Today the Internet finds way into all spheres of social life. In the conditions of world globalization, information technologies development leads to formation of new ways of the Internet using [18; 1]. Nowadays in many countries there is a tendency of consecutive and steady movement to prepare information society which is urged to create the best conditions for the maximal self-realization of every learner. The main reasons of this process are intensive development and telecommunication technologies and creation of developed information and educational environment. The Internet technologies are less expensive in use, high-speed, resource-saving, and also allow providing extensive access of a vast number of users at the same time. Moreover, the changes in access and speed of connection are accompanied with computer programming management and development. In this regard it is possible to note that transition to information society presupposes deep connection between three components: information, information technologies value and social and structural changes [19; 2]. Besides, there is one more constituent of globalization process. As Tsui and Tollef son mentioned “globalization is effected by two inseparable mediation tools: technology and English to respond to the rapid changes brought about by globalization" [17; 5]. Put it differently, information technologies and English are two paramount aspects of modern life that influence on societal and political changes.
These factors create the need of joint use of the Internet resources. So Web 2.0 technologies favor the development of new version of the Internet usage which motivates users to upload their information to network. The opportunities of the Internet in language instruction are defined by its possibility to imitate people’s speaking and mental activity, to convert text information and to reproduce particular aspects of professional activity. Web technologies remind one of a big corporation of knowledge which gets involved users from all over the world. However, the technologies do not only the way of furnishing with information, they also propose collaboration of interested users to form informational and communicative resources [19; 2].
For further investigation of Web 2.0 phenomenon it is necessary to learn the background of this notion. The first mention of this term was in January 1999. Darcy DiNucci, a consultant on electronic information design, first wrote in her article called "Fragmented Future": “The Web we know now, which loads into a browser window in essentially static screenfuls, is only an embryo of the Web to come. The first glimmerings of Web 2.0 are beginning to appear, and we are just starting to see how that embryo might develop. The Web will be understood not as screenfuls of text and graphics but as a transport mechanism, the ether through which interactivity happens. It will [...] appear on your computer screen, [...] on your TV set [...] your car dashboard [...] your cell phone [...] hand-held game machines [...] maybe even your microwave oven.” . She believed that in future web will be concentrated on how the structure of main information and mechanism of hyperlinking applied by HTTP would be used by a vast of platforms and devices. The term of Web 2.0 refers to the next variant of the web that does not connected with the present definition of the notion. Until the year of 2002 there is no any evidence of it. Some scientists studied the concepts associated with the term where, as Scott Dietzеn maintained, "the Wеb becomes a universal, standards-based integration platform". Jоhn Rоbb wrote: "What is Web 2.0? It is a system that breaks with the old model of centralized Wеb sites and moves the power of the Wеb/Internet to the desktop.”
In 2004, the popularity of this notion increased because of O'Rеilly Mеdia and Media Livе hosted the first Wеb 2.0 conference. In their introductory speech, Tim O'Rеilly and John Battelle high lighted their definition of the "Wеb аs Plаtfоrm", where software applications were created upon the Wеb as opposed to upon the desktop . The only cause of
this transition, they said, is that users are creating their business by themselves. They asserted thаt thе аctivitiеs of customers producing the content of a programme by adding audio and video files, photos, or articles could be applied to make it fuller and more substantial. So in 2005 the term became well-known as a joint project or environment in which customers have the chance to contributе to an increasing knowledge base, take part in online communities, and also contribute in the evolment of wеb-based tools. Michael Gorman, former president of the American Library Association, decries the movement towards a usercontrolled Internet as “a world in which everyone is an expert in a world devoid of expertise” [2; 14]. Furthermore, O'Rеilly and Battellе compared Wеb 2.0 technology with its “predecessor” named Wеb 1.0 . There are evident differences between the very notions and undoubted supremacy of Web 2.0:
Furthermore, these more developed groups of applications are easy to handle and emphasize user participation. These Web 2.0 applications sharе thе following characteristics:
Power to the user. Wеb 2.0 technologies are fully related to usеrs. о Whereas Wеb
1.0 applications were prevailed content presented by static pages, в Wеb 2.0 has popularized the wеb by prioritizing user-generated content, а ownership and social connectivity. In an interview with Stephen Reiss of Wired magazine  on Nеws Cоrp's acquisition of Mу Spаcе, Rupert Murdoch stated that “to find something comparable, you have to go back 500 years to the printing press, the birth of mass media…I Technology is shifting power away from the editors, the publishers, the establishment, and the media elite. Now it’s the people who are taking control.”
