Attention Kim Woods Assignment 1

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjem20

Download by: [Nova Southeastern University] Date: 24 September 2017, At: 08:59

Learning, Media and Technology

ISSN: 1743-9884 (Print) 1743-9892 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjem20

Students’ frame shifting – resonances of social media in schooling

Annika Lantz-Andersson, Sylvi Vigmo & Rhonwen Bowen

To cite this article: Annika Lantz-Andersson, Sylvi Vigmo & Rhonwen Bowen (2016) Students’ frame shifting – resonances of social media in schooling, Learning, Media and Technology, 41:2, 371-395, DOI: 10.1080/17439884.2015.1051051

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2015.1051051

Published online: 15 Jun 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 200

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Students’ frame shifting – resonances of social media in schooling

Annika Lantz-Anderssona*, Sylvi Vigmoa and Rhonwen Bowenb

aDepartment of Education, Communication and Learning, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; bUnit for Academic Language, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

(Received 3 February 2015; accepted 7 May 2015)

This case study explores how Swedish upper secondary students communi- cate in English as part of second language learning, in a blog shared with Thai students. Grounded in a sociocultural perspective on learning, the notions of Goffman’s frame shifting and Bakhtin’s concept of carnival are employed to analyse two specific students’ negotiations and co-construction of postings in relation to authorship and audience. The find- ings show that when encountering a task introduced as part of schooling but contextualized in social media, the two students struggle to come to grips with how to frame the task. Initially, they frame the activity in relation to what counts as conventional language-learning practices but shift framing as they discover that other classmates’ postings are framed more in line with social media contexts, distinguished by a carnivalesque spontaneous writing. Thus, for the two specific students who author the postings, the local audience consisting of their classmates plays the most significant role.

Keywords: social media; English as second language; frame-shifting; carnival; digital vernacular

1. Introduction

The fact that social media are a salient dimension of ordinary life is reflected in an increasing number of research studies and reports on the presence of social media in people’s everyday lives (e.g., Blattner and Lomicka 2012; boyd 2010). Social media sites are discussed as arenas, in particular, for young people’s ongoing communication, socialization and identity work.

An issue that has attracted recent attention in research within institutional education is that the learning practices of school stay more or less unconnected to young people’s experiences of social media and their ways of communicating in such arenas (e.g., Drotner 2008; Kern 2014). From an educational perspec- tive, the presence of English online is, however, often discussed in positive terms such as bringing authenticity per se to the language-learning contexts, but also by invoking more critical views on the rather primitive and simple

© 2015 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

*Corresponding author. Email: annika.lantz-andersson@ped.gu.se

Learning, Media and Technology, 2016 Vol. 41, No. 2, 371–395, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2015.1051051

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ov

a S

ou th

ea st

er n

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

08 :5

9 24

S ep

te m

be r

20 17

language use in such spaces (for an overview see, e.g., Manca and Ranieri 2013). Generally, communicating with the ‘ideal’ interlocutor, that is, the native speaker, is grounded in assumptions that language learning is given optimal conditions specifically when interacting with natives. However, when considering the use of English more in line with a lingua franca in Web 2.0, the non-native users of English by far exceed the number of native speakers of English (Crystal 2003). This entails that instead of endeavouring to attain optimal conditions, it is more meaningful for research to focus on what it means to communicate in the dynamics of online language and how the online contexts interact with the language use (Kern 2014).

In the variety of interactive spaces online, the language often involves com- binations of spoken and written modes of communicating together with other multimodal resources, such as the use of emoticons, links to other websites and the uploading of images and video clips. Such language use is described as young people’s digital vernacular or language in the wild (Thorne 2011). In relation to this, it is obvious that if such communicative activities are assessed in comparison with existing norms and in syllabi for written language, the result will bring about a less informed understanding of the communicative practices. To counter the existing teaching practices, and assumptions of learn- ing practices, Thorne (2011) puts forward the need to explore social media spaces as holding other genres of language use that are highly meaningful for the participants.

However, one of the basic recurrent assumptions has been to integrate social media into the existing educational practice with expectations that technologies themselves bring about change. Seen from previous developments in infor- mation technologies, assumptions of technologies as transforming and solving educational challenges disregard the strong traditions of schooling that have emerged throughout history, including both explicit and implicit rules (Anderson 1979). School practices are, for example, typically task- oriented, implying that tasks guide students to specific ways of dealing with their work, which they have learnt are productive (e.g., Greiffenhagen 2008; Krange and Ludvigsen 2008).

Moreover, even though research focusing on the use of social media is increasing, there are still questions waiting to be addressed regarding how young people’s offline life is interwoven with activities in social media (Merchant 2012). Concerning digital technologies, references made to the virtual tend to be connected with something that takes place separately in a par- allel social space. This other space tends to be regarded just as an unconnected space from the real world or in more negative terms even seen as disturbing and dangerously interfering with reality. These arguments are, however, not used in connection with other more accepted communicative technologies (Gillen and Merchant 2013). In other words, when technologies are normalized in our everyday life, they are neither separate, nor scary, nor dangerous. This implies that as the use of social media becomes more normalized, the

372 A. Lantz-Andersson et al.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ov

a S

ou th

ea st

er n

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

08 :5

9 24

S ep

te m

be r

20 17

implementation in education might enable possibilities to cross the locally established norms of schooling and negotiate how extended spaces could be initiated, that is, spaces where students are able to combine their school subject of learning a language and their regular communicative use of language (Lantz-Andersson, Vigmo, and Bowen 2013). However, what these extended spaces, where students’ digital vernacular is given space, imply for new com- municative opportunities in learning the targeted language calls for further attention on an in-depth micro-level.

2. Social media and authorship

Web 2.0 has changed the conditions for communicating and transformed the conditions for authorship. The spontaneous writing that is common in these types of practices, that is, the hybridity between oral and written communi- cation, makes the linguistic interaction unique and has no real equivalent in offline contexts. Writing in a social media context can furthermore be regarded as a rhetorical space that can be used to achieve personal interests, showing who you are and displaying your values. Thus, using social media creates spaces where people can use their authorship to share ideas and collaborate in contexts open for humour, irony and mundane language use. This is a type of authorship and communication that is difficult to duplicate in a classroom setting (cf Char- trand 2012). Boyd (2007) illustrates participation in social media as taking place in an animated chaos, where people can go in and out of resources available and employ them as inherent in their authorship. To illustrate moving and switching between diverse multilingual written discourses to achieve different aims in different contexts, Thorne (2009) applies the notion of shuttling (see also, Cana- garajah 2006). He describes this as processes online belonging to ‘ongoing negotiation of voice and presentation of self’ (p. 87). Hence, language can be thought of as context-transforming and hybrid, which changes from situation to situation. Furthermore, the use of languages mediated online belongs to com- municative practices, initiated by particularly meaningful and specific cultures- of-use (Thorne 2003). These cultures-of-use are situated in a particular context and interact with the given conditions online. This in turn leads to a diverse language use employed for different pragmatic aims, such as producing an image of oneself as witty and multilingual, or, for example, making humorous, ironic and sarcastic remarks. Previous research has also pointed to the fact that young people’s engagements in social media often mirror their communication going on in other spaces offline (Selwyn 2009). Interaction on social media is thus viewed as characterized by a communication in which young people crea- tively engage in communicating by making use of their digital vernacular, that is, their experience of the playful language that is often used in social media. Another characteristic of the language use in such spaces online is the aware- ness and the attention given to the audience (Thorne 2009, 2011). This will be further discussed below.

