Academic Paper Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/A-Case-Study-On-Using-Web-2.0-Social-Ne 👈

1. A Case Study on Using Web 2.0 Social
Networking Tools in Higher Education
Azamjon Tulaboev, Alan Oxley
Computer & Information Sciences Department,
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
31750 Tronoh, Perak, Malaysia.
Abstract – Currently the popular socialized media tools of
Web 2.0 platform increasingly integrates in daily activities of
students. To respond this technological advancement of new
paradigm the Higher Education Institutions are attempting to
use social media tools in their teaching and learning activities.
The work described concerns a study to explore the factors
influencing the acceptability and effectiveness of using Web 2.0
social networking tools as an aid to learning. The work focuses
on a university course from an undergraduate program. It is a
case study of the role of Web 2.0 social network applications.
In the work, a qualitative paradigm is used to understand and
explore the factors influencing the acceptability and
effectiveness of Web 2.0 applications.
Index terms: Web 2.0, Social Networking, Higher
Education, Case study, Qualitative Method.
I. INTRODUCTION
The popular Web 2.0 platform, that has ‘read and write’
and ‘consume and produce’ features, is arousing interest
toward using social networking, public video sharing,
micro-blogging and other tools among users [1, 2].
Currently, these Web 2.0 tools are being applied in various
spheres of life, for instance, in government and business
(recruitment agencies, in the promotion of goods, etc.) [1].
However, social networking tools of the Web 2.0 platform
are not being used much for education purposes due to the
lack of proper application features and educational
approaches [6]. Mark Zuckerberg has stated that the
Facebook social network needs careful deployment in
education, and educators should reconsider their educational
approach for teaching the so called “Net generation” and
“Digital natives”[3-5]. Technical advancement gives new
prospects, but not solutions in how to apply it in certain of
areas, such as in teaching and learning [12].
II. BACKGROUND OF STUDY
The new Web 2.0 platform brings new types of
connection, interaction, collaboration, distribution of
information, and social networking [6]. Socialized media
tools of the Web 2.0 platform progressively embrace our
daily life activities, giving us the chance to have information
without the borders and bonds of location and time [7].
Currently, universities are attempting to apply Web 2.0
social media tools as support tools for learning however it is
still in an initial phase, and a new phenomenon in this area
[6]. Anderson highlighted the six big ideas on how Web 2.0
tools might impact future education: individual production
and user generated content; harnessing the power of the
crowd; data on an epic scale; architecture of participation;
network effects; and openness [19]. Web 2.0 social media
tools are widely available to the public; some social media
tools of Web 2.0 embrace educational activities, although
research is required to explore and gauge the pedagogical
acceptance and efficacy for learning [8].
According to Yang & Liu [9], there are currently two
major types of e-learning application used by university
courses - complete online education applications, where all
learning is conducted by using online computer mediated
communications (CMC), and mixed application systems,
where learning activities take place in traditional classrooms
and as blended learning through the use of online CMC.
Technology enhanced learning (TEL) and (CMC) enhance
the quality, amount and frequency of networking between
learners and educators [11]. New Web 2.0 technologies have
socialized software and they facilitate the organization of
informal classrooms for Net generation students in the form
of blended learning.
Higher education’s experience of information and
communication technology (ICT) practice and students’
perspectives towards web-based learning are becoming
considerable issues [13]. As Grosseck has concluded, once
engaged in using Web 2.0 social media tools, teachers and
students will find it worth the effort and they will enjoy its
benefits [14].
A. Purpose of the Study
The intention of this study was to explore the factors
influencing the acceptability and effectiveness of Web 2.0
social media tools for students in higher education using a
single case study designed as a blended learning class. At
this stage in the research the factors will be defined
generally as factors of collaborative and participatory tools
for learning.
The research is centered on a course given at the
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS. The lecturer, one of the
authors, agreed to allow Web 2.0 social networking
practices to be used on the course on an experimental case
study basis. In the case study, it was planned to use Web 2.0
media tools outside of the classroom. Several learning
activities related to the chosen course were organized
around a Web 2.0 social networking tool.
978-1-4673-1938-6/12/$31.00 ©2012 IEEE

2. III. LITERATURE SURVEY
Last decade, technology had advanced web
applications to a new stage - Web 2.0 - where knowledge
sharing and collaborative learning became possible [1, 19].
