Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilVolumesVol. 15, n°1IntroductionOn the attractiveness of social m...


On the attractiveness of social media for language learning: a look at the state of the art

De l'attrait des médias sociaux pour l'apprentissage des langues – Regard sur l'état de l'art
Katerina Zourou
Traduction(s) :
De l'attrait des médias sociaux pour l'apprentissage des langues – Regard sur l'état de l'art [fr]


Ce texte dresse l'arrière-plan contextuel et notionnel des articles retenus pour le numéro spécial "Médias sociaux et apprentissage des langues : (r)évolution ?". Il commence par une définition d'un certain nombre de termes qui dominent le discours actuel comme "médias sociaux", "web 2.0", "web social", "sites de réseautage social" et "communautés web 2.0 d'apprentissage des langues". Il ne s'agit pas de "réinventer la roue" en suggérant de nouvelles définitions mais de synthétiser les définitions dominantes et de les confronter à des concepts proches de la littérature du domaine de l'Alao. Sont ensuite discutés trois aspects clés des technologies du web 2.0 (participation de l'utilisateur, ouverture et effets de réseau). Ces trois caractéristiques étaient, certes, déjà présentes avec les technologies qui ont précédé les médias sociaux, nous examinons donc en quoi elles prennent, ou non, un sens radicalement différent à l'ère des médias sociaux. Un certain nombre de pistes de recherche sont discutées dans la dernière partie du texte.

Haut de page

Entrées d’index

Mots-clés :

réseaux sociaux


social media
Haut de page

Texte intégral

The author would like to thank Mathieu Loiseau for his insightful comments on earlier versions of the paper. All errors or omissions, however, are the author's responsibility.

1. Introduction

1Eager to explore the opportunities of promising technologies and to assess their added value for language education, CALL researchers and practitioners have recently shown a growing interest in the social web. Independently of the reasons why the CALL community is getting more and more interested in social media (be it for the appeal of these technologies to groups of learners whose high degree of acculturation intrigues educators, or for the sense of intellectual curiosity regarding the pedagogical affordances of artifacts not explicitly designed for learning), it is undeniable that social media have been generating enthusiasm, skepticism, expectations and even illusions since 2004, when the term web 2.0 was coined by Tim O'Reilly and his colleagues (Musser et al., 2007).

2Let us not forget though that the "buzz" around social media is also linked to the fact that it encompasses not a single tool but a set of tools, and that the possibilities for language learning and teaching are multiplied accordingly. The differences between social media applications are such that it is impossible to treat the social web as a whole and to make claims about their pedagogical value – if any – in general. Therefore, approaching the social web as though it were a homogeneous set of digital applications is like wanting to distinguish all the details in a landscape picture taken at a distance. This technological pluralism, coupled with the novelty of these tools in language education and the scarceness of empirical data so far (see also section 4), highlights the complexity of the field. Obviously, before moving on to the analyses presented in the selected papers, there is a need to outline this emerging field of studies and to reveal some important insights acquired through the literature review so far.

3To start with, a few preliminary definitions are given in section 2. The purpose is not to "reinvent the wheel" by suggesting new definitions, but to synthesize definitions of mainstream terms and juxtapose them to similar concepts from CALL literature. At this stage we attempt to disambiguate concomitant terms that sometimes lead to confusion. We then critically discuss three key features of web 2.0 technologies (user participation, openness and network effects). Despite the fact that these three features were present to some extent in technologies prior to social media, we examine whether they take on a radically different meaning in the social media era. Research insights are discussed in the last section of the paper.

2. Some preliminary definitions of mainstream terms

4Although subject to rapidly evolving technological developments, we attempt to offer some definitions commonly found in the literature which seem appropriate in the context of language education. These definitions have been enriched by comments made by authors featured in this special issue. The purpose of this limited set of definitions is neither to dictate a certain understanding of these terms, nor to narrow down the multiplicity of approaches to a certain term, but rather to allow readers to grasp the meaning of at least the most common terms that appear recurrently, for the sake of consensual meaning and transparency. We have limited the selection to those appearing most frequently in the special issue: web 2.0, social media, social network(ing) sites (SNS), and web 2.0 language learning communities.

5Firstly, web 2.0 is not an equivalent to the social web (or social media). Social media are defined as "a group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of web 2.0, which allows the creation and exchange of user-generated content" (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010: 61). Web 2.0 is therefore taken to mean (only) the technological platform enabling social media applications to evolve, thanks to the possibilities it gives users to create, distribute, share and manipulate different types of content, most of them publicly accessible.

