role of web 2.0 technologies for knowledge building in higher
TRANSCRIPT
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The role of web 2.0 technologies has become the windfall gain for knowledge building
in higher education in the modern world. Web 2.0 technologies (Podcasts, Wikis, and
Blogs) are being explored for collaboration, innovation, and creative purposes in digital
literacy. These are read/write technologies; users can access the information through
them by using internet as well as write the information over the internet. After
reviewing the existing literature and theories about the role of web 2.0 technologies for
knowledge building in higher education, the two questionnaires were designed for
students and teachers that contained multiple questions about the role, use and
advantages of web 2.0 technologies in formal education. Teachers and students, both,
agreed that the use of web 2.0 technologies can improve the creative skills among the
students as well as teachers. The Information and Communication Technologies based
systems (Learning Management System, Student Portal, Web mail) of Växjö University
lack web 2.0 technologies (Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis) that are important in the
classroom learning for knowledge building. This research study investigates and
describes the educational importance of web 2.0 (Podcasts, Wikis, and Blogs) as a
possible source to facilitate class room learning in higher education in Sweden. In this
regard, role of web 2.0 technologies in its current usage in the teaching and learning has
been identified and thereby possible measures for more improvements have been
suggested in this research. Keeping in view the potential of web 2.0 technologies is
acting as content development and management technologies. It also helps
incorporating their role in formative evaluation of students peer assessment,
collaborative content creation, for individual as well as group reflection on learning
experiences. Researcher conducted a survey by asking very simple and short questions
as to how far has this potential been exploited in Sweden. Based on the findings and the
empirical evidences thereof a model has been proposed for maximum utility of web 2.0
technologies. In short, in the light of this research study, it may claim that the role of
web 2.0 technologies has positive impact for knowledge building in higher education.
ii
ABSTRACT
The role of web 2.0 technologies has become windfall for knowledge building in higher
education in the entire modern world. Web 2.0 technologies (Podcasts, Wikis, and
Blogs) are being explored for collaboration, innovation, and creative purposes in digital
literacy. The ICT based system (Learning Management System, Student Portal, Web
mail) of Växjö University lacks web 2.0 technologies (Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis) that
are important for classroom learning for knowledge building. This research intends to
investigate and describe the educational importance of web 2.0 (Podcasts, Wikis, and
Blogs) as a possible source to facilitate class room learning in higher education in
Sweden. In this regard, role of web 2.0 in its current usage in the teaching and learning
have been identified and, thereby, possible measures for more improvements have been
suggested in this research. Keeping in view the potential of web 2.0 as content
development and management technologies and incorporating their role in formative
evaluation of students, peer assessment, collaborative content creation, and individual
as well as group reflection on learning experiences, the researcher conducted a survey
by asking very simple and short questions as to how far has this potential been
exploited in Sweden. Based on the findings and the empirical evidences thereof a
model has been proposed for maximum utility of web 2.0 technologies.
Keywords
Web 2.0 technologies, Podcasts, Wikis, Blogs, Knowledge Building, Knowledge-based
economy, Information and Communication Technologies, Higher Education
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
All praises to the Almighty Allah, the divine force behind this universe and the source
of all knowledge and wisdom for mankind, that He blessed me with the potential and
ability to contribute my share of a little drop to the existing ocean of knowledge.
In the first instance, I would like to express my gratitude to my teacher Prof. Dr. Anita
Mirijamdotter and my supervisor Mr. Osama Mansour for their guidance, support and
encouragement. Their professional collaboration meant a great deal to me. They have
been characteristically generous in sparing time to help me with the manuscript and
providing the shelter conditions under which the work could take place: thanks to them
to make it happen.
I would also like to thank my teachers of MSI department at Linnaeus
University for their guidance and help and for inculcating in me the requisite work
ethics to accomplish such a task as this. I surely owe a lot to the respondents of my
survey questionnaires.
I would also like to thank my colleagues who encouragement always stood me
in good stead and spearheaded my effort for studies.
I would also like to thank my friends who helped me a lot during my stay in
Sweden and kept my moral high during this stay while away from my home. I thank all
my School, College, and University friends, without whom life would be quite dreary.
Finally I dedicate it:
To my Allah (Subhanahu Wata’aala), for blessing me with the abilities and
opportunities; I might not know where the life’s road will take me, but walking with my
Allah (Subhanahu Wata’aala), through this journey has given me strength.
To my father, Khalid Khushi Muhammad, for being there whenever I needed him:
You always told me to “reach for the stars.” And I think I have got my first one. Thanks
for inspiring my love for transportation and wonders of the world as well.
I made it!
To my mother Zeenat Khalid, for all her support, love and prayers:
You have given me so much, thanks for your faith in me, and for teaching me that I
should never surrender.
To my elder brother Imran Khalid, though icy hands of death have snatched you from
us, but be consoled in heaven that we will always be five kids of our parents and we
will never let your memories die from our hearts.
To younger brother Arfat Khalid, for always making me smile even in the toughest of
situations;
To my sisters Nabeela Khalid & Sana Khalid, for their affectionate love &
To my wife Nazia Irfan, for standing by my side when the situation became toughest as
my thesis approached towards its end.
To my friend Asim Aqeel, who is a PhD Scholar in English Communications and
Cultural Studies at the University of Western Australia. You gave me encouragement
and inspiration to go head.
Irfan Khalid
June 2010
Växjö, Sweden
iv
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ i
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .......................................................................................................... iii
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Problem statement ......................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Aims and Objectives ..................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Topic Justification ......................................................................................................... 2
1.5 Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 3
1.6 Scope and Limitations ................................................................................................... 3
1.7 Disposition .................................................................................................................... 3
Chapter 2: Literature Review/Theoretical Framework ................................................................. 5
2.1 What is Web 2.0? .......................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Key Web 2.0 Technologies (Services) .......................................................................... 7
2.2.1 Podcasting ............................................................................................................. 8
2.2.2 Blogs ..................................................................................................................... 9
2.2.3 Wikis ................................................................................................................... 10
2.3 Knowledge Building by Using Web 2.0 Technologies ............................................... 11
2.3.1 Learning and Teaching ........................................................................................ 13
2.3.2 Leading paradigm of next stage of Teaching and Learning ................................ 14
2.3.3 From Web 2.0 to Education 2.0 .......................................................................... 15
2.3.4 Knowledge Building Pedagogy ........................................................................... 17
Chapter 3: Methodology ............................................................................................................. 21
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 21
3.2 Research Strategy ........................................................................................................ 21
3.3 Data Collection ........................................................................................................... 22
3.4 Validity and Reliability ............................................................................................... 22
3.5 Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 23
v
3.6 Ethical issues ............................................................................................................... 23
Chapter 4: Results ....................................................................................................................... 24
Chapter 5: Discussion ................................................................................................................. 35
5.1 Contribution to Knowledge ......................................................................................... 37
Chapter 6: Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 40
6.1 Future Research ........................................................................................................... 40
References ................................................................................................................................... 41
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................... 45
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1: "Meme Map" of Web 2.0 (O’Reilly 2005) .................................................................................. 8
Figure 2: Cyclic process of knowledge Building among the Teachers (Brown & Adler, 2008) ............... 14
Figure 3: Web 2.0 Technologies for everybody (Brown and Adler, 2008) ............................................... 16
Figure 4: Co-relation between Podcast, Blog, and Wiki in Higher Education (Boulos et al. 2006) ......... 16
Figure 5 : Proposed Model: Web 2.0 Technologies for Knowledge Building .......................................... 38
List of Tables
Table 1 : Example of Pedagogy 2.0 for Knowledge Building in Higher Education (McLoughlin, C. and
Lee, J.W.M., 2007) ........................................................................................................................... 20
Table 2 : Role of Web 2.0 for Knowledge Building ................................................................................. 25
Table 3 : Use of Web 2.0 Technologies .................................................................................................... 26
Table 4 : Ways in which Web 2.0 Technologies can be used ................................................................... 27
Table 5 : Technology-based Teaching and Learning Activity ................................................................. 28
Table 6 : Access to Technologies .............................................................................................................. 29
Table 7 : Use of Web 2.0 Technologies .................................................................................................... 30
Table 8 : Ways in which Web 2.0 Technologies can be used ................................................................... 31
Table 9 : Web 2.0 Technologies to assist studies ...................................................................................... 32
Table 10 : How useful Web 2.0 Technologies in the studies. ................................................................... 33
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Introduction
Learning is a continuous process in the ever changing global economy of today’s
world, both in organizations and higher education institutes. Brown and Adler (2008)
argue that due to immense improvements in information and communication
technologies and transportation, virtually any place on the earth can be connected to
markets anywhere else on the earth and can become globally competitive. For this
global competitive environment, a well-educated workforce is required with
competitive skills and in a rapidly changing world, information and communication
technologies must not only supply this workforce but also provide support for
continuous learning and for the ongoing creation of new ideas and skills. Access to
higher education is a necessary element in expanding economic prosperity and
improving the quality of life.
Brown and Adler (2008) also steers upon the fact that the world is changing at
an ever-faster pace and this transformation of the globe puts increasing demands,
regarding interdependence from learning point of view in the context of higher
education on university students, both current and prospective ones.
No doubt, we have entered a world in which we all will have to acquire and
transmit new knowledge and skills on an almost continuous basis by using web 2.0
technologies.
Now-a-days, Web 2.0 is very famous phenomenon specifically in higher
education (McLoughlin and Lee 2007). Web 2.0 is the development of modular
information services, where developers and users are able to build applications from
practical modules. The web 2.0 technologies provide such platform where creators as
well as users can use them according to their specific purpose in different fields of life.
With respect to ICT, we can realize the fast expansion and creation of technologies that
are less about “narrowcasting”, and more focused on creating communities in which
people come together to collaborate, learn and share knowledge. According to Owen et
al. (2006), in this higher education arena, there are shifts in the views of what education
is for, with a growing emphasis on the need to enable and support not only the
acquisition of knowledge and information but also to develop the skills and resources to
support knowledge based economy and learning throughout life.
O’Reilly (2005) provides the definitions and explanations of Web 2.0, its
features and expected challenges in the near future, and how important it is to
implement specifically in the academic institutions. Among other effects, IS
researchers, teachers and students ask themselves questions such as, “Are we Web 2.0
ready?” or “Do we comply with Web 2.0?” or “What will happen to us if we do not
convert to this movement?” (O’Reilly, 2005). In this regard, various attempts have been
made by different authors [e.g. McLoughlin, C. and Lee, J.W.M. (2007), Kennedy et al.
(2007), Scardamalia, M. and Bereiter, C. (2003), Sfard, A. (1998), Paavola, S. &
Hakkarainen, K. (2005)] to provide different challenges of web 2.0 technologies for
knowledge building in higher education.
1.2 Problem statement
According to Brown and Adler’s (2008) prediction, the challenges of current
educational infrastructure (existing methods of teaching and learning, campuses,
laboratories, etc.) will not withstand the innovative onrush of knowledge and growing
demands of the existing generation in the 21st century in view of much sophisticated
professional challenges ahead. To reduce these challenges, the applications of Web 2.0
2
Technologies is what the advanced countries like USA, Japan, UK, Australia, and
Germany etc. (McLoughlin and Lee, 2007) already have incorporated in their formal
education and that is what this research proposes to propagate. The existing system of
Växjö University, which is the situated location for this research, is a blend of
traditional classroom teaching and use of different ICT based tools (Learning
Management System, Student Portal, Web mail) for knowledge building. This
educational system lacks web 2.0 technologies (Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis) that I
propose are crucial for knowledge building. Similarly, the problem existed in
Australian universities (University of Melburne, University of Wollongong, and
Charles Sturt University) mentioned by Kennedy et al. (2007) and there, to address
knowledge building capacity, researchers explored introducing web 2.0 technologies.
This research will follow a similar vein and explore opportunities of knowledge
building that can be identified by introducing web 2.0 technologies in the existing
educational system. Additionally, it is important to look for economical and productive
options in this concern. Adopting the use of Web 2.0 technologies for knowledge
building in higher education might prove a viable option to cope with limitations of
existing educational infrastructure because, according to Brown and Adler (2008) web
2.0 technologies have potential to produce better drivers than currently available to
support knowledge-based economy through better practices in learning and teaching.
1.3 Aims and Objectives
In its specific approach this research aims to propose a model that can help students and
teachers develop a teaching and learning environment that specifically focuses on
knowledge building environment in higher education. Thereby, this research also aims
to highlight all the problems in current practice, regarding either limited or
inappropriate usage of web 2.0 technologies. Keeping in view the dynamism, flexibility
and sensitivity of web 2.0 technologies for user applications, the proposed model in this
research also aspires to promote the usage of web 2.0 technologies in different
university departments to enable a greater authentic implementation of collaborative
and co-constructed technologies (Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis) within higher educational
context.
1.4 Topic Justification
Gerald and Fichman (2009) argue that IS researchers give more attention to discover
the impact and propositions of web 2.0 technologies in organizations for the purpose of
developing business practices and make new business models (e.g., McAfee, 2006;
Wagner and Majchrzak, 2006), rather than exploring core practices of web 2.0
technologies in learning and teaching in higher education. We believe that Information
Systems (IS) as an academic discipline provides avenues for further research, especially
the new generations of Internet-based collaborative technologies, known as Web 2.0
(Podcasts, Blogs, Wikis), whose popularity, availability, and power have greatly
increased in recent years, but these could not get more attentions of IS researcher.
However, more research is needed in web 2.0 technologies. This study pays attention to
IS research related to Web 2.0 technologies and by that provides an occasion to
critically evaluate our core practices in the light of new technological capabilities
which, in this context, are aimed at supporting knowledge building, sharing, creation
and collaboration in higher education.
