Exploring second language (L2) learners' language learning

i
EXPLORING SECOND LANGUAGE (L2) LEARNERS‟ LANGUAGE LEARNING
EXPERIENCE IN SOCIAL NETWORKING ENVIRONMENTS
by
Young Sang Cho
August 10, 2012
A dissertation submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of
the University at Buffalo, State University of New York
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Learning and Instruction (LAI)

All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
UMI 3541091
Published by ProQuest LLC (2012). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
UMI Number: 3541091

ii
Copyright by
Young Sang Cho
2012

iii
DEDICATION
To my grandmother, father, and mother who always believe in me.

iv
ACKNOWELDGEMENTS
I have a great many people to thank for their help on my dissertation. First, I
would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Mary McVee, for her
guidance, continued encouragement, and patience. She was with me since the beginning
of my dissertation. She always provided her helping hand when I faced seemingly endless
challenges during the whole writing process. She patiently read through the first draft of
my dissertation, and reminded me of my strong points when I needed to hear them most,
and motivated me to move forward when the whole writing process was slow. I am where
I am now thanks to this great support from her. I also would like to give my sincere
thanks to the other two members of my committee, Dr. Suzanne Miller, who inspired me
to be a good teacher and taught me how to be a good qualitative researcher from the
beginning of my doctoral study, and Dr. Erin Kearney, who inspired me with her
insightful comments and immense knowledge of second language learning. I would never
have been able to finish my dissertation without the guidance and support from the
members of my committee.
I wish to give special thanks to Dr. Stephen Dunnett, LAI professor and vice
provost for international education, who helped me to feel secure when I first came to
Buffalo, to regain confidence in myself when I felt vulnerable, and most of all, to give me
a precious opportunity to meet and work with wonderful friends in the International
Admissions Office. It was hard to imagine my life in Buffalo without them. I will never
forget their continued support and love for me and my family. It was my pleasure and
honor to be with them at many important moments of my life.

v
I also would like to thank my whole family. All of them stood up for me no matter
what happened in my life. I love my grandmother, father, mother, father-in-law, mother-
in-law, sister, brother, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, nephews, and nieces. I am heavily
indebted to them for providing a loving environment that gave me strength to continue
this doctoral study.
Most of all, I am truly thankful to my son and my wife for their endless love and
support for me. My son, Woojin, always gave me strength to move forward. The
numerously asked question, “Are you done now, Daddy?” made me laugh all the time
and motivated me to sit in the UB library. His smile made all of this hard work worth
doing. Next, my wife, Eunim, watched and supported the journey of my doctoral study
from the beginning to the end. She saw how frustrated I was when my study was delayed,
but she always encouraged me with her kind words and smile and I was able to overcome
all difficulties. She filled me up with numerous late-night meals when I was hungry and
with wise advice and insightful ideas when I felt lost academically. I acknowledge that I
cannot thank her enough for what she did for me in any way, but I would like to say,
“여보, 고마워 그리고 사랑해!”
Last, dear Lord, I am deeply grateful to you for helping me finish this doctoral
study and knowing how blessed I am with all these precious people that I have met
during that journey. Thank you!

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION…………………………………………….. ………….iii
ACKNOWELDGEMENTS……………………………….. ………….iv
LIST OF TABLES……………..………………………….. ………….ix
ABSTRACT.………………………………………………. ………….x
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION.……………………………….. ………….1
Overview of the Problem…………………… ………….1
Research Questions…………………………. ………….3
Definitions………………………………….. ………….4
Significance of the Study…………………… ………….8
II. CONCEPTUAL CONTEXT…………………… . ………….11
History of CALL……………………………. ………….11
Cognitive Perspectives of L2 Learning……… ………….15
Sociocultural Perspectives of L2 Learning….. ………….25
L2 Learning in Web 2.0 Environments……… ………….45
Needs of the Study…………………………... ………….48
III. METHODOLOGY……………………………… ………….50
Research Site ……………………………….. ………….50
Context of Research…...….……………….... ………….51
Research Design …...………………………. ………….53
Participants….....…………………………… ………….54
Data Collections……………………………. ………….56

vii
Data Analysis..……………………………… ………….58
Trustworthiness…………………………….. ………….61
IV. LANG-8 USERS‟ MAIN ACTIVITY:
BUILDING IMAGES IN PROFILE PAGES …. ………….64
Screen Name……………………………….. ………….64
Profile Pictures……………………………... ………….77
About-Me………..…………………………. ………….89
Conclusions………………………………… ………….111
V. LANG-8 USERS‟ MAIN ACTIVITY:
BUILDING A FRIEND NETWORK…………... ………….114
Initiating a Friend Network………………… ………….114
Maintaining a Friend Network……………... ………….132
General Impressions of Lang-8 Friends……. ………….144
Conclusions…..…………………………...... ………….161
VI. PERCEPTIONS OF LANG-8:
PERCEIVED BENEFITS……………………… ………….165
Technical Aspects………………………….. ………….165
Social Aspects……………………………… ………….178
Cognitive Aspects………………………….. ………….208
Psychological Aspects……………………... ………….225
Conclusions………………………………… ………….233
VII. DISCUSSION & IMPLICATION……………. ………….237
Lang-8 as a Community of Practice………... ………….238

viii
Educational Implications…………………... ………….256
Conclusions………………………………… ………….265
APPENDIX A…………………………………………….. ………….267
REFERENCES….…………...……………………………… ………….269

ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Demographic Information of Research Participants ……56
Table 4.1 Elements of Profile Information ……65
Table 4.2 Types of Profile Pictures ……78
Table 4.3 Themes Frequently Addressed in About-me ……91
Table 4.4 Themes of Three Versions of Kenshin‟s About-me ……97
Table 4.5 Two Versions of Miyoko‟s About-me in L1 and L2 ……100
Table 4.6 Comparison between the First and the Final Draft of
English Version of Kenshin‟s About-me ……103
Table 4.7 Changed parts of the first, second, and third draft of
About-me (Miyoko) ……105
Table 5.1 The Number of Lang-8 Friends according to
Language Categories (as of March 1, 2011) ……157
Table 6.1 Time Gap between the First Entry and the First
Received Feedback ……177
Table 6.2 The Number of NSTL Friends and NNSTL Friends ……180
Table 6.3 Types of Comments Encouraging the Participants ……189
Table 6.4 The Ratios between EW and CM (as of Feb. 2nd
, 2011) ……196
Table 6.5 Means of Word Count for the First (F) 10 and
the Latest (L) 10 Journal Entries ……216
Table 6.6 The Rate of Postings Each Month (from July, 2010 to
March 2011) ……226

x
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this ethnographic case study was to understand the nature of
second language (L2) learning activities that today‟s online users conduct with Web 2.0
technologies in an out-of-school context. I was particularly interested to know the
features of L2 learning environments that were fostered in the language exchange social
networking site (SNS) called Lang-8.com by examining its users‟ L2 learning practices.
This study was guided by three research questions: 1) What practices do online L2
learners engage in as they participate at the Lang-8 social networking site?; 2) How do
online L2 learners perceive the use of the Lang-8 social networking site for their L2
learning?; and 3) What L2 learning environments are developed and promoted at the
Lang-8 social networking site, which contribute to online users‟ L2 learning?
Data for this study were collected through participant observation, online
interviews with 12 Lang-8 participants, and online artifacts (such as profile pages, journal
entries, and written feedback). The data were inductively analyzed through categorizing
strategies such as coding and thematic analysis, and naturalistic generalizations were
made from thematic patterns found across the emergent categories.
Findings from data analysis revealed that 1) the Lang-8 participants‟ L2 learning
was situated as an integral part of both (re)constructing their real-life and L2
learner/teacher identities and building social relationships with other Lang-8 members
and 2) the networks with multiple friends served as communities of practices (Lave &
Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 2006; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002) that benefited the
participants in the technical, social, cognitive, and psychological areas. Based on the

xi
findings of this study, some implications for L2 educators were made in regard to
developing constructive language learning environments.

1
Chapter One
Introduction
Overview of the Problem
The twenty-first century is characterized by the advance of computer-networked
communication technology. Whether we are young or old, enthusiastic about its use or
not, it is undeniable that online communication has become one of the major ways that
people correspond with one another these days. It is often said that Internet
communication tools, which overcome time and space constraints, accelerate
globalization of the world by providing another opportunity for people to be connected to
the outside world (e.g., Black, 2009; Warschauer, 2000).
The Internet of the 21st
century is known as Web 2.0, the second-generation Web,
which O‟Reilly (2005, 2006) differentiates from its earlier version, Web 1.0. When
personal computers and the Internet were becoming popular in the late 20th
century,
people were excited about the unlimited accessibility to a plethora of information on the
Web. The main concern of the Web 1.0 generation was how to consume information
wisely in order to succeed in the flood of knowledge. At that time, the Web was normally
considered as a space where information could be retrieved, and Internet users were
viewed mainly as consumers of knowledge that had already been prepared and published
by so-called experts. Although Web 1.0 services such as personal websites allowed the
public to write and post their own content, their design and construction were typically
restricted to the experts who had access to hardware and software and had skills and
knowledge about them. In addition, publishing activities were mostly unidirectional from

