Web 2.0 For Language Learning: Benefits and Challenges For Educators

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/256912930
Web 2.0 for Language Learning: Benefits and Challenges for

Educators.
Article · January 2013

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-5942-1.ch055
CITATIONS READS
5 2,514
1 author:
Tian Luo
Old Dominion University
46 PUBLICATIONS 337 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
The Power of Open: Benefits, Barriers, and Strategies for Integration of Open Educational Resources View project
K-12 technology integration View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Tian Luo on 21 May 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
COMPUTER-ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING
AND TEACHING
July-September 2013, Vol. 3, No. 3
Table of Contents
SPECIAL ISSUE ON CALICO 2012 CONFERENCE “OPEN EDUCATION:
RESOURCES AND DESIGN FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING”
GUEST EDITORIAL PREFACE

iv Lara Ducate, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA
RESEARCH ARTICLES
1 Web 2.0 for Language Learning: Benefits and Challenges for Educators
Tian Luo, Ohio University, Athens, OH, USA
18 Using Social Network-Mediated Bridging Activities to Develop Socio-Pragmatic Awareness in

Elementary Korean
Jonathon Reinhardt, Department of English, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
Jieun Ryu, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
34 Online Communities of Practice and Second Language Phonological Acquisition

Gillian Lord, Department of Spanish and Portuguese Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
Stasie Harrington, Department of Spanish and Portuguese, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
56 Questionnaires to Inform a Usability Test Conducted on a CALL Dictionary Prototype

Marie-Josée Hamel, Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
77 Learner Fit in Scaling Up Automated Writing Evaluation

Elena Cotos, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA
Sarah Huffman, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA
BOOK REVIEW
99 Computer-Assisted Foreign Language Teaching and Learning: Technological Advance
Zhuo Qiao, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou, China
Yunyin Zhou, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou, China
Copyright
The International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (ISSN 2155-7098; eISSN 2155-
7101). Copyright © 2013 IGI Global. All rights, including translation into other languages reserved by the publisher.
No part of this journal may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means without written permission from the
publisher, except for noncommercial, educational use including classroom teaching purposes. Product or company
names used in this journal are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does
not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark. The views expressed in this
journal are those of the authors but not necessarily of IGI Global.
The International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching is currently listed or indexed in: ACM Digital Library;
Australian Education Index; Bacon's Media Directory; Cabell's Directories; DBLP; Google Scholar; INSPEC; JournalTOCs; MediaFinder;
ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Journals; ProQuest Computer Science Journals; ProQuest Illustrata: Technology; ProQuest
SciTech Journals; ProQuest Technology Journals; The Standard Periodical Directory; Ulrich's Periodicals Directory
International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 3(3), 1-17, July-September 2013 1
Web 2.0 for Language Learning:

Benefits and Challenges for Educators
Tian Luo, Ohio University, Athens, OH, USA
ABStRACt
This literature review study explores 43 empirical research studies that report on the integration of Web 2.0
tools into language learning and evaluate the actual impact of their use. In particular, this review aims to
identify the specific Web 2.0 tools integrated in the educational settings, theoretical underpinnings that are
commonly used to frame the research, methodologies and data analysis techniques that scholars employ
to analyze their research data, the benefits and challenges scholars spotted in their research findings, the
pedagogical implications in using Web 2.0 for language learning and future research directions that scholars
offer from their research.
Keywords: Computer-Assisted Language Learning, Computer-Mediated Communication, Meta-Analysis,

Social Networking, Technology, Web 2.0
INtRODuCtION technologies, are penetrating all aspects of

language classroom activities. Although there
Since 2004, a variety of Web 2.0 technologies exists continued awe and apprehension about
have been rushing into people’s daily lives. The their effects, it is inevitable to find that more
concept, Web 2.0, comprises a multitude of and more language educators are using Web 2.0
different connotations resulting in an increased tools in their teaching (Thomas, 2009).
emphasis on user-generated content, informa- The wedlock between Web 2.0 and lan-
tion sharing, collaborative and cooperative ef- guage education does not exist in a vacuum.
fort, learner-to-learner and learner-to-instructor As Thomas (2009) posits, the underpinnings
interactivity, and informal and formal learning, reside in the fact that only through the medium
which altogether potentially formulate a newly- of language can the web make all the acquain-
emerging paradigm of Web 2.0-based online tances we have and all the communities we
learning compared to traditional Web-based build possible. In other words, the practices of
or e-learning paradigms (Brown, 2010; Craig, learning a language can be carried out on the
2007; Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes, 2009; web, which builds a natural connection between
Olaniran, 2009; Selwyn, 2008). In the language language learning and Web 2.0 integration.
learning domain, the practice of using Web The innate characteristics of Web 2.0 also
2.0 tools has been widespread. Web 2.0 tools, echo the essence of language learning. As a
interchangeably named social media or social social tool that provides numerous opportunities
DOI: 10.4018/ijcallt.2013070101
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
2 International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 3(3), 1-17, July-September 2013
for language learners, the web fundamentally ever-changing technology development. As sug-
“decentralizes the role of the language class- gested by Thomas (2009), due to the fact that
room” (Thomas, 2009, p. 21). Specifically, the the development of technology continuously
process of learning that conventionally takes outpaces scholarly research investigation, it is
place in-classroom has been replaced by the necessary to constantly reflect on the current
web, a student-owned territory that operates state of research, synthesizing and summariz-
as a much larger, more engaging and more ing the research development paralleled with
inclusive provider of power than a traditional the most up-to-date technology enhancements.
classroom setting. This is evident in language Furthermore, in addition to addressing research
learning as it is essentially a process in which a questions including theoretical and method-
target language is often practiced and acquired ological issues, and benefits and challenges of
within communities and group settings that are using of Web 2.0 technologies that are analogous
commonplace on the web. to Wang and Vasquez’s study (2012), this cur-
It is only in recent years that researchers rent study overtly highlights the pedagogical
have started to conduct empirical and explor- implications and suggested directions for future
atory research studies to assess and evaluate research. The specific research questions of this
the actual impact of using Web 2.0 tools in literature review study are:
language learning, both in and outside of
classroom settings (Lomicka & Lord, 2009). 1. What are the theoretical underpinnings that
Although scholars have asserted that language scholars used to frame their research?
learning research in the realm of Web 2.0 is still 2. Which Web 2.0 technologies were exam-
in its embryonic stage, we have seen a soaring ined in these studies?
increase in research where the attributes of 3. What methodologies and data analysis
Web 2.0 have been investigated in conjunction techniques did scholars employ to analyze
with the instructional and pedagogical implica- their research data?
tions of language learning. This change, in the 4. What were the benefits and challenges of
meantime, denotes a new paradigm shift in using Web 2.0 for language learning and
CALL research in which new interactive and teaching as identified in these studies?
multimedia Web 2.0 tools are being adopted by 5. What implications and recommendations
language educators (Wang & Vasquez, 2012). did the current research have for future
This literature review particularly aims to research directions in Web 2.0 for language
delve into the most current research investiga- learning?
tions revolving around Web 2.0’s integration
into language learning and teaching settings,
seeking to answer the questions of why and MEtHOD
how Web 2.0 tools are being adopted by lan-
guage educators. In an earlier study, Wang and Selection Criteria
Vasquez (2012) provided a solid synthesis of
studies on Web 2.0 research in second language To answer the research questions, a series of
learning mainly published from 2005 to 2009. selection criteria were established and followed
Although the current research shared similar strictly in this review study:
goals and pool of review studies with Wang and
Vasquez’s (2012) study, this research expands 1. Research must focus on using Web 2.0
the scope of reviewed studies to encompass tools in the context of language learning
all eligible research in all-inclusive language and teaching. Published research on using
learning settings rather than focusing on second Web 2.0 tools in other disciplines or areas
language learning. More importantly, the cur- of study was excluded from this review.
rent study addresses articles from later dates 2. Research must consist of empirical studies
(from 2008 to 2012) to keep abreast with the reporting data derived from actual obser-
vations or experimentations. Published CALL experts were asked to rate the quality
research that was solely focused on con- of CALL-specific and Education Technology-
ceptual framework, personal opinions or related journals that publish CALL research.
anecdotal experiences was excluded. CALL experts also “present a clear ranking pref-
3. Research must explicitly identify one erence” for these three specific journals (Smith
or multiple Web 2.0 tools examined in & Lafford, 2009, p. 879). Later, the researcher
its studies. Studies that examine the full conducted multiple rounds of searching sepa-
courseware, such as Moodle or WebCT, rately within each journal’s website, using the
or that report on any types of academic keyword Web 2.0 and several specific categories
online learning program, without implicitly of Web 2.0, including blog, microblog, wiki,
identifying the use of the Web 2.0 tool in Twitter, Facebook, and social networking. In
such courses/programs, are also excluded searching articles in CALL, Web 2.0 was used
in this review. as a keyword to search in its publisher, Taylor
4. Research must provide evaluative evidence & Francis’ online databases, which yielded
of the Web 2.0-supported activities by re- 32 results. After limiting the publication dates
porting qualitative or quantitative data in and applying the selection criteria, five articles
one or more of the following dimensions of were finally selected from CALL. The same
learning: affective learning (i.e, whether the methods of searching were applied to LLT and
use of Web 2.0 affects student motivation, the CALICO Journal; eventually nine articles
attitude and perception); cognitive learning from LLT and eight from the CALICO Journal
(i.e, whether the use of Web 2.0 affects were finalized to be included in this review.
student achievement and performance); The second stage of this search was ex-
and metacognitive (i.e, whether learners tended to three major educational databases,
are more autonomous and self-directed Educational Research Information Center
in the learning processes). Papers that did (ERIC), Education Research Complete (ERC),
not provide any evidence on the previous and Education Full-Text, using the same key
three dimensions were excluded. words. After restricting the searching results to
5. Research must be published in peer- meet the selection criteria, 18 more articles were
reviewed academic journals within the identified and thus included for further analysis.
selected five-year time frame (2008-2012) The researcher also decided to add chapters
in order to keep abreast of current studies from one book, The Next Generation: Social
that concern the most up-to-date Web 2.0 networking and online collaboration in foreign
technologies. Papers that were published language learning, to this pool of reviewed
outside this time frame were excluded. studies. This decision was made to diversify
and broaden the scope of Web 2.0 tools inves-
Identification of Eligible Studies tigated in this literature review. Using the same
selection criteria, three chapters that empirically
The identification of eligible studies was con- examined specific Web 2.0 tools were selected
ducted in three stages. Due to the voluminous from this book. All the 43 selected articles can
body of research on using Web 2.0 tools for be found in Table 1.
language learning and teaching, in the first
stage the search was limited to the three well-
recognized leading refereed journals: respec- RESuLtS
tively, Computer Assisted Language Learning
theoretical underpinnings
(CALL), Language Learning & Technology
(LLT), and the CALICO Journal. As cited in The incorporation of Web 2.0 tools in language
Smith and Lafford’s (2009) study, these three learning and teaching is grounded in a wide
journals possessed the highest rankings when range of seminal theories across multiple dis-
Table 1. Distribution of selected studies in journals and books
Journal/ Books Title N Authors

