See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/224266083

Web 2.0 education: An evaluation of a large-scale

European pilot

CONFERENCE PAPER · NOVEMBER 2011

DOI: 10.1109/NWeSP.2011.6088232 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS

5 160

11 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:

Thomas Connolly Thomas Hainey

University of the West of Scotland University of the West of Scotland
114 PUBLICATIONS 974 CITATIONS 44 PUBLICATIONS 429 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Nikolina Tsvetkova Bistra Stoimenova

Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohridski" Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohridski"
5 PUBLICATIONS 19 CITATIONS 9 PUBLICATIONS 24 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Available from: Thomas Connolly

Retrieved on: 29 October 2015
 Web 2.0 Education:
An Evaluation of a Large-scale European pilot
Thomas M Connolly, Thomas Hainey, Gavin
Baxter, Mark H Stansfield, Carole Gould
School of Computing, University of the West of
Scotland, Paisley, Scotland
{thomas.connolly, thomas.hainey, gavin.baxter,
mark.stansfield, carole.gould}@uws.ac.uk
Abstract— The Internet represents a new industrial revolution,
arguably with a more significant socio-economic impact than
the previous two industrial revolutions. The impact of the
Internet has resulted in significant changes within education
with eLearning now an accepted and commonplace form of
education. However, the online tools that are used in eLearning
tend to be first generation Web tools rather than second
generation, Web 2.0, tools. Some reasons for this are the lack
of empirical evidence supporting their use in education, the
perceived complexity of the tools and lack of training. This
paper presents the results of a large-scale European pilot into
the use of Web 2.0 tools across all educational sectors through
an innovative and simple-to-use platform that allows teachers
to customize which Web 2.0 tools they wish to use in their
courses.
Keywords - Web 2.0, education, evaluation
I. INTRODUCTION
In the past 250 years, there have been two well
documented industrial revolutions, starting with the first
industrial revolution that lasted from about 1760 until 1830
and was founded on new methods of manufacturing based on
iron and steam. These innovations stimulated new forms of
transportation such as the steamship and the railroad, as well
as the development of range of new machinery, which
together created significant socio-economic changes. The
second industrial revolution lasted from about 1875 to 1930
and was founded on inventions such as electricity, the
telephone and the internal combustion engine and
automobile, as well as new synthetics and alloys and new
applications of steel and oil. Among the many socio-
economic effects were greater mobility, a growing middle
class and the beginnings of more widespread leisure time [1].
We are now witnessing the third industrial revolution
formed by the creation and development of the Internet. As
with the earlier two revolutions, the Internet has
fundamentally changed the way people work, communicate
and spend their leisure time. Within education, we have seen
the move to online learning, or eLearning, with the
convenience and flexibility that it offers with its
(asynchronous) ‘anytime, anywhere, anyplace’ nature [2].
Nikolina Tsvetkova
Department of Philosophy
Rumyana Kusheva, Bistra Stoimenova, Rositsa
Penkova, Mirena Legurska, Neli Dimitrova
Department of Information and In-service Teacher
Training
Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”
Sofia, Bulgaria
nina.tsvetkova@gmail.com, {kushevi_r, bstoimenova,
r.penkova, legurska_mirena}@abv.bg, neli_di@gbg.bg
Since its inception, changes in Web tools have been rapid
and, as with previous revolutions, some people have adapted
to the new technologies more easily than others. While
eLearning is now an accepted and commonplace form of
education, the online tools that are used tend to be first
generation Web tools rather than the second generation, Web
2.0, tools. There are a number of reasons for this, most
notably the lack of empirical evidence supporting their use in
education, the perceived complexity of the tools and lack of
training. The Web2.0ERC European project aims to address
these issues through the development of a very simple Web
2.0 eLearning platform that teachers can use, a training
package for teachers and teacher trainers and an evaluation
of a large-scale pilot of the platform across Europe. This
paper reports on the evaluation of the pilot while Baxter et al.
[3] discuss the pedagogical aspects of using Web 2.0 tools in
education.