2
a specific author to consumers, so that the information on the web stayed stable and
isolated.
On the other hand, the services based on Web 2.0 technologies such as blogs,
wikis, and social networking sites (SNS), which were mostly created and popularized in
the early 21st
century, have provided a platform where ordinary Internet users can not
only read but also easily write, publish, and share their ideas with other users (O‟Reilly,
2005; Lankshear & Knobel, 2006; Warschauer & Grimes, 2007; Thorne, Black, & Sykes,
2009). Web 2.0 represents an online space where consumption, creation, and sharing of
information and knowledge can arise simultaneously. In addition, content creation is no
longer limited to a written text. Web 2.0 environments support multimodal processes of
content creation and transmission, such as posting and distributing images, audio tracks,
and videos.
Along with the rise of the large-scale publishing movement among the public and
its interactive and dynamic nature, Web 2.0 also has provided technical support and
environments for connecting people. Wesch (2007) emphasized on his YouTube video
clip that Web 2.0 is not just linking information but also linking people. It promotes
environments to weave a web of people and to build new communities in which people
can participate through active interactions and collaboration. Regarding the
characteristics of Web 2.0, Warschauer and Grimes (2007) observed that “the new Web‟s
architecture allows more interactive forms of publishing (of textual and multimedia
content), participation, and networking” (p. 2).
With regard to the new technical changes that the digital technologies of the 21st
century bring to our daily lives, Shaffer, Squire, Halverson, and Gee (2004) commented

3
that social activities with new digital technologies have the potential to change the ways
that people think, act, and learn. Kern (2006) also indicated that the revolution of digital
technology “enables new forms of discourse; new forms of authorship; new forms of
identity construction; new ways to form, choose, and maintain learning communities and
affinity groups that cross national boundaries” (p. 183).
With this growing recognition of technical and social affordances of Web 2.0 in
learning, some research has been conducted to explore the emerging second language
(L2) literacy and learning practices mediated by Web 2.0 technologies outside of
traditional school contexts (e.g., Black, 2005, 2006, 2007; Lam 2000; Lam & Rosario-
Ramos, 2009). However, due to its recent advent, research on learning in Web 2.0
environments in general and L2 literacy and learning in particular is still in its infancy
(Thorne, 2008). In order to better respond to the needs of our 21st
-century learners
(regardless of their ages, it seems imperative to understand the nature of language
learning practices that they voluntarily engage in with the Web 2.0 technologies, and to
comprehend how such practices are contributing to their L2 learning.
Research Questions
With an attempt to understand this ongoing social phenomenon of Web 2.0 and its
influence in L2 learning, I chose to investigate one of the Web 2.0 services, a social
networking site (SNS), and conducted an ethnographic case study with a specific SNS
named Lang-8.com. In this dissertation, my goals are to illuminate online users‟ L2
learning practices with Lang-8, a language learning website embedded with SNS features,
and how they understand their L2 learning experiences with it, and elaborate upon the

4
nature of L2 learning facilitated by online social networking media. For this investigation,
I developed the following research questions:
1. What practices do online L2 learners engage in as they participate in the
Lang-8 SNS?
2. How do online L2 learners perceive the use of the Lang-8 SNS in their L2
learning?
3. What L2 learning environments have been developed and promoted at the
Lang-8 SNS and how do they contribute to Lang-8 users‟ L2 learning?
Definitions
Web 2.0. O‟Reilly (2006) defined Web 2.0 as follows:
Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move
to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on
that new platform. Chief among those rules is this: Build applications that harness
network effects to get better the more people use them (para. 1).
His standpoint implicates that the advent of Web 2.0 does not necessarily mean the
evolutionary advance of Web technologies since Web 1.0; rather, it is a change of
people‟s vision and mindset of how the Web can be used. Frequently exemplified Web
2.0 services are Flickr, del.icio.us, blogs, Wikipedia, Facebook, YouTube, and the like,
which are known to have such characteristics as promoting participation, collaboration,
user-generated data, user-generated taxonomy, and human networks (O‟Reilly, 2005;
Warschauer & Grimes, 2007).
Social networking sites (SNSs). Social networking sites (SNSs) are online
communities built by online users who want to share their interests, ideas, information,

5
and friendships with other users. In general, SNS users build up a social network after
creating their own individual Web page or a theme-based community site. On an
individual level, users create their own profile and create connections to others by
sending an invitation note. On a group level, users create a virtual space, invite other
users to resister as a group member, and share their common interests together in a
synchronous or an asynchronous way.
According to Boyd and Ellison (2008), social network sites are defined as:
Web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public
profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom
they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and
those made by others within the system (p. 211).
Boyd and Ellison use the term “network” rather than “networking” in their definition,
explaining that the main role of current SNSs is not initiating a new relationship with
strangers but maintaining existing off-line relationships online. However, considering
that there are SNSs that regard weaving networks between strangers as a principal reason
for their existence (which include my online research site, Lang-8.com), I prefer using
“networking” to “network” for my study.
As the term “social networking” speaks for itself, SNSs are primarily considered
to be used mainly for finding and staying connected with people, which is what Mislove
et al. (2007) called “pure” SNSs. As other social media do, however, most of today‟s
SNSs (e.g., Facebook, MySpace Hi-5, and Cyworld) have technical features that enable
users not only to locate and connect to their friends but also to communicate with them
by publishing and organizing online content via varied communication modes such as

6
text messages, photographs, audio tracks, and/or videos. Due to these multiple and hybrid
communication modes embedded within SNSs, today‟s users are able to easily create
multimedia content according to their own purposes in most SNSs. Depending on the
types of key content modes, people also often choose specific SNSs; for example, Flickr
and Zoomr for picture sharing, YouTube and Vimeo for video sharing, LiveJournal for
diary sharing, and MySpace and Last.fm for music sharing.
SNSs are also often categorized by their purpose and the size of their targeted
audience, but they usually fall into two main categories: general and niche social
networking (Boyd and Ellison, 2007; Zhang & Wang, 2010). The general SNSs (such as
Facebook, MySpace, and Hi-5) are relationship-oriented. The users focus more on
finding pre-existing and/or new friends and maintaining social connections. Because of
its general purpose, this type of SNS tends to accommodate people of all interests. Niche
SNSs (such as LinkedIn, Xing, Flixster, Dogster, GoodReads, and LiveMocha), on the
other hand, have their focus on specific interests and topics (such as business, education,
movies, music, pets, sports, dating, and the like). Because each niche SNS is organized
around online users driven by similar interests, the targeted audiences are also narrower
and more specific.
Besides the main content mode, the purpose, and the size of target audience, SNSs
also can be divided according to who is the center of a network. According to Kageyama
(2007), there exist two types of SNSs so far. One type is more “me-oriented” such as
MySpace and Facebook, and the other is less me-oriented such as Mixi, a social
networking site in Japan. In the former SNSs, social networks are more likely centered

7
around each individual user; whereas, in the latter, the focus is put on group activities
rather than that of an individual.
No matter how many types of SNSs are out there, it is often said that most SNSs
have two core features: publishing profiles and making articulated social links visible
(Boyd & Ellison, 2007; Harrison & Thomas, 2009; Mislove et al., 2007). After creating
an SNS account by filling in brief personal information (such as first and last names,
email address, password, gender, birthday, etc.) users can publish their own profile by
uploading a profile picture and adding some more information like interests, education,
location, and the like. Profiles function to represent users in the SNS space; therefore, a
profile serves as the first contact point where SNS members meet. According to Dwyer,
Hiltz, and Passerini (2007), the visibility of profile information and the level of privacy
are usually decided and controlled by users, which depend on their purposes of using
SNSs and their level of trust on SNSs and their members.
After making and publishing a profile, users can start to create a list of friends.
Harrison and Thomas (2009) explain that there are two ways to make friends in SNSs in
general: by sending a friend request to another member and by creating or joining a
theme-based community. In general, forming a link between users is two-directional.
Once a user sends a request, he/she needs to wait until the counterpart accepts or declines
it. In the same way, when a user receives a friend request from another member, he/she
can choose whether to accept it or not. Without the mutual agreement to accept the other
as a friend, a relationship is less likely to be formed. However, depending on how the
SNS account is set up, users can be part of another‟s network without his or her own
approval, like Twitter and most Weblogs.

8
There exist different layers of social connections even within the same SNSs; for
example, networks with pre-existing close friends in the real-world, real-world
acquaintances, online acquaintances, and so on (Boyd, 2006; Mislove et al., 2007). Users
can not only articulate their links to others but also control how much the list of friends
can be visible in SNSs. Some users make it visible to the public, some users to his or her
SNS friends, and some users keep it only to themselves (even though the last case is very
rare). No matter how open or closed the list is to the public, social networks are organized
around people rather than around content (Boyd & Ellison, 2007; Mislove, et al., 2007).
Users also often use another user‟s lists of friends as a starting point to search for another
possible friend. SNSs like Facebook have a technical feature to show connections with
other users on the basis of their mutual friends; that is, the system informs users of
friends who share the same friends within the system.
Significance of the Study
I believe that this research can be significant for both L2 education practitioners
and L2 learning theorists. First of all, this study can contribute to answering the following
question: What can teachers do with L2 learners of the Web 2.0 era in classroom
settings? According to Lankshear and Knobel (2006), the Web 1.0 generation tends to see
the world “much the same as before” except that “only now it is more technologized, or
technologized in more sophisticated ways,” but people living in Web 2.0 tend to see the
world “very different from before” “as a result of the emergence and uptake of digital
electronic inter-networked technologies” (p. 38). Gee (2004) also posits that “young
people today are often exposed outside of school to processes of learning that are deeper
and richer than the forms of learning to which they are exposed in schools” (p. 107).