Williams & Chin researched ways to support an active
learning experience using Web 2.0 tools, and proposed a
learning method for classrooms [13]. Their study highlights
the Web 2.0 tools for literacy and engagement. Using Web
2.0 technologies gives broad opportunities and possibilities
for improving present e-learning courses; for example, Web
2.0 tools can be used in social networks. They make it easy
to build online communities [11].Other arguments state that
the literature is rich in discussions on technology integration
in the education process, however, very few studies
elaborate on the effectiveness of the most recent web-based
tools from the student perspective [15]. These authors
argued that the intention of using an interactive web
environment is not to replace classroom teaching but is just
to provide students with more learning opportunities and to
help them become active and autonomous learners.
Existing web based e-learning applications might be
successful in formal learning, but their knowledge sharing
features are questionable as regards the informal learning
community. Today’s web based learning faces the
challenges of informal learning; how best can the Web 2.0
platform be used for networking, community building, and
the sharing of collective experience? [15] These challenges
are influencing the Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) strategies of universities, which integrate
technology into new courses. To provide success, today’s
teachers should take advantage of new ICT and take account
of the learning preference of digital natives [6]. Educators
should consider pedagogical perspectives when they
implement Web 2.0 tools [6].
Applying Web 2.0 in the learning process provides
solutions to technical problems, and students enjoy having
more social web communities. It also raises questions like
‘how will higher learning institutions cope with issues of
hierarchy and the production and authentication of
knowledge?’[19]. The popularity of Web 2.0 social network
tools makes them a very attractive target for certain
organizations who are looking for up to date personal
information and it raises privacy concerns among users [17].
Robert Verkaik and Jerome Taylor gave several negative
effects of social networking websites, and these should be
used with proper guidance in the face of universities hailing
the setting up of groups in their names [21]. Negative effects
include privacy of users and unwanted advertisings.
Eijkman studied Web 2.0 as a non-foundational
network-centric learning space, and this author gave deep
philosophical explanations towards foundational and non-
foundational learning. To apply and explore the benefits of
the network-centric non-foundational approach to Web 2.0
tools, though promising encouragement of social
constructivism, today’s educators still rely on foundational
learning [7]. Ullrich et al. stated an argument that is
inherent to pedagogy related to the use of technology, that is,
Web 2.0 pedagogy is best associated with constructivism
and social learning [10, 16]. Ullrich et al.’s assertions were
supported by Alexander [18], who studied the concepts of
Web 2.0 tools: ‘social software’, ‘microcontent’, ‘openness’,
‘folksonomy’ and ‘tag clouds’. Constructivism, as novel
philosophy, changed the way educational instruction is
designed [26].
IV. METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN
We undertook a single case study, where a qualitative
paradigm has been applied as the data collection and
analysis method. Yin gives a brief explanation on the
suitability of using a case study for investigating complex
social phenomena: “the case study method allows
investigators to retain the holistic and meaningful
characteristics of real-life events” [25]. According to
Kohlbacher: “in fact, case studies seem to be the preferred
strategy when ’how‘ and ’why‘ questions are being posed,
when the investigator has a little control over events, and
when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within
some real-life” [24]. In this research the case study strategy
will explore the factors influencing the acceptability and
effectiveness of Web 2.0 socialized media tools in learning.
A. Setting
At Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, trimesters
consists of fourteen weeks of study. The first two weeks are
‘add and drop’ so registration of students on a course is less
stable. The last weeks of the trimester are also a very busy
time for undergraduate students because of project activity;
this may mean that they are unwilling to participate in a case
study. For this project we needed a small number of
volunteer students. The time duration of the study was
chosen to suit students’ time constraints, which in our
opinion meant six weeks between weeks three and 10.
B. Recruitment
We wished to conduct a qualitative form of research
project. We decided to have final year students, for a change,
because our past research had been mainly with first year
and foundation students. Final year students have more
experience and knowledge regarding learning in a university
campus. Final year students have a busy schedule. So, in
this regard, and to be on the safe side, we chose six weeks to
engage with this case study. One of the authors was the
lecturer of a final year IT students’ course - TAB4353
Software Agents. - The other author visited that class with
the recruitment note shown in Figure 1.

