Topic 3 - Information Technology : Web 2.0 Technologies in Higher Education

Still Classroom Learning is boring???

Time to change...

Web 2.0 is an online communication platform that helps to share information and interact via online. Message Boards, Podcasts, Blogs, Napster, Bit-Torrent, Flickr and etc are few tools which act as a platform for online communication.

Web 2.0 works based on technologies such as JavaScript and Ajax. It came into existence surpassing Web 1.0 as it provided the users with creating, storing information and dissemination capabilities that were absent in Web 1.0.

Research Paper 1: 

Thiele, A. K., et al. (2014). "The Student-Centered Classroom of the 21st Century: Integrating Web 2.0 Applications and Other Technology to Actively Engage Students." Journal of Physical Therapy Education 28(1): 80-93 14p.

Objective:

The main objective of this research paper is to build a student-centred classroom of 21st-century style by implementing interactive web applications (Web 2.0) for enhancing student engagement in the classrooms.

The methodologies implemented to integrate the web applications with the student-centred classrooms are as follows

• Moodle Learning Management System
• Raptivity
• Camtasia Studio
• Jing
• Triptico

Methodologies:

1. Moodle Learning Management System:

A variety of Learning Management System (LMS) which is used to provide a open source web application for providing courses via the internet.

• For circulating the information, collecting documentation, meeting the notes and for holding the discussions for the departmental topics, “own classes” can be created by these departments
• For discussing the functions and sharing the function, “own classes” can be created by the campus clubs
• Prior to lectures, online quizzes can be carried out
• Instructional learning modes and web-based tutorials can be introduced

2. Raptivity:

The method of offering an interactive learning scenario between a student and an instructor.

• With the help of a software program, the instructor creates learning objects
• The instructor integrates these learning objects with the course LMS to promote class presentation and independent student reviews
• The instructor can use the LMS tracking system to monitor the students for knowing whether the interactive learning objects have been used up or not

3. Camtasia Studio:

It is a tool which helps the instructor to edit and create learning modules. It also helps to create video recordings in instructor’s voice

• Adobe Flash Player has to be installed so as to run the Camtasia Studio in a continuous manner so that rich web content is delivered with a higher impact
• Along with this application, a table of contents can be generated which helps the students to access specific areas

4. Jing:

It is a tool which enables the instructor to capture screenshots and videos.

• Images captured can be pasted into the documents and other e-mails for easy explanation of text
• Areas of importance can be highlighted or a process can be demonstrated or necessary text can be narrated with the help of recording videos

5. Triptico:

A technology that allows different tools such as timers, group selection, text analysis, image spinners and etc for class based interactions.

• “Team Scorer” option can be used game conductions inside classrooms
• “Student Selector” option can be used for answering impromptu question
• “Student Grouping” option can be used created unbiased groups to carry out discussions and projects

Research Survey:

Survey Results From “Active Use of the Web” Questions

Survey Results From “Effects of Educational Technology” Questions

Survey Results From “Digital Distraction” Questions

Research Paper 2:

Karvounidis, T., et al. (2014). "Evaluating Web 2.0 technologies in higher education using students' perceptions and performance." Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 30(6): 577-596 520p.

Objective:

To reveal the effect of specific Web 2.0 tools in higher education driven by a specific framework, the i-SERF (Integrated Self-Evaluated and Regulated Framework). Here, the i-SERF is a two layered framework. The first layer is a partnership of Web 2.0 pedagogy and content. The second layer offers self-evaluating and regulating mechanism.

Research Questions:

It investigates the following:

• What are the lead factors, derived from students' behaviour, perceptions and satisfaction that may be taken into consideration in the incorporation of a Web 2.0 learning environment in the educational process?
• How do these factors correlate to each other and also their effect on students' performance?
• How do the students' activities on the online platform impact their performance?

Pilot Implementation:

To assess the impact of particular Web 2.0 Technologies driven by the i-SERF framework on the university students'  learning process and the effectiveness of the i-SERF itself in adding value to the students' learning process, pilot implementation has been carried out within a course lifetime.