6Secondly, social media (or the social web) is not a homogeneous set of applications. An inherent conceptual problem of web 2.0 is the confusion between the whole and the parts. Social media is the set encompassing various types of applications. One of the typologies of social media applications (which appears to be the most complete to date), is that provided by Conole and Alevizou (2010). The authors distinguish ten categories (media sharing; media manipulation and mashups; instant messaging, chat and conversational arenas; online games and virtual worlds; social networking; blogging; social bookmarking; recommendation systems; wikis and collaborative editing tools; syndication). Just by enumerating the ten categories, the reader recognizes obvious differences between them (differences between applications of the same category do also occur). Therefore, it is not scientifically sound to discuss the potential of a social media application as though the added value could be generalized and applied to all social media categories. Moreover, according to the situated learning (Lave & Wenger 1991; Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989) and socio-cultural (Wertsch, 1991; Peterson, 2009; Thorne, 2008) approaches, different patterns of use emerge in relation to different types of tools. In the same vein, according to an ecological perspective (van Lier, 2004), learning practices are deeply rooted in the socio-technical context in which they take their full meaning and human activity is reconfigured when mediated through artifacts in a context-specific manner (Bonk & Cunningham, 1998; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Therefore, an approach that looks carefully at the learning dynamics that are enhanced by a particular use of a tool (here: a social media application) is the most secure pathway to building a solid understanding of the moving, unstable terrain that is now by common consent called the social web. Research results based on data-driven studies are scarce and do not allow any generalization as to the added value (if any) of social media for language learning.

7The third term, Social Network(ing) Sites (SNS), compose, as we saw in the typology of Conole and Alevizou (2010), a distinct category of social media, some of the most popular being Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Ning and Elgg1. There are three main features of SNS, according to boyd and Ellison (2007):

[they] are 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.

8In a 2011 talk, boyd updates this definition by adding a fourth component, which is the enhancement of peripheral awareness, by allowing users to display temporal patterns of their everyday life (boyd, 2011). The capacity and more importantly the simplicity and rapidity of networking that is the main feature of an SNS, is also common to all social media categories, albeit to varying degrees. Thus, social networking is often used to designate users' activity through social media, although the term originates from a single category of social media, SNS.

9Although in some CALL studies the acronym SNS is interpreted as "social networking sites", we follow boyd and Ellison's point of view in choosing not to employ the term "networking" (and prefer the neutral term "network") because "networking emphasizes relationship initiation (…). While networking is possible on these sites, it is not the primary practice on many of them" (boyd & Ellison, 2007). The point that boyd and Ellison bring up for discussion echoes research on Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) on a similarly ambiguous concept, that of "community". In effect, the term "community" can be unclear, masking the fact that being a member of a community does not necessarily entail a high degree of engagement and active involvement, and by this we do not necessarily mean lurking or other intentionally passive CMC online behaviors (Donath, 1998; Preece, 2000). Far from a techno-enthusiastic approach that, by definition, associates communities and social networks with high engagement, participation and joint activity, an approach that seeks to understand the nature and types of interactional practices that can emerge in these spaces seems more realistic. Let us not forget that in social networks the situation can be even more complex (thus arguing in favour of more evidence-based research and documentation), in light of the studies pointing out the paradox of scarcity of strong ties in comparison to the abundance of weak ties in social networks and their socio-interactional significance (Donath & boyd, 2004; Christakis & Fowler, 2009; Papacharissi & Easton, 2012 in press; Stefanone et al., 2011 and Ellison et al., 2009 revisiting Granovetter's concept of "the strength of weak ties" in light of social networks). Interestingly enough, the same phenomenon was reported in studies before the appearance of social media (Wellman & Gulia, 1999). For the purposes of this paper, the acronym SNS stands for "social network sites" since the nature of networking and its implications for interaction require further investigation and cannot be taken for granted in digitally supported social spaces.

10In the broader area of SNS, in a 2011 paper dealing with the use of Facebook as a telecollaborative tool for language learning, Blattner and Fiori (2011) coin the term SNC (Social Network Community) for Facebook instead of using the mainstream SNS. Although this attempt is clearly a step towards a better understanding of the moving landscape of social networking tools in foreign language education, the choice of the term "community" is not fully justified or set in relation to previous works defining a set of criteria for this type of group formation (in Barab and Duffy's terms, 2000, for instance, a community has a significant history, a shared cosmology, a common cultural and historical heritage, social interdependence, and a reproduction cycle). A more detailed study of SNS for language learning would make it possible to distinguish the features of group formations that are being built around social media applications and the way they pertain to existing typologies of online communities (Barab & Duffy, 2000; Smith & Collock, 1999; Rheingold, 1993).

