Web 2.0 Use in Higher Education

• Authors: Michelle Rogers-Estable
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

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.

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 17
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 130-142

Dates

published

2014-12-01

online

2015-03-03

Contributors

author

Michelle Rogers-Estable

• Manager of Online Education, SUNY Delhi, NY, [e-mail], 2 Main St – 327 Bush Hall, Delhi, NY, 13753, United States of America

References

• 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.2008.05.002[WoS]
• 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
• 3. American Distance Education Consortium (2009). ADEC Guiding principles for distance learning.
• 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
• 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.
• 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
• 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.2010.05.004[WoS]
• 8. Creswell, J.W.; Clark, V.L.P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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).
• 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).
• 13. Fowler, F.J., Jr. (2009). Survey research methods (4th ed.; L. Brickman & D. J. Rog, Eds.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• 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
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 18. Lodico, M.G.; Spaulding, D.T.; Voegtle, K.H. (2010). Methods in educational research: From theory to practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• 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
• 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 [Crossref]
• 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.
• 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
• 23. Palloff, R.M.; Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• 24. Restak, R. (2003). The new brain: How the modern age is rewiring your mind. Kutztown, PA: Rodale.
• 25. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
• 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)
• 27. Shin, N. (2003). Transactional presence as a critical predictor of success in distance learning. In Distance Education, 24, (pp. 87-104). doi:10.1080/01587910303048[Crossref]
• 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.
• 29. Solomon, G.; Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
• 30. Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. In Education Communication and Information, 2, (pp. 23-49). doi:10.1080/1463631022000005016[Crossref]
• 31. Trochim, W.M.K. (2006). Nonprobability sampling. Retrieved from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/sampnon.php
• 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.
• 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
• 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_9
• 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.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/eurodl-2014-0024