Response to your Concerns

Corpus Linguistics
A Corpus Linguistic tool is the best artillery you can use in analysis of the data derived from the three data sources that have been identified. Corpus linguistics is a branch of linguistics which conducts computer-aided analyses of language, especially in the analysis of textual data in the social sciences. Through this model, patterns of language use can be critically deciphered through dissecting real language usage, be it in written or spoken form.
The operative framework of a Corpus Linguistics has it that there must be a representative sample of the language or text in question which is stored as an electronic database, and this forms the focal point of the analysis. For this text to be analyzed, there has to be a computer software which is tasked with counting linguistic patterns. A corpus linguistic is only put to use if the researcher intends to conduct both qualitative and quantitative analysis.
Considering the magnanimity of the text in the data sources provided, it would be very cumbersome for the researcher to go through all the discussion posts, written journals and blogs word by word in search of common errors, common corrections and trends in language use. That is how Computer Aided Textual Analysis comes in handy. Therefore, it would be prudent to use the computer software meant for persons without exclusive mastery of programming languages but nonetheless effective from a linguistic analytical point of view. Here is a guide towards effective usage of Wordsmith 6 and ultimate creation of a corpus.
WordSmith Tools version 6 is compatible with Windows 2000 and other versions like Windows 7 (either 32 or 64-bit versions) and works best on a relatively modern laptop or desktop PC or an Intel Mac. There must be 50 Mb disk-space and 512Mb of RAM as a minimum storage capacity. Having downloaded the program, click on run. By this time you will be expected to have assorted all the folders containing texts that you are considering to analyse into one file which is then attached to the program.
In the case of the project at hand, to start using the program, you will first select the files you want to examine. I suggest that you have three folders containing data from blog posts, written entries and discussion posts respectively in that same file for ease of independent analysis. This is because you would want to examine what errors are corrected in long texts and whether this varies from the situation in short texts. With these folders distinct from each other, it is then easy to perform whatever types of analysis you intend to.
From here you can perform some of the basic linguistic tasks including concordancing or finding out the frequency of usage of words or phrases, finding the key words in texts and sorting out a wordlist. Make sure you select the language of operation correctly. The beauty of this model is that you can even compare your findings with other corpuses that have been designed before like the British National Corpus e.t.c.. As such, I would advise that you seek reference with the BUiD Arab Learner Corpus (BALC).
The use of a corpus linguistics will help in answering the questions that have been posed in this research. For example in the first question, it would make it easier to locate the kind of comments that the natives offer; the type of suggestions that are made frequently and the types of errors that are corrected mostly. In the second question, it would also be easy to determine the goals of discussion by searching for the most prevalent topics in the discussions using the corpus. This will be the best way of generating these results because the program offers all sorts of statistical analysis tools and thus you can easily make both general and precise calculations including percentages in case of frequency and this remains a more accurate way of presenting data.
Critical Data Analysis
I have reexamined my position and instead made changed the model to content analysis.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Researcher Motivation
The most potent tool in any society, however large or small, advanced or rudimentary, literate or otherwise; has always been language. The ability of a society having a common language is the foundation of synergy and unity in the people’s day to day endeavors. As such, there is an overriding requirement that people within a certain societal set up are better of having a common language. In this case society and language are two different yet so intertwined phenomena. They are equally interdependent. While language has been greatly touted to be the most important uniting factor of any society and the best accessory requisite for any common purpose in the society; it is equally plausible to assert that society in most cases creates language, improves and even redefines the type of language to be used in that set up so as to further the interests of the people involved. In fact, with the recent trends in globalization across the world, there is a great tendency of persons striving to seek proficiency in foreign languages due to factors such as migration, education and commerce.
The above background highlights the need for understanding the correlation between and the contribution of any grouping or society to development and growth of a particular language. I have undergone the ESL program since I was 12 years successfully to warrant graduation in the United States. Additionally, I have also taught English as a subject in a Public School for over one year. Having gone through a systematic learning process in a serene structured learning environment for such a long time; it intrigues me to learn about how English Student Learnership is conducted via social media given that the learners may not enjoy access to the many facilities I had while studying and they definitely do not have enough time dedicated to such a course. It is also in question whether the tutorship via social media is of the requisite expertise that can be relied upon given that most of these websites are utilized by persons undergoing L2 studies just like I was back then. Especially, with respect to learners from the Arabic world, there are a lot of challenges to deal with because they experience a total paradigm shift in their life, be it linguistic, cultural or otherwise. Therefore I embarked on a mission to ascertain the efficacy of programs providing English Language lessons via social media, their reliability and the challenges facing users of these platforms.
Scope of the Study
This dissertation is a critical examination of a specific website called Lang-8; a social media English Language Learning site. The essence of looking at this website is to understand the operations and learning processes exhibited within the website and how tutors assist students by correcting them and giving feedbacks to them during the learning process. This dissertation argues that Lang-8 merits to be called a Community of Practice because the users of the site have a unity of purpose i.e. learning the English Language and as such work so hard towards achieving this goal. Having said that, the dissertation further poses critical concerns regarding this mode of learning witnessed at Lang-8.
The advent of many Social Networks dedicated to serve learners of English comes at a time when there is a widespread clamor all over the world for many people to know the language. Therefore, it is out of necessity that many people would do anything to gain a better understanding of the language. From this background, it is worth inquiring whether such websites provide the best environment for learning English. Whether, specifically Lang-8, perpetuates the best ways of teaching the language. Whether, the website has achieved its intended purpose of providing knowledge of the language to all and if not, to what extent has it endeavored to execute this vision. Therefore in as much as this dissertation will be examining the specific processes prevalent in the website’s learning approach; it will equally take a keen look at the overall meritocracy of the website and whether Social Media English Learning should be promoted across the world.
Context of the Study
The easiness and convenience of social interaction and engagement in communication with different people that might be physically distant, mediated by the use of computers was exploited for different professional and educational reasons. One of these uses is to teach and learn languages. Language learning on the Web is divided into two types: traditional way of learning where designed lessons, vocabulary, grammar tests, reading exercises..etc. are available to the learner to pull out and work with on his own. This way resembles the way formal instructions at schools are delivered where the interaction is more focused on the person versus the object (the material of study). The other type of learning, which is the concern of this paper, takes place in the same digital environment but more naturally and authentically. Learners of L2 can get involved into social interaction with each other through the use of blogs, forum discussions, and chats. Such type of learning and interaction is witnessed in websites like Lang-8, Livemocha, babble..etc. These websites are referred to as Language Learning Social Networking Sites (LLSNS) which will be discussed incisively later. People who do not have access to formal schooling language instructions or simply want to learn a different content or people who would like to get into contact with larger and authentic audience can resort to these digital learning tools.
Such Digital language learning has gained popularity over the last decade due to its perceived benefits that might not be existent in a traditional face to face type of learning. These benefits include but are not limited to: focusing on the actual use of language forms; encouraging the production of authentic utterances with authentic audience, and dealing with interest related topics (Kramsch et al., 2000) in a natural L2 environment instead of prefabricated linguistic production. This authentic environment plays a role in bolstering motivation (Pennycook,2010; Thorne, 2008) by creating a safe collaborative environment where a language learner can use the language without the fear of being judged ( Blake & Zyzik, 2003), and having control over the learning process (Warschauer, 1996).
Social networking sites were examined from different angles as places to learn language in a great number of researches. This dissertation examines some of the learning practices held by members in an online self-initiated language learning website. The website hosts a community of people who are eager to learn a second language through the communication and praetor ship with other members who speak the target language to be learnt. The two practices I will examine constitute the main sections in the website: mainly the discussion forum where members form groups of interests, post threads and comment on each other. The other section is the writing entries where members post their writing entries with no genre and length specifications for other members to offer feedback on. Those members are usually the native speakers of that member’s target language or the advanced speaker of that language can provide feedback on the writing. More details of website will be provided later in Chapter three when we start talking about the setting.
Specifically, I will look at the feedback practices of members in the journal writing section. I will then narrow down to the types of errors members tend to correct, the strategy they follow in providing such corrective feedback and the nature and type of commentary feedback they provide. I will also be looking at what interests learners of English through the examination of topics they initiate in the discussion groups and the nature of their interaction and feedback in response to the initiated topics. By studying threads initiated by members and their responses I can get in-depth understanding of what their purposes are and what they aim to achieve behind participating and their level and quality of engagement.
Feedback to writing entries provided to ESL learners has been a widely studied subject. The majority of studies were conducted in classroom (Rusen, 1980) or with learners online, as in tandem learning (or with who are practicing feedback but with an incentive from their educational institutions. The type of feedback provided and the focus of the practice might be influenced by factors present with the educational circle such as the curriculum, course goals, teacher beliefs and directions, syllabus, grades..etc. that might be non-existent in self directed learning environments. Therefore, examining the feedback in such an environment is worthy to unveil what learners (and teachers) of English care about in the sueal worldwo
Likewise, ESL learners interactions in online discussion groups have been examined mostly where these acts were part of course requirements. For instance, Facebook has been a fertile environment for the examination of groups interactions as ESL students (as well as in discussion boards platforms where students gatherings and interactions were part of an online course (Flynn, 2004; Sweetland,2002)Very few studies have studied ESL learners practices outside the school and in websites designed mainly for language learning purposes. These studies have focused on learners practices outside the school and in websites designed mainly for language learning instances. Facebook has been a fertile environment especially because it makes learners to be self-motivated in terms of topics that interest them and their responses and interactions in this system.
Statement of Problem
A large number of English language learners are hardly exposed to L2 in their daily lives (Demo, 2001). They are rarely faced with such a guage because of little or no exposure to L2 in their daily life. They are also given minimal opportunities for interacting with native speakers, and limited exposure to the variety of functions, genres, speech events, and discourse types that occur outside the classroom And even those who live in countries where people speak the target language, it is in many instances not easy to form friendships and immerse into that community. As a result, such learners who are willing to share this interest of practicing the language with other users resort to virtual communities created online for such a purpose. These environments involve language practices that are different from those occurring in ESL/EFL traditional settings in terms of authenticity, meeting students’ individual interests and needs with real-life activities. Thus, it is important to reveal how learning and engagement is manifested in these sites as communities of practice.
As revealed earlier, the community of practice studied here is of Lang-8 in which practices are portrayed in a couple of activities. The concern here will be focused on two of them: Discussion groups and journal entries. Discussion groups consist of over 2000 groups created by members for other members to join. The groups are constituted in consideration of members’ interests, L1 or preferred way of learning. Any member can initiate a thread and the other members can reply and get into discussions with each other. The ‘journal entries’ is a space where members can freely write an entry that may range from a short sentence or expression to a full length essay. The purpose is for other members to comment on and give feedback on the writing.
As said, the study will focus on those two practices revealing how learners of English approach them and engage in them. The need of this study comes from the fact that most studies of ESL learners’ learning practices online are organized within a formal setting, i.e. by teachers and instructors. Few studies have examined the voluntary participation of language learners in sites designed mainly for the purpose of learning language (Lloyd, 2012; Hsieh, 2012; Harrison and Thomas, 2009). The topics, the routines and the membersm behavior in such websites may differ from the behavior of other language learners learning and interacting in non educational websites such as Facebook. Moreover, most of these were examining the websites in terms of their effectiveness as language learning tools (websites and the participants (who are members of these sites) attitudes towards using the websites (It is important to know how ESL learners behave educationally when not under formal academic restrictions. Such knowledge may inform teachers and educators of ESL learners’ real interests, tendencies.
Statement of Purpose
This study will look at two parts: the discussion groups and the journal entries. In Journal entries, I will look at language errors dealt with by members on writing journals. This is important to understand how learners outside classroom and without being under the enforcement of a curriculum provide feedback in this regard.
Moreover, I will be looking at some threads and posts in the discussion groups section to reveal how this learning community of practice manifest itself through the examination of the kind of topics initiated, any patterns of interaction and participation in terms of length and depth of participation, and the type of language used and its indication. As with any research, the main aim at the end is to add to existing knowledge by confirming or contradicting it, and also understanding the culture and behaviors of a group of people by looking at their language, values, social structure, rituals and behaviors, which may inform and have an impact on related institutions (Tashakkori, A and Teddlie, C, 2003)

Significance
Recently, Computer Mediated Communication features have been exploited widely in language education like wikis, blogs and emails. Most of these studies were within the institutional circle abided by certain rules, supervised and observed at varying extent by teachers. Little is known about self-initiated learning. Although a large number of studies have been conducted to measure the efficacy and user satisfaction and way of usage on social networks for the purpose of learning language, those studies were mostly held in non-educational social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and online games, there are fewer studies has been conducted to examine social networking for learning languages.
The study can contribute to the literature on the role of Web 2.0 technology in L2 learning in general and to teachers’ understanding of the learning environments that todayle of Web 2.0 technology in L2 learning in general and to teachersy of usage on social networks for the purpose of learning language, those studies were mostly held in non-educational social estigating second-language learning, online language learning, and the role of social network participation in language learning. It might help to enrich our perspectives on learning in general and L2 learning/acquisition in particular by shedding light on the type of practices L2 online users are engaged in and their perceptions of such experiences. Such sites can be viewed as providing a rich place for language learners to use language in meaningful andrning language, those studies were mostly held in notic readers and collaborators
Moreover, as for the feedback, studying types and qualitative characteristics of feedback is important in that it effects the learnerserstanding of the learning environments that todayng language, those studies were mostly nding the practices held through their actual behavior differ from other previous research because it is outside classroom and not affected by teacher instructions, peer influence (what peers prefer), the expected needs of the receiver of feedback, course goals and requirements, and there are not even rules placed by the website stating how to provide feedback, so it is derived mainly from the members themselves and what they think is the appropriate behavior.
Finally, by examining the discussion boards, we will be cognizant of what types of topics and issue concern or of interest to language learners, the mechanism of interaction and the role of participants in enriching and informing the ongoing conversations in this section. As Thorpe (1999) points out, the majority of development work and evaluation of using online tools has been done in higher education so that we have little evidence on how to use the technology effectively outside this context. It will be of practical benefit to non-institutional
educational providers in helping them to establish realistic expectations for online
learning communities and where their potential might be best utilized. Moreover, since online forum discussions can be a space where there can be great ways in which ESL students interact, relate, and respond when writing to and with each other (Bauler, 2012), this will help teachers and practitioners visualize how it looks like to have their students have discussions in virtual spaces, and the potential of implementing this tool in academic setting. Teachers may also find it useful to employ these online techniques in class, especially for reluctant students.

Research Questions
This dissertation will endeavor to give answers to the following questions in a manner that will dictate the direction of the whole research.
1. As ESL teachers, what kind of feedback do Lang-8 members tend to offer in response to Arab EFL journal postings?
a. what method of corrective feedback they follow
b. What kind of comments do they offer?
c. What kind of suggestions do they offer?
d. what type of errors do they tend to correct more?
2. How do Lang-8 members, both as teachers and as learners act as communities of practice in their discussion groups?
a. What are their goals as exemplified by the topics they initiate?
b. What is the nature of their engagement as demonstrated by the pattern of participation?