11The fourth and last term, web 2.0 language learning communities, also needs some clarification. Spaces such as Livemocha, Busuu, Palabea, italki, Babbel, Lingofriends, Sharedtalk, to mention just a few, belong to this category of digital formations deliberately designed for language learning (see also Dixhoorn et al., 2010, for a first attempt to shed some light on this vast field of web 2.0 language socialization that still remains largely unexplored). They contain web 2.0 technical features (e.g. quick status updates, friending, liking, advanced mobile device features, links with other SNS such as Facebook). Differences certainly exist between the numerous communities, based on criteria such as the existence and quality of learning resources, the degree of structured content in learning pathways and scenarios, the roles of users (learner or tutor or both – e.g. tandem learning), the possibilities given to users to add, modify and improve content, etc.

12A first attempt to categorize web 2.0 language learning communities in three types – structured language learning communities, marketplaces and language exchange sites – has been suggested (Loiseau et al., 2011; Potolia et al., 2011; Zourou et al., 2012) despite the novelty of this field of investigation. In this provisional typology, the first category, structured language learning communities, embraces communities such as LiveMocha, Busuu and Babbel where learning materials are accompanied by structured learning pathways. The second category, marketplaces, refers to communities in which learners can look for language tutors online and language tutors can offer their services for a fee (examples are italki and Palabea). In the third category, language exchange sites, users meet for language socialization purposes in loose ways without being supported by any language learning materials (e.g. Lingofriends and Polyglot Club).

13Although this typology is far from definitive, it is based on the distinction between spaces where interaction takes place in communities designed for this purpose (web 2.0 language learning communities, despite their differences) and other spaces where learners meet online, such as groups set up for language interaction (on Facebook, Ning, etc.). In the latter category, we find interesting initiatives that are led either by language teachers and/or CALL researchers within the framework of a telecollaborative project (Lomicka & Blattner, this issue; Blattner & Fiori, 2009 and 2011; Reinhardt & Zander, 2011) or spontaneously by engaged language learners, or even by media companies/content providers for any Internet user such as Deutsche Welle and BBC2. Although open to discussion, it can be claimed that web 2.0 language learning communities differ from this category of practices in two ways. Firstly, the fact that web 2.0 language learning communities run on specially designed platforms (in its technical sense, set up by software developers), whereas Facebook and Ning groups for language interaction have been customized on these SNS, not developed from scratch. Secondly, web 2.0 language learning communities offer learning materials in various languages, often structured in learning pathways (although far from perfect), while this is not common in SNS groups for language socializing. This difference also reflects the often lucrative dimension of web 2.0 language learning communities: they are set up by Internet startups that acquire content from professional language learning providers (e.g. Busuu partnering with Collins, Pons, MacMillan, The Guardian and Livemocha partnering with Pearson and Collins) to offer distance language learning courses.

14This temporary distinction between web 2.0 language learning communities and niches of language learning and interaction on SNS gives us a glimpse of the numerous configurations and initiatives that exist and that will certainly multiply in the future due both to the ease of customization of an SNS by teachers, learners or institutions (the use of which, in addition, is embedded in users' cultural online practices) for any learning or communication purpose, and the bottom-up initiatives that are led by autonomous (groups of) learners increasingly often (see also section 3.1).

3. Three features of social media leading to change?

15A lot has been written about the originality of web 2.0 technologies – whether they are radically different from previous incarnations of the Internet or just a (natural) continuation of some Internet features that have developed over time, as Tim Berners-Lee (2009) claims. Avoiding any oversimplification, it seems that three key features, summarized by O'Reilly and his colleagues as "user participation, openness and network effects" (Musser et al., 2007), can be recognized as those on which web 2.0 as a technological and ideological platform (see section 1) has been built. These three features are discussed critically with the aim of disambiguating the extent to which social media effectively differ from Internet tools as we knew them before 2004 (the approximate time when the web 2.0 concept emerged) and the extent to which possibilities for learning and interaction differ from those reported in earlier studies of telecollaboration in foreign language education (Lamy & Hampel, 2007; O'Dowd, 2007; Lewis, Chanier & Youngs, 2011), such as the most recent area of CALL studies. This overview has the limitations of any attempt to define a rapidly evolving landscape, composed by technological advances and their potential for offering learning opportunities.

3.1. User participation

16The first term, user participation, differs from the type of participation that occurs through static web pages and communication tools before the appearance of web 2.0 tools, because, as O'Reilly and his colleagues claim, "the key to web 2.0 is not just user participation, it is participation leading to reuse" (Musser et al., 2007: 30). In this sense, reuse (of content and of data in general) is the key to understanding what makes "web 2.0 participation" different. Aggregating, combining, tagging, valorizing content through annotations and giving new meaning to raw sources in entirely new forms of expression constitute both a technical possibility and a social function that gives users far more space for creative engagement. It also makes content manipulation a much easier and more flexible process (the concept of "the read/write web", MacManus, 2003, goes in the same direction). Here, the "architecture of participation" (Musser et al., 2007: 16) that is embedded in social media is fundamental to the possibilities given to users to "play" with data and content and thus contribute to the new vision of Internet. Content remix is, in Pegrum's terms (2011):

(…) about practices formerly open only to elite artistic outsiders and/or elite cultural insiders, being appropriated [recently] by ordinary people with day jobs – or school timetables.