Here the i-SERF Framework has two layers, the first layer is designed to embrace the Web 2.0 tools within this scope of work which includes

• blogs
• wikis
• podcast technologies

The second layer of i-SERF framework implies behaviourist practices that observe over the Web 2.0 platform to adjust their practices both at an individual level as well as on a class level.

Pilot Implementation

Methodology:

Random sampling is sampling method followed. According to this, the participants are students of the course "Computer Networks" were randomly selected. The following steps are taken

• Splitting the audience into two groups A and B
• Group A- attends lectures in the classroom and uses all the conventional information and materials
• Group B attends ‘web-based’ lectures via Unibook where the post their ideas and proposals. They discuss, seek help from fellow classmates and download audio visual materials of lectures
• Perception and performance of both groups A and B observed and assessed in between and after the completion of course

The pilot implementation was carried out in two phases:

• First phase: lectures are performed in the classroom for both Groups A and B (chapters 1 and 2). Conducting first midterm (first test), accessing grades in this midterm indicated that both groups had similar average performance
• Second phase: Group A remained in the classroom while Group B members attended the lectures over a terminal device connected to Unibook (chapters 3 and 4). Like the first phase, conducting and accessing grades from the second midterm
• Lectures continued with Group A in the classroom and Group B over Unibook until chapters 5, 6 and 7 are completed. Similarly, examine the grades from the third term
• Examination of different viewpoints: the first viewpoint is to examine and compare performance that relates to perceptions and satisfaction for two groups
• The second viewpoint of the experiment which is the subject of this paper focuses on perceptions, satisfaction, performance and behaviour exclusively of Group B students
• This study aims for a fuller understanding of the impact of Web 2.0 technologies driven by the i-SERF framework

Correlation among platforms, factors and performance.

Platform Parameters

Observation:

Blog:

Belief or Judgement Derived from the use of Blog

Podcasting Technology:

Belief or Judgement Derived from the use of the Podcasting

Summary of Pilot Implementation result:

Summary of Parameters Captured Over the Platform during the Pilot Implementation

Research Paper 3:

Song, D. and J. Lee (2014). "Has Web 2.0 revitalized informal learning? The relationship between Web 2.0 and informal learning." Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 30(6): 511-533 523p.

Summary:

Web technology improvements had made learning an informal. Nowadays making the schools and other formal educational settings obsolete. This paper is a study to investigate the relationship between Web 2.0 levels and the evaluation of informal learning websites. The preliminary study was conducted to validate the rating processes and evaluate the feasibility of the study. Web 2.0 levels of 287 informal learning websites were rated using a 5-point Likert scale based on the various criteria identified from the literature and was reviewed by three experts. Previously examined evaluation results were also employed. The perceptions of the raters were also analyzed. The results showed positive involvement and relationship of the features of Web 2.0 with the current informal learning websites.

Research Questions:

• How have informal learning websites adopted Web 2.0 characteristics?
• What is the relationship between the levels of Web 2.0 and the evaluation of informal learning websites?
• In informal learning websites, what is the relationship between the level of Web 2.0 and the learning content?

Methodology:

• Preliminary study was conducted to validate the rating processes and evaluate the feasibility of the study
• 287 informal learning websites were selected randomly for evaluation purpose.
• Eight Criteria shown below were designed based on the literature review, to rate Web 2.0 levels of the chosen websites

Web 2.0 Evaluation Criteria Based on Literatre Review

• Similarly, Eight Criteria as shown below were designed based on the literature review, to evaluate the perceptions of the raters

Informal Learning Website Evaluation Criteria based on Literature Review

• A Professor and two doctoral students reviewed the rating scale, the validated rating scale was then used to evaluate the performance of informal learning websites
• Two doctoral students with expertise in Web technologies and Internet environments were hired to rate the websites using a 5-point Likert scale without the awareness of the informal learning
• Intra rater analysis were carried out with Cohen’s kappa reliability index
• With the awareness of the informal learning Web 2.0 level, second round of rating and intra rater analysis were conducted
• Descriptive and correlation analysis were conducted finally with Spearman’s correlation coefficient