Franklin and Harmelen (2007) state that, because Web 2.0 is a relatively ‘young’
technology, there are many unresolved problems and issues regarding its use in
universities. McLoughlin and Lee (2007) argue that some researches show increasing
appreciation of the student’s own control of the complete learning process. This
3
suggests that we can improve learning effectiveness by giving control and
responsibility to learners for their own learning. Responsibility for own learning is also
the foundation for pedagogical approaches such as problem-based and inquiry-based
learning, and has become the central idea behind the vision of Pedagogy 2.0 where
learners have the freedom to decide how to engage in personally meaningful learning
through connection, collaboration and shared knowledge. However, more research is
needed on ways to facilitate this personally meaningful learning process (Desharnais &
Limson, 2007; Edelson, Gordin & Pea, 1999). This is the intention of this research, i.e.,
to investigate the role of web 2.0 technologies for knowledge building with particular
focus on higher education.
1.5 Research Questions
• What is the role of Web 2.0 Technologies for Knowledge building in Higher
Education?
o How can Web 2.0 technologies support Teaching and Learning
(pedagogical and personal academic perspectives) in higher education?
o What degree of student-teacher support is available in teaching
and learning, both from a pedagogical as well as a personal academic
perspective?
So, according to the research questions, the focus of this research activity is to explore
the role of web 2.0 technologies for knowledge building in higher education between
teachers and students.
1.6 Scope and Limitations
This research focuses on the role of web 2.0 technologies for knowledge building in
higher education. The research is conducted at one university in the South of Sweden,
Växjö University, and in three of its Schools (Mathematics & Systems Engineering,
Management and Economics, and Health Sciences). The data gathering is carried out in
Schools and Departments that have direct or indirect relation to web 2.0 technologies
(Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis) but due to the limited amount they should be regarded as
illustrative explorations related to the research aim. However, the number of samples
used in this research and their diversity provide ample objective results to establish a
proposed model of a good infrastructure to disseminate knowledge among the students
within the Swedish Higher Education sector.
Web 2.0 technologies (e.g. social networking technologies like Facebook,
MySpace, etc.) which at present have limited scope in the context of higher education
have been excluded. Distance learning will neither come under the scope of this
research activity. The tools that might be particularly used for web 2.0 technologies and
services (ipod, Laptops, wireless network, palmtops etc.), are also excluded in this
research activity. These constraints must be considered while interpreting the results of
this research.
1.7 Disposition
The dissertation has been divided into six chapters, namely Introduction, Literature
review, Methodology, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. Chapter one consists of
introduction, problem statement, aims and objectives, research question, topic
justification and scope and limitation. The second chapter presents the literature review
resulting in a theoretical framework for the research activity. Methodology, including
research strategy and data collection, is described in the third chapter. In the fourth
4
chapter, the empirical findings are presented, in text, tables, and graphs. Towards the
end of the dissertation I discuss my results and my research approach to draw out some
conclusions. These are presented in chapter five, Discussion, together with the
knowledge contribution and this research provides and finishes by addressing the future
perspective in the final chapter Conclusion.
5
Chapter 2: Literature Review/Theoretical Framework
In this chapter, the existing literature is reviewed to form the theoretical framework
used in this research activity to investigate the role of web 2.0 technologies for
knowledge building in higher education. It provides the history of web 2.0
technologies, their advantages and usage in higher education, as well as their role for
knowledge building in Teaching and Learning.
Franklin and Harmelen (2007) explained that Tim Berners-Lee was the first
researcher who used Web 2.0 as read/write or shared technology in 1980. It was the
seed which is being accepted generally as the read/write or shared content nature of
Web 2.0. This idea came from Tim Berners-Lee’s prototype web software (thus in
Berners-Lee’s view there is nothing new about Web 2.0). After that this idea
disappeared from the research. It re-appeared when Ward Cunningham wrote the first
wiki in 1994-1995. Blogs, another early part of the read/write phenomenon, were
sufficiently developed to gain the name weblogs in 1997. It then took until the summer
of 2005 for the term Web 2.0 to appear. Tim O’Reilly (2005) led a conference session
to explore the meaning of the term and subsequently wrote in detail about the
phenomenon of Web 2.0 technologies.
Saffo (2005) stated that Web 2.0 seems like as the age of personal media and
change from consumer to creator as evidenced by the rapid growth of blogs. According
to Technorati cited by Thompson (2007), which tracks over 70 million blogs, over
175,000 new blogs are created every day. Thompson (2007) explains more about the
web 2.0 and says that if Saffo (2005) is correct about the rise of the Internet as a
personal medium, students will soon arrive at college expecting a transformative form
of education. Similarly, Prensky (2001) describes that today's students as digital natives
who have functioned in a digital environment for most of their lives; as a result,
technologies that faculty and staff typically see as revolutionary are routine for today's
university students. Roberts (2005) has another point of view that Net Generation
students arrive at their universities as experienced multi-tasking individuals,
accustomed to using text messaging, telephones, and e-mail while searching the
Internet and watching television. They are ready for multimedia learning to be
delivered on a flexible learning schedule, one that is not tied to a time frame and space.
Educators have influence on student expectations which have already revealed a
significant change. While today's students still see faculty knowledge and expertise as
the most important element in teaching (Roberts, 2005), they cannot restrain their
curiosity for exposure to knowledge that new technologies afford them. An
EDUCAUSE survey reports (Kvavik and Caruso, 2005) that the students will want
faculty members to use information technology to communicate knowledge in a better
way. Forty-one percent of the students surveyed said that they preferred instructors to
make moderate use of information technology while 27% wanted extensive use and
26% said they preferred only limited use. In the light of the rapid expansion of Web 2.0
technologies in the daily lives of university students, such preferences are likely to
become even more pronounced in newer generations of learners wanting more
technology usage by faculty members.
On the other hand, web 2.0 technologies can be assigned more scientific
meanings as said by Franklin and Harmelen (2007). Moreover, Web 2.0 encompasses a
variety of different meanings that include an increased emphasis on user generated
content, data and content sharing and collaborative effort, together with the use of
various kinds of social soft-wares, new ways of interacting with web-based
applications, and the use of web as a platform for generating, re-purposing and
consuming content.
6
Some people say that the term Web 2.0 is just another buzzword used for marketing
purpose; others state that the term signifies a difference in what is enabled through the
internet. O’Reilly (2005) compares and exemplifies this difference:
Web 1.0 Web 2.0
DoubleClick
-->
Google AdSense
Ofoto --> Flickr
Akamai --> BitTorrent
mp3.com --> Napster
Britannica Online --> Wikipedia
personal websites --> Blogging
Evite --> upcoming.org and EVDB
domain name speculation --> search engine optimization
page views --> cost per click
screen scraping --> web services
Publishing --> Participation
content management systems --> Wikis
directories (taxonomy) --> tagging ("folksonomy")
Stickiness --> Syndication
Web 1.0 is considered as a few content authors provided content for a wide audience of
relatively passive readers. However, Web 2.0 is considered most valuable information
place where everyday visitors of internet use the web as a platform to generate, re-
purpose, and consume shared content. With Web 2.0 data sharing the web also becomes
a platform for social software that enables groups of users to socialize, collaborate, and
work with each other. This change of use is largely based on existing web data-sharing
mechanisms being used to share content, in conjunction with the use of web protocol
based interfaces to web applications that allow flexibility in reusing data and the
adoption of communications protocols that allow specialized data exchange.
As for as higher education is concerned, many researchers proposed web 2.0
technologies (Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis) for education specifically in higher
education institutes (e.g. Sfard 1998, Scardamalia and Bereiter 2003, McLoughlin and
Lee, 2007). The Web 2.0 technologies are as the back bone of knowledge creation and
sharing paradigm based on the dynamics of how communities work. It is also a form of
learning based on small groups, sharing, content, and the use of ICT to access, create,
share, build and continually improve ideas of sharing and creating knowledge
specifically in higher education. Sfard (1998) defines that learning processes have
different possible metaphors: one is acquisition metaphor and other is participation
metaphor. The first learning metaphor is as a process of acquiring chunks of
information, typically delivered by a teacher, while the other learning metaphor is as a
process of participating in various cultural practices and shared learning activities.
According to the participation metaphor of learning, cognition and knowing are
distributed over both individuals and their environments, and learning is situated in
relations and networks of distributed individuals engaging in activities.
McLoughlin and Lee (2007) also explain that learners as university students are
also capable of creating and generating ideas, concepts and knowledge, and the ultimate
goal of learning in the knowledge age is to enable this form of creativity. Current views
of learning regard the notion of a teacher-dominated classroom and curriculum as
obsolete, and embrace learning environments and approaches where students take
7
control of their own learning, make connections with peers, and produce new insights
and ideas through inquiry. It is based on Web 2.0 and social software.
Most of the literature reviewed also supported the principal argument of this
research, that Web 2.0 technologies (Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis) are becoming more
and more important for knowledge building in higher education to overcome the
existing problems of teaching and learning in universities. It is quite conceivable how
an individual might operate and learn in a networked society, having access to ideas,
resources and communities, and engage primarily in knowledge creation rather than
consumption and how individuals might link with communities and networks in the
process of knowledge sharing, construction and understanding. The interdependence
between ideas, individuals, communities and information networks, supported by
technology, underpin the demands of Web 2.0 technologies, and offer a range of
choices to individuals to their personal needs and goals to produce knowledgeable
workforce. These are the core principles of Web 2.0 era where Web is about linking
minds, communities and ideas, while promoting personalization, collaboration and
creativity leading to joint knowledge-based economy.
2.1 What is Web 2.0?
Tredinnick (2006) explains that the term ‘Web 2.0’ has been circulating for many
years. It exploits computing conventions through decimal notation indicating major and
minor software upgrades. Metaphorically, Web 2.0 is major software upgrade to the
World Wide Web.
O’Reilly (2005) presented Web 2.0 that it is as a second stage in the
development of the web, superseding the predominantly publishing model of many
web-based information applications and services. Information services are to become
more dynamic, and more sensitive to user action. The famous meme-map (Figure 1)
provides a platform to establish innovative ideas for web 2.0 technologies. “Web 2.0 is
presented as a process of ceding control over applications to users, enabling users to
extract information and data and its reuse in a flexible way, and enabling them in the
process perhaps even to change the structure of the information system itself. “
(O’Reilly, 2005, p.1)
Miller (2005) described that Web 2.0 is about the development of modular
information services, where developers and users are able to build applications from
practical modules.
2.2 Key Web 2.0 Technologies (Services)
In the figure below conceptual understanding of the key properties of web 2.0
technologies is expressed. These technologies are represented by e.g., podcasting,
blogs, and wikis which are commonly used among the students and teachers in the
higher education. However, these are not only services/applications used by students,
teachers and other university staff, but also building blocks of the technologies, tools
and open standards which are used over the internet. Other examples of
services/applications include blogs, wikis, and multimedia sharing services, content
syndication, podcasting and content tagging services. Many of these applications of
Web 2.0 technology are relatively mature, have been in use for a number of years,
although new features and capabilities are being added on a regular basis. Many of
these newer technologies are concatenations, i.e. they make use of existing services. In
this section, web 2.0 technologies are being introduced to make the ground for further
research work in this field.
8
Figure 1: "Meme Map" of Web 2.0 (O’Reilly 2005)
O’Reilly (2005) expresses that Web 2.0 refers to a loose collection of ‘second
generation’ web-based technologies and services which are designed to facilitate
collaboration and sharing between users. Its use covers a wide range of technologies
and context. Kennedy et al. (2007) provide the comprehensive list of Web 2.0
Technologies. There are number of ‘core’ technologies and services that most students
and teachers are familiar with, but it has been focused on the most popular web 2.0
technologies in higher education such as Podcasting, Blogs and Wikis:
2.2.1 Podcasting
According to Anderson (2007), podcasting describes the distribution of digital media
files both audio and video by using syndicated internet feeds. These are usually in MP3
format to record the talks, interviews and lectures, which can be played either on a
desktop computer or on a wide range of handheld MP3 devices. Users give to
individual feeds by providing the feed address (a special type of URL) to a software
application called an aggregator. Apple’s iTunes are perhaps the most readily
recognized aggregator and RSS (Really Simple Syndication) and Atom is the second
most widely used feed formats. Whenever new contents get available, the aggregator
automatically downloads the podcast and stores it alongside other media files
originating from the same feed.
Anderson (2007) describes RSS as a family of formats which allow users to find
out the updates to the content of RSS-enabled websites, blogs or podcasts without
actually having to go and visit the site. Instead, information from the website (typically,
a new story's title and synopsis, along with the originating website’s name) is collected
within a feed (which uses the RSS format) and ‘piped’ to the user in a process known
as syndication.
9
Patterson (2006) defines that a podcast is made by creating an MP3 format
audio file (using a voice recorder or similar device), uploading the file to a host server,
and then making the world aware of its existence through the use of RSS. This process
adds a URL link to the audio file, as well as directions to the audio file’s location on the
host server, into the RSS file. Podcasting is becoming increasingly used in education
(Brittain et al. 2006; Ractham and Zhang, 2006) and recently there have been moves to
establish a UK Higher Education podcasting community. It is very useful and
contributes to enriching knowledge building by supporting to record lectures during
class and then upload them on a Learning Management Systems for every student to
access.
Multimedia sharing is another Web 2.0 services which facilitate the storage and
sharing of multimedia content. Well known examples include YouTube (video), Flickr
(photographs), and Odeo (podcasts). There are so many videos and audios available on
YouTube for learning purpose. These popular services take the idea of the ‘writeable’
Web (where users are not only just consumers but also contribute actively to the
production of Web content) and enable it on a massive scale. Literally millions of
people now participate in the sharing and exchange of these forms of media by
producing their own podcasts, videos and photos. This development has only been
made possible through the widespread adoption of high-quality, but relatively low-cost
digital media technology such as hand-held video cameras.
