Digital Natives’ Use of Web 2.0 Tools in Learning Foreign Language: A Case Study

Abstract

In the information age, depending on the ubiquitousness of information and digitalization, learners’ learning methods and approaches have changed rapidly and profoundly. Web 2.0 tools and recent technologies have facilitated people’s lives as well as their teaching and learning environments. The generation called “digital natives” live addictively to Web 2.0 and digital media tools. This generation with a perfect command of Web 2.0 tools can reach boundless information and interact with people around the world. In this context, learning a foreign language has become vital for communication and a common language (lingua franca) has become indispensable in this globalized world. Widespread use of Web 2.0 tools in foreign language learning enables both learners and teachers to interact and access information in a short time in and out of class. Accordingly, this study aims to determine digital natives’ levels of using Web 2.0 tools in learning foreign languages under the Connectivism Theory and Cognitive Theory of Multimedia. It’s anticipated that the findings of the research will enable both face to face and distance education-based institutions to learn more about digital natives and their learning styles. In this case study, data collection was completed through semi-structured oral interviews, observations, and document analysis. Parallel with the information in the literature review; the results of this study show that digital natives use Web 2.0 tools quite often and they are ambitious and practical in generating content and sharing their contents via connections.

Keywords

• Web 2.0 tools,digital natives,foreign language learning,the Connectivism Theory,the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia

References

1. Al-shehri, S. (2012). Contextual language learning: The educational potential of mobile technologies and social media Ph.D. Thesis, School of Education, The University of Queensland.
2. Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments and research questions. Handbook of Distance Education, 129-144.
3. Anderson, T. (2016). Theories for learning with emerging technologies.Emergence and innovation in digital learning: Foundations and applications, 35-50.
4. Attwell, G. (2007). Personal Learning Environments. The future of eLearning? Elearning papers, 2(1), 1-8.
5. Aydin, S. (2014). Foreign language learners' interactions with their teachers on Facebook. System, 42, 155-163.
6. Başal, A., & Aytan, T. (2014). Using Web 2.0 tools in English language teaching. In Conference proceedings. ICT for language learning (p. 372). Libreriauniversitaria. it Edizioni.
7. Bat, M. & Vural, B. A. (2010). Yeni bir iletişim ortamı olarak sosyal medya: Ege Üniversitesi iletişim fakültesine yönelik bir araştırma. Journal of Yasar University, 20(5), 3348-3382.
8. Bilgiç, H. G., Duman, D. & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2011). Dijital yerlilerin özellikleri ve çevrimiçi ortamların tasarlanmasındaki etkileri. Akademik Bilişim, 2(4), 1-7.

