Role of the emotions and

classroom environment in willingness to communicate: Applying doubly latent

multilevel analysis in second language acquisition research. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 40(3), 605-624.

Kim, G. M., & Omerbašić, D. (2017). Multimodal literacies: Imagining lives through

Korean dramas. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(5), 557-566.

Kim, B., Park, H., & Baek, Y. (2009). Not just fun, but serious strategies: using meta-

cognitive strategies in game-based learning. Computers and Education, 52(4),

800–810.

Kivunja, C. (2018). Distinguishing between theory, theoretical framework, and

conceptual framework: A systematic review of lessons from the

field. International Journal of Higher Education, 7(6), 44-53.

Konus, E. (2020). Using sitcoms in ESL/EFL: A handbook for using Friends in the

classroom. [Master’s thesis, University of San Francisco]. Master's Projects and

Capstones. https://repository.usfca.edu/capstone/994
 217

Korthagen, F. (2001). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher

education. Routledge.

Korostenskienė, J., & Pakrosnytė, M. (2017). Analysis of humour in TV series Friends

and its translation into Lithuanian. Sustainable Multilingualism, 11(1), 155-178.

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition.

Pergamon.

Kuppens, A. H. (2010). Incidental foreign language acquisition from media exposure.

Learning, Media and Technology, 35(1), 65-85.

Kustritz. (2016). “They all lived happily ever after. Obviously.”: Realism and utopia in

Game of Thrones-based alternate universe fairy tale fan fiction. Humanities

(Basel), 5(2), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/h5020043

Kusyk, M. (2017). The development of complexity, accuracy and fluency in L2 written

production through informal participation in online activities. CALICO Journal,

34(1), 75-96.

Kusyk, M., & Sockett, G. (2012). From informal resource usage to incidental language

acquisition: Language uptake from online television viewing in English. ASp. la

Revue du GERAS, 62, 45-65.

Lacro, E. (2013). Enhancing student learning and success through the use of social

networking technologies, a design-based research approach [Doctoral

dissertation, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

(Order No. 3572434)

 218

Laird, T., Shoup, R., Kuh, G., & Schwarz, M. (2008). The effects of discipline on deep

approaches to student learning and college outcomes. Research in Higher

Education, 49, 469–494.

Lammers, J., Curwood, J. S., & Magnifico, A. (2012). Toward an affinity space

methodology: Considerations for literacy research. English Teaching: Practice

and Critique. 11(2). 44-58. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jen-

Curwood/publication/272819502_Toward_an_affinity_space_methodology_Cons

iderations_for_literacy_research/links/54ef9d910cf25f74d722803f/Toward-an-

affinity-space-methodology-Considerations-for-literacy-research.pdf

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.

Cambridge University Press.

Lee, J. H. (2018). The effects of short-term study abroad on L2 anxiety, international

posture, and L2 willingness to communicate. Journal of Multilingual and

Multicultural Development, 39(8), 703-714.

Lee, J. S. (2019a). EFL students’ views of willingness to communicate in the extramural

digital context. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(7), 692-712.

Lee, S. M. (2019b). Her story or their own stories? Digital game-based learning, student

creativity, and creative writing. ReCALL, 31(3), 238-254.

Leona, N. L., van Koert, M. J., van der Molen, M. W., Rispens, J. E., Tijms, J., &

Snellings, P. (2021). Explaining individual differences in young English language

learners’ vocabulary knowledge: The role of extramural English exposure and

motivation. System, 96(102402). 1-13.

 219

Levelt, W. J. (1999). Models of word production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(6),

223-232.

Levin, T. F. (2005). The impact of American film and television on Asian ESL students'

perceptions of American culture. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern

California] ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. (Order No. 3196841)

Lichtman, M. (2012). Qualitative research in education: A user's guide. Sage

Publications.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.

Liu, Y. (2015). An empirical study of schema theory and its role in reading

comprehension. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(6), 1349-1356.

Liu, M. (2018). Bilingual/multilingual learners’ willingness to communicate in and

anxiety on speaking Chinese and their associations with self-rated proficiency in

Chinese. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(1),

54-69.

Lu, F. C., & Chang, B. (2016). Role-play game-enhanced English for a specific-purpose

vocabulary-acquisition framework. Educational Technology & Society, 19(2),

367-377.

MacIntyre, P. D., Burns, C., & Jessome, A. (2011). Ambivalence about communicating

in a second language: A qualitative study of French immersion students’

willingness to communicate. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 81-96.

MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing

willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and

 220

affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545-562.

https://doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb05543.x

Mahmoudi, S., & Mahmoudi, A. (2017). Can topic familiarity override language

proficiency in reading comprehension?. Journal of Language Teaching and

Research, 8(3), 496-506.

Malik, Z., & Haidar, S. (2020). English language learning and social media: Schematic

learning on Kpop Stan twitter. E-Learning and Digital Media, 18(4), 361-382.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2016). Designing qualitative research (6th ed.). Sage

Publications.

Marsh, V. L. (2018). Portal and gatekeeper: How peer feedback functions in a high

school writing class. Research in the Teaching of English, 53(2), 149-172.

https://library.ncte.org/journals/RTE/issues/v53-2/29865

Matthews. (2018). A past that never was: historical poaching in Game of Thrones fans’

Tumblr practices. Popular Communication, 16(3), 225–242.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15405702.2018.1453070

McCroskey, J. C., & Baer, J. E. (1985). Willingness to communicate: The construct and

its measurement. (ED265604). ERIC.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED265604.pdf

McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. (1991). Willingness to communicate: A cognitive

view. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5(2), 19-37.

https://www.proquest.com/openview/846c7a6338343b967d74763dd55f79a2/1?pq

-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1819046
 221

McGuirk, P. M. & O'Neill, P. (2016). Using questionnaires in qualitative human

geography. In I. Hay (Eds.), Qualitative research methods in human geography

(pp. 246-273). Oxford University Press.

McKenney, S. E., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational research design.

Routledge.

Miller, M., & Hegelheimer, V. (2006). The SIMs meet ESL incorporating authentic

computer simulation games into the language classroom. Interactive Technology

and Smart Education, 3(4), 311-328.

Moss, R. F. (1987). The next episode: Soap operas as a bridge to improved verbal skills.