2.2.2 Blogs
Doctorow et al. (2002) describe that this term was formed by Jorn Barger in 1997 and
refers to a simple webpage consisting of brief paragraphs of opinion, information,
personal diary entries, or links, called posts, arranged chronologically with the most
recent first, in the style of an online journal. These are customizable personal websites
that allow the user to contribute regular or irregular entries that are displayed on the site
in reverse sequential order. The entries may include video and other rich media
according to blogging software or service used. It may be used in isolation or integrated
with other Web 2.0 technologies and services (e.g. most social networking sites include
blogging tools). A wide range of commercial, community and open source blogging
sites and tools is available. The visitors can add their comments below a blog entry.
Anderson (2007) describes that the blog-roll is a significant part of blogging. It
consists of a list of links to other blogs that a specific blogger likes or finds useful. It is
like a blog ‘bookmark’. Blog software also provides syndication, in which information
about the blog entries is made available to other software via RSS. This content is then
aggregated into feeds, and a variety of blog aggregators and specialist blog reading
tools can make use of these feeds. Another term ‘Blogosphere’ is created by the use of
blogging in large number of people. As technology has become more sophisticated,
bloggers have started to incorporate multimedia into their blogs and now photo-blogs
and video blogs (vlogs) have been introduced. The bloggers can upload material
directly from their mobile phones (mob-blogging).
Duffy and Bruns (2006) present some possible uses of blogs in education.
Within a personal academic perspective a blog can support:
• Manifestation on teaching experiences
• Categorized descriptions of resources and methodologies for teaching
• Ramblings regarding professional challenges and teaching tips for other
academics
• Illustration of specific technology-related tips for other colleagues.
• A common online presence for unit-related information such as
calendars, events, assignments and resources
10
• An online area for students to post contact details and queries relating to
assessment.
Within a pedagogical perspective a blog can support:
• Comments based on literature readings and student responses
• A collaborative space for students to act as reviewers for course-related
materials
• Images and reflections related to industry placement
• An online gallery space for review of works, writings, etc. in progress,
making use especially of the commenting feature
• Teachers encouraging reactions, reflections and ideas by commenting on
their students’ blogs
• Development of a student portfolio of work.
The following potential benefits are identified by learning specialists Fernette and
Brock Eide described by Duffy and Bruns (2006).
• Blogs can promote critical and analytical thinking
• They can promote creative, intuitive and associational (creative and
associational thinking in relation to blogs being used as brainstorming
tool and also as a resource for interlinking, commenting on interlinked
ideas).
• They can promote analogical thinking
• They have potential for increased access and exposure to quality
information
• They are the combination of solitary and social interaction
Blogs provide a platform for individual expression and also support reader
commentary, critique, and inter-linkage as subsequent steps. In other words, blogs
foreground the individual, while discussion fora foreground the group.
2.2.3 Wikis
Anderson (2007) defines that wiki is a webpage that can be easily edited by anyone
who is allowed access. These collaborative websites like Wikipedia is most popular
specifically among the university students and teachers for group activity. Wikis can
accommodate large numbers of pages (Wikipedia currently contains almost 2.7 million
entries on its English language site), which because of the underlying paradigm, are
typically created and organized in an ad-hoc manner. Effective navigation within a wiki
usually depends on the extensive use of hyperlinks and robust search routines. Media
Wiki and Wiki software are the power of Wikipedia and many other high-profile wikis.
Wikis, and in particular Wikipedia, represent a promising principle that can
significantly transform the internet information age. Wiki features include easy editing,
versioning capabilities, and article discussions
Stvilia et al. (2005) draw an attention towards the level of openness, and
Wikipedia itself has been suffering from problems of malicious editing and vandalism.
The editing access should be only registered users that often use it for professional and
group work.
Fountain (2005) presents a survey of wiki use in education, and suggests several
additional uses of wikis such as co-creating, co-monitoring projects as collaborative
concept.
11
Duffy and Bruns (2006) present list of several possible educational uses of
wikis:
• Students can use a wiki to develop research projects, with the wiki
serving as ongoing documentation of their work.
• Students can add summaries of their thoughts from the prescribed
readings, building a collaborative annotated bibliography on a wiki.
• A wiki can be used for publishing course resources like syllabi and
handouts, and students can edit and comment on these directly for all to
see.
• Teachers can use wikis as a knowledge base, enabling them to share
reflections and thoughts regarding teaching practices, and allowing for
versioning and documentation.
• Wikis can be used to map concepts. They are useful for brainstorming,
and editing a given wiki topic can produce a linked network of
resources.
• A wiki can be used as a presentation tool in place of conventional
software, and students are able to directly comment on and revise the
presentation content.
• Wikis are tools for group authoring. Often group members collaborate
on a document by emailing to each member of the group a file that each
person edits on their computer, and some attempt is then made to
coordinate the edits so that everyone’s work is equally represented;
using a wiki pulls the group members together and enables them to build
and edit the document on a single, central wiki page.
Duffy and Bruns (2006) describe few potential educational benefits of wikis.
• Wikis offer an online space for collaborative authorship and writing
• Using wikis, students can easily create simple websites without prior
knowledge or skill in HTML programming or current software used for
website authoring, thus eliminating the time overhead necessary to
develop these skills.
• The organizations adopt the wiki for internal and external collaboration
and information, work with wikis at the tertiary level builds crucial skill
for the workplace.
• It allows teachers and learners to see the evolution of written task, and to
continually comment on it, rather than offering comments only on the
final draft.
• It can be very useful for tracking and streamlining group projects.
2.3 Knowledge Building by Using Web 2.0 Technologies
Throughout Web 2.0 era, Educational approaches have been changing in response to
some technological developments that mainly influenced collaborative rather than
individual inquiry in learning processes. The main purpose of education is defined by
Scardamalia and Bereiter (2003, p.102) “need to educate people for the knowledge age
society, in which knowledge and innovation are pervasive”.
The Web 2.0 technologies play a leading role in today’s education in higher
education institutes across the globe. According to Fountain (2005) the advantages and
disadvantages of web 2.0 technologies in mainstream education have huge impact in
knowledge-based economy. This is compounded by the fact that there is very little
12
reliable, original pedagogic research and evaluation evidence and much of the actual
experimentation using web 2.0 services/applications within higher education has
focused particularly on wikis and other specialist subject areas or research domains
rather than learning and education. Anderson (2007) shows that JISC (Joint Information
Systems Committee) recently announced an open call to investigate the ways that web
2.0 technology is being used by staff and students specifically in higher education
institutes. He also identifies opportunities for integration with existing institutional IT
systems.
Scardamalia and Bereiter (2006, p.97) argue that the new idea “knowledge of
knowledge” creates enough educational implications a: “Ours is a knowledge-creating
civilization. A growing number of “knowledge societies” are joined in a deliberate
effort to advance all the frontiers of knowledge” said by Stehr (1994). Persistent
knowledge improvement is very important for social growth of all kinds and for the
solution of societal problems in present situation. The basic goal of education is
enculturation of youth into this knowledge-creating civilization and to help them find a
place in it (Scardamalia and Bereiter, 2006).
Knowledge building is a process that can be achieved through teaching and
learning processes where web 2.0 technologies are utilized. “Knowledge building
represents as an attempt to refashion education in a fundamental way, so that it
becomes a coherent effort to initiate students into a knowledge creating culture”
(Scardamalia and Bereiter, 2006, p.98). In Web 2.0 Technologies, the students are not
only developing knowledge-building competencies but are also coming to see
themselves and their work as part of the civilization-wide effort to advance knowledge
paradigm. In this context, Web 2.0 technologies, tools and applications over the
Internet have more influence on educational processes, both teaching and learning,
particularly in higher education. (Scardamalia and Bereiter, 2006).
Scardamalia and Bereiter (2006) formulate a prominent advantage of
knowledge building “it is as an educational approach that provides a straightforward
way to address the contemporary emphasis on knowledge creation and innovation.
They consist of outside the scope of most constructivist approaches whereas they are at
the heart of knowledge building” (Scardamalia and Bereiter, 2006, p.99). They
elaborate on key themes in which students are treated as learners, inquirers and
members of a knowledge building community. These themes are as follows:
• Knowledge advancement as a community rather than individual
achievement
• Knowledge advancement as an idea improvement rather than as progress
toward true or warranted belief
• Knowledge of in contrast to knowledge about
• Discourse as collaborative problem solving rather than as argumentation
• Constructive use of authoritative information
• Understanding as innovative ideas that emerge
According to Scardamalia and Bereiter (2006), the knowledge forum is another idea in
educational context for knowledge building particularly over the internet and it can be
found everywhere on the Worldwide Web as a part of learning management systems
like Blackboard and WebCT. This forum has become very common over the internet.
People of different countries are connecting to each other and share common things of
same interest and they are getting busy to know about other cultures and societies.
Scardamalia and Bereiter (2006) explain that the knowledge forum does not
simply function as a tool, but includes a knowledge building environment which is like
13
a virtual space within which the main work of a knowledge building group takes place.
This indicates that knowledge for a group is useful not only in formal educational
settings, but also in other conditions where groups are striving to become knowledge
building organizations. Examples could be service and professional organizations,
teacher development networks, and businesses that are aiming to boost their innovative
capabilities.
2.3.1 Learning and Teaching
Learning and teaching is the major potential area of web 2.0 technologies (Podcasts,
Blogs, and Wikis) that this research specifically focuses. Owen et al. (2006) present the
report about emerging technologies and discus them in the context of parallel,
developing trends in higher education. These trends tend towards more open,
personalized approaches in which the formal nature of human knowledge is under
debate and where, within schools, colleges, and universities there is a greater emphasis
on lifelong learning and on supporting the development of young people’s skills in
creativity and innovation for the knowledge-based economy.
There are so many universities working with web 2.0 technologies (Podcasts,
Blogs, and Wikis) in higher education. Glogoff (2006) expressed cited by Anderson
(2007) that Wikis have been used at the University of Arizona's Learning Technologies
Centre to help students in an information studies course who were enrolled remotely
from across the USA. These students worked together to build a wiki-based glossary of
technical terms they learned while attending the course. Another State University of
New York, the Geneseo Collaborative Writing Project deploys wikis for students to
work together to interpret texts, author articles and essays, share ideas, and improve
their research and communication skills collectively. Using wikis in this way provides
the opportunity for students to reflect and comment on either their own work or on
others. Wiki-style technology has also been used in a tool developed at Oxford
University to support teachers with ‘design for learning’.
Alexander (2006) believes that in present higher education systems, wikis can
be useful as writing tools that aid composition practice, and that blogs are particularly
useful for allowing students to follow stories over a period of time and reviewing their
changing nature. The Web 2.0 technologies (Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis) have impact
and they are playing a key role specifically in higher education where the pedagogy is
based on conversations and learning content by performing some kind of creative
operation rather than ‘just’ reading it.
Anderson (2007) says that Warwick University, UK has been offering easy to
use blogging facilities to teachers, staff and students to create their own personal pages
for many years. The intention behind this facility is that the system will have a variety
of education-related uses such as developing essay plans, creating photo galleries and
recording personal development in order to form a knowledge creating and sharing
culture. The IS experts who are focusing on the idea of self production argue that
learners find the process of learning more compelling when they are producers as much
as consumers. On the other hand, some IS researchers argue that many youngsters are
losing motivation to engage with education that once web 2.0 technologies are
integrated into the education environment, they will lose their attraction.
As well as Podcasting is concerned, this is being used in Medical education in
the advance countries. Brown and Adler (2008) put forward some examples such as
Medical and health-related podcast which is included at the New York University
ophthalmology CME (Continuing Medical Education) programs, the New England
Journal of Medicine podcasts, McGraw-Hill's Access Medicine podcasts, and John
Hopkins Medicine Podcasts. Health- related podcasts are also available for patients and
14
the general public. The Arizona Heart Institute and Cleveland Clinic offer video
podcasts for healthcare professionals as well as for patients. The Denison Memorial
Library at the University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center has
compiled a useful Health/Medical Podcast Directory.
Podcasting can be useful in every field of education. However, Fountain (2005)
draws attention to some more critical questions concerning web 2.0 (Podcasts, Blogs,
and Wikis) and their use among the students for learning purposes. How will this affect
education’s own efforts to work in a more collaborative fashion and provide
institutional tools to do so? How will it handle issues such as privacy and plagiarism
when students are developing new social ways of interacting and working? Figure 2
shows the cyclic process of knowledge building and sharing among teachers. It
expresses the three constructive components of knowledge building during teaching in
higher education, namely create, use and re-mix. The arrows denote a cyclic process of
knowledge building which provides the venues for teachers to share pedagogical
knowledge to improve the teaching practices.
Figure 2: Cyclic process of knowledge Building among the Teachers (Brown &
Adler, 2008)
2.3.2 Leading paradigm of next stage of Teaching and Learning
After discussion about the role of web 2.0 technologies (Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis)
for knowledge building in higher education, now other positive effects of web 2.0
technologies are being discussed for knowledge building in higher education.
McLoughlin and Lee (2007) draw the attention towards most important aspect of Web
2.0 technologies (Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis) and argue that Learning Management
Systems (LMS’s) as part of Web 2.0 technologies amalgamate geographically isolated
learners in timeless and boundary less educational interactions and these have been
broadly available for many years. Once more, many higher education institutions are
establishing new models of teaching and learning to fulfill the requirements and needs
of a new generation of learners. The students have opportunities of greater autonomy,
connectivity and socio-experiential learning with broader view of web 2.0 technologies
such as sharing, collaboration, customization, personalization, by which a number of
new paradigms for learning have been established. The concept of a Personal Learning
Environment (PLE), Downes (2005, p.3) describes that “it is an approach, not an
application, one that protects and celebrates identity, supports multiple levels of
socializing and encourages the development of communities of inquiry”. According to
PLE, learners can manage their own learning by selecting, integrating and using various
15
Web 2.0 technologies which provide them contextually suitable tool sets by enabling
students to settle and select options based on their needs and circumstances. As a result,
a model is created where learner needs, rather than technology, drive the learning
process.
