Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter is comprised of the review of relevant theoretical and evidence-based literature. The review begins with a discussion of the literature on Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) theory, Motivational Theory (MT), and Constructivist Theory to establish the conceptual framework. Each theory is discussed in the context of pedagogical practice. The review continues with the discussion of the literature on technology and social media in general, as well as on the technology, social media and learning in particular. The review then concludes with the review of the research literature on using Twitter in EFL teaching with learning in general, and on using Twitter in teaching with learning EFL in Saudi Arabia in particular, if applicable.
The theoretical basis of this study is defined by the Diffusion of Innovation Theory (DOI) (Sahin, 2006; Rogers, 2003) and is informed by Motivational Theory (MT) (Woolfolk, 2006; Ryan & Deci, 2000), and Constructivist Theory (CT) (Perry, 1999; Vygotsky, 1978; Piaget, 1950). The reasons why the theoretical basis was defined by DOI, MT and CT is because these are theories that are reliable and have been used by researches for many years in a row. Diffusion of Innovation Theory, Motivational Theory and Constructivist Theory are all inevitably linked to the study of learning that is the purpose of this paper. Innovation, motivation and constructivist theory where learning is based on engagement and participation instead of common memorizing, are connected to the study of why the usage of social media is a helpful tool for students to learn EFL.
Diffusion of Innovation Theory (DOI)
There is ample literature on the Diffusion of Innovations Theory (DOI) that informs EFL teaching and learning (Sahin, 2006; Rogers, 2003). DOI dates back to the 1960s with the investigation into how technologies are developed and are implemented across cultures (Sahin, 2006; Rogers, 2003). Originating with Everett M. Rogers in 1962, DOI has been used in the research such as framework in several disciplines, from economics and commerce to technology, from communications science and history to public health and political science (Sahin, 2006). Most significant to this study is research on DOI in the discipline of education (Sahin, 2006).
2.1. The 5 DOI adoption categories
Rogers (1962, 2003) established four elements around which DOI operates that have been developed to include innovation, communications channels, time, and social systems, and that have been adapted to include a fifth element identifying the adopters of DOI. In other words, as Rogers determined, “Diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system” (Diffusion).
1. Innovation.
Innovation is defined by Rogers (2003) as “an idea, practice, or project that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption” (p. 12). Depending upon the individual or group perceiving the novel item as well as the knowledge, persuasion, and decision stage engaged in the decision-making process” (Sahin, 2006). Innovation is assessed for its cost-benefit potential (its relative advantage), for its compatibility, complexity, and trial ability (its adoptability. In addition, it is assessed for its rate of adoption— the adoptability is assessed by researchers and others for the rate at which “the S-shaped diffusion curve takes off at about 10 to 20 percent adoption, when interpersonal networks become activated so that a critical mass of adopters begin using [the]innovation” (Rogers, 2003, p. 12).
2.Communications channels.
Defined as “the means by which messages get from one individual to another” (Rogers, 2003, p. 36), the communications channel(s) are sourced through the originator of the messages regarding the innovation(s) to be adopted. Important to note, adds Rogers, is that in the DOI communications process, there is typically more “heterophily” (p. 36) among the individuals—more differences in interpersonal attributes—such as contrasting educational background, social and organizational status, and belief systems.
3 Time.
In terms of DOI, time is taken into serious consideration—as opposed to ignoring time in other research instances (Rogers, 2003) — as a dimension to be measured in three instances or milestones: 1) during the innovation-decision process, when an individual moves from knowledge of the innovation to adoption/rejection of the innovation; 2) in the timeliness (earliness/lateness) of individuals, compared to others in the social system, adopting the innovation ; and 3) in the adoption rate across the entire social system of that innovation (Rogers, 2003).
4.Social systems.
Whereby a social system is “a set of interrelated units engaged in joint problem solving to accomplish a common goal” (Rogers, 2003, p. 23), adoption rates are considered by researchers or other management in terms of how each individual—compared with other individuals in the group—and how the entire group adopts the innovation. Adoption rates are found to vary from social system to social system (Rogers, 2003).
