TOJET The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology.docx

TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology
– October 2014, volume 13 issue 4
Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology
88
INTEGRATION OF WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN LEARNING A
PROGRAMMING COURSE
Dr. Nazatul Aini Abd Majid
Center of Artificial Inteligence (CAIT), Faculty Information
Science and Technology(FTSM), Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia (UKM),
Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
Web 2.0 tools are expected to assist students to acquire
knowledge effectively in their university environment.
However, the lack of effort from lecturers in planning the
learning process can make it difficult for the students
to optimize their learning experiences. The aim of this paper is
to integrate Web 2.0 tools with learning strategy
in order to enhance the motivation of the students to use the
Web 2.0 tools. The integration of the tools in
learning a programing course is based on PQR strategy, which
includes three components: Preview, Questions
and Reflect. The study sample consisted of 39 undergraduate

students for identifying their preference towards
the use of Web 2.0 tools which include Blog, Youtube, Google
Form and Padlet. The results show that the
perception of students towards the use web 2.0 tools was
positive. Hence, it was possible to integrate a learning
strategy with specific Web 2.0 tools, and, thus, facilitate
blended learning.
KEYWORDS: Web 2.0 tools, teaching and learning,
programming course
INTRODUCTION
Collaboration, social-networking, as well as knowledge
generation and sharing have been identified as the key
learning technology trends that will reshape the education
worldwide (Brown & Adler, 2008; Hargadon, 2008).
Higher education is undergoing a major transformation enabled
by Information Technology (IT), such as Web
2.0 tools, which support the key learning trends (Grosseck,
2009). Moreover, Web 2.0 tools provide on-demand
applications for students in retrieving and sharing knowledge in
a distributed environment. This supports the
need for a new approach, as suggested by Brown and Adler
(2008) who explained:
“We now need a new approach to learning – one characterized
by a demand-pull rather than the
traditional supply-push mode of building up an inventory of
knowledge in students’ heads”.
Students treat everything offered by Web 2.0 tools as a service.
In fact, this is a concept of cloud computing
where applications reside in the cloud (O'Reilly, 2008). Google
docs spreadsheets are a cloud application
(O'Reilly, 2008) where students from different locations can co-
edit the same document simultaneously (Qiyun

& Huay Lit, 2009). Moreover, students can share knowledge,
give comments, support ideas or retrieve new
knowledge whilst networking with their friends at the same time
by using a prominent example of social
networking services, Facebook (Uzunboylu, Bicen, & Cavus,
2011). Thus, integrating Web 2.0 tools for higher
education offers many advantages, as stated by Grosseck
(2009), which include: easier and faster access to
information, when and where it is needed; sharing accumulated
experiences and resources; and compatibility
with the elements of the educational field and the existing
contextual dynamics.
More and more higher education institutions are taking
advantage of Web 2.0 tools, including the University of
Leeds, University of Brighton and University of Edinburgh. In
the University of Warwick, for example, blogs
are being widely used with 4,540 blogs that have changed the
social context for students in this university
(Franklin & Van Harmelen, 2007). One of the leading
universities in Malaysia, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
(UKM), is also moving towards implementing the use of Web
2.0 in teaching and learning. Training has been
given to the interested staff about Web 2.0, for example, Web
2.0 workshop series concerning presentation tools,
content creation tools, research tools, survey/voting tools and
collaborative tools. In fact, an e-book entitled
‘Web 2.0 Research Tools: A Quick Guide’ has been published
online by the co-director of the Academic
Development Centre in UKM. This e-book is accessible for free
at http://www.scribd.com/doc/95039625. This
situation, together with the recent progress in many higher
institutions, has shown the role of Web 2.0 tools in
transforming the teaching and learning environment into a new
era.

In the transformation, however, the best way to leverage the use
of Web 2.0 tools needs to be found in order to
optimize the teaching and learning activity. Since the teaching
approaches of the lecturer can influence the
attitude of their students, which are now mostly from digital
natives (Margaryan, Littlejohn, & Vojt, 2011), some
frameworks based on the Web 2.0 learning design have been
developed in order to promote more confidence in
learning using Web 2.0 tools. Bower et al. (2010), for example,
provide a comprehensive list that categorizes the
Web 2.0 tools into knowledge types, pedagogies, modalities and
synchronicities. In addition, Grosseck (2009)
provides a table for integrating Web 2.0 technologies in
educational applications in higher education. However,
there is still a lack of research that integrates the Web 2.0 tools
into the teaching and learning strategy,
Technology
89
particularly in computer science courses. Therefore, the
objective of this research is to integrate the Web 2.0
tools with learning strategy in a programming course in a higher
education institution, UKM. A blog was used
to integrate various education resources from different web 2.0
tools. A questionnaire was given to 39

programming students in order to assess the preference of
students towards the use of web 2.0 tools in their
learning.
LITERATURE REVIEW
A variety of strategies that integrate Web 2.0 tools in the
teaching-learning environment can be found in the
literature in this twenty-first century. The movement from
conventional teaching methods (supply-pull mode) to
service-oriented teaching methods (demand-pull mode) has been
inspired by the use of cloud computing
applications: Web 2.0 tools. Inspired by the definition of cloud
computing by the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST)(Mell & Grance, 2009) and cloud
manufacturing by Xu (2012), cloud education may be
defined as a model for enabling ubiquitous, convenient, on-
demand network access to a shared pool of
configurable education resources (e.g., education software
tools, education contents and education support) that
can be mapped with Web 2.0 tools, and teaching and learning
strategy. In order to develop a teaching plan using
web 2.0 tools, three factors should be under considerations.
These factors are:
1. Education resources - what resources are used in the learning
system using Web 2.0 tools?
2. Strategy selection layer - which learning strategy is selected
for planning the teaching and
3. Implementation layer - how frequently can the lecturer
monitor the learning process and how is the
interaction between lecturers and students during the process?
Education resources layer
The key function of this layer is to identify the education
resources required for learning development. The