The English Journal, 76(1), 35-41.

MsMojo (2017, December 10). Top 10 Friends jokes that would not work on TV today

[Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjkRZcGd5js

Mudawe, O. M. N. (2020). Enhancing EFL students’ cultural awareness through Friends

sitcom. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 9(4),

76-84.

Mulhall, A. (2003). In the field: notes on observation in qualitative research. Journal of

Advanced Nursing, 41(3), 306-313.

Murray, G. (2008). Pop culture and language learning: Learners’ stories informing EFL.

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 2(1), 2-17.

Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A., & Pawlak, M. (2017). Willingness to communicate in

instructed second language acquisition. Multilingual Matters.

https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783097173
 222

Nath, P. R., Mohamad, M., & Yamat, H. (2017). The effects of movies on the affective

filter and English acquisition of low-achieving English learners. Creative

Education, 8(8), 1357-1378.

National Broadcasting Company (NBC). (1994). Friends. [TV Series]. Irvine, CA.

Neely, A. D., & Marone, V. (2016). Learning in parking lots: Affinity spaces as a

framework for understanding knowledge construction in informal settings.

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 11, 58-65.

Ogonoski, M. (2017). Now playing with Coming Soon: Sweding, Fan Culture

Collaboration, and the Adaptation of Movie Trailers within a Transmedia

Industry. Literature Film Quarterly, 45(4).

https://lfq.salisbury.edu/_issues/45_4/now_playing_with_coming_soon.html

Oh, D. C. (2017). K-Pop fans react: Hybridity and the white celebrity-fan on YouTube.

International Journal of Communication, 11(2017). 2270–2287.

https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/6307/2049

Ono, K. A., & Kwon, J. (2013). Re-worlding culture?: YouTube as a K-pop interlocutor.

In Y. Kim (Ed.), The Korean wave (pp. 215-230). Routledge.

https://www.routledge.com/The-Korean-Wave-Korean-Media-Go-

Global/Kim/p/book/9781315859064

Olsson, E. (2011). Everything I read on the Internet is in English. On the impact of

extramural English on Swedish 16-year-old pupils' writing proficiency [Doctoral

dissertation, Gothenburg University]. https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/30417

Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. Hodder & Stoughton.

 223

Padgett, E. R., & Curwood, J. S. (2016). A figment of their imagination: Adolescent

poetic literacy in an online affinity space. Journal of Adolescent & Adult

Literacy, 59(4), 397-407.

Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content

knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as

professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261-284.

Pauw, D., Warrick, E., Boston, C., Preece, J., & Clegg, T. (2017, February). Connecting

affinity spaces to places and back: A look at Pokemon Go. Companion of the

2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social

Computing (pp. 275-278). ACM.

https://dl.acm.org/action/showFmPdf?doi=10.1145%2F3022198

Pawlak, M., Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A., & Bielak, J. (2016). Investigating the nature of

classroom willingness to communicate (WTC): A micro-perspective. Language

Teaching Research, 20(5), 654-671.

Peng, J. E. (2014). Willingness to communicate inside the EFL classroom and beyond:

An ecological perspective. Multilingual Matters.

Pearson, P. D., Hiebert, E. H., & Kamil, M. L. (2007). Vocabulary assessment: What we

know and what we need to learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 282-296.

Price, L., & Robinson, L. (2017). ‘Being in a knowledge space’: Information behaviour

of cult media fan communities. Journal of Information Science, 43(5), 649-664.

Priniski, S. J., Hecht, C. A., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2018). Making learning personally

meaningful: A new framework for relevance research. The Journal of

 224

Experimental Education, 86(1), 11-29.

https://doi:10.1080/00220973.2017.1380589

Qiu, X., & Lo, Y. Y. (2017). Content familiarity, task repetition and Chinese EFL

learners’ engagement in second language use. Language Teaching Research,

21(6), 681-698. https://doi:10.1177/1362168816684368

Rama, P. S., Black, R. W., Van Es, E., & Warschauer, M. (2012). Affordances for second

language learning in World of Warcraft. ReCALL: the Journal of EUROCALL,

24(3), 322-338.

Ranalli, J. (2008). Learning English with The Sims: Exploiting authentic computer

simulation games for L2 learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(5),

441-455.

Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks

guide research. Sage Publications.

Rieber, L. P. (1991). Animation, incidental learning, and continuing motivation. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 318-328.

Rothoni, A. (2017). The interplay of global forms of pop culture and media in

teenagers’‘interest-driven’ everyday literacy practices with English in Greece.

Linguistics and Education, 38, 92-103.

Ryu, D. (2011). Non-native English speakers' multiliteracy learning in beyond-game

culture: A sociocultural study. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(2),

231-245. https://search-proquest-

com.ezp.lib.rochester.edu/docview/1497210996?accountid=13567
 225

Ryu, D. (2013). Play to learn, learn to play: Language learning through gaming culture.

ReCALL: The Journal of EUROCALL, 25(2), 286-301.

https://doi:10.1017/S0958344013000050

Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage Publications.

Sanna. (2017). Fan phenomena: The Lord of the Rings. Quarterly Review of Film and

Video, 34(2), 194–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509208.2016.1255923

Sauro, S. (2017). Online fan practices and CALL. CALICO Journal, 34(2), 131-146.

doi:10.1558/cj.33077

Sauro, S., & Sundmark, B. (2016). Report from Middle-Earth: fan fiction tasks in the

EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 70(4), 414-423.

Savva, S. (2016). Re-imagining schooling: Weaving the picture of school as an affinity

space for twenty-first century through a multiliteracies lens. In A. Montgomery &

I. Kehoe (Eds.), Reimagining the purpose of schools and educational

Organisations (pp. 49-64). Springer Switzerland.

Schiefele, U., & Krapp, A. (1996). Learning and individual differences. Journal of

Psychology and Education, 8(2), 141–160.

Scholz, K. (2017). Encouraging free play: Extramural digital game-based language

learning as a complex adaptive system. CALICO Journal, 34(1), 39-57.

doi:10.1558/cj.29527

Scolari, C. A. (2018). Transmedia literacy in the new media ecology. White Paper.

Sharma, P., & Land, S. (2019). Patterns of knowledge sharing in an online affinity space

for diabetes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(2), 247-275.