5.Adopters of DOI.
The smallest or the narrowest of categories includes the adopters of DOI—taken into consideration as individuals, organizations, or social networks, and so on. According to Rogers (2003) and Sahin (2006), there are five categories of adopters: innovators, early adopters, adopters of the early majority of adopters, adopters of the late majority, and laggards. In education, the adopters can be considered the instructors and classified staff but also the student body, so for DOI in the classroom, for example, the educators are taking into consideration the above four elements:
Innovation is assessed by educational professionals not only for discerning when the learning group takes to the innovation (Rogers, 2003) but for identifying the educational value of the innovation—such as when Twitter has value for the EFL classroom.
DOI communication channels function in education and are taken into consideration by educators who, when considering, choosing, and implementing an innovation, they must heed the inevitability of “heterophily” (p. 36) among the learner population. With Twitter, for example, the educator plans for and accommodates the differences in interpersonal attributes such as contrasting social/cultural backgrounds, differing learning styles, and even differing cognitive abilities.
Time is taken into consideration and is measured by the educator in three different ways. First, during the innovation-decision process, when individual students move from knowledge of the innovation (such as Twitter) to adoption/rejection of the innovation; secondly in terms of how quickly, if at all, the individual learner takes to the innovation compared to peers in the same environment; and third, in terms of how well the innovation is regarded and adopted by the entire learner population being targeted.
The social system is regarded by educators in terms the way an individual learner, a learner group, or a class adopts the innovation. Moreover, because adoption rates are found to vary from social system to social system (Rogers, 2003), to establish the value and feasibility of an innovation such as Twitter, also taken into consideration is how one group or class adopts the innovation in comparison to other groups or classes.
2.2.. The pedagogical approaches and the DOI theory in EFL teaching/learning.
Using Rogers’ (1962, 2003) theory of diffusion of innovation, researchers such as Sahin (2006) have focused on he adoption of innovation(s) in higher education in general. These adoptions range widely, from faculty adoption of computer technology for instruction in specific regions and at specific levels (such as college level) to relationships between the level of computer use and selected factors: expertise, access, attitude, support, to specific technologies adopted in educational contexts, such as the computer and relevant teacher perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors. However, more specifically, others (Alotumi, 2015; Azim & Rahman, 2015; Nehal, 2015; Naeini, 2012; Warford, 2005; Stoller, 1994) have conducted studies emphasizing the adoption of innovations in the EFL classroom. Stoller (1994) investigated diffusion of innovations in intensive ESL programs and in the context of the United States intensive English program (IEP) components in order to find the evidence of perceived facilitative attributes and perceived inhibitory attributes of innovations (Stoller 1994). Applying qualitative analysis to 43 US IEPs, the researcher derived Balanced Divergence Factor, Dissatisfaction Factor, and Viability Factor that together suggest “a zone of innovation phenomenon and three paths to innovation [which in turn] highlight a new set of perspectives on the role of perceived attributes of ELT innovations” (Stoller 1994).
Warford (2005) conducted a study testing a Diffusion of Innovations in Education Model (DIEM). In the context of educational change, the researcher tested DIEM predictions and state mandates, finding that the latter tends to inhibit innovation adoption.
Naeini (2012) finds evidence for meeting EFL instructors’ needs through the innovation of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL). Basing the research on the assumption that Iranian EFL instructors are less aware of and less fully prepared for pedagogical functions of the Internet than American instructors, 186 Iranian university lecturers and high school teachers were surveyed based on their attitudes towards using the Internet for teaching and learning. Results of the study included that the majority of those surveyed had positive attitudes towards the role of the Internet in the quality of both learning and teaching, as well as in interaction between instructor and student. Assumptions towards Iranian instructors were wrong, as Iranian instructors were more optimistic than American instructors about the role of the Internet for teaching and learning.
