Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 492
CMC IN ELT: THEORIES AND PRACTICES
Dian Toar Y. G. Sumakul
Abstract
The internet has changed the way people communicate. Particularly after the introduction of Web 2.0 technology, which triggered the emergence of various Social Networking Sites (SNSs), the rate of online interactions has increased. Now, people write more in the internet. This online writing is known as CMC, or Computer-Mediated Communication. Harnad (1991) labels CMC as the 4th revolution in human communication, after language, writing, and print. Furthermore, incorporating both spoken and written communication features, Beauvois (1998) labels it as „conversation in slow motion‟, while Crystal (2001)
calls it „netspeak‟. Correspondingly, it is also considered as the hybrid (Kost,
2008) and bridge (Handley, 2010) of the two traditional modes of communication: speaking and writing. This nature of CMC is then the starting point of the idea to bring CMC at the foreground of ELT (English Language Teaching), particularly of EFL (English as a Foreign Language) Teaching. This paper is intended to provide theoretical framework that support the application of CMC in ELT. For this purpose, theories on CMC will be reviewed and findings from relevant research about the advantages of CMC in language learning will also be discussed. The second aim of this paper is to present practical suggestions of how CMC could be integrated in ELT. Within this scope, examples of the use of CMC in ELT, through a number of online tools, will also be elaborated.
INTRODUCTION
Despite the fact that there have been studies looking at how to use CMC (Computer Mediated
Communication technologies into classrooms, one criticism to the idea of bringing these
technologies into the classrooms is the nature of the CMC use itself. Although it is true that
the internet has been part of our students life, some studies suggest that the use of CMC tools
for educational purposes is still minimum (Bosch, 2009; Selwyn, 2009; and Hew, 2011).
Students use these internet tools mostly for social needs. However, a more recent study
(Vrocharidou & Efthymiou, 2012) shows that, although still little, there are evidence that
students already use CMC technologies, such as emails, SNSs (Social Networking Sites), and
IMs (Instant Messagings) or online chats, for academic needs. Demirci (2007) also found that
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 493 teachers to discover creative and effective ways to cope with the nature of their students to
promote and facilitate learning (Godwin-Jones, 2010). Another positive finding is also
reported by Landu Amah (2012) mentioning that EFL students has also used CMC on
Facebook, for practicing their English. It is a common phenomenon that foreign language
learners are practicing using the target language by communicating with their teachers, peers,
and native speakers at a distance. The ability of the language learners to collaborate, create,
and share content or ideas with other users might prove useful for language learning
(Lomicka & Lord, 2009), which might also play significant role in their second language
acquisition (SLA).
With the fact that there have been studies suggesting the ideas of embracing CMC
technologies in educational uses and our students are already familiar with these
technologies, this paper is aimed at two points. First, this paper will discuss the underlying
theories that supports the incorporation of CMC technologies in language teaching and
learning. Second, practical examples of how these technologies have and could be utilised in
English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms will also be elaborated.
RELEVANT THEORETICAL AND RESEARCH BACKGROUND
The Internet and Language Learning
The technology brought by the internet has brought a new medium in human communication.
Traditionally, people use spoken and written forms of language to communicate each other.
With the internet now, particularly after the introduction of Web 2.0, people could easily
connect to each other using various internet tools such as emails, IMs, and SNSs, which have
been widely known as Computer Mediated Communication (CMC). This new phenomenon
in communication has intrigued some linguistic and educational researchers to discuss its
potentials in educational environment (e.g. Erlich et al, 2005; Baran, 2010; Godwin-Jones,
2010;; Hew, 2011; and Anderson et al, 2012), particularly in language teaching and learning
(e.g. Lafford & Lafford, 2005; Grosseck et al, 2011; and Sumakul, 2011), and really apply it
in language classrooms (e.g. Blattner & Fiori, 2009; Mills, 2010; Shih, 2011; and Sumakul,
2012) .
