You are on page 1of 7

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

as well as new synthetics and alloys and new many’ rather than being transmitted from one to many. bstoimenova.0 tools they wish to use in their package for teachers and teacher trainers and an evaluation courses. According to Redecker [7] based . thomas. Among the many socio. a training to customize which Web 2. r. neli_di@gbg.penkova. with formed by the creation and development of the Internet. This paper reports on the evaluation of the pilot while Baxter et al. the online tools that are used in eLearning generation Web tools rather than the second generation.0 for supporting and class and the beginnings of more widespread leisure time [1].0 tools across all educational sectors through these issues through the development of a very simple Web an innovative and simple-to-use platform that allows teachers 2. Bulgaria nina. Carole Gould Department of Philosophy School of Computing. applications of steel and oil. This training. Keywords . The knowledge building. of a large-scale pilot of the platform across Europe. social second industrial revolution lasted from about 1875 to 1930 networking and social interaction”.0 fundamentally changed the way people work.0 eLearning platform that teachers can use. Augustsson [5] believes Web 2.Web 2. Web 2. Since its inception. I. collective together created significant socio-economic changes. Neli Dimitrova {thomas. the definitions are communication. PREVIOUS RESEARCH In the past 250 years.0 tools in education. gavin. education. content creation and telephone and the internal combustion engine and collaboration. {kushevi_r. starting with the first There are many definitions of the term Web 2.0.gould}@uws. reflective the move to online learning.bg Abstract— The Internet represents a new industrial revolution. communicate technologies based on four typically human dispositions: and spend their leisure time. or eLearning. the Internet has Selwyn [6] provides a taxonomy for Web 2. the education. As little empirical evidence of its effectiveness [3]. Given these underlying elements. However. to generate knowledge and to transportation such as the steamship and the railroad. we have seen expressive (media design. The impact of the to the new technologies more easily than others. the perceived complexity of the tools and lack of perceived complexity of the tools and lack of training. tools. there have been two well documented industrial revolutions. Department of Information and In-service Teacher mark. sharing and publication). Scotland Penkova. anywhere. most generation. (games and virtual worlds).hainey. evaluation [3] discuss the pedagogical aspects of using Web 2. Within education. Kliment Ohridski” Sofia. with the earlier two revolutions. Bistra Stoimenova. changes in Web tools have been rapid arguably with a more significant socio-economic impact than and. Web tend to be first generation Web tools rather than second 2. At the heart of many and was founded on inventions such as electricity. Thomas Hainey. syndication and folksonomies) and playful (asynchronous) ‘anytime.baxter.ac.0 as the development of range of new machinery.bg. a growing middle quick to identify the potential of Web 2. knowledge management. enhancing learning. University of the West of Rumyana Kusheva. These innovations stimulated new forms of involved in creating content. yet much of the discussion within the We are now witnessing the third industrial revolution educational community has been speculative to date.tsvetkova@gmail. Mark H Stansfield. wikis and social networking). with the (blogs. There are a number of reasons for this. legurska_mirena}@abv. to get actively iron and steam.0 Education: An Evaluation of a Large-scale European pilot Thomas M Connolly.uk Training Sofia University “St.connolly. The Web2.0.stansfield. Mirena Legurska. Gavin Nikolina Tsvetkova Baxter. For industrial revolution that lasted from about 1760 until 1830 example. exploratory (social convenience and flexibility that it offers with its bookmarking.com. Paisley. the online tools that are used tend to be first education.0. educationalists have been economic effects were greater mobility. While Internet has resulted in significant changes within education eLearning is now an accepted and commonplace form of with eLearning now an accepted and commonplace form of education. Web 2. some people have adapted the previous two industrial revolutions. Some reasons for this are the lack notably the lack of empirical evidence supporting their use in of empirical evidence supporting their use in education. in which information is shared ‘many-to- automobile. tools. as well share information online”. Rositsa Scotland. as with previous revolutions. INTRODUCTION II.0. which tools are well suited for “collaborative learning. anyplace’ nature [2]. Grosseck [4] defines it as “the social use of the and was founded on new methods of manufacturing based on Web which allows people to collaborate. carole.0ERC European project aims to address paper presents the results of a large-scale European pilot into the use of Web 2.