Azim and Rahman (2015) conducted research into the suitability of the innovation of self-study materials used by teachers in a continuing professional development (CPD) program for English in Action (EIA) teachers. The researchers looked into the specific English Language for Teachers ( EL4T) self-study materials using in-depth, qualitative interviews with 6 primary school teachers from Dhaka Division of Bangladesh and using Garrison’s (1997) self-directed learning (SDL) model and found EL4T strongly suitable for motivation and only somewhat suitable for self-management and self-monitoring.
Nehal (2015) based a study of 337 learners enrolled in four English Access Microscholarship programs at Aligarh, Bhubaneswar, Kochi (Aluva) and Kolkata in India to investigate the function and benefits of the innovation, such as Kindle technology in the classroom. The researcher found that “the use of the Kindle technology relates to the development of strategies for the integration of pre-loaded content, continuous evaluation, and troubleshooting” (p. 267).
Furthermore, Alotumi (2015) looked into the innovation of Facebook and Facebook interaction (FBI), as it is associated with Yemeni EFL students’ perceptions, attitudes and challenges on integrating Facebook Interaction (FBI). Using an online questionnaire completed by 50 Yemeni higher-intermediate EFL learners, the researcher focused on integrating FBI as a way to improve students’ essay writing and concluded that the majority of subjects had positive perceptions and attitudes about the facilitative nature of FBI—“helping students effectively in becoming familiar with the writing topics, forming better thought, brainstorming and mind-mapping, reducing spelling errors, as well as acquiring and practicing new vocabulary” (p. 125), despite such challenges as typing and time pressures.
3.0 Motivational Theory (MT).
As a factor affecting learning, motivation has been the centerpiece of theory in education for several decades. In addition, a generous amount of the literature is devoted to motivational theory, starting with general behavioral motivational theory developed by Abraham Maslow and Burrhus Frederic Skinner and continuing with cognitive motivation as well as extrinsic and intrinsic motivation further developed by Albert Bandura and studied by several authorities including Woolfolk (2006) and Ryan and Deci (2000).
3.1. Extrinsic motivation.
In learning contexts, extrinsic motivation is the motivation that is impelled by outer rewards or outcomes such as knowledge, grades, accolades, awards, a diploma, a job, or etc. (Woolfolk, 2006).
3.2. Intrinsic motivation.
Intrinsic motivation is “the natural tendency to seek out and conquer challenges as we pursue personal interests and exercise capabilities” (Woolfolk, 2006, p. 373). According to Ryan and Deci (2000), intrinsic motivation is an important construct that reflects “the natural human propensity to learn and assimilate”(p. 54). Thus, it is also perceived as the self-desire to seek out new things and new challenges, to analyze one's capacity to observe and to gain knowledge, intrinsic motivation will be under more serious consideration in the study, with focus in educational disciplines becoming how to effectively cater to, engage, support, and exploit (make best practices use of) students’ natural, innate tendency to learn. In this respect, according to Ryan and Deci (2000), another specific theory of motivation and its sub theories become most relevant: self-determination theory (SDT) and internalization and integration. First, SDT for education takes into consideration behavioral motivation theory in general and operant theory (Skinner,1953, in Ryan & Deci, 2000) in particular—whereby it is believed that all behavior is motivated by reward(s) or outcome(s); so with activities having intrinsic motivation, the reward is in the participating in the activity itself (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Secondly, SDT for education takes into consideration cognitive motivational theory in general and learning theory in particular as these maintain that all behaviors are motivated by physiological drives (and their derivatives), so with activities having intrinsic motivation, the reward is in the satisfying of innate and basic psychological needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000)—including the needs for relatedness and competence, the need to belong and the need to be and feel competent, respectively. Moreover, according to the authors,
Self-Determination Theory is specifically framed in terms of social and environmental factors that facilitate versus undermine intrinsic motivation. This language reflects the assumption that intrinsic motivation, being an inherent organismic propensity, is catalyzed (rather than caused) when individuals are in conditions that conduce toward its expression.
