Social media can provide a sort of equalizing opportunity for students who have had a range of experiences when it comes to technology and digital media literacy. Depending on their personal history of socioeconomic status, instructors cannot necessarily assume that students will have had common linguistic or technological experiences when they reach the FYC classroom. Paul Kei Matsuda emphasizes this point, noting that becoming a “better writer” might be linked “[implicitly]” to sounding akin to “privileged varieties of English” which can also include native-sounding varieties (640). In a diverse FYC classroom with a number of students from different backgrounds, such expectations of homogeneity are not only problematic but, according to Matsuda, also can go unaddressed in FYC settings (640).
One way to address such language issues of course can be through work that writers in FYC classes do through social media. Zheng et al., in their study of L2 writers, found that L2 students benefitted from the use of social media in their “English speaking skills and confidence” (3). Such engagements through social media give students who might “[struggle] in their face-to-face interactions with English-speaking peers” an opportunity to refine their English-speaking (and also, writing) abilities through technology. Moreover, as Zheng notes, this also “should provide students with the social and intercultural knowledge necessary to respond appropriately to the differing values, discourses, and practices utilized in diverse linguistic and cultural communities” (4). It is not only L2 learners who can benefit from this kind of written feedback though. Shute reinforces that written feedback can also be more effective because "perceived biases are eliminated" from the interaction of providing feedback (177).
In settings where linguistic and cultural diversity is present, using social media can also increase engagement in the class. Valerie Arms notes that in her “English Alive” program, students were encouraged to engage with their peers through digital media forum posts, which gave students a “public audience” where “the introverts and the extroverts had equal voice” (197). Moreover, students noted how they felt “highly motivated” about the course (200). Such public audiences do not only help students with different levels of social comfort though, but can also give students intentional practice in writing for public and oftentimes also multicultural audiences.
Danielle Morgan Acosta adds to this argument by explaining that using social media like Twitter can also allow marginalized communities who may not own or have previously owned computers access digital media (11). She notes that “there was a strong correlation between Internet use and civic involvement, as well as community participation” and that, social media sites like Twitter can also be used by students to “bring more historically marginalized groups into the community and conversation” (12). At open-access institutions (like community colleges) that do not have admissions requirements beyond a high school diploma for students and “serve minority students at a rate that is larger than proportional to the overall population” (123), Hassel and Giordano argue that “writing studies professionals are perhaps in the best position to stage an intervention to increase the academic success and retention of students whose only pathway to a college degree is through an open-access institution” (126).
At both the community college and university level then, the use of social media can not only help engage all students in intercultural communication and give them opportunities to practice in a structured and academic environment, but can be especially helpful to both L2 and marginalized communities who may have been excluded from the “contained” language of the FYC classroom (Matsuda 638) or who might be attending an institution based on what they can afford that does not necessarily provide them with the same resources as a four-year institution (Hassel and Giordano 123).