1. bookVolume 17 (2014): Issue 2 (December 2014)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1027-5207
First Published
11 Dec 2014
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Web 2.0 Use in Higher Education

Published Online: 03 Mar 2015
Volume & Issue: Volume 17 (2014) - Issue 2 (December 2014)
Page range: 130 - 142
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1027-5207
First Published
11 Dec 2014
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

This study analyzed current uses of emerging Web 2.0 technologies in higher education with the intent to better understand which tools teachers are using in the classroom. A total of 189 faculty in higher education from three western US universities were invited to participate, with 54 completing the survey. The survey included open-ended questions as well to offer an alternative analysis approach. In this study, the respondents claimed that the intrinsic factors of a lack of time and training were the main barriers to use, and reported positive views of Web 2.0 use in class, with 75% saying that these tools would benefit students and 83% saying they would benefit teacher-student interactions. In contrast to these results only 44% of the respondents used at least 4 of the 13 listed Web 2.0 tools with students. The reported uses did not match with the reported benefits, and this would support the results that extrinsic factors (time, training, support), instead of intrinsic factors (beliefs, motivation, confidence) are the main barriers to faculty in this study using more Web 2.0 in education. The top five Web 2.0 tools used, in order of preference, follow: (a) video sharing with tools like YouTube; (b) instant messaging; (c) blogs; (d) social communities, such as Facebook; and (e) podcasts or video casts. This data was originally submitted to the Abraham S. Fischler School of Education in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education.

1. Ajjan, H.; Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. In Internet and Higher Education, 11, (pp. 71-80). doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.05.00210.1016/j.iheduc.2008.05.002Search in Google Scholar

2. Allen, I. E.; Seaman, J. (2009). Learning on demand: Online education in the United States, 2009. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/pdf/learningondemand.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

3. American Distance Education Consortium (2009). ADEC Guiding principles for distance learning.Search in Google Scholar

4. Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education [Report]. JISC Technology and Standards Watch, Feb. 2007. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

5. Bell, A. (2009). Exploring Web 2.0: Second generation interactive tools - blogs, podcast, wikis, networking, virtual worlds, and more. Georgetown, TX: Katy Crossing Press.Search in Google Scholar

6. Bernoff, J.; Pflaum, C.N.; Bowen, E. (2008, October 20). The growth of social technology adoption. Forrester Research, Cambridge, MA, October 20, 2008. Retrieved from https://www.forrester.com/The+Growth+Of+Social+Technology+Adoption/fulltext/- /E-RES44907Search in Google Scholar

7. Cocciolo, A. (2010). Can Web 2.0 enhance community participation in an institutional repository? The case of PocketKnowledge at Teachers College, Columbia University. In Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36, (pp. 304-312). doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2010.05.00410.1016/j.acalib.2010.05.004Search in Google Scholar

8. Creswell, J.W.; Clark, V.L.P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

9. Dede, C. (2005). Planning for neomillennial learning styles: Implications for investments in technology and faculty. In J. Oblinger & D. Oblinger (eds.), Educating the net generation, (pp. 226-247). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.Search in Google Scholar

10. Dede, C.; Dieterle, E.; Clarke, J.; Ketelhut, D.J.; Nelson, B. (2007). Media-based learning styles. In M.G. Moore (eds.), Handbook of distance education (2nd ed.), (pp. 339-352). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

11. Ertmer, P.A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? In Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), (pp. 25-39).Search in Google Scholar

12. Ertmer, P.A.; Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.; York, C.S. (2006). Exemplary technology-using teachers: Perceptions of factors influencing success. In Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 23(2), (pp. 55-61).Search in Google Scholar

13. Fowler, F.J., Jr. (2009). Survey research methods (4th ed.; L. Brickman & D. J. Rog, Eds.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.10.4135/9781452230184Search in Google Scholar

14. Gay, G.; Mahon, S.; Devonish, D.; Alleyne, P.; Alleyne, P.G. (2006). Perceptions of information and communication technology among undergraduate management students in using ICT, Barbados. In International Journal of Education and Development, 2(4). Retrieved May 11, 2007, from http://ijedict.dec.uwi.eduSearch in Google Scholar