According to McLoughlin and Lee (2007), LMSs also provide the platform in
which students can have their own personal view of the course(s) they are enrolled in.
Web 2.0 technologies (Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis) offer rich opportunities to move
away from the highly-centralized industrial model of learning of the past decade,
towards achieving individual empowerment of learners through designs that focus on
collaborative, networked communication and interaction (Rogers et.al., 2007), while
few LMS’s integrate purportedly “Web 2.0” tools, technologies, and features with full
safety measures limitations of the institution’s systems and networks. To reduce the
limitations of existing models of pedagogy and to establish more optimum environment
of pedagogy by using web 2.0 technologies (Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis), it is possible
to show how a student might operate and learn in a networked society, having access to
ideas, resources and communities, and engage primarily in knowledge creating and
sharing rather than consumption.
2.3.3 From Web 2.0 to Education 2.0
According to Brown and Adler (2008), Web 2.0, which has emerged in just the past
few years, is sparking an even more far-reaching revolution in higher education. Tools
usually are being used for educational purpose such as social networks, tagging
systems, mashups, and content-sharing sites and some more popular such as podcasts,
blogs, and wikis are examples of a new user-centric information infrastructure that
emphasizes participation (e.g., creating, sharing, re-mixing) over presentation, that
encourages focused conversation and short briefs.
In the twentieth century, the dominant approach to education focused on helping
students to construct stocks of knowledge and cognitive skills that could be deployed
later in appropriate situations. This approach to education worked well in a relatively
stable, slowly changing world in which careers typically lasted a lifetime. But the
twenty-first century is quite different (Brown and Adler, 2008). The world is evolving
at an increasing pace. When jobs change, as they are likely to do, we can no longer
expect to send someone back to college or university to be retrained.
16
Figure 3: Web 2.0 Technologies for everybody (Brown and Adler, 2008)
Figure 3 illustrates the role web 2.0 technologies in the higher education era. Some
keyword are listed in the figure, such as applications (social software, blogs), properties
(joy of use, simplicity), and media (audio, video). The authors of the figure emphasize
that Web 2.0 represent a new kind of participatory media which can be very helpful
both in education and in institutions. However, they are somewhat distrustful and
conclude that by the time the use of this platform is established, the domain of inquiry
is likely to have changed.
In this higher education arena, education is effected by web 2.0 technologies
specifically podcasts, blogs, and wikis across the globe. The potential impact of wiki,
blog and podcast technologies on higher education in the UK and elsewhere is
immense, it is perhaps the combined use of the three applications as 'mind tools'
(Jonassen et al. 1999, cited by Boulos, et al. (2006). “Mindtools, they act as cognitive
reflection and amplification tools, aiding the construction of meaning, through the act
of self-design of knowledge databases” Jonassen et al. (1999) cited by Boulos et al.
(2006, p.3). Wikis in particular, and blogs to a lesser extent, enable such activities, and
actively involve learners in their own construction of knowledge. The uses of such
technologies to encourage learners' deeper engagement with learning materials, and the
affordance of shared working spaces to improve collaboration between learners are
desirable outcomes. The authors illustrate these relations in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Co-relation between Podcast, Blog, and Wiki in Higher Education
(Boulos et al. 2006)
The figure 4 illustrates the flow paths of information and communication of knowledge
among students and teachers. The Figure 4 also shows the co-relationship, dependent
positioning, and potential for convergence of the three famous Web 2.0 technologies
wikis, blogs and podcasts as knowledge building components, within a student centered
learning environment in higher educational context.
The above review of this latest generation of collaborative Web-based
technologies, namely podcasts/vodcasts, blogs/photoblogs, and wikis, illustrates that
these represent many unique and powerful information sharing and collaboration
17
features in higher education. On the basis of these features, this research activity can be
conducted in educational context, because Web 2.0 technologies (Podcasts, Blogs, and
Wikis) are playing a vital role in higher education throughout the world particularly in
advance countries.
2.3.4 Knowledge Building Pedagogy
During the last few years, a knowledge building pedagogy evolved along with the Web
2.0 technologies with teachers’ innovations and students’ accomplishments
instrumental in this evolution. Scardamalia and Bereiter (2006) argued that the goal
was not to evolve a set of activity structures, procedures, or rules, but rather a set of
workable principles that could guide pedagogy in a variety of contexts to solve the real
life problems in knowledge based economy.
Scardamalia (2002) identifies twelve principles of Knowledge building pedagogy as
follows:
1. Real ideas and authentic problems. In the classroom as a Knowledge
building community, learners are concerned with understanding, based
on their real problems in the real world.
2. Improvable ideas. Students' ideas are regarded as improvable objects.
3. Idea diversity. In the classroom, the diversity of ideas raised by students
is necessary.
4. Rise above. Through a sustained improvement of ideas and
understanding, students create higher level concepts.
5. Epistemic agency. Students themselves find their way in order to
advance.
6. Community knowledge, collective responsibility. Students'
contribution to improving their collective knowledge in the classroom is
the primary purpose of the Knowledge building classroom.
7. Democratizing knowledge. All individuals are invited to contribute to
the knowledge advancement in the classroom.
8. Symmetric knowledge advancement. A goal for Knowledge building
communities is to have individuals and organizations (business
organizations and educational institutions) actively working to provide a
reciprocal advance of their knowledge.
9. Pervasive Knowledge building. Students contribute to collective
Knowledge building.
10. Constructive uses of authoritative sources. All members, including the
teacher, sustain inquiry as a natural approach to support their
understanding.
11. Knowledge building discourse. Students are engaged in discourse to
share with each other, and to improve the knowledge advancement in the
classroom.
12. Concurrent, embedded, and transformative assessment. Students
take a global view of their understanding, and then decide how to
approach their assessments. They create and engage in assessments in a
variety of ways.
In addition, McLoughlin and Lee (2007) present the following table, Table 1, in which
the different teaching methods in advanced countries of the world are listed as an
example of Pedagogy 2.0. For example, Miller (2006, 2007) hosts informal discussions
18
with students in every week in his course General Psychology. During these
discussions, students are able to seek clarification on the course material and talk about
it in greater depth, as well as discuss issues not covered during the lecture. The
discussions are recorded and made available to other members of the class as a series of
podcasts. In this way, the podcasts are about course content rather than simply being
recordings of the course content itself. All students in the cohort are welcome to submit
questions in advance of the discussion via email; these answers, as well as those asked
by students who attend in person, are answered during the discussion.
This list provides evidence that different pedagogical methods, combined with
Web 2.0 technologies, have been implemented in different universities throughout the
world. It also gives a brief description of how the particular pedagogy method is
implemented and used in the particular institute.
19
S.
No.
Reference
/ Author
Institution/
Country
Description of technology use Pedagogy
employed
1 Read
(2005)
Drexel
University,
USA
Drexel distributed iPod Photo players to their
Education freshmen in September 2005. Read
reported there were plans for a variety of
learner-centred applications, including but not
limited to having students record study-group
sessions and interviews, as well as having them
maintain audio blogs to connect with
administrators and peers during the work
experience semester.
Peer-to-peer
learning,
distributed
intelligence
approach
2 Lee, Chan
&
McLoughl
in (2006)
Charles
Sturt
University,
Australia
Second year undergraduate students take
charge of producing talkback radio-style
podcasts to assist first year students
undertaking a unit of study that the former
group previously completed.
Learner-centered
instruction;
student-
generated
content
3 Evans
(2006)
Swathmore
College,
USA
Students studying a literature course read short
passages aloud and record them as podcasts, as
well as creating separate podcasts discussing
the passage they chose and its relationship to
other material.
Development of
digital and social
competencies
4 Miller
(2006;
2007)
University
of
Connecticut,
USA
Three types of podcasts are used to support a
General Psychology course:
• iCube podcasts – Informal discussions with
students following each week’s lectures;
• Precasts – Short enhanced podcasts
previewing material prior to each lecture;
• Postcasts – Short post-lecture podcasts
containing re-explanations of selected
concepts.
Blending of
formal and
informal
learning;
mobile,
ubiquitous
learning
5 Frydenber
g
(2006)
Bentley
College
USA
Students in an introductory information
technology class work in pairs or groups to
produce vodcasts to teach topics from the
course schedule to their peers.
Peer teaching,
reciprocal
learning
6 Edirisingh
a,
Salmon &
Fothergill
(2006)
University
of
Leicester
UK
Students make use of “profcasts”, i.e. material
designed to support learning distinct from that
which is facilitated through structured on-
campus or e-learning processes alone. E.g.,
weekly
profcasts to supplement online teaching
through updated information and guidance.
Extended
learning,
enrichment and
extension
activities,
personalisation
of learning
content
7 Kukulska-
Hulme
(2005)
Open
University,
UK
Students are studying German and Spanish
courses in distance mode use digital voice
recorders and mini-camcorders to record
interviews with other students and with native
speakers, as well as to create audio-visual tours
for sharing with their peers.
Peer-to-peer
learning,
student-
generated
content
8 McCarty
(2005;
2006)
Osaka
Jogakuin
College,
Japan
Students are interviewed by their professor,
perform roles, and/or present their own
creations, in contribution to the professor’s
bilingual podcast feed and blog targeted to
those studying Japanese or English as a foreign
language.
Cross-cultural
collaborative
work using
student-
generated
content
9 Sener
(2007b)
University
of North
Carolina at
Pembroke,
USA
A wiki-based encyclopaedia is created by
students, the goal being to create entries on a
variety of subjects related to law, criminal
justice, sociology and criminology.
Student-
generated
content,
collaborative
writing,
organizing and
20
editing content
10 Wenzloff
(2005);
Richardso
n
(2006)
Macomb
Independent
School
District,
Michigan,
USA
Social bookmarking is used to compile and
share resources with teacher training
participants student teachers. The instructor
also subscribes to the RSS feeds of the
students’ Furl sites, to see what they are
reading as well as their comments about the
sites.
Resource-based
and
collaborative
learning
11 Yew,
Gibson &
Teasley
(2006)
University
of
Michigan,
USA
Learners organize and display blog posts and
bookmarks, with keywords or tags, openly and
in a collaboratively manner. This allows all
stakeholders to use social software to organize,
share and coordinate knowledge.
Community of
learning
12 Boulos,
Maramba
&
Wheeler
(2006)
University
of
Plymouth,
UK
Blogs, wikis and podcasts are used for virtual
collaborative clinical practice in health and
paramedical education, to foster sharing and
reflection.
Anytime,
anyplace,
peer-to peer
learning
community, self-
regulated
learning
Table 1 : Example of Pedagogy 2.0 for Knowledge Building in Higher Education
(McLoughlin, C. and Lee, J.W.M., 2007)
In concluding the literature review, particularly the twelve principles of knowledge
building pedagogy and the twelve examples of implemented pedagogical methods, as
included in Table 1, provide the evidence that web 2.0 technologies are playing an
increasingly substantial and tangible role in higher education in the entire modern
world. In addition, the review, including examples of pedagogy, provides the
foundation for the subsequent data gathering for this research and provides reference
for discussing the research findings, methodology and overall research setting.
21
Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1 Introduction
The research activity can be divided into different types and this division depends upon
the objective, purpose, and research question of the study. According to research
question, this research activity has been conducted to explore the role of web 2.0
technologies (Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis) for knowledge building in higher education.
In addition, the study has been carried out to form the knowledge building model for
knowledge building in higher education. The study has been conducted at three
departments, Mathematic and System Engineering, Management and Economics, and
Health Sciences and Social work, at Växjö University. At the time of the study Växjö
University consisted of seven departments, and had 99 educational programs. The
number of students and staff were approx. 15.000 and 1200 respectively. It is one of the
so called new universities in the south of Sweden. Now, at the time of finishing this
thesis Växjö has merged with Kalmar University and is now named Linnaeus
University.
3.2 Research Strategy
Creswell (2009, p.12) defined that Survey is a quantitative strategy “studying by using
questionnaires or structured interviews with the objective of inferring from sample to
inhabitants”. So, this research uses Survey as a Quantitative research strategy to make
analysis with numerical facts and figures. Survey also makes it easy to generalize the
results of whole population by studying a group of selected people of the population.
For empirical measurements, it is quite manageable with Survey to collect large data in
a short time as well as to observe the behavior of the respondents towards research. The
survey consists of two comprehensive questionnaires, both from students and teachers
of the three departments Mathematic and System Engineering, Management and
Economics, and Health Sciences and Social work at Växjö University.
During filling in the questionnaire about web 2.0 technologies and their
implementation in higher education for knowledge building, the respondents also asked
some questions related to the topic. The researcher answered about the literature
perspective on the significance and implementation of web 2.0 technologies in higher
education for knowledge building. It provided the direct observation of teachers’ as
well as students’ points of view about the web 2.0 technologies. The results have been
shown in the percentage (%). Research questions have been the prime focus to dictate
the research strategies. For example, survey seems to be the effective research strategy
to get answer for a question likes “what is the role of web 2.0 for knowledge building in
higher education?” There are three conditions should be considered while choosing
research strategy (Yin, 2003). Yin explained them as (i) type of research question (ii)
the level of control a researcher has above concrete behavioral result and (iii) the
degree of focus on current as opposed to chronological events. In this research activity,
research question “what”, it does not have control of behavioral events and focuses on
modern events. For this study, the information is collected from a group (Teachers and
Students of Växjö University) of randomly selected people from the large number of
populations by using the close-ended questionnaires. It is also useful to collect the large
number of data and to find answers to its research problems. In this research study,
Växjö University is unit of analysis to identify the role of web 2.0 technologies
(Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis) for knowledge building in higher education.