9. Boche, B. ve Shoffner, M. (2017). Connecting technology, literacy, and self-study in English language arts teacher education. In Being Self-Study Researchers in a Digital World (pp. 61-72). Springer International Publishing.
10. Clinton, G., Lee, E., & Logan, R. (2011). Connectivism as a framework for creative productivity in instructional technology. In Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), 2011 11th IEEE International Conference on (pp. 166-170). IEEE.
11. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications.
12. Çelebi, M. D. (2006). Türkiye’de anadili eğitimi ve yabancı dil öğretimi. Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1(21), 285-307.
13. Çokluk, Ö., Yılmaz, K., ve Oğuz, E. (2011). Nitel bir görüşme yöntemi: Odak grup görüşmesi. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim, 4(1), 95-107.
14. Drexler, W. (2010). The networked student model for construction of personal learning environments: Balancing teacher control and student autonomy. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(3), 369-385.
15. Downes, S. (2012). Connectivism and connective knowledge. Essays on Meaning and Learning Networks, 493-557.
16. Dulkadir, N., Kurubacak, G., Ve Yüzer, T. V. (2009, May). The Power Of Web 2.0 Technologies: Building A Transformative Framework In Dıstance Education. In Proceedings Of 9th International Educational Technology Conference.
17. Elmas, R. & Geban, Ö. (2012). Web 2.0 tools for 21st-century teachers. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(1), 243-254.
18. Ergül, E. (2014). Herkes İkinci Dil Konuşabilir. Dr. Ergin Ergül. Serengil. U. (2007). Anadolu BİL Meslek Yüksekokul Dergisi. 2007, 2(7), 66-80
19. Hsu, L. (2013). English as a foreign language learners’ perception of mobile-assisted language learning: a cross-national study. Computer assisted language learning, 26(3), 197-213.
20. İstifci, İ., Lomidazde, T., ve Demiray, U. (2011, October). An effective role of e-learning technology for English language teaching by using meta-communication actors. In Application of Information and Communication Technologies (AICT), 2011 5th International Conference on (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
21. Karabulut, B. (2015). Bilgi toplumu çağında dijital yerliler, göçmenler ve melezler. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (21), 11-23.
22. Karaman, S., Yıldırım, S., & Kaban, A. (2008). Öğrenme 2.0 yaygınlaşıyor: Web 2.0 uygulamalarının eğitimde kullanımına ilişkin araştırmalar ve sonuçları. XIII. Türkiye’de İnternet Konferansı Bildirileri, 35-40.
23. Knight, S. (2011). Emerging Practice in a Digital Age. A guide to technology-enhanced institutional innovation. University of Bristol.
24. Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 9(3).
25. Kurubacak, G. (2016). Yeni iletişim teknolojileri. Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları.
26. Kuzu, A. (2007). Views of preservice teachers on blog use for instruction and social interaction. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8(3), 34-51.
27. Kürkçü, D. D. (2016). Yeni Medya ve Gençlik. Kriter Yayınevi.
28. Lam, W. S. E. (2004). Second language socialization in a bilingual chat room: Global and local considerations. Language Learning & Technology, 8(3), 44-65.
29. Leutner, D. (2014). Motivation and emotion as mediators in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 174-175.
30. Lomicka, L., & Lord, G. (Eds.). (2009). The next generation: Social networking and online collaboration in foreign language learning. San Marcos, TX: CALICO Book Series.
31. Mayer, R. E. (2008). Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. American psychologist, 63(8), 760-769.
32. Mayer, R. E. (2014). Incorporating motivation into multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 171-173.
33. Morgan, L. (2012). Generation Y, learner autonomy and the potential of Web 2.0 tools for language learning and teaching. Campus-wide information systems, 29(3), 166-176.
34. Oktay, S., and Çakır, R. (2013). Teknoloji destekli beyin temelli öğrenmenin öğrencilerin akademik başarıları, hatırlama düzeyleri ve üstbilişsel farkındalık düzeylerine etkisi. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 10(3), 3-23.
35. Palfrey, J. & Gasser, U. (2013). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. Basic Books.
36. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications, Inc.
37. Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Services Research, 34(5), 1189.
38. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
39. Rapetti, E., & Cantoni, L. (2010). “Digital natives” and learning with the ICTs. The “GenY@ work” research in Ticino, Switzerland. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 6(1), 39-49.
40. Prensky, M. (2005). In digital games for education, complexity matters. Educational Technology, 45(4), 22-28.
41. Prensky, M. (2011). Digital wisdom and homo sapiens digital, Deconstructing digital natives. Routledge.
42. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International journal of instructional technology and distance learning, 2(1), 3-10.
43. Siemens, G. (2014). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), Retrieved from https://lidtfoundations.pressbooks.com/chapter/ connectivism-a-learning-theory-for-the-digital-age/
44. Siemens, G., & Conole, G. (2011). Connectivism: Design and delivery of social networked learning. International Review of Research in Open andDistance Learning, 12(3). 1-2.
45. Sorrentino, P. (2018). The mystery of the digital natives' existence: Questioning the validity of the Prenskian metaphor. First Monday, 23(10).
46. Taş, G. (2014). Dijital yerliler kimdir ve özellikleri nelerdir? Retrieved from www.dijitalajanslar.com/ dijital-yerliler-kimdir-ve-ozellikleri-nelerdir/
47. Tapscott, D. (2008). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. HC. McGraw-Hill.
48. Trimnell, E. (2005). Why you need a foreign language & how to learn one. Beechmont Crest Pub.
49. Tonta, Y. (2009). Dijital yerliler, sosyal ağlar ve kütüphanelerin geleceği. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 23(4), 742-768.
50. Yılmaz, Ö., ve Özkan, B. (2014). Uzaktan eğitim BÖTE öğrencilerin uzaktan eğitim ile ilgili görüşlerinin incelenmesi. Hasan Âli Yücel Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(1), 85-94.
51. Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2007). Audience, authorship, and artifact: The emergent semiotics of Web 2.0. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 1-23.
52. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri.(7. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.