REGULAR ARTICLE

Participants’ Experiences and Interactions on Facebook Groupin an EFL Course in Taiwan

Vivien Lin1 • Ya-Chen Kang1 • Gi-Zen Liu1 • Weiting Lin2

� De La Salle University 2015

Abstract Educational practitioners have attempted to use

online technology such as Facebook (FB) in recent years to

incorporate learning into students’ daily social media

usage. Past studies have explored FB affordances for in-

formal learning, with a lack of investigations on interactive

patterns among course participants, especially for learners

in East Asian contexts. To fill the research gap, this study

adopts the community of inquiry model (CoI) in an attempt

to find out (1) how interactions on a FB Group facilitate the

formation of an online learning community in Taiwan, and

(2) students’ and teacher’s experiences of using FB Group

for English learning. Content analysis of the group page

through thematic coding, and Chi Square tests resulted in

significant relations among interaction types, initiation

type, and response type for the posts. Semi-structured in-

terviews further yielded more positive than negative ex-

periences associated with the FB usage. The results are

discussed in relation to three elements of the CoI, with an

indication of a strong teacher presence for fostering the

online learning environment in this particular learning

context.

Keywords Social networking sites � Facebook �English learning � East Asia � Taiwan

Introduction

The use of ICT in higher education changes rapidly within

a population of digital natives (Liu et al. 2014a; Liu and

Hwang 2010; Lockley 2013; Lo et al. 2014; Loncar et al.

2014; Prensky 2011). In particular, the hybrid learning

scheme of technology combined with classroom instruc-

tion (Liu 2011; Liu et al. 2011, 2014b, c) outperforms

fully online environments in terms of learning outcomes

and satisfaction (Shea and Bidjerano 2013; Garrison and

Kanuka 2004; Ruiz et al. 2006; Lee et al. 2009). How-

ever, practical constraints of traditional learning manage-

ment systems (LMSs) such as e-learning are now

perceived as ‘‘serious,’’ ‘‘formal,’’ and ‘‘academic’’ in

nature (Deng and Tavares 2013, p. 171), resulting in

students favoring the use of frequently visited and easily

operated social networking sites (SNSs) such as Facebook

(FB) for stimulating interaction in hybrid learning

schemes (Wang et al. 2012; Abdous and Yen 2010; Au-

gustsson 2010).

In English as a foreign language (EFL) education, Ka-

bilan et al. (2010) has reported the success of using FB for

creating more positive attitudes among Malaysian students

toward English learning tasks, especially with respect to

their confidence to read, write, and communicate in the

target language. Leis (2014) also used FB for language

learning with writing tasks and for instant communication

among teachers and students. Less confident students be-

came more motivated and a sense of community allowed

them to foster better learning habits and cultural compe-

tence (Leis 2014).

Electronic supplementary material The online version of thisarticle (doi:10.1007/s40299-015-0239-0) contains supplementarymaterial, which is available to authorized users.

& Gi-Zen Liu

gizen@mail.ncku.edu.tw

1 Department of Foreign Languages & Literature, National

Cheng Kung University, 1, University Road,

Tainan City 701, Taiwan

2 Center for English Language Teaching, Wenzao Ursuline

University of Languages, 900 Mintsu 1st Road,

Kaohsiung City 807, Taiwan

123

Asia-Pacific Edu Res

DOI 10.1007/s40299-015-0239-0

English as a foreign language educators need to be

aware of contextual factors such as culture because cultural

backgrounds of the participants influence their SNS be-

haviors in online collaboration (Rosen et al. 2010). For

instance, collectivism influences interactions among East

Asians and their high-context cognitive and social patterns

result in dialectical, deep, and long-term relationships.

Thus, in online learning environments, East Asian learners

also display a higher degree of interdependence, connec-

tion, and collaboration compared to Western counterparts

(Chau et al. 2002; Kim et al. 2011; Yang et al. 2011).

Situated in Taiwan, the researchers aim to (1) analyze

patterns of interaction in an online learning community on

FB for a hybrid EFL course, and (2) explore students’ and

teacher’s experiences with FB Group in such a course to

provide new insights for English language educators in-

terested in using SNSs in their practice.

Literature Review

Affordances of Facebook for Learning

Recent studies point to the possible use of FB as a sub-

stitute or supplement to commercial LMSs (Mazman and

Usluel 2013; Wang et al. 2012) to encourage social inter-

actions on the site (Mazman and Usluel 2013). Of par-

ticular interest is the group function of FB, which

eliminates the possibility of context collapse. Defined by

Vitak (2013) as the merging of various audiences into one

single network page, context collapse occurs when posts

are viewed by overlapping social circles that vary in inti-

macy levels to the user. The group function of FB suc-

cessfully excludes context collapse because members on

FB groups do not connect directly to one another’s per-

sonal profile. As a way to manage social capital, the FB

group function allows users to reinforce positive self-rep-

resentation by differentiating levels of disclosure in SNS

interactions (Stutzman et al. 2012). This advantage has also

attracted U.S. college students to opt for FB groups to

organize activities related to coursework, including study

group arrangement, learning processes, and assignment

collaboration (Lampe et al. 2011).