Therefore, when SDT is applied pedagogically, the goal of educators becomes to plan, design, and implement teaching and learning strategies, devices, technologies, and tools that lend to intrinsically motivating activities that will be rewards in themselves, that promote and facilitate the satisfying of basic needs, and that result in satisfactory perceptions of self-efficacy at the same time as content, knowledge and skill learning competency is achieved.
4.0 Constructivist Theory (CT).
This study is also informed by constructivist theory, which, as social constructivism and cognitive constructivism combined, rests on the belief that humans acquire knowledge through activity and interactivity over which they have control and which they themselves plan, design, create, use, and even assess. In other words, the theory operates on the premise that learners learn best when they construct their own knowledge (Matzen & Edmunds, 2007; Judson, 2006; Biggs, 2003). As a great deal of literature covers, originating with Jean Piaget (1950) and further developed by Lev Vygotsky (1978) and others, constructivist theory maintains that learning takes place through active engagement in student-centered activity, learner perception(s) and learner experience(s), and intrinsic motivation. In my understanding, constructivism in learning means that the learning process is never ending process that is based on many factors, such as experience, knowledge, mistakes, challenges and innovation. As a generous amount of research literature has evidenced, where “teachers who readily integrate technology into their instruction are more likely to possess constructivist teaching styles” (Judson, 2006, p. 581) where clear connection exists between constructivist pedagogy and the use of technology as an effective educational combination—a connection which “implies constructivist-minded teachers maintain dynamic student-centered classrooms where technology is a powerful learning tool” (p. 581).
5.0 Technology and Social Media and Learning.
This study is also informed by the literature on technology and social media as it supports teaching and learning (IRMA, 2016; Coffin & Fournier 2015). Before proceeding to the next sentence, the explanation of constructivist theory will be explained in my own words. Constructivist theory in learning is based on the idea that teachers encourage students to analyze and to understand the information, instead of just memorizing it for better grades. Based on motivational and constructivist theory and assisted by innovation theory and practice, as several of the above investigations (Nehal, 2015; Naeini, 2012) suggest that the use of social media and other supportive innovative technologies lends to motivation for constructive, effective teaching and learning (Zarraonandia, Francese, Passero, Díaz, & Tortora, 2016; Coffin & Fournier, 2015). For example, Coffin and Fournier (2015) have investigated social media in general and Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and other platforms in particular and found that given the perceptions and attitudes of undergraduates and faculty from more than 250 institutions of higher education (in the US), social media functions as a resource or resources for teaching and learning. Zarraonandia, et al. (2016) asserts that social media sites with their multimodal optionality have great potential for clearing up the learning misunderstandings, as well as social and cultural borders, supports personal and group learning, promotes interest in learning new material as well as keeps students encouraged and motivated (p 221).
6.0 Previous studies conducted in using Twitter in EFL teaching/learning
More specifically, several recent studies have evidenced the effectiveness of using Twitter in teaching and learning EFL (Dogoriti, 2015; Acar & Kimura, 2012; Greenhow & Gleason, 2012; Sekiguchi, 2012; Kim, Park, & Baek, 2011; Borau, Ullrich, Feng, & Shen, 2009).
Dogoriti (2015) conducted studies with EFL university students and investigated their perceptions of the value of information and communication technology (ICT) It tools as facilitating engagement, motivation, performance, and technology-enhanced learning environment communications- - to discern what online strategies are effective for the teaching and learning of EFL. Using the Moodle learning management system (LMS) and the specific social media tools Edmodo, Facebook, and Twitter, the researcher included 79 undergraduate students enrolled in an academic methodology course at level C1-C2 in the department of English Language and Literature at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in Thessaloniki, Greece. It is found by the researcher that 91% of the participants reported that Facebook made the course more interesting, 85% of the participants reported that Twitter made the course more interesting, and 73% of the participants reported that Edmodo made the course more interesting. The researcher also found in favor of motivation, with 89% of the participants reported Facebook enhanced their motivation to learn the course material, 75% of the participants reported Twitter enhanced their motivation to learn the course material, and 56% of the participants reported Edmodo enhanced their motivation to learn the course material. In addition, peer-to-peer and teacher-student communication was reported by 89% to be easier with Facebook, was reported by 85% to be easier with Twitter, and was reported by 45% to be easier with Edmodo. Yet in contrast, 51% of the students perceived Edmodo as the most performance-enhancing tool, while 31% perceived Twitter as the most performance-enhancing tool and 45% perceived Facebook as the most performance-enhancing tool.