A. C.0’. The constructivist view of didactic tools to directly support. The use of social software and Web [15] state that most of the CSCL literature relies on 2. CoPs are most usually distinctly defined understanding and assistance. backgrounds 2. Language plays a vital role upon what they have learnt. Whilst behaviourism no longer dominates of third parties like parents.0 Selwyn. In . Web 2. the concept of social 3. but mainly creating an environment of [10].0 by learners and teachers. and software makes it highly suited for sustaining and facilitating encourage more imaginative and empowering uses of Web what are known as communities of practice (CoPs) or 2.0 tools are seen as a means of personalizing the socio-cultural context of learning. subset of Web 2. which facilitates interaction and collaboration and depends • Socio-cultural theories provide a context-based largely on social convention”. the socio-cultural theory of learning. motivation. interact with from social software as it is predominately associated with others and solve problems. These theories involve externalising training purposes. Social Software and Learning 2. Social empowerment of the learner. Crook. a teacher providing guidance and institutional learning accessible and transparent for encouragement that then shapes a learner's actions) all members of society. Though social software can be communicative perspective on teaching and used on an individual basis it is predominately concerned learning. social rather than an individual process. Vygotsky dialogue and the ability to liaise with individuals believed that “human learning presupposes a collectively. McKelvie. supporting also the exchange of knowledge referred to as a ‘shared repertoire of communal resources’ and material. the learning theory of of deploying Web 2.0 B.0 exchanges are access to information. Towards an Education 2. linking to experts. Suggestions include: “groups of people informally bound together by shared expertise and passion for a joint enterprise” [9: 139]. and is therefore essential electronic instruction and is better suited for education and to learning. enhance learning adopts the stance that learners do not learn and improve learning processes and outcomes. software is inherently applicable to social constructivism and 2. Learning & Achieving: used as methodological or associated with Learning 2.0 tools. there are four different innovative ways conjunction with the concept of CoPs. facilitate. Paavola. thinking. Learning is culturally influenced and a with the notions of open and collective communication.0 also supports behaviourism. Dotsika and Patrick [8] Web 2. Networking: used as communication tools among CoPs. actions and stimuli that affect subsequent actions 4. researchers or cultural learning frameworks: practitioners in a certain field of study and thus opening up alternative channels for gaining • Behaviourism focuses on associations between knowledge and enhancing skills. Embracing Diversity: used as a means of integrating software can support a wide range of other learning learning into a wider community. reaching out to approaches.0 technologies have given rise to the term ‘Learning 2. promoting the involvement [12]. Additionally. but also facilitating the educational thinking. enhanced by the rapid development of ‘social software’. and meta-cognition [13].on current practice.0 is transforming the way in which thinking through creative activities such as writing. The Pedagogy of Learning 2.0 • Cognitivism views learning as an internal process It could be argued that the concept of eLearning is being that involves memory.0 tools in education: social constructivism complements and accommodates the principles surrounding the use and learning benefits 1. between and among learners and teachers. For example. education or training. The use of social software allows the learners to specific social nature and a process by which generate knowledge and share their learning experiences on a children grow into the intellectual life of those collective level as well as allowing users to openly reflect around them” [14: 89]. as one of the salient aspects of any CoP is its ability to students and between and among students and construct and store collective knowledge in what has been teachers. which broadly summarizes all opportunities arising from the use of social media for learning. [11] believe that Web meet people from other age-groups. people learn as the learning is predominately social and self.0. social learning processes and promoting the students’ constructivism contends that knowledge is formulated individual learning progress. In fact. Predominately. a abstraction. again in social contexts possibly scaffolded by the directed in nature whereas eLearning is normally associated teacher. mutual the establishment of social networks or communities engagement and shared repertoire [10]. Opening up to Society: used as tools for making (eg. Noss and Laurillard [16] argue that it is incumbent upon educationalists to find ways to reduce the The interactive and collaborative nature of social gap between informal practices and formal procedures. reflection. thus contributing to by the concepts of collective understanding. some Web 2. eLearning distinguishes itself in enabling the learner to participate. cognitivism and socio- and cultures. In addition to constructivism. Crook et al. The individually from one another and stresses the relevance of Web 2. Lipponen and Hakkarainen with individual learning.0 tools such as blogs and ePortfolios support state that “social software is a community driven technology cognitivist approaches to learning. ultimately leading to an through social interaction and collaborative learning. suited to rich social learning interactions or intersubjective dialogues.