A good ICT tool for learning is determined by its ped-

agogical, social, and technological affordances (Kirschner

et al. 2004; Wang 2008). FB functions allow for informa-

tion exchange and resource sharing in learning contexts

through functions of uploading photos, videos, files in

Word, PDF, and ppt formats (Mazman and Usluel 2013).

Since college students spend a significant amount of time

on FB (Mazer et al. 2007; Junco 2011), teachers have of-

fered virtual office hours through FB Group (Wang et al.

2012). For students, the utilization of FB has resulted in

increased learner motivation and satisfaction, improved

class atmosphere, and strengthened faculty–student rela-

tionships (Mazer et al. 2007; Wang et al. 2012). Bowman

and Akcaoglu (2014) found that as students voluntarily

joined a closed group on FB without having to disclose

their personal profiles, their personal privacy was kept se-

cured. The teacher and students interacted strictly for

course content discussions, exam preparation, and admin-

istrative matters. The social affordances of FB groups al-

lowed the teacher to bring students’ classroom learning

experiences online with unique outcomes of affective

learning as well as teacher and peer support. GPA in-

creased for FB group users compared to non-FB group

users in the study due to instructional affect, mutual student

support for a shared goal, and teacher feedback and

monitoring.

Despite benefits of FB in learning, the use of ICTs has

been found to interfere with academic performance (Junco

2011, 2012) and pose privacy threats (Boyd and Ellison

2008). However, causal effects could not be concluded

between low GPA and FB usage. Junco (2012) further

found that FB usage led to more co-curricular activities and

better psychosocial outcomes, claiming the importance of

implementing social technologies in course design. Fur-

thermore, criticisms about dangers faced by young users

with online profiles (Barnes 2006) were countered by a

survey study which reported that 66 % of teens proactively

avoid privacy dangers by managing their visibility to

strangers (Boyd and Ellison 2008).

More scholarly attention can be devoted to enhancing

affective learning in higher education. First, students per-

ceive teachers who adopt social media tools as more

credible as the teachers are willing to disclose themselves

on the media platform (Mazer et al. 2007). Second, when

immersed psychologically in a mediated environment

(Lombard and Ditton 1997), students experience the sen-

sation of ‘‘being there,’’ also known as presence (Bracken

and Skalski 2009). Sensations of enjoyment and delight,

involvement and interaction can result due to the effects of

such presence in human-made technology (Lombard and

Ditton 1997). When students interact online, the hyper-

personal functionality of computer-mediated communica-

tion (CMC) makes message composition editable and

allow users to maintain discretionary self-representation

online (Walther 2007).

Community of Inquiry (CoI) Framework

The community of inquiry (CoI) framework (Garrison et al.

2000) explains successful online learning from a social-

constructivist approach (Akyol and Garrison 2011) with

teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence

as three dimensions of an online learning community, as

V. Lin et al.

123

shown in Fig. 1 (Akyol and Garrison 2008). Teaching

presence entails (a) design and organization, (b) facilitating

discourse, and (c) direct instruction. In facilitating dis-

course, the teacher responds to individual student needs

and comments, and guides the class with appropriate tasks

(Anderson et al. 2001; Xin and Feenberg 2006). Direct

instruction occurs where the teacher provides environment

and guidelines for participant interaction and knowledge

building (Kozan and Richardson 2014).

Social presence consists of open communication (risk

free expressions), group cohesion, and affect among

learners as they build trusting relationships online for

knowledge inquiry. The participants project themselves

socially and emotionally in collaborative activities under

affective learning (Gunawardena and Zittle 1997;

Richardson and Swan 2003; Garrison and Arbaugh 2007).

As social interaction for meaningful learning occurs, cog-

nitive presence is also enhanced through problem raising,

idea exploration, idea integration, and resolution (Meyer

2004; Garrison and Arbaugh 2007; Kozan and Richardson

2014).

Benefits of using FB in education, such as self-efficacy

and affective learning, have been reported in the U.S.

(Lampe et al. 2011); however, in East Asian contexts,

analyses on user experiences and interactions among

course participants with respect to FB use remain scant.

The current study fills the gap by situating the context at a

university in Taiwan, addressing two research questions:

1. Do interactions on Facebook Group help users foster

an online learning community for a hybrid EFL course

in Taiwan? If so, how?

2. What are the students’ and teacher’s experiences of

using Facebook Group in such a course?

Method

Participants

One EFL teacher and 23 sophomores (majoring in Digital

Application, Communication Arts, and International Busi-

ness) in an English course participated in this case study.

The teacher used a hybrid learning mode combining FtF

with online environments of e-learning and FB. The hybrid

course design with FB was a continuation from the previ-

ous academic year. In the second semester of the sopho-

more year, 7 students consented to participating in

individual interviews and the teacher participated in two

individual interview sessions.

Instruments and Data Analyses

Two researchers collected the data, including the group

page content and interviews, and another researcher coded

all the data, repeating all the coding procedures three times

to ensure accuracy.