Greenhow and Gleason (2012) reviewed the common uses of Twitter for enhancing literacy and for impacting both informal and formal learning environments. When learners and educators engage in social and technical practices on microblogging sites such as Twitter, they may simultaneously be developing the kinds of new literacies increasingly advocated in the educational reform literature (p. 467). The authors report that use of Twitter by younger students was “found to support a number of positive educational outcomes, including increased student engagement, active learning, improved relationship between students and instructors, and higher grades” (p. 468). As a result, the advocating in the educational reform is expressed via the improvement between relationship of teachers and students, better grades and active learning and participation.
Acar and Kimura (2012) also investigated the common uses of Twitter, looking specifically at how Japanese learners of EFL use Twitter to determine whether Twitter was useful for EFL language practice. Working with 70 Japanese EFL students, the researchers concluded that “EFL learners post mostly greetings and daily-life related tweets and also frequently respond to other language learners’ messages” (p. 1) and that these participants were highly motivated in doing so. Similarly, a case study involving Japanese EFL learners, Sekiguchi (2012) focused on social media tools such as Facebook and Twitter as promoting social learning in general and as supporting teaching and learning in active learning environments by conducting a study with 20 Japanese university students using an EFL curriculum of several English courses. To show that social media tools as purposeful and appropriate tools for integration into an EFL curriculum can support EFL learning, the researcher created protocol for the participants to use Twitter “as a tool to record and share their study logs within a group” (p. 1). The findings reveal that “the learning community on Twitter helps the participants to maintain their motivation and regular learning routines[and] the community builds a healthy sense of rivalry among the participants which affects positively their self-regulated learning” (p. 1).
Similarly, Kim, Park, and Baek (2011) investigated the use of microblogging with Twitter by Korean learners of EFL to understand pattern, purpose, and features of microblogging as a learning activity. In a study of 45 students from three grade levels—15 from elementary grade 5, junior high grade 7, and high school grade 11—the researchers analyzed student “tweets” over a three-week period. They found that besides demonstrating distinct patterns and other features, “the updated tweets provided convincing evidence that Twitter stimulates EFL learners to promote their foreign language output and helps them maintain social interaction with other users using [the] target language regardless of grade levels” (p. 113). And Borau, Ullrich, Feng, and Shen (2009) also conducted region-specific studies of the usefulness of microblogging for active rather than passive learning. With 98 EFL learners at Shanghai Jiao Tong University registered at Twitter, the researchers determine that tools like Twitter lend to active learning and result in effective training in “communicative and cultural competence” (p. 78).
7.0 Previous studies conducted using Twitter in EFL learning/ teaching in Saudi Arabia.
A limited amount of research has evidenced the effectiveness of using Twitter in teaching and learning EFL in Saudi Arabia, specifically (Alshahrani & Al-Shehri, 2012; Asiri & Alqarni, 2015). However, some research has been done on social media and EFL teaching and learning in Saudi Arabia that has integrated e-tools similar to Twitter as a social media tool, such as Facebook (Alwagait, Shahzad, & Alim, 2014; Mahdi & El-Naim, 2012).
Alwagait, Shahzad, and Alim (2014) investigated the effect of excessive social media use on academic performance. Using universities in Saudi Arabia for the setting of the study, the researchers collected surveys from 108 students to discern social media platform popularity. They found that “no linear relationship between social media usage in a week and GPA score” (p. 1092). They also found that instead, other factors such as time management were reported to negatively affect academic performance.