CALL 5 Ducate and Lomicka (2008); Ernest et al. (2012); Lee (2009);
Martinez (2012); Vurdien (2011);
The CALICO Journal 9 Arnold, Ducate, and Kost (2012); Blattner and Fiori (2011); Darhower
(2008); Gebhard, Shin, and Seger (2011); Lee (2010); Mills (2011);
Mitchell (2012); Reinhardt and Zander (2011); Sun (2012)
LLT 9 Diez-Bedmar and Perez-Paredes (2012); Elola and Oskoz (2010);
Hafner and Miller (2011); Kessler (2009); Kessler, Bikowski, and
Boggs (2012); Lee (2011); Sun (2009); Yang (2011); Yanguas (2010)
Other 17 Abdous, Camarena, & Facer (2009); Armstrong and Retterer (2008);
Borau et al. (2009); Chen, Chen, and Sun (2010); Harrison and
Thomas (2009); Hourigan and Murray (2010); Lee (2010); Liou
and Peng (2009); Lund (2008); Matthew, Felvegi, and Callaway
(2009); McWilliams et al. (2010); Perifanou (2009); Petersen,
Divitini, and Chabert (2008); Soares (2008); Sun (2010); Woo et
al. (2011); Zorko (2009)
The next generation: Social networking 3 Antenos-Conforti(2009); Arnold, Ducate, and Kost (2009); Williams
and online collaboration in foreign and van Compernolle (2009)
language learning
Total 43
ciplines, including education, communication, theory to support their studies. This finding con-
and linguistics. Among all the reviewed studies, curs with Thomas’s (2009) acknowledgement
roughly 60% explicitly stated the theoretical to constructivism theory being the backbone
groundings of their research and made close of voluminous research on Web 2.0 tools in
association between the research investigation CALL. Constructivism values students’ prior
and the theoretical framework. These results knowledge, considering social interaction as
indicate a patent rise in comparison to Wang & the foundation of all learning experiences and
Vasquez’s (2012) findings in which only 44% the venue of all learning engagements. Learners
of the reviewed studies demonstrated clear achieve their learning goals by actively asso-
theoretical linkages. Furthermore, this finding ciating with their prior knowledge and experi-
is also in discordance with Lomicka and Lord’s ence, and constructing their own understanding
(2009) prior claim that research studies examin- and knowledge through the interaction that a
ing Web 2.0 tools in language learning lack a multitude of social technologies affords. The
solid theoretical base. The current conclusion use of Web 2.0 technologies largely increases
may be due to the refined research base of the possibility of bringing social interaction
this review, as many of the studies included into learning environments (Lee, 2009; Mills,
are uniquely retrieved from the three most 2011). With the facilitation of Web 2.0 tools,
preeminent journals. It may also be attributed students are more likely to be engaged in a va-
to an improved coherence between the empiri- riety of interactive learning environments that
cal studies and theoretical bases in the CALL equip them with more flexibility and autonomy
research domain. It is also noticeable that some (Kessler, 2009).
studies have used multiple theories to support Along the same line of constructivism
their research. Table 2 presents the theoretical theory, Vygotsky’s (1978) social constructiv-
frameworks identified in the reviewed studies. ism theory was also well-cited in the reviewed
In the current literature review, a great studies. Vygotsky reinforces the importance of
number of the studies chose constructivism social interaction in helping learners to achieve
Table 2. Theoretical framework identified in reviewed studies
Theoretical Framework N Research