Cognitive Presence e.g. triggering event,

exploration, integration, resolution

Selecting

content

Facilitating

discourse

Teaching Presence e.g. design & organization, facilitating discourse, direct

instruction

Setting

climate

Social Presence e.g. open

communication, group cohesion, affect

Educational Experience

Fig. 1 Social, teaching, and

cognitive presence of CoI

(Garrison et al. 2000)

Participants’ Experiences and Interactions on Facebook Group in an EFL Course in Taiwan

123

Content Analysis of FB Group

During the sophomore year of the course, one researcher

observed the group page content without active participa-

tion. All the students in the class had personal FB accounts

and many actively used the SNS prior to joining the class

FB Group in their freshman year. Content analysis of the

group page spanned from September 2012 to September

2013. The researcher first counted the posts, with tabula-

tion results of 118 main posts and 175 threaded responses

under the main posts. Then, the researcher used iterative

techniques in open-coding with an inductive approach from

the grounded theory (Corbin and Strauss 1990) and iden-

tified three categories among the 118 posts—initiation

type, interaction type, and response types. The researcher

coded the posts by first dividing the main posts into tea-

cher-initiated or student-initiated codes. Then, interaction

types were distinguished under three codes—Course

Management, English Learning, and Social Engagement.

Course Management posts included announcements for

class administration. English Learning posts included in-

struction on tasks and students’ task uploads, as well as any

posts related to learning English, and Social Engagement

posts included greetings or chatting among students in FB

conversation threads. Finally, the researcher coded the re-

sponses as (a) responses from the teacher, (b) responses

from students, (c) responses from both the teacher and

students, or (d) no response. After the completion of the

coding, Chi Square tests of independence were performed

to see whether the three variables (types of post initiation,

types of interaction, and types of response) correlated with

one another. Finally, to examine how interactions adhered

to the CoI model, selected sample posts with high levels of

interaction were analyzed against CoI elements.

Semi-Structured Interviews

Student interviews covered (a) the frequency of visiting the

group page, (b) purpose of using FB versus e-learning,

(c) preference of FtF versus online learning, and (d) inter-

actions on the FB Group page. Questions in the first teacher

interview pertained to (a) reasons for opening a FB Group,

(b) teacher–student relationships, (c) task design on FB, and

(d) teaching efficacy in FtF versus online environments. The

second interview occurred 6 months after the course ended

and explored the teacher’s beliefs in relation to FB use. The

researcher coded the interviews through constant compar-

isons of similarities based on the grounded theory (Corbin

and Strauss 1990). The procedure involved open coding of

concepts that emerged throughout the interviews, with a

thematic categorization of identified phrases that repre-

sented similar ideas. Keywords were subsequently coded

from the phrases to properly label each theme.

Results and Discussions

To answer research questions 1 and 2 respectively, this

section provides findings and relevant discussions in detail.

Rq 1 Do interactions on Facebook Group help users

foster an online learning community for a hybrid EFL

course in Taiwan? If so, how?

Interactions on the class FB Group did lead to the for-

mation of an online learning community. The inter-rela-

tionships among post initiations, interaction types, and

response types were analyzed statistically.

Categorical Distributions and Interrelationships

In Table 1, the distribution frequencies for interaction types

showed that English Learning posts occurred most fre-

quently (50.8 %), followed by Course Management

(43.2 %) and Social Engagement (5.9 %). In terms of ini-

tiation type, most Course Management posts were teacher-

initiated (86.3 %), while most English Learning posts

(98.3 %) and Social Engagement posts (71.4 %) were ini-

tiated by students. Furthermore, students responded mostly

to Course Management (45.2 %) and English Learning

posts (41.9 %). These findings pointed to the differing roles

assumed by the teacher and students in FB Group interac-

tions. The teacher played the role of a course manager and

the students acted as followers of instruction, with a few of

them socially engaged in the online community from time to

time. As suggested by Morita (2004), different roles com-

prise a class, which in turn shape the classroom interaction.

Teachers also bear the responsibility to facilitate student

participation in classroom interaction with scaffolding ac-

tivities (Morita 2004). In this case study, the teacher had

more control over FB interactions than did the students. Not

only did she constantly post announcements and reminders,

but also she required the students to upload assignments on

FB Group. The teacher, therefore, acted as the driving force

for the numerous English Learning posts from students.

We also found that students acted as social agents in

some of the interactive posts. As much as 71.4 % of Social

Engagement posts were student-initiated, and 57.1 % of

responses to Social Engagement posts were from students.

As pointed out by Rosen et al. (2010), culture is likely to

influence behaviors on SNSs. In this EFL learning context,

the Taiwanese students initiated and responded to more

Social Engagement posts than did the teacher. The stu-

dents’ higher tendency to socialize on FB Group might

have derived from the culture of interdependence among

Asians. The sense of being there (Bracken and Skalski

2009), including feelings of enjoyment and involvement

(Lombard and Ditton 1997) might have also attracted some

V. Lin et al.

123

students to interact socially on FB Group. With this finding

in mind, EFL educators may consider including more so-

cial elements in their online task design to increase inter-

actions in CMC contexts.