identification of the resources is not only based on the
permanent need of the subjects, but also the changing
needs of the students. The education contents used in this layer
may have been created from information based
on the syllabus and course materials, e.g., web (scribd,
slideshare), documents (pdf, words), presentation (.ppt),
accumulated experiences, pictures and videos. In an object-
oriented programming course in UKM, for example,
contents in the form of presentation slides is the main content
source to cater to the permanent need of the
subject. Meanwhile, the changing needs can be catered using
other sources of contents, such as discussion,
videos and blogs on the web.
Strategy selection layer
The main function of this layer is to select a strategy that is
suitable for understanding the course materials using
all the identified contents in the education resources layer. In
the programming course, the course materials are
in a presentation format developed using Microsoft Power Point
where most of the contents are presented in text.
Many strategies have been developed in order to improve
learning from text. Kombartzky et al. (2010) listed
some examples including the MURDER-Strategy (Mood,
Understanding, Recalling, Digesting, Expanding,
Reviewing; Dansereau et al., 1979) and the PQ4R-Strategy
(Preview, Question, Read, Reflect, Recite, Review;
Thomas & Robinson, 1972). In this paper, a strategy based on
PQ4R was used because it can be expanded to not
only text, but also other forms of contents. However, the
strategy was slightly modified by using only one R,
Reflect, instead of 4R in order to use the Web 2.0 tools in a
suitable way.
Implementation layer
The key function of this layer is to implement the integration of

Web 2.0 tools in learning and teaching. There
are three levels of frequency of use in this layer – pre, during
and post lecture. In this paper, the interaction
between Lecturer-Student happens throughout the framework
where the lecturer usually initiates the interaction.
For example, for each new chapter, the lecturer provides the
intention of each new lesson on a blog page,
embeds a video on the blog page for preview and posts a
question on a wall and blog before the lecture. The
lecturer then uploads the materials for the new chapter in a
learning management system and the contents of the
new chapter are usually discussed during the lecture. Finally, in
order to reflect on their lesson after the class, the
lecturer posts information and questions about the new topic on
the blog page using Google form.
CASE STUDY
A blog was designed as shown in Figure 1 to integrate various
web 2.0 tools to engage students’ attention in
learning complex materials in a programming course. The
integration of Web 2.0 tools was implemented as
below:
• Platform- Blog
A blog entitled Object-oriented programming was created where
selected web 2.0 tools were integrated on
the blog page (Figure 1).
• Preview – YouTube embedded in Blog

Technology
90
Videos from YouTube were embedded in the blog for students
to view before the class (Figure 2).
• Questions – Padlet embedded in Blog
A wall was created using Padlet so that students can post
questions before the class (Figure 3).
• Reflect – Google form embedded in Blog
An exercise based on a specific topic was created using Google
form. Students can reflect their
understanding using this exercise after class (Figure 4).
Participants
The study sample consisted of 39 undergraduate students who
enrolled for subject OOP from the Information
Science programme and Multimedia programme. These students
were assumed to have the ability to use Web
2.0 tools because they were doing an information technology
course in UKM. In fact, they were second-year
students.
Instruments
Data was collected from a questionnaire entitled The integration
of Web 2.0 tools in teaching and learning in
object-oriented programming course. This questionnaire uses a
7 point scale from strongly disagree to strongly
agree. Questionnaires were completed by the students in the last
week of the semester.
Data analysis

Each student completed the questionnaire that was uploaded
online. Analysis of the questionnaire was done by
using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 1's two rightmost columns display descriptive statistics
for each item that describe the preference of the
students towards the use of web 2.0 tools. The highest mean
scores were yielded by item 11 with min 5.36 and
frequency of students selected scale 5, 6 and 7 was 29 out of 39.
The lowest mean value was obtained by item
number 1 with min 4.56 and frequency of students selected
scale 5, 6 and 7 was 19 out of 39. Overall, min for
every item ranged from 4.56 - 5.36. These results indicate that
students were moderately favoured the use of web
2.0 tools in learning the course.
Table 1: Survey statements and the received responses
No Statement Total response for Frequency
(scale 5-7)
Mean
1 I like to watch related videos on YouTube suggested
by lecturers before class
19
4.56
2 Questions posted by the lecturer in the discussion
through padlets before the class increase my curiosity
29 4.95

3 I like to receive materials for reading using blogs 29 5.13
4 I like to access the recorded lessons 29 5.26
5 I like to share lesson contents on Facebook/blog 26 5.10
6 Sharing information in web 2.0 tools (e.g., Facebook
and blogs) increases my motivation
31 5.31
7 I like to discuss about the lesson using the web 2.0
tools, e.g., Facebook and blogs
25 4.69
8 Being able to connect with the lecturer using web 2.0
tools after class can increase my interest in such
lessons.
27 5.13
9 To learn lesson based on PQR using web 2.0 tools
make learning more effective and attractive
26 4.90
10 If web 2.0 tools are used for my other lessons, my
success will increase.
24 4.64
11 How motivated do you feel towards the use of web
2.0 in your studies now?
29 5.36