 226

Shattuck, J., & Anderson, T. (2013). Using a design-based research study to identify

principles for training instructors to teach online. The International Review of

Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(5). 186-210.

Shenton, A. K. (2007). The interest-related information needs of teenagers in an English

high school. The Reference Librarian, 47(2), 75-91.

Skrinda, A. (2010). A meaningful context-based approach to foreign language vocabulary

acquisition at the tertiary level. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable

Education, 1(1), 17-281.

Stiller, K. D., & Schworm, S. (2019). Game-based learning of the structure and

functioning of body cells in a foreign language: effects on motivation, cognitive

load, and performance. Frontiers in Education 4(18). 1-19.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200306203822id_/https://epub.uni-

regensburg.de/40177/1/feduc-04-00018.pdf

Stapleton, P. (2001). Assessing critical thinking in the writing of Japanese university

students: Insights about assumptions and content familiarity. Written

Communication, 18(4), 506-548. doi:10.1177/0741088301018004004

Stoller, F. (1988). Films and videotapes in the ESL/EFL classroom. ERIC. (ED 299835).

Suchapain (2018, January 12). Millennials watching Friends on Netflix shocked at how

problematic it is - independent UK [Online forum post]. Reddit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/GGdiscussion/comments/7pxti8/millennials_watching_f

riends_on_netflix_shocked/
 227

Suh, S., Kim, S. W., & Kim, N. J. (2010). Effectiveness of MMORPG‐based instruction

in elementary English education in Korea. Journal of Computer Assisted

Learning, 26(5), 370-378.

Suksawas, W. (2011). A sociocultural study of EFL learners' willingness to communicate

[Doctoral dissertation, University of Wollongong]. Research Online.

https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4429&context=theses

Sundqvist, P. (2009). The impact of spare time activities on students’ English language

skills. In S. Granath, B. Bihl, & S. Wenno (Eds.), Väger til språk- och litteratur

(pp. 63-76). Karlstad University Press.

Sundqvist, P., & Olin-Scheller, C. (2013). Classroom vs. extramural English: Teachers

dealing with demotivation. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(6), 329-338.

Sundqvist, P., & Sylvén, L. K. (2012). World of VocCraft: Computer games and Swedish

learners’ L2 English vocabulary. In H. Reinders (Ed.), Digital games in language

learning and teaching (pp. 189-208). Palgrave Macmillan.

Sylvén, L. K. (2006). How is extramural exposure to English among Swedish school

students used in the CLIL classroom. Current Research on CLIL, 47-53.

Sylvén, L. K., & Sundqvist, P. (2012). Gaming as extramural English L2 learning and L2

proficiency among young learners. ReCALL, 24(3), 302-321.

Taylor M. C. (2005). Interviewing. In I. Holloway (Ed.), Qualitative research in health

care (pp. 39-55). McGraw-Hill Education.

Thomas, D. R. (2003). A general inductive approach for qualitative data analysis.

Semantic Scholoar.
 228

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/700b/1636a266dc781409bcf21fedd57850dd3b81

.pdf

Thorne, S. L., Black, R. W., & Sykes, J. M. (2009). Second language use, socialization,

and learning in Internet interest communities and online gaming. The Modern

Language Journal, 93, 802-821.

Thorne, S. L., & Reinhardt, J. (2008). "Bridging activities," new media literacies, and

advanced foreign language proficiency. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 558-572.

Todd, A. M. (2011). Saying goodbye to Friends: Situation comedy as lived experience.

The Journal of Popular Culture, 44(4), 855-872.

https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=comm_

pub

Toffoli, D., & Sockett, G. (2015). University teachers’ perceptions of online informal

learning of English (OILE). Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(1), 7-21.

Tomasello, M. (2000). First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition.

Cognitive Linguistics, 11(1/2), 61-82.

Vahdat, S., & Behbahani, A. R. (2013). The effect of video games on Iranian EFL

learners’ vocabulary learning. The Reading Matrix, 13(1), 61-71.

Vale, L. C. (2017). The case for fanfiction in the ESL classroom [Doctoral dissertation,

Universidad de Puerto Rico]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order

No. 10614920)

Vazquez-Calvo, B. (2018). The online ecology of literacy and language practices of a

gamer. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 199-212.

 229

Vos, N., Van Der Meijden, H., & Denessen, E. (2011). Effects of constructing versus

playing an educational game on student motivation and deep learning strategy

use. Computers & Education, 56(1), 127-137.

Vosburg, D. (2017). The effects of group dynamics on language learning and use in an

MMOG. CALICO Journal, 34(1), 58-74.

Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher

psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The collected works of LS Vygotsky: Problems of the theory and

history of psychology (Vol. 3). Springer Science & Business Media.

Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced

learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development,

53(4), 5-23.

Wang, H., Peng, A., & Patterson, M. M. (2021). The roles of class social climate,

language mindset, and emotions in predicting willingness to communicate in a

foreign language. System, 99(102529). 1-12.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102529

Wang, C., Song, H., Xia, F., & Yan, Q. (2009). Integrating Second Life into an EFL

program: Students’ perspectives. Journal of Educational Technology

Development and Exchange, 2(1), 1-16.

Wellington, J. (2000). Educational research: Contemporary issues and practical

approaches. Continuum.
 230

Wideman, H. H., Owston, R. D., Brown, C., Kushniruk, A., Ho, F., Pitts, K. C., et al.

(2007). Unpacking the potential of educational gaming: a new tool for gaming.

Simulation and Gaming, 38(1), 10–30.

Wong, H. M., Bridges, S. M., Ma, K. W., Yiu, C. K. Y., McGrath, C. P., & Zayts, O. A.

(2020). Advanced informatics understanding of clinician-patient communication:

A mixed-method approach to oral health literacy talk in interpreter-mediated

pediatric dentistry. PloS One, 15(3), e0230575-e0230575. https://

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0230575

Woo, B. (2012). Alpha nerds: Cultural intermediaries in a subcultural scene. European

Journal of Cultural Studies, 15(5), 659-676. doi:10.1177/1367549412445758

Woodward, E. (2018, March 16). 21 times "Friends" was actually really problematic.

BuzzFeed. https://www.buzzfeed.com/elliewoodward/times-friends-was-actually-

really-problematic

Xiong, L., & Smyrnios, K. (2013). Social, cultural, and environmental drivers of

international students' fear of crime: A cognitive behavioral perspective. In Y.