Constructivism/social con- 13 Ernest et al. (2012); Harrison and Thomas (2009); Kessler (2009)*;
structivism Kessler, Bikowski, and Boggs (2012); Lee (2010); Lee (2011); Lee (2010)
2
; Lee (2011); Martinez (2012); Matthew, et al. (2009); Woo et al. (2011);
Petersen, Divitini, and Chabert (2008)*; Woo et al. (2011)*
Sociocultural approach 5 Darhower (2008); Gebhard, Shin, and Seger (2011); Lee (2009); Lund
(2008); Reinhardt and Zander (2011)
Learning autonomy 3 Hafner and Miller (2011); Kessler (2009); Kessler and
Bikowski (2012);
Situated learning 3 Elola and Oskoz (2010); Mills (2011); Woo et al. (2011)*
Community of Practice 3 Blattner and Fiori (2011); Petersen, Divitini, and Chabert (2008); Yang
(2009)
Collaborative learning 5 Arnold, Ducate, and Kost (2012); Chen, Chen, and Sun (2010); Ernest et
al. (2012)*; Matthew et al. (2009); Woo et al. (2011)*
Interactionist model 2 Antenos -Conforti (2009); Yanguas (2010)
Task-based learning 1 Sun (2012)
Shared-space theories 1 Yang (2011)
Not identified 17
*used more than one theory
cognitive learning. He posits that social interac- bring about individual cognitive development
tion can leverage learners’ skills to a level that (Gebhard, 2012).
is hardly attained by individual learning as it Researchers also utilized situated learning
provides tremendous opportunity for learners theory, which holds that learning takes place
to verbalize their own learning, reinforces their within a specific context and should also be
own understanding, and allows them to access applied in a new situation (Brown, Collins,
varied resources provided by others. Multiple & Duguid, 1989). The association between
researchers have seamlessly relocated this situated learning and Web 2.0 emphasizes
theory into the realm of language learning and learners’ abilities to apply their knowledge
teaching to support the use of Web 2.0 tools into actual practice; in other words, learning
that promote social interaction (i.e. Harrison & by doing. The learning context, which entails
Thomas, 2009; Petersen, Divitini, & Chabert, the learning environment, teacher-designed
2008). activity, learners themselves, and the culture
Sociocultural theory is also highly appli- within which learners are immersed, is of great
cable in language learning settings. The socio- importance as far as situated learning theory
cultural theory views learning as an active social is concerned. The learning environments that
and collaborative process in which learners use Web 2.0 tools provide enable learners to situate
a system of symbols and tools to achieve their their own learning and apply their knowledge
learning goals. In this process, learners interact and skills to create actual learning products by
with their social environment and transmit their using these tools.
learning both externally and internally. With use
of Web 2.0 tools such as blogs and wikis, the Web 2.0 technologies in
tools themselves are not merely deemed as an Reviewed Studies
external artifact that learners can adopt and use;
more importantly, they are interactive mediums The distribution of various types of Web 2.0 tools
that learners use to mediate their learning and examined in the current reviewed studies is pre-
sented in Table 3. As expected, wikis and blogs in language classrooms as well (Gao, Luo, &
remain the top two commonly examined Web Zhang, 2012). In addition, some other scholars
2.0 technologies, which cover approximately examined podcasts and showed interests in
55% of the total reviewed studies. On a larger Googledocs and a largely diversified group of
scale, this result indicates that wikis and blogs Web 2.0 tools.
are the most two commonly investigated and This finding demonstrates that researchers
widely appropriated tools in the field of CALL, in recent years have begun to investigate a wider
which is consistent with Wang and Vasquez’s range of Web 2.0 technologies. In comparison
(2012) findings. Voice blog, as a newer form to findings in Wang and Vasquez’s (2012)
of blog that incorporates audio features into study, the current pool of investigated Web
the traditional blogs, also garnered much of 2.0 tools presents an increased investigation
researchers’ attention (Sun, 2010; Sun, 2012). in both its number and scope, including wiki,
The third most investigated tools were social blogs, social networking, microblogs, podcasts,
networking tools including microblogging/ and video conferences. The preceding research
twitter, which have also started to become found in the CALL literature focused more on
more viable in classroom settings. In contrast to text-based computer-mediated technologies,
Wang and Vasquez’s (2012) findings, the use of such as email and text-based chat (Stockwell,
social networking tools was found more com- 2007). Contrastingly, multimedia web technolo-
monplace in a later time period. Interestingly, gies with interactive and collaborative features
microblogs, including Twitter as the most com- dominate the technologies being examined in
mon platform, have been increasingly seen in current reviewed studies. In addition to sharing
educational settings and have started to emerge interactive and collaborative features, these mul-
Table 3. Types of Web 2.0 tools examined in reviewed studies
Web 2.0 tools N Research

Blog 14 Armstrong and Retterer (2008); Ducate and Lomicka (2008); Gebhard, Shin, and
Seger (2011); Elola and Oskoz (2010); Hafner and Miller (2011); Hourigan and
Murray (2010); Lee (2009); Lee (2011); Liou and Peng (2009); Martinez (2012);
Soares (2008); Vurdien (2011); Sun (2010);Yang (2011)
Wiki 11 Arnold, Ducate, and Kost (2009); Arnold, Ducate, and Kost (2012); Diez-Bedmar and
Perez-Paredes (2012); Elola and Oskoz (2010); Ernest et al. (2012); Kessler (2009);
Lee (2010); Lund (2008); Matthew et al. (2009); Woo et al. (2011); Zorko (2009)
Social networking tools 5 Blattner and Fiori (2011); Harrison and Thomas (2009); Mills (2011); Mitchell
(2012); Reinhardt and Zander (2011);
Microblog/twitter 4 Antenos-Conforti(2009); Borau et al. (2010); McWilliams et al. (2010); Perifanou
(2009);
Podcast/videocast 3 Abdous, Camarena, and Facer (2009); Lee (2009)*; Lord (2008);
Discussion forum 2 Diez-Bedmar and Perez-Paredes* (2012); Ernest et al.* (2012)
Voice blog 2 Sun (2009); Sun (2012);
Chat 3 Darhower (2008); Elola and Oskoz* (2010); Williams and van Compernolle (2009)
Youtube 1 Hafner and Miller* (2011)
Video conferencing 1 Yanguas (2010)
Google docs 1 Kessler, Bikowski, and Boggs (2012);
Social tagging 1 Chen, Chen, and Sun (2010)
* used multiple tools
timedia Web 2.0 technologies vary considerably ers were predominantly descriptive research
in the way they can support language learning (See Table 4). As opposed to determining any
and teaching. For example, wikis and blogs casual relationships between Web 2.0 tools
were primarily used to support writing tasks, and language acquisition, the majority of the
as opposed to podcasts and video conferences reviewed studies focused on describing the
being used to perform speaking tasks. Social learning context and the Web 2.0-supported
networking tools, on the other hand, were pre- learning environments through observation
dominantly used to enhance student motivation and ethnographical accounts, in attempts to
and collaboration. Simply put, the use of Web shed light on how students might learn in such
2.0 tools in the reviewed studies seems to be environments. Researchers used interviews,
able to afford language learning environments observation, surveys and content of learners’
that fit differentiated learning goals and facilitate writing on the Web 2.0 space (e.g. wiki, blogs)
the implementation of varied learning tasks. as the major data sources for their descriptive
Another new trend that has appeared in the analysis; in contrast, surveys and quantitative
current studies is the use of mobile devices in property of the artifacts, such as number of
combination with Web 2.0 tools, which was not posts and/or number of words in a post, were
a finding in Wang and Vasquez’s (2012) study. the major data types used for the quantitative
In some of the reviewed studies, it is clear that research. This spectrum of data types in the
due to the recent prevalence of mobile devices current review studies is relatively diverse.
and their ubiquity, the use of Web 2.0 tools has When looking into the specific qualitative
been largely enhanced (Abdous, Camarena, approaches used, the qualitative case study
& Facer, 2009; Petersen, Divitini, & Chabert, shares a large portion of the current research,
2008). By using these mobile devices, learning which again echoes Wang and Vasquez’s find-
venues were extended to students’ daily lives ings (2012). As a research methodology that
and their opportunities to learn were therefore probes into the dynamics of specific educational
largely increased. Because many Web 2.0 tools settings such as a classrooms or lessons, case
have mobile application versions, the use of studies offer a unique opportunity to delve
these tools has become more commonplace and into various language learning contexts which
accessible. This ready-to-hand access afforded possibly encapsulate a deeper understanding
by mobile device brings about huge potential of multiple participants in a learning activity
for Web 2.0-enhanced learning, as it provides (Duff, 2008). For example, Darhower (2008)
a seamless learning space that supports the used a case study to investigate the linguistics
continuity and sustainability of the traditional affordances of telecollaborative chat involv-
classroom and formal learning experience and ing 80 students in a higher education setting.
carries it to different scenarios and contexts Although not specified by the authors, it is
(Looi, Seow, Zhang, So, Chen & Wong, 2010). noteworthy that many of the reviewed studies
Although many mobile-focused studies were in this literature review used a single class or
left out for the purpose of current study since multiple classrooms as their research units (i.e.
mobile learning was not a searching key word, Darhower, 2008; Hourigan & Murray, 2010;
the interaction between Web 2.0 tools and the Mitchell, 2012;). By using case studies, scholars
use of mobile device and the new dynamic po- were able to take a closer look at the interplay
tentially created by and through this interaction and interrelations of a variety of components
could be a worth-investigating subject for any in educational settings including students,
future research endeavor. teachers, and Web 2.0 integration, which may
be a rising methodological approach in CALL
Methodological Issues research.
Classroom ethnography is another emerg-
Among all the reviewed studies, only two ing methodological technique that was used to
studies used experimental design while oth- record the interaction between the participation
Table 4. Methodological issues in reviewed studies
Methodological Issues Categories N