9
When teachers who mostly belong to the Web 1.0 or the earlier generations of technology
face those Web 2.0 learners who are believed to be developing a new mindset and
experiencing new learning processes in a global context on an everyday basis, it is not
unlikely that conflicts may arise between those teachers and students.
Even though most of my research participants are from generations before Web
2.0, their current L2 learning practices took place mainly around Lang-8.com. The Lang-
8 community was a center of their L2 learning, and they were active enough to be
insiders of Web 2.0. Therefore, this study, exploring the nature of L2 learning practices in
Web 2.0 environments, can contribute to the literature on the role of Web 2.0 technology
in L2 learning in general and to teachers‟ understanding of the learning environments that
today‟s L2 learners are exposed to. In the end, this type of research will help language
teaching become more related to today‟s L2 learners and to form school environments
where learners become more engaged in and devoted to their learning.
I also believe that L2 learning principles embedded in Web 2.0 environments can
enrich our perspectives on learning in general and L2 learning/acquisition in particular.
According to Gee (2004), traditional school education has been based on the
presupposition that learning is mainly a matter of cognition and learners have
“disembodied minds learning outside any context of decisions and actions” (p. 39).
Therefore, L2 learning in traditional school settings has been focused on developing
linguistic systems with language practice exercises, devoid of concrete and real-life
activities and outside contexts of its application. Thorne, Black, and Sykes (2009) depict
such traditional L2 classrooms as “bounded contexts providing limited opportunities for
committed, consequential, and longer-term communicative engagement” (p. 808).

10
However, many researchers have observed different types of L2 learning practices
with digital technology in non-institutionalized settings (e.g., Black, 2005, 2006, 2007;
Davies, 2006; Gee, 2004). Those researchers were interested in deep and active learning
voluntarily taking place among online users, analyzed the nature of learning in online
spaces, and found and highlighted its social origins and developments. For example, Gee
(2004) observed another type of learning, called “cultural processes,” in well-made video
games (p. 12). Gee argues that well-made video games situate language and its learning
in a concrete context and encourage game players to create socially situated identities and
commit to their learning in virtual spaces. In addition, online affinity spaces formed by
game players also create unique learning opportunities that have not been explored in
traditional school environments. All in all, research on the new online environments
where this voluntary, active, and technology-rich L2 learning takes place can expand our
theoretical view of L2 learning.

11
Chapter Two
Conceptual Context
History of CALL
In the field of language education, the integration of information and
communication technology (ICT) into language learning has been discussed under the
acronym “CALL” (Computer Assisted Language Learning). Warschauer and Healey
(1998) portrayed the history of CALL in three main stages—Behavioristic CALL,
Communicative CALL, and Integrative CALL—and explained that each of these
corresponds to a certain level of computer technology and a certain pedagogical approach
to language. Warschauer (2000) revised the above three main states into Structural CALL,
Communicative CALL, and Integrative CALL later, and I will introduce this revised
terminology in brief.
According to Warschauer (2000), the stage of Structural CALL (1970s-1980s)
corresponded to behavioristic/structural approaches to language learning such as the
grammar translation method and the audiolingual method. At this stage, a computer was
considered as nothing more than a mechanical tutor that is never tired of presenting the
same material. The Internet was not commercially available to the public yet, so the
computer was used to carry out simply repeated language drills and practice exercises or
to give pre-programmed, immediate positive or negative feedback. Because the
structuralist approaches considered habit formation followed by repeated practices with
corrective linguistic feedback critical in language learning, Structural CALL programs
mostly consisted of “grammar and vocabulary tutorials, drill and practice programs, and
language testing instrument” (Kern & Warsachauer, 2000, p. 8).

12
In contrast, the second stage, Communicative CALL (1980s-1990s), was based on
communicative and cognitive approaches to language learning, which hold that learners
develop language as an internal mental system through interaction (Warschauer, 2000).
Communicative CALL was supported by the advent of personal computers. At this stage,
CALL programs mostly consisted of communicative exercises like “analytic and
inferential tasks” that meant to increase interactions between language learners and to
provide many communication opportunities for language learners to receive enough
linguistic input (Kern & Warschauer, 2000, p. 13). In the 1980s, computer-mediated
communication (CMC) was not a major feature of CALL yet. Primary CALL models for
communicative exercises considered the computer as tutor (although not in a drill-
practice format), as stimulus that encourages students‟ discussion, writing, or critical
thinking (Taylor & Perez, 1989) or as a tool that empowers learners to use or understand
language, such as word processors, spelling and grammar checkers, and desk-top
publishing programs (Brierley & Kemble, 1991; Taylor, 1980). Even though CMC was
getting recognized as a major person-to-person communication tool in the early 1990s,
the computer still remained as a substitute for a real conversational environment (Thorne,
Black, & Sykes, 2009).
The third stage (21st
century), Integrative CALL, based on a sociocultural view of
language learning, has emerged by the widespread use of multimedia and the Internet
which includes Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 technologies (Warschauer, 2000; Kern &
Warschauer, 2000). Warschauer posits that sociocultural approaches to learning language
involve “apprenticing into new discourse communities” and “entering new communities
and familiarizing [oneself] with new genres and discourses” (p. 65). Therefore, the

13
principal objective of CALL at this state is not only to help learners to improve accuracy
and fluency in a target language, but also to enable them to act as an agent in the world,
and the primary role of computers will be “to provide alternative contexts for social
interaction [and] to facilitate access to existing discourse communities and the creation of
new ones (Kern & Warschauer, 2000, p. 13). Warschauer envisions that CALL programs
will become content-based, task-based, or project-based, reflecting real-life tasks and
problems that learners are faced with in their everyday lives.
According to Bax (2003), however, Warschauer‟s three phases of CALL seemed
to simplify its real history by considering only two factors in his analysis: the underlying
language learning theories and the technologies that were available at that time. As a
result, Bax argues that Warschauer‟s analysis is inconsistent with the real historical
development of CALL, and that the label used for each phase of CALL is confusing.
Despite Bax‟s criticism, Warschauer‟s (2000) account deserves language educators‟
attention in that it is the first systematic analysis of the history of CALL in L2 education,
connecting the pedagogical approach of language with the development of digital
technology. In addition, Warschauer‟s analysis shows his view of what mainly has driven
the changes in CALL programs between language learning approach and technology. The
structural and communicative stages of CALL seem to show that the former was the
driving factor; that is, depending on language learning approaches, people used
technologies in behavioristic or communicative ways. However, when we get to the third
stage of CALL, new digital technologies “do not only serve the new teaching/learning
paradigms, [but] also help shape the new paradigms” (Kern & Warschauer, 2000, p. 12).
This does not imply that the trajectory of CALL will be simply determined by technology

14
itself. Rather, it emphasizes how historically significant the impact of current digital
technology is on today‟s language education, compared to its previous stages.
Another interesting aspect of Warschauer‟s (2000) history of CALL is that the
teaching and learning paradigms of 21st
-century CALL have been captured in
sociocultural theories. Before CMC in general and Web 2.0 in particular appeared, the
access to the opportunities to learn a language was relatively restricted to physical-
institutional settings where formal language learning practices occurred most of time.
Learners mostly learned the language on the just-in-case-of-its-use basis, and language
learning was meaningless to learners in out-of-classroom situations until the right time
came to use the learned language. Even when CMC tools were introduced in the field of
L2 education in the early 1990s, their primary role was limited to creating
communication environments that exist only for communication‟s sake. However, as
Web 2.0 set in, it started to take language learners out of the classroom, and to provide
more places and opportunities to participate in the world in their learning language. Web
2.0 made it much easier for language learners to link themselves to others in the outer
world, and as a result, concepts such as “community,” “affiliation,” “participation,” and
“connection” have been considered important aspects of L2 learning activities (e.g.,
Black, 2006; Lam, 2000; Lankshear & Knobel, 2006).
On the basis of Warschauer‟s (2000) insight into the current and future trajectory
of CALL, I will discuss cognitively oriented second language acquisition theories and
sociocultural theories (SCTs) together and compare their epistemological and ontological
stances in an effort to explain why research on L2 learning activities in Web 2.0
environments has been often discussed in the SCT contexts and how closely SCTs and

15
Web 2.0 are related. After that, I will review the existing research to find out what we
have empirically learned about the roles of current Web 2.0 applications and services for
L2 learning.
Cognitive Perspectives of L2 Learning
Cognitively-oriented second language acquisition. While the origin of second
language learning theories traces back to the behavioristic tradition in the 1940s,
contemporary second language education has been dominantly led by psycholinguistic
and cognitive approaches of second language acquisition (SLA) which adhere to the
information processing paradigm (e.g., Gass, 1997; Krashen, 1985; VanPatten, 1996).
Johnson‟s (2004) analysis finds that all cognitive SLA models contain three basic
elements—input, a cognitive mechanism, and output—and they share a common belief
that input is a critical factor for language acquisition and is transformed into grammar
knowledge with the assistance of each learner‟s internal language processor.
For example, Krashen (1985) claims in his input hypothesis that humans acquire
second language in only one way—“by understanding messages, or by receiving
comprehensible input” (p. 2). By the term “comprehensible input” he means the input of
which structures and forms are at the i + 1 level; here, i represents a learner‟s current
level of competence in the target language and 1 the next level of competence along the
natural order of development. That is, once a learner is exposed to enough input which is
just beyond his or her current level of grammatical knowledge (i + 1), the learner can not
only comprehend the input but also acquire its structure because the comprehensible
input will subconsciously activate the learner‟s language acquisition device (LAD).

