Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 160

Web 2.

0 Tool Use as a Learning Activity among Adult Higher Education Faculty

Abstract of A thesis presented to the Faculty of the University at Albany, State University of New York in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science School of Education Department of Educational Theory and Practice

Michael Fortune 2011


Coinciding with more adults over the age of 21 returning to or beginning a higher education degree due to an increase in online learning and the user-friendly features of the current state of the Internet, known as Web 2.0, the use of Web 2.0 tools for learning activities has become more prevalent in online learning. A review of literature on the use of Web 2.0 tools as a learning activity is relatively small but displays successful student learning outcomes that enhance student cognitive, teaching and social presence in online learning environments. This study set out to find, from two higher education institutions that are recognized as styling degree programs for adults of average age 36, if respondents from these institutions use Web 2.0 tools and to gather their insights in implementation. A survey of questions asking the faculty at Empire Sate College and Granite State was distributed among each institutions intranet. Among those that participated in the survey, almost half stated that they use text-based, video-based, or audio-based Web 2.0 tools as learning activities. Most respondents stated they did not use them but were very likely to do so if certain impediments did not make such use impossible. Those impediments include a lack of personal time to investigate any tool due to workload. Faculty also displayed evidence of not being aware of what using a Web 2.0 tool for a learning activity implies or of the best practices of Web 2.0 tool use. Some faculty stated their adult-students were not technology adept. These responses suggest that if faculty were given more professional development time to be trained on any tool, given institution issued computer access to download any necessary tool, the rate of faculty usage may increase.


Web 2.0 Tool Use as a Learning Activity among Adult Higher Education Faculty

A thesis presented to the Faculty of the University at Albany, State University of New York in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Masters of Science School of Education Department of Educational Theory and Practice

Michael Fortune 2011


One of the most exciting, challenging and rewarding endeavors I have ever completed, this thesis would not have been possible if not for the many people in my life I have to thank. First, I must thank my academic advisor and thesis advisor Dr. Carla J. Meskill. Her guidance, not just throughout the thesis process, but also in tailoring my course work through the Masters of Science of Curriculum Development and Instructional Technology, has been life changing. I am very blessed to have had the honor of learning from her and receiving her guidance! The insight she has shared with me has been life changing. I would not be who I am today without her help. Thank you! I also must give a huge thanks to all of my professors and support staff at the University of Albany. Their student-centered approach contributed to the passion I have developed for my study area. Among these people a special thanks goes to Alejandra Pickett, Dan Feinberg, Robert Piorkowski and Dr. Peter Shea. Great thanks must be given to Dr. John Eisler for his insight, all of the faculty participants from Empire State College and Granite State College as well as Dr. Laurie Quinn, my liaison at Granite State College. Also, a tremendous thanks goes to Mr. Matthew Cremisio and Dr. Ray Colucciello, two key influences for me to go in the direction that has led to the completion of this thesis. Finally, I thank my lovely wife Dina for her ongoing support and her inspiration, my mother Marie Fortune for her continuous encouragement and everyone else in my family for their support as well. iv


TITLE PAGE OF ABSTRACT....i ABSTRACTii TITLE PAGE..iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..iv TABLE OF CONTENTS.v LIST OF FIGURES.x LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...xii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION..1 1.1 Greater Internet Access..2 1.2 New Tool for New Problem...3 1.3 Adult Education and the Internet...5 1.4 Rise in Adult Education Interest6 1.5 Need for Knowledge..6 1.6 Group Collaborative Learning via Technology.7 1.7 The Advent of Web 2.0 as Advancement Over Web 1.0...8 1.8 Web 2.0- Harness Collective Intelligence10 1.9 Increase in Availability Leads to Increase in Web Contribution.11 1.10 Web 2.0 Tools in Three Forms..12 1.11 Statement of Intent.12 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW....14 2.1 Online Learning in a Learning Management System..14 2.2 Perceived Limitations of LMS Bound Instruction...15 2.3 Learning Theories and Fully Online or Blended Learning..17 2.4 The Community of Inquiry..17 2.5 Andragogy19 v