The period of use was from typically 2-8 from which they could select one or more answers. particularly to take secondary education. 51 participants (7%) in lower re-configuring the curriculum.83) with a range of 3 to 18. 11-15 was recoded as 13.0 tools? Mann-Whitney U tests indicated that there were significant 2. 116 (16%) selected Social using Internet in their personal life and at school/university). which and the Web2.e. 108 (15%) selected Twitter. 2 completed the pre-test survey and 626 completed the post.0 calculate the mean amount of time that students had been (eg.29) with a range configuring the role of education institutions to of 11 to 88. 3 represented ‘neutral’.0 ERC platform increase proficiency Facebook (Z=-6. The results test survey. age of participants was 21. their teacher. 385 the teacher into a more facilitating role to support (54. discussion. The majority of participants (475. (iv) secondary education. METHODOLOGY many seeing it as a key tool for learning.0 tools? level of proficiency. only 34% chose 3 and 4 and 5. The two questionnaires were would suggest the majority do not fully understand the term. becoming sites of exploration rather 1. Participants then used the Web2.338. Males had a higher level of proficiency 3.014. however. Flickr. number of years collaborative games. 23 (3%) in primary education.0 leisure students spent using the Internet in their personal lives was tools. 3. and importantly. Facebook the following research questions: and GoogleDocs. p<0. bookmarking.14 years (SD inquiry.331. coded and transferred into SPSS version 18 for detailed Participants were asked to rate their proficiency at using analysis. What do students understand as Web 2. p<0.0ERC platform (10%) selected Flickr. 158 (22%) selected Online information (gender. 363 selected 3. 648 participants (91.0 technologies: Education has 3. (ii) re. The weeks. What tools are students most proficient at using and differences between gender and student proficiency for does the Web 2.0ERC platform. 1. A Wilcoxon match pairs signed Consideration could be given to use of open source ranks test indicated that students had used the Internet for technology. the time bands used as responses were exploration. The mean should be developed that support learning through using the Internet at school/university was 6. and expectations for the selected ePortfolios. the results were as follows: were asked to complete an online pre-test questionnaire prior 451 (64%) selected YouTube. students? expression.8%) were male.000 students used the platform between different Web 2.0 tools experimental as a control group was not possible. which can interact with the development significantly longer in their personal lives than at of Web 2. age. 6-10 was recoded as 8.0 tools and their views of the pilot course selected 5. Podcast (Z=-3. new Web 2. adaptability and participants (12%) in Adult Education.2%) indicated that they enjoy learning with ICT with III. creating rather than only consuming IV.000) with females having a higher in specific Web 2.2%) were female and 325 (45. What tools do students consider to be most useful for for Flickr (Z=-2. Are there differences in the proficiency and perceived educational practice should be realigned with the usefulness of these tools between teachers and spirit of Web 2. production and practice.0 tools on a Likert scale where 5 represented December 2010 and July 2011 of whom 710 students ‘very good’.0ERC platform.0. The methodology used in this research is quasi. recoded with their mean value (i.0-based educational technologies 8.741. Using the recoded data the mean time than re-purpose the current set of Web2.0 tools.311). designed to collect: their experiences of 280 selected 2. 103 (14%) experience of using Web 2. To advantage of the constructionist potential of Web 2. questionnaire was designed to collect: basic demographic 274 (39%) selected GoogleDocs. The pre-test 352 (50%) selected Blogs. Students were asked what they using the course designed by their teacher and supported by understood by the term Web 2. school/university (Z=-13.04) with a range of 3 to 18.0 and were given 5 responses. 345 students selected option 1.0. 365 selected 4 and 289 using the Web 2. test questionnaire. learner-led curricula) and to encourage the using the Internet in their personal lives and at learner creation of knowledge. The mean leaner autonomy and collaborative learning. 97 (13%) selected Podcasts and 70 pilot course. 1-5 years was recoded as • Re-imagining Web 2.445. The purpose of the study was to obtain empirical are shown in Table I. 393 (55%) selected Wikis. Over 1. RESULTS content. and 16- its own specific needs and requirements and rather 20 was recoded as 18).0 tools and specifically answer were most proficient at using in order YouTube. 74 (10%) in upper cooperation and validation of informal learning.25 years (SD=4. Students they would like to use in class. p<0. 346 (49%) selected Facebook.000). • Re-imagining pedagogy and practice: Pedagogy and 4. Podcast and ePortfolios were the tools that participants felt they were least proficient at using. This will entail (i) re-configuring the role of 710 students completed the pre-test questionnaire. A Mann-Whitney U test indicated that there was support the new forms of learning associated with no significant difference in age in relation to gender (Z=- Web 2. (iii) re-configuring forms of indicated that they were in Further/Higher Education. creativity and school/university.0 use. to using the Web2. reflection and exploration. a sense of play. results are shown in Fig. level of education.014). The students were asked what particular Web 2. p<0. 67%) than restriction. Students were then asked to complete an online post. 87 assessment around decision-making. 1. namely. education? . The participants indicated that they evidence on the use of Web 2. represented ‘poor’ and 1 represented ‘very poor’.18 years (SD=6. 4 represented ‘good’.