With respect to inferential statistics, Chi Square results

in Table 1 show that the type of initiation significantly

affected the type of interaction (v2(2, N = 118) = 82.74,

p = 0.000), with teacher-initiated posts leading to Course

Management interactions, and student-initiated posts ful-

filling task requirements for English Learning. The type of

interaction, in turn, significantly influenced the type of

response in the conversation threads (v2(6,

N = 118) = 27.59, p = 0.000). For the class under study,

both the teacher and students responded significantly to

Course Management posts, leading to high teacher–student

interaction. In contrast, English Learning posts resulted in

no response most of the time, thereby achieving little in-

teraction. The significant categorical relationships among

FB Group interactions for the class are presented in Fig. 2.

Interactions for English Learning Posts

English Learning posts mainly consisted of task uploads.

The task uploads are summarized in Table 2 with samples

shown in Appendices A and B. As illustrated in Table 2,

some students included websites or photos in their posts.

According to the Chi Square results, English Learning

posts associated most closely with no response. The lower-

than-expected level of student interactions for their as-

signments on FB was consistent with the finding that the

teacher had difficulty promoting FB tasks as reflected by

Table 1 Frequencies of posts by interaction type, post initiation type, and response type

Interaction type Initiation type Response type

Students Teacher Total Students Teacher Both None Total

Course management 7a 44 51 14 1 13 23 51

30.7b 20.3 51.0 13.4 .4 6.5 30.7 51.0

13.7 %c 86.3 % 100 % 27.5 % 2.0 % 25.5 % 45.0 % 100.0 %

-9.0d 9.0 .3 1.2 3.6 -2.9

Social Engagement 5 2 7 4 0 2 1 7

4.2 2.8 7.0 1.8 .1 .9 4.2 7.0

71.4 % 28.6 % 100 % 57.1 % .0 % 28.6 % 14.3 % 100.0 %

.6 -.6 1.9 -.3 1.3 -2.6

English Learning 59 1 60 13 0 0 47 60

36.1 23.9 60.0 15.8 .5 7.6 36.1 60.0

98.3 % 1.7 % 100 % 21.7 % .0 % .0 % 78.3 % 100.0 %

8.6 -8.6 -1.2 -1.0 -4.2 4.1

Total 71 47 118

100 %

31 1 15 71 118

100 %

Chi square tests Chi square = 82.74 with 2 df

p = 0.000

Chi square = 27.59 with 6 df

p = 0.000

N = 118a Count, b expected counts, c percent of row total, d adjusted residuals

Post

Teacher-initiated Student-initiated

Course Manageme

English learning

No reponses Responses from both teacher & students

High T-S interaction

Low T-S or S-S interaction

Fig. 2 Significant categorical relationships during FB group

interactions

Participants’ Experiences and Interactions on Facebook Group in an EFL Course in Taiwan

123

students’ unwillingness to respond to classmates’ assign-

ments. Moreover, there were no threaded responses from

the teacher aside from her pressing of ‘‘Likes’’ for the task

uploads. This implies that the teacher could increase tea-

cher–student interactions by responding in writing to stu-

dents’ task uploads on FB. It is possible that teachers’

social participation in students’ assignments through posi-

tive feedback would reinforce language learning in the CoI

model.

Though not statistically significant, student–student in-

teractions for Task 2 were identified and presented in

Appendices B and C. The unique interactions qualitatively

attested to students’ willingness to commend each other’s

assignment completion and socialize in the conversation

threads. The interactive task of giving directions, finding

stores on the street, as well as the inclusion of photo-u-

ploads incorporated authentic and social elements into the

English learning process, and further met Skehan’s (1998)

criteria of (a) meaning, (b) goal reaching, (c) evaluation

upon task completion, and (d) real-world relationships. The

student–student interactions echoed claims made by Chen

and Brown (2012), who identified positive effects of au-

thentic audience on increased motivation for ESL learners

in achieving task-based learning in CMC contexts.

Rq 2 What are the students’ and teacher’s experiences of

using Facebook in a hybrid EFL course in Taiwan?

Interviews with both the students and teacher high-

lighted positive and negative experiences with the use of

FB Group. Students’ experiences resulted in a three-to-two

ratio of positive to negative feedback on the FB Group

usage for the course, whereas the ratio for the teacher was

five-to-one for positive versus negative experiences. The

derived themes are described below and presented in

Fig. 3.

Students’ Experiences

Functionality

First, students expressed satisfaction with the functionality

of the FB Group page for dissemination of information

related to coursework, the availability of question-and-

answer posts about learning, and group work coordination.

A student explained that ‘‘If I forget what the teacher said, I

would post my question on class FB…I don’t have to call

my classmates to find out the answers. I just need to post

and wait for responses (Student 1).’’

Affect

Affect served as an important theme in the students’ re-

flections on the use of FB Group. Students indicated the

possibility of building friendships with classmates. As the

class gradually got to know one another through course-

work collaboration, they would add one another’s personal

profiles to become friends on FB. ‘‘I added a few of

classmates in the FB Group to discuss oral presentations

pair work…I would chat more on FB personally with those

that I got along with (Students 3 & 6).’’ One student

indicated evidence of group support as classmates posted

assignment reminders. Another student described his ex-

tension of emotional support toward classmates on personal

FB. ‘‘If I see classmates in bad mood on FB, I would use

‘‘Message’’ to chat with them about it. This way, it is

possible to build friendship (Student 1).’’ Finally, students

expressed appreciation toward the teacher for using FB

Group in class.

