INTERNET As an umbrella term that includes the associated terms cyberspace and the Web (World Wide Web). Refer to the actual network and the exchange of data between computers. Social spaces where relationships, communities, and cultures emerge through the exchange of text and images, either in real time or in delayed time sequences. (Markham, 2003) Email has been the most frequently used Internet tools in the survey research for its convenience.
TYPES OF INTERNET SOURCES Youtube Skype (Online Conferencing) E-mail Web Survey Application Facebook
Research articlesR1 The Youtube effect: How youtube has provided new ways to consume, create and share music Using the Internet for Survey Research:R2 A Case Study English language teaching and learning issues inR3 Malaysia: Learners’ perceptions via Facebook dialogue journal ‘America’ through my eyes and your eyes: TheR4 development of Intercultural Awareness in Spanish Language ClassR5 • The Use and Abuse of Online Social Network Sites by Gen Y in the EU: Can Marketing Make a Difference?
PARTICIPANTS R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 Teenage 203 LIS 46 private 10 students 239musician – (Library and and public taking Generation YWade Information college and advanced studentsJohnston Science) university Spanish class (internet authors students in consists of: literate) 3 Panels - Kota Kinabalu,who are Sabah. - 5 nativeselected by the Spanishresearcher - 4 Latin America 9 audience - 1 Spanishmembers Castilian
DATA COLLECTION R1 R2 R3 R4 R5Observation Mixed Journal entry Computer Online socialvia Youtube method-Both via facebook mediated network Quantitative & communicatioInterview via Qualitative Participants n (internet) • Open-endedSKYPE implied respond to questions 1. Survey questions • Pre- testEmail questionnair posted by • A semi-conversation e (both print researcher on • Surveys structuredand interview & internet) the group’s (Online questionnaires 2. Web survey wall. discuss)Live interviews applicationby the panels To investigate • Videowith the respondents’ recordedaudience behaviourabout the during the • PostWade’s survey evaluationperformance session.(open- surveys(after live endedperformance) question)
DATA ANALYSIS R1 R2 R3 R4 R5Triangulation • Descriptive Journal entries • content • transcriptmethod – draw statistics- were analysed analysisconclusion (histogram/pie using content • codingbased on data charts analysis and •generalizatiocollected - to categorised n •Interpretationassure the • use and synthesiscompleteness Cronbach’s of dataof finding. aplha reliability coefficient • Content analysis- open-ended question
STRENGTHS LIMITATIONS1. Communication facilitation 1. Technological limitations Easy access and convenience Technology will fail. Receiving of messages in a non-2. Practical and economic benefits chronological sequence can disrupt theRecruitment is easily negotiated flow of topic discussion.through emailReduced travel, venue and 2. Network traffictranscribing costs; Chat communication can becomeEasy communication storage and disjointed through lag caused by signalarchiving; delays and overcrowded lines.Ease of publishing and updating Low speed modems whenresults online. obtaining response rate via web survey/ problems of loading the questionnaire3. Access to diverse participants from home computers.Diversity can be obtained from arange of groups, geographical locationsand across national boundaries.Enable members to gather acrossdistances to exchange ideas.
Ethical issues Obtaining the permission with the participants about the research. Confidentiality. Example: their name refer as pseudonyms. Privacy and Protection Example: Protecting participants’ privacy – post in closed group. Unique case ID given to the participants.
CONCLUSION Data collection over the internet has many potential benefits. Unfortunately, it also has many potential problems. However with CAREFUL planning, many issues can be avoided altogether. This type of data-collection remains a decision that the research must weigh carefully.
ReferencesClarke, R. (1998). Message transmission security risks. [Online] http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/II/CryptoSecyRisks.html [2000, May 16]Connor, H. & Madge, C. (2003). “Focus groups in cyberspace”: using the internet for qualitative research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal. 6(2). 133-143. DOI: 10.1108/13522750310470190Erickson, T. (1999). Persistent Conversation: An Introduction. Journal of Computer mediated Communication, 4 (4). [Online] http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue4/ericksonintro.html [2000, May 15].Gaiser, T.J. (1997). Conducting On-Line Focus Groups: A Methodological Discussion.Hiew, W. (2012). English language teaching and learnin issues in Malaysia: Learners’ perceptions via facebook dialogue journal. International Refereed Researh Journal, 3(1),11-19.
ReferencesHirst, A., Bednall, D. D., Ashwin, S. M. & Icoz, O. 2009, ‘The use and abuse of online social network sites by Gen Y in the EU: can marketing make a difference?,’ in ICBME 2009: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Business, Management and Economics, 22 – 24 October 2009, Yasar University, Izmir, Turkey, viewed 20 May 2010, <http://wbiconpro.com/10.Marie.html>.Levinson, P. (1990). Computer conferencing in the context of the evolution of media. In L.M. Harasim. (Ed.), Online education: Perspectives on a new environment. NY: Praeger.
ReferenceSmith, M.A. (1992). Voices from the WELL: The Logic of the Virtual Commons. [Online] http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/csoc/papers/voices/ [2000, January 4].Stewart, F., Eckermann, E, and Zhou, K. (1998). Using the Internet in Qualitative Public Health Research: A Comparison of Chinese and Australian Young Womens Perceptions of Tobacco Use. Internet Journal of Health Promotion, 1998. [Online] http://www.monash.edu.au/health/IJHP/1998/12 [2000, June 5].Wild, M. (1999). The anatomy of practice in the use of mailing lists: A case study. Australian Journal of Educational Technology. 15(2), 117-135. [Online] http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/ajet/ajet15/wild.htmlZhang, Y. (2000). Using the internet for survey research: A case study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(1), 57-68.