In implementing this technology into classrooms, Roth (2009) argues that CMC activities
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 494
Plato‟s principles of education. Traditional classrooms are losing the ability to challenge and
motivate our internet generation students, who expect more from a class, not only lectures
and books. Today‟s students are accustomed to living with the internet technologies in their
everyday life. They are considered as digital natives (Prensky, 2001), who would enjoy
computer and internet resources to be used in their classrooms (Luke, 2006). Bringing digital
technologies in our teaching would make the class more interesting for the students. These
internet technologies have been embedded in our students‟ daily lives, and as as Chapelle (2003) suggests that we, teachers, could make use of these technologies and explore their
implications for language teachers and researchers. With the same sense, Pritchard (2007: 2)
argues:
“With the growing awareness of the theory associated with learning and a growing interest in the ways that new technologies might change the way that teachers teach and children learn, there is scope, perhaps even a real need, to look at what is currently known about learning, especially in relation to the new possibilities afforded by Information and Communications Technologies
(ICTs).”
Defining CMC
CMC exists not only in the form of text-based form but also in the form of
video-conferencing, where people could talk like in Face-to-face (FTF) conversation. However, in
linguistic studies, to distinguish it from traditional writing processes and FTF conversation,
CMC is mostly related to text-based communication. Within that sense, CMC is defined as
„the direct use of computers in a text-based communication processes‟ (Miller & Sullivan, 2006: 2). Furthermore, CMC also comes in two different modes, synchronous and
asynchronous (Hyland, 2003). Synchronous writing occurs when people interact in real time,
while asynchronous writing occurs when people communicate in a delayed way.
In this era of Web 2.0 technology, CMC could be found, for example, in chats as
synchronous, and in emails as asynchronous. In SNSs, such as Facebook or Twitter, CMC
could occur both in synchronous or asynchronous forms.
Features of CMC: A Combination of Spoken and Written Forms
From traditional point of view, there were two main modes of communication, written and
spoken modes (Meyer, 2009). However, since the era of the internet, particularly after the
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 495 incorporates both features of spoken and written forms. Although the mode of
communication is written, it also employs several features of oral communication. Within this
scope, CMC is viewed as the bridge (Chun, 1994; Handley, 2010) or the hybrid (Kost, 2008)
of spoken and written languages. In addition, for this written and spoken forms incorporation,
there are several names suggested for CMC. For example, Beauvois (1998) call this
„conversation in slow motion‟ and Crystal (2001) simply calls it „netspeak‟.
What features of speaking and writing are mediated in CMC? First, we can view it from their
temporal elements of language production. Speaking is online, because the message, because
the message is conveyed at the time of speaking, whereas writing is offline because the
message is conveyed not during language production, but later, when other people read the
written language. These characteristics in both modes are incorporated in CMC, with the
spontaneity and informal style of spoken language are contained within the production mode
of written language. For this reason, Murray (1991) considers CMC as written speech.
Second, it can be discussed from their functions. Writing is reflectional and speaking is
interactional (Warschauer, 1997). These two features are also attached to CMC. When you
communicate on the internet, it is interactional and at the same time reflectional because
people still can see and edit their message before sending it to their interlocutor during online
interactions. Moreover, as it is written using computers, it could easily be stored for
reflectional purposes.
Incorporating the features of both spoken and written languages, CMC is considered as the 4th
revolution in human communication and cognition after language, writing, and print (Harnad,
1991). Meanwhile, Crystal (2011), in describing CMC with the internet as the medium, sees
the internet as the 4th medium of linguistic communication after the phonic medium for
speaking, graphic medium for writing, and visual medium for signing.
Advantages of CMC
Research suggests that CMC could bring positive effects to EFL students. In terms of
language learning, the first benefit can be seen from the perspective of linguistics. It has been
found that that CMC could help the students produce a higher level of language complexity
(Chun, 1994), amplify students‟ attention to linguistic forms (Warschauer, 1997), help the
development of oral proficiency (Payne & Ross, 2005), trigger greater amount of language
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 496
Fiori, 2009), and have the potential for improving learners‟ cognitive skills in linguistic
analysis (Sumakul, 2011).
From the psychological perspective, CMC could engage learners to the learning activities
(Meskill & Anthony, 2007; Mills, 2010), create a positive effect on the student-to-student and
student-to-teacher relationship (Mazer et al, 2007), and provide a less stressful
communicative environment (Kost, 2008), and develop a positive attitude towards learning
(Grossecka et al, 2011). Referring back to linguistic perspective, these positive psychological
conditions such as less stressful and engaging environment and positive attitude toward
learning are important when they come to language production, in particular if the language
used is not the speaker‟s first or native language.