The highest mean score corresponds to item 1 which states I am
motivated to use web 2.0 tools in my studies
now. 29 out of 39 students thought that it was true that they
were motivated to use web 2.0 tools in learning this
programming course. Since programming language Java is
difficult to learn (Pendergast, 2006), the use of web
2.0 tools in learning can help in increasing the students’ interest
towards the subject. Meanwhile, 31 out 39 of
Technology
91
the respondents agreed that sharing information in web 2.0 tools
(e.g., Facebook and blogs) increases their
motivation (item 6). This might be because they want a platform
to share and discuss the lesson for further
understanding.
Since web 2.0 tools are emerging technology in education,
further understanding about the preference of the
students towards these tools can further help in the learning
process. 24 out of 39 students agreed that If Web 2.0
tools are used for my other lessons, my success will increase
(item 10). This shows an interesting finding in
which the students may want to use Padlets to post their
questions, use blog to share information related to the
subject or use Youtube to preview the contents of the upcoming
class. For example, a student can stick a note on

a wall for any questions related to a topic anonymously. The
lecturer, then, can discuss every sticky note on the
wall during the lecture. The students will be appreciated when
the lecturer responds to their questions in this
interaction.
Another interesting finding is that 26 out of 39 students agreed
that learning based on PQR using web 2.0 tools
make learning more effective and attractive. This shows that
web 2.0 tools provide an alternative way for the
students to discuss the subject with the lecturer other than face-
to-face meeting. This is also support the finding
that web 2.0 tools can be used for blended learning. Blended
learning models stated by Köse (2010) was:
“Blended learning models are formed by combining face to face
education and online learning activities
mostly. In this case, teachers can use advantages of both face to
face education and online learning”
.
CONCLUSIONS
A strategy for integrating web 2.0 tool was proposed in order to
organize education resources for a specific
subject effectively. A learning plan using web 2.0 tools can be
developed using a PQR strategy where students
can do online learning based on three important components in
learning which are: preview, questions and
reflect. This can support blended learning where students with
different learning style can get benefits from a
combination of using on-learning learning and face to face
education. Therefore, the learning plan was not only
to capture the interest of students for optimizing their learning
experience but also to cater to the needs of all
students with different levels of thinking.

REFERENCES
Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds On Fire: Open
Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0.
EDUCAUSE Review,, January/February 2008, 17-32
Dansereau, D. F., & et al. (1979). Development and evaluation
of a learning strategy training program. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 64-73.
Franklin, T., & Van Harmelen, M. (2007). Web 2.0 for Learning
and Teaching in Higher Education. London:
The Observatory of Borderless Higher Education. Franklin, T.
& Van Harmelen, M. (2007). Web
2002.2000 for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education.
London: The Observatory of Borderless
Higher Education. Retrieved May 2014, 2008 from
http://www.obhe.ac.uk/resources-
new/pdf/2651.Pdf
Grosseck, G. (2009). To use or not to use web 2.0 in higher
education? Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 1(1), 478-482.
Hargadon, S. (2008). Web 2.0 is the future of education.
Kombartzky, U., Ploetzner, R., Schlag, S., & Metz, B. (2010).
Developing and evaluating a strategy for learning
from animations. Learning and Instruction, 20(5), 424-433.
Köse, U. (2010). A blended learning model supported with Web
2.0 technologies. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2794-2802.
Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital
natives a myth or reality? University students’ use

of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 56(2), 429-
440.
Mell, P., & Grance, T. (2009). Perspectives on cloud computing
and standards. National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), Information Technology Laboratory.
O'Reilly, T. (2008). Web 2.0 and cloud computing. O'Reilly
radar
Pendergast, M. (2006). Teaching Introductory Programming to
IS Students: Java Problems and Pitfalls. Journal
of Information Technology Education, 5, 491-515.
Qiyun, W., & Huay Lit, W. (2009). Exploring the Use of Web
2.0 Tools to Support Collaborative Learning.
Journal of Education Research, 3(3), 191-202.
Thomas, E. L., & Robinson, H. A. (1972). Improving reading in
every class: A source-book for teachers.
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Uzunboylu, H., Bicen, H., & Cavus, N. (2011). The efficient
virtual learning environment: A case study of web
2.0 tools and Windows live spaces. Computers & Education,
56(3), 720-726.
Technology
92

Xu, X. (2012). From cloud computing to cloud manufacturing.
Robotics and Computer-Integrated
Manufacturing, 28(1), 75-86.
FIGURES
Figure 1: The integration of web 2.0 tools in a learning plan.
Technology
93
Figure 2: Youtube is integrated on a blog for preview item in
the learning plan.
Figure 3: Padlet is integrated on a blog for question item in the
learning plan.

Technology
94
Figure 4: Google form was use for reflect item in the learning
plan.
Copyright of Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology
is the property of Turkish
Online Journal of Educational Technology and its content may
not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.
42 TechTrends
• November/December 2014
Volume 58, Number 6

findings, we suggest implementation of an
institutional and systematic approach to
reinforce inclusion of Web 2.0 technologies in
traditional teaching and learning.
Keywords: web 2.0 technologies, traditional
instruction, community college, faculty
development and curriculum.
Introduction
nstructors across a variety of academic fields
face a new challenge within 21st century
classrooms and contemporary educational
technology. Learners today are digital learners
and the instructional methods used need to
match their needs. The vast amount of available
online resources and tools is part of the every-
day reality and has introduced a diverse set of
instructional methods with applications in
student learning. However, the quantity and
ever changing quality of these resources can
be overwhelming for instructors. The use of
technology in instruction requires acquiring
new skills and developing a sufficient level of
understanding of computer software and the
Internet. College instructors teaching both
online and face-to-face courses need to adapt to
the technologies used by students and gain the
computer skills needed to incorporate online
tools in their delivery of instruction.
Emerging instructional
technologies:
Exploring the extent of faculty

use of web 2.0 tools at a
midwestern community college
By Tareq Daher, University of Nebraska Lincoln and Bojan
Lazarevic, Mount Saint Mary College
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to provide
insight into the several aspects of instructional
use of emerging web-based technologies.
The study first explores the extent of Web
2.0 technology integration into face-to-face
classroom activities. In this phase, the main
focus of research interests was on the types and
dynamics of Web 2.0 tools used by community
college instructors. In the second phase, we
were predominantly interested in instructors’
preferences toward tools and the major barriers
instructors confront in integrating these tools in
a traditional educational setting.
The study reveals the extent of instructors’
use of Web 2.0 tools in the classroom relates to
a) their level of education and b) training on
the tools. Results clearly indicate that level of
education and current use of web 2.0 technologies
in instruction are major determinants of the
instructors’ preferences toward different groups
of Web 2.0 tools. Finally, lack of faculty training
opportunities was identified as the main barrier
for using Web 2.0 technologies.
The study offers research based evidence
which undoubtedly represent the current
trends and issues in the process of technology
integration into course curriculum at a