3. Fig. 1. Excerpt of Recruitment Note
In the first meeting, the recruitment note was given to all
15 students of the class. Only five of them showed an
interest in participating in this case study, two male students
- A and B -and three females - C, D, and E. They formed a
group in a group project for TAB 4353 Software Agents.
During the same session that recruited took place, details of
the group project were handed out. For this coursework
project each group was required to prepare one proposal for
a new Software Agents book suitable for submission to a
publisher. The duration of the task was chosen to match our
case study requirement.
C. Data Collection Methods
In this part of the study we chose the types of inquiry with
the aim of triangulating the results. The data collection
methods were:
1. Individual interview and group meetings;
2. Observation;
3. Individual Research Journal;
4. Social networking group activities.
V. RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS
A. Validity and Credibility
This study of Web 2.0 socialized media tools cannot
claim to follow a positivist reliability approach, although the
study has a strategy to ensure internal validity through
triangulation of the data collection, and the use of
participatory modes of research [22]. Jisk stated that
triangulation counter-balances the weaknesses of the other
methods [23].
B. Web 2.0 Socialized Media Tools as an Aid to Learning
In this section we would like to give more of a discourse
on students’ perceptions and ideas regarding the socialized
media tools of Web 2.0. The descriptive patterns of group
discussions and the observation of individual research
journals show that students have enjoyed using social
networks in the course. They shared ideas, something that
Web 2.0 social networks allow by giving users the ability to
connect with friends and others. Moreover, social
networking creates a space where students enjoy sharing
their findings or feelings. From a learning perspective, the
students who used Web 2.0 socialized media tools felt that
they were an aid to learning, and while using them students
preferred media offering video or visual material. The
students’ perception of Web 2.0 social media tools in
education is seen as tools for blended learning. Student C
shared her ideas and past experience of a lecturer who used
social networking tools. Here she talks about it:
Student C: for me I think the group we created in Facebook is
quite useful to us. Because I think many of us are asking
about tutorial, and (student A) also posted our lecturer notes
way to get it. So far our Software Agent group on facebook
we did not post any entertainment things. Actually we are
using it in our purpose that for Software Agent things.
Azam: let’s see if every lecturer offers social networking in their
course what do you think? Is it ok?
Student C: I find ok, because we already took TTP subject, that
lecturer doesn’t use university e-learning, she use our
Facebook group named “TTP Sept 2011” and she add all of
us. I think our communication is not through e-learning,
because she knows everyone will open more Facebook than
e-learning. I think communication through Facebook is
better compare to e-learning
(from Group Research Meeting II).
Factors of the acceptability of Web 2.0 social media
tools among students are not limited to the tools’ usability
features, as students also want to have some fun and a
comfortable environment. Student A shares his experience
about Web 2.0 tools:
Student A: the first time I have used Web 2.0 social network in
Friendster network. Things about Friendster, it was not up to
date that was not real-time system. Once you comment you
have to wait for response a bit, and then you may forget about
it.
Azam: It was not flexible, right?
Student A: Yeah, it is not really there. It is like sending email, but
it is not. After using Facebook everything is real time, once I

4. submit comment, and then the same time she will know about
comment, strait away. They got notification. Web2.0 really
connect people, but in terms of learning, I don’t say that thing
can be used as learning effectively, right now. Because the
product itself the Facebook is being used as entertainment
and connecting people. (from Group Research Meeting II)
Participant students’ observations gave comparisons
between Web 2.0 social media tools, other Web 2.0 tools,
and the university’s e-learning system.
Student B: as per my observation for the past weeks (24th
October
to 29th
October), most of my housemates. They prefer more to
using youtube as their references in study compare to other
Web 2.0 tools (e-lerning, facebook). Facebook can standout
than e-learning (in reference to UTP’s e-learning) as a place
of studying in a group/discussion online, this happens as new
post give notification to user. Something the user aware of
new post and comment, where e-learning did not provide this.
(From Individual Research Journal)
Student D: …There are people who are very quiet and not
socialized with other in real life but when they go virtual
everything changed. It is like being a “new” person for me.
Learning using web2.0 could not be very effective for some
people, but as for me I do like searching any information that
I don’t understand that regarding my subjects. It is reliable if
most web 2.0 can give a lot of information that I wanted.