These advantages are actually the ground why CMC is suggested as a good tool in language
learning. Bringing CMC activities into EFL classrooms would provide learners with an
effective and fun way in learning English. Kim (2009) states that compared to learning a
language without CMC, using CMC can motivate students to learn language better.
In the next section we are going to see a number of CMC tools in the internet and how they
were utilised in foreign language classrooms, covering different skills. Although some of the
methods used were not in English classrooms, they could be adapted in EFL learning and
teaching.
CMC PRACTICES IN LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS
Facebook in Grammar Classroom
Facebook is mostly used for social needs, but one use of FB is for learning (e.g. Kabilan,
Ahman, & Abidin, 2010; Landu Amah, 2012). Within this purpose, Grosseck et al (2011:
1426-1427), looking at different previous studies, summarises how Facebook can be
beneficial to not only students but also teachers.
Looking from teaching sequence point of view and collaborating with 3 other English
teachers, Sumakul (2012) explores how teachers use Facebook in 3 different EFL classrooms
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 497 1. After the lessons on gerund and infinitive phrases, students are given homework to
write status using gerund phrase and/or infinitive phrase on their Facebook account
and also to comment each other. As the teachers are also friends with the students on
Facebook, she then monitors this activity from home, and discuss the language the
students use on their next meeting.
2. During a lesson about perfect and continuous tenses, the students are asked to go to
Facebook using their mobile phones or laptop computers. Working in groups of three,
first they are asked to find posts containing perfect or continuous tense on their
friends‟ posts, then they are asked to error analyse the posts, and finally they need to write on their Facebook statuses sentences containing continuous or perfect tense.
3. At home students are asked to write any Facebook status in English, not necessarily
related to their previous lesson. The teacher monitors this from home, and on the next
meeting, she provides feedback, error analysing and explaining the ungrammatical
posts.
In his discussion, Sumakul (2012) explains that when students do the Facebook homework in
point 1 and 3, students do noticing on isolated grammatical patterns, which is a
consciousness-raising activity. This is important for focused attention and could promote
acquisition.
Facebook group for communicative grammar practice
Another Facebook activity was also carried out by Sumakul2 early this year. In his grammar
class for 1st year English Department university students, he created a Facebook group for
students to practise the lessons they get in the classrooms. Students were given assignments
to write on this group‟s wall and to comment each other.
2
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 498
Figure 1. Students‟ post and comments showing interaction on a Facebook group.
In Figure 2 above, this is part of one of the assignments where students were asked to write
their future plan, practising future tenses. This is one of the posts by a student and some of
the comments from her friends.
This CMC activity is similar to what Blattner and Fiori (2009) did in a French class but with
different focus. They state that Facebook is a powerful learning tool that has transformed
learning process of the students. When learners write on Facebook using certain grammatical
patterns, it reflects the real- real-operant conditioning principle (Batstone & Ellis 2008)
where the learners practise the grammar for communication with the main focus is on
meaning rather than form.
The use of Facebook group could be considered as a virtual classroom without the walls like
in physical classrooms. By setting the privacy of the group, that only the members of the
group (i.e. the teacher and the students) can participate and see the posts, the safety of the
real-world classroom could be preserved. Harmer (1998) says that keeping the safety of the
classroom is important because it could assist their language use in the real world. Schwartz
(2010) also makes use Facebook Group in her teaching. She creates a Facebook group for
mentoring university students. Facebook groups allow the students (and also teachers) to
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 499 Facebook in reading classroom
One of my colleagues, Henry Wijaya, also used Facebook in his EFL classroom. It was a
reading class. In introducing scanning and skimming skills to the students, the students were
asked to go to their Facebook account using their mobile phones to practise scanning and
skimming. For scanning, the students were asked to go to the homepage (newsfeed) of their
Facebook and find who had a birthday that day, what the shortest status was, and what the
longest one. For skimming, they were asked to read their friends‟ statuses on their Facebook homepage and generalise the mood of the statuses. Since it was Monday, the mood was „I hate Monday‟.
He admitted that it was only a spontaneous idea since he thought that the original material
was rather boring, and it could have been better with more thoughts and preparation.
However, by using Facebook, the activity became more engaging to the students. The
students could understand the concepts of skimming and scanning in reading and experience
them in their own context. It is an example of contextualised learning (Roth, 2009).