community college level. Considering obtained
I
Volume 58, Number 6
TechTrends • November/December 2014
43
The development of online technologies has
had a remarkable impact on the methodologies
of instruction. A common terminology used
to describe these online technologies is “Web
2.0”. The concept of Web 2.0 was initially
introduced in a brainstorming session between
Tim O’Reilly and Dale Dougherty, the vice
president of MediaLive International, a
company dedicated to producing information
technology conferences and specifically the
exhibition COMDEX. This session led to the
creation of the annual Web 2.0 conference “Web
2.0 summit” in 2004 (O’Reilly, 2005). The term
Web 2.0 became common language and has
been applied so indiscriminately that just four
years after the term was formalized, O’Reilly
(2005) reported, “There’s still a huge amount of
disagreement about just what Web 2.0 means”
(p. 1). According to some authors, Web 2.0
technology is a conglomerate of social software
using the internet as a platform where various
devices can be interconnected to encourage
greater communication between individuals
(Kenney, 2007; O’Reilly, 2005).
Web 2.0 instructional tools:

Features, issues, and concerns
While specific definitions of Web 2.0
vary, some characteristics clearly describe
what differences and advancements Web 2.0
technologies have brought to change the static
web world known as Web 1.0 which allowed
only website owners, not viewers, to modify
text (Handsfield, Dean, & Cielocha, 2009).
Examining literature, we can safely identify a
set of characteristics that Web 2.0 technologies
possess which contain extensive value for
computer based instructional methods. Web 2.0
tools typically provide advantages to the process
of teaching and learning:
a. Increased collaboration among individuals
and businesses allows for ease in the creation
of collaborative classroom activities and
facilitates teacher collaboration (Cannon,
2006; Drexler, Baralt, & Dawson, 2008;
Kenney, 2007; Olaniran, 2009).
b. Scoring high on usability, many of tools use a
drag and drop model that is user friendly and
intuitive to use (Kenney, 2007).
c. Promotes communication and facilitates
learning (Drexler et al., 2008; Nagel, 2008;
Olaniran, 2009; Rethlefsen, et. al, 2009).
d. Increased user involvement (Kenney, 2007)
by allowing users to access content created
by other participants (O’Dell, 2010; Olani-
ran, 2009; O’Reilly, 2005).

e. Dynamic content creation abilities allow the
community to add and modify content or
express opinions that lead to changes in the
content (O’Reilly, 2005).
f. A rich user experience provides client side
programmability (O’Reilly, 2005).
g. Enhanced creativity and motivation (Chih-
Hsiung, Blocher, & Ntoruru, 2008).
Web 2.0 applications such as “Google
maps” are an example of scale web application
capabilities. Moreover, Google played an
important role in introducing full scale web
applications that already mainstream in its client
email system, “Gmail” (O’Reilly, 2005).
The vibrant nature of Web 2.0 tools combined
with the potential for instructional application
has created new opportunities for college
instructors to explore and utilize more effective
teaching methods in the traditional classroom
setting. These instructional applications have
been addressed in current research leading to an
array of learning benefits to be broadly discussed
by educators across a variety of academic fields
(Cannon, 2006; Drexler et al., 2008; Kenney,
2007; O’Dell, 2010; Olaniran, 2009).
However, Web 2.0 technology is a relatively
new, fast changing, and developing area of
advancement. As such, educational uses
have only been introduced to instructors in
the last few years. There is little or no solid

empirical research regarding inclusion of
Web 2.0 technologies in traditional teaching
methods. In order to support increased use of
these technologies in instruction, it is vital to
understand how community college instructors
view these tools and what barriers they have
experienced.
Inclusion of Web 2.0 applications in profes-
sional development continues to be an increas-
ing challenge. Since the passage of the No Child
Left Behind Act (2001), educational adminis-
trators are tasked with stretching resources al-
located for professional development. Since
these professional development opportunities
for educators must already meet strict standards
for increasing student achievement, the inclu-
sion of training for use of technology in instruc-
tion that is not specifically linked to increased
achievement may not be a priority (Dede, Breit,
Ketelhut, McCloskey, & Whitehouse, 2005). In
addition, faculty attitudes towards technology
may be influenced by the already increasing
demands on their time and influence whether
they will use computers as a professional tool
to integrate online technologies into their class-
rooms. Research indicates staff development
programs are vital to integrating computers into
the curriculum (Woodrow, 1991, as cited in Du-
44 TechTrends
Volume 58, Number 6

sick & Yildirim, 2000) and that “investment in
technology cannot be fully effective unless fac-
ulty are willing to become fully capable of using
these technologies” (p. 33). This barrier is fur-
ther compounded because “educators are more
averse to using computers than other profes-
sionals” (p. 33).
1.1 Faculty attitudes towards technology
Many theories suggest that simply providing
access to technologies with minimal support are
enough to make faculty take advantage of these
opportunities (Surry & Land, 2000). However,
findings from both research and practice provide
enough evidence to claim these two conditions
insufficient; other researchers suggest that in
order for technology to be utilized effectively (a)
the opportunity to use it should be available for
users, (b) the opportunity should be recognized
by users, and (3) users should be motivated to
take it (Perkins, 1985, as cited in Surry & Land,
2000). This study aids in understanding how
faculty use technology in their classrooms and
what steps the administration can take to help
with the implementation and education process.
Purpose of the study and
research questions
The overall intention of this study was to
raise important questions about the instructional
value of Web 2.0 technology and address concerns
regarding their use in every day teaching and
learning. The purpose of the study was threefold:
a) to investigate the extent of Web 2.0 technology