Summary
In this section, I have presented an introduction of what the dissertation aims to examine, namely, feedback practices in terms of kinds of errors treated and type of corrective feedback followed and nature of commentary feedback provided. Additionally, I will be looking at the second mani practices in Lang-8, that is the discussion group section to investigate what ESL learners are interested in through the examination of the topics they initiate in their threads, and through the examination of their interaction and response to these threads.
In the following section, I will present a selected literature related to both written feedback practices and communities of practice

Key Terms
Social networks: online spaces that allow a group of people from distant geographical places to interact with each other simultaneously. These spaces are designed for different purposes whether educational or merely entertaining.
corrective feedback: Russell and Spada (2006) have defined it as t as fineback provided to a learner, from any source, that contains evidence of learner error of language formferent purposes whether educational or meof providing amendments for linguistically deviant forms

community of practice: is defined as a ctice: as t as f among persons, activity, and world, over time and in relation with other tangential and overlapping communities of practiceent purposes wheth1991, pp. 98). , pp. 98). worle that emerges when a group of people participate in common practices; depend upon one another; make decisions together; identify themselves as part of something larger than the sum of their individual relationships; and commit themselves for the long term to their own, one another’s, and the group’s well-being” (Shaffer and Amundsen (1993) p. 10).

practice is ticeed as social, interactional process..members interact, do things together, negotiate new meanings, and learn from each otheractivity, and world, over time and in relation with other tangential an

Computer mediated communication (CMC): ecommunication that takes place between human beings via the instrumentality of computerstime and in relation w

virtual communities: Yang, H (2012) has defined as n beings via the instrumentality of computerstime and in relation withscussions around shard issues-that formed personal human relationships and synergies in cyberspace”yberspaceard issues-that formed personal human relationships and computerstime and in relation withscussions arthrough group activity to define problems affecting them, to decide upon a solution, and to act to achieve the solution. As they progress, they gain new knowledge and skillsd syn and Corry, 2002)
Language learning social networking sites: As the name suggests, these are social networks designed mainly for the purpose of learning languages, allowing language learners from all over the world to get into contact with speakers of their target language and immerse in different practices to enhance their learning experience.
Mutual engagement: refers to the reciprocal relationship between members developed in practices through their postings and comments to each other
Feedback: refer to any kind of feedback that includes written comments on the writing whether positive or negative.
Semantic errors: includes both lexical and meaning construction errors.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
In this section, I will present a review of literature on related areas. I will start first with an introduction about the concept of online social networks and how they create an easier way for people to get into contact which paved the way for them to be fertile environments for learning inside and outside school. This will lead us to the talk about those social networks created mainly for the purpose of learning languages; that is our setting of this study: Lang-8. These gatherings represent a Community of Practice which has its characteristics displayed in this chapter.
I then moved to talk about Feedback, the second main areas to be examined. I review the literature on types of corrective feedback and studies studying and comparing them. I also talked about commentary feedback.

Social Networks
Definition and Characteristics
Social network, as we know them, are online spaces that allow a group of people from distant geographical places to interact with each other simultaneously. These spaces are designed for different purposes whether educational or merely entertaining. They have been defined according to their purpose as al network, as we know them, are online spaces that allow a grou specifically for us we know them, as online spaces that allow a group of people from distant, and items of interest (Poore 2013, p.80).
Boyd and Ellison (2007) defined a social networking site as a group of people from distant, and items of interestt who interact with each other simultaneously. These spaces are designed for different purposes whether with whom they share a connection, and (c) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system the sy11). So, from these smaller definitions we can see that online social networks are online spaces that allow the gathering of people for the sake of sharing what interests them and such networks allow users to create for themselves an identity that they wish to be seen through.
The main element in social networks is the user. He/ She is the core of the interaction and communication process and on whom content, in its various types ranging from simple social interactions to advanced knowledge creation, is dependent on their collaboration in its existence. Before interactive and dynamic social networks like Facebook or MySpace came to the surface, websites were based on content that was developed by only one user and read by others. That generation of Web, the one sided interaction, is referred to as Web 0.1 In recent centuries, advanced features of online tools allowed people to create social networks and thus open the door for all users to participate in creating content and sharing knowledge in what is referred to as Web 0.2.
The first generation of web technology did not allow the average person to add his/her own contribution but has to compel to what has already been put there by certain people without having the opportunity to posit his/her own perspective or argue about what is being posted there. However, the second generation of digital tools represented in those interactive sites is a fertile environment for how the “dialogical” system works where users can, in some sites, undergo a continuous and perhaps a fruitful conversation with whoever posts. Indeed, the 21st century literacy has changed from individual to collaborative, from unified to contextualized, from paper based to electronic, from offline to online and most importantly from cognitive only to social.
Online Social networks are divided into two main types (Poore, 2013): Personal social network or what is called by others as egocentric networks (Fraser and Dutta, 2008). These usually center around the individual such as Facebook and MySpace. These sites are very popular and they act mainly as spaces to form and build friendships and practice favorite hobbies and interests such as sharing videos, photos and songs. However, they can still form a good tools for creating learning groups or using them in classroom (otos and so The other kind of social networks is web communities (Fraser and Dutta, 2008). These are the social networks that center around a group or topic such as those centering around learning and teaching languages as in Livemocha (Poore, 2013). They consist of group of members who gather together based on race, nation, religion, interests, gender, and so on. This second type is what we are looking at in this paper when examining language learning and interaction in Lang-8 (will talk about this type of social network later)
Social Networking Sites as an Educational Tool
Social networking sites are being used today extensively for different purposes such as socializing and educational purposes as a way. Social networking has played a noticeable role and various features have been used such as blogs as a writing medium (cial ne) ,Wikis as a collaborative tool to writing, Facebook ( Ockett and Toffoli, 2012; Burke, 2013), and online games to help in assignments and course materials (Luttrell, 2012) or for professional development (Davis, 2010). On the educational level, social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter are being used extensively by language learners all over the world to communicate with native speakers of their learned languages outside the institutional circle (Ockett and Toffoli, 2012; Burke, 2013).
The tendency to use social networking sites as an educational tool has been due to its attracting characteristics that include participation, collaboration, interactivity, sharing, networking, community building, creativity, distribution, flexibility, customization (eNoue, 2012; Poore, 2013). Greenhow and others (2009) believed that such interactive social networks have a positive role as learning tools:
Web 2.0 technologies enable hybrid learning spaces that travel across physical and cyber spaces according to principles of collaboration and participation. Today, learners have more choices about how and where to spend their learning time (e.g., in online settings or in private, public, or home school options) than they did 10 years ago. Today’s youth are frequently creative, interactive, and media oriented; use Web 2.0 technologies in their everyday lives; and believe that more use of such technologies in school would lead to increased preparation and engagement. (Greenhow et al., 2009, p. 247)
Teachers are using such interactive technology to help them get students together to exchange conversations and participate in discussions as a means of practicing and using Second language. The potential of FB groups in enhancing students’ writing in various contexts has been believed by researchers as such online FB communities can empower students with opportunity to link what is taught at college to use it in an authentic and personalized context. Razak, N. A., Saeed, M., & Ahmad, Z. (2013) azak, N. A., Saeed, M., & Ahmad, Z. (2013)ed by researchers as such online FB communities can empower students with opportunity to link what is taught at college to use it in an authentic and perscomments by the learners in the writing activities revealed that these writing activities have encouraged participation and engagement.the comments and exchanges by the learners have doubled in number in the second session from what it was in the first session which is an indication for an increase in their participation and thus interest and motivation. The findings also show that the learners’ interaction and engagement with each other helped to enhance their writing in English. Likewise, Ömer (2012), with his 48 pre-intermediate level students, has created a closed-group on Facebook and posted supplementary activities on daily basis. The primary purpose of this research was to explore studentsn attitudes towards a Facebook supported language teaching. The findings suggest that Facebook can be very useful as an educational tool. Studentsi attitudes towards such an activity are mostly positive and welcoming as well as proving to be useful for improving their language skills.t
Moreover, with its feature of getting people together easily and keeping them in contact with each other anytime. Using Social networks outside class on the personal and social level can have a positive impact on the academic life of the student. Allen (2014) found that interaction in such collaborative and supportive atmosphere has led to a satisfying educational experience among the doctoral students who formed an online community to compensate for the feelings of isolation, anxiety and frustration. Furthermore, Olson (2011) has found that community college students who used online social networking for academic purposes on a more frequent basis experienced greater levels of engagement in the active and collaborative learning, academic challenge, student-faculty interaction, and support for learners‘ benchmarks. The findings indicate that students who used online social networking are more engaged in college-related activities.
Poore (2013) has identified two kinds of network: personal social network that centers around the individual such as Facebook and MySpace. This is what Fraser and Dutta (2008) refers to as egocentric networks. These sites are very popular and act as a platform to build a network of rks. These sites are very popular and actd actround the individual such as Facebook and MySpace. This is what Fraser aser aent in thes as well as a platform for artistic creativity and personal expression through the photos, songs, videos and other content posted. The other kind is the social network that centers around a group or topic such as Ning. Fraser and Dutta (2008) called these web communities that collect members with strong identity ties based on race, nation, religion, interests, gender, and so on. This second type is what we are looking at in this paper when examining language learning and interaction in Lang-8.
Language Learning Social Networking Sites
Nature of Learning
Language learning social networking sites (LLSNS), as the name suggests, combine language learning with socializing and interacting with others using elements of social network sites. One of these learning sites is Lang-8. Language learning social networking sites (LLSNS), as the name suggests, are learning websites that combine language learning with socializing and interacting with others using elements and features of social network sites. These websites aim at connecting second language learners with each other or with native speakers so they can work as partners by exchanging conversations and engaging in discussions and different activities for the aim of learning language. Members of these websites can use and practice second language through engaging in a variety of activities depending on what the websites present. Examples of practices are vocabulary or grammar lessons that can be done solely, speaking and writing practices that can invite experienced SL speakers or native speakers to provide feedback on, forming friends who are interested in learning with each other.’ These websites can use and practice second language through engaging in a variety of activities dependeent topics. For example, in Lang-8, the website under study, members can post their writings for other experts to correct, make friendships and chat with them, and join discussion groups.
Learning in Lang-8 is based very closely on the principles and tenets of a type of learning called experts to corre (Kabata, K. and Edasawa, Y. (2011)). Tandem learning means reciprocal support and instruction between two learners, each of whom is a native speaker of the othercalled experts to correrrect, make friendships and chat with them,f communicationcati’Dowd, 2007, p.43). Tandem language learning is an arrangement in which two native speakers of different languages communicate regularly with one another, each with the purpose of learning the other’s language. This is what happens in Lang-8 where learners of different languages gather to communicate and get into contact with other native speakers of their learned languages through engaging in some literacy practices. This approach to learning a foreign language is popular as a way to engage students in authentic conversations with people who represent the language and the culture under study by connecting them with matching partners to communicate (Wang, 1994; Van Handle and Corl, 1998; Tella 1992; Aitsiselmi, 1999, Vassallo and Telles, 2006; Kabata and Edasawa, 2011)..
Successful tandem learning is based on two principles (O’Dowd, 2007): reciprocity and learner autonomy. The first refers to the exchange of benefit between members or learners and the latter refers to the fact that learners have the freedom to decide their goals and how to achieve them. In language tandem learning for example, each partner learns from the other person not only aspects and skills of language but may also talk about culture, country. Mitchell and Mylesrs to the fact that l) have found thatfreedom to decide their goals and how to achieve themfluent speakers is beneficial for learners. The other element is learner autonomy which refers to the fact that learners have the freedom to decide their goals and how to achieve them. Dickinson (1987, p.11) has defined autonomy as other person not only aspects and skills of language but may also talk about culture, country. Mitchell and Mylesand Mylesy. Mitchell and Myleson not only aspects and skills of language but may also less fluent speakers is beneficiarning as the two partners get to decide on the topics they negotiate and the activities they immerse in as to fit their interests and needs (Mitchell and Myles, 1998). Even when operationalized under institutional control and as a classroom work, tandem projects most of the time tends to leave it open for language partners to decide on topics to talk about or ways of approaching this learning stage. In informal LLSNS, the learners Cho (2012)is unquestionable as participating in the website and joining other learners and native speakers is totally voluntary work which accordingly does not impose restrictions as to the topics preferred and ways of doing it.
It allows autonomous, individualized and flexible type of learning as the two partners get to decide on the topics they negotiate and the activities they immerse in as to fit their interests and needs. Tandem learning is also a good opportunity for language learning as it offers learners authentic communication with native speakers and lessens the intimidation to talk as each partner is seen as a language learner with similar statue. Tandem learning requires shifting of roles (from learner to tutor and vice versa) which may eliminate any feelings of inferiority, power dynamics, fear of error, shyness (Vassallo and Telles, 2006). Therefore, and since students will probably believe in their abilities that they are better than their peers since the language the peer aims to learn is a language they are likely are fluent in, they tend to offer feedback more willingly and excitedly (Hansen and Liu, 2002).
Learning in informal LLSNS likewise offer the opportunity to practice language skills with people from around the world who are either native speakers or advanced speakers of the learner’earn language skills with people from around the world who are either nativ, 2011; Cho, 2012; Orsini-Jones and Pibworth, 2013). This tenet of language exchange is what guide the learning process in LLSNS such as Lang-8. Members of the website are speakers of different native languages and are learners of different second languages too. For them, to practice their learned languages in a meaningful and natural context, they engage in group discussions on language, materials, resources and references (he lea They also engage in other activities such as non-formal chats (They a and feedback exchange on language practices, i.e. writing and speaking.(and fThose whom they interact with are usually other members who are either native speakers of the learner second language or peers who are learning the same language. Such a language interaction and exchange holds within it several benefits to the users. Examining Lang-8, a LLSNS, Cho, Y, (2012). Cognitive, social, psychological and technical benefits of using Lang-8, and making friends. He Examined the website as a cop, take about community and sub community, reciprocity, give and take nature, combination of language learning and SN, new culture. Studies on LLSNS also looked at how these sites developed their pragmatic development (Gonzales, 2012), or pedagogical benefits (Wilkerson, 2010).

Interaction in informal environments with native speakers allows the learning process to be more natural and lively as compared to classroom. In most of classrooms, language used is prepared, boxed and modeled for students to imitate. Conversation lessons for example usually consist of made up conversations designed mainly for language learners. Most of the time they do not stem from what one can hear in a real world conversation. Using language on the social networks, on the contrary, go beyond the simple rehearsal of language in classroom “deal with uncertainties and ambiguities rather than relying on simplicities and rigid form-meaning correspondences” with uncertainties.