16
Therefore, as long as input is comprehensible and enough of it is given, Krashen claims
that the learner can acquire the target language with the help of his or her LAD.
VanPatten‟s (1996) SLA model is composed of four stages—input, intake,
developing system, and output—and three sets of processes—input processing,
accommodation and restructuring, and access— which respectively explain how a learner
moves from one stage to another. In this model, he elaborates on how the learner gets
linguistic data from the input (Input Processing), what a developing system consists of
(Developing System), how the developing system changes (Accommodation and
Restructuring), and how a learner makes output (Access). VanPatten basically adopts the
classic elements of an information processing model like Krashen‟s (1985), but his model
is different from Krashen‟s in that he believes humans‟ language input is also processed
in a conscious way. That is, while Krashen believes that humans can acquire a target
language in a subconscious way, VanPatten assumes language acquisition takes place by
a learner‟s attending to and detecting linguistic data in the input.
Gass (1997) also accounts for how input is converted into output by introducing
five major stages: apperceived input, comprehended input, intake, integration, and output.
Gass believes that language acquisition starts from a learner‟s attention to the input.
Learners cannot utilize everything that they hear or read while they form their second
language grammars because humans‟ capacity of processing data is very limited;
therefore, language acquisition starts from the stage that learners notice or recognize “a
gap between what they already know and what there is to know” (p. 4). In noticing this
process, the input becomes much more manageable for learners.

17
Another interesting feature of Gass‟s (1997) SLA model is its second stage,
comprehended input. Gass differentiates between comprehensible input (Krashen, 1985)
and her comprehended input in two ways. First, with comprehended input, she
emphasizes that the agent who controls the comprehensibility of language input is a
hearer, not a speaker. In Krashen‟s model, comprehensibility is controlled by the person
who provides input, but Gass states that it is the learner who is doing the work of
understanding. Secondly, Gass assumes that there are different levels of comprehension,
whereas Krashen sees comprehension in a dichotomous way: Something is understood or
not. In Gass‟s view, “comprehension represents a continuum of possibilities ranging from
semantics to detailed structural analyses” (p. 5).
In terms of the role of output, these three models show different perspectives as
well. First of all, Krashen (1985) posits that the only way a learner can acquire a target
language is through being exposed to enough comprehensible input; therefore, output
does not play a crucial role in the SLA process. In his view, speaking is just a result of
acquisition or a product of the acquired knowledge. VanPatten (2003) also makes it clear
that output cannot be a cause of language acquisition. However, he adopts a view that
output plays “a facilitative role in acquisition” (p. 69). By the term “facilitative role” he
means that the output may force learners to process input better by becoming aware that
they need a form or a structure while they are speaking. Gass (1997) agrees that output is
“not truly a stage in the acquisition process” in one sense, but in another sense it plays
“an active role in acquisition” (p. 7). In her model, Gass adopts Swain‟s (1985)
perspective on the role of output: the noticing/triggering and the hypothesis-testing
function. In Gass‟s view, output makes it possible for learners to pay more attention to

18
syntactic analysis of language than to semantic processing, and to test their hypothesis on
second language grammars and modify it on the basis of the given feedback. As a result,
the acquisition process does not end in the output component, but output restarts input
processing by interacting with the intake component or by enabling the learners to
understand the perceived input much better.
Factors affecting second language learning have also been actively examined in
the language acquisition models discussed so far. For example, Krashen (1985) proposes
an affective filter hypothesis, according to which affective factors such as motivation,
attitude, self-confidence, and anxiety influence a learner‟s degree of acquisition. In
addition, how much time learners have, how much they focus on forms, and how well
they know the rules affect their monitoring process.
Gass (1997) also delineates mediating factors in her model in detail. For example,
when input is apperceived by the learner, such factors as time, frequency, affect (e.g.,
social distance, status, motivation, and attitude), prior knowledge, salience of forms, and
attention affect the degree of the learner‟s perception of input. Regarding the transition
from the apperceived to comprehended input stage, Gass indicates that negotiation of
meaning, foreigner talk, and redundancy improve the learner‟s comprehension. When
comprehended input is converted into intake, the learner‟s level of analysis of input and
the learner‟s knowledge of their native language, second language, world language, and
universal language also mediate the process. Between intake and integration stage, the
learner‟s ability to form and test language hypotheses, and between integration and
output stage, the learner‟s personality, language production mode, and situation play
important mediating roles.

19
Teaching approaches based on SLA models. Affected by the cognitive
language acquisition models that describe what happens in language learners‟ heads
when they acquire a target language and the mediating factors that explain why each
individual learner shows a different language learning progress even with the same input
and output conditions, teaching approaches to second language have been evolved from
grammar translation and audiolingual methods to communicative language teaching
(CLT). Lightbown and Spada (1999) state that CLT has its primary focus on “using
language for meaningful interaction and for accomplishing tasks rather than on learning
rules” (p. 40).
CLT has been supported by the psycholinguistic and cognitive SLA models
because of its emphasis on the role of conversational interaction. It has been commonly
believed that conversational interaction brings about negotiation for meaning and input
adjustments between speakers, which makes input much more comprehensible for
language learners by facilitating their comprehension process (Long, 1983; Gass, 1997;
VanPatten, 2003). Gass also adds that negotiation and modification “serves to increase
the possibility of a greater amount of input becoming available for further use” (p. 22). In
addition, Long (1996) states that “negative feedback obtained during negotiation work or
elsewhere may be facilitative of L2 development, at least for vocabulary, morphology,
and language-specific syntax, and essential for learning certain specifiable L1-L2
contrasts” (p. 414).
On the basis of cognitive SLA models, effort also has been made to apply the
second language acquisition theory to pedagogy. For example, VanPatten (2003)
discusses implications of his model for second language teaching. He notes that second

20
language teaching does not have to be acquisition-oriented, but if it is, the following
suggestions may guide the class in an appropriate way: “The more input, the better (the
more meaning-based the class, the better); the more interaction, the better; all learner
production should be meaning-based or communicative; focus on form (or grammar
instruction) should be meaning-based and tied to input or communication; and we should
watch out for what we expect of learners” (p. 113). His suggestions basically tell us that
meaning-based input is crucial in second language education, and quality input can be
provided through conversational interactions, but teachers should not expect learners to
produce what they cannot produce. VanPatten‟s suggestions are not the only way of
applying SLA theories to pedagogy, but they seem to be a typical guideline in the
acquisition-oriented class.
Epistemological and ontological premises of SLA. Second language (L2)
researchers who adopt cognitive and psycholinguistic approaches view SLA as the study
of how second language is acquired in an individual‟s mind or brain, and consider that
the legitimate and primary scope of SLA research has to be the internal mental process of
linguistic knowledge (e.g., Gass, 1997, 1998; Gass & Selinker, 1994; Gregg, 1993;
Kasper, 1997; Krashen, 1985; Long, 1997; Poulisse, 1997; VanPatten, 1996, 2003). Due
to the strong emphasis on internal mechanisms of L2 acquisition, cognitive SLA
researchers consider social, cultural, and historical dimensions of language and
situational contexts influencing the acquisition processes as trivial, minor, or secondary
unless they directly contribute to the explanation of how linguistic knowledge is
processed within an individual. Thus, when Firth and Wagner (1997) claimed a
reconceptualization of SLA by adding “contextual and interactional dimensions of

21
language use” and “an increased „emic‟ (i.e., participant relevant) sensitivity” in SLA
research (p. 286), Gass (1998), Kasper (1997), Long (1997), and Poulisse (1997) argued
that Firth and Wagner‟s suggestions were based on their misinterpretations of what SLA
had to be about. For example, Long (1997) explicated that “any theory of language
acquisition […] has to address the question of how learners‟ interlanguage knowledge
processes from stage A to stage B, and what events promote or hinder such progress […]
because in the final analysis, learning or acquiring anything is about establishing new
knowledge available for effective and efficient use” (p. 310).
In cognitively-oriented SLA, language is viewed as an abstract system of
linguistic forms and structures. Language is perceived as linguistic data such as input,
intake, or output which can be manipulated, adjusted, restructured, and accommodated.
Although the acquisition models support communicative language teaching (CLT), which
sees a language as a tool for communication, Johnson (2004) points out that human
communication in the acquisition model is reduced to “the notion of input that needs to
be processed according to well-established computational rules” and the meaning
exchanged through communication is also reduced to “a sentence-level type of
information” (p. 71). From the acquisition perspective, language is an objectified
commodity to be acquired.
How a learner is conceived of in the acquisition models is introduced in the
acquisition and participation metaphor by Sfard (1998). He states that the acquisition
metaphor (AM) construes a learner as a recipient and a (re)constructor. The AM compels
us to think of the human mind as “a container to be filled with certain materials,” which
is independent of his or her sociocultural contexts (p. 5). Therefore, the learner can own