Learning, Media and Technology 373

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ov

a S

ou th

ea st

er n

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

08 :5

9 24

S ep

te m

be r

20 17

2.1. Social media and audience

Social media spaces are, as argued above, contexts where people meet in differ- ent ways to interact, often without seeing the others, through texts, images, links, etc., but one most important inherent feature of the communication is that it is conducted in front of an invisible audience (Livingstone 2008). Thus, authors of social media texts are aware of the fact that there is an audience for their textual communication that is frequently discussed as infinite. However, in contrast, research has concluded that participating in social media often mirrors the context and the local audience, rather than foreseeing an unknown audience (e.g., Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe 2007; Kern 2014). Consequently, there is a clear link between the potential audience online and the social everyday life among young people.

When people negotiate about a socially appropriate interaction for a particu- lar context, it becomes integrated with knowing and being aware of one’s audi- ence. To provide a valuable framework for understanding what it means to communicate in front of an invisible audience online, boyd (2010) states that three characteristics are important to consider: invisible audiences, collapsed contexts and the blurring of public and private. While the blurring of public and private points to the complexity of maintaining the borders between what is possible to keep private and what becomes public, the collapsed con- texts point to the absence of spatial, social and temporal boundaries, making it difficult to maintain a distinct social context. The imagined, intended or invis- ible audience in the communicative space in social media implies that partici- pants have an awareness of the expected audience to whom the postings are directed. The value of imagining the audience implies an adjustment to the kind of interaction that seems suitable to fit the intended norms of that collective audience. Accordingly, even if the audience is not visible, it is not to be viewed as unimportant for the authoring but seen as valuable in the negotiation of language use and culture in the communicative space.

2.2. Social media and the school context

Research studies on social media and language learning in education have every so often departed from interests in language as a taught subject, neglecting the students’ experiences of online communication (Yang 2011). As a consequence of starting within an educational framing, the research questions posed reflect existing pedagogical structures. Even though quite a few studies have aimed at exploring new and emergent conditions, it is still common in research that posts are analysed and assessed quantitatively with requirements of a certain number of posts or by grading the posts as traditional written texts (cf Blattner and Lomicka 2012). This indicates strong underlying assumptions of what is expected in the linguistic discipline, that is, learning a language in educational settings is performed in certain ways. Implicitly, taking such a perspective

374 A. Lantz-Andersson et al.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ov

a S

ou th

ea st

er n

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

08 :5

9 24

S ep

te m

be r

20 17

entails that the use of social media risks departing from a restricted understand- ing, potentially regarding social media as an ad-on and not as a space that trans- forms conditions for interaction, communication and participation. Consequently, due to the fact that digitally mediated communication operates under completely different conditions, there is a risk that hybrid forms of language use are merely considered as simplistic and shallow (McBride 2009). By adopting a more pragmatic stance towards language use and com- munication online, interesting contrasts between written and printed forms of language can be addressed.

In sum, Web 2.0 affords mundane communication, manipulation of images, re-mixing of texts together with the sharing and distribution of content. Thus, the possibilities of various linguistic activities in social media transform the conditions for communicating and learning, highlighting the performative nature of learning (Säljö 2009). Similarly, students’ work on media production can serve to illustrate that they bring experiences to the classroom as trajectories of remixing. As a consequence of this, learners become more apparent agents, which can be argued to change the power relations in the learning context (Erstad 2008, 2010). Moreover, communicative and participatory spaces such as Blogger, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter invite other uses of language than those commonly recognized in education. In more specific terms, social media ‘blur boundaries between presence and absence, time and space, control and freedom, personal and mass communication, private and public, and virtual and real’ (Baym and boyd 2012, 320). As a consequence, dimen- sions of everyday life that have previously been regarded as stable, comprising practices previously taken for granted are now questioned. It has also been pointed out that social media are based on self-directed practices (Drotner 2008), while education is structured according to syllabi in subjects and time dedicated to those. A result of these changes is that notions of audience, authorship and artefact need to be revisited in relation to research on linguistic activities in social media as part of schooling (cf Warschauer and Grimes 2007).

3. Aims of the study and research questions

The study presented here is part of a research project called Blinded for review, which investigates young people’s language-learning activities in various social media contexts. The aim of this particular case study is to explore how a group of Swedish upper secondary school students in the context of a language-learn- ing class frame their participation and communication in Blogger (www. blogger.com) in an international collaboration with students from Thailand. The study is based on a sociocultural perspective where learning is seen as a social and interactive process that interplays with contextual and historical tra- ditions, in which people make use of cultural tools such as language and phys- ical artefacts (Vygotsky 1939). The empirical materials comprise both video recordings of pairs of students’ collaborative work and screen shots from the

Learning, Media and Technology 375

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ov

a S

ou th

ea st

er n

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

08 :5

9 24

S ep

te m

be r

20 17

blog. To enable an in-depth analysis of how the students understand and carry out the activity of negotiating their postings, this case study focuses mainly on the interaction and communication of two particular students. To analyse the two students’ co-construction of postings, the notions of Goffman’s (1974) frame analysis and the concept of frame shifting are utilized. The concepts of framing and frame shifting relate to how we understand and define activities and in the course of the activities adjust to their invisible situational norms and to the people involved. Furthermore, Bakhtin’s (1941) notion of carnival is used to analyse the students’ collaboration, interaction and language use while blogging. The concept of carnival derives from Bakhtin’s (1941) charac- terization of the celebratory events of carnival throughout European history. In the events of carnivals, rules, inhibitions and regulations that determine the course of everyday life are temporarily suspended and the use of language for interaction is playful, imaginative and filled with mockery (Bakhtin 1941). Using the concepts of framing and carnival enables a focus on how the students understand the activity of blogging in English as part of schooling and what that implies to their authorship, that is, how they negotiate formu- lations, what kind of language they use and how the interaction is intercon- nected with their awareness of the other students as an audience. The following research questions have guided the study:

1. How do the students frame the activity of formulating postings in Blogger as a situated co-construction?

2. How are authorship and audience negotiated in the students’ interaction when using social media within an educational practice?