22
3.3 Data Collection
This research activity consists of two comprehensive questionnaires answered by both
teachers and students at the above mentioned departments. The questionnaires consist
of different questions about the role of Web 2.0 technologies, advantages, and usage
(Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis) in their everyday lives specifically for knowledge
building that is the main concept of formal education. The questionnaire was given to
teachers to know their views about the role of Web 2.0 technologies for knowledge
building in higher education. Survey was conducted at Växjö University and comprised
of 39 samples from students and 15 samples from teachers excluding the discarded
questionnaires. Random numbers of respondents were chosen for accomplishment of
data collection. It took 2-3 weeks for data collection from the respondents.
In the questionnaire (Appendix), students were asked about the degree to which
they accessed and used Web 2.0 technologies and tools, how they currently used Web
2.0 technologies and tools to create, build, and exchange information and knowledge,
their skill levels with different technologies, and their perceptions of how technologies
could be used in their studies. In another questionnaire, teachers were asked about the
degree to which they used Web 2.0 technologies and tools to make the lectures, course
contents, and presentations for knowledge building among the students that is central
purpose of teaching.
To collect data for this research the researcher relied on quantitative manner,
because the intention was to use close-ended questionnaire rated by teachers and
students. Use of questionnaire as the main method for data collection was adopted for a
few reasons. First, it was possible to generate more data in shorter time. It was less
subjective than qualitative methods because it could be independently analyzed. It was
clearly known what constructs or issues the researcher should focus on. Teachers and
students felt more comfortable to fill questionnaire, because they had very limited time.
Information generated from quantitative approach could be easily used for
simplification and estimation.
3.4 Validity and Reliability
Validity
Validity has substitute meaning of the truth which indicates the accuracy of score
observed and documented to the exact score of the object. Validity is the extent to
which a test measures what it claims to measure (Yin, 2003). It is critical for a test to be
valid in order for the results to be accurately applied and interpreted. The term validity
refers to the quality of empirical data collection and its analysis. The results of research
work deeply depend upon the quality of work and accuracy of data collection for
analysis. During this research activity the researcher took the following steps to ensure
the validity of results. The data collection instruments are obtained from another
research activity that has occurred in Australia (Kennedy et al. 2007). The researcher
reformulated these questionnaires according to research question and discussed with his
supervisor as well as with other academic experts. These questionnaires supported the
theoretical framework in order to get the best findings for the study. It is indicated that
when a same instrument is used in different studies its validity is tested. The detail of
the statistical formula is described in the analysis part. For validity testing, data
sampling from students and teachers from three departments of the university has been
conducted in this survey during the same time frame. First the researcher provided
introduction to the topic and intentions of survey during data collection. It was very
helpful to get valid data from teachers and students.
23
Reliability
According to Yin (2003), reliability evaluates the quality of research and shows the
collision of variation from the measurement of the results. Reliability refers to the
consistency of a measure. A test is considered reliable if the same result repeatedly is
produced. The purpose of reliability is to minimize the errors and biases in a research
work. Reliability presents that the operations of the study, such as the data collection
procedures can be repeated with the same result. Reliability of the research can be
improved by taking some measurements to reduce the chances of errors that may lead
towards inappropriate results. Questionnaires for empirical data collection are done at
the same time for avoiding different results. The questionnaires are distributed only
within the domain of interested group such as teachers and students instead of general
population. To facilitate responding, an introduction about web 2.0 technologies is also
included at the start of both questionnaires.
Comprehensive literature of web 2.0 technologies is reviewed during research
work to reduce the biasness and misunderstanding towards research. Multiple sources
with different authors can make it possible to review the detail literature in depth that
helps to minimize the level of error in this research activity because high level of
reliability can only be achieved by reducing the errors.
3.5 Analysis
The analysis of quantitative data has been conducted by using MS Excel through the
following formula: X= Number of responses divided by total number of samples and
results is showed in percentage (%). In this survey, the researcher is presenting the
number of responses in percentage for each question in the questionnaire. Data analysis
consists of the following steps:
1. Enter the data into Excel sheet and put the above mentioned formula. For
example (if 3 out of 15 respondents answer a specific question, then the
result is 3/15*100= 20 %).
2. Check the accuracy of entered data, formula and results.
After conducting the survey and data collection, the most relevant data against the
research question is selected, analyzed, and presented in results chapter carefully.
3.6 Ethical issues
There are few ethical issues that were given due consideration during data collection.
The name of teachers and students were not asked, because this research activity was
being conducted on voluntarily and confidentiality basis. The results of this research
activity were not intended to be used for commercial purposes. This approach proved
helpful to get cooperation from teachers and students of the departments. Also it was
important to let them know that they would be informed about the final results of the
research and that their collaboration in this research really mattered. In addition, further
assurance for complete transparency between the researcher and the respondents,
truthfulness was provided. One important ethical standard observed was to inform the
units of the analysis that their participation in responding to questionnaires was
voluntarily and they were also sent thankful notes expressing gratitude after they
responded to the questionnaires during the requested time frame.
24
Chapter 4: Results
Below I present the empirical findings from my survey. I begin with information about
the number of distributed questionnaires and number of received responses among
teachers and students. Below this table I list the scale for responses and the respective
meaning, R1-R5. Thereafter separate responses for the two groups are presented and
represented in graphs. I used some abbreviations in the graphs. R stands for Responses
(to the questions) and Q stands for Questions. The blocks in the graphs represent the
different responses, R1-R5.
Unit of Analysis Sent (Que.) Received (Que.) Percentage of Response
Teachers 20 15 75%
Students 50 39 78%
Note:
R1: Strongly Agree
R2: Agree
R3: Neutral
R4: Disagree
R5: Strongly Disagree
25
Teachers
Table 2 presents the number of the responses to each question about the role of web 2.0
technologies. These questions concern knowledge building among the students in
higher education. The responses from R3 show that 27 % teachers responded neither
positive nor negative for Q1. In comparison with R4 which shows 20% were disagreed
from Q1. The result of R3 shows that 20 % teachers responded neither positive nor
negative for Q2. In comparison with R4 which shows 20% were disagreed from Q2.
The result of R3 shows that 27 % teachers responded neither positive nor negative for
Q3. In comparison with R4 which shows 20% were disagreed from Q3. The result of
R3 shows that 20 % teachers responded neither positive nor negative for Q4. In
comparison with R4 which shows 20% were disagreed from Q4. The result of R3
shows that 20 % teachers responded neither positive nor negative for Q5. In
comparison with R4 which shows 27% were disagreed from Q5.Most of the teachers
(60%, it is average of R1 & R2) agree that Web 2.0 technologies are playing a key role
for knowledge building among university students.
Table 2 : Role of Web 2.0 for Knowledge Building
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
No. Research Questions Responses
I want students to use web 2.0
technologies (Podcasts, Blogs,
and Wikis) in their studies
because it:
Strongly
Agree
(R1)
Agre
e
(R2)
Neutr
al
(R3)
Disagre
e
(R4)
Strongly
Disagree
(R5)
Q1 Will help them get better results
in their subjects
0% 53% 27% 20% 0%
Q2 Will help them understand the
subject material more deeply
20% 40% 20% 20% 0%
Q3 Makes completing work in
their subjects more convenient
for them
20% 33% 27% 20% 0%
Q4 Will improve their IT /
information management skills
in general
20% 40% 20% 20% 0%
Q5 Will improve their career or
employment prospects in the
long term
33% 20% 20% 27% 0%
26
Table 3 : Use of Web 2.0 Technologies
Table 3 summarizes the results of responses against the questions about the use of web
2.0 technologies according to frequency of use. The questions directly and indirectly
inter-relate to web 2.0 technologies specifically Podcasts, Blogs, and wikis among the
university teachers. The large numbers of teachers (50% approx. several times a week,
40 % once or twice a month) are using web services for LMS, Dictionaries, and diaries
respectively. Majority of teachers are not using web services specifically to maintain
WebPages and social bookmarking software. It means that these technologies have
positive role according to frequency of use for knowledge building, but numbers of
users are very limited.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5
No. Ways in which web 2.0
technologies (Podcasts,
Blogs, and Wikis) can be
used
HOW OFTEN NU
Sev
eral
tim
es a
da
y
On
ce a
da
y
Sev
era
l ti
mes
a
wee
k
On
ce a
wee
k
On
ce/t
wic
e a
mo
nth
Ever
y f
ew
mon
ths
On
ce/t
wic
e a
yea
r
No
t u
sed
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8
Q1 Use the web to access a
portal, ‘Course or Learning
Management System’
27% 47% 13
%
13%
Q2 Use the web to look up
reference information for
study purposes (e.g. online
dictionaries)
33% 27% 40%
Q3 Use the web/internet to send
or receive email (e.g.
Hotmail, Yahoo, Outlook)
80% 20%
Q4 Use the web to build and
maintain a website
13% 20% 20
%
20% 27%
Q5 Use social bookmarking
software on the web (e.g.
del.icio.us)
13% 20% 67%
27
Table 4 : Ways in which Web 2.0 Technologies can be used
Table 4 summarizes the results of responses against the questions about the ways in
which web 2.0 technologies can be used. The majority teachers (65 % approx. not
used) are not using the web 2.0 technologies Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis in their
teaching to university students. Very few (15%) are using them several times a day and
approximately (20%) are using them once or twice a month. The results indicate that
teachers know about the use of web 2.0 technologies for educational purposes but they
are not using them.
No. Ways in which web 2.0
technologies can be used
HOW OFTEN NU
Sev
era
l ti
mes
a d
ay
On
ce a
day
Sev
eral
tim
es a
wee
k
On
ce a
wee
k
On
ce/t
wic
e a
mo
nth
Ev
ery
few
mo
nth
s
On
ce/t
wic
e a y
ear
Not
use
d
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8
Q1 Use the web to publish podcasts
(e.g. using Podifier, Podcaster,
PodProducer)
20% 80%
Q2 Use the web for
webconferencing (e.g. using a
webcam with Skype)
13% 13% 13% 13
%
20% 27%
Q3 Use the web to read RSS feeds
(e.g. news feeds)
13% 27% 60%
Q4 Use the web to keep your own
blog or vlog
13% 13
%
73%
Q5 Use the web to read other
people’s blogs or vlogs
13% 33% 13% 40%
Q6 Use the web to comment on
blogs or vlogs
20% 80%
Q7 Use the web to contribute to the
development of a wiki
13% 13
%
20% 53%
Q8 Use a mobile phone to access
information/services on the web
13% 13% 20
%
53%
28
Table 5 : Technology-based Teaching and Learning Activity
Table 5 presents the results against the questions about the currently use of web 2.0
technologies and how useful in Teaching and Learning in the higher education. The
large number of teachers (70% approx.) is not using them currently, but they agree with
this idea that these are very useful for teaching and learning in higher education. It
indicates that the web 2.0 technologies (Podcasts, Wikis, and Blogs) have a significant
role for knowledge building in higher education.
No. Technology-based Teaching and
Learning activity
Currently
use?
Useful? Y
es
No
No
t U
sefu
l
Neu
tra
l
Ver
y U
sefu
l
Don
’t K
no
w
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5
Q1 Allow students to download or access
online audio/video recordings of
lectures
27% 73% 27% 40% 33%
Q2 Ask students to use instant messaging /
chat (e.g. MSN, Yahoo, ICQ) to
communicate with lectures and
administrative staff from the course.
80% 20% 27% 73%
Q3 Ask students to use web conferencing
or video chat to
communicate/collaborate with each
other in the course?
67% 33% 13% 33% 53%
Q4 Provide students with alerts about
course information (e.g. timetable
changes, the release of new learning
resources, changes in assessment) via
RSS feeds on the web?
27% 73% 33% 40% 27%
Q5 Ask students to keep their own blog as
part of your course requirements?
33% 67% 7% 33% 60%
Q6 Ask students to contribute to another
blog as part of their course
requirements?
80% 20% 13% 40% 47%
Q7 Ask students to contribute with other
students to the development of a wiki
as part of their course requirements?
40% 60% 7% 33% 60%
29
Students
Table 6 indicates the results about the access to technologies which are useful in higher
education. Majority of students (62%, 59%, 69% approx.) have portable computers
(Laptops, Pocket PC), fully equipped Mobile phone, web cam and broadband internet
access respectively. Very few students have limited or no access to these technologies.
Table 6 : Access to Technologies
No. Types of
Technology
Access
Exclusively
for my own
use
(R1)
Access any
time I need
it, shared
with people
(R2)
Limited or
inconvenient
access
(R3)
No
access
(R4)
Not used
(R5)
Q1 Desktop
computer 36% 33% 10% 8% 13%
Q2 Portable
computer (i.e.
Laptop or
Notebook)
62% 13% 8% 8% 10%
Q3 Electronic
organizer (e.g.
PDA, Palm,
Pocket PC,
iPod)
26% 13% 13% 15% 33%
Q4 Video (3G)
capable mobile
phone
28% 10% 8% 23% 31%
Q5 Web cam 59% 10% 10% 21%
Q6 Broadband
Internet access
(cable or
wireless)
69% 21% 10%
30
Table 7 : Use of Web 2.0 Technologies
Table 7 summarizes the responses relating to use of technologies which are directly or
indirectly relate to web 2.0 technologies. The students (50% approx.) are using web
services to using them (LMS, Dictionaries, Student Portal and Mail) several times a day
and several times a week for educational purposes. Limited numbers of students are not
using them and very few students are using them at least once or twice a month. These
applications and services are part of web 2.0 technologies which are being used in the
formal education among students at Växjö University. It indicates that these
technologies have potential to build knowledge among students in higher education.