II. PREVIOUS RESEARCH
There are many definitions of the term Web 2.0. For
example, Grosseck [4] defines it as “the social use of the
Web which allows people to collaborate, to get actively
involved in creating content, to generate knowledge and to
share information online”. Augustsson [5] believes Web 2.0
tools are well suited for “collaborative learning, collective
knowledge building, knowledge management, social
networking and social interaction”. At the heart of many
definitions are communication, content creation and
collaboration, in which information is shared ‘many-to-
many’ rather than being transmitted from one to many.
Given these underlying elements, educationalists have been
quick to identify the potential of Web 2.0 for supporting and
enhancing learning, yet much of the discussion within the
educational community has been speculative to date, with
little empirical evidence of its effectiveness [3].
Selwyn [6] provides a taxonomy for Web 2.0
technologies based on four typically human dispositions:
expressive (media design, sharing and publication), reflective
(blogs, wikis and social networking), exploratory (social
bookmarking, syndication and folksonomies) and playful
(games and virtual worlds). According to Redecker [7] based
on current practice, there are four different innovative ways
of deploying Web 2.0 tools in education:
1. Learning & Achieving: used as methodological or
didactic tools to directly support, facilitate, enhance
and improve learning processes and outcomes. The
Web 2.0 tools are seen as a means of personalizing
learning processes and promoting the students’
individual learning progress, ultimately leading to an
empowerment of the learner.
2. Networking: used as communication tools among
students and between and among students and
teachers, supporting also the exchange of knowledge
and material, but mainly creating an environment of
understanding and assistance, thus contributing to
the establishment of social networks or communities
between and among learners and teachers.
3. Embracing Diversity: used as a means of integrating
learning into a wider community, reaching out to
meet people from other age-groups, backgrounds
and cultures, linking to experts, researchers or
practitioners in a certain field of study and thus
opening up alternative channels for gaining
knowledge and enhancing skills;
4. Opening up to Society: used as tools for making
institutional learning accessible and transparent for
all members of society, promoting the involvement
of third parties like parents, but also facilitating the
access to information.
A. Social Software and Learning 2.0
It could be argued that the concept of eLearning is being
enhanced by the rapid development of ‘social software’, a
subset of Web 2.0 tools. McKelvie, Dotsika and Patrick [8]
state that “social software is a community driven technology
which facilitates interaction and collaboration and depends
largely on social convention”. Though social software can be
used on an individual basis it is predominately concerned
with the notions of open and collective communication,
dialogue and the ability to liaise with individuals
collectively. The use of social software allows the learners to
generate knowledge and share their learning experiences on a
collective level as well as allowing users to openly reflect
upon what they have learnt. eLearning distinguishes itself
from social software as it is predominately associated with
electronic instruction and is better suited for education and
training purposes. Web 2.0 is transforming the way in which
people learn as the learning is predominately social and self-
directed in nature whereas eLearning is normally associated
with individual learning. The use of social software and Web
2.0 technologies have given rise to the term ‘Learning 2.0’,
which broadly summarizes all opportunities arising from the
use of social media for learning, education or training.
B. The Pedagogy of Learning 2.0
The interactive and collaborative nature of social
software makes it highly suited for sustaining and facilitating
what are known as communities of practice (CoPs) or
“groups of people informally bound together by shared
expertise and passion for a joint enterprise” [9: 139]. In
conjunction with the concept of CoPs, the learning theory of
social constructivism complements and accommodates the
principles surrounding the use and learning benefits
associated with Learning 2.0. The constructivist view of
learning adopts the stance that learners do not learn
individually from one another and stresses the relevance of
the socio-cultural context of learning. Predominately, social
constructivism contends that knowledge is formulated
through social interaction and collaborative learning. Social
software is inherently applicable to social constructivism and
CoPs, as one of the salient aspects of any CoP is its ability to
construct and store collective knowledge in what has been
referred to as a ‘shared repertoire of communal resources’
[10]. Additionally, CoPs are most usually distinctly defined
by the concepts of collective understanding, mutual
engagement and shared repertoire [10].