4 ‘useful to a large’ extent and 5 was collaborative games (Z=-4. p<0.066). Mann-Whitney U tests Blogs 5th 3.99 1.40 1. A modern form of Internet tools YouTube 2nd 3.0 to be after the completion of the are shown in Table IV and indicate that the respondents still course.140.19 indicated that they considered Facebook to be significantly Twitter 8th 2.07 1.28 more useful than males (Z=-3. 3 ‘neutral’.71 1. Podcast and Twitter were Wikis 4th 3.0 Technology Rating Mean SD Flickr 11th 2.001).15 Participants were asked to rate their proficiency at using A.767.07 1. p<0. A Wilcoxon matched pairs signed ranks test felt most proficient using YouTube.04 1.20 indicated that females believed that Blogs were significantly Online collaborative games 6th 3.10 1.25 1.36 1.0 tools. Students understanding of the term Web 2.44 1.0 tools were between the pre and post-tests (Z=- following tools as the technologies that they were least 1.43 2. where 1 Facebook (Z=-4.000). Wikis and Facebook were rated as the GoogleDocs 3rd 3. 2 ‘useful to a small significantly more proficient at using Online collaborative . p<0.20 0. Females also Social bookmarking 7th 2. Table II shows the Web 2.840.32 more useful than males (Z=-6.0 TOOLS school/university/in the office or both. Internet tools that allow people to communicate GoogleDocs 5th 2.75 1. Participants still rated the what Web 2. 2 ‘poor’ and 1 ‘very poor’. Mann- the majority of participants viewed Web 2.26 Web 2.26 WEB 2. 3.339.26 TABLE I. Podcast and Flickr.15 rated as the least useful tools.024) and the Web2.14 Blogs.258. proficient at using: ePortfolios.0 Online collaborative games 7th 2. 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. ‘completely useful’.0ERC platform on a scale of 1 to 5. The results are shown in Table III.0ERC platform.214.15 significant differences associated with any of the other Web Podcast 10th 2. Participants were also asked about where they used the different Web 2.45 1.40 1. p<0. Females also rated themselves significantly Participants were asked to rate the usefulness of the tools of more proficient at using YouTube (Z=-2. create and significantly more proficient at using Blogs than males (Z=- share content and search for information more efficiently. Facebook had indicated that there was no significant difference in views of dropped to fourth in the ratings.51 1.001). 626 participants completed the post-test questionnaire.000).65 1.045) and Online extent’. There were no ePortfolios 9th 2.0 tools on a Likert scale after they experienced the activities on the Web2.003. Males rated themselves as represented ‘definitely not useful’. p<0. where 5 represented ‘very good’.41 Social bookmarking 6th 2.29 Figure 1.390. PARTICIPANT’S RATINGS OF THE USEFULNESS OF THE TOOLS EXPERIENCED Web 2. p<0. PARTICIPANT’S RATINGS OF THEIR PROFICIENCY USING Podcast 9th 2.21 most useful tools and ePortfolios.50 1.000). Student Post-Test Questionnaire Results the different Web 2.0 tools as: a Whitney U tests indicated that females rated themselves as modern form of Internet tools to communicate. WHERE PARTICIPANTS USED WEB 2.47 1.21 YouTube 1st 4. 4 represented ‘good’.30 1. YouTube.97 Facebook 2nd 4.38 1.0 TOOLS Twitter 10th 2. Internet tools that allow people to search for information more efficiently Wikis 3rd 3. p<0.001).0 tools and could specify: at home. Internet tools that allow people to share content Facebook 4th 2. Flickr 11th 2. In terms of answering research question 1.38 3.21 1.0 Technology Rating Mean SD Blogs 1st 3.53 5. 3 The participants were again asked what they would consider represented ‘neutral’.13 1. p<0. Internet tools that allow people to create content 4. at TABLE II.0 Technology Home School/ Both results. p<0.43 1. The results the definition of Web 2. ePortfolios (Z=-2. however.39 ePortfolios 8th 2.15 2.