2.6 Andragogy and Web 2.0 Learning...20 2.7 Social Constructivism..20 2.8 Social Constructivism and Web 2.0 Learning.21 2.9 Connectivism...22 2.10 Connectivism, Learners and Technology..23 2.11 Text-Based Web 2.0-Enhanced Learning..24 2.12 Text-Based Social Network Enhanced Learning...28 2.13 Web 2.0 Audio-Based Tools with Minimal Visual Aid for Learning...29 2.14 Web 2.0 Audio-Only Enhanced Learning.32 2.15 Advisement for Audio-Only Tool Use..35 2.16 Wikis: Text-Based Group Collaboration...35 2.17 Blogging.39 2.18 Blogging Popularity in the Professional World.40 2.19 Use of Blogging in Higher Education41 2.20 Multi-User Virtual Environments..42 2.21 Second Life and Social Learning Theory..42 2.22 Multi-User Virtual Environments (MUVE) in Higher Education.43 2.23 Survey Question Rationale44 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY..48 3.1 Formulated Survey Questions..49 3.2 Protocol of Participating Institutions...49 3.3 Participant Invitations..... 50 3.4 Invitation Distribution..50 3.5 Eliciting Data from Experiences Through Question Formulation...51 3.6 Response Time Consideration.53 3.7 Summary..54 CHAPTER FOUR: RESPONSES AND DISCUSSION..55 vi

4.1 Responses to First Question from Both Institution Respondents....56 4.2 Discussion of First Question Responses......57 4.3 Responses to Second Question....59 4.4 Discussion of Question Number Two as Related to Question Number One...67 4.5 Question 2- 0% Online Discussion68 4.6 Question 2- 10% Online Discussion....68 4.7 Question 2- 25% Online Discussion69 4.8 Question 2- 50% Online Discussion69 4.9 Question 2- 75% Online Discussion70 4.10 Question 2- 100% Online Discussion70 4.11 Responses to Third Question.....71 4.12 Discussion of Third Question Responses as Related to Q1 and Q2..72 4.13 Question 3- 0% Online Discussion72 4.14 Question 3- 10% Online Discussion..73 4.15 Question 3- 25% Online Discussion..74 4.16 Question 3- 50% Online Discussion..75 4.17 Question 3- 75% Online Discussion..76 4.18 Question 3- 100% Online Discussion77 4.19 Fourth Question.81 4.20 Responses to Fourth Question...82 4.21 Discussion of Fourth Question Responses.....83 4.22 Question 4- 0% Online Discussion83 4.23 Question 4- 10% Online Discussion..85 4.24 Question 4- 25% Online Discussion..86 4.25 Question 4- 50% Online Discussion..88 4.26 Question 4- 75% Online Discussion..89 4.27 Question 4- 100% Online Discussion90 4.28 Responses to Fifth Question......94 4.29 Question 5- 0% Online Discussion95 vii

4.30 Question 5- 10% Online Discussion..96 4.31 Question 5- 25% Online Discussion..97 4.32 Question 5- 50% Online Discussion..98 4.33 Question 5- 75% Online Discussion..98 4.34 Question 5- 100% Online Discussion99 4.35 Responses to Sixth Question....101 4.36 Discussion of Sixth Question Responses.....102 4.37 Question 6- 0% Online Discussion..103 4.38 Question 6- 10% Online Discussion....103 4.39 Question 6- 25% Online Discussion....104 4.40 Question 6- 50% Online Discussion104 4.41 Question 6- 75% Online Discussion105 4.42 Question 6- 100% Online Discussion..106 4.43 Responses to Seventh Question...107 4.44 Discussion of Seventh Question Responses108 4.45 Question 7- 0% Online Discussion..109 4.46 Question 7- 10% Online Discussion109 4.47 Question 7- 25% Online Discussion110 4.48 Question 7- 50% Online Discussion111 4.49 Question 7- 75% Online Discussion111 4.50 Question 7- 100% Online Discussion..112 4.51 Responses to Eighth Question.....114 4.52 Question 8- 0% Online Discussion..115 4.53 Question 8- 10% Online Discussion115 4.54 Question 8- 25% Online Discussion116 4.55 Question 8- 50% Online Discussion116 4.56 Question 8- 75% Online Discussion116 4.57 Question 8- 100% Online Discussion..116 4.58 Responses to Ninth Question...117 viii