In addition to constructivism, the concept of social
software can support a wide range of other learning
approaches. For example, Crook et al. [11] believe that Web
2.0 also supports behaviourism, cognitivism and socio-
cultural learning frameworks:
• Behaviourism focuses on associations between
actions and stimuli that affect subsequent actions
(eg. a teacher providing guidance and
encouragement that then shapes a learner's actions)
[12]. Whilst behaviourism no longer dominates
educational thinking, some Web 2.0 exchanges are
suited to rich social learning interactions or
intersubjective dialogues.
• Cognitivism views learning as an internal process
that involves memory, thinking, reflection,
abstraction, motivation, and meta-cognition [13].
Web 2.0 tools such as blogs and ePortfolios support
cognitivist approaches to learning.
• Socio-cultural theories provide a context-based
communicative perspective on teaching and
learning. Learning is culturally influenced and a
social rather than an individual process. Vygotsky
believed that “human learning presupposes a
specific social nature and a process by which
children grow into the intellectual life of those
around them” [14: 89]. Language plays a vital role
in enabling the learner to participate, interact with
others and solve problems, and is therefore essential
to learning. These theories involve externalising
thinking through creative activities such as writing,
again in social contexts possibly scaffolded by the
teacher. In fact, Paavola, Lipponen and Hakkarainen
[15] state that most of the CSCL literature relies on
the socio-cultural theory of learning.
C. Towards an Education 2.0
Selwyn, Crook, Noss and Laurillard [16] argue that it is
incumbent upon educationalists to find ways to reduce the
gap between informal practices and formal procedures, and
encourage more imaginative and empowering uses of Web
2.0 by learners and teachers. Suggestions include:
 • Re-imagining pedagogy and practice: Pedagogy and
educational practice should be realigned with the
spirit of Web 2.0, namely, a sense of play,
expression, reflection and exploration, and
importantly, creating rather than only consuming
content. This will entail (i) re-configuring the role of
the teacher into a more facilitating role to support
leaner autonomy and collaborative learning; (ii) re-
configuring the role of education institutions to
support the new forms of learning associated with
Web 2.0 use, becoming sites of exploration rather
than restriction; (iii) re-configuring forms of
assessment around decision-making, adaptability and
cooperation and validation of informal learning; (iv)
re-configuring the curriculum, particularly to take
advantage of the constructionist potential of Web 2.0
(eg. learner-led curricula) and to encourage the
learner creation of knowledge, creativity and
exploration.
• Re-imagining Web 2.0 technologies: Education has
its own specific needs and requirements and rather
than re-purpose the current set of Web2.0 leisure
tools, new Web 2.0-based educational technologies
should be developed that support learning through
inquiry, discussion, production and practice.
Consideration could be given to use of open source
technology, which can interact with the development
of Web 2.0.
III. METHODOLOGY
The methodology used in this research is quasi-
experimental as a control group was not possible. Students
were asked to complete an online pre-test questionnaire prior
to using the Web2.0ERC platform. The pre-test
questionnaire was designed to collect: basic demographic
information (gender, age, level of education, number of years
using Internet in their personal life and at school/university),
experience of using Web 2.0 tools, and expectations for the
pilot course. Participants then used the Web2.0ERC platform
using the course designed by their teacher and supported by
their teacher. The period of use was from typically 2-8
weeks. Students were then asked to complete an online post-
test questionnaire, designed to collect: their experiences of
using the Web 2.0 tools and their views of the pilot course
and the Web2.0ERC platform. The two questionnaires were
coded and transferred into SPSS version 18 for detailed
analysis. Over 1,000 students used the platform between
December 2010 and July 2011 of whom 710 students
completed the pre-test survey and 626 completed the post-
test survey. The purpose of the study was to obtain empirical
evidence on the use of Web 2.0 tools and specifically answer
the following research questions:
1. What do students understand as Web 2.0 tools?
2. What tools are students most proficient at using and
does the Web 2.0 ERC platform increase proficiency
in specific Web 2.0 tools?
3. What tools do students consider to be most useful for
education?
