X hits on this document

PDF document

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln - page 72 / 152

383 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

72 / 152

70

Multi-functioning

Web 2.0 technology was used as a multi-functioning resource for participants in

their language learning. Participant 4 said Web 2.0 ―Provided good research resources.‖

Another participant saw their use of Web 2.0 as it ―Provided a different outlet for

learning.‖ (P5) For each participant the web production tools offered a different use.

Some participants said it enhanced their learning by providing the visual means to

learning.

  • Online

classes

limit

visual

teaching

techniques,

so

I

think

Web

2.0

technologies

compensate

for

this

shortcoming.‖

(P6)

Web

2.0

technologies

were

different things to different people in their uses, but overall their reactions could be

summed up as Web 2.0 ―Enhances the quality of teaching and learning.‖ (P5)

Negative Case

The negative case which appeared in the participants‘ responses was about

information overload. One participant commented about Web 2.0 saying that ―it only

creates a platform for excess information to crowd up the internet.‖ (P17) For this

participant the use of Web 2.0 technologies did not enhance their language learning.

Theme 4. “They’re Already Daily Commodities.”: Pleasure.

T h e y r e A l r e a d y D a i l y C o m m o d i t i e s

Most participants responded that they were already familiar with Web 2.0 tools. As

one participant matter-of-factly put it ―YouTube, Facebook, They‘re already daily

commodities,

it

is

easy

to

create

educationally-based

applications.‖

(P24)

These

applications do play roles in people‘s private lives but also in their professional ones.

Document info
Document views383
Page views383
Page last viewedFri Dec 09 08:33:12 UTC 2016
Pages152
Paragraphs4746
Words30506

Comments