(From Individual Research Journal)
Student E’s idea that the Facebook social networking tool
of Web 2.0 has limitations for education relates to student
B’s view YouTube.
Student E: Facebook for education - I think it’s a good medium 4
education, but in terms of communication and sharing
information. But as a primary medium it is not very suitable
at this point of time (From Individual Research Journal)
A summary of the activities conducted during this
study are given in Table 1.
Table 1. Group research activities
1. Group research meeting. Getting started and what we will do
in this project.
Introduction; to get signed consent forms and contact details;
Distribute Individual Research Journals;
Discuss activities of this project;
Set up a group for TAB4353 Software Agents on Facebook;
Schedule next meeting date.
2. Group research meeting. Discussion about personal experience
of social networking in both academic and personal lives.
Review of: Facebook group activity and Individual Research
Journals;
Instructions to students on the next step, i.e. peer observation.
3. Group research meeting. Social networking activities and
challenges of data sharing.
Review of: Facebook group activity and Individual Research
Journals;
Instructions to students; schedule next meeting date.
4. Group research meeting. Discussion and analysis of the
acceptability and effectiveness of Web 2.0 tools.
Review of: Facebook group activity; Individual Research
Journals;
Instruction to students; schedule next meeting date.
5. Group research meeting. Final meeting and conclusion.
Final discussion about Web 2.0 socialized media tools in
education;
Collect Individual research journals;
Distribute movie tickets to team.
C. Observations of Group Activity as a Social Network
The Facebook group set up for the TAB 4353 Software
Agents course, is entitled ‘UTP Software Agent’. Figure 2
shows a screen shot of it. It has updated its status with
twenty seven messages with discussions and three shared
document files where they might be categorized as learner-
centered approach, interactive social communication,
dynamic learning [26], relevance, shared work space [27].
According to Robert Zheng, the learner-centered approach
can be applied when students’ ability to manage cognitive
and metacognitive skills are being honed. Interactive social
communication occurs when students initiate the learning
process through open ended discussions; dynamic learning
suggests changing the learning process to include engaging
activities. Combining both interactive social communication
and dynamic learning is likely to facilitate collaborative
knowledge acquisition [26].
Fig 2. TAB4353 Software Agents group in Facebook

5. VI. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTION
The study explored whether or not the integration of the
social networking tools of Web 2.0 into learning gives
additional value and increases a sense of community among
learners. As a result of the discussions and group meetings
with students, the study revealed that Web 2.0 tools have the
ability to connect the learning community enabling it to
share information and to facilitate collective learning.
The research was in the form of a case study. A
qualitative approach was selected for data collection in order
to explore and understand the factors making up both
students’ acceptance of Web 2.0 social media tools and the
effectiveness of the tools.
This paper has been prepared as part of an ongoing study.
To reach the proposed research objectives, the study will
continue to carry out a literature survey, learning from past
practices of experiment based studies. The main direction of
research will be to explore the factors affecting the
acceptability and effectiveness of using Web 2.0 tools as an
aid to the learning process in Higher Education.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Sincere thanks are also forwarded to University
Technology PETRONAS for providing a grant and facilities
for the research. Moreover, the authors wish to thank the co-
researcher students of the case study, for their kind
assistance in the experiment, as well as the anonymous
reviewers, for helpful discussions about this research.
REFERENCES
[1] O’Reilly, What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for
the next generation of software. 2005.
http://oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html?page=1.
[Accessed in October 15, 2009.]
[2] T. Rienzo, and B. Han, Microsoft or Google web 2.0 tools for course
management. Journal of Information Systems Education, vol. 20(2),
pp. 123-127, 2009.
[3] M. Zuckerberg, “Web 2.0 Summit 2010: A Conversation with Mark
Zuckerberg".http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRUOl03nZIc
[Accessed in December 2, 2010.]
4] D. G. Oberlinger, and J. L. Oberlinger, Educating the net generation.
2005. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101.pdf. [Accessed in
October 30, 2009.]
[5] M. Prensky, Digital natives, digital immigrants. 2001.
http://www.marcprensky.com/writing. [Accessed in November 3,
2009.]