4. Are there differences in the proficiency and perceived
usefulness of these tools between teachers and
students?
IV. RESULTS
710 students completed the pre-test questionnaire. 385
(54.2%) were female and 325 (45.8%) were male. The mean
age of participants was 21.18 years (SD=6.29) with a range
of 11 to 88. A Mann-Whitney U test indicated that there was
no significant difference in age in relation to gender (Z=-
1.014, p<0.311). The majority of participants (475, 67%)
indicated that they were in Further/Higher Education, 87
participants (12%) in Adult Education, 74 (10%) in upper
secondary education, 51 participants (7%) in lower
secondary education, 23 (3%) in primary education. To
calculate the mean amount of time that students had been
using the Internet in their personal lives and at
school/university, the time bands used as responses were
recoded with their mean value (i.e. 1-5 years was recoded as
3, 6-10 was recoded as 8, 11-15 was recoded as 13, and 16-
20 was recoded as 18). Using the recoded data the mean time
students spent using the Internet in their personal lives was
8.25 years (SD=4.04) with a range of 3 to 18. The mean
using the Internet at school/university was 6.14 years (SD
3.83) with a range of 3 to 18. A Wilcoxon match pairs signed
ranks test indicated that students had used the Internet for
significantly longer in their personal lives than at
school/university (Z=-13.741, p<0.000). 648 participants
(91.2%) indicated that they enjoy learning with ICT with
many seeing it as a key tool for learning.
The students were asked what particular Web 2.0 tools
they would like to use in class, the results were as follows:
451 (64%) selected YouTube, 393 (55%) selected Wikis,
352 (50%) selected Blogs, 346 (49%) selected Facebook,
274 (39%) selected GoogleDocs, 158 (22%) selected Online
collaborative games, 116 (16%) selected Social
bookmarking, 108 (15%) selected Twitter, 103 (14%)
selected ePortfolios, 97 (13%) selected Podcasts and 70
(10%) selected Flickr. Students were asked what they
understood by the term Web 2.0 and were given 5 responses,
from which they could select one or more answers. The
results are shown in Fig. 1. 345 students selected option 1,
280 selected 2, 363 selected 3, 365 selected 4 and 289
selected 5; however, only 34% chose 3 and 4 and 5, which
would suggest the majority do not fully understand the term.
Participants were asked to rate their proficiency at using
different Web 2.0 tools on a Likert scale where 5 represented
‘very good’, 4 represented ‘good’, 3 represented ‘neutral’, 2
represented ‘poor’ and 1 represented ‘very poor’. The results
are shown in Table I. The participants indicated that they
were most proficient at using in order YouTube, Facebook
and GoogleDocs. Flickr, Podcast and ePortfolios were the
tools that participants felt they were least proficient at using.
Mann-Whitney U tests indicated that there were significant
differences between gender and student proficiency for
Facebook (Z=-6.331, p<0.000) with females having a higher
level of proficiency. Males had a higher level of proficiency
for Flickr (Z=-2.445, p<0.014), Podcast (Z=-3.338,
 p<0.001), ePortfolios (Z=-2.003, p<0.045) and Online extent’, 3 ‘neutral’, 4 ‘useful to a large’ extent and 5 was
collaborative games (Z=-4.214, p<0.000). ‘completely useful’. The results are shown in Table III.
