The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Web 2.0 and Second Language Learning
Open accessAbstract
This article reviews research on the use of Web 2.0 technologies in second language learning. Its purpose is to explore the current state of research on this topic, to investigate the theoretical perspectives framing the current research, to identify some of the benefits of using Web 2.0 technologies in second language learning, and to discuss some of the limitations of existing research. The review of research found that blogs and wikis have been the most studied Web 2.0 tools, while others, such as social networking applications and virtual worlds, have been less frequently explored. In addition, the most commonly investigated languages have been English as a Second/Foreign Language (ESL/EFL), Spanish, German and French. Considerably less research has been conducted on applying Web 2.0 technologies to less commonly taught languages, such as Arabic, Chinese, or Russian. Additionally, the language learning environments afforded by Web 2.0 technologies have greatly broadened the scope of topics explored in computer-assisted language learning (CALL): from earlier research which tended to concentrate on the traditional four language skills, to more recent topics such as learners’ identities, online collaboration, and learning communities. Although very few studies surveyed have actually examined students’ progress and learning outcomes associated with these tools, the most frequently reported benefit associated with Web 2.0 technologies is the favorable language learning environments they help to foster. Finally, this review found that much research on Web 2.0 technology and language learning is not clearly grounded in theory, and that a number of studies suffer from a set of common methodological limitations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Learning a Language with Web 2.0
Stevenson, M. P., & Liu, M. (2010) · CALICO Journal · doi:10.11139/cj.27.2.233-259 · Cited by 215
Asian English language learners’ identity construction in an after school literacy site
Choi, J. (2009) · Journal of Asian Pacific Communication · doi:10.1075/japc.19.1.07cho · Cited by 31
Cited by
Mei, B., Brown, G. T. L., & Teo, T. (2018) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/0735633117700144 · Cited by 168
Examining the impact of Grammarly on the quality of mobile L2 writing
Dizon, G., & Gayed, J. M. (2021) · The JALT CALL Journal · doi:10.29140/jaltcall.v17n2.336 · Cited by 138
Vocabulary Learning in Virtual Environments: Learner Autonomy and Collaboration
Tseng, W.-T., Liou, H.-J., & Chu, H.-C. (2020) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2019.102190 · Cited by 101
Ikumi Hitosugi, C., Schmidt, M., & Hayashi, K. (2014) · CALICO Journal · doi:10.11139/cj.31.1.19-39 · Cited by 97
A comparative study of Facebook vs. paper-and-pencil writing to improve L2 writing skills
Dizon, G. (2016) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2016.1266369 · Cited by 83
Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2018) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2018.1449757 · Cited by 75
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, S., & Vásquez, C.
- Venue
- CALICO Journal
- Published
- 2012-08-01
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 412-430
- ISSN
- 0742-7778 (ISSN-L)
- 2056-9017
- OpenAlex
- W2071421453
- Cited by
- 319
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 62.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.