integration into traditional classroom settings,
b) to learn instructor preferences towards
educational Web 2.0 tools, and c) to build an
understanding on what barriers instructors
confront while utilizing these tools. In addition,
this study examined the effect of technology
training on adoption of emerging web based
technologies in classroom.
The focus of this study led to the following
research questions:
a) To what extent do community college
instructors use Web 2.0 technology in
teaching?
b) What are the major barriers and instructor
preferences toward educational use of Web
2.0 tools?
c) How does an instructor’s educational
background and participation in technology
training affect their actual use of Web 2.0
technologies in classroom teaching?
The research questions served as a guide for
the follow-up discussion of the study’s major re-
sults. Finally, the study attempted to extend the
body of knowledge surrounding instructional
use of Web 2.0 and emerging technologies in a
traditional learning environment.
Methodology
1.2 Design

The study utilized survey research design
considering the purpose of the study, available
resources, and time constrains. We utilized a
traditional hard copy survey in order to avoid
a low response rate to the survey, a challenge
typically associated with an online data
gathering. This approach was easy to conduct,
effective, and resulted in a response rate of 91%.
1.3 Population and study sample
The study sample was selected by a random
sampling of all instructors employed by a large
Midwestern community college with campuses
in multiple locations. The sample consisted
of 202 instructors with 48% female and 52%
male. In addition, 26.7% participants reported
being 45 years of age or younger, the remaining
16.7% reported being over the age of 45; masters
or doctoral degrees were reported by 40.1% of
instructors while the remaining participants
indicated attaining a bachelor’s degree.
1.4 Instrument
The Community College Web 2.0 Survey
(CCWS2) was developed and validated by the
researchers of this study. The survey consisted
of 11 items. Items 1-3 asked for demographic
data in a multiple choice format. Item 6, using a
categorical format, asked participants to categorize
their past and/or present use of Web 2.0 tools into
Teaching, Personal Use, or Do Not Use. Item 7
ask participants their likelihood of using Web 2.0
tools in the future using a 5-point Likert scale that
ranged from 5 (Very Likely) to 1 (Very Unlikely).

Items 6 and 7 further categorized uses of Web
2.0 tools into categories: Communication Tools,
Collaborative Tools and Environments, Online
Productivity & Organization Tools/Applications,
Social Networking Tools, and Media Sharing
Tools. Items 8 and 9 focus on why teachers use
Web 2.0 tools and for what purposes using a
similar 5-point Likert scale that ranged from 5
(Strongly Agree) to 1 (Strongly Disagree). Lastly,
items 10 and 11 use a multiple-choice format to
gather data on whether participants have had
technology training for Web 2.0 tools and if so,
how long ago the training was.
In the process of validating the survey, we
utilized several procedures. First, a pilot study
was conducted in order to assess the accuracy of
instruction for completing the instrument and the
clarity of the questionnaire items. The reliability
Volume 58, Number 6
45
statistic (Cronbach’s Alpha) for this instrument
was .91 indicating a high internal consistency.
In addition to the statistical methods of item
validation, content validity was established by
requesting personal opinions regarding the
relevance of each survey item from instructional
technology specialists.
1.5 Procedures
The survey was distributed in person to

participating instructors who completed the
survey anonymously and returned it to an
identified individual at the college not connected
to the project. The surveys were then mailed to
the researchers. The survey took about 10 – 15
minutes to complete and included two copies
of the informed consent, one to sign and one to
keep for their own records.
Results
The purpose of this study was to determine
the extent of faculty use of Web 2.0 technologies
in traditional classroom instruction at the
community college level. Results are categorized
by Current Use, Future Use, Instructional
Purpose for Use, Barriers to Use, and Technology
Training.
1.6 Current Use
Of the 202 participants, 23.8% indicated
they were already using Web 2.0 technology
at the time of the survey, while 76.2% of
participants did not use any Web 2.0 tools (Table
1). Participants were given the option to choose
how these tools are used: Teaching, Personal
Use, and Do Not Use. See Table 1.
These tools were further divided into groups:
communication tools, collaborative tools and
environments, online productivity & organiza-
tion tools/applications, social networking tools,
and media sharing tools (Table 2). Each group
included an opportunity for participants to

write in additional Web 2.0 tools not listed in
the survey.
Communication tools included Skype,
MSN, Blogs, Twitter, and Live Meeting. Just
over half of participants (50.4%) reported not
using communication tools at all for personal or
teaching purposes.
Collaborative tools and environments
included Wiki, Google Docs, Google groups,
Google Apps, and Voice Threads. In this
category, 60.89% of participants indicated they
do not use any of the tools listed.
Online productivity and organization tools/
applications included: Rubistar, Google sites,
Buble us, Del.icio.us, and Doodle. The majority
of participants, 56.43% reported not using any of
these tools; 18.81% reported Teaching Use and
24.75% indicated Personal Use of these tools.
The social networking tools group resulted
in the smallest percentage of Teaching Use by
participants at 5.94%, 39.1% reported using
them for Personal Use, and 54.95% do not use
them at all. This group included Facebook,
Myspace, Ning, Live Spaces, and LinkedIn.
The media sharing tools group, comprised
of Flicker, Picasa, YouTube, TeacherTube, and
Podcast, was the only group to have participant
Table 1. Participant’s current use of Web 2.0 tools
in instruction