Self Directed Learning
Learning in Lang-8 and other similar sites is self-directed (it can also be referred to as informal (Lear self-initiated learning (self, self-study( self- and autonomous learning(and a Free choice learning is defined as “the learning that we do when we want to, by definition it involves a strong measure of choice-choice over what, why, where, when, and how we will learn is defined as the ‘learAutonomus’ learning does not only involve cognitive aspects but also requires readiness in terms of technical ability to learn on one choice-choice over what,o not stem from what one’s own learning and controlling the content such as the choice of material and content and process of one’s own leaning and controlling the content such
Within a more official institutional circle, Forster (1972) defines self study, or study, or fficial institutional circle, Forster (1972) defines self study, or nt and process of o which a student acquires knowledge by his or her own efforts and develops the ability for inquiry and critical evaluation; (2) it includes freedom of choice in determining those objectives, within the limits of a given project or program and with the aid of a faculty adviser; (3) it requires freedom of process to carry out the objectives; (4) it places increased educational responsibility on the student for the achieving of objectives and for the value of the goals” (p.13 as quoted in Philip C. Candy 1991).
Autonomy however is not tantamount to individualism. The notion of autonomy entails with it another concept that of interdependence. Because a human, though being autonomous in his decisions and plans, these still take into consideration the social context with its norms and traditions because learning cannot happen irrelevant of other human constructs. Autonomy is a collective work creation, exploring, negotiation new knowledge always takes more than one person interdependence. Becauseometrically measurable entity that individuals register irrespective of their connection to other people, rather, that it happens as a result of close connection in cohesive social groupings or communitiesontHaythornthwaite, 2011,p.34).
Therefore being interdependent also entails the idea of cooperation between members in the process of learning that can be promoted through activities such as authentic interaction with the natives, colloborative work; open ended tasks, control over resources and content of learning (Benson and Roller, 1997, p.33).
Self Learning in LLSNS
Although self study can happen within the formal learning environment, it can indeed be seen on a wider and more explicit dimension when it comes to that type of online informal learning we are to discuss in this paper presented by language learning social networking sites (LLSNS) such as Lang-8,LingQ,bussu, Babble and Livemocha. Users in Lang-8, the site under examination in this paper, seek knowledge through their own effort of interacting with other users and involving in the different practices offered by these site such as chat, group discussions, writing journals and providing feedback by working under their own direction outside the conventional language-teaching classroomvingenson, P. (2001) p.13).. In addition to this, through an individual self study of the language materials and resources offered by the website or members. So, in this sense they are seeking and acquiring knowledge by their own efforts. This process of knowledge seeking and acquisition is facilitated by the opportunity for learners from all over the world to collaborate, share resources and materials and unite in spite of the physical distance.
As Leake (1997) has stated:
Our activity, our engagement, our cognition are always linked, coo-dependent on the participation and the activity of other people, tools, symbols, process and objects. The way we are participating, the practices we embark on depend on that extensive community with which we have joined. When we participate, we change. Our identity-in-practice develops. Within that framework we are no longer autonomous individuals but individuals-in-activity. (p. 38)

Second, this activity of informal learning that involves searching for knowledge and understanding or learning skills does occur free of any external curriculum criteria participation and the activity of other people, tools, symbols, process and objects. The way was been defined as” the act of learning a language outside the framework of an educational institution and without the intervention of a teacher” (Benson and Roller,1997.p.19). This autonomy is exhibited by acting “freely, with a sense of volition and choiceandDeci and Flaste 1996, p.89), by choosing when, where, what, with whom and via what media or methods to engage (Hsieh, 2012) and by having the complete flexibility on deciding their own rules, schedule, content, and kind of practice and participation according to their own preferences, thus having a kind of independent learning outside the school (Yap, 1998; Fowler, 1997)

Moreover, LLSNS allows the opportunity to get into contact with native speakers of the language and this more authenticity. Interaction in informal environments with native speakers allows the learning process to be more natural and lively as compared to classroom. In most of classrooms, language used is prepared, boxed and modeled for students to imitate (oreover, LLSN Conversation lessons for example usually consist of made up conversations designed mainly for language learners deprived from authenticity and real world interactions. Using language on the social networks, on the contrary, go beyond the simple rehearsal of language in classroom and “deal with uncertainties and ambiguities rather than relying on simplicities and rigid form-meaning correspondences” (Keen, 2007, p 17).

Self-Learning and Formal Learning
Self initiated learning is controlled and guided by self, according to needs and interests and it seems to yield better results. Falk and Dierking (2002) believe that people who initiate learning learn more and better than others in traditional learning. They enter into learning purposively and motivated and they retain what they learnt longer. Teachers assume that students learn in return for rewards whereas self directed learning is internally motivated by, for instance, curiosity, need for self esteem or desire to achieve. When it is internally motivated, it becomes highly effective. Unlike learning within the formal institutional circle, learning a language online through LLSNS is optional, it is self -motivated and stems from onethe simple iative and desire to learn. The results, therefore, would likely be more positive than when the learning undertaken is not a choice. Knowles noted that “people who take the initiative in learning (proactive learners) learn more things and learn better than do people who sit at the feet of teachers, passively waiting to be taught (reactive learners)…they enter into learning more purposefully and with greater motivation” (p. 14). The very act of initiating the action is itself an explanation of this difference in the motivational attitude. Besides, the non-threatening environment of these informal websites creates a safer place for learning and production (Benson, 2001)
Learning in social networks is based on the concept of community of a certain interest or demand where dynamic relationships are developed to form what is known as communities of practice, or, since talking about online social networks, online communities of practice.
Community of Practice
Community of Practiceeeeks is based on the principle of a community as unity of Practice and purpose. It is predicated on the following common practices which imply that people in a community; depend upon one another; make decisions together; identify themselves as part of something larger than the sum of their individual relationships; and commit themselves for the long term to their own, one anotheronline social networks, online communities enger and his colleagues McDermott andd his colleagues Mcthe features illustrated above about community of practice are also exhibited presently in what is referred to as online communities (also known as cyberspace, web group, virtual community, web community, virtual social networks).i
Online communities have been defined (integrated quotations) by various authors similarly. Rheingold (1993) states that finedon the concept of community ofe in common practices; depend upon one another; make decisions together; identify themselves as part of something larhuman feeling, to form Webs of personal relationships in cyberspaceberspacingold (1993) states that finedon the concept of c“the concept of cpt of cedon thefinedon the concept of communitpace(1993) states that finedon the concept of community ofe in common practices; depend upon one another; make decisions together; id the course of their joint activity around that endeavorvorEckhert and McConnel-Ginet, 1992,p.464). Chen, Chen, and Kinshuk (2009), define a virtual learning community as ne a virtual learningearning009), define a virtual ch individuals and groups of geographically dispersed learners accomplish their e-learning goalss andningrningearningce is defined elsewhere as ions together; identify themselves as – in short, practices – emerge in the course of their joint activity arouces they are doing and their participation in the community.
Wenger, E , McDermott, A. and Snyder, W. (2013) state that the structure of community of practice consists of three elements. First, is the domain which is the topic, what brings people together and guides their practice. It shows what members can share. Second, there is a community which is a group of people who interact, work together, build social relationships and develop a sense of belonging and commitment. Finally, there is the practice in which members share the basic knowledge of community. Practice includes books, websites, articles, documents, ideas, experiences, information, and ways of addressing problems and activities that members share.
The Three Dimensions of COP
Communities itself consist of three dimensions. First, since a community is based mainly on people, mutual engagement is one main construct. Indeed, taking part and engaging in the community entails the existence of relationships between engaging in the community entails the existence of relationships betweenng part andhich members share the basic knowledge of community. Practice inrelationships and develop a sense of bu.nd thed thelop a sense of bu.nd these of bu.nd thare based. You benefit members build social relationd hinders this engagement, who is good at what and thus assigning roles accordingly.
Another dimension is the purpose of gathering or what Wenger (1999) calls you.nd theationd hinders this engagement, who is good at what and thus assigning roles accordingly.elationships and develop a sharing a common interest (Sugarman, 2011). It emerges as a result of members (membersyou.nd theu.nd the11). It emerges to contributions which represent their shared goal.u.nd theationd hinders this engagemenh“a flavor of continuous interaction, of gradual achievement, and of give and takey on whiccNegotiation of meaning arise as a result of the interaction of two processes, namely–amelyation of meaning arise as participation is the “complex process that combines doing, talking, thinking, feeling, and belonging. It involves our whole person including our bodies, minds, emotions, and social relations (Wenger, 1998, p. 56).” While reification is the “process of giving form to our experience by producing objects that congeal this experience into thingness” (Wenger, 1998, p. 58). The purpose of a community of practice (COP) can be that of seeking and exchanging information such as asking specialized people in specialized forums, providing services and emotional support (Preece, 2000; Greece, 2000). It could also be chatting and socializing informally or discussing ideas with longer and more thoughtful responses (Greece, 2000).2000).ose of involving in joint enterprise entails a commitment to mutual accountability, a respect and responsibility members should hold towards each other. Mutual accountability tenets and principles can be materialized through the formation of explicit rules and policies but it could also be a behavior implicit within the practices among the members of one community.
Throughout the process of interaction and collaboration between community members to achieve their set goal, a “Throughout the process of interaction and collaboration between community members to achieve their set goal, a of one community.Wenger, 1998, p. 58). The purpose of a community of practice (COP) can be that of seeking and exchanging information such as ase the interaction, which can be explicit rules or implicit ones (Preece, 2000), style of the community, discourse and genre used, the words employed by members, gestures and routines members get accustomed to, rules, policies, and methods members users usehared enterprise). The shared rartifacts including language, jargon, drawing and labeling conventions, asynchronous postings, chat logs, and e-mail records (Winsor, 2001) is accumulated over time to act as resources.
Herring (2004, pp. 351-352) has defined six features of COP:
1. active participation and a core of regular participants
2. shared history, purpose, culture, norms, and values
3. solidarity, support, reciprocity
4. criticism, conflict, means of conflict resolution
5. self-awareness of group as entity distinct from other groups
6. emergence of roles, hierarchy, governance, rituals
Negotiation of meaning arises as a result of the interaction of two processes –raction of two processes ises as a result of the inther groupsn community members to ac2000).ent of members and their shared enterprise). The shared repertand methods members users usehminds; emotions, and social relations” (Wenger, 1998, p. 56), “emotions, and social relaarises as a result of relations with others that reflect this process. It suggests both action and connection.(Wenger, 1999, p.55).” Wenger, 1999, p.55).on and connections process.e int groupsupsentions, asynchronous postings, chat logs, and e-mail records (custong. It involves our whole person incluwhile reification is the “process of giving form to our experience by producing objects that congeal this experience into thingness” (Wenger, 1998, p. 58).
Learning in communities of practice is based mainly on the interaction between members and thus it is a social process. Social context, as stated by the sociocultural theory, is an important factor towards learning. The socio-cultural theory represented by Vygostky states that language development occurs as a result of social interaction with expert people, whether they are native or more advanced language learners. Learning is a process of socialization between individuals, not merely information carried out solo by individual and exclusively cognitive regardless of the social surrounding. “Social interaction actually produces new elaborate advanced psychological processes that are unavailable to the organism working in isolation “(vygostky, 1989, p. 61). Therefore, appears the importance of learning through socialization, and hence comes the importance of language socialization. L2 language socialization is defined by Duff (2009, p.1) as “the process by which non-native speakers of a language…ative speakers of a languagedefined by Duff (2009, p.1) as and the ability to participate in the practices of communities in which that language is spoken.o
In literature, COP was used as a framework (Hodkinson and Hodkinson 2004; Johnson, 2005) to study the practices of learners of English (Daniel-Gittens, 2013) and as a descriptive approach to analyze organization, participation and outcome (Heo, 2008). And, most of all, it is used as a way to talk about collaboration and knowledge sharing in online communities. Many studies have examined online discussion boards as communities as COP (Heo, 2008), Q and A spaces as COP (Rosenbaum and Shachaf, 2009; Jensen, 2003)
Reciprocity and Collaboration in COP

As part of the mutual engagement and interaction between participants, a sense of solidarity, support, reciprocity grew (Herring, 2004). Meaning is not created individually, it n between participants, a sense of solidarity, supportnamic relation of living in the worldity, suppo 1998, p.54) Learning in communities of practice is based mainly on the interaction between members and thus it is a social process. Social context, as stated by the sociocultural theory, is an important factor towards learning. The socio-cultural theory represented by Vygostky states that language development occurs as a result of social interaction with expert people, whether they are native or more advanced language learners. Learning is a process of socialization between individuals, not merely information carried out solo by individual and exclusively cognitive regardless of the social surrounding. “Social interaction actually produces new elaborate advanced psychological processes that are unavailable to the organism working in isolation “(vygostky, 1989, p. 61). Therefore, it appears that the importance of learning through socialization, and hence comes the importance of language socialization. L2 language socialization is defined by Duff (2009, p.1) as “the process by which non-native speakers of a language…ative speakers of a languagedefined by Duff (2009, p.1) as and the ability to participate in the practices of communities in which that language is spoken.om
A key concept in the formation and development of a community is reciprocity and collaboration which encourages members to contribute to the community with the understanding that they will benefit from participation as well (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002).