Research type Descriptive 41
Experimental 2
Sample size <10 4
10-50 31
51-100 5
>100 2
N/A 1
Research settings Higher education 38
K-12 5
Research duration <1day 2

1-10 weeks 7
11-18 weeks 27
>18 weeks 6
Not Available 1
process and the product data, such as blog many researchers acknowledged the limitations
entries and also to give voice to the research of using self-reported survey data, this type of
participants (Gebhard, Shin, and Seger, 2011; quantitative data nevertheless reveals valuable
Yang, 2011). For example, in Yang’s (2011) insights in this exploratory stage of research
ethnography study, online interaction, includ- investigation.
ing number of blogs and comments records, The predominance of qualitative data and
class assignments, and reflective journals, in descriptive research design are noteworthy to
addition to the regular surveys and interviews, researchers. On the one hand, this finding echoes
were all collected as research data. This ethnog- what Wang and Vasquez (2012) claimed, that
raphy method was able to “capture the voices, a paradigm shift from dominantly quantitative
struggles, and adaptations of the participants to increasingly more qualitative data is taking
and to understand the forces of the cultures they place in the linguistics field in general. On the
have been in contact with” (p.127). other hand, these findings may indicate that
Among the quantitative studies, the re- the research revolving around Web 2.0 and
search was predominantly descriptive with a language learning is still in the germination
few exceptions that used experimental design. stage, where contemporary research studies
Using a questionnaire was found to be com- are still exploratory in nature. Whether or not
monplace as one research method used to gather this increase in qualitative data stems from
quantitative data in order to conduct descriptive a legitimate shift in the linguistic field or an
and statistical analysis. In a great number of uncertainty as to confirmatory quantitative
research studies, scholars used self-reported methods, it seems likely to continue, according
questionnaires to elicit students’ and teachers’ to the aforementioned studies.
perceptions of their employed Web 2.0 tools The research studies also vary in their
(Chen et al., 2010; Grgurovic, 2011; Hourigan sample sizes, research settings, and durations
& Murray, 2010; Huang, Lin, & Chiang, 2010; (See Table 4). In terms of researcher settings,
Perifanou, 2009; Woo et al., 2011). Although most studies in the current literature review
explored how Web 2.0 tools were used in the using Twitter enhanced students’ motivation in
context of higher education with a few excep- an Italian classroom. Martinez (2012) noted
tions in K-12 settings. The target language that students used blogs to provide each other
taught/learned in each study varied from foreign with “affective reassurance,” especially when
languages such as French and German to English encountering difficulties in their studies (p.
as a second language, although the majority of 207). The blog provided a unique channel for
them continue to target more commonly taught them to support and encourage one another,
foreign languages. Regarding sample size, most which is often unavailable in time-constrained
of the reviewed studies had a relatively small face-to-face sessions.
sample, among which 81% involved less than 50
participants. Only two studies had sample sizes Enhancing Collaborative Learning
larger than 100. Except for those studies that did
not provide such information, the duration of Researchers have widely adopted collaboration-
intervention varied from 30 minutes to 2 years. oriented Web 2.0 tools such as wiki and discus-
Most of the studies were conducted in a typical sion forums for collaborative writing, as these
semester-long learning period. The studies that tools offer a naturalistic platform through which
involved synchronous or asynchronous chatting students can sharpen their writing skills (Ernest
chose to focus on brief and precise time periods et al, 2012; Kessler, 2009; Lee, 2010; Matthew
(an hour chat-session) as the research interven- et al., 2009; McWilliams et al., 2010). The social
tion duration (Darhower, 2008). nature of Web 2.0 tools makes collaborative
learning not only possible with wikis, but even
Educational Benefits commonplace, especially in language learning
of Web 2.0 tools environments.
In Kessler’s (2009) class, a wiki was em-
Promoting Affective Learning ployed with an aim to enhance students’ collab-
orative writing skills. The wiki tool afforded a
One of most commonly found effects of using safe and interactive environment where students
Web 2.0 tools was to promote learning in the were willing and able to work collaboratively
affective learning domain through enhancing and autonomously. Although a goal for gram-
student motivation and providing stimulus to matical accuracy was not necessarily met in
change their attitudes and perceptions towards the collaborative writing activities, students
technology-enhanced learning. As Krathwohl, demonstrated a high level of confidence in their
Bloom, and Masia (1973) posited, the affec- collaboration and indeed, they were not hesitant
tive learning domain includes the manner in to make alternations to their peers’ works. Mat-
which we deal with things emotionally, such thew et al.’s (2009) research was conducted with
as feelings, values, interests, enthusiasms, pre-service teachers in language arts classes
motivations, and attitudes. where participation in a wiki occurred and was
A large number of Web 2.0-supported counted as part of the course assessment. By
activities conducted in the reviewed studies collaboratively building 11 wiki pages and a
succeeded in augmenting student motiva- 26-page glossary as course content, the students
tion, enjoyment and interest (Ernest et al, were able to be highly involved in collaborative
2012; Gebhard, 2012; Kessler, 2009; Liou content creation, which thus largely deepened
& Peng, 2009; Martinez, 2012). Researchers their understanding and leveraged their learning
also reported that learners tend to have favor- to a higher level.
able attitudes towards Web 2.0 integration
in learning contexts (Armstrong & Retterer, Fostering Learning Community
2008). For instance, Perifanou’s study (2009)
reported that micro-gaming language activities The formation of a learning community is a
dominant theme across studies. A Web 2.0
tool, whether it is a wiki, blog, Twitter, social 2008; Kessler, 2009; Lee, 2010; Vurdien, 2011;
networking site, or any specifically-designed Zorko, 2009). For example, in Sun’s (2010)
social software like TACO (Chen et al., 2010), study, she concluded that writing blogs could be
has great potential to bring students into a of value to improve learners’ writing skills, as
learning community where they can have easy learners develop effective writing habits, build
access to each other and further foster a sense language awareness, and eventually promote
of community and belonging through social their confidence and motivation. Wikis also
interaction (Lee, 2011; Harrison & Thomas, had a positive impact on students’ understand-
2009; Mills, 2011). ing of learning content (Matthew et al., 2009).
In most of the wiki-supported classes, By reading and rereading posts and edits on
students were able to form learning communi- the collective wiki pages, students reported
ties within which they interacted, assisted and that they were able to enlarge their knowledge
peer-assessed one another through collaborative base and produce a more solid understanding
writing (Kessler & Bikowski, 2010; Matthew of the course content through their collective
et al., 2009; Woo, Chu, Ho, & Xuanxi, 2011). knowledge creation.
Social networking tools can be used in similar Social networking tools in particular were
manners. Research also showed that microblog- often appropriated to promote the development
ging tools like Twitter can foster learning com- of cultural and intercultural competence (Borau
munities, as conversations occur when people et al., 2009; Lee, 2010; Lee, 2011; Mills, 2011;
use the @ symbol to respond to each other. Such Mitchell, 2012; Reinhardt & Zander, 2011).
conversations are considered a marker of “social For example, Twitter was used to provide
coherence and community forming” (Borau, supplementary opportunities for learners to
Ullrich, Feng, & Shen, 2009, p.84). Similarly, practice their target language in an authentic
social networking tools such as Facebook and environment with a goal to elevate their English
Twitter provided tremendous opportunities for cultural competence (Borau, Ullrich, Feng, &
students to engage in social interaction and Shen, 2009). In Reinhardt and his colleague’s
therefore facilitated community building (Mills, study (2011), students’ increased learner-learner
2011; Reinhardt & Zander, 2011). interaction simultaneously enhanced the devel-
opment of transcultural, plurilingual identities,
Augmenting Learning Performance as well as intercultural competence.
The integration of Web 2.0 tools is conducive Supporting Metacognitive Learning