Alshahrani and Al-Shehri (2012) investigated students’ and teachers’ understanding of and responses to integrated EFL e-learning tools such as Twitter. Using one university in Saudi Arabia for the setting of their study, the researchers found conceptions and practices of integrating e-learning were not aligned.
Asiri and Alqarni (2015) explored the main advantages of using Twitter for EFL. The study presented the potential benefits of using Twitter as an educational tool among high school students in Jeddah, inside and outside their schools. The study showed a positive effect of Twitter in the learning and educational process especially on English language learning process.
However, Mahdi and El-Naim (2012) investigated what if any impact computer-mediated communication (CMC) had on EFL learner’s interaction(s) when used informally—in the context of “unevaluated and unplanned activities which can occur outside the classroomand can be initiated by the students” (p. 75). In particular, the researchers conducted experiments with 50 adult EFL Saudi learners at Najran University, Saudi Arabia, using Facebook, to investigate the extent of active participation by students in informal CMC, the factors that facilitate effective informal CMC, and the effect of informal CMC on student written output. The researchers concluded that informal use of CMC can be affected by several factors include the degree of voluntary participation on the part of the learners, inhibitive schedules, and teacher interference, but that participant attitudes toward the use of informal CMC such as Facebook to improve language learning were mostly positive.
Global trends have witnessed to the application of innovation theory and to the use of social media tools for teaching and learning and for facilitating student intrinsic motivation. However, given the absence of research on Twitter as a tool for EFL teaching and learning in Saudi Arabia in particular, this study intends to open up dialogue for constructivist pedagogy using contemporary Web 2.0 tools and technologies to enhance motivation and support learning for students of English as a Foreign Language.
Works Cited
Acar, A., & Kimura, N. (2012). Twitter as a Tool for Language Learning: The Case of Japanese Learners of English. Paper presented at The Eighth International Conference on eLearning for Knowledge-Based Society, 23-24 February, Thailand. Retrieved from http://elearningap.com/eLAP2011/Proceedings/paper24.pdf
Alotumi,M. ( 2015). Facebook Interaction (FBI) and essay writing pre-task: Yemeni EFL students’ perceptions, attitudes and challenges. In G. Pickering & P. Gunashekar (Eds), Innovation in English Language Teacher Education: Selected papers from the fourth International Teacher Educator Conference, Hyderabad, India (pp. 125-133). New Delhi, India: The British Council.
Alshahrani, K & Al-Shehri, 2012. Conceptions and responses to e-learning: The case of EFL teachers and students in a Saudi Arabian university [online]. Monash University Linguistics Papers 8 (1): 21-31. Retrieved from http://search.informit.com.au/ documentSummary;dn=671764122005636;res=IELHSS ,> ISSN: 1327-9130
Alwagait, E., Shahzad, B., & Alim, S. (2014). Impact of social media usage on students’ academic performance in Saudi Arabia. Computers in Human Behavior 51 (Part B): 1092-1097. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.028
Asiri, A & Alqarni, M. (2015). Twitter as a Tool for English Learning: The Case of High Schools Students in Jeddah. King Abdul-Aziz University,
Faculty of Arts and Humanities,
Department of European Languages & Literature.
Azim, F., & Rahman, M.M.S. (2015). Mobile embedded self-study materials for CPD: the use of English language for teachers (EL4T) in Bangladesh. In G. Pickering & P. Gunashekar (Eds), Innovation in English Language Teacher Education: Selected papers from the fourth International Teacher Educator Conference, Hyderabad, India (pp. 79-86). New Delhi, India: The British Council.