Complement to FtF and e-Learning

Students described how FB complemented FtF teaching

and e-learning by making learning more smooth and in-

teresting. One student noted that the ‘‘frequency of FB

reminders for bringing extra materials usually comple-

ments in-class announcements. Due to the popular usage of

FB, students checked the FB Group two to three times a

week, as opposed to only logging onto e-learning when

they had to submit assignments. ‘‘The ease with assignment

uploads also removed the technical difficulties students

often experienced with e-learning (Student 2).’’ FB also

achieved what e-learning was not able to do with its

messaging function that allowed students to discuss group

work while working on other tasks at home. With respect to

English learning, students reflected on more use of English

because the teacher designed interesting activities on the

Table 2 Summary of task uploads in different formats

Task name Discussion posts Pictures Website links Word files

f % f % f % f %

1. Problem forum 23 100 1 4.3 1 4.3 0 0

2. Giving directions 18 78.2 18 78.2 0 0 0 0

3. Writing about ‘‘My Hometown’’ 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 69.6

V. Lin et al.

123

FB Group and required only English usage for these tasks.

‘‘FB allows us to do more interesting things which are not

possible on e-learning. It is a multi-dimensional platform

and we can post anything on it (Students 2, 6, 7).’’

Preference of FtF Teaching over FB

In contrast to positive experiences, themes reflecting

drawbacks of FB Group also emerged. The first theme

related to the preference of FtF situations over FB for

effective learning. They referred to the inhuman nature of

CMC learning environments. ‘‘The computer is a machine,

it is inhuman. If it is a teacher speaking in front of us, it is

easier to see the shape of the mouth to distinguish the

difference in pronunciations (Student 4).’’ Another student

commented that ‘‘There is not much support on FB for

learning English. We don’t use English to communicate

with each other on FB (Student 6).’’ Furthermore, not every

student read everything the teacher posted on FB. In this

sense, the students did not perceive FB as a better learning

tool than in-class teaching.

Lack of Relational Building

Students also revealed a lack of relational building on the

group page due to the course-specific nature of the group.

The purpose of the site was restricted to relaying course

information, not building deep friendships, as commented

by a student.

They are my English classmates for 5 h a week. I get

to know them but not so close to them. If 1 day we

don’t take English class together, our relationship

will no longer exist. I won’t feel that we need to get

together to eat or anything. (Student 1)

One student expressed that she ‘‘seldom initiates interac-

tions on the class FB Group (Student 3),’’ therefore, not

every student participates actively on the group page.

Building a personal relationship with the teacher on FB

was also difficult for the students. Two students mentioned

that even though they added the teacher’s personal FB,

there was ‘‘not too much interaction with the teacher

because she was protective of her privacy and did not use

FB too much for interactions (Students 5 & 6).’’ The

findings implied that though friendship could be built, it

only lasted during the course year. Student acceptance of

FB for learning could influence interaction levels on the

group page. Moreover, building teacher–student relation-

ship on FB was difficult if the teacher maintained high

privacy protection.

Assignment Submissions

A third negative experience concerned assignment sub-

missions on FB:

[The] drawback is that I have too many FB Groups so

there’s a long list of them on my page, so the English

class FB sometimes is submerged among all the no-

tifications. I have to press ‘‘more’’ to find or see the

notification. (Student 3)

The ease of posts being submerged led to reluctance to

submit assignments on FB. Also, students who did not wish

to disclose their work to others preferred e-learning for

homework submissions. Easily missed posts and privacy

one-way communication difficulties with syllabus incorpration & task promotion

course management teacher beliefs group effect

preference of FtF teaching over FB for learning lack of relational building assignment submissions

funcionality affect complement to FtF teaching & learning

Positive Student

Experiences

Negative Student

Experiences

Negative Teacher

Experiences

Positive Teacher

Experiences

Fig. 3 Themes on positive and

negative experiences for the

students and teacher

Participants’ Experiences and Interactions on Facebook Group in an EFL Course in Taiwan

123

concerns about assignments proved to be negative aspects

of using FB for academic purposes.

Teacher’s Experiences

Fulfillment of Teacher Beliefs

The teacher reinforced her teaching beliefs through the use

of FB to foster a learning environment. First, she believed

careful activity design in both FtF and online settings

would stimulate student interests. Therefore, she devoted

thoughts into designing tasks on the FB Group that com-

plemented in-class textbook content. She also assessed

students’ ability to follow instruction on FB informally and

found students were able to understand all the instructions

given and some were even asked about using FB for

uploading in-class writing assignments. ‘‘So, FB is one tool

to increase their motivation for learning since it is an in-

ternet site they are interested in. Sometimes they upload the

homework assignments directly on FB instead of having to

print out in paper versions (Teacher).’’ Finally, in terms of

privacy, the teacher expressed that she rarely disclosed

anything personal or emotional on her personal FB profile.