to augmenting students’ performance in various
aspects. Blogging helped to improve students’ Web 2.0 tools investigated in the reviewed
reading skills when they participated in a studies were also reported to support metacog-
research-based project (Ducate & Lomicka, nitive learning (Hafner & Miller, 2011; Lee,
2008). In one of the experimental studies, 2011; Kessler, 2011). Metacognitive learning is
social-tagging tools positively affected students’ broadly defined as thinking about thinking and
reading comprehension, as students who expe- learning about how people learn (Metcalfe &
rienced the tag-based learning system showed Shimamura, 1994), which is more pertinent to
a significant improvement in their reading how students learn to reflect upon, self-regulate
scores as compared to the control group (Chen and automate their own learning. YouTube and
et al., 2010). In addition, Web 2.0 tools such as blogs were perceived to be beneficial to stu-
voice blogs also improved speaking and public dents’ autonomous learning (Hafner & Miller,
presentation skills (Sun, 2012). 2011). In addition, in Kessler’s (2010) study,
Wiki and blogs can also enhance students’ the instructor purposefully left the students with
overall writing skills (Armstrong & Retterer, full autonomy that permitted their collaborative
2008; Arnold et al., 2009; Ducate & Lomicka, tasks to be accomplished without having any in-
tervention. Surprisingly, without the instructor’s Additionally, institutional barriers were

feedback, students exhibited “more willingness found to be persistent in many research studies
to edit their peers’ writing than their own” especially in K-12 settings (Gebhard, 2012;
(p. 88). Lee (2011) also reported that writing Matthew et al., 2009). For example, in Matthew
blogs can enhance learners’ autonomy, as writ- et al.’s (2009) local elementary school study,
ing freely on blogs gave students more control even internet access was initially blocked,
of their own learning rather than restricting them completely disallowing access to wiki.
to practice particular language learning skills. Another major challenge is how to ensure
Many other researchers noted that writing on an equal contribution from all the class mem-
blogs and wikis promoted learners’ reflective bers and increase students’ editing efforts in
learning, as the Web 2.0 tools rendered a space a collaborative writing assignment (Arnold
for students to ponder thoroughly upon their own et al., 2009; Kessler & Bikowski, 2010). The
learning and give voice to these self-reflections unmotivated learners may claim to have vicari-
(Kessler, 2011; Lee, 2011; Yang, 2011). ous learning experiences by observing other
learners’ participation, but they are virtually
Potential Challenges unengaged in the true collaborative activity.
How to motivate those learners and ensure an
Several challenges of using Web 2.0 tools equal amount of participation across learners of
in language learning were identified in the different language proficiency levels remains a
reviewed studies. First of all, technical issues challenge to language teachers (Arnold et al.,
have persistently kept some students and teach- 2009). Researchers also stated that this lack of
ers away from their use in language learning contribution may stem from varying reasons,
and teaching. For example, wikis’ slow load- among which are different levels of concern for
ing time, podcasts’ large file size and low ownership of online content and understandings
connection speed, and temporary breakdown of authorship (Arnold et al., 2009; Lee, 2010).
of participants’ internet access have all posed Due to the particularly ambiguous concept of
great challenges to learners that hindered their authorship and individual contribution in an
use of these tools (Lee, 2011; Woo et al., 2011). online environment, some learners feel reluc-
In comparison to wiki and blogs, more tant to become meaningfully involved in any
care needs to be taken concerning incorporating content-generation efforts.
social networking tools into formal learning,
as some teachers and students may not fully
understand the educational use of such tools and PEDEGOGICAL IMPLICAtIONS
therefore find them objectionable (Reinhardt &
Zander, 2011). For instance, the intrinsically Just as teachers have different opinions as to
disruptive nature of social networking tools what extent Web 2.0 tools ought to be adopted
such as Twitter and Facebook can bring in a in language teaching classrooms due to their
considerable amount of distraction and noise different understanding and levels of familiar-
information, which potentially prevents students ity with technology, students’ internet literacy
from their actual learning purposes. Extraneous varies significantly as well. Therefore, there
issues such as students’ interpersonal relation- is no single cookie-cutter recipe that meets all
ships are likely to be unintentionally brought students’ needs concerning the integration of
into the classroom by social networking tools, Web 2.0. From a pedagogical point of view, an
which can indirectly affect the authenticity instructor should have various degrees of inte-
of a formal learning environment (Antenos- gration with the technology in alignment with
Conforti, 2009). his or her students’ degree of interests and levels
of electronic literacy. It is not wise to assume SuGGEStIONS fOR

