Abstract
As the use of Web 2.0 proves to be beneficial in foreign language learning contexts, this quantitative study focuses on the use of Web 2.0 tools for the development of communication skills in English, specifically in higher education. In order to investigate the participants’ perceptions, 341 undergraduate students and 70 faculty members from Portuguese higher education institutions responded to an online survey. They were asked to associate a list of Web 2.0 tool types to the communication skills they believed that could be developed in English language learning.The general results from both groups show that video sharing tools (for listening and speaking) and presentation tools (for reading and writing) are the ones that the respondents consider to be mostly used in class. A deeper analysis allows us to identify other tools that are mostly used in face-to-face and distance learning contexts and we suggest this list can work as a guideline for faculty members in their practice.
Publisher
Universitat Politecnica de Valencia
Reference20 articles.
1. Bower, M. (2015). A typology of Web 2.0 learning technologies. Educause (47), 763-777. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12344
2. Bueno Alastuey, M. C. (2011). Perceived benefits and drawbacks of synchronous voice-based computer-mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(5), 419-432. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.574639
3. Cardoso, S., Cavalheiro, L. & Branco, J. (2018). The use of technology for English language learning and teaching: some examples. In L. Cavalheiro (Org.), Preparing English Language Teachers for Today's Globalized World (pp. 159-176). Ribeirão - V. N. Famalicão: Edições Húmus.
4. Fattah, S. F. E. S. A. (2016). The Effectiveness of Using Blogs as an Independent Learning Tool to Develop Reading Skills for University Students. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(32), 65-73.
5. Gerhards, J. (2014). Transnational linguistic capital: Explaining English proficiency in 27 European countries. International Sociology, 29(1), 56-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580913519461