Participants were also asked about where they used the
different Web 2.0 tools and could specify: at home, at TABLE II. WHERE PARTICIPANTS USED WEB 2.0 TOOLS
school/university/in the office or both. Table II shows the Web 2.0 Technology Home School/ Both
results. University/
Office
Blogs 236 (33%) 154 (22%) 140 (20%)
Wikis 142 (20%) 170 (24%) 262 (37%)
YouTube 295 (42%) 27 (4%) 205 (29%)
Flickr 138 (19%) 64 (9%) 29 (4%)
Facebook 256 (36%) 30 (4%) 220 (31%)
GoogleDocs 123 (17%) 122 (17%) 233 (33%)
Twitter 187 (26%) 36 (5%) 53 (7%)
Podcast 143 (20%) 61 (8%) 38 (5%)
ePortfolios 94 (13%) 106 (15%) 43 (6%)
Social bookmarking 127 (18%) 86 (12%) 36 (5%)
Online collaborative 230 (32%) 30 (4%) 51 (7%)
games

TABLE III. PARTICIPANT’S RATINGS OF THE USEFULNESS OF THE

TOOLS EXPERIENCED

Web 2.0 Technology Rating Mean SD

Blogs 1st 3.45 1.30
1. A modern form of Internet tools YouTube 2nd 3.40 1.43
2. Internet tools that allow people to search for information more efficiently
Wikis 3rd 3.36 1.38
3. Internet tools that allow people to create content
4. Internet tools that allow people to share content Facebook 4th 2.99 1.53
5. Internet tools that allow people to communicate GoogleDocs 5th 2.75 1.41
Social bookmarking 6th 2.50 1.29
Figure 1. Students understanding of the term Web 2.0 Online collaborative games 7th 2.43 1.39
ePortfolios 8th 2.25 1.26
TABLE I. PARTICIPANT’S RATINGS OF THEIR PROFICIENCY USING Podcast 9th 2.21 1.26
WEB 2.0 TOOLS Twitter 10th 2.07 1.26
Web 2.0 Technology Rating Mean SD Flickr 11th 2.04 1.21
YouTube 1st 4.20 0.97
Facebook 2nd 4.13 1.14 Blogs, YouTube, Wikis and Facebook were rated as the
GoogleDocs 3rd 3.40 1.21 most useful tools and ePortfolios, Podcast and Twitter were
Wikis 4th 3.38 1.15 rated as the least useful tools. Mann-Whitney U tests
Blogs 5th 3.10 1.20 indicated that females believed that Blogs were significantly
Online collaborative games 6th 3.07 1.32 more useful than males (Z=-6.767, p<0.000). Females also
Social bookmarking 7th 2.71 1.19 indicated that they considered Facebook to be significantly
Twitter 8th 2.65 1.28 more useful than males (Z=-3.390, p<0.001). There were no
ePortfolios 9th 2.51 1.15 significant differences associated with any of the other Web
Podcast 10th 2.47 1.15 2.0 tools.
Flickr 11th 2.44 1.15
Participants were asked to rate their proficiency at using
A. Student Post-Test Questionnaire Results the different Web 2.0 tools on a Likert scale after they
experienced the activities on the Web2.0ERC platform,
626 participants completed the post-test questionnaire.
where 5 represented ‘very good’, 4 represented ‘good’, 3
The participants were again asked what they would consider
represented ‘neutral’, 2 ‘poor’ and 1 ‘very poor’. The results
the definition of Web 2.0 to be after the completion of the
are shown in Table IV and indicate that the respondents still
course. A Wilcoxon matched pairs signed ranks test
felt most proficient using YouTube, however, Facebook had
indicated that there was no significant difference in views of
dropped to fourth in the ratings. Participants still rated the
what Web 2.0 tools were between the pre and post-tests (Z=-
following tools as the technologies that they were least
1.840, p<0.066). In terms of answering research question 1,
proficient at using: ePortfolios, Podcast and Flickr. Mann-
the majority of participants viewed Web 2.0 tools as: a
Whitney U tests indicated that females rated themselves as
modern form of Internet tools to communicate, create and
significantly more proficient at using Blogs than males (Z=-
share content and search for information more efficiently.