Facebook in writing classroom
This activity was conducted by Shih (2011) in an EFL classroom in Taiwan. It was a blended
approach: the first one-third of one-third of the semester was classroom instruction and the
rest was a combination of Facebook, peer assessment, and classroom instruction. It was part
of his research to investigate the effect of integrating Facebook and peer assessment with
college English writing class instruction through a blended teaching approach. The figure
below shows the procedure he implemented for using Facebook-integrated blended Learning.
Figure 2. Implementation procedure for using Facebook-integrated blended learning
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 500 From the finding of the research, the researcher suggests that incorporating peer assessment
and Facebook in EFL writing classrooms is interesting and effective for the students. They
can improve their writing skills not only from the in-class instruction but also from
cooperative learning through Facebook. Moreover, blended learning that combines online and
face-to-face instruction could be beneficial for both the teachers and the students.
Email for collaborative reading
Sumakul3 tried out this activity during an ESP reading class for economic university students
as part of his research in finding out students‟ perception on email-based assignments. During the course, students were given a number of email based reading assignments. At first, the
students were given a text to read and the questions they needed to answer and send the
answers to the teacher by email. At the end of the semester the students needed to work
collaboratively in their reading activity. The following tasks were set up by the teacher:
1. Students work in groups of 4.
2. The teacher finds a text in Wikipedia and send the link to Student 1.
3. Student 1 reads the text and develops 2 questions based on the text and sends them to
Student 2.
4. Student 2 reads the text, answers the questions from Student 1, develop another 2
questions and sends them to Student 3.
5. The same activities are repeated until Student 4 sends two questions to Student 1.
6. At the end of this email cycle, the teacher give feedback to all of the students in each
group.
With this email assignments, students can interact with their friends at their own pace and
take time think about their responses rather than being “put on the spot”, which could hinder
their communication, as in the physical classroom (Shih, 2010). They could also get help
from various resources, their friends, dictionaries, or other online tools, while completing the
3
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 501 task. This is an example of the capability of technologies in enabling our traditional 4-wall
classroom to be connected to the real world.
Google Talk for communication and translation practice
This was conducted in a Bahasa Indonesia class of the PIBBI4 level 6 programme, focusing
on translation skills. In using Google Talk, an IM tool, the students were asked to work in
groups of 4 with the following tasks:
1. Student 1 chats with Student 2 in Bahasa Indonesia.
2. Student 2 translates the message from Student 1 into English and uses it to chat with
Student 3.
3. Student 3 translates the English message from Student 2 into Bahasa Indonesia and
uses it to chat with Student 4.
4. Student 4 replies the Bahasa Indonesia message from Student 4 also in Bahasa
Indonesia.
5. Student 3 translates the Bahasa Indonesia message from Student 4 into English and
uses it to chat with Student 2.
6. Student 2 translates the English message from Student 3 into Bahasa Indonesia and
uses it to chat with Student 1.
7. Student 1 replies back to Student 2 in Bahasa Indonesia.
The complete flow of the interaction in this activity is depicted in Figure 3 below.
Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4
Bahasa Indonesia
English Bahasa
Indonesia
4
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 502
Figure 3. Students‟ interaction using Google Talk in translation class.
From the figure above we could learn that the actual conversation is actually conducted
between Student 1 and 4 and Student 2 and 3 are the translators. One might argue that with
this activity only Student 2 and 3 experience the benefit of the learning from this CMC tool.
However, of course the teacher could ask the students to change roles for everyone could
have the same interaction and learning experience. The following figure is an excerpt from
the conversation.
Student 1 transcription Student 4 transcription
11:23 AM Student 1: Halo mas baik :) apa kegiatan anda hari ini?
11:30 AM Student 3: Aku juga sangat baik :) apa kamu
melakukan hari ini?
11:34 AM Student 2: Hanya bekerja sampai jam 5 siang ini, apa kegiatan Anda? sangat suka itu, saya suka aksi film dan horor film, bagaimana dengan Anda?
11:41 AM Student 4: iya saya sangat suka , saya suka film action dan horor, kalo kamu ?
Figure 4. An excerpt from the students‟ interaction using Google Talk
The shaded area is actually the actual conversation between Student 1 and 4, while
non-shaded area is the translation provided by Student 2 and 3. Engaging, contextual and
communicative, this activity could help pragmatic development of the students. Kasper
(1997) mentions two types of learning activities: activities that are able to help raising
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 503 practise the target language for communication. Both types were incorporated in this Google
Talk activity.