Frequency Percent
Currently use Web 2.0 48 23.8%
Not using Web 2.0 154 76.2%
Total 202 100%
Table 2. Type and extent of faculty use of Web2.0 technologies
Type of Technology Frequency Percent
Communication
tools
Do not use 106 50.47%
In teaching 20 9.9%
Personal use 76 37.62%
Collaborative tools
Do not use 123 60.89%
In teaching 30 14.85%
Productivity Tools
Do not use 114 56.43%

Social networking
tools
Do not use 111 54.95%
Media sharing tools
Do not use 81 40.09%
Total
Do not use 107 52.97%
In teaching 32.2 15.95%
Personal use 62.8 31.08%
202 100%
46 TechTrends
Volume 58, Number 6
responses fairly evenly distributed between do
not use (40.09%), In Teaching (30.19%), and

Personal Use (29.7%). See Table 2. Type and
extent of faculty use of Web 2.0 technologies
Overall, applications which provide
opportunities for sharing instructional video
or audio files were the most popular among
participants (see Table 3). YouTube was the most
common application with a mean of 2.93; between
“Agree” and “Neutral.” The lowest mean, among
the five most common in this category was for Live
Meeting (3.44) between “Neutral” and “Disagree”.
1.7 Instructional Purposes for Use
Participants who currently use Web 2.0 for
instruction (76.24%) identified YouTube as the
most common used Web 2.0 tool with a mean
of 1.48. The top five tools used for instructional
purposes, as reported by survey participants,
included: YouTube (M=1.48), Google sites
(M=1.22), TeacherTube (M=0.94), Google
Docs (M=0.66), and Podcasting (M=0.51)
as illustrated in Table 4. Note: Data in Table
4 reflects the top 5 tools for instruction as
identified by those who currently use Web 2.0
tools in their classroom or online course.
For the purpose of instruction, participants
used the media sharing tools most (30.19%) and
social networking Web 2.0 applications least
(5.94%). In contrast, participants reported using
social networking sites most for personal use
(39.1%) and Web 2.0 collaborative tools least
(24.25%).

1.8 Barriers to Use
A list of the 13 most common reported
barriers to use of Web 2.0 tools was provided
in Item 9. Participants were asked to respond
to how each potential barrier impacts them
using a Five-Point Likert Scale ranging from
“1” (Strongly Agree) to “5” (Strongly Disagree).
The barriers most identified by respondents
as their reason for not utilizing Web 2.0
technologies were: “Not enough experience
with 2.0 technologies” (M=2.52), “Lack of in-
service training on campus” (M=2.71), “Lack
of technical support” (M=2.80), and “Lack of
adequate tutorials” (M=3.02). See Table 5.
1.9 Technology Training
The majority of study participants (79.71%)
reported having never attended technology
training related to Web 2.0 tools, compared to
7.96% who reported that their last training was
over a year ago. See Table 6.
Items 10 and 11 addressed technology
training related to Web 2.0 technologies.
Participants who received technology training
were more likely to be using these tools in
their classroom or online course. Statistical
analysis indicated that participants who
Table 3. Participant Preferences toward Web 2.0 tools
Tool Mean SD Variance
YouTube 2.93 .773 .598

Google Sites 3.26 .676 .458
Podcast 3.30 .886 .785
TeacherTube 3.33 .946 .896
Live Meeting 3.44 .948 .899
Table 4. The Five Most Frequently Used Web2.0 Tools
Tool Mean SD Variance
YouTube 1.48 .651 .425
Google Sites 1.22 .737 .544
TeacherTube .94 .907 .824
Google Docs .66 .868 .754
Podcasting .51 .930 .866
Note: Data in Table 4 reflects the top 5 tools for instruction
as identified by those who currently use Web 2.0 tools in
their classroom or online course.
Table 5. Participant reported barriers to Web2.0 tools
Barrier Mean SD Variance
Not enough experience
with 2.0 technologies
2.52 .589 .767

Lack of in-service training
on campus
2.71 .714 .511
Lack of technical support 2.80 .753 .568
Lack of adequate tutorials 3.02 .691 .477
Note: Table 5 reflects the responses from all participants.
Table 6. Participant reported participation in training for
Web 2.0 tools
Technology Training Frequency Percent
Yes 41 20.29%
No 161 79.71%
Total 202 100%
Volume 58, Number 6
47
received technology training also used Web 2.0
technologies in their classroom or online course.
Participants also indicated technology training
as a factor that shaped their perception of the
barriers for using Web 2.0 in the classroom
as well as their awareness of the instructional
benefits of these tools. See Table 6.1.

Differences were found between the
instructors who attended technology training
(M=3.27, SD=0.775) and the ones that did not
attend (M=3.07, SD=0.588); t (1.798) =197, p
=0.074*. This significance was present at the
95% level of confidence.
Participants who received technology
training reported these tools to be a valuable
asset to their classroom teaching in general.
Participants who did not have any official
training in Web 2.0 responded with, “Web
2.0 tools are difficult to learn,” “ineffective in
contributing effectively to classroom activities,”
and “Web 2.0 tools are difficult to use”. See Tables
6.2 (right) and 6.3 (on the next page).
1.10 Educational Level and
Use of Web 2.0 Tools
Further analysis was conducted to examine
whether participant education level affected
their instructional use and level of comfort with
Web 2.0 application. Participants were asked
to identify their highest level of education:
“Undergraduate Degree” indicating completion
of a bachelor’s degree only (59% of participants)
and “Graduate Degree” indicating completion
of a Masters or PhD degree (41%). Statistical
Table 6.1. Participant reported uses for Web 2.0 tools
Instructional Purpose of Web 2.0
Technology
Training

N Mean SD Std. Error Mean
Engage students in the classroom
(IP)
Yes 41 2.07 0.959 0.150
No 161 2.67 0.824 0.065
Motivate students (IP)
Yes 41 2.34 0.938 0.147
No 161 2.74 0.783 0.062
Facilitate and organize instruction
(IP3)
Yes 41 2.49 0.746 0.116
No 161 2.88 0.741 0.059
Aids in reaching instructional goals
(IP4)
Yes 41 2.56 0.867 0.135
No 161 2.88 0.766 0.061
Helps teacher to be more efficient in
teaching (IP5)
Yes 41 2.51 0.870 0.136
No 161 2.96 0.697 0.055
Table 6.2. Participant reported barriers to Web 2.0 tools