4.59 Question 9- 0% Online Discussion..119 4.60 Question 9- 10% Online Discussion120 4.61 Question 9- 25% Online Discussion120 4.62 Question 9- 50% Online Discussion121 4.63 Question 9- 75% Online Discussion122 4.64 Question 9- 100% Online Discussion..123 4.65 Conclusion...126 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION..128 5.1 Impediments...129 5.2 Misconceptions..130 5.3 Implications131 5.4 Conclusion-More Considerations for the Future...135 REFERENCES136 APPENDIX A Questions for Faculty via SurveyMonkey...143 APPENDIX B Responses to Question Two...145 APPENDIX C University of Albany IRB Form..148


LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 OReilly Group Web 2.0 Meme Map.10 FIGURE 2 Community of Inquiry Diagram as Shown on Website, communitiesofinquiry.com........18 FIGURE 3 List of Well-Known Web 2.0 Tools Listed in Fourth Survey Question.....53 FIGURE 4 Combined Responses of Percentage of Coursework Taught Online.....56 FIGURE 5 Faculty Discipline Identification (Arts) and Percentage Taught Online.59 FIGURE 6 Faculty Discipline Identification (Human Development) and Percentage Taught Online......60 FIGURE 7 Faculty Discipline Identification (B, M & E) and Percentage Taught Online..61 FIGURE 8 Faculty Discipline Identification (Language Arts) and Percentage Taught Online..61 FIGURE 9 Faculty Discipline Identification (Cultural Studies) and Percentage Taught Online..63 FIGURE 10 Faculty Discipline Identification (Psychology) and Percentage Taught Online..64 FIGURE 11 Faculty Discipline Identification (S, M & T) and Percentage Taught Online..64 FIGURE 12 Faculty Discipline Identification (Social Theory) and Percentage Taught Online..65 FIGURE 13 Faculty Discipline Identification (Education) and Percentage Taught Online..65 FIGURE 14 Faculty Discipline Identification (Miscellaneous) and Percentage Taught Online..67

FIGURE 15 Faculty Recognition of Web 2.0 Tools by Tool Name..84 FIGURE 16 Faculty Response to Fifth Question.94 FIGURE 17 Percentage of Faculty Answers to Whether or Not They Use Web 2.0 Tools in Their Coursework102 FIGURE 18 Responses to Asking if Faculty are Aware of Students Personal Web 2.0 Usage for Coursework....108 FIGURE 19 Responses to Eighth Question........114 FIGURE 20 Responses to Ninth Question..........118



BME or B, M & E F2F or f2f LMS MAT MBA M.O.O.C. M.U.V.E. Q SL SMT or SM & T

Business, Management and Economics Face-to-Face Learning Management System Masters of Arts in Teaching Masters of Business Administration Massively Open Online Course Multi-User-Virtual-Environment Question Second Life Science, Math and Technology


CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION The growth of Web 2.0 use in society continues to increase since the introduction of it as a numerically scalable concept of web-to-user interaction to the world technology culture in 2004 (Graham, 2005). Web 2.0 usage is defined so to distinguish it from previous Internet activity, subsequently defined as Web 1.0. Web 2.0 is also known as the read-write Web, where the end-user, previously only able to view static Web pages in Web 1.0, can now generate their own Web content via blogs, wikis, social networking, etc. Assimilation of this technology is occurring among all races, languages, gender and ages. The increased ability for people that were not born into digital technology, referred to as digital immigrants by Prensky (2001b), to create web content and transmit their own thoughts, feelings and interests on the World Wide Web has led to a revolution in how we as humans perceive ourselves in relation to one another. The idea that any fragmentary thought one can have can be published in a way that makes anyone a contributor to their community has made for a loosening of the constrictions of traditional discourse that determines what we need to know, should know and, more importantly, what we should not know. This new cultural phenomenon has created a new paradigm shift in higher education that was predicted before the rise of the Web 2.0 era. According to Bernard Gleason (2001), The emergence of the Internet and Web access to all university services will force institutions to rethink everything-from institutional image to systems architecture, new business and instructional models, and the information technology organization (p. 89).