Social contact and interaction in a community entails a sense of reciprocity and collaboration which encourages members to contribute to the community with the understanding that they will benefit from participation as well (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). In the field of learning language, online communities of practice are pushed mainly by the collaboration between its members to achieve the goals the community has set. Hsieh (2012) has done a content analysis of an online community of practice for language learners which included only the messages germane to language knowledge and strategies. The discussions between members centered around different topics such as exchanging information about accessing language materials and resources and about best strategies to use for learning languages which indicates how members share knowledge and benefit each other.
Collaboration is not only understood here in the sense of knowledge sharing in its cognitive aspects but there is also An emotional support (Preece, 2000) has also grown between members as they encourage and show support to each other by sharing their incentives and goals of learning that brought them to the website and sharing their language learning experience in terms of difficulty and complexity of language and how to overcome this. They also shared opinions on which language(s) to learn, and justifying choices of languages for others or selves to learn. Finally, members collaborated with each other by evaluating each other work.
A sense of solidarity and support was also present in some communities. Expressions of solidarity (positive comments, humor, and jokes), support in terms of asking and seeking advice, reciprocity to compliments were all manifested. (Ryynänen, 2013; Lonn, 2006). Gray (2002) in his study of a community of practice created by adult learning coordinators found that there were many “feeling for you” postings that wove threads of cooperation, empathy, and community. There was a noticeable absence of any “flame wars,” and themes in the online stories and postings served to minimize differences rather than to preserve independence. This created a comfortable environment where novices acquire knowledge and skills from the experts
Kimble,C. , Hildreth,P. and Bourdon,I. (ends)(2008) have examined school teachers group as a cop who share their experiences and ideas online. The use of tech helped them exchange web links, create and edit documents, communicate with teachers outside school and in distant locations.
Online Discussion Forums:
Content Analysis of Online Discussion:
There have been many studies examining and evaluating the content in online educational discussions but mostly on online courses (Nandi, Hamilton, and Harland, 2012; Pena-Shaffa and Nichollsb, 2004).
McKenzie and Murphy (2000) Studied online interaction bet students and staff using Henris model of content analysis and have found that the online discussion as mostly used for cognitive rather than social activities. For example, they used it to discuss content of course and ask for clarifications, exchanging suggestions and practical solutions about teaching problems
Ducate and Arnold (2006) have Studied two foreignoreignt to discuss content of course and ask for clarifications, exchanging suggestions and practical solution’s Framework of a Community of Inquiry (2001), that the students have exchanged emotional expressions ofolikes and dislikes of educational material, open communicationudents have exchanged emotional expressions ofons, exchanging suggestions and practical solutions about teaching problems e expertsand community. There was a noticeable abse (starting a new topic or discussion), exploration (giving info, solutions, suggestions, integration (referring and adding to others, telling experience), resolution (practical side).nicationudents have exchanged emotional expressions ofons, excreg environment since it allows them the time to reflect upon theireir the w
Ng, Cheungt and Hewt (2011) in his study of peer facilitation techniques with Asian students in online discussion,essions ofcussion,essions off peer facil’a viewpoints this study of peer facilitation techniques with Asian students in online discussion,iscussion,essions ofcussion,essions off Questioning study of peer facilitators’points Giving personal opinion iving personal opinion techniques with Asian s
McLoughlina* and Mynardb (2009) Discussion forum postings by students were analysed for evidence of higher-order thinking and were placed within one of the model’s categories of triggering’, iggeroration’, iggeroration’, or erorationf ’. The researchers did find evidence of higher-order thinking processes. The results showed that the majority of postings were either categorised as gorised as r’aor gorised as ’. The results also supported the notion that the correct conditions need to be present in order for higher-order thinking to arise. The findings suggested that the initial teacher prompt or question may have had a bearing on the nature of learners’ postings.
Shukor, Tasir, Meijden, Harun, (2014). this research attempted to investigate the students’rbehaviour and their strategies to construct knowledge during online collaborative discussions. Using the combination of content analysis and sequential analysis technique, this research found that groups those being able to construct high-level knowledge tend to negotiate on shared information. Argumentation is also found to contribute for successful knowledge construction at higher-level
Kui Xie and Fengfeng Ke (2011) conducted a content analysis of online discussions to understand the nature of computer-supported collaborative learning and discover how students’(motivation, which is a crucial factor to the success of collaborative learning, relates with their interaction and knowledge construction in peer-moderated online discussions. Discussion contents from 23 students in an online class were analysed. The results indicated that perceived value, competence and autonomy were critical factors that influenced lower level interactions; intrinsic motivation was the critical factor that influenced the individualistic elaboration interactions, whereas relatedness was the critical factor that influenced the collaborative elaboration interactions. The results also indicated that autonomy and relatedness were the critical factors that influenced the moderation behaviours. The findings suggest that teachers in online classes should promote students’ motivation, and more importantly, scaffold student moderators in meaningful earning during peer-moderated online discussions.
Fahy (2003), and more importantly, scaffold student moderators in meaninstudents forum engaged in a course. The finding that students in three courses from two different distance programs and institutions used online interaction similarly in supportive ways, including going beyond academic requirements and expectations to motivate, demonstrate willingness to comment, and encourage others to continue interacting, is important.
COP as a Platform for Language Learning
Online communities of practice can serve as a fertile environment for improving language skills. In a study with immigrant kids performed by Black (2006) who also explored L2 literacy activities of a Chinese adolescent immigrant living in Canada, named Nanako, on the online Fanfiction site Fanfiction.net ( a community containing games, music, stories and other sources on anime characters from cartoons and movies). Black focused on the role of this kind of popular culture among youth and the role of the information communication technology embedded in this Fanfiction website in the development of Nanakt of Nanaks and other sources the change of her online identities. As the researcher narrated, Nanako was 11 years old when she first immigrated to Canada, and spoke mainly Mandarin Chinese. During the first semester of school in Canada, she experienced a hard time in learning subjects and making friends due to her limited English. However, while participating in social and discursive activities on Fanfiction.net (such as reading other authors’ fiction first, publicly posting her own fiction, and receiving readerl feedback later), she started to build her image as a successful, popular fan fiction writer on the site, and to improve her writing abilities. The researcher posited that the success of Nanako could be attributed to the nature of the website where dialogic resources, such as positive and constructive critique from other members, expression, and interaction. Likewise, Wren (2014) analyzes the discourse among participants in an online fan fiction website in order to find evidence of writing support and effective writing instruction. Participants in the community contribute to the success of writers as they comment on stories and in the forums. The four themes found on this website, general praise, advice, engage with details, and asking questions generally help in encouraging writers.
On the same token examining literacy in the form of online gaming, Lee (2012) has chosen Mod the Sims (MTS), an online gaming community, as a site for his research that aims at understanding the different kinds of learning practices that are not commonly observed in formal educational settings and to explore its usersh experiences. To achieve this goal, the researcher conducted a four-year study with the data corpus including hundreds of thread posts, member profiles, online interview data obtained through email and personal messaging, screenshots, field notes, and additional artifacts. The participant, Nicole, join the site motivated by her desire to build social relationship with others and by her interest in the game. The researcher suggested that the website has provided her with reading and writing opportunities in English in very authentic and situated environments leading her to better her language skills. The linguistic analysis of the participantthread posts, member profiles, online interview data obtained language (vocabulary and certain terms specific to the game and known by its fans) and her confidence to express herself in English increased tremendously since she posted her first comment. This affinity space and the people within it support and reinforce Nicole’s varied goals and interests, which ultimately accelerated her English language learning. She made many friends all around the world and has been communicating through posts in forums, Web chats, and Skype chats. In addition, the participant has gone through different roles as content creator, social cheer-leader, guidance provider, advisor, site helper, and tutorial writer, which enhance her language practices and ability in special and everyday English.
Providing feedback to online peers is one type of community collaboration. Language learning websites featuring social networks characteristics have become a popular way to receive evaluation on one’netics ha on oneme a popular way to receive networks charactellaborationudy with the data corpus including hundrpant in Livemocha (a popular LLSNS) had submitted oral and/or written exercises to the site and received feedback from other users, and among these participants, more than 95 percent found it beneficial to their language learning. Participants received, as they report, constructive feedback, and some reported that they received almost instant feedback from native speakers. The researcher showed how participants were active and serious in responding to the feedback they receive by rewriting or recording exercises. The researcher also found a sense of commitment and devotion from members towards each other as native speakers tended to provide multiple comments on different exercises from the same participant, and appeared to be analyzing individuals’ progress using encouraging words as “You are getting better, Good job, you are improving very fast.”
Asynchronous online feedback help ESL students in their feelings of isolationnd received feedback from other users, and among these participants, more than 95 percent found it benenxious and time constrained (Hansen, J. and Liu, J. 2002).
COP in Formal Classroom
Utilizing such online tools can foster learning online and thus used in many courses formally such as online discussions (Mohamad & Shaharuddin, 2014; Nandi, Hamilton and Harland, 2012). Becker (2012)cker (2012)12) (2012)courses formally such as online discussions (their own words instead of reciting Web 2.0 learning environment, students learned to work together, listen to each other, and share in the decision-making process. Interactions were found to be generally encouraging and supportive with the presence of personal anecdotes which indicates how comfortable they were with the communication medium. i
Features of Learning in COP
Some factors might also help creating a fertile environment for learners to better their skills. In such online communities, the approach to learning and the environment in which members immerse is quite different from the formal face to face learning situations taking place in educational institutions. Since it is an informal education motivated by self interest, there seems then to be less stress and anxiety which decrease the filter effect (Krashen, 1982) that has a role in interrupting the uptake and preventing the learner from properly acquiring the second language. There is also no competition (since members do not need to seek a credit for contributing something), a good amount of commitment to the group and to the goals of community, intolerance or hierarchy but instead, “inclusion and patience with disagreement” (Livingstone,2001, p.279).
Bakar, Latiff,, & Hamat, 2013) have conducted a study on using asynchronous forum discussion for low ESL students and has found a positive effect because it eliminates the physical barrier. Students thus had more confidence and less anxiety in a non-threatening environment. On the same token, Omar, Embi, & Yunus (2012) has given 31 learners topics to choose from and divided them into groups to have discussion on them online. They found that there was less intimidation and thus more interaction in addition to the convenience of having interaction anytime. The online discussion was especially useful among those who lacked confidence and were hesitant to participate in face-to-face interactions in English since they seldom used the language

The fact that members in informal online communities are unknown to each other (mostly) and being away from each other (no face to face interaction) put less stress and fear of losing face. It also allows them to them tot that members in informal online communities are unknown to each other (mostly) and being away from each other (no face to face interaction) put less stress and fear of losing face. It also allows convenience of having interaction. (Sugarman, 2011) expressed confidence and freedom in discussing topics unlike being in front of peers. One even comments by saying that lf-confonline removes all the physical components that we judge. We are able to eliminate a lot of barriers and communicate without any of the questions or judgmentr judgmentestions or judgmentjudgmentg have inhibited students in their efforts of providing feedback (Dippold, pressed confidence and freedom in discussing (Cho, 2012). This also created more equal participation (Cho, 2012; Burke, 2013). In some LLSNS, learners are learning each others,’ach others, 2013). In some LLSNS, learners are learning Cho,nlike being in front of peers. One even comments by sayin supportive and helpful environment because everyone wants to learn L2 (Cho, 2012)
In-class involvement with language might be dominated by native speakers (when it takes place in a mainstream environment) which lead students (Burke, 2013) to escape this environment in which ESL students are explicitly aware of their linguistic differences to a virtual learning environment. Therefore, they find themselves more willing to accept negative critique or disagreement in discussion and to ate a lot of barriers and communicate withzed by others othersexplicit 2001: p.280). The informal out of school literacy acts seem to be empowering of their users at a time when the surrounding environment at school is not especially for minorities. In this regard, Burke (2013) has examined the out of school literacy digital practices such as online gaming, chat rooms, and forum postings of two young immigrants and showed how they embraced linguistic and culturally diverse ways of using language in virtual spaces, and how these virtual spaces became spaces of learning where social and cultural development occurred. These two ESL students (Lourdes and Aamir) found the online environments to be offering them a space of equity as English language learners, unlike in school where both are being explicitly aware of their linguistic differences. For Lourdes, chat-rooms demonstrated how she extended home literacy practices valued by her family, such as debating, to the wider online world seeking out opportunities to discover how other think. Through online posting with bluekaffee.com, Lourdes found a discourse community in which she could read about the life experiences of others and share her own. These kinds of literacies, with the sophisticated types of reading and writing they involve appeal to the participants’ personal interests and abilities and thus those two students were able to demonstrate an understanding of how to use their authoring and creative experiences on the internet .
Additionally, the asynchronous nature of online learning sites makes it: the learner does not have to be present at the same time and can get access to information and discussions anytime and eerily hey are stored for an extended period. It also allows simultaneous participation unlike face to face interaction. Stubbs (1996) said that in spoken conversation, formation and discussions anytime and eerily hey are stored for an extended period. .. . . [whereas] written text is still present, readers can look back at it, and written language may therefore be retrospectively structureducturedr). Asynchronous communication allows for the deliberate or unintentional use of wait time, enabling participants to contemplate and ruminate over their ideas before posting them in the public forum. This aspect may increase the quality of thought in any given response.
Feedback
Written corrective feedback (written and commentary feedback response to students writings (ritinggshas been and still a widely discussed topic. Feedback is conceptualized as information provided by an agent (e.g., teacher, peer, book, parent, self, quality op) regarding aspects of one in the public forum. This aspect may increase the quality o
Peer feedback has positive effects on students in ESL writing classes in several ways. For example, it improves students self confidence, it makes students accountable for their own learning, it minimizes grading workload on teachersoad on teachersstudents r, peer, book, partheir writing weaknesses, and it builds a community of learners in ESL writing classes. (Thokwane,2011).
Peer feedback is significant because it motivates students to collaborate and form teamwork, it also places a responsibility on them to reflect on each othersc’the othersck is significant because it motivates students to collaborate and form teamwork, it also places a responsibility (Hyland,K. and Hyland, F. 2006), found that teachers find it hard to offer form focused feedback due to large number of students and short time accompanied with a pressure to write free error in schools and formal writing
Additionally, Rollinson (2005) learners are less overwhelmed and thus would provide denser, rich and high quality feedback, peer feedback is also less authoritative and students don of students and short time accompanied with a precise any institutional power or impose formal evaluation. Eksi (2012) has compared two groups of students; one receiving feedback on writing from teacher and another rely on each other for that. The researcher noticed that the students in the peer group did not only correct the linguistic surface errors but they were also able to delve deeper to comment on organization and coherence and content. Students appreciated the act of peer feedback as it was helpful, informative and accurate most of the time. it also helped them to gain autonomy since they produced everything from the first draft till the final with little to no help from the teacher. What is even more interesting is that the level of their work, as the researcher suggests, is comparable to those supervised by teacher. However, deere is sometimes a common concern raised by some researchers is that the students may not be in a position to correct each other writing because they are similar in their proficiency level in the language (Which is not in Lang-8). It can also prove to be valuable.
Pawlak (2013) stated that feedback consists of different types of repair including positive (praise) and negative (correction). Feedback refers to a more general concept than correction or error correction. The latter is limited, as the name suggests, to fixing any deviation from language. Errors correction is orrection). Feedback refers to a moency pair to a first speakerection or error correction. The latter is limited, as the name sut all or part of that utterance is linguistically or factually wrongs may not be in a pos. The word is orrect, however, refers to comments on and responses to what the learner has written, making suggestions to add depth to the content or improve the style of writing in addition to correcting errors, and in this sense errors correction can be considered a part of feedback but not the opposite. Feedback can also be specific focusing only on one aspect (correction errors) and this type of feedback is called “corrective feedback”.
Online Feedback
One of the advantages of social media is ing in addition Poore, 2013, p.8) and getting feedback from a wider audience. Therefore, giving feedback through online medium has been used widely in education. It is a new innovative way of pairing students and having them revise with each other. Woo, Chu, Wah, & Li (2013) have noticed that students who use Wiki improved more as a result of the revision and comments they received. The Wiki page history revealed information on the types of revisions that occurred, showing that different types of feedback elicited actual revisions, which may have resulted in better group writing. Additionally, it was convenient receiving comments anytime and anywhere giving them no restrictions in time or location (Liu and Hansen, 2002)2
Likewise, seventh grade students in a study held by Hunt-Barron, S. (2011) have used an online community for peer revision and collaboration. The analyses revealed improvement in the amount of student revision and quality of student writing, as well as improved peer feedback using. The success was related to the teacher’s commitment to writing and reflective practice, positive student attitudes and strong bonds between students, and sense of playfulness brought to the peer revision process by technology making it less anxious (Liu and Hansen, 2002)
Although most CMC feedback within institutional circle (Sauro, 2009; Ware and O9; hin institutional circle (tudy henon formal level. For example, Lin,C. ( (. (For example, Lin,C. (, Lin,Livemocha collaboration. ple, Lin,C. (, Lin,C. (tudy held by Hunt-Barron, S. (20error correction, and 3) metalinguistic feedback (Lyster &Ranta, 1997). In recast corrective feedback, repetition of content is provided in a grammatically correct way. Among four negotiation strategies recast corrective feedback, repetition of content is provided in aon checks.aLivemocha tend to be encouraging: among all feedback examined, not a single entry showed any discouragement but instead empowers reluctant and less advantaged students.
It is student centered, can initiate discussions any time and encourages a sense of collaboration and community scaffolding ut instead empowbehavior by which an expert can help a novice learner achieve higher levels of regulation (Hyland,K. and Hyland, F. (2006, p.25). Olesova, L. 2014).