3.339, p<0.001). Females also rated themselves significantly
Participants were asked to rate the usefulness of the tools of
more proficient at using YouTube (Z=-2.258, p<0.024) and
the Web2.0ERC platform on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1
Facebook (Z=-4.140, p<0.000). Males rated themselves as
represented ‘definitely not useful’, 2 ‘useful to a small
significantly more proficient at using Online collaborative
games (Z=-2.511, p<0.012). There were no significant The participants were asked to evaluate their experience
difference between males and females with regards to any of of the Web 2.0 tools used in the Web2.0ERC platform in
the other Web 2.0 tools. In terms of answering research terms of usability, learning effectiveness and whether they
question 2, participants were most proficient at using the enjoyed it. Generally the results indicate that that none of the
following Web 2.0 tools: YouTube, Blogs, Wikis, Facebook Web 2.0 tools seem particularly difficult to use. YouTube,
and GoogleDocs and least proficient at using Flickr and Facebook, Blogs and Wikis seem to be rated more ‘very
Podcasts. This result is consistent in the pre and post-tests. easy’ to use where the rest of the Web 2.0 tools seem to be
Participants were also asked to rate how often they would neither easy nor difficult to use. The Web 2.0 tool with the
like to use the Web 2.0 tools for educational purposes on a highest rating of ‘very difficult’ was Flickr. In terms of
scale of 1 to 5, 5 being ‘every day’, 4 being ‘most days’, 3 learning effectiveness, the results suggest that the most
being ‘sometimes’, 2 being ‘almost never’ and 1 being effective Web 2.0 tools for learning were: Blogs, Wikis,
‘never’. The results are shown in Table V. In terms of YouTube, GoogleDocs and Facebook. The preliminary
answering research question 3, YouTube, Facebook, Wikis results suggest that the most ineffective Web 2.0 tool for
and Blogs were rated as the most popular Web 2.0 tools that learning was Flickr. In terms of enjoyableness, the results
participants would like to see used for educational purposes. suggest that YouTube, Facebook, Blogs and Wikis were the
Podcast, Twitter and Flickr were the least popular tools. most enjoyable Web 2.0 tools. The results show that Flickr,
Mann-Whitney U tests indicated that females would like to Twitter, Podcasts, ePortfolios and Social bookmarking were
use the following Web 2.0 tools significantly more than less enjoyable.
males: Blogs (Z=-6.116, p<0.000), YouTube (Z=-2.281, Participants were also asked what aspects they liked and
p<0.023), Flickr (Z=-3.644, p<0.000), Facebook (Z=-4.200, disliked most about the platform in terms of usability/ease of
p<0.000), GoogleDocs (Z=-2.577, p<0.010), Twitter (Z=- navigation, graphics and layout and also content. In terms of
2.702, p<0.007), Podcast (-3.565, p<0.000), ePortfolios (Z=- what participants liked about the platform, the highest rated
4.140, p<0.000) and Social bookmarking (Z=-2.539, attribute was usability and ease of navigation. Content was
p<0.011). There were no significant gender differences with rated the second highest attribute that participants liked about
regards to Wikis (Z=-0.275, p<0.783) and Online the platform and graphics and layout were rated the lowest
collaborative games (Z=-0.371, p<0.711). The results attributes. This results are consistent with what participants
suggest that females may be more receptive to the use of disliked about the platform as the highest rated attribute was
Web 2.0 technologies for educational purposes as they were graphics and layout, content was the second highest rated
more significantly favourable to nine of the tools. and usability and ease of navigation were the lowest rated
attributes. The results indicate that the largest area of
TABLE IV. PARTICIPANT’S RATINGS OF THEIR PROFICIENCY USING improvement for the platform is graphics and layout.
WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN THE POST-TEST
B. Proficiency Comparison of Using Web 2.0 Tools
Web 2.0 Technology Rating Mean SD
YouTube 1st 3.92 1.16 422 participants completed both the pre-test and the post-
Blogs 2nd 3.72 1.10 test. This means that the data can be analysed as a dependent
Wikis 3rd 3.58 1.23 group. A Wilcoxon match pairs signed ranks test indicated
Facebook 4th 3.59 1.47 that there was a significant increase in proficiency with
GoogleDocs 5th 2.96 1.40 regards to the following Web 2.0 tools: Blogs (Z=-8.291,
Social bookmarking 6th 2.61 1.34 p<0.000) and Wikis (Z=-4.230, p<0.000). There was a
Online collaborative games 7th 2.60 1.43 significant decrease in proficiency with regards to: YouTube
Twitter 8th 2.41 1.40 (Z=-3.835, p<0.000), Facebook (Z=-7.876, p<0.000),
ePortfolios 9th 2.36 1.30 GoogleDocs (Z=-4.798, p<0.000), Twitter (Z=-2.640, p
Podcast 10th 2.35 1.33 <0.008), Podcast (Z=-2.973, 0.003), ePortfolios (Z=-2.951,
Flickr 11th 2.33 1.32
p<0.003) and Online collaborative games (Z=-5.706,
p<0.000). There were no significant differences in
TABLE V. PARTICIPANT’S RATINGS OF HOW OFTEN THEY WOULD
LIKE TO USE WEB 2.0 TOOLS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES proficiency with regards to Flickr (Z=-1.417, p<0.157) and
Social Bookmarking (Z=-1.490, p<0.136). This result
Web 2.0 Technology Rating Mean SD possibly indicates that the Web2.0ERC platform is more
YouTube 1st 3.59 1.13 suited to increasing proficiency with regards to Blogs and
Facebook 2nd 3.32 1.33
Wikis. As proficiency decreased in seven of the Web 2.0
Wikis 3rd 3.25 1.06
tools this may indicate that the initial ratings that students
Blogs 4th 3.18 1.01
GoogleDocs 5th 3.01 1.22
assigned themselves in the pre-test may have been an
Online collaborative games 6th 2.61 1.23
overestimation or the Web2.0ERC platform may have
Social bookmarking 7th 2.52 1.15 provided a mechanism to show that they did not know as
ePortfolios 8th 2.42 1.13 much about these tools as they initially anticipated. With
Podcast 9th 2.32 1.17 respect to research question 2, the platform seems well suited
Twitter 10th 2.31 1.20 to increasing proficiency in Blogs and Wikis.
Flickr 11th 2.25 1.07 288 participants completed the pre-test who had not
completed the post-test and 204 participants completed the
post-test who had not completed the pre-test. These groups
can be analysed as independent groups in terms of
proficiency. Mann-Whitney U tests indicated that
participants in the post-test were significantly more
proficient at using Blogs (Z=-6.109, p<0.000), possibly
suggesting that the Web2.0ERC platform is well suited to
improving proficiency of using Blogs. Participants in the
pre-test were significantly more proficient at using YouTube
(Z=-3.677, p<0.000), Facebook (Z=-4.490, p<0.000),
GoogleDocs (Z=-4.792, p<0.000), Twitter (Z=-2.807,
p<0.005) and Online collaborative games (Z=-4.351,
p<0.000).
C. Comparison between Teachers and Students
227 teachers also completed a pre-test questionnaire with
similar questions to the students. Students rated their
proficiency significantly higher than teachers in the use of
every Web 2.0 tool. In terms of the amount of time spent
using different Web 2.0 tools, Mann-Whitney U tests
indicated that teachers used Blogs (Z=-3.311, p<0.001) and
Social bookmarking (Z=-6.058, p<0.000) for significantly
longer than students. Mann-Whitney U tests also showed that
students use Online collaborative games for significantly
more time than teachers (Z=-3.310, p<0.001). In terms of
usefulness, teachers rated all of the Web 2.0 tools
significantly more useful than students. In terms of
answering research question 4, students rated their
proficiency as higher than teachers in relation to every Web
2.0 tool and teachers found all Web 2.0 significantly more
useful than students.
V. CONCULSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
The aim of this paper was to evaluate the results from a
quasi-experiment on the use of a novel Web 2.0 platform by
students. The platform was used by over 1,000 students of
whom 710 completed the pre-test and 626 completed the
post-test, in addition to 227 teachers who completed a pre-
test survey. The results indicate that the students generally
enjoyed the use of the platform and they found the Web 2.0
tools easy to use.