4. Analytical framework

With a base in a sociocultural perspective, interaction is considered central for participants’ learning, which is seen as a social activity embedded in the prac- tice in which the learners participate, and where the cultural tools of the activity are gradually employed (Vygotsky 1939). By employing Goffman’s (1974) fra- mework theory, our focus is on how the students’ interact with what they per- ceive to be the purpose of the activity. Depending on how the students, consciously or subconsciously, define the activity while performing it, it will be framed differently. According to Goffman, this can be understood as part of a superior process by which participants define situations and where the actions of the participants become part of this definition. Goffman’s concept of frame shifting is also utilized to describe shifts of defining situations, which is a useful way to understand the dynamics of framing within an activity. Shifts of framing are managed within the ongoing interaction and should not be seen as simply a mechanical way of dropping one context to continue with another but involve a negotiation of where the new context may be developed or the former context might be resumed (Goffman 1981). It is also important to

376 A. Lantz-Andersson et al.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ov

a S

ou th

ea st

er n

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

08 :5

9 24

S ep

te m

be r

20 17

recognize that there are certain overall aspects that are part of every framing process that co-determine the possible ways of framing activities. Goffman assumes that ‘there is a main activity, a story line, and that an evidential bound- ary exists in regard to it’ (1974, 564). In relation to this case study, the cultures and discourse of schooling comprise systems of their own that have been devel- oped and settled over many years and have bearings on the possible ways of framing activities. One typical characteristic of lessons is that they contain an introduction or preface in which the topic and the task are explicitly formulated and which co-determine the framing (Anderson 1979).

To explore the students’ dynamics and their use of digital vernacular in their interaction in social media, we will also relate to Bakhtin’s (1941) concept of carnival that departs from notions of the medieval carnival as a place in which people are not seen as either performers or viewers. On the contrary, Bakhtin’s concept designates participants as all living the carnival. The carnival is an event that excludes common restrictions and regulations, without hierarch- ical structures ruling the communication and interaction. With respect to language use, this implies that ‘the familiar language of the marketplace became a reservoir in which speech patterns excluded from official intercourse could freely accumulate’ (Bakhtin 1941, 17). Most commonly, the concept of carnival and the carnivalesque language use has been employed to interpret various textual practices and popular cultural texts but we argue that it is also a useful concept to understand the activity of creating social media texts invol- ving digital vernacular (cf DaSilva Iddings and McCafferty 2007; Karimova 2010; Lantz-Andersson forthcoming-b, Vigmo and Lantz-Andersson 2014). In Web 2.0 environments, the framing of the situation and the adjustment thereto are, in relation to our study, done in the ways the students negotiate about their blogging, in how they co-construct their postings and through the use of other linguistic repertoires such as images, hyperlinks, etc.

4.1. The setting

This case study took place in an ordinary English lesson in an upper secondary school in Sweden, with students aged 18–19. The introduction of Blogger is based on an agreement between the teachers in Sweden and Thailand and the researchers. The Swedish teacher had little experience of using social media for language-learning activities, but participated in the classroom, engaging in the stu- dents’ activities during the video-recorded session. As previously mentioned, the blog is a class blog shared with students in Bangkok, Thailand. In Blogger, stu- dents can write postings, link to other websites, upload photos or video clips. In this study, they were encouraged to read each other’s postings, comment and use the ranking possibilities. As an international collaboration, English was used as a lingua franca. Participation was voluntary, and students were informed well in advance that the postings were not to be graded or assessed. The students were also informed that the activity, which took place in class, was to start the blog,

Learning, Media and Technology 377

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ov

a S

ou th

ea st

er n

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

08 :5

9 24

S ep

te m

be r

20 17

not to have the blog as a continued activity during lessons to come. The students were, however, given the option to continue themselves.

The video-recorded blogging activity took place during a lesson in English lasting for one hour. In a specially equipped computer classroom, five video cameras positioned on tripods were placed behind four pairs of students and one group of three students, all of whom had given their consent to participate in the research project. To start the blog, the students were given an activity published in Blogger, as first posting, called ‘Something’ (see below).

Hi! The first blog should be about something that you would like to change or modify. Write about why you think that this ‘something’ should be changed, and maybe with an alternative solution. Use images, links, videos etc. to support your ‘something’ ;-).

To get comments it is of course a good idea to point at something that is contro- versial and it could also be effective to end with questions. Remember that it is just as important that you give comments on the other blogs! Looking forward to interesting comments!”

The students, working in pairs, were asked to write about something they would like to change. Consequently, the posting was intended to initiate the communi- cation on Blogger and open up for the inclusion of the students’ own experi- ences as potential triggers for interaction and language use (cf Blattner and Lomicka 2012; Yang 2011).

4.2. Method and analyses

To enable the analysis of both the negotiation in the classroom and the communi- cation online on the blog, the ethnographical data comprise both video recordings of the students’ interaction and screen shots from the blog. These empirical materials made it possible to take into consideration and explore how people interact across these multiple forms of literate activities (Prior and Thorne 2014).

Five cameras were placed in the classroom to capture the screens, as well as the 11 students’ dialogues and interactions, in total comprising five hours of video material. The recordings were transcribed and analysed in line with Inter- action Analysis (Jordan and Henderson 1995) focusing on the students’ com- munication with each other. This involves how they negotiated language use, the content of their postings on the blog, how they formulated their postings and so on, that is, whatever resources were brought into their negotiation and which finally became their co-constructed postings. Interaction Analysis is also compatible with Goffman’s theoretical stance in which interaction is seen as a job that participants in an activity do, in relation to how they have framed particular events and interactions in activities.

By acknowledging that conversations in themselves are adaptable to diverse contexts and to transformations in a situation within a situation, the analyses

378 A. Lantz-Andersson et al.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ov

a S

ou th

ea st

er n

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

08 :5

9 24

S ep

te m

be r

20 17

have focused on the responses in the turn-taking (Sacks, Schegloff, and Jeffer- son 1974). Using Interaction Analysis allows an in-depth analysis of both speech and non-verbal communication. This focus also enables an analysis on a micro level to explore how the students make sense of each other’s utter- ances, in how they make an uptake of understanding or questioning the prior utterances or by simply neglecting what is said. What is at stake here are the responses of the participants, that is, how they respond to utterances made by others. By scrutinizing the interaction, we aimed at interpreting how the stu- dents framed and re-framed the activity in accordance with their temporary defi- nition of the situation. In the present study, the analysis also involved scrutinizing the students’ dialogue and postings by acknowledging features of a carnival-like event that might be noticeable (cf Bakhtin 1941; boyd 2007; DaSilva Iddings and McCafferty 2007).