Kashima, E. S. Kashima, & R. Beatson (Eds.), Steering the cultural dynamics:

Selected papers from the 2010 congress of the international association for cross-

cultural psychology (pp. 102-110). IACCP.

https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/iaccp_papers/100/

Yang, L. H., & Fleming, M. (2013). How Chinese college students make sense of foreign

films and TV series: implications for the development of intercultural

 231

communicative competence in ELT. The Language Learning Journal, 41(3), 297-

310.

Yashima, T., MacIntyre, P. D., & Ikeda, M. (2018). Situated willingness to communicate

in an L2: Interplay of individual characteristics and context. Language Teaching

Research, 22(1), 115-137.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and method (4th ed.) Thousand Oaks:

Sage Publications.

Zhaohua, S. (2004). Effects of previewing and providing background knowledge on EFL

reading comprehension of American documentary narratives. TESL Reporter,

37(2), 50-63.

Zimmerman, J. J. (2019). Computer game fan communities, community management,

and structures of membership. Games and Culture, 14(7-8), 896-916.

 232

Appendix A. Preliminary Survey and Responses

233
234
235
 236

Appendix B. Transcripts for the Course Introduction Video

Appendix B1_Intro Video Script

Are you an English language learner who also enjoys the TV show “Friends”? Com e and join
this free online English conversation course for “Friends” fans!

Hi, everyone! Welcome to the online Friends English conversation course!

My name is Yu Jung Han, and I am a Ph.D. candidate in Teaching and Curriculum at Warner
School of Education. Some of you may a lready know me from the English Language Program at
the language center of University of Rochester where I taught ELP courses for thre e years.

Recently the university has decided to discontinue the ELP courses. And some of my previous
ELP students if there are any English classes even in online settings.

So I would like you t o invite you to my online English conversation course. But this is not just a
regular course. This course is designed for peopl e who love the popular American TV show
“Friends”. Yes, this course is “The FRIENDS course”.

The course is 5-week long, totally free, fully online course. And we will talk and learn about
American culture and social issues by using episodes and chara cters of Friends. So to participate
in the course activities, you need to know Friends quit e well.

Some may wonder, “how well?” “Do I need to watch all the episodes of Friends”? Well, no. Can
you name all 6 main characters of Friends? Do you know thei r personalities? Can you name
some major events that happened to them throughout the season? If ye s, you are good to go!

I am a person who learned English by watching Friends. Many people around the world improve
their English while enjoying their favorite movies, books, TV shows, games, and more! So I
believe “interest” is important in learning.

And that is why I am conducting a dissertation research study titled Extramural English in the
Classroom: Intersecting Spaces for Interest-driven English Learning. And as a part of it, I
would like to explore the “Friends” course.

I would like to see what happens if I gather students who love Friends and have an English
conversation course that only talks about “Friends”. At the end of the course, I will ask you if
you are willing to participate in my study or not.

If you say “okay, I will participate in your study” that means you agree that I can explore what
you did during the course, and that you will participate in one-time online interview AFTER the
course is over. That’s it. Just one extra interview.

And your participation in this study is completely voluntary and that is why I will ask your
decision at the very end of the course. No pressure, just come and enjoy the free 5-week online
course to talk about your favorite TV show first.

Page 1 of 2
Version Date: 06/19/2020
RSRB #: STUDY00004595 (MOD00006086)
RSRB Approval Date: 6/22/2020
237
 238

Appendix C. General Study Information Letter

INFORMATION SHEET

Extramural English in the Classroom: Intersecting Spaces for Interest-driven

English Learning

Principal Investigator: Yu Jung Han

This form describes a research study that is being conducted Yu Jung Han (PI) from the
University of Rochester’s Department of Warner school of Education.

The purpose of this study is to learn about how English language learners (ELLs)
participate in the Friends course. You are being asked to be in the study because you
have registered the Friends course.

For the next five weeks, I will be teaching the online Friends course in Zoom while
recording our online class sessions and student works (e.g., taking snapshots of digital
works that students created ). Such recordings are a part of the Friends course because
you will be watching the recordings of other classma tes’ activities/works to get ready for
the next activity!

If you decide to take part in this study, you wi ll be asked to agree that the I can use your
student works, class reco rdings to analyze and interpret for the propose d study, and to
agree that you will participate in one-time virtual interview (post-semester interview) via
Zoom at the end of the semester.

Since I am an instructor of the course, there is a small chance that you may feel
pressure to participate in the study. To minimize this tension, I will ask your final
decision to participate in this study at the end of the semester. In Lesson 8, I will
distribute and explain an interview information letter. The interview information letter
states more detailed information on what it means to participate in the study and what it
entails. The interview information letter has a Qualtrics link, a webp age where you can
select an interview time. You can expre ss your willingness to participate in the interview
by filling out the Qualtrics form by the end of day of the last class (Lesson 10).

For students who decided not to take part in this study, there is a small chance that
video recording your activity may make you feel uncomfortab le. Because this study
involves collecting identifiable information (e.g., video reco rdings), there is a potentia l
for a breach in confidentiality. To minimize this risk, I will use pseudonyms when
reporting our data.

There are no other expected risks to you for particip ating in this study. There are also
no expected benefits.

Page 1 of 2
Version Date: 06/19/2020
RSRB #: STUDY00004595
RSRB Approval Date: 6/22/2020
239
 240

Appendix D. Pre-term Questionnaire

241
242
 243

Appendix E. Interview Information Letter

244
 245

Appendix F. A Sample of the Codes, Categories, and Theme (R2)

Theme Categories Codes Line-by-line data bit Data

label
Influence Facilitatin Participants It helps a lot. For instance, when I Intervie
of the g to can share was talking about, uh, the w/Per
teacher speak more Office in the second or the third cy
s’ more information class, I remember that you, you
familia when on their told me that, you asked me 'the
rity the favorite TV British or American version? '.
with teacher show when So I am pretty sure that no, not
partici who the teacher many people know about the
pants’ knows knows what fact that there are two different
EE my they are versions. So for instance, you
favorite talking knowing that helped me a lot to,
show about to put more information in the
table about the Office, (PI:
Umm...) because I know that
you are aware that what
happens in this TV show.
Participants I am not talking with, with Intervie
get more someone that doesn't know w/Per
confidence about this TV show but you cy
to talk know, so it helps a lot. So it
about my gives me more confidence to, to
TV show talk about this and knowing that
when the you can answer or I don't know.
teacher
knows
about it.
Participants I felt like I, I could share my Intervie
can share knowledge about this TV show w/Per
more without problems, because I cy
knowledge knew that you, you knew about
about the the TV show. (PI: Um-hmm.)
TV show So it helps a lot to the
when the communication.
teacher
knows it
 246