1.1 Greater Internet Access In the last few years, more areas of the United States are experiencing the increased availability of faster broadband services in rural areas, providing people and students access to interact with more information than previously possible. This is the result of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which intended to accelerate deployment of Internet services in un-served, underserved, and rural areas and to strategic institutions that are likely to create jobs or provide significant public benefit (U.S. Department of Education, 2010, p.6). The value of so much accessible information has been debated, creating a new folksonomy use for the term information overload (Toffler, 1970), but such availability proves the great depth of possibilities for online community involvement. The Internet and Web 2.0 tools have created a new sense of author ownership to our culture. Previously, for one to give out information in the public forum, one had to be a novelist or journalist. As a professional in this community, one accomplished this if affiliated with a publishing company or newspaper (i.e. editorials). Even more far ranging in broadcast was to host a television show, where the majority of the expressed opinions were filtered through their sponsorship. Greater Internet access and the accompanying Web 2.0 tools have established the meeting place and discovery area for new and future communities to exist, whose entry is not predicated on scholarly completion of journalistic writing skills. The World Wide Web has become a place where hierarchies of public ownership are more or less eradicated. Censorship is at a minimum on the World Wide Web yet is encouraged 2

through peer review. As the backlash from the Wikileaks website ( proved, creators of a webpage or application may do so as freely as they choose but suffer the consequences of their actions if interest is gained by exposure. The extent of censorship of ones exposure to the World Wide Web is more the responsibility of the person operating the web browser. Every single person has the ability to be as much of a participant in global community discourse as they so choose. Web 2.0 has created global discourse by putting web designing technology out of the hands of professional web designers and in the hands of the relative novice. 1.2 New Tool for New Problem At the same time the world of Web 2.0 has exploded, something of more devastating impact has happened for the same people that are able to use the new found web authorship- the collapse of the industrial-age model economy that has allowed for prosperity in the United States and abroad for the last 35 or more years. Since its collapse in December of 2007, known as the start of the Great Recession, new forms of industry and economy have been introduced in hopes of creating new possibilities for domestic industry. The security of knowing that one will find a job after college is becoming more of a thought of the past than of the future. The idealistic view that one can personally invest in higher education to gain skills based on their dreams and passions proved, with the bust in the global economy, that some career paths will be impossible to enter due to a decrease in hiring and increase in education-area budget cutting (i.e. public school education crisis) (Johnson, 2010).

Employers may look to future employees to be those that can be creative in their approach to problem solving yet schools cut funding for fine arts and performing arts, fields of study based on creativity. While statewide student standardized test scores may show American school children behind other countries in math and reading abilities, schools are being forced to increase class size with less individual attention for each student. These same teachers are being held more accountable than ever for their ability to generate higher achievement scores from their student. As schools are now expected to do less with more, their productivity must be at an even higher level, an insurmountable obstacle. What these future adults will need to do to navigate their careers is being demonstrated by the working generation of today. The average worker is expected to change careers several times in ones life, not just change jobs. What prepares one for the future in undergraduate or even high school may have little to do with what they learn to enter a career field. Unemployment and forced career changes have always been part of our economic landscape. However, the probability of it happening to an adult over the course of their working life has increased. As a result, new theories of what future employment will look like have arisen. It is now figured that the future employee will not be tied to one company and may earn less. Another possibility of new American industry will be considered knowledge-based instead of material-production-based. If America is going to make fewer goods than in the past yet still provide its citizens equally available education, the American worker will be one that contributed ideas and creative problem solving versus creating tangible objects (Pink, 2006). If so many people 4