Barriers to Web 2.0
Technology
Training
N Mean SD
Std.
Error
Mean
Web 2.0 tools are difficult
to learn (B1)
Yes 41 3.27 0.775 0.121
No 161 3.07 0.588 0.047
Web 2.0 tools are difficult
to use (B2)
Yes 41 3.34 0.728 0.114
No 161 3.11 0.580 0.046
Web 2.0 tools are not
efficient in teaching (B3)
Yes 41 3.39 0.862 0.135
No 161 3.08 0.646 0.051
significance was found between the teachers’
level of education and current implementation of
Web 2.0 technology in the classroom. There was
an additional statistical significance (p=0.02) in

current use of the tools between participants
with an Undergraduate Degree (M=1.84)
and those with a Graduate Degree (M=1.65).
This significance was present at the 95% level
of confidence. This statistical significance
indicated a relationship between teacher’s level
of education and the use of Web 2.0 technology
in traditional classrooms. See Tables 7 and 7.1
(on the following page).
Finally, the researchers of this study
examined whether teacher educational levels
affect their individual perception of the
instructional uses of Web 2.0 application. The
results indicated that the educational level of a
48 TechTrends
Volume 58, Number 6
Table 6.3. Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances
Levene’s Test
for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F CI – 95%
p t df p MD SED Lower Upper
EVA 31.28 0.000 -4.81 198 0.000* -0.34 0.071 -0.483 -0.202
EVNA -4.05 51.975 0.000* -0.34 0.084 -0.512 -0.173
IP1

EVA 4.070 0.045 -3.97 198 0.000* -0.59 0.149 -0.888 -0.299
EVNA -3.63 56.176 0.001* -0.59 0.163 -0.921 -0.266
IP2
EVA 6.392 0.012 -2.75 198 0.006* -0.39 0.143 -0.677 -0.112
EVNA -2.47 55.209 0.016* -0.39 0.159 -0.713 -0.075
IP3
EVA 4.007 0.047 -3.02 198 0.003* -0.39 0.130 -0.649 -0.136
EVNA -3.01 61.938 0.004* -0.39 0.130 -0.653 -0.132
IP4
EVA 6.344 0.013 -2.31 198 0.022* -0.32 0.138 -0.592 -0.047
EVNA -2.15 57.123 0.036* -0.32 0.148 -0.617 -0.022
IP5
EVA 14.00 0.000 -3.44 198 0.001* -0.44 0.129 -0.698 -0.190
EVNA -3.02 53.965 0.004* -0.44 0.147 -0.738 -0.150
B1
EVA 16.252 0.000 3.290 198 0.001* 0.419 0.127 0.168 0.670
EVNA 2.789 52.273 0.007* 0.419 0.150 0.117 0.720
B2
EVA 8.991 0.003 2.184 198 0.030* 0.235 0.107 0.023 0.446
EVNA 1.912 53.795 0.061 0.235 0.123 -0.011 0.481
B3
EVA 13.73 0.000 2.533 198 0.012* 0.308 0.122 0.068 0.549

EVNA 2.141 52.134 0.037* 0.308 0.144 0.019 0.598
Note: Independent-Sample t-Test: Validation of homogeneity
of variance with regard to participation in technology
training and current use, instructional purpose, and barriers
related to Web 2.0 technologies.
* - Significance detected at .05 level.
CI-95% = 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
EVA = Equal Variances Assumed
EVNA = Equal Variances Not Assumed
MD = Mean Difference
SED = Standard Error Difference
participant to be statistically significant to their
perceptions of the instructional use of certain
Web 2.0 tools. Table 8 reflects the relationship
between participant educational level and
instructional purposes of the tools.
Results from Item 8, regarding instructional
purposes of Web 2.0 tools, indicated statistical
significance for participants at the Undergradu-
ate Level and those at the Graduate Level. Specif-
ically, the response “Engages my students in the
classroom” was statistically significant (p=.010)
at the Undergraduate Level (M=2.67, SD=.835)
and Graduate Level (M=2.35, SD=.916). The
response “Helps motivate my students” was sta-
tistically significant (p=.010) at the Undergradu-
ate level (M=2.77, SD=.797) and the Graduate
Level (M=2.47, SD=.846). Third, “Enhances in-
teraction in classroom” was significant (p=.006)
at the Undergraduate level (M=2.85, SD=.758)
and at the Graduate Level (M=2.53, SD=.860).

All significances were present at the 95% level of
confidence.
Volume 58, Number 6
49
Table 7.1. Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances
Levene’s Test
for Equality
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
CI – 95%
F p t df p MD SED Lower Upper
EVA 37.259 .000 3.179 200 .002* .190 .060 .072 .307
EVNA 3.189 189.4 .011* .190 .064 .084 .319
Note: Independent-Sample t-Test: Validation of homogeneity
of variance for
instructors with different educational level on Current use of
Web 2.0 tools in
instruction.
* - Significance detected at .05 level.
CI-95% = 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
EVA = Equal Variances Assumed
EVNA = Equal Variances Not Assumed
MD = Mean Difference
SED = Standard Error Difference