When the class blog was completed, the data were first collected using Blog- ger’s overview section as a first step to summarizing the interaction in the groups. This was done merely to obtain a general summary of the postings and comments in the groups, and not for any further quantitative analyses. All the postings and the comments were also gathered by taking screen shots to enable different kinds of mapping and sorting. The mapping was done as a first analysis of what type of postings received comments, the content of the postings, the language use, etc., and was also part of the process of choosing the particular video episodes for ana- lyses in our case studies (see also Vigmo and Lantz-Andersson 2014). In our analytical work, we have alternated between the transcribed lines in the students’ interactions and between zooming in on specifically selected video sequences investigating the link with the posting in Blogger. As mentioned before, to be able to study the rich data in interaction between the students in the classroom and the postings and comments on the blog Blogger, we have chosen to explore one specific pair of students in detail. The analysis and interpretation of such a specific case can afford valuable concrete, contextual knowledge, especially within a less researched field (Flyvbjerg 2006). The two students in focus in this case study working as a pair were selected since their negotiation and interaction display distinct shifts of framing of their negotiation and inter- action in the course of the lesson, and such shifts are also shown in the interaction of the other groups in this class.

In this study, we have followed the ethical codes as required from the Swedish Research Council. In addition, the Regional Ethical University Board has reviewed and approved the study before any fieldwork was con- ducted. The students were informed about the aims of the study, and the volun- tary nature of participation was stressed. Informed consent was collected before the study started and all identities of the participants were made confidential. Even if the class blog in this study was only accessible for the students in the two classes, their teachers and the researchers, questions concerning publicly accessible content on the Web and the integrity of the individuals in online research will continue to be a central issue from an ethical perspective.

Learning, Media and Technology 379

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ov

a S

ou th

ea st

er n

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

08 :5

9 24

S ep

te m

be r

20 17

5. Results

The blog was established in March 2012 and completed in May 2012. In total, the blog consists of 34 published postings and 82 comments; 26 of the postings received at least one comment. As mentioned earlier, the focus here is primarily on the negotiation and the postings of one pair of students, a girl and a boy, Nicole and Tom. This case will be presented as the activities progress, to display how the students unpack the given activity, and negotiate during the course of the lesson. To be able to follow the students’ framings of the activity during the video-recorded session and to see how these are reflected in their postings, the case is presented as an ethnographic narrative with transcribed excerpts highlighting their shifting of frames as the activity unfolds. The Swedish talk is translated into English in the transcriptions, when they speak English the text is in italics, and when they formulate what they write in the blog as they speak, the text is marked as bold.

5.1. Coming to grips with social media in educational practice

The activities connected to Nicole’s and Tom’s first posting lasted for half the lesson. After the teacher’s introduction, which included announcing the web address, and the activity posted there, Nicole and Tom are facing the computer screen. Initially, there is some uncertainty regarding what is expected of them and they start negotiating on what the task entails (cf Greiffenhagen 2008).

Below, Nicole has just expressed what they are expected to do, namely that they are to write something they want to change, and she now focuses on how to actually use the features within Blogger. Even though Nicole has briefly declared the expected focus of the activity, this is not taken up by Tom, who repeatedly raises questions of what they are supposed to be doing.

5.2. Question in search of an answer – What are we supposed to do now?

Excerpt 1.

01. Tom: what are we supposed to do now 02. Nicole: add there maybe (.) write there ((points at the

space on the screen, intended for posting)) 03. Tom: dunno know what we’re supposed to be doing 04. Nicole: we’re supposed to be making a posting

They are both facing the screen, and Nicole (line 2) points at the space on the screen, intended for posting, suggesting there maybe (.) write there. Tom persists in not knowing, the palms of his hands facing up as he turns to Nicole, followed by hammering on the edge of the table with his fingers saying dunno know what we’re supposed to be doing (line 3).

380 A. Lantz-Andersson et al.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ov

a S

ou th

ea st

er n

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

08 :5

9 24

S ep

te m

be r

20 17

Nicole repeats her answer that they are to make a posting, an answer that Tom repeats, but which he still does not accept; he shows this by leaving to ask their teacher. Initially the students frame the activity as a response to a traditional school task and their negotiation of how to understand and pursue the assign- ments could be said to be part of the culture of traditional task-oriented school- ing, as a response to a school task (e.g., Goffman 1974; Greiffenhagen 2008; Krange and Ludvigsen 2008). The blog context is not in focus in their initial negotiation while they discuss what the task entails.

When Tom returns, he is still grappling with what they are supposed to do, first by turning to the students sitting next to them for their help and then Nicole and Tom together search the blog for other people’s ongoing postings, thus trying to utilize the possibilities that the blog context affords and the possibility to view the other students’ texts. However, at this point in time, these postings are only displayed as headlines/headings, and cannot be seen, as they are post- ings in progress and have not yet been published. The only posting that appears is the one describing the activity. When Tom finds this posting, he reads the instructions out loud and finally understands what the activity is about.

5.3. Negotiating a topic

When they have settled a mutual understanding of what the task entails, they start negotiating what to write about. Nicole suggests a first potential topic about tea- chers, which she does in English. This is followed by switching into Swedish to tell a story about an unfair teacher, to which Tom also responds in Swedish. Tom again shifts language by talking in English and expresses another suggestion of what could be their ‘Something’. The shifting of languages suggests that when they speak English, the target language of the lesson, they are on task, but when they speak Swedish, it is either a meta discussion about the task or merely an off-task dialogue. The following excerpt illustrates how the shift to English becomes a means for them to frame their negotiation back on task. Excerpt 2.

01. Tom: but hey back to business 02. Nicole: yeah of course 03. Tom: what should we write about (.) the environment

Tom’s initial discourse marker but hey said in Swedish functions to emphasize the following statement back to business where he also shifts framing and in English introduces their need to get back on task (line 1). Discourse markers such as ‘ok’, ‘alright’ and ‘back to business’ are used in the students’ interaction in our study, implying a shift to return to the activity on-task (Anderson 1979).

Tom continues by suggesting that they could focus on the environment as a topic, and elaborates on this in a lengthy monologue not explicitly leaving any space for negotiation, alternative ideas or disagreement. This monologue is

Learning, Media and Technology 381

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ov

a S

ou th

ea st

er n

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

08 :5

9 24

S ep

te m

be r

20 17

done in English. However, Nicole’s uptake is to declare her ignorance in this field, shifting to Swedish. Excerpt 3.

01. Nicole: I’ve no idea (.) I know nothing about this 02. Tom: but you understand what I’m saying I hope 03. Nicole: yea: but eh 04. Tom: no I don’t know 05. Nicole: but what can we put

Again the shift of framing from a suggested topic to a negotiation about what the topic should be is performed by the language shift. When Nicole has expressed that she knows nothing about the environment, Tom asks, in English, if she has understood his argumentation. She confirms that she has understood, implying that she understood his suggestion in English but she con- cludes with the discourse markers but eh (line 3), indicating that she does not want their topic to be an environmental issue. Tom’s uptake shows that he understands her unwillingness by displaying an uncertainty of choosing his suggested subject, uttering no I don’t know (line 4) which Nicole responds to with but what can we put (line 4), which opens up for new topic sugges- tions again. In their negotiation of what to write about in their posting, the social media context of writing a posting on a blog shared with Thai students is not invoked at all. Thus, the framing of the activity as solving a task in a language-learning lesson gets precedence, displaying the importance of an agreement in the co-construction of reasoning about a potential topic as part of schooling (cf Greiffenhagen 2008).

