The Use and Integration of Web 2.0 and 3.0 Technologies by Adult Arabs Learning English: A Scoping Review Study and a Phenomenographic Case Study of Immigrants to Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Digital technologies have been implemented in many educational contexts, becoming an integral part of curriculum design, teaching, and learning processes. This qualitative study investigated the lived experiences of adult Arab immigrants to Canada using Web 2.0/3.0 technologies for learning English. Using the new media literacies and the TIPEC frameworks, the study aimed to research the participants’ perceptions, affordances, constraints, and impacts of using Web 2.0/3.0 technologies before, during, and after learning English.\nPhenomenography was the originally planned research method. However, a scoping review was conducted to complement the data collection process, mapped the literature, and utilized for triangulation (Santos et al., 2020). Fifteen adult Arab immigrants to Canada who were perusing higher education consented to participate in the phenomenographic study. Thirteen participants completed the online questionnaire sharing their individual experiences of Web 2.0/3.0 technologies. Two participants subsequently participated in the follow-up interview. The study sought to explore the underpinning conceptions influencing the participants’ experiences. Additionally, the research aimed to identify distinct and hierarchical categories that emerged from the collective analysis of the participants’ narrative questionnaire and interview responses.\nThe collected data was analyzed using NVivo 12 Pro software. The study’s findings shed light on the various types of Web 2.0/3.0 technologies used by the research population, including their experiences, purposes, temporal and spatial aspects, nature of use, and duration. The participants’ perceptions, impacts, affordances, and constraints constituted the unit of analysis. These concepts denoted the outcome space (Johansson, 1985). Five categories of description emerged from the collective analysis of data referred to as casual, experimental, knowledge, educational, and professional. There was no phenomenographic study found during the scoping review nor there was a scoping review conducted about the research subject.\nThe study’s implications of the findings and conclusion are significant for various educational stakeholders, ESL facilitators, curriculum developers, and policymakers. The study offers practical recommendations for enhancing ESL learning experiences using Web 2.0/3.0 technologies. The research study contributes to the knowledge of policy makers, researchers, ESL facilitators, instructors, and educators providing a comprehensive understanding of the researched population. The diverse perceptions of such population are significantly relevant in the Canadian context, as the country continues to attract adult Arab immigrants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".