that all students in the classroom are digital na- futuRE RESEARCH
tives who can automatically fit themselves into
a technology-supported learning environment This section discusses the limitations of the cur-
and remain highly engaged (Thomas, 2009). rent research and suggests possible directions for
One pivotal pedagogical implication is a future research. First, it is necessary to diversify
call for teacher-controlled and guided elements the learning contexts in which Web 2.0 inte-
in Web 2.0 tools-supported environments. Many gration was investigated, the specific Web 2.0
studies demonstrated that the incorporation tool(s) that was/were employed, and the target
of Web 2.0 tools does not guarantee learner language taught in the Web 2.0-supported learn-
autonomy in the learning environment (Hou- ing environments. The research settings in the
rigan & Murray, 2010; Matthew et al., 2009). current research were mainly limited to formal
Therefore, instructors should provide explicit higher education with few exceptions in other
guidance and scaffolding and continue to give settings, such as K-12 or professional training
feedback and on-going encouragement to stu- environments. Additionally, the Web 2.0-sup-
dents, ensuring the positive effect of the Web ported activities were very often incorporated
2.0-involved activities (Arnold et al., 2009; as a subset of formal classroom learning. How
Lee, 2010; Kessler, 2012; Martinez, 2012). For learning takes place in informal learning and
example, some specific guidance suggested by naturally formed learning communities is barely
research is that teachers are encouraged to pro- known. Meanwhile, the majority of research
vide structure for Web 2.0-supported activities has examined the mainstream Web 2.0 tools
(Arnold et al., 2009; Hafner & Miller, 2011). and excluded less-studied instruments such as
This caveat is particularly applicable to micro- social annotation and bookmarking tools. Lastly,
blogging and social networking tools (Hafner the target language is often commonly-taught
& Miller, 2011; Luo & Gao, 2012). Also, to languages such as English, while the ways in
nurture supporting dynamics in collaboration which some particular types of Web 2.0 tools
and foster equal contribution patterns, teachers respond to less commonly-taught languages are
should consider breaking down the larger class largely unknown. Therefore, more research is
into more defined and precise learning groups needed to investigate the use of Web 2.0 tools in
(Arnold et al., 2012). various educational settings, including the less-
Furthermore, although Web 2.0 tools have tapped into learning territories such as corporate,
presented multiple potentials for language learn- communities of practice, and emerging online
ing, educators should note that the pedagogical learning communities, as well as to involve a
approaches do not come along effortlessly with wider range of target languages including Ara-
these tools; instead, teacher training and a social bic and Chinese. Such efforts will deepen our
constructivist professional model of develop- understanding of how learning occurs in Web
ment have to be in place in preparation for the 2.0-supported environments and what types of
adequate use of Web 2.0 tools (Thomas, 2009). learning Web 2.0 tools can promote.
In addition, as rewarding as this incorporation Several methodological issues are of
is, it still requires a substantial investment of concern in the current research. As the current
time and effort by both instructors and students. research base is descriptive in nature, little
Issues such as authorship and ownership of research investigates any causal relationship
online content generated during the online between the Web 2.0 tools and student learn-
learning processes have been discussed by many ing, or how to improve the effectiveness of
scholars (Kessler & Bikowski, 2010; Matthew Web 2.0 integration. Many current research
et al., 2009; Woo et al., 2011). studies are also conducted in limited periods
of time so long-term effects usually remain
unnoticed in the contemporary research realm.
The use of self-report surveys and question- student learning under such environments. In
naires as research instruments is pervasive in addition, due to the rapid development of new
the reviewed studies. However, few reviewed learning technologies, future research should
studies checked interrater reliability for content also keep abreast with the new direction of
analysis or survey reliability, which makes the technology development, exploring Web 2.0
findings of these studies less generalizable tools in conjunction with new trends, such as
to other circumstances. Scholars also recog- mobile learning and gamed-based learning.
nized novelty effects to be one of their main
methodological constraints. As students are
more accustomed to Web 2.0-supported learn- CONCLuSION
ing environments, whether they can still be
With Web 2.0 tools and their interactive, social
motivated or engaged in the course of learning
and collaborative features, language acquisi-
remains a critical question. Given these limita-
tion can be more engaging, motivating, and
tions, future research should specifically attend
collaboration-oriented. The 43 studies in this
to scientific and methodological robustness,
current literature review suggest that the integra-
such as engaging in longitudinal research that
tion of Web 2.0 tools holds great potential to
captures the lasting impact of Web 2.0 inter-
benefit language learning and teaching through
vention; using more advanced data analysis
multiple means, in agreement with Wang and
methods and techniques to ensure validity and
Vasquez’ (2012) findings. Activities designed
reliability; and also exploring potential means
with these Web 2.0 tools may help students to
to tease out novelty effects.
develop important skills in addition to language
Current research studies also suggested
learning-related abilities such as communica-
a large collection of CALL-related topics to
tion, collaboration, and problem solving, which
be further investigated by future research. For
are critical skills needed especially in the 21st
example, researchers suggested plenty of un-
century. In the meantime, as Wang and Vasquez
explored variables as intervening factors to be
(2012) indicated, the challenges of using Web
included when probing the relationship between
2.0 tools and their inherent constraints coexist
student learning and the Web 2.0 intervention.
with benefits and affordances. In addition to
Such variables encompass age, gender, teacher
the challenges found in Wang and Vasquez’s
presence, field of study, self-selected groups,
(2012) study, new issues and their pedagogical
language fluency, computer literacy, motivation,
implications were discussed in this current study.
and learner personality (Díez-Bedmar, 2012;
In regard to the characteristics of the
Lee, 2010; 2009; Mitchell, 2012; Sun, 2012).
reviewed studies in comparison to Wang and
Noticeably, as Kessler et al. (2012) postulated, a
Vasquez’s study (2012), these studies dem-
framework for the co-evolution of collaborative
onstrated an increase in their theoretical link-
autonomous pedagogy, they also stated that it is
ages and in the number and scope of Web 2.0
critical to “reflect upon the relationship between
technologies investigated. In terms of Web 2.0
the evolution of the use of these tools, the tools
use, the current study provides a new perspec-
themselves, and the related pedagogy in order
tive to encourage future research on studying
to identify approaches to encouraging flexible
the interaction and interrelation of the use of
pedagogical practices” (p. 106). This state-
Web 2.0 and mobile devices. Also in regard
ment indicates that due to the complexity and
to methodological issues, the similar types of
ever-changing dynamics in Web 2.0-supported
methodological concerns identified in Wang
environments, researchers not only are encour-
and Vasquez’s (2012) study persist in the con-
aged to investigate each unique impacting factor,
temporary reviewed studies, such as the lack of
but also the interplay and interrelationships of
depth in research analysis and methodological
those varying factors so as to provide us with
robustness of research designs.
a more in-depth and holistic understanding of
Considering the ever-changing develop- Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989).
ment of Web 2.0 technologies, reviewing and Situated cognition and the culture of learn-
ing. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
critiquing research studies over the past five
doi:10.3102/0013189X018001032.
years is critical to build upon the existing
research base, which in turn helps to provide Brown, S. (2010). From VLEs to learning webs: The
guidance and directions for future research implications of Web 2.0 for learning and teaching.
Interactive Learning Environments, 18(1), 1–10.
and practices. In addition to these benefits, this doi:10.1080/10494820802158983.
review study also presents challenges found in
the current research, such as persistent technical Chen, J.-M., Chen, M.-C., & Sun, Y. S. (2010).
issues, teachers’ inability to fully leverage Web A novel approach for enhancing student reading
comprehension and assisting teacher assessment of
2.0’s potentials, institutional barriers, and so literacy. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1367–1382.
on. Given these limitations, future research is doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.011.
much needed to corroborate the existing findings
Craig, E. M. (2007). Changing paradigms: Man-
and explore the additional questions brought aged learning environments and Web 2.0. Cam-
up by the researchers, including the various pus-Wide Information Systems, 24(3), 152–161.
factors affecting student language learning in doi:10.1108/10650740710762185.
Web 2.0-enhanced learning processes and how
Darhower, M. A. (2008). The role of linguistic af-
to support effective means of said learning in fordances in telecollaborative chat. CALICO Journal,
technologically-supported environments. 26(1), 48–69.
Díez-Bedmar, M. B., & Pérez-Paredes, P. (2012).
The types and effects of peer native speakers’ feed-
REfERENCES back on CMC. Language Learning & Technology,
16(1), 62–90.
Abdous, M., Camarena, M. M., & Facer, B. R. (2009).
MALL technology: Use of academic podcasting in Ducate, L. C., & Lomicka, L. L. (2008). Adventures
an ESL listening strategies course. ReCALL, 19(2), in the blogosphere: From blog readers to blog writ-
162–180. ers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(1),
9–28. doi:10.1080/09588220701865474.
Antenos-Conforti, E. (2009). Microblogging on
Twitter: Social networking in intermediate Italian Duff, P. (2008). Case study research in applied
classes. In L. Lomicka, & G. Lord (Eds.), The next linguistics. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum/
generation: Social networking and online collabora- Taylor & Francis.
tion in foreign language learning (pp. 59–90). San
Marcos, TX: CALICO. Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing:
Fostering foreign language and writing conventions
Armstrong, K., & Retterer, O. (2008). Blogging as L2 development. Language Learning & Technology,
writing: A case study. AACE Journal, 16(3), 233–251. 14(3), 51–71.
Arnold, N., Ducate, L., & Kost, C. (2009). Collabora- Ernest, P., Guitert Catasús, M., Hampel, R., Heiser,
tive writing in wikis: Insights from culture projects S., Hopkins, J., Murphy, L., & Stickler, U. (2012).
in intermediate German classes. In L. Lomicka, & G. Online teacher development: Collaborating in a