are going to be employed based on creative mind-use, the only possible outlet for an increase in thought sharing to be productive workers will be through the Internet. 1.3 Adult Education and the Internet Adult education has been the activity of those who want to change careers out of a change of interests. They may already have full time jobs and families but seek adult education as a way to sharpen their work skills or change them entirely. The adult student of today is more likely to not be taking classes for their own interest but out of necessity. Due to the recent increase in unemployment, the possibility of getting a full time job with only a high school degree has diminished significantly. Because of this shift in the economy, Senate bill S.1468 was introduced before the United States Senate on July 15, 2009. One that was a call to stimulate the funding of adult education in the U.S., its findings include:
(1) In order to remain competitive in todays global economy, the United States must reverse the trend of underinvestment in adult education and workforce development and empower its workforce through adequate resources and effective and innovative educational and workforce programs. Since 1979, investments in adult education and workforce development programs have declined in real terms by more than 70 percent. (3) In 2007, more than 25,000,000 adults ages 18 through 64 had no high school credential. Every year, 1 in 3 young adults--more than 1,200,000 people--drop out of high school. (4) Employers need highly skilled workers to be able to compete globally. Between 2004 and 2014, 24 of the 30 fastest-growing occupations are projected to demand workers with some form of postsecondary education or training. Yet nearly half of the United States workforce has a high school diploma or less. (5) Technology and globalization, coupled with the unfolding economic recession, are rendering low-wage and low-skill workers particularly vulnerable. Unemployment is highest among those without a college degree and has grown at a faster rate among this group since the start of the economic recession in December 2007 (S. 1468, 2009).

1.4 Rise in Adult Education Interest The rise in interest among adults to return to higher education has had a positive impact on the adult students ability to successfully complete a degree program. The current adult higher-education student is more able to enroll because of the conveniences of online learning versus campus-based learning environments. For example, for-profit universities, historically online institutions, will have 42 percent of the adultundergraduate market by 2019, nearly doubling their current share, according to a recent study by the consulting company Eduventures (Truong, 2010). From the following statistics gathered by the Sloan Consortium, the following points were found:
Online enrollments continue to grow with the most recent data demonstrating no sign of slowing. The 17 % growth rate for online enrollments far exceeds the 1.2% growth of the overall higher education student population. 96% of traditional universities offer at least one online-only class. The level of agreement among administrators and faculty that online education is critical to the long-term strategy of higher education institutions has risen dramatically over the last six years. (admin, 2010)

1.5 Need for Knowledge The use of Web 2.0 tools among the business world continues to rise. The need for the adult learner to work with others successfully in their new chosen field may hinge on their prior knowledge of Web 2.0 use. Professionals routinely use Web resources and such participatory technology as wikis, blogs, and user-generated content for the research, collaboration, and communication demanded in their jobs (United States Department of Education, 2010, p.14). It is projected that corporate online learning 6

spending will reach $50 billion this year, an unprecedented amount (admin, 2010). 1.6 Group Collaborative Learning via Technology Online learning occurs via the Internet as students collaborate in a course contained in a learning management system (LMS) in a typically asynchronous time frame. Web 2.0 tools are used as an extension of a courses online learning community or as a way to extend class content discourse over the publishable World Wide Web. As technology evolves, educators look at new developments in technology and consider how to implement them in their own fields of study. This use of technology has been found to be only effective as a learning tool when used with the specific intention to exploit its affordances to enhance and extend student cognition and learning outcome. Technology can provide platforms for connecting learners in online communities where they can support each other as they explore and develop deeper understanding of new ideas, share resources, work together beyond the walls of a school or home, and gain access to a much wider pool of expertise, guidance and support (United States Department of Education, 2010, p. 16). The very possibility of computer-based human collaboration based on linguistic systems has its roots in the discovery of the tool known as email. The very first instance of human linguistic communication occurred between two computers, positioned side by side in 1971 by computer programmer Ray Tomlinson, who was working on a computer program then known as ARPANET (Tomlinson, n.d.). The initial discovery of the two computers successful send and retrieving of emails was considered by Tomlinson and his colleagues a discovery to keep secret form their administrators, not to 7

use as a means for furthering their research but because such a finding would have reveled to their employers that they were not actually doing their work. As Tomlinson stated,
Mostly because it seemed like a neat idea. There was no directive to "go forth and invent email". The ARPANET was a solution looking for a problem. A colleague suggested that I not tell my boss what I had done because email wasn't in our statement of work. That was really said in jest because we were, after all, investigating ways in which to use the ARPANET (Tomlinson, n.d.).