5.4. Co-constructing a posting

A couple of minutes after their non-successful struggle to agree on a topic, in the following excerpt, Nicole introduces a new topic, which is something about young people. The excerpt below illustrates how the negotiation con- tinues and how the students collaboratively start to co-construct what is to be written. The words marked in bold are the formulations they utter that also appear written in their posting. Excerpt 4.

01. Nicole: if we could come up with a really good topic something among young people in Gothenburg maybe (no)

02. Tom: young people in Gothenburg 03. Nicole: no (.) in Sweden we’re lazy (.) (no I’m kidding)

yeah but it’s as if ( ) it should be easier to get a job

382 A. Lantz-Andersson et al.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ov

a S

ou th

ea st

er n

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

08 :5

9 24

S ep

te m

be r

20 17

04. Tom: that’s good that’s that’s really good ((Tom writes More))

05. Nicole: more jobs for children more jobs for the chil- dren((Tom writes jobs for the people))

06. Nicole: the youth 07. Tom: how do you spell youth ((Tom writes youth)) 08. Nicole: that you don’t get in touch that you don’t get a

job like without contacts 09. Nicole: yeah but it’s really hard ((Tom writes Would it

not be great if)) 10. Nicole: if everyone had a job no ((Tom writes if every-

one had a job)) 11. Nicole: we would typ minska brottsligheten we would

like decrease criminality ((Tom writes And why is it so))

12. Nicole: hard to find yeah hard ((Tom writes hard to find a job))

13. Nicole: unless you don’t have ((Tom writes theese days then it was so easy twentyfive years ago?))

14. Nicole: these these ((Nicole takes the keyboard from Tom by laying her hand on top of his and moves the keyboard closer to herself correcting Tom’s spelling mistake))

15. Nicole: mister (.) lucky you have me 16. Tom: these ((nodding))

Learning, Media and Technology 383

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ov

a S

ou th

ea st

er n

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

08 :5

9 24

S ep

te m

be r

20 17

In line 1, Nicole suggests in Swedish that they could have something among youth in Gothenburg maybe as their topic, which she completes by laughing and countering her own proposal with a no, displaying an opening for Tom to evaluate her suggestion. Tom does not reply by dismissing her pro- posal but by trying it out, repeating the local city as a context for their topic (line 2). The choice of topic could be seen as some kind of tuning of the framing in relation to the Thai students as an audience for their posting when Nicole broad- ens the topic into a more general issue, in Sweden. The Thai students are, however, not explicitly mentioned during the negotiation of their first posting. Nicole continues by including herself in the notion of youth, by saying we’re lazy (.), which she immediately counteracts by adding (no I’m kidding) in line 3. While laughing she introduces the argument that could fit their topic, that it should be easier to get a job. Tom turns to face Nicole, nods his head and agrees, that’s good that’s that’s really good, his affirmative is followed by starting to write More in the head of the posting, and their co-construction of deciding a topic is settled. In line 5, Nicole switches language to English, which is an additional indication of their agreed topic implying that they are now on-task and she continues to utter more jobs for the children replacing the pre- viously suggested youth with children. This is taken up by Tom who writes jobs for the people. Nicole returns to the first suggestion by saying the youth, in line 6.

Once the topic is settled, they frame the activity by negotiating on the level of formulation. Tom removes people from the screen while switching to Swedish again by asking Nicole how to the spell the word youth (line 7). Nicole spells the word, Tom writes youth in the head of their posting and then places the curser in the space for the posting. Even if they have decided on a general topic, they have to continue to negotiate about the more specific content which is done in Swedish by Nicole (line 8), who suggests how they can continue their posting that you don’t get in touch that you don’t get a job like without contacts, adding that that’s really hard. This reflection in Swedish is reduced in their writing in English to Would it not be great. Nicole immediately suggests a continu- ation on Tom’s writing in English if everyone had a job, which she downplays by adding a no in Swedish (line 10), opening up for Tom to dis- agree. However, her suggestion is taken up by Tom, who writes if everyone had a job. In line 11, Nicole starts in English, then switches to Swedish mid- sentence to argue what could be the outcome if everyone had a job we would like decrease criminality, accompanied by laughing. The mixture of language use is quite common in language learning, and language use, and could be seen as a resource for learning rather than an obstacle (Canagarajah 2006). While Tom writes And why is it so, Nicole (line 12) builds on this with her hard to find ja hard, where the use of English implies a

384 A. Lantz-Andersson et al.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ov

a S

ou th

ea st

er n

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

08 :5

9 24

S ep

te m

be r

20 17

dictation of what to write and the Swedish word ja (yeah) a confirmation and a reinforcement of the utterance. Tom responds to this by writing hard to find a job.

They have now completed the first two sentences in their posting; Would it not be great if everyone had a job? And why is it so hard to find a job. In line 13, Nicole hesitates, unless you don’t have, as if to re-introduce her earlier arguments (line 8) about the necessity of having contacts to get a job, but changes her focus to these these, as she reads that Tom is writing theese. She takes the keyboard from Tom by putting her hand on top of his and moves the keyboard closer to herself as if to correct a spelling mistake, saying in English mister (.) lucky you have me (line 14), and then pushes the keyboard back to Tom. The spel- ling mistake remains however in their posting. This way of co-constructing their authoring of a text framed as part of schooling continues in line with the above negotiation until they are satisfied with their first posting. Figure 1 illustrates their completed first posting on Blogger, which they name ‘More jobs for the youth’.

Figure 1. Nicole’s and Tom’s first posting: ‘More jobs for the youth’.

Learning, Media and Technology 385

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ov

a S

ou th

ea st

er n

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

08 :5

9 24

S ep

te m

be r

20 17

5.5. Discovering the other postings

Once their first posting is published on Blogger, they start scrolling on the screen to see other people’s postings. These postings reflect the other students’ final framings of their postings, but without the analysis of their negotiations, it is not possible to say how they arrived at these framings and the potential shifts of framings on the way. Excerpt 5

01. Nicole: now let’s check what everyone else has written there

02. Tom: I think we’ve done the most most eh: vikings 03. Nicole: serious 04. Tom: yeah the most serious the swedish so society (oh) 05. Nicole: who wrote these (which)

When they start to read the other postings on the blog, they immediately compare and assess their own posting in relation to the others. Their comments, Tom’s laughter, and scrolling up and down for a couple of minutes reflect their interest in the local audience (Baym and boyd 2012; Merchant 2012). They have switched to Swedish, which is the language they stick to during the final part of the lesson, with very few exceptions. As uttered in line 2 above, they stop and read a short posting about Vikings and its two comments, see Figure 2.