Written Corrective Feedback
a. What is an Error
Errors refer simply to any linguistic deviation from the correct forms of the target language, but we need here to differentiate between an error and a mistake. Lennon (1991, p.182) defines an error as “ation from the correct forms of the target language, but we needcontext and under similar conditions of production, would, in all likelihood, not be produced by the speakers error and a mistake. Lennon (1991, p.182) defines an error as udents.ovement in the amount of student e or pen caused by external factors such as being tired or stressed. A mistake is a faulty use of language that is a result of a random choice or a m choi, but an error is a result of lack of competence in that L2 rule or area but a, 2000).
Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982, p.139), for instance, refer to fer to ce in that L2 rule or areae produced by the speakers error and a mistake. Lennon (1991, p.182) defines an error as udents.ovement in the amount of student e or pen caused by external factors such asherhe perspective whereby he sees , refer to fer to ce in that L2 or structure that a particular language teacher deems unacceptable because of its inappropriate use or its absence in real-life discourses error and aLong precisely defines an error as:
(1) 1) , Burt and Krashen (1982, p.139), for instance, refer to fer to ce in that L2 rule or areae produced by the speakers error and a mi182) defines an error as udents.ovement in the amount of student e or pen caused by

(2) (2) , Burt and Krashen (1982, p.139), for instance, refer to (3) (3) , Burt a of student e or pen caused byins
(4) (4) , Burt a of student e or pen caused byinstance, refer to fer to ce r by the teacher (Long, 1977, p. 279)
b. WCF (Written Corrective Feedback)
There has been and still clashing opinions about the value of written feedback on students’tuden feedback on studentslashing opinions about the value of wr to ce in that L2 rule or areae p 1982 and Truscott, 1996). On the contrary, studies show that students who received feedback made some progress inrses error and a mistake. Lennon (1991, p.182)tchener, John and Ferris, 2012). Besides, teachers feel obliged to provide their students with feedback since this felt to be their duty as students want to know their weaknesses and strengths. The cognitive perspective proponents say that when a person receives input it needs attentional control at the beginning until it becomes an automatic process and during this process, a learner goes through reconstructing of linguistic repertoire that he acquired before. Corrective feedback (CF) can help a learner reach this automatic phase (Kitchener, John and Ferris, Dana, 2012). Error correction, or Corrective Feedback (there is a difference between these) , is based on the belief of the behaviorists that learning is a matter of habit formation and thus errors should be avoided to minimize the danger of fossilization and to cut off the effect of wrong habit on learning (Pawlak, 2013)
Types of Corrective feedback:
There are different types of written corrective feedback found in literature. Below is a list and some explanation about each:
1. Explicit correction (Rezaei, Mozaffari and Hatef, 2011; Diane Tedick and Gortari, 1998; Caroll and Swain, 1993). It is also called direct correction (Ferris, 2003; Ellis, 2012). In such type of corrective feedback, the CF provider clearly indicates that the student’s utterance or writing was incorrect and is the CF provider clearly indicates that the Caroll and Swain, 1993, p.361) and then he/she provides the correct form for the student. It does not only the studentand som13)s sho but also provides specific solutions to the problemon and to cut off Thus, basically, the corrector, be it a teacher, peer, tutor, or any other provider gives the correct linguistic from in a word, morpheme, phrase, and students are expected to basically implement these changes into their revised version. This can be done in different ways on students’ versions. Teachers provide correct form, i.e. crossing out an unnecessary word, phrase or morpheme, inserting a missing word, phrase or morpheme, inserting a missing word or morpheme, and writing the correct form above or near to the erroneous form (Ferris 2006). direct feedback has been criticized (Ferris,2006; Ellis,2012) for giving an explicit guidance on how to correct and thus it requires minimal cognitive effort, which might be basically noticing and applying since explicit error correction reduces the need for the learner to produce a modified response (Rezaei, Mozaffari and Hatef, 2011). Therefore, it may not help in long-term learning. However, the direct approach would be helpful for low proficiency students as they need a comprehensible input to enhance their acquisition and who do not have a sufficient linguistic knowledge to draw upon. It is also appropriate for untreatable errors as they have no fixed rule and therefore needs direct correction so as to prevent fossilization
2. Implicit correction ((Rezaei, Mozaffari and Hatef, 2011; Diane Tedick and Gortari, 1998) or what is called indirect correction (Ferris, 2002; Ellis, 2012). Unlike direct or explicit feedback, the indirect or implicit feedback Involves indicating that the learner has made an error but without actually correcting it (Ellis, 2012). Implicit Feedback include things like e indirect or implici failures to understand, and requests for clarification (Caroll and Swain,1993, p.361).This can be done by underlining the errors or using cursors to show omissions in the learnersartext or by placing a cross in the margin next to the line containing the error (Elllis,2012). Indirect feedback was argued for as being superior to the direct feedback as it motivates students to be responsible and to think and search for answers themselves which boost cognitive development and problem solving skills (be responsible and to think and search for answers themselves which boost cognitive development and problem solving skills or by placing a cross in the margin next to the line contag (Ferris and Roberts 2002). However, such approach would best fit intermediate and advanced students who have reached a linguistic level that enables them to work on figuring out changes themselves and might not work with beginners who lack the sufficient ability to self-correct not knowing the correct form (Ferris, 2002). Besides, learners may not know for certain if they are doing it right (Ellis, R. (2012). Indirect feedback itself can be divided into coded and uncoded feedback (Ferris, 2002). Coded feedback refers to the one where the teacher provides a clarification for the type of error committed whether this classification is a symbol or a code like (vt for verb tense, and np for noun phrase), or whether it is a whole word illustration. On the other hand, uncoded errors are errors that are just being underlined or circled or pointed out to in any way but not categories. When providing coded feedback, Ferris (2002) suggests to put into consideration the linguistic background of the student. For example, they are likely to be more familiar with grammatical terms if they have studied formally from textbooks while this chance is low if they have acquired language through the natural exposure to L2 in a target language speaking country. Expectedly, Ferris (2002) have concluded from her revision of studies in the field that whether the error is coded and categories for the student to know it type or not, there is no difference in terms.
3. Recast ((Rezaei, Mozaffari and Hatef (2011) and Diane Tedick and Gortari (1998, Ellis, 2001).It refers to Ellis’ vision of studies in the firners).It refers to s,llie fi and Diane Tedick and Gortari (1998, Ellis,ether the error i’s utterance was incorrect, the teacher implicitly reformulates the student’s error, or provides the correction. It is also referred to sometimes as reformulation(Ellis,2012): write a native speaker version, not only correct errors rewriting students text in a way thato preserve as many of the writers ideas as possible while expressing his words in a native like way): write a native speaker version,now ius on grammar but all aspects of writing (Ellis, R. (2012)
4. Metalinguistic written corrective feedback (Ellis, 2012). It Provides learners with some form of explicit comment about the nature of the errors they have made. It can be done using either error codes, i.e. abbreviated labels for different kinds of errors placed over the location of the error in the text or in the margin. e.g. art = article, prep = preposition, sp = spelling, ww = wrong word, t = tense, etc. or metalinguistic explanations of their errors, e.g. numbering errors and providing metalinguistic comments at the end of the text. metalinguistic codes, or explanation: (like you need to put an a before a noun mentioned for the first time)this is time consuming, require teachers to provide clear simple explanation, be good in grammar (Ellis,R. (2012)
5. selective (Ferris,2002) or focused (Ellis,2012). Selective corrective feedback refers to that feedback that targets certain linguistic issues for some reasons. It could be that these are the most common and problematic for learner or it could be although they are the core of the grammar instructions to which attention should be devoted. some prefer the first so as not to overwhelm students and allow them to focus on their problems (Ferris, D. (2003) as it provides multiple corrections of the same error and thus become more likely to be attended to by learners and more likely to help learners to develop understanding of the nature of the error (Ellis,2012)
6. Comprehensive (Ferris, 2002) or unfocused (Ellis,2012). a comprehensive feedback refers to the noe where the corrector provides the writer with a feedback (whether direct or indirect) of all errors and issues in his/her writing. This type might not be as effective in assisting learners to acquire specific features as focused written corrective feedback in the short term, it may prove superior in the long term (Ellis, 2012). Ferris,D. (2003) , others say that it should be comprehensive because students may believe in the correctness of their production. However, this second approach is definitely more exhausting and time consuming for teachers and sometimes overwhelming for students. As such, some linguistic prefer the selective approach as it directs efforts of both teacher and learner to certain patterns that are either problematic for the students or lesson-targeted.