On the FB Group, she chose to mainly communicate about

course matters and share English learning-related thoughts

and links.

Group Effect

The teacher noted group identity and support as positive

aspects. ‘‘I think there is a group effect because of the

group atmosphere. They are habitually there [on FB] as a

group. Transfer students also request to be added to be-

come part of our FB Group (Teacher).’’ In addition, when

students did not understand instructions in class, they

would seek support on the FB Group. The teacher found

that students would occasionally ask questions on FB to

clarify what they needed to do. At the end of the freshman

year, the students demanded that the teacher kept the FB

Group so that they could all stay with the teacher in this

online space. To this the teacher commented that ‘‘usually

students do not communicate outside the class, but if they

know they belong to a FB Group, they can have a channel

to connect to the class members for life (Teacher).’’ Group

identity extended beyond the course duration in this sense.

Moreover, the notion of collectivism surfaced with this

identity for the class, pointing to the integral effect of

culture on FB use for academic purposes in this context.

One-way Communication

As a drawback, the teacher commented about acting as the

most frequent post initiator, with the exception of a few

students who actively participated on the group page. This

was a limitation as she highly valued in-person commu-

nication with students. ‘‘It is extremely important to un-

derstand and interact with students. This helps me foster a

trusting relationship with them and reduces hindrances for

teaching (Teacher).’’ Due to the desire to achieve in-depth

communication with students outside the class, FB Group

was not effective for the teacher in this regard.

Difficulties

The teacher experienced practical constraints with the in-

corporation of FB into the course. First, she mentioned

about the lack of flexibility in the course syllabus. ‘‘Right

now I only use a few of the functions on FB for teaching

due to time restrictions with the department syllabus

(Teacher).’’ Second, for some of the online tasks, she ex-

perienced difficulty promoting high interaction among

students.

It is really different when I use FB because the

learning outcomes are totally different. There are a

lot of educational things we can do on FB but we

haven’t really explored in depth, it is superficial right

now. It’s sad. Sometimes I want to do something

different, but the students are not used to it…so it is a

bit difficult to promote this kind of learning.

(Teacher)

Despite the setbacks, the teacher remained enthusiastic and

expected more opportunities to incorporate FB into the

course design for her future classes.

Elements of the CoI Model

Sample posts in Appendix C show that teaching presence

was unique to Course Management interactions, and cog-

nitive presence was unique to English Learning interac-

tions, while social presence was found in all three types of

interactions. For the sample Course Management post, risk-

free expressions and affect were most frequent elements of

social presence, followed by the teaching element—direct

instruction. For Social Engagement sample posts, affect,

risk-free expression, and group cohesion were found in a

teacher-initiated post. For the English Learning samples, a

post for Task 1 demonstrated cognitive presence with

elements of problem and exploration.

Relating to the negative experiences reported by the

participants, though we detected evidence of open com-

munication among students in the sample posts, some

students still preferred FtF learning over CMC learning on

FB. Reasons included the lack of real human interaction

and the rare opportunity of befriending classmates via the

group page. Therefore, the effect of social presence in

V. Lin et al.

123

CMC contexts remains weaker than the effect of classroom

participation for English learning. As for teaching pres-

ence, the teacher believed more innovative design could be

incorporated if the students in the class were more open to

sharing their work on FB.

Pedagogical Implications

In East Asian contexts, teachers might assume a dominant

role in class interactions on SNSs for learning purposes

through design and organization, facilitating discourse,

and direct instruction. To successfully induce English

learning, teachers bear the responsibility to consider stu-

dents’ needs and expectations (Chen and Brown 2012)

during their task design. This is because the success of

online tasks with an authentic audience relies on students’

perceptions and attitudes toward an open learning envi-

ronment. For the class under study, FtF might still be the

preferred method for effective EFL teaching and learning.

To increase ESL or EFL students’ motivation for learning

on social media, instructors may take advantage of the

collectivist cultural behaviors of students, and aptly engage

the class in authentic task design by incorporating appro-

priate social and cognitive elements to achieve better

learning outcomes.

Limitations

One limitation of the study related to the varying degree in

students’ comfort with using digital technology for learn-

ing (Prensky 2011; Lockley 2013). For instance, it was

possible that Digital Media Application majors in the class

had a higher acceptance of communicating and interacting

on the group page. Another issue was the small number of

only seven interviewees from the class, which might have

led to biased findings. Finally, we were not able to conduct

the study on a wider scale because we could not locate any

other teachers who used FB for teaching in the same de-

partment. Thus, the findings of this study could not be

generalized to represent all hybrid EFL courses in Taiwan.

Conclusions

The case study on using FB Group in a hybrid EFL class in

Taiwan identified specific interactive patterns among the

participants. Also, FB served as a complement to FtF and

traditional e-learning with positive experiences outweigh-

ing the negative experiences for the teacher and students.

Interactions on FB Group among course participants de-

pended largely upon teacher initiation and were mostly for

course management purposes. On the other hand, student-

initiated English Learning posts associated mostly with

task uploads and did not lead to significant interaction.

Although social presence was evident among student–s-

tudent interactions, the correlation was not significant,

perhaps due to insufficient relational building on the group

page among class members.