1.7 The Advent of Web 2.0 as Advancement Over Web 1.0 The World Wide Web (also referred to as Web 1.0) was an invention of computer programmer Tim Berners Lee. A graduate of Oxford University, Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web, an internet-based hypermedia initiative for global information sharing while at CERN, the European Particle Physics Laboratory, in 1989. He wrote the first web client and server in 1990 and his specifications of URIs, HTTP and HTML were refined as Web technology spread (Berners-Lee, 2010). The term Web 2.0 was coined as an advancement past what would be termed Web 1.0 by Tim OReilly, the CEO and President of OReilly Media. From its website, the company, founded in 1978, states,
O'Reilly Media spreads the knowledge of innovators through its books, online services, magazines, research, and conferences. Since 1978, O'Reilly has been a chronicler and catalyst of leading-edge development, homing in on the technology trends that really matter and galvanizing their adoption by amplifying "faint signals" from the alpha geeks who are creating the future. An active participant in the technology community, the company has a long history of advocacy, meme-making, and evangelism (OReilly, n.d.).

OReilly is said to have coined the term Web 2.0 at a conference brainstorming session between OReilly and Media Live International. In an OReilly website news update from September 2005 the following was outlined, 8

The concept of "Web 2.0" began with a conference brainstorming session between O'Reilly and MediaLive International. Dale Dougherty, web pioneer and O'Reilly VP, noted that far from having "crashed", the web was more important than ever, with exciting new applications and sites popping up with surprising regularity. What's more, the companies that had survived the collapse seemed to have some things in common. Could it be that the dot-com collapse marked some kind of turning point for the web, such that a call to action such as "Web 2.0" might make sense? We agreed that it did, and so the Web 2.0 Conference was born. In the year and a half since, the term "Web 2.0" has clearly taken hold, with more than 9.5 million citations in Google. But there's still a huge amount of disagreement about just what Web 2.0 means, with some people decrying it as a meaningless marketing buzzword, and others accepting it as the new conventional wisdom. This article is an attempt to clarify just what we mean by Web 2.0. In our initial brainstorming, we formulated our sense of Web 2.0 by example: Web 1.0 Web 2.0 DoubleClick Google AdSense Ofoto Flickr Akamai BitTorrent mp3.com Napster Britannica Online Wikipedia personal websites blogging evite upcoming.org and E domain name speculation search engine optimization page views cost per click screen scraping web services publishing participation content management systems wikis directories (taxonomy) tagging ("folksonomy") stickiness syndication (OReilly, 2005a)

OReillys vision of Web 2.0 as an extension of Web 1.0 was more clearly related to learning purposes in their meme map created during that same time, shown in Figure 1. The key contributors in the Web 2.0 are the users themselves. The term user also is used akin to the term participant to refer not to just those who design the website but to refer to the action of non-programmers to be collaborators and contributors to the World Wide Web.

FIGURE 1 OReilly Group Web 2.0 Meme Map

1.8 Web 2.0- Harness Collective Intelligence Web 2.0, and its accompanying tools, were initially seen as a way to facilitate collaboration, or as OReilly states to harness collective intelligence (OReilly 2005b). In the September 30, 2005 posting to the OReilly website, OReilly lists the most influential occurrences of Web 2.0 behavior at that time,
* Hyperlinking is the foundation of the web. As users add new content, and new sites, it is bound in to the structure of the web by other users discovering the content and linking to it. Much as synapses form in the brain, with associations becoming stronger through repetition or intensity, the web of connections grows organically as an output of the collective activity of all web users. * Yahoo!, the first great internet success story, was born as a catalog, or directory of links, an aggregation of the best work of thousands, then millions of web users. While Yahoo! has since moved into the business of creating many types of content, its role as a portal to the collective work of the net's users remains the core of its value. * Google's breakthrough in search, which quickly made it the undisputed search market leader, was PageRank, a method of using the link structure of the web rather than just the characteristics of documents to provide better search results. Now, innovative companies that pick up on this insight and perhaps extend it even further, are making their mark on the web: * Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia based on the unlikely notion that an entry can be added by