22
those materials after the learning process is finished. In the same vein, the SLA models
also consider a second language learner as “a machine (a computer)” or “a limited
capacity processor” (Johnson, 2004, p. 71). Even though the acquisition model attends to
the learner‟s active role of constructing and reconstructing the received linguistic data,
the active role is very bound to his or her own internal capacity.
From the perspective of viewing language as a set of rules and facts and a learner
as someone who has a limited processing capacity, language learning is considered as an
individual‟s cognitive process of acquiring linguistic forms and structures. As Sfard
(1998) points out that the acquisition metaphor (AM) considers learning as “gaining
possession over some commodity” (p. 5), the SLA models also assume that L2 learning
means gaining a new set of linguistic knowledge in a subconscious or conscious manner.
Johnson (2004) wrote that the acquisition models describe the process of
analyzing the incoming information as “mechanistic, predictable, stable, and universal”
(p. 84). With the AM, language is considered as an abstract system of linguistic codes
devoid of a context, so that its learning also takes on a homogeneous characteristic. As
Sfard (1998) comments that the AM gives us an “as if message,” (p. 12), the cognitive
SLA models describe the process of second language learning as if the learner had a mind
that is independent of the context and the world where he or she is living.
Concerns with cognitively-oriented SLA. The cognitive approaches of SLA
prevailing in the second language educational field for about 40 years have contributed to
second language learning studies in many ways. For example, cognitive SLA has
explicated the complicated nature of language acquisition process happening within an
individual. Secondly, the emphasis on the comprehension of meaning followed by

23
sufficient language input has guided L2 educators to pay more attention to improving
communicative competencies of L2 learners through real interactive communications
rather than to audiolingual approaches emphasizing decontextualized habit-forming and
memorizing methods such as meaningless pattern drills and repetitions or to grammar
translation methods mainly focusing on learning about grammar knowledge and rules. By
highlighting an individual learner‟s innate ability to process and develop linguistic
knowledge, cognitive SLA has also contributed to making L2 teaching less mechanistic
and focusing more on creating input-rich environments where interactive communication
can take place. Even with these tangible achievements, however, some concerns remain
to think over regarding its epistemological and ontological stance on language learning.
First, L2 learning has been considered mainly as a cognitive issue, so that the
main focus has been to provide the fittest environment for language learners to optimize
language input and output. Under cognitively oriented perspectives, the learner‟s mind is
like a container or a computer, so that the main interest has been how to help the mind to
process and fill with linguistic knowledge effectively. However, the question is whether
our learners learn a second language as if they have a mind independent of where they
were, are, and will be. If a learner‟s mind is simply separated from the world, the
question remains as to why the learner would be interested in filling the mind with
linguistic knowledge.
Secondly, Firth and Wagner (1997) criticizes that cognitively-oriented SLA puts
L2 users simply in the category of “learners” or “non-native speakers of the target
language” rather than treating them as a whole person, which overlooks multiple social
identities that L2 users hold and bring in using and learning an L2. Once again, this

24
simplified status of L2 users reflects the standpoint resisting the relevance of language
acquisition and L2 learners‟ social worlds. Because the primary focus of cognitive SLA
has been to describe universal processes of language learning from the psycholinguistic
perspective, social identities other than the learner identity as non-native speakers are
regarded as variables to be controlled rather than being valued as an important topic to
investigate. In general, issues like identity (re)construction taking place throughout L2
using and learning have been considered as something that has little to do with language
learning/acquisition in cognitive SLA.
Regarding the concept of L2 learners, Firth and Wagner (1997) continue to
criticize that cognitive SLA research has viewed L2 learners as those who have linguistic
deficiencies in the use of the language. When some communicative misunderstandings
occur between native speakers and L2 learners, the latter are usually considered to cause
communicative problems due to their non-nativeness in linguistic competences. On the
other hand, native speakers have been portrayed to be an ideal figure that L2 learners
target to reach and their communicative competences to be the ultimate goal that L2
learners have to accomplish in the end. However, according to Firth and Wagner, viewing
L2 learners as “inherently defective communicators” (p. 291) is biased in that it does not
involve the emic perspectives to real-life, communicative problems. Instead, they
promote the concept of considering L2 learners as participants/language users in social
interactions, which stems from sociocultural perspectives viewing language use (that also
includes language learning) as a social phenomenon rather than solely as an individual
and a cognitive event. Under their suggested mindset, communication is understood as a

25
conjoint activity between interlocutors, and communicative problems should be viewed
as “contingent social phenomena” and “intersubjective entities” (p. 291.)
The third concern about cognitive SLA is that it “may draw people apart rather
than bring them together” (Sfard, 1998, p. 8). With the acquisition metaphor (AM), Sfard
states that knowledge is conceived of as a commodity and property, learning as
acquisition of something, and knowing as having and possessing. In other words,
knowledge is treated like material wealth in capitalist countries, so that knowing and
learning implies gaining more material wealth than others and being superior to those
who know or learn less. Therefore, viewing learning as having and possessing property
can cause unnecessary competition among learners, which can result in valuing
individualism and independence more than togetherness, solidarity, and collaboration. In
the second language learning situation based on the AM, it is natural to think that the
students who gain and possess more practical grammar knowledge and communicative
competence of the second language will be considered as successful learners, whereas
those who gain less fail as learners. Because the goal of L2 learning and teaching is
individual enrichment with linguistic competence according to the AM, if the learner
does not acquire this competence, he or she will be conceived as a L2 failure.
Sociocultural Perspectives of L2 Learning
Since the concerns about epistemological and ontological stances of cognitive
SLA were raised in the late 1990s, many efforts have been made to suggest alternative
models of L2 learning mostly from sociocultural orientations, which view L2 learning as
more than internal mental processes of linguistic knowledge (e.g., Firth & Wagner, 1997;
Hall, 1997; Johnson, 2004; Lantolf, 1994; Lantolf & Johnson, 2007; Lantolf & Thorne,

26
2006; Robbins, 2003; Swain & Deters, 2007; Watson-Gegeo, 2004). In general,
sociocultural theories foreground social origins of learning and development of human
beings (Zuengler & Miller, 2006). They promote the holistic point of view that each
individual is a part of the world, and the world exists on the condition that he/she lives
and acts in it; therefore, human development and activity cannot be fully understood by
taking apart from the world where they live (Leontiev, 1978). Among many important
concepts that sociocultural theories promote, I have paid attention to mediation,
dialogism, and situated learning in order to look into different interpretations of language,
language learners, and language learning.
Language as a mediational tool of mind. The view that language is a
mediational tool comes from Vygotsky‟s sociocultural approach to mind (1978, 1986).
Vygotsky conceives the human mind not only as a psychological but also as
socioculturally-mediated organ. Although Vygostky does not rule out the contribution of
biological growth of human mind to the development of its mental functioning, he
intends to find the sources and origins of human mental activity in our interactions with
social environments, particularly with people, which are mediated by cultural artifacts.
Vygotsky understands that mental activity is present first in interpersonal planes no
matter how individual it appears.
The social origin of mental activity is further explicated by the two roles of
cultural artifacts. First, as a tool that is “externally oriented,” they enable us to extend our
mental abilities to regulate and master our physical world; secondly as a sign that is
“internally oriented,” they enable us to regulate and master our inner world (Vygotsky,
1978, p. 55). Among many cultural artifacts that have existed so far, Vygotsky (1986)

27
counts a language as the most influential meditational means, with which humans can
form and transform their actions and develop their mental functions to higher levels.
According to Vygotsky (1978), language originally exists for the purpose of
communication; therefore, through speech, humans can have interactions with and
eventually influence others in a certain way. Once language is appropriated and
internalized, it also starts functioning to help humans to shape their thoughts more easily
and to react to their environmental stimuli more efficiently and effectively. As Vygotsky
comments that “mental tools enable humans to plan ahead, to create complex solutions to
problems, and to work with others towards a common goal” (p. 17), the use of language
accelerates humans‟ ability to communicate and shape thoughts, control their cognitive
and physical behaviors, and master their inner and outer worlds in the end.
Wertsch‟s (1991) interpretation that “Vygotsky approached language and other
sign systems in terms of how they are part of and „mediate‟ human action” is helpful to
better understand the mediational roles of language (p. 29). Wertsch views that symbolic
artifacts are inherently related to human action and always exist as a part of it. In other
words, language is understood as “a way of „doing‟ things in the world” (McVee,
Dunsmore, & Gavelek, 2005, p. 546). From this view, language does not exist only as an
abstract set of sounds and written symbols independent of the social contexts where it is
used, but as a mediational tool that enables humans to facilitate their (inter)actions (e.g.,
communication) with others outwardly and themselves (e.g., thinking) inwardly. As
human actions occur in specific social, cultural, and historical environments and play a
role in (re)connecting actors with their environments, the use of language also occurs in

28
specific communicative contexts and plays a role in (re)connecting speakers with the
world where they live.
Language as utterance in speech genre. Bakhtin (1986) views language not
simply as linguistic forms that exist as an abstract system, but as speech communication
that exists in reality; thus, an utterance, not a word or a sentence, should be the real unit
of speech communication. With the comment that “language is realized in the form of
individual concrete utterances (oral or written) by participants in the various areas of
human activity,” he underlines a social situatedness of language as a social act (p. 60).
According to him, concrete utterances are understood as human activities through which
“language enters life” and “life enters language” (p. 63).
Bakhtin (1986) introduces three major features of the utterance. First, the
boundary of each utterance is determined by a change of speaking subjects. By defining
the individual speaker as a criterion for separating each utterance, Bakthin emphasizes
the importance of human agency in language use and the importance of its understanding
within the boundaries of communication events between at least two social beings.
The second constitutive feature of the utterance is its specific finalization—the
possibility of responding to it, which is determined by “semantic exhaustiveness of the
theme,” “the speaker‟s plan or speech will,” and “typical compositional and generic
forms of finalization” (Bakhtin, 1986, pp. 76-77). He indicates that understandability or
comprehensibility of the meaning of language is not enough for units of language to be
an utterance; they must have the quality of being addressed to someone, “addressivity” (p.
99), so that they will arouse the addressee‟s responsive understanding and reactions. In
addition, this second feature implies that there exist varied forms of utterances; that is,

29
not only can a short word be an utterance but also a sentence and a paragraph or even a
large volume of novel can be an utterance as long as they have a quality of addressivity.
The third feature is the relation of the utterance to the speaker himself (the author
of the utterance) and to the other participants in speech communication (Bakhtin, 1986, p.
84), and this is associated with his notion of a word. Bakhtin argued that a word (as well
as a sentence) exists in three aspects: “as a neutral word of a language,” “as an other‟s
word,” and “as my word” (p. 88). The first aspect indicates a word as a unit of language,
just like an entry in a dictionary. It does not belong to anyone yet, so its meaning remains
impersonal and abstract. The second aspect indicates a word used by others; it belongs to
others, and is filled with the reverberation of their utterances. However, once the speaker
appropriates words and populates them with his/her own specific intentions within his/her
own speech plans (no matter whether he/she picks them up from the dictionary or others‟
utterances), they are transformed into a third aspect of word, a “my word,” and are filled
with “the speaker‟s subjective emotional evaluation of the referentially semantic content
of his[/her] utterance” (p. 84). These three different aspects of the word illuminate the
active roles of “others” as well as “the author/speaker” in communication.
The above three features of the utterance also can be recapitulated by its dialogic
nature. Bakhtin (1986) notes that “any utterance […] has […] an absolute beginning and
an absolute end: its beginning is preceded by the utterances of others, and its end is
followed by the responsive utterances of others (or, although it may be silent, others‟
active responsive understanding, or, finally, a responsive action based on this
understanding)” (p. 71). When a speaker constructs an utterance, he/she is always
responsive to others‟ utterances. The speaker may respond to the semantic content of the

30
previous utterances in such ways as agreeing, negating, questioning, and explaining, or to
their particular uses of lexical or syntactic elements. Therefore, the utterance does not
come out of nowhere; rather, it originates from others‟ utterances and is sensitive to their
own specific social and cultural contexts. At the same time, the utterance is also oriented
towards addressee(s)/listener(s). The speaker normally expects a response from the
listener, so he/she modifies the content and style of the utterance depending on who the
audience is and will be. The speaker has a particular audience in mind and takes into
account their responsive understanding and reactions, and this influences the quality of
his/her own utterances. To sum up, the utterance is always formed in multiple relations
with preceding and following utterances, and Bakhtin explains this dialogic nature of the
utterance as “a link in a very complexly organized chain of other utterances” (p. 69).
Although utterance is sensitive to particular contexts of speech communication
and heterogenetic in its forms, Bakhtin (1986) argues that we can study the utterance by
looking at speech genres that it belongs to. Bakhtin notes that “each separate utterance is
individual, of course, but each sphere in which language is used develops its own
relatively stable types of these utterances. These we may call speech genres” (p. 60). And
he continues that “a particular function […] and the particular conditions of speech
communication specific for each sphere give rise to particular genres, that is, certain
relatively stable thematic, compositional, and stylistic types of utterances” (p. 64).
According to Bakhtin (1986), all human beings speak in speech genres; therefore,
having a good command of language means to have the ability to command “a repertoire
of genres of social conversation” (p. 80). Without knowing different speech genres, we
cannot fully participate in social activities in various areas of our lives. Mastering speech

31
genres does not occur by learning vocabulary and grammatical structures of language
abstractly; rather, we can learn and master them best by being exposed to the concrete
contexts in which each speech genre is embodied and by experiencing them in real
speech communication. However, Bakhtin also indicates that mastering speech genres of
a given language is not as easy as it sounds because of their heterogeneity. As there are a
myriad of areas of human activities in reality, there also exist countless categories of
speech genres. In addition, as the functions and conditions of speech communication
change in time, so do speech genres. Bakhtin says that “speech genres are much more
changeable, flexible, and plastic than language forms are” (p. 80). Therefore, a speaker‟s
command of a given language is manifested not only by his/her knowledge about speech
genres but also by his/her sensitivity to those changes and ability to catch up with their
flows.
Language as a world view in dialogue. Conceiving language as a worldview is
related to a close relationship between language and human consciousness. Medvedev
and Bakhtin (1978) argue that “human consciousness does not come into contact with
existence directly, but through the medium of the surrounding ideological world,” and
they continue that “the individual consciousness can only become a consciousness by
being realized in the forms of the ideological environment proper to it: in language, in
conventionalized gesture, in artistic image, in myth, and so on” (as cited in Morris, 2003,
p. 127). For them, language is one of the semiotic signs and tools that mediate between a
self and his/her outer world. It is a place where both of the worlds are in contact. Through
discursive practices, an individual comes to interactively communicate with the outside,
so that the outer world enters the inner world and becomes a source of self-configuration,

32
and likewise, the inner enters the outer world and becomes an agent of the individual‟s
external activities. As the outer world is already stratified into many different classes and
groups, the language that is used in each different sphere of our lives has been already
stratified accordingly. Therefore, participating in dialogue implicates speakers‟
understanding of the stratified nature of specific social areas where the language is used,
selectively using it to represent or deny their ideological stances, and at the same time
fashioning it with their own thoughts, emotions, and volitions to complete their intentions.
According to Bakhtin (1981), “all words have the „taste‟ of a profession, a genre, a
tendency, a party, a particular work, a particular person, a generation, an age group, the
day and hour. Each word tastes of life; all words and forms are populated by intentions”
(p. 293). Due to this ideological aspect of language, he notes that our language
performances are a part of becoming an ideological self. Bakhtin stated,
We are taking language not as a system of abstract grammatical categories, but
rather language conceived as ideologically saturated, language as a world view,
even as a concrete opinion, insuring a maximum of mutual understanding in all
spheres of ideological life (as cited in Morris, 2003, p. 74)
In opposition to the idea that language performance is only an independent
individual act of creating meaning by assembling linguistic forms according to the rules
of the language, Bakhtin (1981, 1986) assumes that it is a social act of borrowing,
repeating, and appropriating others‟ words. He believes that language always lies on the
borderline between a self and the other. Before a speaker appropriates a word by
accenting it with his/her own intention, it exists as a word of others first. The speaker
takes others‟ words, which served their intentions at a specific social and cultural context

33
and a specific historical moment of their lives, and repeats them for his/her own purpose
in a given place and time. Therefore, the selected words involve not only others‟ specific
points of view on the world but also the speaker‟s own evaluation of others‟ voices. Since
many voices contribute to an utterance, Bakhtin says that we in fact speak with multiple
voices.
Language use, which involves contact of a self with others, implicates the
speaker‟s conflicts, tensions, and struggles in understanding and forming his/her own
worldviews from the differentness of others‟ voices. Bakhtin (1981) calls this kind of
nature of speech heteroglossia, introducing two oppositional forces existing in discourse:
centripetal and centrifugal. Centripetal forces move toward unification, centralization,
and homogenization of our thoughts, values, beliefs, and actions, whereas centrifugal
forces move toward their decentralization and heterogeneity. According to Bakhin, these
two forces exist simultaneously in humans‟ discursive activities, and affect our
ideological process of becoming. The confrontation of these two forces creates havoc on
our ways of viewing the world, but it is a starting point where new meanings of language
and a new ideological self are created.
One example of these struggles is explained in the concepts of authoritative
discourse and internally persuasive discourse (Bakhtin, 1981). Bakhtin notes that
authoritative discourse is like “the word of the fathers” (p. 342). It is generally conveyed
to an individual in a manner of authority, tradition, and formality, and its main role is to
unify us by centralizing our views of the world. Because of its embedded authoritative
manners, the authoritative discourse “demands that we acknowledge it, [and] that we
make it our own” (p. 342), and this enforcement nature causes our struggles with it.

34
However, Bakhtin also points out that each individual has a different degree of struggle
with authoritative discourse, depending on the contexts that he/she has grown up with and
his/her relationship with it.
Internally persuasive discourse, on the other hand, is from our daily discourse
with common people that we can easily encounter. Bakhtin (1981) explains that it is
“denied all privilege, backed by no authority at all, and is frequently not even
acknowledged in society” (p. 342). Rather, internally persuasive discourse is, “as it is
affirmed through assimilation, tightly interwoven with „one‟s own word‟” (p. 345). The
internally persuasive word is already half ours; thus it not only represents what we think
of who we are but also drives us to become who we want to be. However, it does not
block the channel to listen to others‟ voices. In contrast to authoritative discourse,
internally persuasive discourse is more flexible and open to change itself with a dialogic
interaction with the discourses of others, which is oriented not only to make itself more
internally persuasive, but also “to reveal ever newer ways to mean” (p. 346).
Bakhtin (1981) notes that authoritative and internally persuasive discourses can
“be united in one word,” but “what usually determines the history of an individual
consciousness” is not from such unity but from “a sharp gap between these two
categories” (p. 324). When an individual notices these differences, he/she tends to have
more chances of changing his/herself to a new self. However, this self-transformation
process does not occur by itself. An individual has to be in a dialogue with these
differences. Therefore, dialogue is characterized by “coexistence of socio-ideological
contradictions between the present and the past, between different socio-ideological
groups in the present, between tendencies, schools, circles, and so forth, all given a

35
bodily form” (p. 291). Bakthin explains that the stance of differentness in dialogue is not
destined to be synthesized into a finalized truth, but oriented to the generative production
of a new meaning and to the better understanding not only in a speaker him/herself but
also in other dialogue participants.
Notions of being: Unfinalized and dialogic phenomenon. With a view of
humans as social beings, Bakhtin (1984) notes that dialogic communication is a
prerequisite for our existence in this world. He stated,
The very being of man (both external and internal) is the “deepest communion.”
“To be” means “to communicate.” Absolute death (not being) is the state of being
unheard, unrecognized, unremembered. To be means to be for another, and
through the other, for oneself. A person has no internal sovereign territory, he is
wholly and always on the boundary; looking inside himself, he looks into the eyes
of another with the eyes of another (p. 287).
According to him, dialogue “is not a means for revealing, for bringing to the surface the
already ready-made characters of a person,” but an on-going action through which “he
becomes for the first time what he is” (p. 252). In the state of dialogue, a person is able to
see his/her own self-images in relation to others and get an opportunity to encounter
others‟ different voices, so that he/she comes to figure out his/her selfhood while
examining those differences between the self and the others and questioning his/her own
voices. Dialogue always involves the process of construction and reconstruction of self.
For this reason, when we stop the dialogue, we lose a chance to see and shape who we are.
In the process of self-production, therefore, it is essential to be in contact with
others. For Bakhtin (1986), the role of others is especially important because they are the

36
ones with “whom my thought becomes actual thought for the first time (and thus also for
my own self as well)” (p. 94). As my thoughts are recognized by others through dialogue,
my self-being also makes an appearance to its outer world. At the same time, the
presence of others and my contact with their voices function to be the foundation of my
self-being and consciousness. Bakthin (1981) says that “another‟s discourse […] strives
to determine the very basis of our ideological interrelations with the world, the very basis
of our behavior” (p. 342); therefore, “I cannot do without the other, I cannot become
myself without the other; I must find myself in the other, finding the other in me” (p.
185).
The significance of dialogic relations with others in the process of self-
configuration does not implicate each individual‟s passive role in dialogue. Instead,
Bakhtin (1986) views each individual as a creative agent of his/her discursive activity.
According to Hicks (2000), “agency entails the ability to take the words of others and
accent them in one‟s unique way. Moreover, response entails the ability to read the
particulars of a situation and its discourses and engage with those particulars in ethically
specific ways” (p. 240). As introduced in the Bakhtinian concept of utterance, each
individual bases his/her utterance on the responsive understanding of others‟ utterances
and fills it with his/her own intention. Therefore, Holquist (1986) commented that all
speakers can be considered as authors and creators of their own utterances from a
Bakhtinian perspective. However, this creative agency does not mean that our
consciousness can exist free from the time and place that we live in. Instead, its base is
the social and cultural spheres of our lives and the relationships with those who we are
living with; therefore, creative agency is also bound by the world where we live. Bakhtin

37
says, “the better a person understands the degree to which he is externally determined
[…] the closer to home he comes to understanding and exercising his real freedom” (p.
59).
The Bakhtinian notion of dialogue also presupposes a difference between
conversers. According to Bakhtin (1986), it is essential for an individual to have
outsideness from others in order to have a meaningful dialogue. Even when a self and the
others are in the contact zone, there is no guarantee that all interlocutors will have a
meaningful dialogue if both sides remain identical. Without challenges and tensions
coming from outsideness and differentness, it is hard to expect growth of ourselves. As
indicated before, the stance of differentness in dialogue, however, is not destined to be
synthesized into a finalized truth. Instead, the differentness is oriented to better
understanding in participants in dialogue (including a speaker him/herself) and to
formation and transformation of a self into a new creative hybridized being.
The importance of outsideness also implicates the importance of uniqueness of an
individual and his/her equal status with others in dialogue (Bakhtin, 1986). An individual
can be different from the other because each of us keeps our own unique individuality.
Because of each individual‟s uniqueness, everyone can equally contribute to dialogue. As
Bakhtin (1984) explains with reference to Dostoevksy‟s polyphonic novels with their
simultaneous existence of plural voices on equal terms between the author and heroes, the
uniqueness of and equality between all interlocutors can be referred to as their
polyphonic relationship in dialogue.
As to the question about why humans have a dialogical relationship with others,
Bakhtin (1984) finds the answer in the unfinalized nature of human beings: “As long as a

38
person is alive he lives by the fact that he is not yet finalized, that he has not yet uttered
his ultimate word” (p.59). According to Medvedev and Bakhtin (1978), “compositional
finalization is possible in all spheres of ideological creation, but real thematic finalization
is impossible” (cited in Morris, 2003, p. 176). Because of this unfinalizability, humans
can always have a possibility to change.
Learning as socially situated activity. One of the critical concepts that explain
how sociocultural theories view learning comes from a community of practice (CoP)
framework (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998; Wenger, 2006; Wenger, McDermott,
& Snyder, 2002). Wenger et al. (2002) define communities of practice as “groups of
people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who
deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (p.
4). According to this view, humans learn interactively with others while participating in
the practices created and developed by their belonged community. A community of
practice is a context in which joint learning takes place. According to Wenger et al., the
concept of communities of practice has been with us all the time. No matter whether we
are aware of their presence or not, they have been everywhere in various names and
forms. Although there is a difference in the degree of participation level in each
community, each of us has been involved in a number of communities of practice and has
been learning with group/community members doing shared practices.
However, Wenger et al. (2002) argue that not all communities are a community of
practice. There are three major components that constitute it: domain, community, and
practice (Wenger, 2006; Wenger et al., 2002). The first element, a domain, indicates a
domain of knowledge or topics that matter to community members. The domain is

39
something that group members are willing to pursue, which in turn functions to have
them gather in the beginning of community formation. Therefore, Wenger (2006)
indicates that the domain gives an identity to each group. Because the domain represents
part of what group members are/do and what they want to be/do, it also provides meaning
and value to their actions, which further leads to their strong contribution and
commitment to the community.
The second structural component of communities of practice is a community, a
group of people “who care about the [shared] domain” and create “the social fabric of
learning” (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 27). Getting together around a shared interest does not
necessarily make a community a community of practice unless group members try to
learn from each other while maintaining their interactions over time. In the process of
building a relationship through consistent communications, group members not only
develop knowledge and skills important to the domain of their interests, but also develop
a mutual engagement and “a sense of belonging and mutual commitment” (p. 34).
Wenger et al. state that characteristics of a strong community of practice can be found in
the relationship among group members, which is based on “respect and trust,”
“homogeneity and diversity,” “voluntary participation,” “distributed leadership,”
“reciprocity,” and “openness” (p. 35-37).
The last constituent component of a community of practice is a practice, a set of
shared knowledge that community members develop, which includes not only specific
ways of doing things but also specific ways of seeing, thinking, and understanding.
Wenger (2006) views that group members are “practitioners” in that “they develop a
shared repertoire of resources: experiences, stories, tools, ways of addressing recurring

40
problems—in short a shared practice” (para. 5). In developing, sharing, maintaining, and
adjusting those resources over time, community members come to find ways to approach
the problems they face more efficiently and to gain more common ground to identify with
other community members. In most cases, community members learn about shared
practices while performing them in an actual situation; thus, practices are situated in a
specific context, but not always recognized and learned by all community members in an
explicitly and formally articulated format.
In order for a community to be a community of practice, Wenger at al. (2002)
claim that all these three components should be in place together. If one is missing, a
community cannot be qualified to be a community of practice. For instance, they
distinguish a community of practice from a community of interest. In both communities,
people are drawn to a certain topic and make a commitment to know more about it.
However, the main purpose of the community of interest is to access knowledge, not to
develop and expand knowledge; thus interactions through shared practices are not
necessary among the community of interest members. It is also described that a
community of practice is different from a general friend network. Although informal
networks also show connectivity between members, this connection is not necessarily
around the shared domain of interest; thus, commitment to the domain is not a
requirement to have a legitimate membership in informal networks whereas it is so in
communities of practice.
Although all three major components are essential to develop and maintain
communities of practice, stability in one component can also help the communities to
proceed even when they are in a transition stage (Wenger et al., 2002). As time goes by,

41
small and sometimes big changes are inevitable within the communities. For example, a
domain of interest can be shifted as new topics come up, a relationships among
community members can change as people come and go, and practices can change as
members try to find a better way to tackle the topics. When the changes in the three
components occur at the same time, the communities are at risk of disintegrating.
However, if at least one element stays strong and stable, it can help “facilitate a transition
in another [component]” (p. 47). As Wenger et al. noticed, “the synergy between domain,
community, and practice…help a community evolve and fulfill its potential” (p. 47).
In terms of how learning is processed in communities of practice, Lave and
Wenger (1991) state that learning involves a process of legitimate peripheral
participation, which indicates the notion that “learners inevitably participate in
communities of practitioners and that the mastery of knowledge and skill requires
newcomers to move toward full participation in the sociocultural practices of a
community” (p. 29). In this model of learning, learning is not simply a cognitive process
of acquiring decontextualized knowledge, and does not simply happen only in the heads
of learners. Instead, learning, as a situated activity, is a constituent element of all social
practice and an essential part of the process of coming to belong to a community.
In the process of legitimate peripheral participation, legitimacy and peripherality
are the key characteristic conditions in which a learner becomes a full participant in a
particular community. Lave and Wenger (1991) explain that the legitimacy of
participation is about “ways of belonging” that a learner develops a status or a
membership that is legitimately accepted by their community members, which enables
them to access resources of the community (p. 35). Legitimacy is not automatically