17Reuse facilitated by web 2.0 tools takes a completely different slant when considering applications and interfaces making interaction between applications possible (especially open APIs, Application Programming Interfaces), services, widgets and tools (among others: RSS feeds and mashups) that give users the freedom to handle content, therefore to "modify", "multiply" and "(re-)mix" content, to borrow a term used by Pegrum (2011). Interestingly though, Pegrum's paper was farsighted from the point of view of the extended possibilities of user creativity with digital materials. In the same vein, the trend of "online curation" is gaining more and more support. Online curation consists of gathering digital resources of any type (web pages, data, articles and tweets, images and video, twitter feeds, etc.) on a given subject and is a 2010 trend (Tran, 2011). Content is then easily displayed through online curation tools such as,, pearltrees and Storify (to name but a few). Interestingly, what distinguishes online curation from simple aggregation is that the former allows "curators" not only to share content they have gathered in a very simple format, but also to add their personal touch (comments, reviews), therefore to contextualize information based on their expertise on a given topic and to share it publicly. Online curation, which in our view is a very good example of O'Reilly's understanding of "user participation as participation leading to re-use", combines the authoritative status of bloggers in the early web 2.0 years, with horizontal ways of content distribution according to open, participatory cultures (Jenkins et al., 2005) and with the power of remixing various digital raw resources in new forms of expression. It would be interesting to study the turn that online curation practices will take, especially in comparison to the first generation of blogs.

18In the area of language learning and teaching, the added value of "playing with digital content" in meaningful ways (one example is the digital storytelling trend that is gaining more and more importance in classroom and out of class practices) would then take the form of the freedom given to learners to remix content, not necessarily by publishing it in a classroom blog as happened in earlier telecollaborative projects, but by embedding it in the social networking routines that learners develop outside formal learning settings. For language learning, the possibilities of content remix are numerous. In language teaching, Rémi Thibert (le journal de rthibert), Nik Peachey (E-Portfolio: A Collection of my writing from around the web), Graham Davies (Computer Assisted Language Learning – Using ICT to Teach and Learn Foreign Languages; Virtual World Language Learning – Resources for Teachers and Students Wishing to Use Virtual Worlds for Learning Foreign Languages) are only few examples of knowledgeable language experts who use online curation in their field of expertise.

19With regard to content reuse, a concomitant notion also deserves our attention: that of user-generated content (UGC). For some this is considered as a key concept of the new generation of Internet technologies. A largely cited OECD study (OECD, 2007) identifies three criteria that indicate what UCC (User-Created Content, term identical to UGC) is and what it is not. These criteria are cited in an abbreviated form below.

a) Publication requirement (work that is published in some context, be it on a publicly accessible website or on a page on a social networking site only accessible to a select group of people).

b) Creative effort (a certain amount of creative effort has been put into creating the work or adapting existing works to construct a new one; i.e. users must add their own value to the work. The creative effort behind UCC often also has a collaborative element to it, as is the case with websites which users can edit collaboratively).

c) Creation outside of professional routines and practices (UGC is generally created outside of professional routines and practices and often does not have an institutional or a commercial market context).

20The key feature of user-generated content is that the term, by definition, is about content creation "outside of professional routines and practices". This stresses the desire to bring informal learning processes out of the shadows and to legitimize them within the field of the learning sciences. Although serious efforts to valorize informal learning by eradicating its anecdotal character existed in the past (among others Illich's concept of "deschooling society", Lemke & van Helden, 2009), it seems that the situation has matured and more and more voices support this effort (Ala-Mutka, 2010; Hylén, 2007). Thus, UGC differs from content created by users (here: learners) in institutional or classroom settings, be it in the context of face-to-face classrooms or online telecollaborative projects. Beyond the fact that the discussion on UGC brings to the fore creativity and learning outside formal settings (despite the fact that learners are not always aware that learning takes place – for this more time will be needed to develop sound methodologies to help autonomous learners foster informal learning skills), it also invites us to reconsider the value of informal learning practices and overcome our prejudices in perceiving them as "second best". On a conceptual level, we believe that it is important to try to explore whether valorization of informal learning practices (supported by the development of appropriate learning and teaching/tutoring methodologies and tools) will make language teachers and experts more aware that classroom or institutional contexts in general are far from being the only places where learning can occur.