This posting is framed quite ironically, which is also seen in the humouristic uptake of it in the comments, for example, the sarcastic remark ‘great job’! Thus, the framing of this posting is more in line with common humouristic out-of-school social media interactions (cf Selwyn 2009; Thorne 2011). Having read this posting and a few more, Nicole’s and Tom’s shared opinion is that they made the most serious posting. Nicole continues to scroll the pages for a minute and stops at the bottom of another posting named ‘Hola Thailand’ (see Figure 3, this posting is also analysed in more detail elsewhere, Vigmo and Lantz-Andersson 2014). This posting catches their interest in particular.

Figure 2. Another pair of students posting: Vikings.

386 A. Lantz-Andersson et al.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ov

a S

ou th

ea st

er n

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

08 :5

9 24

S ep

te m

be r

20 17

Excerpt 6.

01. Tom: please follow on twitter ((Nicole scrolls up to the text and the picture of the Swedish King with rabbit ears))

02. Tom: no stop it 03. Nicole: we-go-we-go-we-go (.) shall we make a new

posting (.) a humour posting 04. Tom: rapzter ((laughing)) 05. Tom: someth(a)ng ((laughing, scrolling up an down))

Nicole scrolls all the way down on the page where it says please follow this on Twitter, which Tom reads aloud (line 1). When he is scrolling up again, he sees the picture of the Swedish King with rabbit ears uttering no stop it (line 2), in an amused voice. This inspires Nicole, who suggests that they should also do a humorous posting, suggesting; we-go-we-go-we-go (.) shall we make a new posting (.) a humour posting (line 3). Tom reads the nickname that one of the boys continues to laugh and reads the title someth (a)ng (line 5), which is an ironic uptake of the title, ‘Something’, their assign- ment. While reading the posting with the picture that is mocking the Swedish King, Nicole and Tom get inspired by the playful, norm-breaking framing of this blog that illustrates a framing that includes their digital vernacular. This is generally less acceptable for a school-task but it becomes legitimate in relation to the carnivalesque framing (Bakhtin 1941; boyd 2007; Thorne 2011). Reading the other’s postings thus leads to a shift of Nicole’s and Tom’s framing of the blogging-activity and they now continue to engage in a discussion on how to frame the activity of producing a new posting. The

Figure 3. Screenshot of the posting ‘Hola Thailand’ including a picture of the Swedish King.

Learning, Media and Technology 387

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ov

a S

ou th

ea st

er n

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

08 :5

9 24

S ep

te m

be r

20 17

shift of framing is not only seen in their communication as such, but also the postings they now engage in during the final 10 minutes of the lesson. In the excerpt below Tom suggests a really norm-breaking posting. Excerpt 7.

01. Tom: shall I shall I post a really gruesome website 02. Nicole: no: 03. Tom: have you ever been on nobrain.dk 04. Nicole: oh no: yes 05. Tom: I was thinking about posting something like

that 06. Nicole: shame: don’t do that 07. Nicole: hey we can take something like this recipe for

cinnamon buns or something 08. Tom: yes: that’s damn good to post

Tom suggests that they link a new posting to a web page with homosexual por- nographic content, he himself calls really gruesome (line 1). Analytically, this corresponds to a negotiation of where to draw the line of the carnivalesque features that could be invoked for mocking (See Bakhtin 1941, cf also Kari- mova 2010, for an analysis of carnivalesque features of popular culture that are mocking the fears of society in the form of e.g., homophobia). The fact that Nicole knows about this site becomes clear as her immediate response is an objection, expressed with, oh no: immediately followed by a yes (line 4), likewise emphasized to confirm that she knows what is on display on the site. And when Tom continues to say that his idea was to link to something similar, Nicole totally disagrees emphatically uttering shame: don’t do that (line 6). Nicole is thus not willing go this far into the carnivalesque framing, even if the activity is shifting towards a notion of carnival where the social order of doing school tasks is temporarily suspended. Instead she suggests that their re-focus could be something less serious than unemployment but not as extreme as posting a website with a clear sexual focus. Her suggestion is then to post a recipe for cinnamon buns, and she gets Tom’s agreement in the next instance, spoken with an emphatic yes: that’s damn good to post (line 8). Nicole and Tom implicitly shift to a framing that can be regarded as playing it safe.

By using Google Translate, Nicole simply translates a Swedish recipe for cinnamon buns that she finds on the web. She also searches for pictures of buns, and finds one which she cuts and pastes into the blog and concludes the posting by translating ‘enjoy your meal’ into Thai (Figure 4). This way of moving in and out of the resources available is a typical example of social media interaction described by boyd (2007) as animated chaos. Finally, Nicole pastes the Thai translation as the final part of their posting, followed by exclamation marks.

388 A. Lantz-Andersson et al.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ov

a S

ou th

ea st

er n

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

08 :5

9 24

S ep

te m

be r

20 17

This translation is an obvious indication of Nicole’s awareness of the global audience, that is, the students in Thailand. However, this is not an issue Nicole and Tom discuss, rather it remains implicit in their interaction. During what is left of the lesson, they contribute with two more casually framed postings to the class blog, a tourist posting with some pictures of an amusement park nearby, and a posting with photos of their school, both of which are obvious postings with the Thai students in mind as audience and addressees.

5.6. Comments to the postings

Most of the postings receive some comments both from the other Swedish stu- dents and from the Thai students. The comments for Nicole’s and Tom’s first posting ‘More jobs for the youth’ are displayed in Figure 5.

In these comments, the uptake is mostly serious and formal. The first comment can, of course, be understood as ironic but there are no explicit signs of that in the use of language. In the second comment, the description of people’s symptoms of exhaustion or burn-out syndrome are simply described by translating the Swedish phrase into English verbatim, ‘hit the wall’, which would probably not make sense to the Thai students. Despite this, overall, the comments have the characteristics of language use in line with the context of schooling. This differs quite a lot from the comment thread

Figure 4. Screenshot of ‘enjoy your meal’ translated into Thai.

Figure 5. Screenshot of the comments for the posting ‘More jobs for the youth’.

Learning, Media and Technology 389

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ov

a S

ou th

ea st

er n

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

08 :5

9 24

S ep

te m

be r

20 17

(Figure 5) of their second posting with the recipe for cinnamon buns displayed in Figure 6.

The comments on this posting are characterized by short, expressive phrases, using slang words and playing around with spelling conventions by highlighting emphasis in examples such as YUMMMMMM. These comments can be characterized as common language use in social media coloured by humour, irony and exaggerations. Analytically, this corresponds to a language use that characterizes the mundane speech of the carnival (Bakhtin 1941) and also what Thorne (2011) calls language in the wild. These kinds of comments that display a hybrid between oral and written language (cf Kern 2014) are the most common ones in this class-blog as a whole.

To summarize, Nicole’s and Tom’s initial negotiation and their first posting are analytically understood as framed with the overall framing of completing a

Figure 6. Screenshot of the comments for the posting ‘Cinnamon buns’.