Conclusion
The study revealed two determinants of the
instructors’ use of Web 2.0 technologies in the
classroom: education level and technology train-
ing. Instructors with a graduate degree were more
likely to use these tools for instruction. How-
ever with the appropriate training, participants
reported being more likely to incorporate these
tools. Since educators are interested in how to
use technology, not how to master it, it will be
more beneficial to use a product-based approach
in training rather than focus on a product itself
(Maduakolam & Bell, 2003). For example, instead
of teaching faculty how to use Microsoft Applica-
tion (product), training can be designed to help
faculty create an instructional resource using Mi-
crosoft Application (product-based approach).
This also can be a powerful extrinsic motivation.
Another potential means to motivate instructors
based on the results of this study, is to increase
their technological competency thereby lowering
existing anxiety (Dusick & Yildirim, 2000; Jack-
owski, 2005). This can be achieved through skill
level assessments prior to training and ensuring
participants are assigned to training according to
their level of proficiency and need (Maduakolam
& Bell, 2003).
The findings in this study indicate that with
adequate technology support and training,
instructors are more likely to use Web 2.0 tools
for in-classroom instruction. There is a need
for faculty to receive Web 2.0 training that
assists them in achieving their specific course
objectives. These trainings would introduce

a Web 2.0 tool and provide its pedagogical
implications and how it can factor into a course’s
instruction. It is important to provide technology
training that parallels the individual’s discipline
(Dusick & Yildirim, 2000) and ties specifically to
relevant content objectives (Finley & Hartman,
2004). These changes have the potential to
make training more meaningful and will allow
the individual to experience the use of specific
technologies associated with daily use in their
classroom or online course (Dusick & Yildirim,
2000). The administration of an institution can
support their faculty by providing specialized
training focused on the technology and the
pedagogical methodologies paired with a
technology tool.
Overall, this study revealed the level of
education attained by an instructor is a significant
factor impacting the current use of, perceptions
toward, and future use of instructional
applications of Web 2.0 technologies. The data
also indicates that instructors’ currently using
Web 2.0 tools regularly in their classroom or
online course have attended a workshop or
training on any Web 2.0 tool.
Results indicated the Graduate Level group
using Web 2.0 technologies for instructional
purposes and having a greater understanding
of them at a rate higher than their counterparts
at the Undergraduate Level. In addition, those
at the Graduate Level reported a belief that
Web 2.0 can engage students in the learning
activities, motivate them academically, and

enhance classroom interaction.
Table 7. Participant Educational Level
N Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
Mean
Undergraduate
Degree
119 1.84 .368 .034
Graduate Degree 83 1.65 .480 .035
Table 8. Participant educational level and instructional purpose
Instructional
Purpose
Education N Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
Mean
Engage students

Under-
graduate
119 2.67 .835 .077
Graduate 83 2.35 .916 .101
Motivate
students
Under-
graduate
119 2.77 .797 .073
Graduate 83 2.47 .846 .093
Enhance
classroom
interaction
Under-
graduate
119 2.85 .758 .070
Graduate 83 2.53 .860 .094
50 TechTrends
Volume 58, Number 6
Further research may be needed to assess
the level of participants use and knowledge

about Web 2.0 tools while they are pursuing
their education or when they are outside of
their current educational setting. However, the
research outcomes indicate that levels of expo-
sure, education, and use of these technologies
are more likely to occur during work toward a
Masters or Doctoral degree.
Please direct questions about this article to Tareq Daher,
University of Nebraska Lincoln, Department of Teaching,
Learning, and Teacher Education, TEAC 135, Lincoln, NE.
USA 68588, phone: +1 4026139031, email:[email protected]
edu. Bojan Lazarevic can be reached via email at: Bojan.
[email protected]
References
Cannon, D, (2006). Web 2.0 is branding Web 2.0: How
businesses can leverage web technologies to increase
brand preferences. Movio Integrated Branding,11,1.
Retrieved Sept 6, from http://www.moveo.com/data/
White_papers/GettingThere_Dave_103006.pdf
Chih-Hsiung, T., Blocher, M., & Ntoruru, J. (2008).
Integrate Web 2.0 technology to facilitate online
professional community: EMI special editing
experiences. Educational Media International, 45(4),
335-341. doi:10.1080/09523980802588634
Dede C., Breit L., Ketelhut D. J., McCloskey, E., &
Whitehouse P. (2005). An overview of current findings
from empirical research on online teacher professional
development. Harvard Education Press.
Drexler, W., Baralt, A., & Dawson, K. (2008). The
teach web 2.0 consortium: A tool to promote

educational social networking and web 2.0 use among
educators. Educational Media International, 45(4), 271-
283. doi:10.1080/09523980802571499
Dusick, D. M. & Yildirim, S. (2000). Faculty computer use
and training: Identifying distinct needs for different
populations. Community College Review, 27(4), 33-47.
Handsfield, L.J., Dean, T.R., & Cielocha, K.M. (2009).
Becoming critical consumers and producers of text:
Teaching literacy with web 1.0 and web 2.0. The Reading
Teacher, 63(1), pp. 40–50. DOI:10.1598/RT.63.1.4
Jackowski, M. B. (2005). An examination of factors that
affect community college faculty’s use of technology
for teaching: A comparison of full-time and part-time
faculty. North Carolina State University.
Kenney, B. (2007). You 2.0. School Library Journal, 53(1), 11
Maduakolam, I., & Bell, E. (2003). A product-based
faculty professional development model for infusing
technology into teacher education. Contemporary Issues
in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(3), pp. 340-352.
Olaniran, B. A. (2009, December). Culture, learning styles,
and Web 2.0. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(4),
261-271.
O’Reilly, T. (2005, September). What Is Web 2.0. Retrieved
from O’Reilly, Spreading the knowledge of innovators:
http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
Surry, D.W., Land, S.M. (2000). Strategies for motivating
higher education faculty to use technology. Innovations
in Education & Training International, 37(2), 145-153.

Copyright of TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to
Improve Learning is the property
of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may
not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.

TOJET The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to TOJET The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology.docx

Similar to TOJET The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology.docx (20)

More from aryan532920

More from aryan532920 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

TOJET The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology.docx