To gain variety in learning modes, ESL/EFL educators

can incorporate SNSs into their curriculum because social

media plays an important role in college students’ daily

lives. Our study on the effects and experiences of using FB

for English learning has yielded new insights for ESL/EFL

teachers. The findings are culture-specific since this study

was situated in an Asian collectivist culture. Future re-

searchers could examine the effect of teacher beliefs on the

efficacy of FB use for learning. Ethnographic approaches

could also be employed to investigate factors that affect

students’ acceptance and participation in online learning

community in longitudinal studies.

Acknowledgments The researchers are grateful to the participants

in this study. This work was partially supported by the Ministry of

Science & Technology in Taiwan (NSC 100-2511-S-006-001-MY2,

NSC 102-2511-S-011-007-MY3 and NSC 102-2511-S-006-005-

MY3). This research was also, in part, supported by the Ministry of

Education, Taiwan, R.O.C. The Aim for the Top University Project to

the National Cheng Kung University (NCKU).

References

Abdous, M., & Yen, C. J. (2010). A predictive study of learner

satisfaction and outcomes in face-to-face, satellite broadcast, and

live video-streaming learning environments. The Internet and

Higher Education, 13, 48–257.

Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2008). The development of a

community of inquiry over time in an online course: Under-

standing the progression and integration of social, cognitive and

teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,

12(3–4), 3–22.

Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Understanding cognitive

presence in an online and blended community of inquiry:

Assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to

learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2),

233–250.

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001).

Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context.

Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17.

Augustsson, G. (2010). Web 2.0 pedagogical support for reflexive and

emotional social interaction among Swedish students. The

Internet and Higher Education, 13, 197–205.

Barnes, S. (2006). A privacy paradox: Social networking in the

United States. First Monday,. doi:10.5210/fm.v11i9.1394.

Bowman, N. D., & Akcaoglu, M. (2014). ‘‘I see smart people!’’:

Using Facebook to supplement cognitive and affective learning

in the university mass lecture. Internet and Higher Education,

23, 1–8.

Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social network sites:

Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-

Mediated Communication, 13, 210–230.

Participants’ Experiences and Interactions on Facebook Group in an EFL Course in Taiwan

123

Bracken, C. C., & Skalski, P. (2009). Telepresence and vide games:

The impact of image quality. PsychNology Journal, 7(1), 101–

112.

Chau, P. Y. K., Cole, M., Massey, A. P., Montoya-Weiss, M., &

O’Keefe, R. M. (2002). Cultural differences in the online

behavior of consumers. Communications of the ACM, 45(10),

138–143.

Chen, C. C., & Brown, K. L. (2012). The effects of authentic audience

on English as a second language (ESL) writers: A task-based,

computer-mediated approach. Computer Assisted Language

Learning, 25, 435–454. doi:10.1080/09588221.2011.606224.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded Theory Research:

Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria. Qualitative Soci-

ology, 13, 3–12.

Deng, L., & Tavares, N. (2013). From moodle to Facebook: Exploring

students’ motivation and experiences in online communities.

Computers & Education, 68, 167–176.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry

in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher

education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.

Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community

of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The

Internet and Higher Education, 10, 157–172.

Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering

its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and

Higher Education, 7, 95–105.

Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. (1997). Social presence as a

predictor of satisfaction within a computer mediated conferenc-

ing environment. American Journal of distance Education,

11(3), 8–26.

Junco, R. (2011). The relationship between frequency of Facebook

use, participation in Facebook activities, and student engage-

ment. Computers & Education, 58(1), 162–171.

Junco, R. (2012). In-class multitasking and academic performance.

Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 2236–2243.

Kabilan, M. K., Ahmad, N., & Abidin, M. J. Z. (2010). Facebook: An

online environment for learning of english in institutions of

higher education? The Internet and Higher Education, 13,

179–187.

Kim, Y., Sohn, D., & Choi, S. M. (2011). Cultural difference in

motivations for using social network sites: A comparative study

of American and Korean college students. Computers in Human

Behavior, 27(1), 365–372.

Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J. W., Kreijns, K., & Beers, P. J. (2004).

Designing electronic collaborative learning environments.

Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3),

47–66.

Kozan, K., & Richardson, J. (2014). New exploratory and confirma-

tory factor analysis insights into the community of inquiry

survey. The Internet and Higher Education, 23, 39–47.

Lampe, C., Wohn, D. Y., Vitak, J., Ellison, N. B., & Wash, R. (2011).

Student use of Facebook for organizing collaborative classroom

activities. International Journal of Computer-Supported Col-

laborative Learning, 6, 329–347.

Lee, B. C., Yoon, J. O., & Lee, I. (2009). Learners’ acceptance of

E-learning in South Korea: Theories and results. Computers &

Education, 53, 1320–1329.

Leis, A. (2014). Encouraging autonomy through the use of a social

networking system. The JALT CALL Journal, 10(1), 69–80.

Liu, G. Z. (2011). The blended language learning course in Taiwan:

Issues & challenges of instructional design. In J. Macalister & I.

S. P. Nation (Eds.), Case studies in language curriculum design:

Concepts and approaches in action around the world (pp.