Lord (Eds.), The next generation: Social networking virtual learning environment. Computer Assisted
and online collaboration in foreign language learning Language Learning, 1–23. doi:10.1080/09588221
(pp. 115–144). San Marcos, TX: CALICO. .2012.667814.
Arnold, N., Ducate, L., & Kost, C. (2012). Collabo- Gao, F., Luo, T., & Zhang, K. (2012). Tweeting for
ration or cooperation? Analyzing group dynamics learning: A critical analysis of research on microblog-
and revision processes in wikis. CALICO Journal, ging in education published in 2008-2011. British
29(3), 441–448. Journal of Educational Technology, 44(5), 783–801.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01357.x.
Borau, K., Ullrich, C., Feng, J., & Shen, R. (2009).
Microblogging for language learning: Using twitter Gebhard, M., Shin, D., & Seger, W. (2011). Blog-
to train communicative and cultural competence. In ging and emergent L2 literacy development in an
Proceedings of the Advances in Web Based Learning urban elementary school: A functional perspective.
(ICWL 2009). CALICO Journal, 27(2), 278–307.
Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Lee, L. (2009). Promoting intercultural ex-
Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age: changes with blogs and podcasting: A study of
Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we Spanish-American telecollaboration. Computer
take now? Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246–259. Assisted Language Learning, 22(5), 425–444.
doi:10.3102/0013189X09336671. doi:10.1080/09588220903345184.
Grgurovic, M. (2011). Blended learning in an ESL Lee, L. (2010). Exploring wiki-mediated collabora-
class: A case study. CALICO Journal, 29(1), 100–117. tive writing: A case study in an elementary Spanish
course. CALICO Journal, 27(2), 260–276.
Hafner, C. A., & Miller, L. (2011). Fostering learner
autonomy in English for science: A collaborative Lee, L. (2010). Fostering reflective writing and
digital video project in a technological learning interactive exchange through blogging in an ad-
environment. Language Learning & Technology, vanced language course. ReCALL, 22(2), 212–227.
15(3), 68–86. doi:10.1017/S095834401000008X.
Harrison, R., & Thomas, M. (2009). Identity in online Lee, L. (2011). Blogging: Promoting learner
communities: Social networking sites and language autonomy and intercultural competence through
learning. International Journal of Emerging Tech- study abroad. Language Learning & Technology,
nologies & Society, 7(2), 109–124. 15(3), 87–109.
Hourigan, T., & Murray, L. (2010). Using blogs to Liou, H.-C., & Peng, Z.-Y. (2009). Training effects
help language students to develop reflective learn- on computer-mediated peer review. System, 37,
ing strategies: Towards a pedagogical framework. 514–525. doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.01.005.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,
26(2), 209–225. Lomicka, L., & Lord, G. (2009). Introduction to
social networking, collaboration, and Web 2.0 tools.
Huang, C.-K., Lin, C.-Y., & Chiang, Y.-H. (2010). In L. Lomicka, & G. Lord (Eds.), The next genera-
Incorporating competency-based blended learning tion: Social networking and online collaboration in
in a Chinese language classroom: A web 2.0 drupal foreign language learning (pp. 1–11). San Marcos,
module design. International Journal on E-Learning, Texas: CALICO.
9(4), 529–548.
Looi, C. K., Seow, P., Zhang, B., So, H. J., Chen, W.,
Kessler, G. (2009). Student-initiated attention to & Wong, L. H. (2010). Leveraging mobile technology
form in wiki-based collaborative writing. Language for sustainable seamless learning: A research agenda.
Learning & Technology, 13(1), 79–95. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2),
154–169. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00912.x.
Kessler, G., & Bikowski, D. (2010). Developing
collaborative autonomous learning abilities in Lund, A. (2008). Wikis: A collective approach
computer mediated language learning: Attention to language production. ReCALL, 20(1), 35–54.
to meaning among students in wiki space. Com- doi:10.1017/S0958344008000414.
puter Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), 41–58.
doi:10.1080/09588220903467335. Luo, T., & Gao, F. (2012). Enhancing classroom
learning experience by providing structures to
Kessler, G., Bikowski, D., & Boggs, J. (2012). Col- microblogging-based activities. The Journal of
laborative writing among second language learners Information Technology Education: Innovations in
in academic web-based projects. Language Learning Practice, 11, 199–211.
& Technology, 16(1), 91–109.
Martinez, C. D. (2012). Developing metacognition
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. at a distance: Sharing students’ learning strategies
(1973). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the on a reflective blog. Computer Assisted Language
classification of educational goals. Handbook II: Learning, 25(2), 199–212. doi:10.1080/09588221.
Affective Domain. New York, NY: David McKay 2011.636056.
Co., Inc..
Matthew, K. I., Felvegi, E., & Callaway, R. A. (2009).
Lee, L. (2008). Focus-on-form through collaborative Wiki as a collaborative learning tool in a language
scaffolding in expert-to-novice online interaction. arts methods class. Journal of Research on Technol-
Language Learning & Technology, 12(3), 53–728. ogy in Education, 42(1), 51–72.
McWilliams, J., Hickey, D. T., Hines, M. B., Con- Sun, Y. (2009). Voice blog: An exploratory study of
ner, J. M., & Bishop, S. C. (2010). Voices from the language learning. Language Learning & Technol-
field: Using collaborative writing tools for literary ogy, 13(2), 88–103.
analysis: Twitter, fan fiction and the crucible in the
secondary English classroom. Journal of Media Sun, Y. C. (2010). Extensive writing in foreign lan-
Literacy Education, 3(3), 238–245. guage classrooms: A blogging approach. Innovations
in Education and Teaching International, 47(3),
Metcalfe, J., & Shimamura, A. (1994). Metacogni- 327–339. doi:10.1080/14703297.2010.498184.
tion: Knowing about knowing. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press. Sun, Y. C. (2012). Examining the effectiveness of
extensive speaking practice via voice blogs in a
Mills, N. (2011). Situated learning through social foreign language learning context. CALICO Journal,
networking communities: The development of joint 29(3), 494–506.
enterprise, mutual engagement, and a shared reper-
toire. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 345–368. Thomas, M. (2009). Handbook of research on Web
2.0 and second language learning. Hershey, PA: IGI
Mitchell, K. (2012). A social tool: Why and how Global Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-190-2.
ESOL students use Facebook. CALICO Journal,
29(3), 471–493. Vurdien, R. (2011). Enhancing writing skills through
blogging in an advanced English as a foreign language
Olaniran, B. (2009). Culture, learning styles, and class in Spain. Computer Assisted Language Learn-
Web 2.0. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(4), ing, 1–18. doi: doi:10.1080/09588221.2011.639784.
261–271. doi:10.1080/10494820903195124.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge,
Oliver, K. (2010). Integrating Web 2.0 across the MA: Harvard University Press.
curriculum. TechTrends, 54(2), 50–60. doi:10.1007/
s11528-010-0382-7. Wang, S., & Vasquez, C. (2012). Web 2.0 and second
language learning: What does the research tell us?
Perifanou, M. A. (2009). Language micro-gaming: CALICO Journal, 29(3), 412–430.
Fun and informal microbloggin activities for lan-
guage learning. Communications in Computer and Williams & van Compernolle. (2009). The chatbot as
Information Science, 49, 1–14. doi:10.1007/978-3- a peer/tool for learners of French. In L. Lomicka, &
642-04757-2_1. G. Lord (Eds.), The next generation: Social network-
ing and online collaboration in foreign language
Petersen, S. A., Divitini, M., & Chabert, G. (2008). learning (pp. 145–172). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.
Identity, sense of community and connectedness in
a community of mobile language learners. ReCALL, Woo, M., Chu, S., Ho, A., & Li, X. (2011). Using a
20(3), 361–379. doi:10.1017/S0958344008000839. wiki to scaffold primary-school students’ collabora-
tive writing. Journal of Educational Technology &
Reinhardt, J., & Zander, V. (2011). Social network- Society, 14(1), 44–54.
ing in an intensive English program classroom: A
language socialization perspective. CALICO Journal, Yang, Y.-F. (2011). Learner interpretations of shared
28(2), 326–344. space in multilateral English blogging. Language
learning & technology. A Refereed Journal for Second
Smith, B., & Lafford, B. A. (2009). The evaluation and Foreign Language Educators, 15(1), 122-146.
of scholarly activity in computer-assisted language
learning. Modern Language Journal, 93, 868–883. Yanguas, I. (2010). Oral computer-mediated interac-
doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00978.x. tion between L2 learners: It’s about time! Language
Learning & Technology, 14(3), 72–93.
Soares, D. de A. (2008). Understanding class
blogs as a tool for language development. Lan- Zorko, V. (2009). Factors affecting the way students
guage Teaching Research, 12(4), 517–533. collaborate in a wiki for English language learning.
doi:10.1177/1362168808097165. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,
25(5), 645–665.
Stockwell, G. (2007). A review of technology choice
for teaching language skills and areas in the CALL
literature. ReCALL, 19(2), 105–120. doi:10.1017/
S0958344007000225.
Tian Luo is a doctoral candidate majoring in Instructional Technology at Ohio University. Her
research interests centre on using social media and social technologies to facilitate student learn-
ing in both formal and informal educational settings and designing collaborative and authentic
learning environments supported and enhanced by various emerging web-based technologies.
Her research has been published at British Journal of Educational Technology, Journal of In-
formation Technology Education: Innovations in Practice and various peer-reviewed conference
proceedings. Her research has also been presented at multiple professional conferences in the
field of educational and instructional technology.
CALL FOR ARTICLES
International Journal of Computer-Assisted
Language Learning and Teaching
An official publication of the Information Resources Management Association
MISSION:
The mission of the International Journal of Computer-Assisted Lan-
guage Learning and Teaching (IJCALLT) is to publish research that
addresses the impact of and innovation in information communication
technologies in advancing foreign/second language learning and teach-
ing. This journal expands on the principles, theories, design, discussion,
and implementation of computer-assisted language learning programs.
In addition to original research papers and systematic reports of practice,
this journal welcomes CALL-related book and software/online program
reviews.
COVERAGE/MAJOR tOPICS:
• Courseware design ISSN 2155-7098
• Teacher education eISSN 2155-7101
Published quarterly
• Social networking in language learning and teaching
• CALL and second language acquisition
• Computer games in language learning and teaching
• Corpora
• Distance language education
• Evaluation of CALL program
• Intelligence in CALL
• Language testing in CALL environments
• Mobile learning and teaching
• Monitoring and assessment in online collaborative learning
• Multimedia language learning and teaching
• Research methodology in CALL
• Software programs for language learning and teaching
• Teaching approaches in the CALL context
All submissions should be mailed to:

