[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.2008.05.002]Search 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.pdf]Search 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.pdf]Search 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-RES44907]Search 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.2010.05.004]Search 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.10.4135/9781452230184]Search 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.edu]Search 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.x]Search 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)10.28945/208]Search 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/8332]Search 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 10.1080/08923648909526659]Search 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.html]Search 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:10.1080/0158791030304810.1080/01587910303048]Search 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:10.1080/146363102200000501610.1080/1463631022000005016]Search in Google Scholar
[31. Trochim, W.M.K. (2006). Nonprobability sampling. Retrieved from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/sampnon.php]Search 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.ch028]Search 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/fil010003]Search 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_9]Search 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