42
granted to members simply by having a passion for the common domain of interest. In
addition to that, the members also need to earn legitimacy by gaining reputation, respect,
and trust from other community members, grounded on their mutual engagement and
commitment to the domain and the community. Through this process, the members create
“a sense of common history and identity” (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 35).
The process of developing a membership in a community is necessary for a
newcomer to become a full participant; however, it is not a process of getting identical to
other community members in every aspect. Gaining legitimacy leads a newcomer to be
part of the community, but he/she does not have to lose his/her own selfhood in that
process. Instead, a good community encourages members to stay different from others by
using and developing their own unique knowledge throughout the community practices.
Through this process, Wenger et al. (2002) posit that people “achieve a status and
generate their own personal sphere of influence within the community” and “develop a
unique individual identity in relation to the community” (p. 35).
In addition to legitimacy, Lave and Wenger (1991) add that the learner also has to
keep a status of being peripheral—related to ongoing social practices of the community
in “multiple, varied, more- or less-engaged and inclusive ways of participation”—in
order to complete the process of legitimate peripheral participation in the community of
practice (p. 36). This status of peripheral participation indicates varying degrees of
engagement of and responsibilities for the practices of a community, which eventually
provides newcomers/learners with freedom to be more open to change, to have more
dynamic involvement in their social activities, and to develop skills and knowledge at
their own pace. Ideally, participation is, therefore, voluntary in communities of practice.

43
Through this view of the learning process as legitimate peripheral participation,
Lave and Wenger (1991) stress that learning becomes “an integral part of generative
social practice in the lived-in world” (p. 35). This entails changes not only in the learner‟s
cognition but also in his or her identities in the process of becoming a member of the
community. Because learning is inherently situated in specific social activities, it
unquestionably involves a relation of a self to a particular community and entails the
process of becoming a certain kind of person. Therefore, Packer and Goicoechea (2000)
add that viewing learning as a socially situated activity means to adopt the point that
“gaining knowledge or understanding is an integral part of broader ontological changes
that stem from participation in a community” (p. 234).
L2 learning and sociocultural approaches. Sociocultural approaches implicate
that language, whether it is a first or a second language, is a mediational means with
which humans are able to control their interpersonal and intrapersonal activities. It
enables humans to reach a higher level of mental functioning and to contact with the
social environments. In addition, sociocultural approaches view that language always
exists as speech communication. It is socially, culturally, and historically situated; thus, it
is embedded in the time and place, the context where speakers live. The process of
communication is not simply about coding and decoding linguistic systems as a neutral
medium, but about the process of controlling our social interactions and thinking,
encountering world views, constructing our own voices, and transforming ourselves into
new beings.
From sociocultural perspectives, L2 learners try to increase their ability to control
their “psychological and social activity through the [new] language” (Lantolf, 2000, p. 6).

44
They are not simply a passive learning device that processes only input and output of L2.
Instead, as Wertsch (1998) views individuals as “agents-operating-with-mediational-
means,” L2 learners are active-agents-operating-with-a new language, who are trying to
connect themselves with a new world (p. 12). In addition, L2 learners are active, creative,
and dialogic beings who are in contact with the past, present, and future. They are social
beings who are continuously trying to belong to L2 communities, (albeit to different
degrees), and come to figure out who they are through the dialogue with others in the
outer world. Norton (2000) states that “when language learners speak, they are not only
exchanging information with target languages speakers, but they are constantly
organizing and reorganizing a sense of who they are and how they relate to the social
world” (p. 11).
Therefore, L2 learning, firstly, is a process of mastering a new mediational tool,
which affects learners‟ psychological and social worlds; that is, it is a process of
interpersonal and intrapersonal transformation while controlling the second language as a
mediational tool (Lantolf, 2000). Secondly, L2 learning can be considered as a process of
“the struggle of participation” (Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000, p. 156). Second language
learning is not simply for language learners to accumulate new linguistic knowledge and
skills for future reference; rather, it is an essential part of the participation process in
practices of L2 communities that they are currently involved in and/or want to belong to.
Second language learning consists of social practices that provide opportunities to meet
different others in a community, to come to know its speech genre, and to master it to
fully carry out discursive practices required for its social activities. Therefore, as
Zuengler and Miller (2006) suggest, language development can be observed not simply

45
from the learners‟ language knowledge and communicative competence, but from his or
her “change from limited to fuller participation in social practices involving their second
language” (p. 41). Through this participation process, thirdly, second language learners
consequently experience ontological as well as epistemological changes (Robbins, 2003).
L2 Learning in Web 2.0 Environments
L2 learning and literacy practices with Web 2.0 technologies outside of school
contexts have just begun to be explored in the field of second language education.
Among a few, Lam (2000) conducted pioneering ethnographic research on online L2
literacy practices of Almon, a Chinese immigrant teenager living in the United States.
The study showed how online literacy activities helped Almon to transform himself from
a negative and marginalized self, who was struggling in a formal school environment and
concerned about his limited English proficiency and its potential influence on his future
career, to a positive and affiliated self, developed through active participation in online
discourse activities within the J-pop community. Lam argued that Almon‟s textual
activities, such as designing a personal website1
introducing a J-pop singer and
corresponding with J-pop fans through the online guest book, ICQ (an online chatting
program), and email, contributed to his development of global affiliations with those
interested in J-pop culture. As a result, the affiliating textual activities with the J-pop
culture and its global fans provided him with opportunities to successfully represent who
he was, and at the same time to be transformed into an active communicator in English,
which he had hardly experienced in his formal school settings. Lam‟s study showed that
1
O‟Reilly (2005) categorized personal websites into the types of Web 1.0. However, considering his
definition of Web 2.0 as not necessarily meaning the advent of new technology but the change of people‟s
minds on how to use the Web, I‟d like to consider Almon‟s use of his personal website, which combined
different types of CMC tools, as an example of Web 2.0 media in that it promoted his participation in J-pop
culture through its improved networking features.

46
these online practices with Internet-based media, characterized by representation and
transformation of a self in the affiliation process, can provide an opportunity for L2
learners not only to improve their L2 proficiency but also to learn the ways of
participating in L2 discourse communities.
Black (2006) also explored L2 literacy activities of a Chinese adolescent
immigrant living in Canada, named Nanako, on the online fanfiction site Fanfiction.net.
Black focused on the role of popular fan culture among youth, a Japanese anime and
manga in this study, and of information communication technology embedded in this
fanfiction website in the development of Nanako‟s English writing skills and the change
of her online identities. When Nanako first immigrated to Canada, she was 11 years old,
and spoke mainly Mandarin Chinese. During the first semester of school in Canada, she
experienced a hard time in learning subjects and making friends due to her limited
English. However, while participating in social and discursive activities on Fanfiction.net
(such as reading other authors‟ fan fiction first, publicly posting her own fan fiction, and
receiving readers‟ feedback later), she started to build her image as a successful, popular
fan fiction writer on the site, and to improve her writing abilities concomitantly. Black
(2005, 2006, 2007) posited that the success of Nanako could be attributed to the hybrid
and participatory nature of the Fanfiction.net website where dialogic resources (such as
mixed plots and characters of existing fan media, positive and constructive critique from
fan members, and different modes of representation, expression, and interaction) were
provided in the networked computer environments.
The study conducted by Lam and Rosario-Ramos (2009) also showed an example
of literacy practices of immigrant youths living in the U.S. with digital media. On the

47
basis of survey data collected from 262 foreign-born immigrant adolescents and
interview data from 35 focal teenage participants, the study found that the immigrant
youths were utilizing Internet-mediated digital media (e.g., email, social networking sites,
text- or video-based chat programs, and personal website/blog) to maintain close
relationships with family members and friends across countries (which include the
country of their origin and the United States where they were living) and to seek out for
transnational sources of information about social events. Here, the use of multiple
languages of immigrant teenagers played an important role of accessing resources of
information and forming their own social network beyond their physical national
boundaries, and valued and promoted their multilingual abilities in return. According to
Lam and Rosario-Ramos, these digital literacy activities encouraged immigrant teenagers
to keep and develop not only their mother tongue but also English proficiency by
diversifying their “access to linguistic resources” (p. 183), and enabled them to see social
events from bifocal or multiple perspectives. Lam and Rosario-Ramos also emphasized
that “the students‟ multilingual development is integral to their continued participation in
social relationships and information networks that cross geographical borders” (p. 183).
The findings of the previous studies have led to strong explanatory relationships
between L2 learning viewed from sociocultural perspectives and L2 literacy and learning
practices encouraged in Web 2.0 environments. For example, the studies showed that L2
learning and literacy practices of the research participants were taking place in the
interactive and cooperative ambience of the Web 2.0-based services. Through prompt,
affirmative, and constructive responses from community members, the L2 users could
recognize themselves not as struggling learners of L2 but as positive and confident L2

Exploring second language (L2) learners' language learning

Exploring second language (L2) learners' language learning

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a Exploring second language (L2) learners' language learning

Similar a Exploring second language (L2) learners' language learning (20)

Más de wanzahirah

Más de wanzahirah (7)

Exploring second language (L2) learners' language learning