390 A. Lantz-Andersson et al.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ov

a S

ou th

ea st

er n

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

08 :5

9 24

S ep

te m

be r

20 17

school-task of second English learning. Having finished the posting and check- ing the other students’ postings, there is a shift in their framing of the activity. Thus, here the local audience in terms of their classmates becomes an important resource for their continuing framing of the activity. The other postings are here argued to function as examples of students’ use of Blogger as extended spaces for the use of English, influenced by the carnival orientation on the boundaries between an out-of school social media practice and the school-practice (cf Lantz-Andersson forthcoming-b; Lantz-Andersson, Vigmo, and Bowen 2013). These postings reflect the carnivalesque modes the students display, for example, mocking photos of the Swedish King and playing with words that parallel the familiar speech of social media.

6. Discussion

The study presented here aimed at exploring the students’ framing of the activity of negotiating postings in a social media space that was introduced as part of an English as second-language-learning context. The findings show how students, when struggling to come to grips with the task, initially frame the activity as a school task. For students coming to grips with an unfamiliar task, that is, a task framed in different terms or situated in a context not com- monly used in schooling, they use the frame given as a space to move in; a space in which they deal with the unknown or unforeseen as they continue to do the activity. This implies negotiation within what they understand as expected in the activity (cf Greiffenhagen 2008), as seen in the displayed empirical material in this study. The hybridity in the two students’ interactions and how they author their postings is illustrated in how they introduce the first posting as an argumentative, quite formal and serious text, and in the way English is used to stay on task while negotiating the authoring. The first posting is co-constructed as a written task for an international audience, in spite of the fact that they are seldom referred to, but significant in relation to the content of their postings (cf boyd 2007; Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe 2007; Thorne 2009). Upon detecting and reading other classmates’ postings, for the two students in focus here, these classmates become an audience of great importance that co-determines their continuing framing. When the two students scroll, it becomes evident that some classmates use the social media space as an extended space (cf Lantz-Andersson, Vigmo, and Bowen 2013) for transgressing the boundaries of a school task, similar to joining the carnival (Bakhtin 1941) playing with the language use, invoking modes of language in the wild (Thorne 2011). This implies that the students shift their framing, become more clear agents of their authoring and engage in more postings going in and out of web resources, as in an animated chaos; this can be argued as changing the power relations in the learning context (cf Vigmo and Lantz-Andersson 2014; boyd 2007; Erstad 2008, 2010). One attempt is made to stretch the boundaries further by suggesting a pornographic site, but this

Learning, Media and Technology 391

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ov

a S

ou th

ea st

er n

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

08 :5

9 24

S ep

te m

be r

20 17

idea is rejected and is followed by a discussion on how to re-create the context of the activity, and how far they can transgress the boundaries of the school-task and move into the imaginative activity of carnival. By this shift of framing, their continuous postings are transformed to living the carnival in relation to language use, a language similar to socializing, to spoken language and in a basic, expressive mode, such as exclamations to show feelings. The language use is thus playful and less constrained by the norms of schooling, and English as a subject (cf Lantz-Andersson forthcoming-a, forthcoming-b; Vigmo and Lantz-Andersson 2014).

The use of social media lends itself to a multimodal approach regarding ana- lyses in which various modes of communication contribute to the construction of meaning between the participants across the different contexts in which they interact. By analysing both the negotiation in the classroom and the interaction online on the blog, the interaction is explored across these various forms of lit- erate activities (cf Prior and Thorne 2014). This approach enabled us to study the ways social media extend the available array of resources, contributing to the co-determination of the framings of communicative genres and participative practices. The use of social media in this study can, therefore, be seen as a multi- modal ensemble (Jewitt 2013). It is, thus, exemplified in the study that activities offline resonate in on-line activities (Baym and boyd 2012), and are part of the interplay between authorship, audience and context. The shifting of frames during only one hour in class indicates the boundaries set by the school task itself when done in social media. What is demonstrated in the study is the role the local audience plays for the two students in the social space on the screen, which contributed to shifting frames not only what to post but also how the use of language was transformed. Consequently, even if the audience is not visible, they are thus not to be viewed as unimportant for the authoring but seen as valuable in the negotiation of language use and culture in the commu- nicative space. This means that the roles of authorship and audience could be regarded as intertwined in the interaction.

Thus, the findings of this study show how the context of schooling, the social media context, the other students’ postings and the shifts in-between co-determine the framing of the activity. Furthermore, the study demonstrates how the students’ framing interacts with their uses of English, as context-trans- forming activities. What remains to be further explored, however, are the poss- ible implications of the students’ digital vernacular in language-learning activities in social media and their potential placement in schooling.

Acknowledgements This research was funded by the Marcus and Amelia Foundation and conducted within the University of Gothenburg Learning and Media Technology Studio (LETStudio) and the Linnaeus Centre for Research on Learning, Interaction and Mediated Communi- cation in Contemporary Society (LinCS).

392 A. Lantz-Andersson et al.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ov

a S

ou th

ea st

er n

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

08 :5

9 24

S ep

te m

be r

20 17

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors Annika Lantz-Andersson is a senior lecturer in education at the University of Gothen- burg and a member of The Linnaeus Centre for Research on Learning, Interaction and Mediated Communication in Contemporary Society (LinCS), as well as part of the Uni- versity of Gothenburg’s strength area of learning research (LETStudio). Annika has a Ph.D. in educational science (2009), and her research focuses on social interaction, the use of digital technologies and its implications for learning. She is currently involved in research projects concerning participation in contemporary media ecologies.

Sylvi Vigmo is a senior lecturer in education at the University of Gothenburg and a member of LinCS, as well as part of the University of Gothenburg’s strength area of learning research (LETStudio). Sylvi has a Ph.D. in educational science (2010) and is interested in research that investigates people’s communication when digital technol- ogies are part of interactions, and what questions these interactions raise concerning learning. At present she is investigating open educational resources in international collaboration.

Rhonwen Bowen is a Associate Senior Lecturer in English linguistics and at present Director of the Unit for Academic Language, Faculty of Education, at the University of Gothenburg. Her background and previous research interests include English syntax, corpus linguistics, academic writing, language learning and English medium instruction. For the past four years, Rhonwen has been involved in a collaborative research project entitled ‘Linguascapes - Language learning in social media worlds’. In this project, funded by the Marcus and Amalia Wallenberg foundation 2011-2014, we have investigated students at upper secondary level, and their innovative uses of English in an international collaboration.

References

Anderson, D. C. 1979. “The Formal Basis for a Contextually Sensitive Classroom Agenda.” Instructional Science 8 (1): 43–65.

Bakhtin, M. 1941. Rabelais and His World. Translated by Héléne Iswolsky (1984). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Baym, N. K., and d. boyd. 2012. “Socially Mediated Publicness: An Introduction.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56 (3): 320–329.