3.2. Openness

21The second term, openness, is mainly defined by the horizontal structures of social networks.

22Openness draws historically from the open source movement that precedes the appearance of social media. It refers at a basic level to the open technological architectures that run in horizontal mode, inviting users to get involved in the making of agile development models and web 2.0 tools. On a higher level though, it refers more generally to the conceptual change between creating in closed spaces (for instance: creating software with exclusive copyright and no editing possibilities for a private software company) and doing so with the community using an open, participatory method. If we think of the open source movement and Wikipedia as conceptual moves towards horizontal and inclusive structures, then the horizontal feature that supports the idea of openness takes on its full meaning. In the field of language learning, one example could be, the online dictionary that is constantly developed by users who add new dictionary entries and translations, in a Wikipedia-like open development mode. Bridging this open, participatory structure that motivates users to contribute to language resources and thus benefit from interaction is a promising direction (for a brief discussion see Dixhoorn et al., 2010: 33).

3.3. Network effects

23The third term, network effects, although definitely not absent from Internet activity before web 2.0 technologies (e.g. networking through forum discussions, IRCs, MOOs, etc., Harasim et al., 1995; Wegerif, 1998 and all studies on Network Based Language Teaching, Kern et al., 2008; Warschauer & Kern, 2000; Warschauer, 2000), takes on a brand new meaning with social media because, as O'Reilly and his team claim (2007: 14), "Network effects occur when a product or service becomes more valuable as the number of people using it increases". Public sharing, commenting, tagging through user-defined tags (folksonomies), the much simpler group creation and customization of SNS (e.g. Ning, Facebook, LinkedIn, Quora groups) than groups until the 2000s and especially the technological enhancement of networking through features like friending and recommendation systems, boost the network effects in the social web. In O'Reilly's terms

[web 2.0 technologies] leveraged viral network effects like word of mouth, positive reviews in the press, bloggers, and other no-cost mechanisms enabled by the network. Features, like invitations available from every page, make it simple for existing users to virally invite friends and family to use the service.

24The viral networking effect is a key element in understanding the value of social networking.

25In the language learning and teaching field, networking, which was a basis for many telecollaboration and online tandem projects, takes on a new meaning due to the ease of networking informally (and in less directive ways than in institutionalized contexts) with peers and other native speakers. We are a long way from the paradigm in which a CALL researcher or a teacher strictly defines the setting for interaction and tools within which collaboration between remote groups will occur. In this respect, the way social networking, with its informal, more bottom-up and user-oriented features, affects the way interaction happens in institutionally-led telecollaborative projects is a very interesting topic, and underexplored with some exceptions (Lamy, 2011, 2012).

4. Implications for research

26There is an increasing body of research on social media in the area of CALL, including books bringing together perspectives by researchers and practitioners (Dervin et al., 2012; Guth & Helm, 2010; Lomicka & Lord, 2009; Thomas, 2009), and in related research fields, such as mobile learning (Shield & Kukulska-Hulme, 2008) and virtual games (Thorne et al., 2012).

27Beyond the obvious (and always central, in the CALL field) need for empirical research aiming for a more solid understanding of the potential benefits of technologies (Chapelle, 2007), in the social web this necessity becomes more pressing due to the very nature of these tools. "Taken over" by individuals and groups of learners – the term "digital natives" being outdated (Thomas, 2011) –, web 2.0 applications trigger lively discussions regarding their pedagogical value, at least for those who believe that these tools are worth using in pedagogical contexts (critiques of web 2.0 per se, such as Keen's concept of "cult of the Amateur", Weinberger's idea of "new digital disorder", Wellman's "networked individualism", Wellman et al. 2003, and Surowiecki's "wisdom of the crowds" are not without implications for learning, Crook, 2008; Conole et al., 2010; Turkle, 2011). Therefore, before moving on to the discussion of how (language) education can benefit from social media applications, one needs to critically scrutinize whether these artifacts can be situated with regard to, or are compatible with current learning paradigms.

28Naturally the discussion is very broad, as it encompasses education in general and challenges associated with the learning cultures of individuals and groups across different types of learning contexts. For Conole and Alevizou (2010: 24), "the tensions associated with the blurring boundaries between production and use, ownership and authorship, expert authority and amateur creativity, openness and completeness, as well as formal and informal learning" must be seriously considered in educational contexts. Moreover, the authors provide a detailed review of paradoxes created by digital networked technologies. At the end of their well documented literature review with regard to the misgivings and real challenges of these technologies, Conole and Alevizou identify five paradoxes, in the form of cause-to-effect relationship, cited below.