82–100). New York, NY: Routledge.

Liu, G. Z., Chiu, W. Y., Lin, C. C., & Barrett, N. E. (2014a). English

for Scientific Purposes (EScP): Technology, trends, and future

challenges for science education. Journal of Science Educationand Technology, 23(6), 827–839.

Liu, G. Z., & Hwang, G. J. (2010). A key step to understanding

paradigm shifts in e-learning: Towards context-aware ubiquitous

learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), E1–

E9.

Liu, G. Z., Hwang, G. J., Kuo, Y. L., & Lee, C. Y. (2014b). Designing

dynamic English: A creative reading system in a context-aware

fitness center using a smart phone and QR-Codes. Digital

Creativity, 25(2), 269–286.

Liu, G. Z., Liu, Z. H., & Hwang, G. J. (2011). Developing multi-

dimensional evaluation criteria for English learning websites

with university students and professors. Computers & Education,

56(1), 65–79.

Liu, G. Z., Lu, H. C., & Lai, C. T. (2014c). Towards the construction

of a field: The developments and implications of mobile assisted

language learning (MALL). Digital Scholarship in the Hu-

manities,. doi:10.1093/llc/fqu070.

Lo, H. Y., Liu, G. Z., & Wang, T. I. (2014). Learning how to write

effectively for academic journals: A case study investigating the

design and development of a genre-based writing tutorial system.

Computers & Education, 78, 250–267.

Lockley, T. (2013). Answers to outstanding questions about Japanese

student ICT competencies and a glance into a mobile future.

Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(4), 603–617.

Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept

of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,.

doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x.

Loncar, M., Barrett, N. E., & Liu, G. Z. (2014). Towards the

refinement of forum and asynchronous online discussion in

educational contexts worldwide: Trends and investigative ap-

proaches within a dominant research paradigm. Computers &

Education, 73, 93–110.

Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). I’ll see you on

‘‘Facebook’’: The effects of computer-mediated teacher self-

disclosure on student motivation, affective learning, and class-

room climate. Communication Education, 56(1), 1–17.

Mazman, S. G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2013). Modeling educational usage

of Facebook. Computers & Education, 55, 444–453.

Meyer, K. A. (2004). Evaluating online discussions: Four different

frames of analysis. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,

8(2), 101–114.

Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second

language academic communities. TESOLQuarterly, 38, 573–603.

Prensky, M. (2011). Digital wisdom and Homo sapiens. In M.

Thomas (Ed.), Deconstructing digital natives (pp. 15–29). New

York: Routledge.

Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in

online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and

satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1),

68–88.

Rosen, D., Stefanone, M.A., & Lackaff, D. (Eds.). (2010). Proceed-

ings of the 43rd Hawaii international conference on system

sciences 2010. Online and offline social networks: Investigating

culturally-specific behavior and satisfaction. Retrieved January

20, 2015, from http://it.aut.uah.es/jdp/ar/actividad01/trabajo09.

pdf.

Ruiz, J. G., Mintzer, M. J., & Leipzig, R. M. (2006). The impact of

E-learning in medical education. Academic Medicine, 81(3),

207–212.

Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2013). Understanding distinctions in

learning in hybrid, and online environments: An empirical

investigation of the community of inquiry framework. Interac-

tive Learning Environments, 21(4), 355–370.Skehan, P. (1998). Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics, 18, 268–286.

V. Lin et al.

123

Stutzman, F., Vitak, J., Ellison, N.B., Gray, R., & Lampe, C. (2012).

Privacy in interaction: Exploring disclosure and social capital in

Facebook. In Proceedings of the six international AAAI confer-

ence on weblogs and social media. Association for the Advance-

ment of Artificial Intelligence.

Vitak, J. (2013). Measuring privacy in online spaces: Considerations for

users’ attitudes, disclosures, and composition. CSCW 2013 Mea-

suring Networked Social Privacy Workshop, February 23–27, 2013.

San Antonio, Texas, USA.

Walther, J. B. (2007). Selective self-presentation in computer-

mediated communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of tech-

nology, language, and cognition. Computers in Human Behavior,

23, 2538–2557.

Wang, Q. Y. (2008). A generic model for guiding the integration of

ICT into teaching and learning. Innovations in Education and

Teaching International, 45(3), 411–419.

Wang, Q., Woo, H. L., Quek, C. L., Yang, Y., & Liu, M. (2012).

Using the Facebook group as a learning management system: An

exploratory study. British Journal of Educational Technology,

43(3), 428–438.

Xin, C., & Feenberg, A. (2006). Pedagogy in cyberspace: The dynamics

of online discourse. Journal of Distance Education, 21(2), 1–25.

Yang, J., Morris, M.R., Teevan, J., Adamic, L.A., & Ackerman, M.S.

(Eds.). (2011). Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI

Conference on Weblogs and Social Media 2011: Culture

Matters: A Survey Study of Social Q&A Behavior. Association

for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. Retrieved

December 2, from http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/I

CWSM11/paper/viewFile/2755/3305.

Participants’ Experiences and Interactions on Facebook Group in an EFL Course in Taiwan

123