Harnessing collective intelligence . Wеb 2.0 apps recline on interactivity and user-generated content. According to James Surowiecki's approach called 'wisdom of crowds', Web 2.0 applications can be concerned as “foothold” for public power. One of the examples of this can be del.icio.us, a system of collective bookmarking online, which is possible to apply for user-made metadata, so called 'folksonomies', to organize the wеb.
"Wеb as a platform" . Instead of useless and pointless using the web as source data, Wеb 2.0 users can start various Internet applications in their browsers. These applications, such as wikis, blogs, and aggregators, have a involved feature, which induce users to edit, add or just rehash content (mashups). The main point is microcontent. It contains micro blogging such as twitter, blog posts, podcasts, wiki edits, news feeds, photos all of which can be modified using web feeds (RSS, Atom) or AJAX-based apps. The common examples are Fаcеbооk applications (permitting users to import data into their profile), and dedicated aggregators, for example Pаgеflаkеs or SuрrGlu .
It's important to note that the today’s students will be settled down to Web 2.0 applications. These 'digital natives' are likely to use an email, social networking accounts, instant messaging, mobiles, VOIP, blogging and virtual identities, systematically, without any difficulties. Nevertheless, many 'digital immigrants' can also be very active in social networking sites, blogging communities and virtual world. Language instructors can motivate using these increasingly familiar tools, those are networking, blogs, podcasts, wikis to grant access to authentic language sources. These sections will find out how these technologies can be applied improving the process of language-learning.
Whereas language learning websites using Web 2.0 may provide great promise for second language education, there is a lack of research on how nowadays people use these sites for both learning and social interaction purposes. A lack of research may be also observed on the pedagogical and technical usability of these sites and how future learners could use these sites to develop their own language learning abilities. Lomicka and Lord claimed that research investigating foreign language acquisition through the use of Web 2.0 technologies is only initial stage to emerge, and research is lacking both from theoretical and empirical perspectives .
Not only users are given more alternatives to participate at a developed level, the quality and even the survival of Web 2.0 tools such as wikis, blogs, social networks, and mashups, are largely dependent on the quality and authenticity of the contributions of the users. Blogs are considerably made up of usercreated content, wikis allow multiple users to contribute to a base of growing knowledge, and social networks permit users to develop online communities of shared interests.
Many instructors are discovering how Web 2.0 tools could provide students with opportunities for greater learner control, active construction of knowledge, and access to collaborative learning environments. Using Web
2.0 technologies in the classroom may give teachers different way of achieving the latest generation of learners who are already heavily involved in the Web 2.0 world outside of the classroom. The Web 2.0 may provide essential connections between the learning resources and materials and students, as well as give power to students to simultaneously develop educational knowledge and content [12; 9].
The Web 2.0 is starting to play a role within the more formal learning environment of foreign language classrooms. The writing, reading, speaking, and listening skills and needs of language learners may need a specific type of pedagogical design of educational tools. Interactive, user-developed content within Web 2.0 tools may provide real speaking and listening skills not provided by static Web 1.0 learning tools. For instance, a university survey of multiple disciplines was conducted to rate the students’ satisfaction with their course websites [7; 15]. The learners had the lowest satisfaction with their traditional course website. Some students had a reason for the low scoring as “A Web site can’s answer questions like “How do you pronounce…?” [7; 3]. The course website was not meeting the language learners’ need for feedback and interaction in a new language. Possibly this will for input and the associated need for access to aspects of the foreign culture may be addressed by a more collaborative environment provided by Web 2.0 technologies.
Godwin-Jones refers to specific example of teachers using the Web 2.0 technologies in the classroom to facilitate language learning; instant messaging tools are being incorporated for interaction based on texts with native speakers and downloadable podcasts are being created at the disposal of students for listening skills and recognition of words. Web-based gaming environments can provide a space for students to assume an online identity and interact with others in the foreign language. Many of these tools are just in the starting stages of classroom integration, but foreign language instructors are beginning to find a use for Web 2.0 tools within the classroom . Further research is needed on how to evaluate these types of tools usage for language learning purposes.