p<0. content was the second highest rated more significantly favourable to nine of the tools. p<0. Wikis.000). The results indicate that the largest area of TABLE IV. In terms of enjoyableness. Wikis results suggest that the most ineffective Web 2. p<0. p<0.116.22 assigned themselves in the pre-test may have been an Online collaborative games 6th 2.43 significant decrease in proficiency with regards to: YouTube Twitter 8th 2.32 p<0. The results show that Flickr.01 GoogleDocs 5th 3.008).798. GoogleDocs (Z=-2.13 suited to increasing proficiency with regards to Blogs and Facebook 2nd 3. attribute was usability and ease of navigation.136).23 group. Generally the results indicate that that none of the following Web 2. Proficiency Comparison of Using Web 2.000). A Wilcoxon match pairs signed ranks test indicated Facebook 4th 3. Flickr (Z=-3. YouTube. p<0.000).702. With Podcast 9th 2.33 Wikis.644.281. Blogs and Wikis seem to be rated more ‘very Podcasts. 4 being ‘most days’.92 1. p<0.490.003). 3 learning effectiveness.59 1. Social bookmarking 6th 2.33 1. The results are shown in Table V. ePortfolios (Z=-2. ePortfolios 9th 2.0 tools: Blogs (Z=-8. This result Web 2.000) and Wikis (Z=-4.951. 0. p<0.973. p<0. Facebook Web 2. ePortfolios (Z=. Podcasts.0 Technology Rating Mean SD YouTube 1st 3.31 1.0 Tools Web 2. p<0. ePortfolios and Social bookmarking were use the following Web 2.40 regards to the following Web 2. In terms of answering research terms of usability.000). There was a Online collaborative games 7th 2. Wikis.07 288 participants completed the pre-test who had not completed the post-test and 204 participants completed the . In terms of YouTube. 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 2.200. p<0.0 Technology Rating Mean SD possibly indicates that the Web2. navigation.0 tools significantly more than less enjoyable.33 <0.539.000).000).000).52 1.577. and usability and ease of navigation were the lowest rated attributes.18 1.275. There were no significant differences in TABLE V. the highest rated 4. easy’ to use where the rest of the Web 2.0 TOOLS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES proficiency with regards to Flickr (Z=-1. This means that the data can be analysed as a dependent Wikis 3rd 3. Flickr 11th 2. p<0. p<0.0 tool for and Blogs were rated as the most popular Web 2. Twitter and Flickr were the least popular tools. p Podcast 10th 2.06 tools this may indicate that the initial ratings that students Blogs 4th 3.0 tools. Mann-Whitney U tests indicated that females would like to Twitter. The preliminary answering research question 3. p<0.40 (Z=-3.59 1.61 1. the platform seems well suited Twitter 10th 2. Facebook.0ERC platform may have Social bookmarking 7th 2.15 provided a mechanism to show that they did not know as ePortfolios 8th 2.60 1.25 1.0 tools: YouTube.140.783) and Online the platform and graphics and layout were rated the lowest collaborative games (Z=-0. The results attributes. Facebook (Z=-7. This result is consistent in the pre and post-tests.0 tools.640.58 1.32 1. 5 being ‘every day’.371. The Web 2.35 1. p<0. the results suggest that the most being ‘sometimes’.0 tool with the like to use the Web 2.17 respect to research question 2. 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. Twitter (Z=.0ERC platform is more YouTube 1st 3. PARTICIPANT’S RATINGS OF HOW OFTEN THEY WOULD LIKE TO USE WEB 2.230.0 technologies for educational purposes as they were graphics and layout.711). p<0. In terms of 2. most enjoyable Web 2.games (Z=-2.007).0 tools for educational purposes on a highest rating of ‘very difficult’ was Flickr.0ERC platform in the other Web 2.0 tools for learning were: Blogs.72 1.000).42 1. Flickr 11th 2.36 1. GoogleDocs and Facebook. learning effectiveness and whether they question 2. There were no significant gender differences with rated the second highest attribute that participants liked about regards to Wikis (Z=-0. what participants liked about the platform. Twitter (Z=-2.30 GoogleDocs (Z=-4.003) and Online collaborative games (Z=-5.16 422 participants completed both the pre-test and the post- Blogs 2nd 3.012). Podcast (-3. Content was p<0. participants were most proficient at using the enjoyed it. YouTube.011). males: Blogs (Z=-6. graphics and layout and also content. Blogs.0 Wikis 3rd 3.291.10 test.706.000) and Social bookmarking (Z=-2.23 overestimation or the Web2. ‘never’.47 that there was a significant increase in proficiency with GoogleDocs 5th 2. WEB 2.010).61 1. p<0.41 1.01 1. 