X hits on this document

PDF document

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln - page 47 / 152





47 / 152


  • 2)

    What Web 2.0 technology tools do students use in their language learning?

  • 3)

    How do students use Web 2.0 technology tools in their language learning?

  • 4)

    How do students feel about using Web 2.0 technology tools in their language learning?

  • 5)

    What role/s do students see Web 2.0 tools playing in their language learning? From the responses to the questions, a verbatim text was downloaded and printed

for each question from the asynchronous online interview. Each of these responses was

interpreted using qualitative coding methods. The responses were hand-coded identifying

significant emergent codes in each response. The codes were carefully analyzed and

categorized into an overall series of themes. The process of interpretation that was

followed in this study was the responses were read aloud until a change in topic was

perceived to have occurred, at which point the reading stopped to underscore phrases that

seemed to be prominent and/or to articulate significant emergent code/s. This process was

then repeated to ensure all codes were identified. Then the codes were grouped and

categorized into five to seven themes. These themes were considered credible if the

specific descriptive themes were supported by textual support or ―in vivo codes‖; they

were considered revealing if they gave the reader a new and deeper understanding of the

phenomenon as described by participants (Creswell, 2005). This implies that the audience

would be able to read the results of the study, make connections between the themes and

the text, and come away with a well-rounded view of the central phenomenon.

Document info
Document views159
Page views159
Page last viewedSat Oct 22 05:34:35 UTC 2016