Perceptions of Instructors on Using Web 2.0 Tools in Academic English Courses
Abstract
It is impossible to imagine a university instructor who does not make use of the internet today. The internet provides not only quick access to reliable research data but also certain programs that teachers can tailor to use in their own specific contexts and to interact with their students in practical ways. There might still be resistance to learning new technologies and adapting to them even in the most ‘modern’ work environments even among the relatively younger teachers. The aim of this study was to explore the ELT instructors’ perspectives on the use of Web 2.0 technologies in university level academic English skills courses in an English-medium university, and to test whether a year-long regular training program made a difference in their perceptions and practice of the use of Web 2.0 tools in their teaching. 21 instructors from Middle East Technical University were offered regular training sessions on the practical uses of certain Web 2.0 tools such as, the Google Drive, Google Sheets, Google Slides, Google Docs, Google Forms, Kahoot, Mysimpleshow, Poll Everywhere, Nearpod, Mentimeter, Edpuzzle, and QR codes. A pretest and posttest to explore the instructors’ knowledge of and attitudes towards Web 2.0 tools were administered before and after the series of training sessions to see if there were any significant changes. Also, follow-up interviews were carried out with the instructors who participated in the sessions to obtain a deeper insight into their perspectives. Both the questionnaire and the interview results revealed that there were significant changes in these instructors’ attitudes towards the use of Web 2.0 tools.References
Bennett, S., Bishop, A., Dalgarno, B., Waycott, J., & Kennedy, G. (2012). Implementing Web 2.0 technologies in higher education: A collective case study. Computers & Education, 59(2), 524-534.
Bran, R. (2009). Do the Math: ESP + Web 2.0 = ESP 2.0! Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 1, 2219-2523.
Cephe, P. T. & Balçıkanlı, C. (2012). Web 2.0 tools in language teaching: What do student teachers think? International Journal on New Trends in Education and
Their Implications, 3(1), 1-12.
Chartland, R. (2012). Social networking for language learners: Creating meaningful output with Web 2.0 tools. Knowledge Management and E-learning: An International Journal, 4(1), 97-101.
Chou, P. N., & Chen, H. H. (2008). Engagement in online collaborative learning: A case
study using a Web 2.0 tool. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(4), 574–
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1987). The flow experience. In M. Eliade (Ed.).
The Encyclopaedia of Religion. New York: Macmillan.
Dam, L. (1995). Learner Autonomy 3: From Theory to Classroom Practice.
Dublin: Authentik.
Ebner, M. (2007). Web 2.0 = E-learning 1.0 + Web 2.0?. Paper presented at
the Second International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES ’07), Vienna, Austria.
Halic, O., Lee, D., Paulus, T., & Spence, M. (2010). To blog or not to blog: Student perceptions of blog effectiveness for learning in a college-level course. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 206-213.
Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2013). Use of Web 2.0 technologies in K-12 and higher education: The search for evidence-based practice. Educational Research Review, 9, 47-64.
Huang, C.K. & Lin, C.Y. (2011). Enhancing classroom interactivity and
engagement: CFL learners’ perceptions of the application of Web 2.0 technology.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 6, 141-144.
Kárpáti, A. (2009). Web 2 technologies for net native language learners: A
“social CALLâ€. ReCALL, 21(2), 139-156.
Khany, R. & Boghayeri, M. (2013). Implementing Web 2.0 tools in language
pedagogy: An Iranian EFL teacher’s attitude. Proceedings of the Global Summit
on Education, 151-159.
Küfi, E. Ö. & Özgür, B. (2009). Web 2.0 in learning English: the student
perspective. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 326-330.
Light, D. & Polin, D. K. (2010). Integrating Web 2.0 tools into the classroom:
Changing the culture of learning. New York: Center for Children and Technology,
Education Development Center, Inc. Retrieved from ERIC Database. (ED 543171)
McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M. (2007). Social software and participatory learning:
Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. Paper
presented at the Ascilite Conference 2007, Singapore.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon. 9(5), 1-4.
Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools
for classroom (2nd ed.). San Diego: Corwin Press.
Stevenson, M. G. & Liu, M. (2010). Learning a language with Web 2.0:
Exploring the use of social networking features of foreign language learning websites. CALICO Journal, 27, 2, 233-259.
Sykes, J. M., Oskoz, A. & Thorne, S. L. (2008). Web 2.0, synthetic immersive
environments, and mobile resources for language education. CALICO Journal,
, 3, 528-546.
Tatlı, Z., Akbulut, H. İ., Altınışık, D. (2016). Öğretmen adaylarının teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisi özgüvenlerine Web 2.0 araçlarının etkisi. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 7(3), 659-678.
Thayer, T. (2014, August 28). Who said, “If we teach today’s students as we taught yesterday’s, we rob them of tomorrow.� Retrieved June 4, 2018, from http://www.education4site.org/blog/2014/who-said-if-we-teach-todays- students-
as-we-taught-yesterdays-we-rob-them-of-tomorrow/
Ushida, E. (2005). The Role of Students Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language
Learning in Online Language Courses. CALICO Journal, 23(1), 49-78.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Submission of an article implies that the work described has not been published previously (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis), that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out, and that, if accepted, will not be published elsewhere in the same form, in English or in any other language, without the written consent of the Publisher. The Editors reserve the right to edit or otherwise alter all contributions, but authors will receive proofs for approval before publication.
Copyrights for articles published in International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction are retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal. The journal/publisher is not responsible for subsequent uses of the work. It is the author's responsibility to bring an infringement action if so desired by the author.