No. Ways in which web 2.0
technologies (Podcasts,
Blogs, and Wikis) can be
used
HOW OFTEN NU
Sev
era
l ti
mes
a d
ay
On
ce a
day
Sev
eral
tim
es a
wee
k
On
ce a
wee
k
On
ce/t
wic
e a
mo
nth
Ev
ery
few
mo
nth
s
On
ce/t
wic
e a y
ear
Not
use
d
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8
Q1 Use the web to access a
portal, ‘Course or Learning
Management System’
26% 21% 26% 15% 13%
Q2 Use the web to look up
reference information for
study purposes (e.g. online
dictionaries)
46% 8% 23% 5% 10% 8%
Q3 Use the web/internet to
send or receive email (e.g.
Hotmail, Yahoo, Outlook)
67% 21% 13%
Q4 Use the web to access
student portal 38% 15% 18% 10% 5% 13%
31
Table 8 : Ways in which Web 2.0 Technologies can be used
Table 8 presents results about the ways in which web 2.0 Technologies can be used in
formal education. Only 20% students are using podcasts upto once a week and
remaining is not using them. Only 10% students are using blogs from once a week to
once or twice a month. Majority of students (64%) are not contributing the
development of wikis and very few students (from 8% to 10%) are participating the
development of wikis once or twice a year.
No. Ways in which web 2.0
technologies (Podcasts, Blogs,
and Wikis)can be used
HOW OFTEN NU
Sev
era
l ti
mes
a d
ay
On
ce a
day
Sev
eral
tim
es a
wee
k
On
ce a
wee
k
On
ce/t
wic
e a
mo
nth
Ev
ery
few
mo
nth
s
On
ce/t
wic
e a y
ear
Not
use
d
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8
Q1 Use the web to publish podcasts
(e.g. using Podifier, Podcaster,
PodProducer)
5% 8% 5% 13% 8% 62%
Q2 Use the web for web-
conferencing (e.g. using a
webcam with Skype)
10% 3% 17% 14% 7% 7% 41%
Q3 Use the web to read RSS feeds
(e.g. news feeds)
13% 8% 15% 8% 8% 8% 41%
Q4 Use the web to keep your own
blog or vlog
5% 13% 8% 10% 13% 51%
Q5 Use the web to read other
people’s blogs or vlogs
15% 10% 10% 8% 10% 26% 21%
Q6 Use the web to comment on
blogs or vlogs
10% 5% 10% 5% 15% 8% 10% 36%
Q7 Use the web to contribute to the
development of a wiki
8% 10% 8% 5% 5% 64%
Q8 Use a mobile phone to access
information/services on the web
5% 5% 8% 8% 8% 10% 56%
32
Table 9 : Web 2.0 Technologies to assist studies
Table 9 indicates the results about the assistance of web 2.0 technologies in studies.
Approximately (27%) students are strongly agreed and (29%) agreed to use of this web
2.0 (Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis) technologies in their studies, (28%) are neutral and the
left are strongly disagree to use them in their formal education. These results are
indicating that the students have pretty good exposure towards usefulness of web 2.0 in
their formal university education and they are using them as well.
No. Research Questions Responses
I want to use Web 2.0
technologies (Podcasts, Blogs,
and Wikis) in my studies
because:
Strongly
Agree
(R1)
Agree
(R2)
Neutr
al
(R3)
Disagree
(R4)
Strongl
y
Disagre
e
(R5)
Q1 It will help me get better results
in my subjects 31% 28% 41%
Q2 It will help me understand the
subject material more deeply 38% 26% 23% 13%
Q3 It makes completing work in
my subject more convenient 23% 28% 31% 18%
Q4 It will improve my
IT/Information management
skills in general
28% 33% 13% 18% 8%
Q5 It will improve my career or
employment prospects in the
long term
15% 26% 28% 18% 13%
33
Table 10 : How useful Web 2.0 Technologies in the studies.
Table 10 summarizes the responses relating to usefulness of web 2.0 technologies
(Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis) in the studies. Majority of students (47% approx.) said
that these technologies are useful and extremely useful in higher education and limited
number of students (14% approx.) left neutral in this regard. But little number of
students (20% approx.) said that these are not useful in the higher education. The
remaining students (20%) do not know about the use of web 2.0 technologies in the
higher education. This is another proof that web 2.0 are playing a vital role to build
knowledge among the students in the higher education.
34
No. Please rate how useful each of the following
web 2.0 technologies (Podcasts, Blogs, and
Wikis) currently is or would be in your
studies (regardless of whether or not you
have used each web 2.0 technology in the
past). No
t a
t a
ll U
sefu
l
U
sefu
l
Neu
tral
Ver
y u
sefu
l
Extr
emel
y U
sefu
l
Do
n’t
Kn
ow
In your studies how useful do you think it
would be to….. R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6
Q1 Download or access online audio/video
recordings of lectures you did not attend? 13% 10% 28% 33% 15%
Q2 Download or access online audio/video
recordings to revise the content of lectures you
have already been to?
5% 18% 10% 15% 36% 15%
Q3 Use the web to access university based
services (e.g. LMS, e-Library, enrolment)? 8% 10% 5% 28% 38% 10%
Q4 Use your mobile phone to access web-based
university services information or services
(e.g. LMS, e-Library, enrolment)
10% 15% 10% 15% 15% 33%
Q5 Use instant messaging / chat (e.g. MSN,
Yahoo) on the web to communicate
/collaborate with other students in the course? 10% 13% 13% 21% 44%
Q6 Use instant messaging / chat (e.g. MSN,
Yahoo) on the web to communicate with
Lecturers and administrative staff from the
course?
10% 10% 15% 31% 23% 10%
Q7 Use web-conferencing or video chat to
communicate/collaborate with other students
in the course?
10% 10% 18% 26% 18% 18%
Q8 Receive alerts about course information (e.g.
time table changes, the release of new learning
resources, changes in assessment) via RSS
feeds on the web?
10% 13% 26% 31% 21%
Q9 Keep your own blog as part of your course
requirements? 18% 15% 13% 23% 8% 23%
Q10 Contribute to another blog as part of your
course requirements? 26% 13% 18% 10% 10% 23%
Q11 Contribute with other students to the
development of a wiki as part of your course
requirements?
10% 13% 31% 8% 10% 28%
35
Chapter 5: Discussion
This discussion is based on the theoretical framework in which the researcher described
the educational usage and advantages of Podcasts, Wikis, and blogs. There are two
major factors, i.e, Personal Academic Perspective and Pedagogical Perspective that I
discuss here. This study provides a holistic overview of the role of web 2.0
technologies for knowledge building in higher education. The results about web 2.0
technologies (Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis) show that limited number of students and
teachers are using them in their formal learning and teaching. Though they are very
few in numbers, yet the study suggests that the web 2.0 technologies are playing a vital
role for knowledge building in higher education as well as in the internet communities.
According to pedagogical and personal academic perspectives, the teachers
were asked questions about the use of web 2.0 technologies in formal education. Most
of them agreed and few of them strongly agreed that the use of web 2.0 technologies
(Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis) would enhance students’ creativity and innovation in their
academic growth. They also agreed upon encouraging reactions, reflections and ideas
of students and even adopting and incorporating these in their formal education. If first
research question is divided into two parts: (i) role of web 2.0 technologies and (ii)
knowledge building in higher education, this is the answer of second part of the
research question on the basis of these findings. Therefore, web 2.0 technologies have a
positive role to build knowledge in higher education.
There were teachers who have awareness about the importance of web 2.0
technologies in higher education. Therefore, they are using web 2.0 technologies to
boost the quality of their teaching methods. Though they are very few in numbers in
some cases, yet fulfill the quorum for sample data collection and generate sufficient
response to the research question for analysis. From the pedagogical perspective,
mostly teachers (47%) are using Learning Management Systems to teach and update
their students. This is also positive way to create self learning ability in the students.
The findings were found very strange against some questions. It has been found that the
teachers (50%) are not using web 2.0 technologies in their teaching. Only very few
teachers are using them once or twice a month. The main reason behind it is that there
is no availability of formal system of their use in the university’s resources (website,
Student Portal). In chapter 2 the table 1 supports the pedagogical perspective that the
web 2.0 technologies are being used in the higher education in different countries of the
world. By concluding these two findings, it can be claimed that web 2.0 technologies
(Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis) have positive role for the knowledge building in higher
education.
On the other hand, there are teachers who were not using the web 2.0
technologies in their teaching for the time being, but they fully agreed that these are
very useful for knowledge building in higher education. It also supports the
pedagogical perspective of the web 2.0 technologies (Podcasts, Wikis, and Blogs).
According to research questions, these empirical findings are a bit different, because of
non availability of facility of their usage in Växjö University. It provides the foundation
to incorporate the knowledge building model in the university’s resources.
In the second section (student), the discussion is based on personal academic
perspective; majority of the students (70%) have laptops and Pocket PCs which are
fully equipped with latest features that can be used to get advantages in the formal
education, both in the university and home. The potential use of web 2.0 technologies
becomes easier when students have their own Laptops, Pocket PCs and Personal
Computers. This is clear evidence that the web 2.0 technologies can be used in the
higher education for knowledge building.
36
By taking advantages from the latest tools, most of the students are using them
for their formal education. It indicates that students have awareness about the use of
web 2.0 technologies for knowledge building. The students are using emails to discuss
the study problems with peers and teachers. This process leads them towards creativity.
The ability of creativity plays a significant role to establish effective learning blogs and
wikis. Sometimes, students make talking dictionaries and other video and audio
learning technologies in their projects assigned by the teachers for the improvements of
learning process. It comes under the podcasting also.
According to research questions, few questions were asked about the web 2.0
technologies (Podcasts, Wikis, and Blogs) from the students and the results were quite
different from the expectation. The few students are using web 2.0 technologies in their
formal education at Växjö University. Previously, it has mentioned personal academic
perspectives and principles of knowledge building. According to them, the results are
very less in number and it does not fulfill the requirements of knowledge building in
the formal education. But after incorporating web 2.0 technologies into university’s
formal education system, we can facilitate the students to fulfill the collective
responsibility of contribution of knowledge.
On the basis of knowledge building principles, it can be realized that the web
2.0 can play very effective role in the formal education at university level. Many
students (55%) agree with this idea that web 2.0 technologies (Podcasts, Wikis, and
Blogs) should be used in the higher education. It provides answer to research questions
and a model is being proposed which can be incorporated into the university website
for students and teachers to enhance the knowledge building process. Some more
questions were asked about the usefulness of web 2.0 technologies in the higher
education in the personal academic context. The results were positive. Table 1 in
theoretical framework clearly manifests that many universities are using web 2.0 in the
teaching and learning process in higher education.
In Växjö University, LMS is the part of university website where teachers can
upload assignments descriptions and students can upload their assignments. The
students can communicate with each other as well. But it is insufficient, as there are no
lecture slides and audio & video lectures. Students cannot share their problems
regarding studies. The teachers also cannot communicate each other. There is no space
for research papers, ongoing projects, and articles by teachers and students. So in the
above context, it is strongly recommended to incorporate web 2.0 technologies
(Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis) with existing system for the betterment of the knowledge
building process.
In short, web 2.0 technologies allow learners to make a choice in controlling
their own learning. Web 2.0 such as Blogs, increasingly popular wikis, and podcasts
(Video & Audio) are facilitating the teachers and students in pedagogical and personal
academic perspectives. This research activity has investigated the role of web 2.0
technologies for knowledge building in higher education that supports the pedagogical
and personal academic perspectives of teaching as well as learning at Växjö University.
It is also sign of optimism that web 2.0 technologies are playing a significant role in
teaching and learning environments that is personal and collaborative. So for positive
academic growth and interaction between students and teachers, web 2.0 technologies
should be implemented in the Växjö university website. This is now richer and more
engaging pathway to build knowledge among teachers and students than ever before.
37
5.1 Contribution to Knowledge
Theoretical framework and empirical research has revealed the benefits of using web
2.0 technologies in higher education. In addition, study of the existing system at
selected parts of Växjö University shows a blend of traditional classroom system and
different ICT based technologies (Learning Management System, Student Portal, Web
mail) that are being used for knowledge building. The system lacks web 2.0
technologies (Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis) which are recognized in the literature as also
important for knowledge building. To further the contribution of web 2.0 technologies,
I propose a model that combines existing ICT based technologies and web 2.0.
A model is being suggested for knowledge building by using Web 2.0
Technologies in Higher Education at Växjö University, Sweden. Every department will
have its own knowledge building space where teachers and students will contribute the
development of Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis for sharing, creation, and collaboration of
knowledge. This model will provide the benefits in pedagogical as well as personal
academic perspectives.
The proposed model suggested that the teachers will be able to communicate
with students and other teachers as well. The ongoing research will be uploaded on the
university website which can be studied by the other professionals and students. The
students can share their problems relevant to the studies. Other students and teachers
can make comments on them. The implementation of web 2.0 technologies in the
university website will produce an ideal environment for the students and teachers
make the knowledge building and learning process fruitful and efficient.
The university website should reserve enough space for implementation of the
web 2.0 technologies. The model shows the university website and those of
departments or schools on which when somebody clicks on a certain department,
he/she should be able to use web 2.0 technologies to learn in an efficient way and the
teachers can upload and share their lectures and students can study the lectures and
make their comments.