2 being ‘almost never’ and 1 being effective Web 2.565.32 1.0 tools seem to be Participants were also asked to rate how often they would neither easy nor difficult to use.000). In terms of scale of 1 to 5. Blogs and Wikis were the Podcast. the results participants would like to see used for educational purposes. Facebook.0 tools seem particularly difficult to use. disliked most about the platform in terms of usability/ease of p<0. suggest that YouTube.34 p<0.0 tools used in the Web2.023).25 1. Facebook (Z=-4. and GoogleDocs and least proficient at using Flickr and Facebook. Participants were also asked what aspects they liked and p<0. Podcast (Z=-2.13 much about these tools as they initially anticipated.157) and Social Bookmarking (Z=-1. PARTICIPANT’S RATINGS OF THEIR PROFICIENCY USING improvement for the platform is graphics and layout.0 TOOLS IN THE POST-TEST B. As proficiency decreased in seven of the Web 2.0 tools that learning was Flickr.20 to increasing proficiency in Blogs and Wikis.417.96 1.511.876.835. YouTube (Z=-2.

no. Facebook [13] F. C. p<0. students rated their [16] N. 20- 21 October 2011. Mann-Whitney U tests indicated that participants in the post-test were significantly more ACKNOWLEDGMENT proficient at using Blogs (Z=-6. Mann-Whitney U tests also showed that [4] G. With regards research question 1.. proficiency. Paavola. 5. pp. . “Communities of practice: The test survey. 1975. 1990.005) and Online collaborative games (Z=-4.1016/j. quasi-experiment on the use of a novel Web 2.0 tool and teachers found all Web 2. doi:10. YouTube. Augustsson.000). 139-145.0.H. The platform was used by over 1.C. Social bookmarking (Z=-6. et al. 2002.L.0 tools that students would like to see used for foundations for CSCL: a comparison of three models of innovative educational purposes and Podcast.0 technologies for learning: The current information more efficiently. In terms of and Higher Education. University of London. tools easy to use. [2] T. 10.0 tools.0 innovations on education and training in Europe”. doi: 10. doi: viewed Web 2. Computers & Education". Crook. 2000. 14. NJ: Erlbaum. 4.0 pegagogical model”.000 students of development.M.24–32. Learning Sciences Research Institute. 2010. iss. Vygotsky. Twitter (Z=-2. Stoimenova.M.311. vol. Comparison between Teachers and Students quasi-experimental study of three online learning courses in 227 teachers also completed a pre-test questionnaire with computing". Mann-Whitney U tests The presentation of a Web 2. the least popular tools.0? proficiency in the use of Web 2. 2007. Laurillard. vol. Noss and D.1016/j. p<0. “Depth of processing and the retention and GoogleDocs and least proficient at using Flickr and of words in episodic memory”.05.0 significantly more learning. 2009. Brophy. Facebook (Z=-4. pedagogical support for reflexive and usefulness. pp. “Education 2. 2007.000). p<0.087 more time than teachers (Z=-3. R.01. pp. University of London.1016/j. 78. These groups The pilot of the platform has been successful and the can be analysed as independent groups in terms of project aims to roll out the platform more widely in 2012.. 1. 