[6] S. Virkus, Use of web 2.0 technologies in LIS education: experiences
at Tallinn University, Estonia. Program: Electronic Library and
Information Systems. vol. 42(3), pp. 262-274, 2008.
[7] H. Eijkman, Web 2.0 as a non-foundational network-centric learning
space. Campus-Wide Information Systems. vol. 25 (2), pp. 93-104,
2008.
[8] S. Hazari, A. North, and D. Moreland, Investigating pedagogical
value of wiki technology. Journal of Information Systems Education,
vol. 20(2), pp. 187-198, 2009.
[9] H.Yang, Y.Liu. Building a sense of community for text-based
computer-mediated communication couses. Journal of Educational
Technology Systems. 36(4). pp 393-413. 2008 [Accessed in August
10, 2009,]
[10] C. Ullrich, K. Borau, H. Luo, X. Tan, L. Shen, and R. Shen, Why web
2.0 is good for learning and for research: principles and prototypes.
WWW 2008: proceedings of the 17th
international conference on
World Wide Web, pp. 707-714, 2008.
http://www2008.org/papers/pdf/p705-ullrichA.pdf. [Accessed in
September 24, 2009.]
[11] L. Li, and J. P. Pitts, Does it really matter? Using virtual office hours
to enhance student-faculty interaction. Journal of Information Systems
Education, vol. 20(2), pp. 175-185, 2009.
[12] M. C. Colleen, “E-learning design 2.0: Emergence, connected
networks and the creation of shared knowledge”. A Dissertation for
the Degree Doctor of Philosophy, Capella University 2008.
[13] J. Williams, and S. J. Chin, Using web 2.0 to support the active
learning experience. Journal of Information Systems Education, vol.
20(2), pp. 165-174, 2009.
[14] G. Grosseck, To use or not to use web 2.0 in higher education? World
Conference on Educational Sciences 2009. Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences 1, pp. 478–482, 2009.
[15] R. Mason, F. Rennie. Using web 2.0 for learning in the community.
Internet and Higher Education. pp 196-203, 2007
[16] K. Borau, C. Ullrich, J. Feng, and R. Shen, Microblogging for
language learning: using twitter to train communicative and cultural
competence. ICWL 2009, LNCS 5686, pp. 78–87, 2009.
http://www.carstenullrich.net/pubs/Borau09Microblogging.pdf .
[Accessed in October 15, 2009.]
[17] J. Bonneau, J. Anderson, G. Danezis. Prying data out of a social
network. ASONAM ’09 Proceedings of the 2009 International
Conference in Social Network Analysis and Mining.
[18] B. Alexander, Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and
learning? EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 41(2), pp. 32–44, March/April
2006.
[19] Anderson, Paul., What is web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and
implications for education. JISC Technology and Standards Watch.
2007. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/publications/twweb2.aspx
[20] R. Shrof, D. Vogel, An investigation on individual students’
perceptions of interest utilizing a blended learning approach.
International Journal on E-Learning. vol 2, 279-294, 2010.
[21]R.Verkaik, J.Taylor. Facebook backlash over sale of personal data -
news, gadgets & tech - the independent Retrieved 4/28/2011, 2011,
from http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-
tech/news/facebook-backlash-over-sale-of-personal-data-760221.html
[22] Creswell, J. W. and D. L. Miller "Determining Validity in Qualitative
Inquiry.". Theory Into Practice 2000.39(3): 124-130.
[23] Jick, Todd D. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods:
Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly,
24(December),1979, 602-611.
[24] Kohlbacher, Florian. The Use of Qualitative Content Analysis in
Case Study Research [89 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(1) (2005),
Art. 21, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0601211.
[25] Yin, Robert K. Case study research, design and methods (3rd ed., vol.
5. 2003). Thousand Oaks: Sage
[26] Robert Z. Zheng. Designing Dynamic Learning Environment for Web
2.0 Application. Collective Intelegence and E-learning 2.0, Premier
Reference Source. Chapter 4, Copyright © 2010, IGI Global. pp. 61-77
[27] M.J.Jones, S.W. Harmon. Instructional Strategies for Teaching in
Synchronous Online Learning Environments (SOLE). Collective
Intelegence and E-learning 2.0, Premier Reference Source. Chapter 5,
Copyright © 2010, IGI Global. pp. 78-93