However, the case in Lang-8, the study chosen context, might not be the same as the formal school classroom in terms of the relationship of teacher with students and the physical setting although allows instructors to be familiar with students and their errors and needs and level of progress. The providers of correction in the website have no clue to the writersn level of linguistic knowledge as to provide customized feedback. Additionally, and as mentioned before that comprehensive feedback may overwhelm students, this same thing may not be said about Lang-8 since it is self-intimated learning and so overwhelming learners should not be a concern as they are not obliged to deal with all the corrections received or react to them by revising.
Rezaei, Mozaffari and Hatef (2011) and Diane Tedick and Gortari (1998 have also added some other types. Clarification request. Questions indicating that the utterance has been ill-formed or misunderstood by using phrases like utterance has beI dongt understand,” understand,s like utterance has been ill-formed or misunderstood also added some’s utterance contained some kind of mistake and that a repetition or a reformulation is required. this is usually related to oral feedback. Two of the strategies they talked about are related to speaking. These are repetition where the teacher repeats the student’s error and adjusts intonation to draw student’s attention to it attention to itts intonation to draw student that a repetition or a reformulation iRequest for reformulations, the use of open questions, the use of strategic pauses to allow a learner to complete an utterance.ceMetalinguistic clues. Without providing the correct form, the teacher poses questions or provides comments or information related to the formation of the student’s utterance
Research on Types of Feedback
There have been several studies that aimed at measuring the extent to whether ESL and EFL students are being able to move forward with an improvement in their writing in response to different types of teacher feedback that were investigated for this purpose. That is because teacher commentary may play a significant role in the EFL/ESL contexts because it is usually the only source, which students can obtain to revise their essays. Unfortunately, there is no common agreement among researchers regarding the practice of effective feedback.
Most of these studies have tried to compare certain types of teacher feedback by means of experimental groups and control groups. But before displaying these studies, it is a good idea to be familiar with the different types of feedback. The two most popular methods examined are the direct and the indirect feedback. As the name suggests, the direct corrective feedback refers to the teacher being the provider of the direct answers. If there is a linguistic error, for example, the teacher would not only spot the error but would also provide the correct answer to the student and may sometimes be accompanied with an explanation of why this is so (metalinguistic explanation). Direct correctioning these studies, it is a good idea to be familiar he error but also provides a specific solution to the problem” (Bitchener and Ferris, 2012, p.148). On the other hand, the indirect feedback occurs when the teacher indicates the problematic issue, be it linguistic or nonlinguistic, by means of underlines, circles, or codes, and may provide clues to the correct solution but does not provide it. Direct feedback can be referred to also as “recast” which can be either oral or written.
There is also the focused and comprehensive feedback, which also can be either direct or indirect. The focused, as it is apparent from the name, suggests that the feedback be on certain chosen issues. This way is chosen usually for different reasons. One reason might be that teacher is trying to measure the ESL/EFL student’s ability in comprehending certain grammatical rules, say the application of simple past tense as an example, and thus try only to look at this form when correcting students’ writings because the objective here is to solely teach this form through the means of writing. Moreover, teachers or feedback providers may use the focused approach because they donve feedback, which also can be either direct or indirect. The focused, as it is apparent from the name, suggests that the feedback be on certain chosen issues. This way is chosunication and understanding.
As a reply to what Truscott (1996) have argued in that corrective feedback by the teacher is not effective, pointless, or even counter-productive, a large number of studies have investigated whether certain types of corrective feedback are more likely than others to help ESL/EFL students improve the accuracy of their writing. However, the answer to whether direct feedback is better than the indirect or vice versa in terms of promoting written language accuracy is still not yet conclusive. The current studies have come up with different findings. In some studies, the direct and indirect teacher feedback did not have a noticeable difference in terms of being of a positive impact on writing accuracy (Nakazawa, 2006; Bitchener and Knoch, 2008). Surprisingly, these studies found that none of the feedback options was any more effective than the other. However, the first study has found that the absence of teacher feedback negatively influence students to write and revise a composition. On the contrary, some studies have found a significant superiority of one over the other. A recent example of that is a study held by Maleki and Eslami (2013) who, by means of pre-test, an immediate post-test, and a delayed post-test showed that the group of Iranian ESL students that received indirect feedback has performed significantly better than the direct feedback group and the control group on the delayed post-test suggesting the lasting effectiveness of the indirect feedback over direct feedback. While Bitchener and Ferris (2012) in their literature review did not only found that students prefer the direct feedback but found it also to be more effective.
Explicitness seems to be a crucial factor that influences the effectiveness of feedback. In a study conducted by Sheen (2010), the researcher was interested in finding out whether there is any difference in the effect of oral recasts and direct written correction on the acquisition of English articles. The participants were 10 teachers, all Native American speakers, and their 177 students of intermediate proficiency. The groups were asked to complete two 30-min communicative narrative tasks. For the oral feedback groups, students were asked to retell a story during which feedback was provided. For the written feedback groups, students were asked to rewrite a story and then given feedback. The results showed that the written direct group performed better than either the oral recast group or the control group in terms of total test scores. The most obvious reason for the differences in results between the group that received oral feedback and the group that received written feedback is that the students failed to notice the corrective force of the oral recasts, whereas they recognized that the written direct feedback was corrective.
Other studies were more specific in terms of what types of improvement the direct and indirect methods were able to get students at. Certain linguistic errors respond more positively to the feedback more than other errors. For example, it was found that students performed significantly better in new pieces of writing in terms of using past tense and definite articles but not the prepositions (Bitchener, Young and Cameron, 2005). The results in this study have also shown the superiority of the direct corrective feedback among the 53 post-intermediate Chinese ESL participants especially when accompanied by a short teacher-student conference. Other studies have also indicate that there is a direct relationship between direct written feedback and development of linguistic accuracy of certain tested linguistic forms, namely English past counterfactual conditional (Suh, 2010). The eighty-one Korean EFL participants in this study were asked to read a story and retell it in English. The provision of direct written feedback leads to a noticeable development and a higher level of reported awareness of the more salient structure (English past counterfactual conditionals) but not for the other linguist form tested (objective-of-preposition type of relative clauses). On a larger base, indirect and direct feedback was found to be dependent on not only the type of linguistic error, but on whether the error is linguistic or nonlinguistic in the first place. Testing Truscott’s claims that correction may have value for non-grammatical errors but not for errors in grammar, Van Beuningen, De Jong, and Kuiken (2012) have concluded that direct correction promoted durable grammatical accuracy improvements of a medium size, whereas pupils’ non-grammatical accuracy benefited most from indirect feedback.
As seen, the studies reviewed in this section show contrary findings in regard to the effectiveness of direct and indirect teacher feedback on student writing. The results in this area of responding to writing are not conclusive, but only suggestive. Therefore, some issues have to be taken into consideration more seriously to maximize the reliability of the findings. First, researchers need to take into consideration subjects’ profiles (e.g., ESL or American FL students, their motivations for writing, their prior composition instruction in L1 and L2, their L1, ESL studentsn second language writing proficiency.). Obviously, different types of learners have different types of instructional needs. Second, the type of institutions in which writing instruction and data collection take place needs to be identified. Different educational institutions are working towards different goals and through different plans. The writing programs of the institutions (e.g., college preparatory or academic writing) vary considerably according to their goals in writing.
Also, the “improvement” in writing referred to in most previous studies examining this topic in relation to ESL students were mostly related to accuracy in terms of language issues (grammar, spelling, and mechanical errors). It is noteworthy however that the types of issues being commented on in students writings are depended on teacherrevious studies examng teachers, who are concerned mainly with improvement in studentst textual quality, will make certain decisions in writing instructions and in giving feedback on student papers. That is, some teachers are more likely to make comments on organization and development of ideas, coherence, or flow. On the other hand, those particularly concerned with the development of student writers’ second language proficiency will make other types of comments; their responses tend to address the formalities (e.g., grammar, sentence structure, punctuations) of global and local writing problems.
Also, in all of these studies, the words er types of comments; their responses were used in different senses and to denote different things. Some studies for instance stated that there is a development noticed in terms of lack of errors in subsequent studentse drafts, however, we do not know if it is a real erent things. Some studies for instance stated that there is a development noticed in terms of lack of errors in subsequent stude structure that can be problematic to him or her, if we are talking about linguistic issues
Studentse Preferences of Written Feedback
Besides exploring evidence provided by empirical research in the field about the nature and the effect of different types and modes of teacher written feedback, it is essential to consider the voice of the students and their expectations from their teachers in this regard. It is apparent from the literature that has been looked at that students do value feedback from teachers considering it an important guide for them. They also believe that it is one of the teachers’ duties to help them progress by drawing their attention to what deficiencies in their writings need to be improved. It was also apparent that most students believe that teacher feedback is much more valuable than peer or self-revision because they consider the instructor to be the most knowledgeable person in that circle and the one whom they rust with providing the correct and best solutions to their writing problems.
Since feedback is all about students, directed to them and is supposed in the first place to fulfill their needs and to better their writing skills, it was necessary to examine their attitudes towards the kind of feedback they have experienced from their instructors and their perception of what a “successful” feedback is supposed to look like. Understanding these preferences is of paramount importance in the teaching and learning process. Due to such an importance, a number of studies have been carried out to examine L2 learnersh perceptions about teacher written feedback. These studies have varied in terms of participantsi number, ages, and in methodological tools from surveys to questionnaires to interviews.
A look at most of the previous studies indicate that most of the students who participated in them seem to like their teachers to provide them with an explicit comprehensive feedback on linguistic errors pointing out to every single error (McMartin-Miller, 2012; Zhu, 2010; Lee, 2005; Amrhein and Nassaji, 2010). Students explain that if the teachers were strict with them, they would make greater progress in their future language learning because it would give them the chance to know and learn from all their errors. Amrhein and Nassaji (2010) stated that students showed preference for larger quantities of error correction on all types of errors. Students thought it would be more useful to know all their errors and considered CF a learning tool. However, the few students in Leeference for larger quantities of error correction on all tyis way will help them focus more as they can concentrate only on certain types of errors. Students’ comments show that overwhelming them with too many corrections can be negative.
Although content and organization are to be paid attention to too, many students prefer a focus on the grammatical issues (Amrhein and Nassaji, 2010; Mahfoodh and Pandian, 2011). Mahfoodh and Pandian (2011) examined how the second year students in the English department in a university in Yemen perceived that their teachers should provide written feedback on all aspects of their essays: content, organization, vocabulary and mechanics. However, as students in EFL contexts, the students sometimes believed that their teachers should focus on mechanical, linguistic and vocabulary usage issues more than other aspects. They believe that the feedback is important because it draws attention to their errors so that they can avoid them and develop writing.
From the literature, it was also clear that a considerable majority of the students did prefer more concentration on the linguistic correction. The importance of grammar correction to students seems to arise from the fact that it is important too in the academic field. Students’ success or failure in academic writing is dependent in some contexts on linguistic accuracy. Shin (2008) has told the stories narrated by the five advanced ESL students that clearly demonstrate that they advocate correction of grammar because form was important for the success and acceptance of their written work formally. They reported how some papers were being commented on negatively by professors regarding linguistic issues and how some papers submitted for publication were being rejected because of poor grammar. Thus, they were proponents of grammar correction. There were some studies that illustrated how students also need teachers to pay as much attention to the content of their texts. Liao (2004) found that the students strongly desired constructive criticisms on organization, content, style, and vocabulary, and felt that they learned the most from comments on those aspects. . The importance of having feedback on both content and grammar was accentuated also by all ESL students in Mustafa (2012).
Regarding directness, almost all of the students saw the positivity of making the feedback direct with solutions and corrections provided by teacher. Amrhein and Nassaji (2010) have found that a large percentage of the students valued the Most of these studies have tried to compare certain types of teacher feedback by means and thought that clues without correction might not be helpful. Lee (2005) also found that the majority of the students to say that they wished their teachers to correct their errors directly providing them with the correct answer, mainly because this was easier for the students to get instead of looking for the answer themselves.
As to what students perceive in terms of the effectiveness of the feedback received from their teachers, some were not positive about that. Mustafa (2012) has concluded that his student participants believe that the feedback they receive had no impact on their learning and writing process with all interviewees indicating that the feedback they received did not improve their writing skills. The study also found that teacher feedback is confusing, frustrating, and ultimately ineffective. Likewise, Lee (2005) has a similar conclusion regarding the beneficial effect of teacher feedback, he found that 66% of the participants believing that they are positive that they will make the same mistakes again and only 46% said they are making progress in grammatical accuracy. It seems that committing the same errors over and over again in spite of whatever amount and type of corrective feedback received is a natural result of the stages of language development every learner has to go through. Recently, errors in second language learning are started to be viewed in more positive lenses being indicators of learning, namely the developmental errors.
in a study by the editors Hyland, K. and Hyland, F. (2006), in another study students found that praise in comments by teacher was motivating but they also welcomed constructive criticism, teacher were mitigating their negative comments for students not to lose face or lose confidence in their ability. Salih (2013) 16 ESL Malaysian students, five sessions of writing for one hour each then students have student-student conference for oral and written feedback.uStudent writers wanted more focus on grammar while reviewers focused on structure of essay.a
Focus of Feedback
According to Ellis (2012), the focus of feedback could be on three main areas: content, where informational content can be improved, organization, which is concerned with paragraph structure, and finally language and linguistic deviations and this is what is referred to as corrective feedback.
There are different views among teachers and researchers as to what feedback should be about. For example, most teachers would mainly focus their attention only on grammar, lexis and mechanical errorsThis attitude is common in ESL institutes and language learning centers in which the purpose of the whole program is concerned primarily with advancing students linguistically (Montgomery, J. and Baker, W. (2007)) Others, especially those teaching ESL students in composition mainstream classes, prefer to focus on content and avoid correcting errors whether completely or partially.
Evans, N., Hartshorn, K. ,Tuioti ,E. (2010) have conducted a survey for teachers to know why or why not providing linguistic corrective feedback to students. The teachers that support it outnumbered the ones who opposed it and their reasons were: it helps students, Students expect it and needs it to know their errors and weaknesses, Language matters just as the content, and Feedback is a teachert support it outn and a requirement of the program. The other hand, fewer teachers have opposed it and their reasons were that content and organization is more important than accuracy or language correctness, Students should be responsible for correcting their errors or have others help them, Error correction is not fruitful, area of study does not require linguistic accuracy. They don’t want to overwhelm the students or get them frustrated
A considerable number of teachers and feedback providers believe that ESL students should receive, as a first feedback priority, feedback on linguistic issues. Ferris (2003) in her analysis of literature review shows the advocacy of error correction over no error correction and its impact on language accuracy. For example, Ferris (2002) believes that efforts should be directed to linguistic errors rather than writing styles such as wording of things that can be improved or said another way, mainly in a native speaker way. She asserts that pragmatics and writing styles are knowledge gained by time through extensive exposure to the target language. Therefore, student would benefit from more explicit issues such as grammatical and lexical rules that can be explained and taught. Montgomery, J. and Baker, W. (2007) have examined teachers and students in an intensive English as a second language (ESL) program. These results show that the teachers generally gave little feedback on global issues, such as organization, and a large amount of feedback on local issues, such as grammar and mechanics
There are different views among teachers and researchers as to what feedback should be about. For example, most teachers would mainly focus their attention only on grammar, lexis and mechanical errors. This attitude is common in ESL institutes and language learning centers in which the purpose of the whole program is concerned primarily with advancing students linguistically. Others, especially those teaching ESL students in composition mainstream classes, prefer to focus on content and avoid correcting errors whether completely or partially.
Focusing intensively on correcting all errors and aiming to reach an error-free composition has its roots in the behavioral method. Ferris (2002) states that prior to the 1970s, L2 writing was mostly influenced by applied linguistics, which, in turn, had been highly influenced by behavioral psychology. As a result, the best strategy for acquiring language was thought to be the formation of “good” habits (i.e. accuracy) and avoidance of ied l ones (i.e. errors). This was, for example, the basis of the audio-lingual method, the reigning approach to language instruction in the United States in the 1960s. In the audio-lingual method, instruction focused on drills and repetition. The underlying assumptions of this approach, according to Rivers (as cited in Richards, 2001), is that language is a behavior, and language habits are formed most effectively by giving the right response and avoiding errors. Focusing extensively on linguistic issues is not only teachers’ tend to do but also what language learners themselves prefer (Bradley, Lindstro and Rystedt, 2007). The latters examined the collaborative use of Wiki in English for Specific Purposes (ESP) course with 56 students. Although quite often students applied a combination of both approaches (linguistic and content feedback) when being responsive to fellow students, the findings show that there are more linguistic comments. Language learners are usually concerned about linguistic correctness partially as an impact of their traditional educational background
Focusing extensively on linguistic issues is not only teachersl tend to do but also what language learners themselves prefer (Bradley, Lindstro and Rystedt, 2007). The latters examined the collaborative use of Wiki in English for Specific Purposes (ESP) course with 56 students. Although quite often students applied a combination of both approaches (linguistic and content feedback) when being responsive to fellow students, the findings show that there are more linguistic comments. Language learners are usually concerned about linguistic correctness partially as an impact of their traditional educational background.
Research has found that learners expect to be corrected for their inaccurate production as they hope to learn from their errors, most will be disappointed if no feedback is given (Pawlak). lak). has found that learners expect to be correctedture will be noticed and that successful cognitive comparisons will be made, which will allow the learner to detect the mismatch between his or her erroneous utterance and the correct version supplied by a native speaker, or more proficient peermpaPawlak, p.24). Besides, without such feedback, students’s languaging may result in misunderstandings about their linguistic knowledge, thereby exerting a detrimental effect on subsequent L2 performance (Suzuki, 2009). WCF is important because it (Ellis, 2012) enable learners to revise their own writing, i.e. produce a better second draft and assist learner to acquire correct English
In other instances, teachers respond to writings as .e. produce a better second draft and assist learner to acquire coanced ESL students whose linguistic competence is good enough to enable them to compose texts with minimal L2 errors that may hinder communication or cause misunderstanding. The teacher response as a reader usually focuses on content and ideas and usually tends to be less authoritative and more suggestive. For a teacher to take such a stance suggests that she or he does not view comprehending and utilizing linguistic rules as priority as long as their writings is understandable. Language in this situation is not the end but the tool; students here are learning writing through L2 and not vice versa. That is, learning writing through language is the priority and not learning language through writing in which the main focus then would be the form rather than the content. This tendency towards content rather than language is influenced by research and connections to L1 composition field. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Ferris (2002) describes how L1 composition replaced linguistics as the primary influence on L2 writing. During this period, the role of writing moved away from grammar and vocabulary practice and was seen more as a means to discover ideas and express meanings.
However, most ESL teachers fall in between these two extremes. They understand the studentsm need and desire for linguistic correctness as such a requirement is not limited to the boundaries of that certain class but is extended to be required from them in their upcoming stages whether in work or studying. Sentence structure and grammatical and syntactic correctness seem to be of a real importance to language learners in particular. Qian (2012) reported that nonnative students of English view having little grammar feedback on their writing papers as a sign of good work. Long (1991) distinguished between a focus on meaning which relates to the communicative means of teaching language where there is no drawing of learners attention to linguistic forms, a focus on forms which represents traditional instruction where explicit teaching of the grammar of the target language is presented, a focus on form which draw attention to form-meaning mapping as learners are trying to convey their messages. This last kind of focus is popular in Lang-8. Season (1993) grammar correction help linguistic development, allow peers to learn from each other, show teacher students level, raise students awareness of grammar.
According to Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006:7)06:7) Dick (2006:7)lish view having little grammar feedback on their writing papers as a sign of good ws); ws)facilitates the development of self-assessment (reflection) in learning;n ledelivers high quality information to students about their learning;earnencourages teacher and peer dialogue around learning; leaencourages positive motivational beliefs and self-esteem; selprovides opportunities to close the gap between current and desired performance;ormaprovides information to teachers that can be used to help shape thehape thean
Straub’s (1997) study analyzed theyzed study teachers that can be uss the first year university studentsaprovides ire most helpful in their efforts to improve their writing. His analysis showed that students inelivers high quality information to students about their learning;earnencoumments that suggest ways of suggest ways of ways ofheir learnits that explain why something is good or bad in their writing (akt.kt.yzed stuPieteric, 2010:21). And may not be mainly about small issues like page layout, spelling and punctuation (Getinkaya, 2015)