38
Figure 5 : Proposed Model: Web 2.0 Technologies for Knowledge Building
In Podcasting, during delivering the lectures, lecture can be recorded by using any
recording device and then it can be uploaded on university website. Now it is very easy
to recall these uploaded lectures. It is being used very successfully in higher education
in many universities of the world (McLoughlin and Lee, 2007), but specifically in
Medical education (Boulos et al. 2006). In addition, the teachers play a dominant role
for the development of podcasting. These are very useful for both teachers and
students; they can save those lectures and consult them time to time whenever they
need. For example, there are so many audio and video recordings of lectures by well
reputed lecturers about the particular subject area, available on YouTube. Anybody can
access and take advantage before starting the course or lectures.
In the blog sphere, teachers and learners can design contents and elements
through their critical thinking, creative skills, and decent language. These skills are
very helpful in the long run in their scholarly and professional contexts. The findings of
this research study support the use of blogs in every department of the university. The
teachers as well as students can share their tacit knowledge with authoritative approach
and this tacit knowledge may become explicit knowledge especially for new students.
The blogs can be useful medium of communication both from pedagogical as well as
personal academic perspectives on the part of teachers and students.
Växjö University
Websites
Existing Technologies:
LMS, Student Portal, and Web
Proposed Technologies:
Web 2.0 (Podcasts, Blogs, and
Wikis)
Departments
Teachers and Students
Knowledge Building
Space
39
Wikis as highly knowledge building space, where teachers and students can contribute
to the development of department-wise wiki and it could add worth to the list of
achievements of the department and could help keep track of chronology of its progress
in the long run. Although findings indicate that there is not enough contribution for the
development of wiki in the Växjö University, because it has no formal space of this
feature, yet web 2.0 technologies need to be incorporated into the university’s website.
Wiki of MSI department may be good effort to make history of achievements of the
department. Some universities adopt the wiki for internal collaboration, information,
and work to build fundamental skills for the workplace (McLoughlin and Lee, 2007).
40
Chapter 6: Conclusion
The challenges of current educational infrastructures (current methods of teaching and
learning, campuses, laboratories, etc.) will not withstand the innovative onrush of
knowledge, including growing demands of the existing 21st century generation to be
prepared for future professional challenges. This research study is an aspired attempt
endeavor not only to highlight but also to address such academic challenges. The aim
of this research activity is to explore the role of web 2.0 technologies for knowledge
building in higher education. The research questions that have guided the research are:
• What is the role of Web 2.0 Technologies for Knowledge building in
Higher Education?
• How can Web 2.0 technologies support Teaching and Learning
(pedagogical and personal academic perspectives) in higher education?
• What degree of teacher student support is available in teaching and
learning, both from a pedagogical as well as a personal academic
perspective?
The researcher reviewed the existing literature on the use of web 2.0 technologies in
teaching and learning resulting in findings on advantages, principles of knowledge
building pedagogy and pedagogical methods. Empirical data were collected through a
survey.
The findings imply that web 2.0 technologies for knowledge building have a
very significant impact in higher education from both personal academic as well as
pedagogical perspectives. The empirical findings of this research study provide an
emerging impetus for incorporating web 2.0 technologies in higher education. These
also provide places for higher education institutes to facilitate students in developing
critical, creative, collaborative, and communicative capacities, which can lead them
towards professional excellence.
However, although the importance of web 2.0 technologies is recognized, yet
the ongoing practices among the individuals and groups of students and teachers that
this study is based on show quite infrequent use. Nevertheless, there is an overall
agreement that web 2.0 technologies (Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis) have certain
potentials if being implemented and incorporated in the higher education. They can be
incorporated with the existing Learning Management System of Växjö University to
create more professional and innovative students. A model is proposed to promote the
usage of web 2.0 technologies and to enable an authentic implementation of
collaborative and co-constructed technologies within higher educational context.
Podcasts, blogs, and wikis give the means to encourage, live, and visualize
developments of knowledge which can be beneficial to the teachers and learners as
well. They provide a better platform for rethinking and reorienting teaching practices to
prepare learners for knowledge-based economy in the entire modern world.
6.1 Future Research
The rapidly growing technologies which have high potential areas need to be
investigated. Future research can be directed towards how various web 2.0
technologies and tools in higher education can improve student learning outcomes and
under what circumstances (Kennedy et al. 2007). In addition, this study can be
expanded to investigating more web 2.0 technologies in higher educational context and
in more universities, in Sweden and internationally.
41
References
Anderson, P. (2007) What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for
education, JISC Technology and Standards Watch, pp. 1-64.
Alexander, B. (2006) Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning.
EDUCAUSE Review. Vol. 41 (2), pp. 32–44. Updated version available online at:
http://www.educause.edu/apps/er/erm06/erm0621.asp [last accessed 30/03/09].
Bassey, M. (1999) Case Study Research In Educational Settings. Philadelphia: Open
University Press
Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D. K. and Mead, M. (1987) The Case Research Strategy in
Studies Information Systems, MIS Quarterly, pp 369-386
Brown, J. S. and Adler, R. P. (2008) Minds on Fire: Open Education, the Long Tail,
and Learning 2.0, EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 43 (1) pp. 1-19
Brittain, S., Glowacki, P., Van Ittersum, J., Johnson, L. (2006) Podcasting Lectures,
Educause Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 3. Available online at:
http://www.educause.edu/apps/eq/eqm06/eqm0634.asp [last accessed 30/03/09].
Boulos, M. N. K., Maramba, I. and Wheeler, S. (2006) Wikis, blogs and podcasts: a
new generation of Web-based tools for virtual collaborative clinical practice and
education
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/6/41 [Accessed 15 April 2009]
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed
Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.
Doctorow, C., Dornfest, F., Johnson, J. Scott, Powers, S. (2002) Essential Blogging.
O’Reilly.
Downes, S. (2005). E-learning 2.0. E-Learning ,
http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&article=29-1 [viewed 03
April 2009].
Desharnais, R.A. and Limson, M. (2007). Designing and implementing virtual
courseware to promote inquiry-based learning, Journal of Online Learning and
Teaching, 3(1), pp. 30-39.
http://jolt.merlot.org/vol3no1/desharnais.pdf [viewed 06 April 2009].
Duffy, P.and Bruns, A. (2006). The use of blogs, wikis and RSS in education: A
conversation of possibilities. In: Proceedings of the Online Learning and Teaching
Conference 2006, Brisbane: September 26. [Accessed 17 April 2009]
https://olt.qut.edu.au/udf/OLT2006/gen/static/papers/Duffy_OLT2006_paper.pdf
Engeström, Y. (1999). Innovative learning in work teams: analyzing cycles of
knowledge creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R.-L. Punamäki
(Eds), Perspectives on Activity Theory (pp. 377-404). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
42
Efimova, L. (2004). Discovering the iceberg of knowledge work. Paper presented at the
Fifth European Conference on Organisational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities
(OKLV 2004) Innsbruck, Austria, https://doc.telin.nl/dscgi/ds.py/Get/File-34786
[viewed 3 April 2009].
Edelson, D.C., Gordin, D.N. and Pea, R.D. (1999) Addressing the challenges of
inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design, Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 8(3-4), pp. 391-450.
Franklin, T. and Harmelen, V. M. (2007) Web 2.0 for Content for Learning and
Teaching in Higher Education. Bristol: JISC
Fountain, R. (2005) Wiki Pedagogy. Dossiers Pratiques. Profetic. Available at:
http://www.profetic.org:16080/dossiers/dossier_imprimer.php3?id_rubrique=110 [last
accessed 30/03/09].
Gerald C. Kane and Robert G. Fichman (2009) The Shoemaker’s Children: Using wikis
for IS teaching, research, and publication. FORTHCOMING AT MIS QUARTERLY
Hart, C. (2005) Doing Your Masters Dissertation. London: Sage Publications.
Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., Gray, K., Judd, T., Waycott, J., Bennett, S., Maton, K.,
Krause, K.L., Bishop, A., Chang, R. & Churchward A. (2007). The Net generations are
not big users of Web 2.0 technologies: Preliminary findings. In ICT: Providing choices
for learners and learning. In: Proceedings Ascilite Singapore, pp.517-525.
Kvavik, R. B., and Caruso, J. B. 2005. ECAR study of students and information
technology: Convenience, connection, control, and learning. Boulder, CO:
EDUCAUSE.Vol. 6
Miller, P. (2005) ‘Web 2.0: Building the New Library’. Ariadne 45. 10th
March 09.
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue45/miller/intro.html
McLoughlin, C. and Lee, J.W.M. (2007) Social Software and Participatory Learning:
Pedagogical Choices with Technology Affordances in the Web 2.0 era. Proceedings
ascillite Singapore pp. 664-675
Miller, D.B. (2006). Podcasting at the University of Connecticut: Enhancing the
educational experience, Campus Technology,
http://campustechnology.com/news_article.asp?id=19424&typeid=156 [viewed 06 Apr
2009].
Miller, D.B. (2007). iCube. http://icube.uconn.edu/ [viewed 06 Apr 2009].
O’Reilly,Tim. (2005) ‘What is Web 2.0?’ 10th
March 09
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
Owen, M., Grant, L., Sayers, S. and Facer, K. (2006) Social software and learning.
Bristol, England: pp. 1-64
43
Orlikowski, W. J. and Baroudi, J.J. (1991) Studying Information Technology in
Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions, Information Systems Research,
Vol. 2(1), pp. 1-29.
Owen, M., Grant, L., Sayers, S., Facer, K. (2006) Social Software and Learning.
FutureLab: Bristol, UK. Available online at:
http://www.futurelab.org.uk/research/opening_education/social_software_01.htm [last
accessed
30/03/09].
Paavola, S. and Hakkarainen, K. (2005) The knowledge creation metaphor – An
emergent epistemological approach to learning Science and Education, Vol. 14(6), pp.
535-557.
Prensky, M. (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon Vol. 9 (5) pp. 1-
6
Patterson, L. (2006) The Technology Underlying Podcasts Computer, IEEE Computer
Society, Vol. 39 (10), pp.1-3.
Rogers, P.C., Liddle, S.W., Chan, P., Doxey, A. and Isom, B. (2007) Web 2.0 learning
platform: Harnessing collective intelligence, Turkish Online Journal of Distance
Education, Vol. 8(3), pp. 16-33. http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde27/pdf/article_1.pdf
[viewed 03 April 2009].
Ractham, P. and Zhang, X. (2006) Podcasting in academia: a new knowledge
management paradigm within academic settings. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM
SIGMIS CPR Conference (SIGMIS CPR '06) on Computer Personnel Research,
Claremont, California, USA, ACM Press, New York, pp. 314-317.
Roberts, G. R. (2005) Technology and learning expectations of the Net generation. In
D. Oblinger and J. Oblinger, eds. Educating the Net generation.
http://www.educause.edu/TechnologyandLearningExpectationsoftheNetGeneration/605
6 (accessed March 11, 2009).
Scardamalia, M. (2002) Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of
knowledge. In B. Smith (Eds.), Liberal education in a knowledge society Chicago:
Open Court. pp. 76-98
Scardamalia, M. and Bereiter, C. (2006) Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and
technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, pp.
97-118.
Stvilia, B., Twidale, M. B., Gasser, L., and Smith, L. C. (2005) Information quality
discussions in Wikipedia, Technical Report, Florida State University. Available online
at: http://mailer.fsu.edu/~bstvilia/ [last accessed 30/03/09].
Saffo, P. (2005). Farewell information, it's a media age.
http://www.saffo.com/essays/essay_farewellinfo.pdf (accessed March 10, 2009).
44
Sfard, A. (1998) On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one,
Educational Researcher, Vol. 27(2), pp. 4-13.
Scardamalia, M. and Bereiter, C. (2003) Knowledge building. In J.W. Guthrie (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of Education New York: Macmillan Cambridge University Press. 2nd
ed.,
pp. 1370-1373.
Tredinnick, L. (2006) Web 2.0 and Business: A pointer to the intranets of the future?
Business Information Review, 23; pp. 228-234
Thompson, J. (2007) Is Education 1.0 ready for Web 2.0 students?
http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=393 (accessed March 9,
2009)
Vossen, G. and Hagemann, S. (2007) Unleashing Web 2.0: From Concepts to
Creativity. Heidelberg: Elsevier
Yin, R.K. (2003) Case study research design and methods: Design and Methods, 3rd
ed. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Vol. 5, pp 9-18.
http://www.wikipedia.org [viewed 10th
March 2009]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_building [Accessed, 08 April 2009]
45
Appendix
I prepared these questionnaires with the help of other questionnaires or instruments that
has been used in another research activity in Australia (Kennedy et al. 2007). I used
these questionnaires as guiding tools. I made them according to my research question,
research model, and theoretical framework to conduct my empirical work.
• Questionnaire for Teachers
Experience with Web 2.0 Technologies and Tools (Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis)
I am surveying teachers at Växjö University about their use of Web 2.0 Technologies in
teaching. Your responses to this questionnaire, and the responses of other teachers, will
help to cater for the needs of teachers and students at the university. Participation in this
study is voluntary and confidential, and the questionnaire should only take 10-15
minutes to complete.
1.0 Background Information
What Faculty do you work in?
________________________________
What is your title? (Lecturer, Professor, Tutor etc.)
________________________________
In what discipline area do you do most of your teaching?
________________________________
What was your average load in this discipline area, in this semester? ____Avg.
hours/week ___Avg. no. of students
What is your age? �
25-30 �
31-35 �
36-40
�
41-50 �
60+
Gender: �
Male
�
Female
Are you from a non-English-speaking background? �
Yes
�
No
Are you an International or a Local Teacher? �
International
�
Local
What is name of your home country?