Bin Zou Editor-in-Chief IJCALLT
[email protected]
Ideas for Special theme Issues may be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief.
Please recommend this publication to your librarian. For a convenient

easy-to-use library recommendation for. please visit:
http://www.igi-global.com/IJCALLT
View publication stats

Web 2.0 For Language Learning: Benefits and Challenges For Educators

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Web 2.0 For Language Learning: Benefits and Challenges For Educators

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Web 2.0 For Language Learning: Benefits and Challenges For Educators

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Web 2.0 for Language Learning: Beneﬁts and Challenges for

Article · January 2013

K-12 technology integration View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

GUEST EDITORIAL PREFACE

18 Using Social Network-Mediated Bridging Activities to Develop Socio-Pragmatic Awareness in

34 Online Communities of Practice and Second Language Phonological Acquisition

56 Questionnaires to Inform a Usability Test Conducted on a CALL Dictionary Prototype

77 Learner Fit in Scaling Up Automated Writing Evaluation

Web 2.0 for Language Learning:

Keywords: Computer-Assisted Language Learning, Computer-Mediated Communication, Meta-Analysis,

INtRODuCtION technologies, are penetrating all aspects of

Table 1. Distribution of selected studies in journals and books

Journal/ Books Title N Authors

Table 2. Theoretical framework identified in reviewed studies

Theoretical Framework N Research

Table 3. Types of Web 2.0 tools examined in reviewed studies

Web 2.0 tools N Research

Table 4. Methodological issues in reviewed studies

Methodological Issues Categories N

Research duration <1day 2

The integration of Web 2.0 tools is conducive Supporting Metacognitive Learning

tervention. Surprisingly, without the instructor’s Additionally, institutional barriers were

of electronic literacy. It is not wise to assume SuGGEStIONS fOR

All submissions should be mailed to:

Ideas for Special theme Issues may be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief.

Please recommend this publication to your librarian. For a convenient

View publication stats

You might also like