Positively Particiapants Oh, it was awesome for me. It Intervie

impact feels was, uh, great because I feel that w/Rac
emotion connected we were connect, you know. hel
when when the Um, yes, um. It's weird but
the teacher when I am talking with other
teacher understands people uh about Friends, or no,
knows me when I not about Friends, when I say
my talk about something about Friends, I am
favorite my favorite really, I always, yes I am really,
TV TV show uh you know, happy and, and
show [teacher] you understand me,
exciting.
Participants When you, I would say that I felt Intervie
feel like uh, happy. I felt that I was listened w/Percy
listened by by you.
the teacher
when the
teacher
knows my
TV show
Participants PI says, "so maybe Percy you have Class
smiles something to share about observati
when the American office culture because on note
teacher he said he likes to watch the Tv (Class 8)
acknowledg show "The Office". Percy smiles.
es their
expertise
on their TV
show

Teacher For me, it was a really interesting Class

selecting clip, since I feel like it represents observati
EE clips by one of the most popular types of on note
reflecting jokes in Friends and any other TV (Class 7)
on her shows. So I chose it, hoping
experiences students could get it as well.

Teacher using It took forever to locate the right Teacher

her YouTube clip (even harder than Reflectio
expertise to the previous class! I gotta say, I n Journal
curate the was under a huge stress to locate (Class 3)
 247

class the video clips. I was about to

materials make my own! But locating
expressions, screen capturing and
editing, all the things will take
forever, and I only have a couple
of days to do so.
 248

Appendix G. Interview Protocol with Guiding Questions

To be read aloud:

The purpose of this study is to learn about English language learners’ (ELLs) experiences

in the Friends course. You are being asked to be in the study because you have taken the

Friends course that the PI designed and taught. If you decide to take part in this study, you

will be asked to agree that: (1) the PI uses your student works, class recordings to analyze and

interpret for the proposed study, and; (2) you will participate in one-time interview (post-term

interviews) to share your learning experiences in the Friends course, approximately 60-minutes

long. There will be no cost to you to participate in this study. The PI will digitally record interviews

by using the recording feature in Zoom. Recording the interview is important because the

recordings ensure accurate capturing of information you provided during the interview. There is

small chance that some of the questions may make you feel uncomfortable. You may skip any

questions you do not want to answer. There are no other expected risks to you for participating in

this study. Again, participating in this study is completely voluntary. Are you willing to participate?

Interview Protocol

• Time of interview:

• Date:

• Place:

• Interviewee:

• Ask interviewee to choose pseudonym:

Questions

1. Describe the Friends course in your own terms.

 249

2. How would you describe your course experiences in terms of using your

knowledge about Friends?

3. How would you describe your Friends course experiences in terms of your

English language use?

4. How would you describe your Friends course experiences in terms of your

English language proficiency?

5. How would you describe your Friends course experiences in terms of what you

learned about English?

6. In your pre-term questionnaire, you mentioned that you (play/watch/write…) to

enjoy Friends (in terms of engagement with Friends). How do you feel about it

now?

7. What other experiences did you have in the course that you would like to share

with me?

8. If you were new to Friends before the course, how do you feel about it now?

9. Would you like to add anything else?

 250

Appendix H: Formative Summary Activity Example of Class 4

In Class 4, I assigned the presentation prompts for students to summarize key

points covered from Class 2 (Natural and authentic voca/expressions) and Class 3

(Various usages in various situations) under the first theme What Friends tells us in terms

of learning English language. The iterated class design was already at play and the

presentation prompts were not Friends-specific. Rather, they asked a bigger question of

each theme that could provide an opportunity to explicitly think about constructive ways

to engage with TV shows. By using topics covered in classes and knowledge and

experiences of their own, students had to prepare a five-minute presentation and poster

that responded to the prompts with information that would be beneficial to their

classmates (Figure 27). Two groups of students were working on a different prompt in

two breakout room sessions:

• Breakout room 1 (Non-participating students A and B)

o Topic: What should we do to learn more natural and authentic
expressions while watching the TV show? What should we do to
be able to use them in various settings? Share your tips and ideas!
• Breakout room 2 (Klaus & Sam)
o Topic: What should we keep in mind when learning new
expressions from the TV show? For example, what if the
expression is too old and no one uses it? How can we know what is
too old and what is still used?
Figure 26

A Screenshot of the Poster from the Breakout Room 2 on Google Doc

 251

After creating the poster on google doc, they paired with one student from a

different breakout room, presenting what they prepared. Klaus paired up with Student A.

Sam paired up with Student B. They shared their presentation and listened to their

partner’s presentation.
 252

Appendix I. Full Homework Assignment for Class 2

• Class date: July 4, 2020 (Saturday)

• Homework assignment provided on: June 30, 2020 (Tuesday)

• Minor editing (e.g., typos, font changes) conducted for this paper

Topic: Describing personalities of the 6 characters

Video source:

What Enneagram Types are the cast of FRIENDS? By Abbey Howe

https://youtu.be/msEmFm1CXsg

Directions: Please watch the video that explores the enneagram types of the

main Friends characters. You can ignore the number (e.g., Type 3), since enneagram is

not our focus. Instead, I would like you to study the expressions that the speaker is using

to describe their personalities. Here are some examples and the timestamps where you

can hear them. You will need to use some of these expressions on Saturday (Class 2). :)

Good luck!