2008.opportunities. Snyder.058. p<0. T. [1] B. students rated their 10. Blogs.E. Wenger and W. C. "A C. Grosseck.J. challenges. “To use or not to use web 2.H.0 tools significantly higher Towards an educational Web 2. iss..0 tools emotional social interaction among Swedish students”. “Mind in Society”. Commentary”. pp. Twitter and Flickr were knowledge communities”.792. platform. create and share content and search for [11] Crook.0ERC platform is well suited to Programme under contract 504839-LLP-1-2009-1-UK-KA3- improving proficiency of using Blogs. Lipponen and K. Wikis and Blogs were rated as the most popular [15] S.000). pp. B. London Knowledge Lab. Finally with regards research question pp. F.005 proficiency as higher than teachers in relation to every Web [6] N.09. Columbia Science & Technology Law Review.677. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Podcasts.jrc. C. 407-422.001) and International Conference on European Transnational Education. Salamanca Spain.S. Connolly. Patrick.iheduc. iss.001 similar questions to the students.0 Practices: Study on the impact V. Penkova. vol.001).2005. Tulving. 2. students use Online collaborative games for significantly 478-482. of the Computer-supported Collaborative Learning Conference.807. 1. Students rated their [3] G. iss. Gould.0 2000. 49. “Communities of practice and social learning systems”. “Web 2.post-test who had not completed the pre-test. pre-test were significantly more proficient at using YouTube (Z=-3. vol. M. 268-294. 3. Harvard Business Review.C. 1978. viewed every tool as significantly more useful than students. students believed that they were approach”. 7. Harvard University Press. 104. Legurska every Web 2. Commentary”.sbspro. p<0. “The third industrial revolution: policymaking for the p<0. 2001. not significantly alter student perceptions of this. the majority of students Organization.1177/135050840072002 communicate.0? than teachers who used the same platform. “Web 2. doi: answering research question 4. M. Wikis. vol 3. possibly This work is supported by the EU Lifelong Learning suggesting that the Web2.1108/09696470710762637 post-test. NY: Longman. “Educational psychology: A realistic regards research question 2. vol. 2008. CONCULSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS of web 2. 4. Smith. 1. Participants in the KA3MP. MacArthur.es/EURdoc/JRC49108.L. Internet”. 2008. “Review of Learning 2. as might have been expected. pp.compedu. Connolly. R. L. teachers rated all of the Web 2. Facebook. [10] E.0 Supports: using different Web 2. vol.M. REFERENCES GoogleDocs (Z=-4. Dimitrova. N.310. London Knowledge Lab. proficiency significantly higher than teachers in the use of Tsvetkova.490.0? Designing the web for teaching and 2. C. Craik and E. McLellan.0 as modern forms of Internet tools to 10. 1.351. 225-246. The Web 2.pdf The aim of this paper was to evaluate the results from a [Retrieved on 27/05/11].White Plains. The Learning Organization.000).0”. R. Procedia . Dotsika and K. Cambridge MA. 345- 359. The students believed their proficiency in the use General.M. vol. p<0. capturing business knowledge and practice: A case whom 710 completed the pre-test and 626 completed the study”. E. [7] C. no.I. Selwyn. Selwyn. 197-205. Kusheva. “Understanding the pedagogy Web 2. With [12] T.0ERC platform did landscape . Redecker. In terms of research question 3. Stansfield. Proceedings of indicated that teachers used Blogs (Z=-3. pp. p<0. enjoyed the use of the platform and they found the Web 2. p<0. no. Stansfield and E. University of Nottingham. “Epistemological Web 2. Wenger. 2008 [Online] available at http://ftp. in addition to 227 teachers who completed a pre- [9] E. “Interactive business students.Social and Behavioral Sciences. Hakkarainen. useful than students. “Education 2. McKelvie. M. most proficient at using YouTube. Proc. 4th ed.2009. of Blogs and Wikis increased through the use of the [14] L. Baxter. In Selwyn “Education 2.000) for significantly longer than students. The Internet significantly more useful than students.0 in higher education?”.0 tool. Teachers also Designing the web for teaching and learning. In terms of [5] G. Good and J.2010. Hillsdale. In terms of the amount of time spent and N. 2.000). The results indicate that the students generally organizational frontier”.109. and tensions”.0 platform by [8] G.