X hits on this document

PDF document

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln - page 59 / 152

546 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

59 / 152

57

Figure 4: Time (Pretest/posttest) x Level (Beginning/Intermediate)

Further, a significant main effect of time (pretest/posttest) was present, [F (1, 116) =

554.259 p < .001]. Post hoc analysis showed a significant difference (p <.001) between

posttest scores for non Web 2.0 and Web 2.0 groups (p < .001). There was not, however,

a significant (p = .091) difference between pretest scores for the groups. These results

suggest both groups (Non-Web 2.0 and Web 2.0) were at the same background

knowledge level before taking the course. Consequently, the null hypothesis stating that

Web 2.0 technologies will not enhance student knowledge, understanding, and language

abilities specific to reading, writing, speaking, listening and culture is rejected. Figures 1

through 3 illustrate the group, class, and time effect associated with this change. As

depicted specific to group, students (with Web 2.0 technologies) in group 2 demonstrated

Document info
Document views546
Page views546
Page last viewedMon Jan 23 01:37:32 UTC 2017
Pages152
Paragraphs4746
Words30506

Comments