Table 1 – Cause and effect in digital networked spaces (Conole & Alevizou, 2010: 57).



Expansive knowledge domain

Death of expertise/ everyone an expert

Hierarchy and control less meaningful, content can be distributed and located in different ways

Multiple (co-)locations/ loss of content integrity

Increasingly complex digital landscape

Beyond digital space/ new metaphors needed

Power of the collective; collective intelligence

Social collective/digital individualism

Free content & tools; open APIs and mash ups

Issues re: ownership, value, business models

29As a final point, it is because they are placed at the intersection of learning and social purposes that web 2.0 uses become so popular and stimulate debates with regard to their pedagogical value (see also Lamy & Goodfellow, 2010; Benson & Reinders, 2011; Conole et al., 2008). Uses of technologies for learning are intermingled with uses of these tools for social and leisure activities (although learning is indeed a social activity, the focus here is on the intentional character of learning in social networking spaces).

30These questions can be taken as an invitation to the research community to deal with theoretical and methodological issues that are far from being fully addressed. Shaping a solid understanding of the advantages and pitfalls of social media in language education seems both a necessity and an incentive for extended data-driven research on learning dynamics supported by emerging socio-technical contexts. We hope that this special issue will shed some light on this underexplored and exciting field of investigation.

Haut de page



Ala-Mutka, K. (2010). Learning in Informal Online Networks and Communities. Joint Research Centre (JRC) European Commission.

Barab, S. A. & Duffy, T. M. (2000). "From practice fields to communities of practice". In Jonassen, D. H. & Land, S. M. (dir.). Theoretical foundations of learning environments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 25-55.

Benson, P. & Reinders, H. (dir.) (2011). Beyond the Language Classroom. The Theory and Practice of Informal Language Learning and Teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Berners-Lee, T. (2009). "A conversation with Tim Berners-Lee". Web 2.0 Summit, October 20-22, 2009. San Francisco, CA.

Blattner, G., & Fiori, M. (2011). "Virtual Social Network Communities : An Investigation of Language Learners' Development of Sociopragmatic Awareness and Multiliteracy Skills". CALICO Journal, vol. 29, n° 1. pp. 24-43.

Blattner, G., & Fiori, M. (2009). "Facebook in the language classroom: Promises and possibilities". International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, vol. 6, n° 1.

Bonk, C. J & Cunningham, D. J. (1998). "Searching for learner-centered, constructivist, and sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools". In Bonk, C. J. & King, K. S. (dir.). Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 25-50.

boyd, d. (2011). "Embracing a culture of connectivity". Invited talk at the conference on "Academic Uses of Social Media: Exploring 21st Century Communications". Harvard University, May 3, 2011.

boyd, d. (2010). "Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications". In Papacharissi, Z. (dir.). Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites. New York: Routledge. pp. 19-58.

boyd, d. & Ellison, N. B. (2007). "Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship". Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 13, n° 1.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). "Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning". Educational Researcher, vol. 18, n° 11. pp 32-41.

Chapelle, C. A. (2007). "Challenges in Evaluation of Innovation: Observations from Technology Research". Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, vol. 1, n° 1. pp. 30-45.

Christakis, N. & Fowler. J. (2009). Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives – How Your Friends' Friends' Friends Affect Everything You Feel, Think, and Do. New York: Little, Brown and Co.

Conole, G. & Alevizou, P. (2010). A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in Higher Education. Report commissioned by the Higher Education Academy.

Conole, G., de Laat, M., Dillon, T. & Darby, J. (2008). "'Disruptive technologies', 'pedagogical innovation': What's new? Findings from an in-depth study of students' use and perception of technology". Computers & Education, vol. 50, n° 2. pp. 511-524.

Crook, C. (2008). Web 2.0 technologies for learning: The current landscape – opportunities, challenges and tensions. BECTA.

Dervin, F., Lamy, M.-N. & Zourou, K. (2012, in press). (dir.). Social networking for language education. Basingstoke : Palgrave Mac Millan.

Dixhoorn, L. van, Loiseau, M., Mangenot, F., Potolia, A. & Zourou, K. (2010). Language learning: resources and networks. "Language learning and social media" network. learning resources and networks DEF.pdf

Donath, J. (1998). "Identity and deception in the virtual community". In Kollock, P. & Smith, M. (dir.). Communities in Cyberspace. London: Routledge.

Donath, J. & boyd, d. (2004). "Public displays of connection". BT Technology Journal, vol. 22, n° 4. pp. 71-82. Available online:

Ellison, N. B., Lampe, C. & Steinfield, C. (2009). "Social Network Sites and Society: Current Trends and Future Possibilities". Interactions, vol. 6-9. Available online:

Guth, S. & Helm, F. (2010) (dir.).Telecollaboration 2.0: Language, Literacies and Intercultural Learning in the 21st Century. Bern: Peter Lang.

Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L. & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning Networks: A field guide to teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hylén, J. (2007). Open Educational Resources: Opportunities and Challenges. Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. OECD publishing.

Jenkins, H., Puroshotma, R., Clinton, K., Weigel, M. & Robison, A. J. (2005). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century (An occasional paper on digital media and learning). MacArthur Foundation.

Kaplan, A. M. & Haenlein, M. (2010). "Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media". Business Horizons, vol. 53, n° 1. pp. 59-68.

Kern, R., Ware, P. & Warschauer, M. (2008). "Network-based language teaching". In Deusen-Scholl, N. V. & Hornberger, N. H. (dir.). Encyclopedia of language and education, 2nd Edition, Vol. 4: Second and foreign language education. New York: Springer. pp. 281-292.

Lamy, M.-N. (2011). "Entre les 'murs' de Facebook et le forum institutionnel : nouveaux espaces d'expression en langue cible". In Dejean, C., Mangenot, F. & Soubrié, T. (dir.). Actes du colloque EPAL 2011, université Stendhal Grenoble III, France.

Lamy, M.-N. (2012, forthcoming). "Informal Language and Culture Learning while Social Networking: a critical take". In Meskill, C. (dir.). Online Teaching and Learning, Socio-Cultural Dimensions. New York: Continuum Books.

Lamy, M.-N. & Goodfellow, R. (2010). "Telecollaboration and Learning 2.0". In Guth, S. & Helm, F. (dir.). Telecollaboration 2.0: language, literacies and intercultural learning in the 21st century. Bern: Peter Lang. pp 107-138.

Lamy, M.-N. & Hampel, R. (2007). Online Communication in Language Learning and Teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave-McMillan.

Lantolf, J. & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lemke, J. & van Helden, C. (2009). "New Learning Cultures: Identities, Media, and Networks". In Goodfellow, R. & Lamy, M.-N. (dir.). Learning cultures in online education. London: Continuum Books. pp. 151-169.

Lewis, T., Chanier, T. & Youngs, B. (dir.) (2011). Multilateral online exchanges for language and culture learning. Special issue of Language Learning & Technology, vol. 15, n° 1.

Loiseau, M., Potolia, A. & Zourou, K. (2011). "Communautés web 2.0 d'apprenants de langue avec parcours d'apprentissage : rôles, pédagogie et rapports au contenu". Actes de la conférence EIAH 2011. pp. 111-123. Available online:

Lomicka, L. & Blattner, G. (2012). "Facebook-ing and the social generation: a new era for language learning". Apprentissage des langues et systèmes d'information et de communication (Alsic), vol. 15, n° 1.

Lord, G. & Lomicka, L. (dir.) (2009). The Next Generation: Social Networking and Online Collaboration in Foreign Language Learning. San Marcos, TX: CALICO publications.

MacManus, R. (2003, April 20). "The Read/Write Web". ReadWriteWeb.

Musser, J., O'Reilly, T. & the O'Reilly Radar Team. (2007). Web 2.0 Principles and Best Practices. Sebastopol (California): O'Reilly.

O'Dowd, R. (dir.) (2007). Online Intercultural Exchange: An Introduction for Foreign Language Teachers. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2007). Participative web and user-created created content.

Papacharissi, Z. & Easton, E. (2012, in press). "In the Habitus of the New: Agency, Structure, and the Social Media Habitus". In Hartley, J., Bruns, A. & J. Burgess, J. (dir.). Blackwell companion to new media dynamics. Oxford: Blackwell.

Pegrum, M. (2011). "Modified, multiplied and (re-)mixed: Social media and digital literacies". In Thomas, M. (dir.). Digital education: Opportunities for social collaboration. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Draft available online:

Peterson, M. (2009). Learner interaction in synchronous CMC: A sociocultural perspective. Computer Assisted Language Learning, vol. 22, n° 4. pp. 303-321.

Potolia, A., Loiseau, M. & Zourou, K. (2011). "Quelle(s) pédagogie(s) voi(en)t le jour dans les (grandes) communautés Web 2.0 d'apprenants de langue ?". Actes de la conférence EPAL 2011. pp. 19-22.

Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: Designing Usability, supporting sociability. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Reinhardt, J. & Zander, V. (2011). "Social Networking in an Intensive English Program Classroom: A Language Socialization Perspective". CALICO Journal, vol. 28, n° 2. pp. 326-344.

Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Shield, L. & Kukulska-Hulme, A. (dir.) (2008). Mobile Assisted Language Learning. Special issue of ReCALL, vol. 20, n° 3.