15. Hurt, H.T.; Joseph, K.; Cook, C.D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Human Communication Research, 4, (pp. 58-65). Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ175432)10.1111/j.1468-2958.1977.tb00597.xSearch in Google Scholar

16. Keengwe, J. (2007). Faculty integration of technology into instruction and students’ perceptions of computer technology to improve student learning. In Journal of Information Technology Education, 6, (pp. 169-180). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3220231)10.28945/208Search in Google Scholar

17. Klamma, R.; Chatti, M.A.; Duval, E.; Hummel, H.; Hvannberg, E.H.; Kravcik, M. et al. (2007). Social software for life-long learning. In Educational Technology & Society, 10(3), (pp. 72-83). Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ814052)Search in Google Scholar

18. Lodico, M.G.; Spaulding, D.T.; Voegtle, K.H. (2010). Methods in educational research: From theory to practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Search in Google Scholar

19. Maloney, E.J. (2007, January 5). Technology: What Web 2.0 can teach us about learning In Chronicle of Higher Education, (p. B26). Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/What- Web-20-Can-Teach-Us/8332Search in Google Scholar

20. Moore, M.G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. In American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), (pp. 1-6). doi:10.1080/08923648909526659 10.1080/08923648909526659Search in Google Scholar

21. Moore, M.G. (2007). The theory of transactional distance. In M.G. Moore (eds.), Handbook of distance education (2nd ed.), (pp. 89-105). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

22. O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0−Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.htmlSearch in Google Scholar

23. Palloff, R.M.; Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Search in Google Scholar

24. Restak, R. (2003). The new brain: How the modern age is rewiring your mind. Kutztown, PA: Rodale.Search in Google Scholar

25. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.Search in Google Scholar

26. Shihab, M.M. (2008). Web 2.0 tools improve teaching and collaboration in English language classes. San Antonio, TX: National Educational Computing Conference. Retrieved from ProQuest database. (UMI No. 3344829)Search in Google Scholar

27. Shin, N. (2003). Transactional presence as a critical predictor of success in distance learning. In Distance Education, 24, (pp. 87-104). doi:10.1080/0158791030304810.1080/01587910303048Search in Google Scholar

28. Smaldino, S.E.; Lowther, D.L.; Russell, J.D. (2008). Instructional technology and media for learning (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill.Search in Google Scholar

29. Solomon, G.; Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.Search in Google Scholar

30. Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. In Education Communication and Information, 2, (pp. 23-49). doi:10.1080/146363102200000501610.1080/1463631022000005016Search in Google Scholar

31. Trochim, W.M.K. (2006). Nonprobability sampling. Retrieved from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/sampnon.phpSearch in Google Scholar

32. Wheeler, S. (2009a). On using wiki as a tool for collaborative online blended learning. In Handbook of research on Web 2.0, 3.0, and X.0; technologies, business and social applications, Vol. 2. (pp. 511-521). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.10.4018/978-1-60566-384-5.ch028Search in Google Scholar

33. Wheeler, S. (2009b). Learning space mashups: Combining Web 2.0 tools to create collaborative and reflective learning spaces. In Future Internet, 1, (pp. 3-13). doi:10.3390/fil010003Search in Google Scholar

34. Wheeler, S. (2010). Open content, open learning 2.0: Using wikis and blogs in higher education. In U.-D. Ehlers & D. Schneckenberg (eds.), Changing cultures in higher education: Moving ahead to future learning, (pp. 103-114). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03582-1_910.1007/978-3-642-03582-1_9Search in Google Scholar

35. Yan, J. (2008). Social technology as a new medium in the classroom. In New England Journal of Higher Education, 22(4), (p. 27). Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ794242) Acknowledgement Dr. Estable holds a Doctorate of Instructional Technology and Distance Education and currently works at SUNY Delhi as the Manger of Online Education, and previously at The Higher Colleges of Technology as the Educational Technology lead. Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo