Impact of peer interaction on learning practices in a Social Network Site for Language Learning

Impact of peer interaction on
learning practices in a Social Network
Site for Language Learning
Κaterina Zourou, Web2Learn, Greece
Anthippi Potolia, Université Paris 8 Nanterre
EUROCALL conference 2021

Conceptual framework
Zourou & Potolia, EUROCALL 2021

Social Network Sites for Language Learning (SNSLL)
• massive numbers of users register to learn a second/foreign language
online (e.g. Duolingo, Busuu, Speekoo, Tandem, Memrise)
• known also as “web 2.0 language learning communities” or” massive
online language communities” For insights into terminology issues (cf. Chik & Ho, 2017;
Loiseau et al., 2011; Reinhardt, 2017, Zourou & Potolia, 2021).
• A growing body of literature on SNSLL (Alvarez Valencia, 2016; Potolia & Zourou,
2019; Stevenson & Liu, 2010; Liu et al., 2015; Orsini-Jones, 2015)
• Growing interest brought into this field by L2 scholars and practitioners

Informal ways of learning form a
fast-growing landscape
(portability, technology, community-
based learning as drivers)
self-access, out-of-school and
distance learning; informal,
non-formal and naturalistic
learning; non-instructed
learning and self-instruction;
autonomous, independent,
self-directed and self-regulated
learning, and learning beyond
the classroom
A wealth of terms (Benson, 2011):

…in informal and non-formal learning contexts
• SNSLL as possibilities for learner-driven learning in out-of-class contexts
• Technology‐mediated informal learning underlies the concept of learning
“in the digital wilds” (Thorne et al. 2015; Sauro & Zourou, 2019) because this learning
may be:
“situated in arenas of social activity that are less controllable than
classroom or organized online intercultural exchanges might be, but
which present interesting, and perhaps even compelling, opportunities
for intercultural exchange, agentive action and meaning making. (Thorne,
2010:144)
• Erratic, multifarious learning practices occurring in SNSLL, urging for more
research in CALL beyond the classroom (Dressman & Sadler, 2020, Chik, 2020; Sockett &
Toffoli, 2020).

Peer learning in SNSLL

Peer interaction and learning in SNSLL
Peer interaction= feedback
provision and reception.
Connection between peer
interaction and learning
(processes, gains) not yet
explored in SNSLL (and scarce
in CALL literature overall)
Learner profile: gaming and
networking features (~social
media profile)
User profile, Busuu

Learning progress intermingled with gamification elements
Busuu garden, bare (above) and cultivated (below)
From Zourou et al., 2017. See also: Reinhardt 2017, Alvarez Valencia, 2016

SNSLL learning modalities
(differences exist among SNSLL)
• Each learner is expected to pursue individual L2 goals; several
mechanisms (i.e. notifications, challenges/competitions, scoreboard)
to remind learners to pursue them
• Requests for written/ oral feedback are common- possibility to send a
request to a friend only (among one’s contacts) or to the whole
community
• Reciprocity as in tandem/1-to-1 learning: not in the strict sense;
interaction with any speaker of the target language is more common

Peer interaction and user types
Peer interaction possibilities are not the same for all users.
For Premium users (with paid subscriptions): full range of
learning resources, including production activities and all
interaction possibilities based on produced output
for non-Premium users (free accounts) restrictions apply:
access to fewer production activities (and consequently, to
fewer interaction possibilities with other users).

Example of a lesson
Blue items: accessible to all
Orange items: premium users
only
=> All production activities (from
quizzes to conversations)
accessible to Premium users only
Indicative lessons (Busuu)
(Zourou & Potolia, 2021)

Possibilities afforded to user types
Example: Busuu
Example: Duolingo

Scope, method,
research questions

Justification/scope
Aim: to explore peer interaction and learning
possibilities offered to the two user types and the
way they affect learning practices.
Comparison of the two user types (Premium
user//non-premium or free account user) as a
means to understand how different accesses to
resources can impact learning practices that
occur in the same learning environment.
Resources= human resources: peer interaction
learning resources: learning materials

Framing of the study
We opt for a mixed methodology (Fuchs,
Hauck & Müller-Hartman, 2012; Johnson
& Onwuegbuzie, 2004) combining
quantitative data (traces of online
activity) and qualitative data (open-
ended survey).
A socio-cultural theoretical approach
(Bonk & Cunningham, 1998; Dubreil &
Thorne, 2017) is adopted, examining the
interrelation between learning practices
and the socio-digital context.