With regards research question 1, the majority of students
viewed Web 2.0 as modern forms of Internet tools to
communicate, create and share content and search for
information more efficiently. The Web 2.0ERC platform did
not significantly alter student perceptions of this. With
regards research question 2, students believed that they were
most proficient at using YouTube, Blogs, Wikis, Facebook
and GoogleDocs and least proficient at using Flickr and
Podcasts. The students believed their proficiency in the use
of Blogs and Wikis increased through the use of the
platform. In terms of research question 3, YouTube,
Facebook, Wikis and Blogs were rated as the most popular
Web 2.0 tools that students would like to see used for
educational purposes and Podcast, Twitter and Flickr were
the least popular tools. Finally with regards research question
4, as might have been expected, students rated their
proficiency in the use of Web 2.0 tools significantly higher
than teachers who used the same platform. Teachers also
viewed every tool as significantly more useful than students.
The pilot of the platform has been successful and the
project aims to roll out the platform more widely in 2012.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work is supported by the EU Lifelong Learning
Programme under contract 504839-LLP-1-2009-1-UK-KA3-
KA3MP.
REFERENCES
[1] B.L. Smith, “The third industrial revolution: policymaking for the
Internet”. Columbia Science & Technology Law Review, vol 3, no. 1,
2001.
[2] T.M. Connolly, E. MacArthur, M.H. Stansfield and E. McLellan, "A
quasi-experimental study of three online learning courses in
computing", Computers & Education", vol. 49, iss. 2, 2007, pp. 345-
359, doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.09.001
[3] G.J. Baxter, T.M. Connolly, M.H. Stansfield, C. Gould, C., N.
Tsvetkova, R. Kusheva, B. Stoimenova, R. Penkova, M. Legurska
and N. Dimitrova, “Understanding the pedagogy Web 2.0 Supports:
The presentation of a Web 2.0 pegagogical model”, Proceedings of
International Conference on European Transnational Education, 20-
21 October 2011, Salamanca Spain.
[4] G. Grosseck, “To use or not to use web 2.0 in higher education?”,
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 1, iss. 1, 2009, pp.
478-482, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.087
[5] G. Augustsson, “Web 2.0, pedagogical support for reflexive and
emotional social interaction among Swedish students”. The Internet
and Higher Education, vol. 3, iss. 4, 2010, pp. 197-205, doi:
10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.05.005
[6] N. Selwyn, “Education 2.0? Designing the web for teaching and
learning, Commentary”, London Knowledge Lab, University of
London, 2008,
[7] C. Redecker, “Review of Learning 2.0 Practices: Study on the impact
of web 2.0 innovations on education and training in Europe”, 2008
[Online] available at http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC49108.pdf
[Retrieved on 27/05/11].
[8] G. McKelvie, F. Dotsika and K. Patrick, “Interactive business
development, capturing business knowledge and practice: A case
study”, The Learning Organization, vol. 14, iss. 5, 2007, pp. 407-422,
10.1108/09696470710762637
[9] E.C. Wenger and W.M. Snyder, “Communities of practice: The
organizational frontier”, Harvard Business Review, vol. 78, no. 1,
2000, pp. 139-145.
[10] E.C. Wenger, “Communities of practice and social learning systems”,
Organization, vol. 7, no. 2, 2000, pp. 225-246, doi:
10.1177/135050840072002
[11] Crook, C. et al., “Web 2.0 technologies for learning: The current
landscape - opportunities, challenges, and tensions”, Learning
Sciences Research Institute, University of Nottingham, 2008.
[12] T.L. Good and J.E. Brophy, “Educational psychology: A realistic
approach”, 4th ed.White Plains, NY: Longman, 1990.
[13] F.I.M. Craik and E. Tulving, “Depth of processing and the retention
of words in episodic memory”, Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, vol. 104, 1975, pp. 268-294.
[14] L.S. Vygotsky, “Mind in Society”, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge MA., 1978.
[15] S. Paavola, L. Lipponen and K. Hakkarainen, “Epistemological
foundations for CSCL: a comparison of three models of innovative
knowledge communities”, Proc. of the Computer-supported
Collaborative Learning Conference, 2002, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum,
pp.24–32.
[16] N. Selwyn, C. Crook, R. Noss and D. Laurillard, “Education 2.0?
Towards an educational Web 2.0”, In Selwyn “Education 2.0?
Designing the web for teaching and learning, Commentary”, 2008,
London Knowledge Lab, University of London.