Monica:
• perfectionist (00:30)
• meticulously organized (00:49)
• stays on top of her tasks (00:51)
• has (this) strong sense of justice when she stands up for her friends (00:53)
• hyper-aware of the ethical flaws in others (00:59)
• compulsively chases perfectionism (01:08)
• is duty-bound to (01:34)
• is a rock that others rely on (01:53)
Ross:
• intelligent (02:23)
• intensely curious (02:24)
• (is) a textbook overthinker (02:25)
 253

• has a scientific mind (02:41)

• insecure (02:45) <--in the video, she says "his insecurities kick into gear"
• relies on his knowledge of the world (03:08)
• watch life from the sidelines instead of participating in it (03:23)
Rachel:
• trendsetter (03:43)
• is very career-driven (04:16)
• ambitious (03:59)
• competitive (03:59)
• rises to the challenges in her life (04:00)
• dramatic (04:03)
• moody (04:03)
• self-absorbed (04:04)
• goes after it with a great work ethic and tenacity (04:20)
• has trouble accessing and recognizing her feelings (04:43)
• melodramatic (05:05)
Chandler:
• extremely royal (05:26) <--she also said is very loyal to his friends (05:49) & his
strong sense of loyalty (05:59)
• has a strong need to prove himself (05:27)
• seeks stability in his life (05:29)
• overly cautious (06:04)
• tends to see the world through fear-tinted glasses (06:22)
Phoebe:
• easygoing (07:08)
• creative (07:08)
• optimistic (07:09)
• supportive (07:09)
• is generally accepting of everyone, and avoids conflicts at all cost (07:10)
• has trouble confronting her issues (07:20)
• passive-aggressiveness (08:00)
• is the heart of the show (08:15)
• is a natural mediator (08:17)0
• points out the value in hard situations (08:20)
Joey:
• extroverted (08:33)
• flexible (08:34)
• optimistic (08:35)
• full of adventure (08:36)
• *08:45-09:00 <--It does look strange, but he is in the middle of his audition.
 254

• is always seeking new and fun adventures (09:05)

• is usually in good spirits (09:09)
• can often be uncommitted (09:24)
 255

Appendix J. Full Homework Assignment for Class 7

• Class date: July 21, 2020 (Tuesday)

• Homework assignment provided on: July 18, 2020 (Saturday)

• Minor editing (e.g., typos, font sizes, etc.) conducted for this paper

Topic: What makes "Friends" funny?: Understanding jokes in American TV

shows

Directions: After 25 years, “Friends” is still one of the most popular TV shows in

the American TV history. What is that? What makes “Friends” that funny? Here are the

examples of the three different types of jokes in “Friends”. Watch the videos and think

about the questions! :D

1. Video: Friends: Monica Cheats on Rachel (02:38)

(https://youtu.be/QCdqHswGS5A)

Situation: Rachel likes Ross, but Ross is dating another woman, Julie. So Rachel

hates Julie. Monica, Ross’s sister, went shopping with Julie and wants to keep it a secret.

Rachel finds a receipt in Monica's jacket that leaves her feeling betrayed.

*Transcripts from http://friends.tktv.net/Episodes2/summaries/2.html

A question to consider while watching:

1. What makes this scene funny? Did you get the humor behind it?
Transcripts:
● MONICA: Hey, where is everybody?
● RACHEL: They took Ben to the park. Where've you been?
● MONICA: Just out. Had some lunch, just me, little quality time with me. Thanks
for your jacket.
● RACHEL: Oh, no problem. You can borrow it, by the way. Here are your keys,
hon. Mon, if uh you were at lunch alone, how come it cost you uh 53 dollars?
 256

● MONICA: You know what probably happened? Someone musta (=must have)
stolen my credit card.
● RACHEL: And sorta (=sort of) just put the receipt back in your pocket
● MONICA: That is an excellent, excellent question. That is excellent.
● RACHEL: Monica, what is with you? Who'd you have lunch with?
● MONICA: Judy.
● RACHEL: Who?
● MONICA: Julie.
● RACHEL: What?
● MONICA: Jody.
● RACHEL: You were with Julie?
● MONICA: Look, when it started, I was just trying to be nice to her because she
was my brother's girlfriend. And then, one thing led to another and, before I
knew it, we were...shopping.
● RACHEL: Oh. Oh my god.
● MONICA: Honey, wait. We only did it once. It didn't mean anything to me.
● RACHEL: Yeah, right.
● MONICA: Really, Rachel, I was thinking of you the whole time. Look, I'm sorry, all
right. I never meant for you to find out.
● RACHEL: Oh, please, you wanted to get caught.
● MONICA: That is not true!
● RACHEL: Oh, so you just sort of happened to leave it in here?
● MONICA: Did it ever occur to you that I might just be that stupid?
● RACHEL: Ok, Monica. I just have to know one thing. Did you go with her to
Bloomingdales? Oh! Ok, ok, ok, I just really, uh, I just really need to not be with
you right now.

2. Video: Friends - Will hates Rachel (04:37)

(https://youtu.be/rJ0yqOavyPo)

Situation: It's Thanksgiving. And Monica and Ross' old friends, Will, is coming for

dinner. For some reason, Will hates Rachel, but Rachel does not remember him.

*Transcripts from http://www.livesinabox.com/friends/season8/809rumor.htm

Questions to consider while watching:

 257

1. What makes this scene funny? Did you get the humor behind it? Actually, there

are so many points that make this scene funny and dramatic. Could you get all of

them?

Transcripts:

● Monica: Hey!
● Will: Hey! (The live studio audience goes absolutely wild.)
● Will: Happy Thanksgiving!
● Monica: Aww thanks! God Will I’m so glad that you came! You look great! You
must’ve lost like…
● Will: 150 pounds. Yeah, I’m gonna be in one of those Subway sandwich
commercials.
● Monica: A pie!
● Will: Oh right. All right, it’s no fat, it’s no sugar, it’s no dairy…it’s no good. Throw
it out.
● Monica: You wanna meet some people? This is uh; this is my husband Chandler.
Chandler, this is Will.
● Will: Hey.
● Chandler: Oh hey. I’d shake your hand but uh; I’m really into the game. Plus, I
think it’d be better for my ego if we didn’t stand right next to each other.
● Monica: This is Phoebe.
● Phoebe: Hey. Wow! (Looks up.) Well done.
● Monica: (to Will) Wanna give me a hand?
● Will: Sure! Monica, I can’t get over how great you look! You look stunning!
● Monica: Well you look incredible too! You’re just—you’re so fit!
● Chandler: I’m watching the game, but I’m not deaf!
● Monica: Oh umm, I meant to tell you, Ross is coming.
● Will: Ross is coming. Great! I love Ross!
● Monica: Good. And Rachel Green too.
● Will: Oh.
● Monica: Is there a problem?
● Will: Nope. Uh, it’s okay. It’s just uh, God I hated her.
● Monica: What?
● Will: Yeah, I hated her. She was horrible to me in high school. But hey, it was a
long time ago, I’m in a good place, it might be actually fun to see her again. You
got any cakes or cookies or something? No, Will no!
● Chandler: Y’know, it’s been a while since we’ve screamed something. Maybe we
should.
 258

