X hits on this document

PDF document

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln - page 84 / 152

560 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

84 / 152

82

the Web 2.0 definition is based. Therefore without the community component within

Web 2.0 technologies, these technologies would not exist since they are dependent on a

network of interpersonal ties (Rheingold, 1994; Wellman, 2002). The CCS showed the

same level of self-reported learning. This contradicts the study‘s initial findings of the 2-

way interaction between pretest and posttest x Web 2.0 course and non-web 2.0 course,

[F (1, 116) = 19.410 p <.001] and the significant main effect [F (1, 116) = 554.259 p <

.001]. O‘Malley (1999) found similar results to those self-reported by students in the

Classroom Community Survey. He reported that students do not believe that they learn

more in online courses as compared to traditional face-to-face courses. Richardson and

Swan (2003) found that student self-reported learning was correlated with the social

presence

(community).

This

contradicts

the

findings

by

the

Classroom

Community

Survey which showed a higher level of social presence (community) and yet the same

level of self-reported learning. However, the Richardson and Swan study confirms the

quantitative findings of the increased posttest score and the increase level of community

(social presence).

Conclusions

Hypotheses were analyzed using a repeated-measures 2 x 2 ANOVA where the

factors were group (Web 2.0 and non-Web 2.0), level (Beginning and Intermediate), and

time (pretest and posttest). Post-hoc comparisons were made to determine the

significance between said scores. Results suggested participation in the Web 2.0 course

did significantly enhance student knowledge, understanding, and communicative abilities

Document info
Document views560
Page views560
Page last viewedMon Jan 23 15:15:36 UTC 2017
Pages152
Paragraphs4746
Words30506

Comments