CHALLENGES
Despite the benefits of CMC on language learning as pointed out by various studies, there
things we need to consider in implementing CMC activities in our EFL classrooms. In this
paper, two important challenges (probably, out of many) are suggested:
1. Some teachers are digital immigrants
Prensky‟s (2001) terms of digital immigrants could be applied to some teachers.
Compared to their digital native students, these teachers are not really capable with or
accustomed to using digital technology such as the internet as the medium (Crystal,
2011) of CMC activities. This condition could lead to the fact that these teachers
would not be comfortable of designing their teaching with CMC activities. Even if
they try to use these digital technologies, they would be hampered by their nondigital
cultural heritage (Prensky, 2001). Take the Facebook case for an example. Ratcham
and Firpo (2011) report that Facebook is easy-to-use and familiar for the students, but
is it the same case for the teachers? For CMC activities to be effectively used in
classrooms, Karpati (2009) suggests that ICT (Internet and Communication
Technology) competences are needed, not only for the students, but also for the
teachers.
2. Technical obstacle: slow data transfer and still expensive internet fee
Particularly in Indonesia, in general the internet is still slow and expensive for most
learners. Even if we could have our schools and campuses connected to the internet
and have the CMC activities done in the language and computer laboratories, not all
schools could afford the connection fee. Slow data transfer is also inefficient and
would disturb the communication process in a CMC activity.
CONCLUSION
As Web 2.0 technology has garnered much attention from researchers and practitioners
(Ractham & Firpo, 2011), more research and examples are available for the use of CMC in
educational environment, or particularly in language classrooms. Other online tools are also
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 504 learning. There are Wiki documents, blogging, or other SNSs. For example, Stevenson and
Liu (2010) provide an analysis of how a number of Web 2.0 sites can be used for language
learning. Another example, Mollett et al (2011) provide guidelines of how Twitter can be
used in university academic uses. It now depends on teachers‟ willingness, creativity, and
digital competences to incorporate these online tools in designing their classroom materials.
Using these technologies in our classroom can facilitate learner- centred approach to our
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 505 REFERENCES
Anderson, B., Fagan, P., Woodnutt, T., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2012). Facebook
Psychology: Popular Questions Answered by Research. Psychology of Popular Media culture, 1(1), 23-37.
Baran, B. (2010). Facebook as a formal instructional environment. British Journal of Education Technology, 41(6), E146-E149.
Batstone, R., & Ellis, R. (2009). Principled Grammar Teaching. System(37), 194-204.
Beauvois, M. H. (1998). Conversations in Slow Motion: Computer-Mediated Communication in Foreign Language Classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(2), 198-217.
Blattner, G., & Fiori, M. (2009). Facebook in the Language Classroom: Promises and Possibilities. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 6(1), 17-28.
Bodomo, A. R. (2010). Computer-Mediated Communication for Linguistics and Literacy. New York: Information Science Reference.
Bosch, T. E. (2009). Using online social networking for teaching and learning: Facebook use at the university of cape town. Communicatio: South African Journal for
Communication Theory and Research, 35(2), 185–200. Chapelle, C. A. (2003). English Language Learning and Technology.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (2011). Internet Linguistics: A Student Guide. London: Routledge.
Demirci, N. (2007). University Students' Perceptions of Web-Based vs. Paper-Based
Homework in a General Physics Course. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(1), 29-34.
Erlich, Z., Erlich-Philip, I., & Gal-Ezer, J. (2005). Skills required for participating in CMC courses: An Empirical Study. Computers & Education, 44, 477–487.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2010). Emerging Technologies: Literacies and Technologies Revisited. Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 2-9.
Grosseck, G., Branb, R., & Tiruc, L. (2011). Dear teacher, what should I write on my wall? A case study on academic uses of Facebook. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 1425-1430.
Handley, Z. (2010, October 21). Computer Mediated Communication: Bridging the gaps between writing and speaking. Retrieved March 31, 2012, from Oxford University Press – English Language Teaching – Global Blog:
http://oupeltglobalblog.com/2010/10/21/computer-mediated-communication/
Harmer, J. (1998). How To Teach English, An introduction to the practice of English language teaching. Longman.