Method
• 2 independent investigators ( a Premium user// a non-Premium user), create
accounts on the same SNSLL (Busuu) to learn the same language (German).
Same L2 skills (no prior knowledge), same age, same qualifications (BA & MA
in FLT).
Independent Variable:
• Type of account with 2 modalities (premium vs non-premium)
Dependent Variables
• Number of friend requests received by each user
• Number of peer corrections received by each user
• Number of productions sent by each user
• Mean of timespan (timespan: from the time a production is sent to the time
1st correction is received, as well as additional corrections if applicable).
• Number of interactions

Hypotheses
(effect of the independent variable οn the dependent variable)
• H1 : A user with a Premium account receives more friend requests than a
user with a Non-Premium account
• H2 : A user with a Premium account receives more peer corrections than a
user with a Non-Premium account
• H3 : Productions of a user with a Premium account get corrected in an
inferior timespan than productions of a user with a Non-Premium account.
• H4: A user with a premium account produces less corrections than a user
with a Non-Premium account.
• H5 : A user with a Non-Premium account sends less productions for peer
correction than a user with a Premium account.

Ongoing study
Data collection completed; data analysis
ongoing/delayed due to the pandemic.
Perspectives beyond data analysis
• What does “access to resources” really means
and how it impacts on learning, on individual
and group levels
• a critical examination of the “openness” often
promulgated by online platforms;
• the very different conceptualizations of
individual and group learning that can emerge
in the same online learning environment

Indicative references
• Bonk, C. J. & Cunningham, D. J. (1998). « Searching for learner‐centered, constructivist, and sociocultural components of collaborative educational
learning tools ». In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (eds.), Electronic Collaborators: Learner‐Centered Technologies for Literacy, Apprenticeship, and Discourse,
Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum, pp. 25-50.
• Chik, A. (2019). Motivation and informal language learning. The Handbook of Informal Language Learning, 13-26.
• Chik, A. & Ho. 2017. « Learn a language for free: Recreational learning among adults ». System, n° 69, pp. 162-171.
• Dubreil, S. & Thorne, S. L. (2017). « Social pedagogies and entwining language with the world ». In S. Dubreil and S. L. Thorne (eds.), Engaging the World:
Social Pedagogies and Language Learning, Boston, MA : Cengage, pp. 1-11.
• Fuchs, C., Hauck, M. & Müller-Hartmann, A. (2012). « Promoting learner autonomy through multiliteracy skills development in cross-institutional
exchanges ». Language Learning and Technology, 16(3), pp. 82-102.
• Johnson, R. B. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). « Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come ». Educational Researcher, 33(7), pp.
14-26.
• Potolia, A., & Zourou, K. 2013. Rétroaction et entraide dans les communautés web 2.0 d’apprenants de langue [Feedback and peer support in web 2.0
language learning communities]. In C. Ollivier, L. Puren (Ed.). Mutations technologiques, nouvelles pratiques sociales et didactique de langue. Le Français
Dans Le Monde Recherches et Applications, July 2013, 108-119.
• Reinhardt, J. (2017) Social network sites and language education. In S. Thorne and S. May (eds) Language, Education and Technology (pp. 1–12). need
location: Springer International Publishing.
• Sauro, S., & Zourou, K. 2019. What are the digital wilds? Introduction to special issue. In Sauro, S. & Zourou, K. (Ed.) Computer Assisted Language
Learning in the Digital Wilds. Language Learning and Technology. Online
• Schugurensky, D. (2000). The forms of informal learning: Towards a conceptualization of the field. NALL Working Report, n° 19. Toronto : University of
Toronto, Centre for the Study of Education and Work.
• Zourou, K., Potolia, A. 2021. Openness in a crowdsourced massive online language community. In C. Blyth, J. Thoms (Eds.) Open Education and Foreign
Language Learning and Teaching: The Rise of a New Knowledge Ecology, p. 369-382. Bristol. Multilingual Matters.
• Zourou, K., Potolia, A., & Zourou, F., 2017. Informal Social Networking for Language Learning: Insights into Autonomy Stances. In Lewis, T., Rivens
Mompean, A., Cappellini. T. (Ed.), Learner autonomy and Web 2.0, CALICO monograph, 141-167.

Τhank you for attending
Do reach out
Anthippi Potolia apotolia@hotmail.com
Katerina Zourou katerinazourou@gmail.com
Slides available at
https://www.slideshare.net/Web2Learn_eu/

Impact of peer interaction on learning practices in a Social Network Site for Language Learning

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Impact of peer interaction on learning practices in a Social Network Site for Language Learning (20)

More from Web2Learn (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Impact of peer interaction on learning practices in a Social Network Site for Language Learning