______________________________
2.0 Access to Technology
2.1 Please indicate your access to computers at home and work
46
At Home At Work (i.e.
university)
Desktop computer �
Yes �
No
�Yes
�No
Laptop or Notebook �
Yes �
No
�Yes
�No
2.2 Please indicate, whether you own the following technologies.
Electronic organizer (e.g. PDA, Palm, PocketPC) �Yes �No
MP3 player with video capabilities �
Yes �
No
Memory stick (e.g. flash drive, USB stick) �
Yes �
No
Mobile phone with camera, MP3 player and video �
Yes �
No
Video (3G) capable mobile phone �
Yes �
No
2.3 Please indicate whether you have the following in your home:
Web cam �
Yes �
No
Dedicated digital camera �
Yes �
No
Broadband (cable or wireless) internet access �
Yes �
No
47
3.0 Web 2.0 Technologies (Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis) to assist University
Students’ Learning
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements.
I want students to use web 2.0 technologies
(Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis) in their studies
because it:
Strongly
Agree
Neutral Strongly
Disagree
Will help them get better results in their
subjects
1 2 3 4 5
Will help them understand the subject material
more deeply
1 2 3 4 5
Makes completing work in their subjects more
convenient for them
1 2 3 4 5
Will improve their IT / information
management skills in general
1 2 3 4 5
Will improve their career or employment
prospects in the long term
1 2 3 4 5
4.0 Use of Web 2.0 Technologies and Tools (Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis)
Below is a list of different ways in which Web 2.0 technologies and information
and communication technologies can be used.
Please indicate: 1. How often, on average, you have used technology in each way
over the past year.
2. How skilled you are at using technology in each way.
If you never used a particular technology please tick NU (Not Used) and do not
provide a skill rating.
HOW OFTEN HOW
SKILLED
N
U
Ways in which web 2.0
technologies (Podcasts, Blogs,
and Wikis) can be used
Sev
era
l ti
mes
a
day
O
nce
a d
ay
Sev
era
l ti
mes
a
wee
k
On
ce a
wee
k
On
ce/t
wic
e a
Ev
ery
few
On
ce/t
wic
e a
No
t v
ery
Ver
y s
kil
led
No
t u
sed
Use the web to access a portal,
‘Course or Learning Management
System’
� �
�
�
�
�
�
1 2 3 4 5 �
Use the web to look up reference
information for study purposes
(e.g. online dictionaries)
� �
�
�
�
�
�
1 2 3 4 5 �
Use the web to listen to sound
recordings (e.g. via streaming
audio or iTunes)
� �
�
�
�
�
�
1 2 3 4 5 �
Use the web/internet to send or
receive email (e.g. Hotmail,
Yahoo, Outlook)
� �
�
�
�
�
�
1 2 3 4 5 �
Use social bookmarking software
on the web (e.g. del.icio.us)
� �
�
�
�
�
�
1 2 3 4 5 �
48
4.1 Use of Web 2.0 Technologies and Tools (Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis)
Below is a list of different ways in which Web 2.0 technologies and information and
communication technologies can be used.
Please indicate: 1. How often, on average, you have used technology in each way over
the past year.
2. How skilled you are at using technology in each way.
If you never used a particular technology please tick NU (Not Used) and do not provide
a skill rating.
HOW OFTEN HOW
SKILLED
N
U
Ways in which web 2.0
technologies can be used
Sev
eral
tim
es a
day
On
ce
a d
ay
Sev
eral
tim
es a
week
On
ce
a w
eek
On
ce/
twic
e a
mo
nth
E
ver
y f
ew
On
ce/
twic
e a
No
t v
ery
Very
sk
ille
d
No
t u
sed
Use the web to publish
podcasts (e.g. using
Podifier, Podcaster,
PodProducer)
�
� �
�
�
�
�
1 2 3 4 5 �
Use the web for
webconferencing (e.g.
using a webcam with
Skype)
�
� �
�
�
�
�
1 2 3 4 5 �
Use the web to read RSS
feeds (e.g. news feeds)
�
� �
�
�
�
�
1 2 3 4 5 �
Use the web to keep your
own blog or vlog
�
� �
�
�
�
�
1 2 3 4 5 �
Use the web to read other
people’s blogs or vlogs
�
� �
�
�
�
�
1 2 3 4 5 �
Use the web to comment
on blogs or vlogs
�
� �
�
�
�
�
1 2 3 4 5 �
Use the web to contribute
to the development of a
wiki
�
� �
�
�
�
�
1 2 3 4 5 �
Use a mobile phone to
access information/services
on the web
�
� �
�
�
�
�
1 2 3 4 5 �
5.0 Web 2.0 Technologies (Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis) to assist University
Teaching and Learning
5.1 Please indicate which of the following Web 2.0 technologies you currently
use in your teaching?
49
1. �
PowerPoint
Presentation
5. �
Interactive
Multimedia/CD-ROMs
9. �
Online
Assessment
Submission
2. �
Email 6. �
Digital videos in
Lectures (e.g.
Quicktime)
10. �
A Learning
Management System
(e.g. BlackBoard,
WebCT Vista) 3. �
Discussion
lists/online forums
7. �
MP3s and/or audio
recordings
4. �
A subjects web
site
8. �
Online self-
tests/quizzes
11. �
Other please
specify:
5.2 Below is a list of different technology-based activities that could be used in
university teaching and learning.
For each item please indicate:
• Whether or not you currently use these technology-based activities in
your first year teaching.
• How useful each technology-based activity would be in supporting
student learning (regardless of whether you currently use it).
You can also indicate that a particular technology is Not Relevant or you Don’t know
enough about the technology to respond.
50
Curre
ntly
use?
Useful?
Technology-based teaching and learning activity
Yes
No
No
t U
sefu
l
Neu
tral
Ver
y U
sefu
l
Do
n’t
Kn
ow
Allow students to download or access online audio/video
recordings of lectures
� �
1 2 3 �
Ask students to use instant messaging / chat (e.g. MSN,
Yahoo, ICQ) to communicate with lectures and administrative
staff from the course.
� �
1 2 3 �
Ask students to use the web to share digital files related to
their course (e.g. sharing photos, audio files, movies, digital,
documents, websites, etc).
� �
1 2 3 �
Ask students to use webconferencing or video chat to
communicate/collaborate with each other in the course?
� �
1 2 3 �
Provide students with alerts about course information (e.g.
timetable changes, the release of new learning resources,
changes in assessment) via RSS feeds on the web?
� �
1 2 3 �
Ask students to keep their own blog as part of your course
requirements?
� �
1 2 3 �
Ask students to contribute to another blog as part of their
course requirements?
� �
1 2 3 �
Please list any other web 2.0 technologies or technology-based activities that you
use in your teaching.
1. __________________________________________________________
____________________________
2. __________________________________________________________
____________________________
3. __________________________________________________________
____________________________
51
• Questionnaire for Students
Experience with Web 2.0 Technologies and Tools (Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis)
I am surveying students at Växjö University about their use of Web 2.0 Technologies.
Your responses to this questionnaire, and the responses of other students, will assist me
in catering for the needs of students at the university. Participation in this study is
voluntary and confidential, and the questionnaire should only take 10-15 minutes to
complete.
6.0 Background Information
What Faculty are you enrolled in?
________________________________
What Course are you enrolled in? (e.g. BSc, MSc)
________________________________
What Subject are you taking this questionnaire in?
________________________________
How are you enrolled in this course? �
Full Time �Part Time
�Distance
In which year did you enroll in this course?
________________________________
Date of Birth:
________________________________
Gender: �
Male
�
Female
Are you from a non-English-speaking background? �
Yes
�
No
Are you a student with a disability? �
Yes
�
No
Are you an International or a Local student? �
International
�
Local
What is name of your home country?
______________________________
7.0 Access to Technology
Not including your access on campus, please use the table to indicate your level of
access to different types of technologies.
52
Types of Technology Access
Exclusively
for
My own
use
Access
any
Time I
need it,
Shared
with
People
Limited or
inconvenient
Access
No
access
Not
used
Desktop computer �
�
�
�
�
Portable computer (i.e.
Laptop or Notebook)
�
�
�
�
�
Electronic organizer (e.g.
PDA, Palm, Pocket PC,
iPod)
�
�
�
�
�
Video (3G) capable mobile
phone
�
�
�
�
�
Web cam �
�
�
�
�
Broadband Internet access
(cable or wireless)
�
�
�
�
�
53
8.0 Use of Web 2.0 Technologies and Tools (Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis)
Below is a list of different ways in which Web 2.0 technologies and information
and communication technologies can be used.
Please indicate: 1. How often, on average, you have used technology in each way
over the past year.
2. How skilled you are at using technology in each way.
If you never used a particular technology please tick NU (Not Used) and do not
provide a skill rating.
HOW OFTEN HOW
SKILLED
N
U
Ways in which web 2.0 technologies (Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis)can be
used
Sev
eral
tim
es a
On
ce a
day
Sev
eral
tim
es a
On
ce a
wee
k
On
ce/t
wic
e a
Every
few
On
ce/t
wic
e a
No
t v
ery
Very
sk
ille
d
No
t u
sed
Use the web to access a portal, ‘Course
or Learning Management System’
� �
�
��
�
�
1 2 3 4 5 �
Use the web to look up reference
information for study purposes (e.g.
online dictionaries)
� �
�
��
�
�
1 2 3 4 5 �
Use the web for other services (e.g.
banking, paying bills)
� �
�
��
�
�
1 2 3 4 5 �
Use the web/internet to send or receive
email (e.g. Hotmail, Yahoo, Outlook)
� �
�
��
�
�
1 2 3 4 5 �
Use the web to access student portal �
�
�
��
�
�
1 2 3 4 5 �
3.0 Use of Web 2.0 Technologies and Tools (Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis)
Below is a list of different ways in which Web 2.0 technologies and information and
communication technologies can be used.
Please indicate: 1. How often, on average, you have used technology in each way over
the past year.
2. How skilled you are at using technology in each way.
If you never used a particular technology please tick NU (Not Used) and do not provide
a skill rating.
54
HOW OFTEN HOW
SKILLED
N
U
Ways in which web 2.0
technologies (Podcasts, Blogs,
and Wikis)can be used
Sev
eral
tim
es
a d
ay
On
ce a
day
Sev
eral
tim
es
a w
eek
On
ce a
wee
k
On
ce/t
wic
e a
Every
few
On
ce/t
wic
e a
No
t v
ery
Very
sk
ille
d
No
t u
sed
Use the web to publish podcasts
(e.g. using Podifier, Podcaster,
PodProducer)
�
� �
� �
�
�
1 2 3 4 5 �
Use the web for
webconferencing (e.g. using a
webcam with Skype)
�
� �
� �
�
�
1 2 3 4 5 �
Use the web to read RSS feeds
(e.g. news feeds)
�
� �
� �
�
�
1 2 3 4 5 �
Use the web to keep your own
blog or vlog
�
� �
� �
�
�
1 2 3 4 5 �
Use the web to read other
people’s blogs or vlogs
�
� �
� �
�
�
1 2 3 4 5 �
Use the web to comment on
blogs or vlogs
�
� �
� �
�
�
1 2 3 4 5 �
Use the web to contribute to the
development of a wiki
�
� �
� �
�
�
1 2 3 4 5 �
Use a mobile phone to access
information/services on the web
�
� �
� �
�
�
1 2 3 4 5 �
9.0 Web 2.0 Technologies to assist your University Studies
4.1 I want to use Web technologies (Podcasts,
Blogs, and Wikis) in my studies because:
Strongly
Agree
Neutral Strongly
Disagree
It will help me get better results in my subjects 1 2 3 4 5
It will help me understand the subject material
more deeply
1 2 3 4 5
It makes completing work in my subject more
convenient
1 2 3 4 5
It will improve my IT/Information management
skills in general
1 2 3 4 5
It will improve my career or employment
prospects in the long term
1 2 3 4 5
55
Below a list of different ways in which web 2.0 technologies may be used to help
you with your studies at University.
4.2 Please rate how useful each of the following web 2.0
technologies (Podcasts, Blogs, and Wikis) currently is or
would be in your studies (regardless of whether or not
you have used each web 2.0 technology in the past).
In your studies how useful do you think it would be
to….. No
t at
all
Use
ful
Neu
tral
Ex
trem
ely
Use
ful
Do
n’t
Kn
ow
Download or access online audio/video recordings of
lectures you did not attend?
1 2 3 4 5 �
Download or access online audio/video recordings to
revise the content of lectures you have already been to?
1 2 3 4 5 �
Use the web to access university based services (e.g.
LMS, e-Library, enrolment)?
1 2 3 4 5 �
Use your mobile phone to access web-based university
services information or services (e.g. LMS, e-Library,
enrolment)
1 2 3 4 5 �
Use instant messaging / chat (e.g. MSN, Yahoo, ICQ) on
the web to communicate /collaborate with other students
in the course?
1 2 3 4 5 �
Use instant messaging / chat (e.g. MSN, Yahoo, ICQ) on
the web to communicate with Lecturers and
administrative staff from the course?
1 2 3 4 5 �
Use webconferencing or video chat to
communicate/collaborate with other students in the
course?
1 2 3 4 5 �
Receive alerts about course information (e.g. timetable
changes, the release of new learning resources, changes
in assessment) via RSS feeds on the web?
1 2 3 4 5 �
Keep your own blog as part of your course requirements? 1 2 3 4 5 �
Contribute to another blog as part of your course
requirements?
1 2 3 4 5 �
Contribute with other students to the development of a
wiki as part of your course requirements?
1 2 3 4 5 �
Please list three ways in which you think web 2.0 technologies (Podcasts, Blogs,
and Wikis) that you use in your everyday life could be useful in your studies.
1. __________________________________________________________
____________________________
2. __________________________________________________________
____________________________
3. __________________________________________________________
____________________________
1