Biggs, J. (2003). Aligning teaching for constructing learning. The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/ resources/resourcedatabase/id477_aligning_teaching_for_constructing_learning.pdf
Borau, K., Ullrich, C., Feng, J.,& Shen, R. (2009). Microblogging for Language Learning: Using Twitter to Train Communicative and Cultural Competence. In M. Spaniol, et al. (Eds.), Advances in Web Based Learning – ICWL vol. 5686 of the series Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp 78-87). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Coffin, T., & Fournier, J. (2015). Social Media in the Learning Setting. Information Technology (June), University of Washington: 1-4. Retrieved from https://www.washington.edu/ itconnect/ wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Social-Media-in-the-Learning-Setting.pdf
Dogoriti, E. (2015). Towards an Instructional Tool for the Teaching of English as a Second/Foreign Language (ESL/EFL) in Higher Education. ICICTE 2015 Proceedings, Kos, Greece. Retrieved from http://www.icicte.org/ ICICTE2015Proceedings%28Papers%29/11.2%20Gogoriti.pdf
Greenhow, C., & Gleason, B. (2012) Twitteracy: Tweeting as a New Literacy Practice. The Educational Forum 76 (4): 463-477. doi: 10.1080/00131725.2012.709032
Judson, E. (2006). How Teachers Integrate Technology and Their Beliefs about Learning: Is There a Connection? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14 (3): 581-99. ERIC Number: EJ729639
"Diffusion of Innovations, System Dynamics Analysis of the." SpringerReference (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 20 Feb. 2016.
Kim, E-Y., Park, S-M., & Baek, S-H. (2011). Twitter and Implications for Its Use in EFL Learning. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning 14 (2,): 113-137. Retrieved from http://kmjournal.bada.cc/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/14-2-5Kim.pdf http://www.dbpia.co.kr/Journal/ArticleDetail/NODE01687515
Mahdi, H.S., & El-Naim, M.E.M. (2012). The Effects of Informal Use of Computer-Mediated Communication on EFL Learner Interaction. CS Canada Studies in Literature and Language 5 (3): Retrieved from http://www.cscanada.net/index.php/sll/article/view/3076
Matzen, N. J., & Edmunds, J. A. (2007). Technology as a Catalyst for Change: The Role of Professional Development. Journal Of Research On Technology In Education, 39(4), 417-430. ERIC Number: EJ768887.
Naeini, M.B. (2012). Meeting EFL Instructors’ Needs through Developing Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL). International Journal of Language Teaching and Research 1(1): 9-12. Retrieved from http://researchpub.org/journal/ijltr/number/vol1-no1-2.pdf
Nehal, R. (2015). Technology-mediated language teaching through a Kindle-based mobile learning initiative in India: the access experience. In G. Pickering & P. Gunashekar (Eds), Innovation in English Language Teacher Education: Selected papers from the fourth International Teacher Educator Conference, Hyderabad, India (pp. 267-274). New Delhi, India: The British Council.
Piaget, J. (1950). The Psychology of Intelligence. New York: Routledge.
Rogers, E.M. (2003) Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25: 54–67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Sahin, I. (2006). Detailed review of Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations Theory and educational technology-related studies based on Rogers’ theory. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology (TOJET) 5 (2): 14-23. Retrieved from http://tojet.net/ articles/v5i2/523.pdf
Sekiguchi, S. (2012). Investigating the effects of Twitter on developing a social learning environment to support Japanese EFL students’ self-regulated learning. ICT for Language Learning International Conference, 15-16 November, Florence, Italy.
Stoller, F. (1994). The Diffusion of Innovations in Intensive ESL Programs. Applied Linguistics 15 (3): 300-327. doi: 10.1093/applin/15.3.300
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. London: Harvard University Press.
Warford, M.K. (2005). Testing a Diffusion of Innovations in Education Model (DIEM). The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal 10(3):1-45. Retrieved from http://www.innovation.cc/volumes-issues/warford_test_diffusion_6af.pdf
Woolfolk, A. (2006). Chapter 10: Motivation in Learning and Teaching. Educational Psychology (10th Edition). Boston, MA, USA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Zarraonandia, T., Francese, R., Passero, I., Díaz, P, & Tortora, G. (2016). Analysing the Suitability of Virtual Worlds for Direct Instruction and Individual Learning Activities. In Information Resources Management Association (IRMA,) (Ed.). (2016) Social Media and Networking: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 218-232). Hershey, PA, USA: Information Science Reference.