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 506 Hew, K. F. (2011). Students' and Teachers' Use of Facebook. Computers and Human
Behaviour, 27, 662-676.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Karpati, A. (2009). Web 2 technologies for Net Native language learners: a "Social CALL". ReCALL, 21(2), 139-156.
Kasper, G. (1997). The role of pragmatics in language teaching education. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, & B. S. Hartford (Eds.), Beyond Methods:Components of Second Language Teacher Education (pp. 113-136). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kost, C. R. (2008). Use of Communication Strategies in a Synchronous CMC environment. In S. S. Magnan (Ed.), Mediating Discourse Online (pp. 153-190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lafford, P. A., & Lafford, B. A. (2005). CMC Technologies for Teaching Foreign Languages: What's on the Horizon? CALICO Journal, 679-709.
Landu Amah, O. (2012). Code Mixing in CMC. Satya Wacana School of Foreign Languages, English Language and Literature Department. Salatiga: Satya Wacana School of Foreign Languages.
Lomicka, L., & Lord, G. (2009). Introduction to social networking, collaboration, and Web 2.0 tools. In L. Lomicka, & G. Lord (Eds.), . In L. Lomicka & G. Lord (Eds.), The next generation: Social networks and online collaboration in foreign language learning. San Marcos: CALICO.
Luke, C. L. (2006). Situating CALL in the broader methodological context of foreign language teaching and learning: Promises and possibilities. CALICO Monograph, 5, 21-41.
Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). I‟ll See You on “Facebook”: The
Effects of Computer-Mediated Teacher Self-disclosure on Student Motivation, Affective Learning, and Classroom Climate. Communication Education, 56(1), 1-17.
Meskill, C., & Anthony, N. (2007). Form-focused Communicative Practice via CMC: What Language Learners Say. CALICO Journal, 25(1), 69-90.
Miller, K. S., & Sullivan, K. P. (2006). Keystroke Logging: An Introduction. In K. P. Sullivan, & E. Lindgren (Eds.), Computer Keystroke Logging and Writing: Methods and Applications (pp. 1-10). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Mills, N. (2010). Situated Learning through Social Networking Communities: The Development of Joint Enterprise, Mutual Engagement, and a Shared Repertoire. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 345-368.
Mollett, A., Moran, D., & Dunleavy, P. (2011). Using Twitter in university research,
teaching and impact activities: A guide for academics and researchers. London: LSE Public Policy Group.
Motteram, G., & Sharma, P. (2009). Blending Learning in a Web 2.0 World. International Journal of Emerging Technologies & Society, 7(2), 83-96.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On The Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 507 Promnitz-Hayashi, L. (2011). A Learning Success Story Using Facebook. Studies in
Self-Access Learning Journal, 2(4), 309-316.
Ratcham, P., & Firpo, D. (2011). Using Social Networking Technology to Enhance Learning in Higher Education: A Case Study Using Facebook. 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, (pp. 1530-1605).
Roth, A. D. (2009). Following Plato's Advice: Pedagogy and Technology for the Facebook Generation. Journal of Philosophy and History of Education, 59, 125-128.
Schwartz, H. L. (2010, January). Facebook, the New Classroom Commons? The Education Digest, pp. 39-42.
Selwyn, N. (2009). Faceworking: Exploring students‟ education-related use of Facebook. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 157–174.
Shih, R.-C. (2011). Can Web 2.0 technology assist college students in learning English writing? Integrating Facebook and peer assessment with blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(Special Issue, 5), 829-845.
Stevenson, M. P., & Liu, M. (2010). Learning a Language with Web 2.0: Exploring the Use of Social Networking Features of Foreign Language Learning Websites. CALICO Journal, 27(2), 233-259.
Sumakul, D. T. (2011). EFL Learners' Communication Strategies in Coping with
Grammatical Difficuties in Synchronous CMC. Liverpool: University of Liverpool.
Sumakul, D. T. (2012). Facebook in Grammar Classrooms: A Look at 3 EFL Classes in Indonesia. The New English Teacher, 6(1), 60-81.
Vrocharidou, A., & Efthymiou, I. (2012). Computer mediated communication for social and
academic purposes: Profiles of use and University students‟ gratifications. Computers & Education, 58, 609-616.
Warschauer, M. (1995). Virtual Connections: Online Activities and Projects for Networking Language Learners. Honolulu: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum:
University of Hawaii.