Blattner, G., and L. Lomicka. 2012. “Facebook-ing and the Social Generation: A New Era of Language Learning.” Alsic 15 (1): http://alsic.revues.org/2413

boyd, d. 2007. “Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life.” In The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning, edited by D. Buckingham, 119–142. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

boyd, d. 2010. “Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications.” In Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites, edited by Z. Papacharissi, 39–58. New York: Routledge.

Canagarajah, S. 2006. “Toward a Writing Pedagogy of Shuttling Between Language: Learning from Multilingual Writers.” College English 68 (6): 589–604.

Learning, Media and Technology 393

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ov

a S

ou th

ea st

er n

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

08 :5

9 24

S ep

te m

be r

20 17

Chartrand, R. 2012. “Social Networking for Language Learners: Creating Meaningful Output with Web 2.0 Tools.” Knowledge Management and E-Learning: An International Journal 4 (1): 97–101.

Crystal, D. 2003. English as a Global Language. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

DaSilva Iddings, A. C., and S. G. McCafferty. 2007. “Carnival in a Mainstream Kindergarten Classroom: A Bakhtinian Analysis of Second Language Learners’ Off-task Behaviors.” The Modern Language Journal 91 (1): 31–44.

Drotner, K. 2008. “Leisure is Hard Work: Digital Practices and Future Competencies.” In Youth, Identity and Digital Media, edited by D. Buckingham, 167–184. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Ellison, N., C. Steinfield, and C. Lampe. 2007. “The Benefits of Facebook “Friends”: Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12 (4): 1143–1168.

Erstad, O. 2008. “Trajectories of Remixing – Digital Literacies, Media Production and Schooling.” In Digital Literacies. Concepts, Policies and Practices, edited by C. Lankshear and M. Knobel, 177–202. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Erstad, O. 2010. “Content in Motion. Remixing and Learning with Digital Media.” In Digital Content Creation. Perceptions, Practices & Perspectives, edited by K. Drotner and K. C. Schroder, 57–74. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Flyvbjerg, B. 2006. “Five Misunderstandings About Case-study Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 12 (2): 219–245.

Gillen, J., and G. Merchant. 2013. “From Virtual Histories to Virtual Literacies.” In Virtual Literacies, edited by G. Merchant, J. Gillen, J. Marsh, and J. Davies, 9– 26. London: Routledge.

Goffman, E. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Greiffenhagen, C. 2008. “Unpacking Tasks: The Fusion of New Technology with

Instructional Work.” Computer Supported Cooperative Work 17 (1): 35–62. Jewitt, C. 2013. “Multimodal Methods for Researching Digital Technologies.” In The

SAGE Handbook of Digital Technology Research 2013, edited by P. Price, C. Jewitt, and B. Brown, 250–265. SAGE handbook of digital technology research 2013. London: Sage.

Jordan, B., and A. Henderson. 1995. “Interaction Analysis: Foundations and Practice.” The Journal of the Learning Sciences 4 (1): 39–103.

Karimova, G. 2010. “Interpretive Methodology from Literary Criticism: Carnivalesque Analysis of Popular Culture: Jackass, South Park, and ‘Everyday’ Culture.” Studies in Popular Culture 33 (1): 37–51.

Kern, R. (2014). “Technology as Pharmakon: The Promise and Perils of the Internet for Foreign Language Education.” The Modern Language Journal 98 (1): 340–357.

Krange, I., and S. Ludvigsen. 2008. “What Does it Mean? Students’ Procedural and Conceptual Problem Solving in a CSCL Environment Designed Within the Field of Science Education.” International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 3 (1): 25–51.

Lantz-Andersson, A. (forthcoming-a). “Embracing Social Media for Educational Linguistic Activities.” Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy.

Lantz-Andersson, A. (forthcoming-b). “Transformed Framings on Facebook- Students’ Diverse Linguistic Repertoires in the Context of Practicing English as a Second Language.” International Journal of Social Media and Interactive Learning Environments.

394 A. Lantz-Andersson et al.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ov

a S

ou th

ea st

er n

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

08 :5

9 24

S ep

te m

be r

20 17

Lantz-Andersson, A., S. Vigmo, and R. Bowen. (2013). “Crossing Boundaries in Facebook: Students’ Framing of Language Learning Activities as Extended Spaces.” International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 8 (3): 293–312.

Livingstone, S. 2008. “Taking Risky Opportunities in Youthful Content Creation: Teenagers’ Use of Social Networking Sites for Intimacy, Privacy and Self- expression.” New Media & Society 10 (3): 393–411.

Manca, S., and M. Ranieri. 2013. “Is it a Tool Suitable for Learning? A Critical Review of the Literature on Facebook as a Technology-enhanced Learning Environment.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 29 (3): 487–504.

McBride, K. 2009. “Social-networking Sites in Foreign Language Classes: Opportunities for Re-creation.” In The Next Generation: Social Networking and Online Collaboration in Foreign Language Learning, edited by L. Lomicka and G. Lord, 35–58. CALICO Monograph Series Volume 8. San Marcos, TX: CALICO.

Merchant, G. 2012. “Unravelling the Social Network: Theory and Research.” Learning, Media and Technology 37 (1): 4–19.

Prior, P., and S. L. Thorne. 2014. “Research Paradigms: Beyond Product, Process, and Social Activity.” In Handbook of Writing and Text Production, edited by E. M. Jakobs and D. Perrin, 31–35. Handbooks of Applied Linguistics Volume 10. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Sacks, H., E. A. Schegloff, and G. Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn Taking for Conversation.” Language 50: 696–735.

Säljö, R. 2009. “Digital Tools and Challenges to Institutional Traditions of Learning: Technologies, Social Memory and the Performative Nature of Learning.” Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning 26 (1): 53–64.

Selwyn, N. 2009. “Faceworking: Exploring Students’ Education-related Use of Facebook.” Learning, Media and Technology 34 (2): 157–174.

Thorne, S. L. 2003. “Artifacts and Cultures-of-Use in Intercultural Communication.” Language Learning & Technology 7 (2): 38–67.

Thorne, S. L. 2009. “‘Community’, Semiotic Flows, and Mediated Contribution to Activity.” Language Teaching 42 (1): 81–94.

Thorne, S. L. 2011. “Community Formation and the World as its Own Model.” The Modern Language Journal 95 (2): 304–306.

Vigmo, S., and A. Lantz-Andersson. 2014. “Language in the Wild - Living the Carnival in Social Media.” Social Sciences 3 (4): 871–892.

Vygotsky, L. S. 1939. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Warschauer, M., and D. Grimes. 2007. “Audience, Authorship, and Artifact: The Emergent Semiotics of Web 2.0.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 27: 1–23.

Yang, Y.-F. 2011. “Learner Interpretations of Shared Space in Multilateral English Blogging.” Language Learning & Technology 15 (1): 122–146.

Learning, Media and Technology 395

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

N ov

a S

ou th

ea st

er n

U ni

ve rs

it y]

a t

08 :5

9 24

S ep

te m

be r

20 17