Research gap 2: Methods of data collection (and sampling technique)

The second research gap centred on the differences and deficiency in the methods of data collection. The studies that have been conducted in the area of Facebook and second language learning, were mostly theoretical (Mahadi and Ubaidullah, 2010), or applied single-method data collection, with the common methods being surveys and content analysis of Facebook interactions (Kabilan et al., 2010, Hamat et al., 2012, Idris and Ghani, 2012). In relation to this, Wang and Vasquez (2012) agree that many studies in the area of Web 2.0 and second language learning have not been grounded in theory, and suffer from a set of common methodological limitations and weaknesses. For instance, the study by Mahadi and Ubaidullah (2010) theoretically discussed the opportunities afforded by SNSs for language teachers, but presented limited implications of practical strategies that could be exploited for

95

ELL. Thus, more empirical studies were needed to substantiate the findings concluded in the theoretical studies.

Previous survey studies commonly investigated students’ perceptions of Facebook use for English language learning (Kabilan et al., 2010, Yunus et al., 2012). Meanwhile, the findings from Facebook interaction content analysis investigated students’ critical literacy, communicative and cultural competence, as well as construction of English language knowledge (Borau et al., 2009, Reid, 2011b, Yunus et al., 2012, Idris and Ghani, 2012). Alternatively, a study by Dixon (2011) applied statistical testing of correlations to look into NS and NNS students’ engagement on Facebook, and its relation to writing success. To add to the discussion, the sampling method in Idris and Ghani’s (2012) study, which looked into the construction of English language knowledge on Facebook, could be challenged, as the data was not directly solicited from the target group of English language students. Instead, it was gathered from the researchers’ personal Facebook walls, and presumably these data included the ones written or constructed by friends and families, rather than the community of English language students. To some extent, the data addressed the research question, which was to examine how knowledge was being constructed on Facebook. However, the conclusion drawn by Idris and Ghani (2012) that Facebook was suitable for ELL was debatable, as the sample participants were not representative of English language students.

All in all, it is undeniable that theoretical and single-method studies have been an invaluable addition to the existing bodies of knowledge, in the area of Facebook in second language learning. These single-method studies are helpful in highlighting students’ perceptions, activities, topics of interaction, and development of relationships

96

and identities when Facebook was academically employed. For example, from the analysis of teachers and students’ writing on Facebook, Reid (2011b) found that Facebook provided a safe pedagogical space that bridged informal and formal critical literacy writing practices. Furthermore, the content analysis also identified relationship development, and the growth of new forms of interactions, language, and texts (ibid.).

The single-method studies thus paved the way for more in-depth research that might fully encapsulate students’ behaviours, experiences and the sociocultural factors (Van Nguyen, 2010) that influence the ways they used Facebook for ELL. However, the dependency on single-method data in a study, did not allow for the findings to be triangulated and corroborated with data from other methods, which may threaten its validity. Furthermore, many of the single-method studies did not look beyond how students perceived Facebook in ELL, and hence failed to fully understand students’ needs and wants when Facebook was employed to mediate ELL process. The neglect in students’ needs and wants might cause frustration, retaliation and non-engagement when such activities are implemented. As such, there is a gap in the literature to identify students’ feelings, behaviours and experiences when Facebook was employed for English language learning.

Nevertheless, several studies employed multiple-methods data collection that promoted data triangulation. A study by Reinhardt and Zander (2011) applied the bridging-activities model by Thorne and Reinhardt (2008) and situated-learning principles by Lave and Wenger (1991), to examine social networking from the language socialisation perspective, in an Intensive English Program (IEP). Not only was this study theoretically grounded, it employed multiple quantitative and qualitative

97

data collection methods, including surveys, journal entries, class discussions, analysis of activity materials, recording and observations of classroom interaction, SNS use tracking, and post-instructional interviews (Reinhardt and Zander, 2011). The methods aimed to provide students with experiential learning, and raised their critical awareness in regards to the use of SNSs for social purposes and ELL (ibid.). Apart from this, studies by Harrison and Thomas (2009) and Shih (2011, 2013) also employed multiple data collection methods to examine the implementation of SNSs in ESL setting. Harrison and Thomas (2009) used LiveMocha in an ethnographic study that combined classroom observation, in-class presentation and analysis of semester papers to examine the development of identity in online communities. Rather than centralising on ELL, the focus of Harrison and Thomas’ (2009) study was on friendship management, identity development and social bonding. On the other hand, Shih (2011, 2013) examined the effect of Facebook writing in a blended learning environment among groups of ESL, and English for Business Communication students in a Taiwan institution. The methods employed were peer assessment of writing on Facebook, interview, student self-efficacy scale, self-developed satisfaction survey, and pre-test and post-test English writing skills. The result of the studies showed a positive improvement in students’ English writing and a willingness to communicate ideas with friends (ibid.).

2.12.3 Research gap 3: Lack of studies on Facebook and English language