CHAPTER3
METHODOLOGY
This study examines Lang-8, a language learning social network, as a community of practice looking mainly at two practices of this community, namely the discussion groups and the journal entries, and analyzing them. The essence of the study is to evaluate the impact of the Language Learning Social Network on both learners and tutors, to establish the predominant learning practices in the website, the interaction between various users of the platform and finally to ascertain whether all these features discovered are efficacious in delivering quality knowledge of the English Language. This research was conducted in a bid to fill the ever present gap in the literature regarding best practices that can be adopted to cement effective learning of the language vide social media and networks.
Predominant research and literature about Language Learning Social Networks has been always centered around the general perspective of how Social networking sites have been utilized widely in recent times especially for language learning (Luttrell, 2012). Much of the literature on the educational level has also greatly examined, social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter are and their contributions towards effective language learning through close interaction with native speakers (Burke, 2013). Social Networks have been touted to be more effective for second language learning because they present a real experience to the learners through giving them a realistic practical experience.
This generalized approach of looking at Language Learning Social Networking Sites only depicts a subjective perception of the nature of this type of learning. It profiles it as a much more practical and pragmatic way of teaching a second language and further exalts the aspect of peer interaction in the learning process. There have however been no attempts to elucidate the precise ongoings in various Language Learning Networking Sites and explaining the dynamics of specific sites in their approach to teaching various languages. As such there is need to examine the hurdles faced by various language learners in this networking sites, the best approach that works for them and to critique whether the whole process as a whole meets the expectations of learners and the intended results.
1. Therefore, so as to discover the impact of Lang-8 as a Language Learning Social Networking Site on both tutors and learners, this research will put forth the following questions that will shed light on the topic.1. As ESL teachers, what kind of feedback do Lang-8 members tend to offer in response to Arab EFL journal postings?
a. what method of corrective feedback they follow
b. What kind of comments do they offer?
c. What kind of suggestions do they offer?
d. what type of errors do they tend to correct more?
2. What is the nature of feedback ESL learners tend to like?
3. How do Lang-8 members, both as teachers and as learners act as communities of practice in their discussion groups?
a. What are their goals as exemplified by the topics they initiate?
b. What is the nature of their engagement as demonstrated by the pattern of participation?
4. Is this system of Learning Efficacious enough?
Rationale for Mixed Method Study
The best way of approaching this study is by amalgamating both research methods with a view of making the best of comparative and deductive analysis. In this study, I will use the quantitative part to find out the number of errors corrected that belong to a certain category.
I will then proceed to employ the qualitative part for analyzing the content of feedback in both the writing entries and in the discussion board so as to ascertain the nature of feedbacks and responses provided; and further examine if the learning process yields quality results for the learners.
The essence of mixed- methods research is to combine the two conventional methods of research so as to find a pragmatic set of answers to the questions posed (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). This method will however be employed with much caution and trepidation because there is a huge risk associated with it. Many researchers tend to put more weight and concentrate on one traditional method over the other; be it qualitative or quantitative. This approach ultimately does a magnanimous disservice to the whole research because the projected analysis cannot be conclusively derived in these circumstances (Lichtman, 2013). I will thus be cautious not to take this misleading path.
Mixed Methods Research will be the best method that can be employed to discern whether many of the activities that are experienced in the Lang-8 Website are efficient enough to transform L2 English learners into having a good grasp of the language. From this perspective, there will be conducted two phases of research with each having two different sets of activities taking place. The first phase will entail a quantitative analysis of the number of errors which have been frequently corrected in this learning process. At this point a qualitative analysis will also be conducted to determine the nature of these errors and how grave are they to indicate the status of the learner at that particular moment. The second phase has to take place after around three months to determine the milestones achieved by these learners. The process employed in the first place will be revisited i.e. counting the number of errors made by the learners and afterwards looking at the real context of errors and the rating of search an L2 learner at that point. It has to be underscored therefore that in both phases, the research will maintain the same participants so as to get an ample comparative opportunity and ability to monitor them for a certain period. Also, the most favored source of data in these circumstances will be written entries because they contain relatively long statements made by learners and corrected appropriately by tutors. If the learner maintains a consistent affinity to learning over a period of three months, the research will be effectively concluded by the time the second phase is concluded.
In that case, the following path of questions will be critically followed for them to lead to the best utility of both qualitative and quantitative analysis methods after a clear examination of the Lang-8 website.
1. As ESL teachers, what kind of feedback do Lang-8 members tend to offer in response to Arab EFL journal postings?
a. what method of corrective feedback they follow?
b. What kind of comments do they offer?
c. What kind of suggestions do they offer?
d. what type of errors do they tend to correct more?
2. How do Lang-8 members, both as teachers and as learners act as communities of practice in their discussion groups?
a. What are their goals as exemplified by the topics they initiate?
b. What is the nature of their engagement as demonstrated by the pattern of participation?
Corpus Linguistics
Corpus linguistics is a methodology for text examination which enables researchers to create large searchable databases of precisely selected texts. It eases analysis of words and phrases with respect to the context within which they are uttered or immediate natural surroundings. In addition to this, it also facilitates deciphering of patterns of how frequent those words are used in that context. The success of this research can only be occasioned if effective corpora are put to use. This is because, the details of the research methodology and sources of data entail a multi-level juxtaposition which can be approached better through an independent analysis of each segment. Also, examination of the efficacy of Lang-8 as a Language Learning site can be done pretty well through devolving the analysis of forums within which learners engage and looking at them independently. This is also plausible considering the fact that the nature of texts that are corrected in these forums have a disparity in length and context.
As such, the following levels of research will be taken into regard in the course of this study. The research will be approached in the manner which the corpora is segmented. Therefore, this research will be majorly three pronged because each segment has its own uniqueness. In the first place, I will look at written entries which actually can be referred to as the basic unit of learning in Lang-8. Written entries are comprised of short sentences by learners which are subsequently corrected by either natives or proficient speakers of the language. This will make it easy to discern the errors likely to occur in short sentences. The second limb of the corpora will be discussion posts. This is also another novel angle of researching from because discussion posts are found in discussion groups which are around 5 in Lang-8 website. The posts are always lengthy and interactive because, here, learners expose the day to day difficulties they encounter in the learning process. This implies that I have to look at the specific interractions before pointing out any types of errors that are manifested. The third tenet of the corpora will be blogs. It is also prudent to look at blogs independently because in this website, they are generally designed to inform all learners of the general difficulties they may be facing, how to approach them and other dynamics of the language. Blogs generally portray the general learning progress of almost all persons who participate in the process. In that case, all these should be given unfettered attention but from an autonomous point of view; and that is how I am going to approach it.
I will use Corpus Linguistics to perform some of the basic linguistic tasks including concordancing or finding out the frequency of usage of words or phrases, finding the key words in texts and sorting out a wordlist. This will be occasioned through designing my own corpus using Wordsmith 6.0 program. In order to prepare the data for analysis, I will subdivide the texts into three categories which will further be halved in the course of the analysis. The first three categories will be data from blog posts, discussion groups and written entries. These files will be further segmented into text by learners on one hand and responses by tutors on the other; a subdivision that will apply to each of the three segments. From this point it will be esier to use tools such as concordance, keyword and wordlist in a bid to ascertain th frequency of usage of certain words, corrections and even comments. In fact, I may even compare my ultimate findings with BUiD Arab Learner Corpus (BALC) to make a comparative analysis of the aspects I will have examined using my corpus with the contents of the other corpus..
The use of a Corpus Linguistics will help in answering the questions that have been posed in this research. For example in the first question, it would make it easier to locate the kind of comments that the natives offer; the type of suggestions that are made frequently and the types of errors that are corrected mostly. In the second question, it would also be easy to determine the goals of discussion by searching for the most prevalent topics in the discussions using the corpus. This will be the best way of generating these results because the program offers all sorts of statistical analysis tools and thus you can easily make both general and precise calculations including percentages in case of frequency and this remains a more accurate way of presenting data.
Content Analysis
Content Analysis is an analytical method which attempts to categorise a particular kind of discourse systematically and using a quantitative approach. This study ideally is structured to examine challenges faced by L2 English Language Learners of Arabic descent and how the progress with the language over time. Therefore, using Content Analysis implies that the study will go ahead to analyse the social transformations that a person undergoes during the learning process bearing in mind the disparities exhibited between the two sets of lingual constructions and this will be conducted through a quantitative analysis. Having identified language usage within the website and the relevant corrections, I will then seek to ascertain how grave the problem is using content analysis and as such I will employ the statistical methods provided for in the corpus program. This model will be used or employed with utmost flexibility and high regard to the context of the study and the problem at hand.
This study will then be synchronized to take the dimension of social disparity to explain the issues such as nature of errors frequently made by Arab learners of the English Language and the duration that such learners may take to master certain salient aspects of the language having gone through that learning process. The model will also be instrumental in providing information about whether the learning process in the Lang-8 website can be said to be more effective than a classroom setting where students have real physical interaction with their tutors and maybe have access to better oral explanations of certain concepts of the English Language.
Corpus Linguistics and Content Analysis
The amalgam and Mixed Method Research methodology will serve in this study to provide a clear supplement of qualitative analysis onto a quantitative approach. The relevance of doing this is because either method might have specific biases in its approach or as such the other compensates this inadequacy to produce the best results possible. Therefore, as a researcher, I have advised myself to strike an equal balance between the two such that no method appears to be slightly disregarded; so as to perfect the compensation tool of Mixed Method Research methodology.

Case Study
The current research will look at a website designed for learning English called Lang-8 as a case study in itself. Case studies are generally presented as one of the common research methods (Creswell, 2007). Creswell’s (2007) views a case study as “an exploration of a “bounded system? or a case (or multiple cases) over time through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information rich in contexta (p. 61) aimed at “p. 61) aimed at iple cases) over time through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources (Yin, 2009, p. 4). They are over time through detailed, in-depth data col institution, program or a community. aa single entity with clearly defined boundariess detailed, in-depth data collection involving multipphenomenononvolving multipphenomenonntextxtng multipphenomenonntextcommon research methods (Creswell, 2007). Crideal approach that would suit this topic helping to offer an in-depth investigation of the case. It can present the audience with detailed information about the data, the setting and the context. Hence, one can, or cannot, transfer the findings to another similar context.
Merriam (1988) describes case study research as exhibiting the following four
Characteristics:
• Particularistic- Case studies focus on a particular case, which could include a program
event, group of people, or phenomenon. In this case, it focuses on one community, the Lang-8 online community.
? Descriptive- Case study researchers offer a rich description of the case to offer readers a glimpse of what may have not yet been seen. Therefore, this study would describe how the online ESL learners exchange information and collaborate to construct knowledge.
?eaders a glimpse of what may have not yet been seen. Therefore, this study wou
of the phenomenon under studydyot yet been seen. Therefore, this study would describe how theand how learners of English behave outside their formal educational context.
?the phenomenon under study” (Merriam, 1988, p. 13). This study is supposed t and presented are grounded in the context of the case. They may not be generalizable to all other learning websites.

Research Context
The conventional method of learning has always been engaging in classroom tutorials and getting one-on-one instructions in a typical education system. However with the advent of social media and internet as explained above, there have emerged new forums within which anyone can learn anything especially having subscribed to or in conjunction with others, formed a group with the sole purpose of learning and getting knowledge.
The existence of websites teaching languages buttressed with the aspect of globalization have greatly bolstered the numbers of L2 participants in Language Learning Social Networks. The substratum of this study focuses on learners of Arabic descent trying to know about the English Language. There are many reasons as to why many people would wish to participate in L2 learning especially English. The first one is obviously that most of them may have business interests in English Speaking countries and thus it would be prudent for them to learn the language of transaction (McAulay, 1977). Secondly, for purposes of studying, some scholars like me would have to first undertake English lessons before they can officially partake in pursuing any course if it is offered in an English Speaking country. Also, the current political crisis in the Arab world is a great testament of how people have had to seek refuge or asylum in European Countries. Therefore, these people have to settle down in new countries and for them to do that successfully, they have to know the respective languages; in this case English is the most predominant in many European countries.
For these reasons, many people with tremendous affinity for learning the language, may not all fit in the existing classrooms, or simply, some may not have absolute access to such learning institutions. Therefore, websites such as Lang-8 came to obviate the strain of looking for classrooms. It is thus imperative a study is conducted to analyse the functionality of this ‘learning institute of last resort.’
The configuration of the Lang-8 website provides a conclusive justification of mixed methods research approach. This is because, the sources of data required for this study need an incisive analysis conducted into them in a bid to analyse the information contained in there from a wholesome standpoint. For instance, the itineraries of the research will entail looking through discussion posts and analyzing the conversations and exchanges between learners and tutors. If an objective inference is to be made from this information, then it is incumbent upon the researcher to first understand the nature of the subject matter and the corrections being made; then the second phase will be to determine the frequency of such corrections and feedbacks in that context.
Aside from looking at the specific conversations within discussion groups, it is also imperative that the researcher focuses on the overall juxtaposition of the website. This will be sufficiently satisfied if a closer look is taken at the general comments made on the official blogs of the site. The blogs are generally intended to provide salient information about the current trends in the learning process, the predominant hurdles faced by learners, the preferred approach of teaching that the tutors have resorted to use and the general conduct expected of all users of the site. Owing to this exposition, it therefore implies that aside from a numerical analysis of the errors made and commensurate corrections in response; there is also need of looking at the quality of the same errors and feedbacks rendered by the tutors in a bid to come up with an informative piece of research results.
Research Design
The locus of this study will be centered around the three major segments of the learning structure as found in the website Lang-8. With respect to this, a series of questions will be considered in order to analyse the findings stemming from written entries, discussion posts and blogs found within the website. The following table explores the research questions which were already highlighted in Chapter 1; the information expected as answer to each question; sources of data from which the information will be gathered and the applicable method of data analysis which will be ultimately used.

Research Question information needed method used
what method of corrective feedback they follow Identification of nature of corrections made
Corpus analysis using keywords, Wordlist and Concord.
What kind of comments do they offer? Identification of the conversations between learners and tutors Critical Discourse Analysis
what type of errors do they tend to correct more? Identification of most common mistakes made by learners Critical Discourse Analysis
Corpus Analysis
what are the Lang-8 members goals as exemplified in their topics in the discussion board Synthesis of the prevalent information shared by Lang-8 on the discussion board. Corpus Analysis, Wordlist and Concord
What is the nature of their engagement as demonstrated by the pattern of participation Identification of how learners and tutors or learners and learners interact. Critical Discourse Analysis

Data Sources
There will be three types of documents collected: writing entries, posts and comments from the discussion groups and the blog maintained by the administrators of the site. Documents are important source of data worth of examining because they are “mirror of their owners’ interests and views” (Saldana, 2013, p.54)
Writing Journals
The writing samples will be collected from the journal entries section available publicly on the site. Two groups of writings will be collected: the first group will be for the purpose of examining errors and feedback type. These will be limited to journals written by Arab learners only as errors might not be the same with people from different linguistic backgrounds. Also, these writings will be collected from learners with intermediate level of English to ensure consistency in the results and to control the variable of language level. Their level will be estimated through examining their writings posts.
There are basically two types of data-collection procedures: spontaneous and elicited (see Ellis, 1994: 49f).
1-Spontaneous or unplanned data for written and spoken language are:
• Unmonitored conversations and interviews
• Free compositions and examination papers
These include personal information, future plans, religious, social, and political issues, and the like.
2-Elicited procedures are:
• Oral and written translation from the native language to the target language
• Multiple-choice test which should be free from the restrictions of the test constructor.
As seen, in this study, samples belong to the first group. They are free unplanned compositions.
Discussion Groups
The discussion groups will be explored as a community of practice. Through the use of content analysis approach aided by a qualitative analysis software, the goals of the community and the joint enterprise that connects them can be examined via the topics they are discussing. The joint enterprise of the whole COP (and of each sub community in the discussion groups) is in developing a wide store of knowledge members are likely to be interested in. Each sub community is deeply involved in generating information related to the community at large. The data will be coded and then themes will be generated and categorized out of them. I will also look at their mutual engagement and participation in the practice of the community through the act of commenting on each othersi’ach othersiping a wide store of knowledge members are likely to be interested in. Each sub community is deeply involved in generating information related to the community at large. The data will be coded and then themes will be genearners, natives, experts), agreement/disagreement, and different roles of different members in the community in addition to any interactional patterns noticed and language used.
Only discussion threads that are related in topic to language learning are to be examined. And only those that have triggered at least three replies will be chosen. A total of 50 threads with their subsequent comments will be selected. There will also be a filter criterion with respect to discussion posts and messages. Only those posts containing not less than three comments will be regarded as relevant data for the research. The comments must only include discussions regarding the process of learning English within the Lang-8 community. As such, there will be only a handful of groups in the website that will be utilized in this segment; English Classroom, Relax with English, Discuss English every Day, Useful sites for Language Study, English book club and Real English Conversations. Owing to the fact that the above named groups accommodate participation of all members to the site, and also that they are not limited to L1 speakers only or certain specific interests, they are the most suitable sources of data under the tenet of discussion posts. I will consider at least 10 comments from every discussion group because there is need to get the requisite diversity of comments from all quarters of the groups so as to achieve precision in deduction of the posts with probative value.
To examine the practice of discussion groups and the mutual engagement of the members of the website, a qualitative approach will be employed. I will use content analysis for the examination of the written text for emerging patterns and structures. Inductive content analysis is typically used to study recorded human communications, and examine the information and meaning embedded in them as in the asynchronous discussion groups to investigate the process of knowledge construction in computer-mediated learning environments. In content analysis,, written text is the primary source of data. As a qualitative approach, the data gathered from real-life, natural setting (Yin, 2009); a design that is open-ended or exploratory in nature (Creswell, 2003; Yin 2009); and themes that emerge from data analysis (Creswell, 2003). Also, the written comments and feedback on students writings all be examined qualitatively looking at what kind of comments peers offer to each other (encouragement, more explanation, advice, suggestions, etc.), searching for emergent patterns, categories or themes that delineate the meaning of the collaborative process.
Blog:
The blog section in Lang-8 is not structured like other interactive blogs where a blogger posts about certain topic and people comment and converse with him and with each other on the blog topic. Rather, the blog in Lang-8 is seen more like providing information for users, posting advertisements about what is new in the website, addressing problems faced by users, etc. So, in this sense it is a kind of reference for the users to gain a comprehensive idea of how things work on the website and what features can do what. This section will be examined for any supporting information that would add to our understanding of the community and knowledge building in it.