● Phoebe: Oh okay.
● Chandler: Oh come on!
● Phoebe: Noooo!! Damn you ref! You burn in hell!!!
● Monica: Hey, what are you doing? You gotta save room, you’ve got almost an
entire turkey to eat.
● Joey: Let me explain to you how the human body works. I have to warm my
stomach first. Eatin’ chips is like stretching.
● Monica: All right.
● Joey: Don’t worry, Tribbianis never get full.
● Will: I actually know what you're talking about. I'm here to tell you something,
my friend, you can eat and eat and eat, but nothing will ever fill that void.
● Joey: Who the hell is this guy?
● Monica: Will! From high school.
● Joey: Oh hey!
● Monica: Joey.
● Will: Hello.
● Ross: Will!
● Will: Ross!
● Ross: Hey-hey you came! Man, you look incredible! Hot stuff! Hot stuff?
● Will: It's good to see you, man.
● Ross: Yeah, you too. Man, so-so what are you up to?
● Will: I’m a commodities broker.
● Ross: Really? Yeah that-that sounds interesting.
● Will: Yeah, it’s not. But I’m rich and thin.
● Ross: Oh! Man, I don't think I've seen you since, uh, Lance Davis' graduation
party.
● Will: That was such a fun night!
● Ross: Yeah. It would’ve been good if we had gotten in, but still real fun.
● Will: Yeah.
● Ross: Yeah.
● Will: God we were lame back then. Do you remember how into dinosaurs we
were?
● Ross: Yeah.
● Will: So what do you, what do you do now?
● Ross: So how long are you in town?
● Rachel: Hi!
● Monica: Hey sweetie. Oh good.
● Will: (glaring at Rachel) Rachel Green.
● Ross: Aw—oh, that’s right. Are-are you gonna be okay?
● Will: Oh, I’ll-I’ll be fine. Just God I hate her Ross! I hate her!
● Ross: Will, high school was-was a long time ago.
 259

● Will: Look at her standing there with those yams! My two greatest enemies,
Ross. Rachel Green and complex carbohydrates.
● Rachel: Oh my God, Monica, who is that?
● Monica: That’s Will from high school!
● Rachel: Oh! I do not remember him! Wow! He's really got that sexy, smoldering
thing going on. Oh my God, he’s… Look at the way he’s just staring at me. I think
he’s trying to mouth something to me, but I can’t make it out. (Will mouths, "I
hate you.")
● Monica: Okay, dinner’s ready!
● Chandler: Good game!
● Phoebe: Yeah.
● Chandler: Yeah. Solid effort. Solid effort.
● Monica: Oh, so who won?
● Phoebe: Green Bay.
● Chandler: Detroit.
● Monica: What?
● Phoebe: Well the Lions technically won, but it was a moral victory for the Green
Bay…Mermen.
● Rachel: Hi! Will, right?
● Will: Right.
● Rachel: Hi! I’m Rachel Green.
● Will: Oh I-I remember you.
● Rachel: Really?! Aren’t you sweet! I gotta tell you though, I am, I am having the
hardest time placing you. Oh-oh hang on! Did we umm, did we fool around at
Lance Davis’ graduation party?
● Will: You are unbelievable.
● Rachel: Thank you!

3. Video: Friends - Ross plays the bagpipes (03:20)

(https://youtu.be/xgSDSntZJP0)

Situation: Monica and Chandler are getting married soon. Ross said he would

prepare a surprise present for their wedding. And it turns out what Ross is preparing is

not what Monica and Chandler want.

*Transcripts from

https://www.fanfr.com/scripts/saison7/friendsgeneration2.php?nav=script&version=vo&episodescript=715
 260

Questions to consider while watching:

1. What makes this scene funny? Did you get the humor behind it?
Transcripts:
● [Scene: Monica and Chandler are eating lunch, when they start to hear a horrible
screeching noise. ]
● Monica: What is that?
● Chandler: I think it’s the dying cat parade.
● Monica: It sounds like it’s coming from across the street.
● Chandler: Oh my God!
● Monica: What?
● Chandler: You know that thing that Ross was gonna do at our wedding?! He was
hanging out with me yesterday, and he turned to me and said, "You're half
Scottish, right?"
● Monica: Nooo!!
● Chandler: Yes!!
● Monica: No, there is no way! It can not be Ross! Unbelievable! Why is your
family Scottish?!
● Chandler: Why is your family Ross?!
● Monica: He cannot play at our wedding! I mean, everyone will leave! I mean
come on, that is just noise! It’s not even a song!
● Chandler: If you listen very carefully, I think it's Celebration by Kool and the
Gang.
● [Scene: Central Perk, Monica and Chandler are sitting on the couch. Ross is
sitting on the armchair.]
● Chandler: Well, I feel like a snack!
● Monica: Do you want some shortbread? Eh that’s Scottish like you are.
● Chandler: Oh no thanks. I don’t like anything from my Scottish heritage.
● Ross: What?!
● Chandler: Well, it's just my entire family was run out of Scotland by…Vikings.
Anyway, lots of bad memories.
● Ross: Oh well, it sounds to me like your family is ready to uh, rediscover its
Scottish roots.
● Monica: You can not play bagpipes at the wedding!!
● Ross: How did you know about that?!
● Chandler: We heard you play all the way from your apartment!
● Ross: Were you the ones called the cops?!
● Chandler: That’s not really important right now. What is important is; while we
appreciate the gesture, we just don’t feel bagpipes are appropriate for our
wedding.
● Ross: Why not?
 261

● Chandler: Because we hate them.

● Ross: Just-just give me a chance to perform for you and then decide whatever
you want. And I’m not going to tell you what song I’m gonna play either. But uh,
let's just say when it's over, I'll bet there will be a wee bit o' celebration.
● [Scene: Monica and Chandler’s, Ross is about to play the bagpipes.]
● Ross: (stands up) Now umm, remember I’m still learning. One, two, three, four!
● Ross: You know the song! Sing along!
● (Phoebe is singing along)
● Ross: So?
● Monica and Chandler: No!
 262

Appendix K: Full Transcripts of Conversation on The Umbrella Academy

Turn Speaker Excerpt

1 Teacher After watching Umbrella Academy first episode of season one, you can
(PI) call your friend like, "Percy! thank you for your suggestion. I, I'm, I'm
really enjoying this TV show!"
2 Rachel Sorry, is it, it's a really good TV show? Because I, I just know about this,
uh, yesterday. I, I saw in the screen, you know, and I have to, to start a
new TV show and I don't know (Percy already showing body language
such as rubbing hands, moving his torso front and back & Klaus began
to smirk) uh, which one. It is a good TV show, Umbrella Academy?
3 Teacher So (Percy: Yeah) I can, I can see Percy (Percy: Actually) is ready to
(PI) speak. Percy, go.

4 Percy If you like, if you like Heroes…

5 Rachel Oh, no no no, I don’t like Heroes. (Percy: Well then...) (Klaus: Well,) But
[Rachel’s husband] is saying, uh, “Yes, it's really good.” Okay, no, no,
but I don't like Heroes so (Klaus: Haha, yeah.) [Rachel’s husband],
[Rachel’s husband] can, (Joey: He is *not clear*) (PI: How come you
don’t like Heroes!! It has Nakamura Hiro!)
6 Klaus Yeah. You like people with superpowers (Rachel: Oh no no no no no)
(Joey: Oh!)
7 Teacher But I watched the quick review video and it's not like Marvel or DC
(PI) comics.
8 Rachel (Joey: Yeah) I was thinking about like adventures it's not like this (Joey:
No./Klaus: Not.) Well, well, maybe.
9 Joey There are, there are actually people with supernatural skills that actually
have to face them as a normal people with their normal struggles so it's
half and half is there is like a story about the superpowers and all what
what's happening and also there is like a drama (Rachel: Ah!) we have
all the all the how you manage in a normal life you know because you
cannot be like a superhero 24 hours (Rachel: Ahh.) and integrate in the
rest of the society as well. It’s something you know.
10 Rachel You are convinced me, convince me? Is like… (Teacher: Convinced, yes.)
convinced, okay. Maybe I can try, I can try.
11 Teacher I am being convinced too you know from (Rachel: Yes?), I think it was
(PI) Percy who first brought up the Umbrella Academy to, you know, the to
the table and ever since then, like today Tony (non-participating
student, pseudonym) said he started to watch. And I feel like, “yeah, I
should watch, it too."
 263

Appendix L: Full Transcripts of Summer Plan Conversation in Class 10

Turn Speaker Excerpt

1 Sarah In my case, I, I would like to study more English. I want to see more
episodes of Friends.
2 Teacher PI: Wooooooo! / Joey: Oh! that’s the plan!
(PI)
& Joey
3 Teacher Any, any favorite seasons? Like, I personally love season three, four,
(PI) five. What about you?
4 Sarah I would like to see, uh, the second season because I just see one, the
first season. And then I really uh, because I hear, uh, that you really
enjoy it and I wanted, and I want to see all the seasons and then see
and then understand why you said a lot of things about that.
5 Joey Yeah, yeah.
6 Teacher That's great, yeah, influence! But Sarah, there's one thing I would like
(PI) you to know. I'm not sure if Joey agrees with me or not, but for me,
Friends season one and two? (Joey: Um-hmm) I think the characters
are still developing. They try to make jokes by speaking a lot.
7 Joey Yes. Also I don't think by the first season and second season, they could
imagine they were gonna be like having sensation, you know? I don't
think they, I, I think they just were casting like a comedy and see it's,
‘Let's see what's happening!’. And then when after five seasons, I
think they just go, just for a really weird, uh, story including Brad
Pitt, Bruce Willis. I mean Morgan Fairchild, like really good, really,
really, well-known, uh, characters that actually gave, gave to the
show are really epic start. Like you cannot see so, uh, famous
characters in a TV show usually, you know? They made the same
with Big Bang Theory as well.
8 Teacher Yes, yes.
(PI)
9 Joey People is really, really like a TV show, everybody wants to be there you
know.
10 Sarah Oh!
 264

11 Teacher So many people that, there are some people give up after watching
(PI) season one. They say, ‘I don't know why this show is so popular’, but
I think later the season goes, like season three, four, five, when the
characters are fully developed, they talk less. So it really becomes
good English learning material. (Joey: Um-hmm) Their conversation
becomes shorter (Joey: Um-hmm) but it gets funnier because now
people know who they are, they don't have to explain everything so..

12 Teacher PI: Okay. / Joey: And they also, oh I'm sorry.

(PI)
& Joey
13 Teacher Yes, yes. (gesturing Joey to go ahead)
(PI)
14 Joey And also they have internal and recurring jokes and plots (PI: Um-
hmm). You can, ‘Oh! Ah! Yes! We are on a break!’ (PI: Yes!) Yes.
15 Teacher So be patient until you go to the later season because the show gets
(PI) much, much better.
16 Sarah Okay, okay. I will pat, I will be patient. Yes. But that's the thing that I
really want, too.
17 Percy And when are you going to, where are you going to, to find these
chapters because there are…
18 Sarah Ah yes! there is a special, special page. It’s actually, let me see. I could
share you in Facebook if you want, Percy.
19 Percy Oh well yeah, yeah, Perfect, thank you.
 ProQuest Number: 29069386

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality and completeness of this reproduction is dependent on the quality
and completeness of the copy made available to ProQuest.

Distributed by ProQuest LLC ( 2022 ).

Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author unless otherwise noted.

This work may be used in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons license
or other rights statement, as indicated in the copyright statement or in the metadata
associated with this work. Unless otherwise specified in the copyright statement
or the metadata, all rights are reserved by the copyright holder.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17,

United States Code and other applicable copyright laws.

Microform Edition where available © ProQuest LLC. No reproduction or digitization

of the Microform Edition is authorized without permission of ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 USA