Smith, M. & Kollock, P. (dir.) (1999). Communities in Cyberspace. London: Routledge.

Stefanone, M., Kwon, K. & Lackaff, D. (2011). "The value of online friends: Networked resources via social network sites". First Monday, vol. 16, n° 2. pp. 1-17.

Thomas, M. (dir.) (2009). Handbook of Research on Web 2.0 and Second Language Learning. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Thomas, M. (dir.) (2011). Deconstructing Digital Natives. Young People, Technology, and the New Literacies. London: Routledge.

Thorne, S. L. (2003). "Artifacts and Cultures-of-Use in Intercultural Communication". Language Learning & Technology, vol. 7, n° 2. pp. 38-67.

Thorne, S. L. (2008). "Mediating Technologies and Second Language Learning". In Leu, D., Coiro, J., Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (dir.). Handbook of Research on New Literacies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. pp. 417-449.

Thorne, S. L., Piet, D. & Cornillie, F. (dir.) (2012, in press). Digital Games for Language Learning: Challenges and Opportunities. ReCALL Journal.

Tran, P. (2011). "Le Guide de la curation (1) – Les concepts". Blog post published On March 14, 2011.

Turkle, S. (2011). Alone Together: why we expect more from technologies and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.

van Lier, L. (2004). The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning: A Sociocultural Perspective. Boston: Kluwer Academic.

Warschauer, M. (2000). "The death of cyberspace and the rebirth of CALL". English Teachers' Journal, 53. pp. 61-67. Available online :

Warschauer, M. & Kern, R. (dir.) (2000). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wegerif, R. (1998). "The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks". JALN, vol. 2, n° 1. pp. 34-49.

Wellman, B., Quan-Haase, A., Boase, J., Wenhong, C., Hampton, K., Isla de Diaz, I. & Miyata, K. (2003). "The Social Affordances of the Internet for Networked Individualism". Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, vol. 8, n° 3.

Wellman, B. & Gulia, M. (1999). "Net surfers don't ride alone: virtual communities as communities". In Kollock, P. & Smith, M. (dir.). Communities and Cyberspace. New York: Routledge. Available online:

Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Zourou, K., Loiseau, M. & Potolia, A. (2012, in press). "Exploring the role of social dynamics in OER reuse: the case of structured web 2.0 language learning communities". CALL Journal.


Babbel (nd). Apprendre des langues en ligne. (nd). Loving Languages – Dictionary, Vocabulary, Translation.

Busuu (nd). Your Language Learning Communitiy.

Davies, G. (nd). Computer Assisted Language Learning – Using ICT to Teach and Learn Foreign Languages.

Davies, G. (nd). Virtual World Language Learning – Resources for Teachers and Students Wishing to Use Virtual Worlds for Learning Foreign Languages.

Elgg (nd). Social networking engine.

Facebook (nd).

italki (nd). Apprentissage de la langue – Communauté et Marché.

Lingofriends (nd). Improve your language skills for free – "Don't be a Gringo – learn the lingo!".

LinkedIn (nd). Professional Network.

LiveMocha (nd). Communauté d'apprentissage de langues.

Ning (nd). The World's Largest Platform for Creating Social Websites.

Palabea (nd). Le monde parlant. (nd). Créez votre journal en ligne.

Peachey, N. (nd). E-Portfolio: A Collection of my writing from around the web.

pearltrees (nd). Cultivez vos interêts.

Polyglot Club (nd). Learn languages & Make Friends.

Quora (nd). Quora connects you to everything you want to know about. (nd). Easily Publish Gorgeous Magazines.

Sharedtalk (nd). Language Exchange.

Storify (nd). Create Social Stories.

Thibert, R. (nd). le journal de rthibert.

Twitter (nd).

Wikipedia (nd). The Free Encyclopedia.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Katerina Zourou, « On the attractiveness of social media for language learning: a look at the state of the art »Alsic [En ligne], Vol. 15, n°1 | 2012, mis en ligne le 30 mars 2012, consulté le 22 juillet 2024. URL : ; DOI :

Haut de page


Katerina Zourou

Katerina Zourou is a post-doctoral researcher in the field of computer supported collaborative language learning at the University of Luxembourg. Her research interests involve the role of computer tools in foreign language education as well as telecollaborative practices online. She is the initiator and project leader of two EC-funded projets, the network "Language learning and social media" (2010-2012) and the project "Improving Internet strategies and maximizing social media presence of LLP projects" (2012-2013) .
Affiliation: université du Luxembourg.
Address: Université du Luxembourg, campus Walferdange, bâtiment 2, bureau 013, route de Diekirch, 7201 Luxembourg.

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur


Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search