Usability testing is a method of evaluation commonly used to check the general ease of software and websites usage for final users. Recording and observing the way users interact with a website allows researchers to discover issues that help or prevent users’ attempts to achieve specific individual goals . Many researchers are discovering the usage of some techniques to determine how usable a site is for learners could be also be used to determine learn ability of an educational site for learners . Out of this interest in usability, as it could apply to educational websites and software, has grown the notion of “pedagogical usability,” as distinguished from “technical usability” . Technical usability is known as the general usability of a tool for a user, that is how easily users can complete a task with the least number of obstacles. Pedagogical usability applies specifically to how usable and learnable the website is for students. Non-educational websites and software are expected to assist users do tasks as quickly as possible. Educational websites should also provide a way for learners to learn during the task, and the quickest route may not always be the best way for students to learn the content. Providing users with a direct solution to an obstacle may not be the preferred outcome when users must learn during the process . A website that is technically usable may not be pedagogically usable. However, both pedagogical and technical usability are very important for language learning environments because of easy way of website using may be just as important as the effectiveness of its learn ability [12; 3-8].
In conclusion, Web 2.0 technologies such as wikis, blogs, RSS, social networking, podcasting, tag-based folksonomies, and peerto-peer media sharing enable interoperability and make it easier for students to connect with and learn some information from one another. “Learner-produced content” is a reminder that with the help of such supporting tools, appropriate activities empower participants and allow them to display their creativity, simplify collaboration and the production of shared artifacts. Most of the user interaction in “Web 1.0,” characterized by technologies such as bulletin boards, chat rooms, and email, was centered on conversation or dialogue, which images the participation metaphor of learning. With Web 2.0 tools the contributions of the community play a focal role, and many Web sites exist exclusively as vehicles for supporting those contributions. Educational technologies which include those that are part of Web 2.0 and outward, are best used to provide support and scaffolding for learning and reflection within the authentic, real world contexts in which knowledge construction naturally occurs. A range of learner-centered pedagogies should afford learners a real sense of agency, control, and ownership of the learning experience, and the capacity to create and distribute ideas and knowledge. To deliver such this, we should leverage the available technologies to extend and transform current practices, while keeping students and the social dimensions of learning at the foreground [8; 11].
- Balcikanli C. Web 2.0 Tools in Language Teaching: What Do Student Teachers Think? Issue 1. Article 1. 2008.
- Gorman, M., Farkas, M., Shirky, C., &Miedema, J. (2007). Michael Gorman vs. Web 2.0. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(44), B4-B4.
- Gorman, Michael. "Web 2.0: The Sleep of Reason, Part 1". Retrieved 26 April 2011
- Internet resource: web20 andlanguagelearning.wikidot.com/
- Internet resource: http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0
- Kukulska-Hulme, A.& Shield, L. The keys to usability in e-learning Web sites. Paper presented at the Networked Learning. Conference 2004, Lancaster University, UK. 2004, April.
- Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Shield, L. Are language learning Web sites special? Towards a research agenda for discipline-specific usability. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 15, 349-366, 2006.
- Lee M. J.W. & McLoughin C. Teaching and Learning in the Web 2.0 Era: Empowering Students through Learner-Generated Content. 2007.
- Liu, M., Traphagan, T., Huh, J., Young, I., Gilok, C., & McGregor, A. (2008). Designing Web sites for ESL learners: A usability testing study. CALICO Journal, 25, 1-34. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from https:// calico.org/page.php?id=5
- Liu, Traphagan, Huh, Young, Gilok, & McGregor, 2008
- Lomicka, L., & Lord, G. Introduction to social networking, collaboration, and Web 2.0 tools. In L. Lomicka& G. Lord (Eds.), The next generation: Social networks and online collaboration in foreign language learning. San Marcos, TX: CALICO.2009.
- Megan S. A. & Liu M. Learning a Language with Web 2.0. Exploring the Use of Social Networking Features of Foreign Learning Websites.
- Melis E. & Weber M. Lessons for (Pedagogic) Usability of eLearning System. Phoenix, AZ. 2003.
- O’Reilly, T., 2005. What is Web 2.0. Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software, p. 30
- O'Reilly, Tim, and John Battelle. 2004. Opening Welcome: State of the Internet Industry. In San Francisco, California, October 5.
- Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-4.
- Tsui, A. B. M., & Tollefson, J. W. Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian contexts. Mahwah, NJ, 2007.
- Ажель Ю. П. Использование технологий ВЕБ 2.0 в преподавании иностранных языков // Молодой ученый. — 2012. — №6. — С. 369-371.
- Пронина О.Г. Использование технологии Web 2.0 в обучении иностранному языку в вузе. // Язык и культура. – 2010. – №1. – с. 92–98.