Criteria for Data Sources
The following is a criterion upon which data sources will be admissible for purposes of this research.
Writing entries:
The writing entries that will be strictly entertained in the course of this research are those that have at least one comment and one correction. Such entries should contain an aggregate of at least 100 words.
Discussion Boards
Only discussion threads that are related in topic to language learning are to be examined. And only those that have triggered at least three replies will be chosen. A total of 50 threads with their subsequent comments will be selected.
Discussion Posts
There also exists a filter criterion with respect to discussion posts and messages. Only those posts containing not less than three comments will be deemed to be relevant data for the research. The comments must only include discussions regarding the process of learning English within the Lang-8 community. As such, there will be only a handful of groups in the website that will be utilized in this segment; English Classroom, Relax with English, Discuss English every Day, Useful sites for Language Study, English book club and Real English Conversations. Owing to the fact that the above named groups accommodate participation of all members to the site, and also that they are not limited to L1 speakers only or certain specific interests, they are the most suitable sources of data under the tenet of discussion posts. I will consider at least 10 comments from every discussion group because there is need to get the requisite diversity of comments from all quarters of the groups so as to achieve precision in deduction of the posts with probative value.
The following table illustrates the overall criterion for any data to be utilized by the researcher in this endeavor.

Area Inclusion Exclusion
Writing Entries • Contains at least one comment
• Contains at least one Correction
• Contains an aggregate of around 100 words • Contains neither comment nor correction
• Words do not reach 100
Discussion Board • Related to Language Learning
• Attracted at least 3 Replies
• Only 50 threads will be utilized • Doesn’t relate to Language Learning
• Has less than 3 replies
Discussion Groups • Contains At least 3 comments
• Related to process of learning English in Lang-8
• Less than 3 comments
• Not about Learning In Lang-8
• Not about English

Coding Categories with samples for the Writing Entries
Coding of writing entries will take the form of descriptive coding, topic coding and finally analytical coding (Richard, 2009). The nature of this study is such that all the sample participants have to be identified and tracked all through the study so as to determine the milestones they have achieved. Therefore, it is good to maintain a concise description of these participants especially those who make written entries. The second bit of coding will entail detailing the vulnerabilities of these participants with respect to the errors they make while making these written entries and monitoring them over a period of time to analyze whether they improve on this or not. Finally, analytical coding will require that there is done a comparative analysis of first the common errors made by all learners in this website. The second limb of the analysis will have the researcher, as mentioned above; decipher the progress of all these learners, if any. This manner of recording data will give the researcher ample time while compiling all the data collected and coming up with the final dissertation and report.

Discussion posts:
There are more than 2000 discussion groups. However not all of them can be used as a typical representative of the ESL population as some were related to a certain ethnicity or a certain interest. I limited my selection to those threads that have received 5 or more responses
I will collect 30 posts along with their comments. A large sample does not necessarily represent the issue better than the small one, counterproductive, require time and may be impossible to deal with the output (Hyland, as in Matsuda and Silva, 2005). I choose forum that has large number of members, rich in content and much interaction and active.
Since the specific time boundary had to be identified to specify the beginning and
the end of a case, I first narrowed down my selection of data to those topics that remained
actively discussed in a six-month time frame (from the beginning of to
the end of ). Among those active forum topics, only topic threads with
ten or more comments were selected. All discussion messages were exported and saved as PDF (portable document format) files. Exported PDF files were labeled with the file names that also matched with the topic titles so that it was easier to locate and manage the data during the coding
process. The next step in the analysis process was the grouping phase. In this phase, I grouped various codes together into sub-themes by comparing their similarities and dissimilarities. Next, I categorized several similar sub-themes into broader themes then describe and interpret using quotes from the data examining online language learning social network
Coding Categories with samples for the Discussion Board
Information contained in the discussion board will be classified in several sub categories for each to be ready for any type of analysis (Saldana, 2013). The nature of a discussion post in Lang-8 is that controversies elicited from the learning process may either be found from the initial discussion posts or from the comments or contributions of members of the group. This only implies that the posts made by members definitely have greater weight than comments. The most suitable way of recording this data is through provisional coding because it can as well factor in both original postings on the discussion board and the reactions to the conversation. In that regard, I will classify all the posts that fall in one linguistic genre in one segment then proceed to mark and sample the comments with a view of getting any similarity and further grouping them into one docket.

Data Analysis
Procedure:
As a qualitative approach, the data are gathered from real-life, natural setting (Yin, 2009); a design that is open-ended or exploratory in nature (Creswell, 2003; Yin 2009); and themes that emerge from data analysis (Creswell, 2003). Also, the written comments and feedback on students writings all be examined qualitatively looking at what kind of comments peers offer to each other (encouragement, more explanation, advice, suggestions..etc), searching for emergent patterns, categories or themes that delineate the meaning of the collaborative process.
A content analysis approach (Henri, 1992), which is essential “to assess the quality of interactions and the quality of the learning experience in a computer mediated conferencing environment” (Gunawardena et al., 1997, p. 398). Content analysis is: drawing inferences from available text-adductive inferences, to be specificspecific quality of interactio
Interactional sociolinguistics is one type of CMC discourse analysis that ic quality of interactions and the quality of theaning within a particular social interaction” (Friginal and Hardy, 2013).
Coding the feedback in the writing entries section

Feedback from writing entries will greatly be analyzed both in qualitative and quantitative forms. This means that the study will not only highlight the number of errors made by the learners, but also assess which types of errors are frequently made and what level can the learner be deemed to be at with respect to the whole learning process? Frequent analysis is a significant ingredient of discourse analysis because in this case it would precisely the number of times words are underlined. This ultimately highlights words that are generally misused or thos that cause a lot of controversy (Baker, 2006). The frequency analysis unravels significant features which actually furthers a contextual analysis of the data. Therefore, from this backdrop, the study will majorly examine the word frequency to point out words that have been frequently used and subsequently corrected from an individual point of view and proceed to do a cluster analysis which explores the frequency of usage of words from the context of a continuous phrase.

Coding the content of Discussion posts and messages

Dealing with the discussion board posts and threads will be mainly in a qualitative form. Richard (2009) has defined qualitative data as reads will be mainly in a ic quality of interactions and the quality of theaning within a particular social interacto numbers009) has d
I will be identifying the related data sections. Identify units according to the categorial distinction that tion that gorial distinction that will be mainly in a ic quality of intsomething in commonion that Krippendorff, 2004). Richard (2009) has classified coding into three types: descriptive coding which store information about subjects and their attributes. Second, topic coding which simply means allocating passages to a topic and finally there is the analytical coding which sometimes follows the topic coding and denotes reflection on and interpretation of meaning. Each initiation thread will be coded topically. And each message (a reply) will be coded according to its content and the purpose it serves.
I will employ provisional coding (Saldana, 2013; Brice as in Matsuda and Silva, 2005) or what is called template organizing style (Crabtree and Miller, 1999). It is a prepared list of codes collected from related literature or an initial scanning of data which can be revised or modified later on.ding which simply means allocatinding (Saldana, 2013) may be employed where one single entity or item can be assigned to two or more codes. The messages and replies to posts should be considered within the larger chain of communication. Gunawardena et al. (1997) warn researchers that this is a potential problem, explaining that “we must not, without realizing it, begin to view discussion artificially divided into strands of arguments as a fair representation of the participants’ interaction or any individual participant’s learning processpantreprese
The second cycle of coding pattern coding where similar themes are collected together not, without realizing it, begin ones that identify an emergent theme, configuration or explanationnt theme, ,2013, p.210)
I will print material and coding on paper because I agree with what Dornyei (2007) sees that there is a difference in proofreading between paper and text on screen. the process include dhighlighting extracts of the de xt on labeling these in a way that they can be identified, retrieved, or groupedthey can be identified,
Tools
1- NVivo 9 was selected for this study data analyses because it allows for a number of possibilities for the ways in which interactional data can be approached, and represents a valuable analytical tool for categorizing and coding data. The scripts and translations of students’ online interactions were imported into the NVivo9 program from Microsoft Word documents.
2- Evernote: I use it to write memos: to explore o tudy hunches, and thoughts about the codes”odDornyei, 2007, p.254)
3-Paparazzi:

Setting
The study will be conducted in an online virtual community designed basically for those who are willing to engage in language learning practices with other online members who are also users of that target language, whether native speakers or advanced L2 language users. With its mission stated as “Create the world’s best social language learning service”, Lang-8 hosts more than 100 thousand users of different mother tongues and target languages. The website contains two main practices (A practice is a way of approaching things with a set of knowledge, thoughts, conduct, and artifacts that are shared by community members.): the journals and the forum discussion. The journal section presents the core tenet of Vygostky’s zone of proximal development which allows competent speakers of a native language (in this case it is English) to work with less competent speakers on writing tasks helping them achieve progress in their writings. The act of production in terms of writing is very essential as part of language learning. Production requires creating linguistic forms and meanings and in doing so the learners can discover their abilities. This meaningful production of language can have a positive impact on language development (Lantlof, 2000). The journal writing section gives an opportunity for users to have their writings viewed and corrected by native speakers or advanced target language speakers. The correction is mainly focused on the linguistic part of the writing since linguistic issues such as grammar, structure and lexis is of utmost importance to language learners. To encourage members to provide feedback, the website offers points for each correction. There is also a “thank you” button that the journal writer may use to “thank” the corrector if he likes the correction and feedback received. This “thank you” feature can also add points to the member corrector, which can also motivate him/her to provide the best he can.
Another important section that members can use as a channel for learning and practicing the target language is the “forum discussion.” It consists of different groups with different sub interests leading to the big goal of the site, which is learning language. Each sub community consists of a number of threads. These groups can be initiated by any member and then anyone can join them. Once member join a group, they can start posting threads and comment on each other.
There is also another separate section, which is a blog that is created and managed by the site administrator. The blog contains different posts about different topics about using the website such as “how to” topics and posts about new features added to the site.

Reliability and Validity
Reliability and Validity of the data analyses is important because it allows for a number of possibilities for the ways in which interactional data can However, this method was not employed here for the lack of a suitable person. However, we are not at a loss here because this method cannot establish the dependability of coding scheme due to differing personalities, views and interpretations, besides the researcher analyzing of data can be assessed by other people like editors, reviewers, and readers (Brice as in Matsuda and Silva, 2005).
Also, the prolonged engagement (Tashakkori,A. and Teddlie, 1998) which refers to spending time n the field and gaining knowledge about the culture is considered as an element that ensures reliability and trustworthiness of a study. I have been a member in this website for over a year so far. I registered for the purpose of this paper in the first place. I am not a frequent participant in the activities there but I mainly observing what is going on.
As for validity, there are two types of validity: external and internal. Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (1998) have described external validity as extension or generalization of the study. The results do not have to be speaking about all similar situations and might only be applicable to the setting and people at this study. At the end what the researcher is to provide is a summarative and data supported statement about the particulars of the research study, rather than he gets generalizable and transferrable meanings of findings to other settings and contexts transferrable (2013, p.252).
The internal validity is the credibility of the inferences and conclusions which can be achieved through several construct such as the use of multiple resources, triangulations (Byrne and Ragin, 2009). It can also be reached through the sampling selected which is known as n as reached through (Krippendorff, K. (2004), which is ), which is through the sampling selected ACCURATELY REPRESENTS the population of phenomena in whose place it is analyzedwhiKrippendorff, 2004, p.319).

Limitations
Researchers do to usually look for generalizing results on every single population beyond the study population and its context. As Merriam (1988) describes, k for generalizing results on every single population beyond the study population and its context.is analyzedas n as reached thr applicable because one wishes to understand the particular in depth, not because one wants to know what is generally true of the many” (p. 173).
The website selected might not be representative of all sites of the same type. The features it has and the mechanism of how it works makes it incomparable to other language learning sites that may exhibit different features and different rules. The writing texts selected are written only by a certain linguistic group with a certain level of English. What can be said about this group might not be applicable to learners from other backgrounds.
Ethical Consideration
Denzin (1999) argues that postings on bulletin boards are public and the researcher has no obligation to disclose his research act to members or participants. Likewise Cox (2012) believes that research on public environments may impose fewer obligations to protect individual privacy. The Internet is usually considered a public place and public behavior does not necessarily require informed consent.
The materials on the site that will be used in this research are public and accessible for all members once they register. The registration process is an easy and quick one and members are accepted automatically. Still, and despite the fact that nicknames and materials are open, I will keep the names of the writers, in the journal section, as well as the names of the members in the discussion section not shown since the display of names wonbe used in this research are public and accessible
References
Baker, P., Hardie, A., & McEnery, T. (2006). A glossary of corpus linguistics. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&A
N=169612
Baker, P. (2006). Using corpora in discourse analysis. London ; New York: Continuum.
Rosen, H. (1980). Linguistic Diversity in London Schools. In Pugh, Lee, and Swann
(1980).
Sweetland, J. (2002). Unexpected but Authentic Use of an Ethnically-marked Dialect.
Journal of Sociolinguistics, 6(4): 514–36.
Macaulay, R. K. S. (1977). Language, Social Class, and Education: A Glasgow Study.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

TO HAVE YOUR ASSIGNMENTS DONE AT A CHEAPER PRICE, PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US NOW.