any web user, and edited by any other, is a radical experiment in trust, applying Eric Raymond's dictum (originally coined in the context of open source software) that "with enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow," to content creation. Wikipedia is already in the top 100 websites, and many think it will be in the top ten before long. This is a profound change in the dynamics of content creation! * Sites like del.icio.us and Flickr, two companies that have received a great deal of attention of late, have pioneered a concept that some people call "folksonomy" (in contrast to taxonomy), a style of collaborative categorization of sites using freely chosen keywords, often referred to as tags. Tagging allows for the kind of multiple, overlapping associations that the brain itself uses, rather than rigid categories. In the canonical example, a Flickr photo of a puppy might be tagged both "puppy" and "cute"--allowing for retrieval along natural axes generated user activity. * Collaborative spam filtering products like Cloudmark aggregate the individual decisions of email users about what is and is not spam, outperforming systems that rely on analysis of the messages themselves. * It is a truism that the greatest internet success stories don't advertise their products. Their adoption is driven by "viral marketing"--that is, recommendations propagating directly from one user to another. You can almost make the case that if a site or product relies on advertising to get the word out, it isn't Web 2.0. * Even much of the infrastructure of the web--including the Linux, Apache, MySQL, and Perl, PHP, or Python code involved in most web servers--relies on the peer-production methods of open source, in themselves an instance of collective, net-enabled intelligence. There are more than 100,000 open source software projects listed on SourceForge.net. Anyone can add a project, anyone can download and use the code, and new projects migrate from the edges to the center as a result of users putting them to work, an organic software adoption process relying almost entirely on viral marketing. (OReilly, 2005b)

1.9 Increase in Availability Leads to Increase in Web Contribution The term, Web 2.0, as we can see, is not a purely technical term but can be used to reference Internet user participation. From the TUX- User Experience in Web Design blog, the following is quote from October 4, 2007,
The rise of architectures of participation, which make it easy for users to contribute content, share it -- and then let other users easily discover and enrich it, is central to Web 2.0 sites like MySpace, YouTube, Digg, and Flickr. But this is still just another aspect in the way that we, ourselves, have changed the way we use the Web. Not only have we gained 950 million new Internet users in the last ten years, but a great many of them use the Internet differently now too, with a hundred million of them or more directly shaping the Web by building their own places on the Web with blogs and "spaces", or by contributing content of virtually infinite variety. Let's not forget that there were important issues that really held back the early Web and prevented the widespread flourishing of the collaboration and connecting of people that Tim Berners-Lee originally intended. This included privacy concerns, almost entirely one-way Web sites, lack of skills using the Internet, and even slow connections. But these have now continued to drop away rapidly in recent years, with many younger people in particular not hindered by these issues at all (rightly or wrongly.) And for sure, let's not forget that the Web has changed over the years. There have been countless technological refinements and even improvements to the physics of the Internet itself. These range from the adoption of broadband, improved browsers, and Ajax, to the rise of Flash application


platforms and the mass development of widgetization such as Flickr and YouTube badges. But the trend to watch is the change in the behavior of people on the Internet. Because much of this Web 2.0 phenomenon comes from mass innovation flowing in from the edge of our networks; that's millions of people blogging, hundreds of thousands more producing video and audio, hundreds of Web 2.0 startups creating hugely addictive social experiences, sites that aggregate all the contributed content that one billion Internet users can create and more. (Hinchcliffe, 2007)

1. 10 Web 2.0 Tools in Three Forms When we refer to Web 2.0 we are describing the new behavior of collective intelligence community development within three types of outlets: freeware, shareware and open-ware, also known as open-source (Open Source Initiative, n.d.). The commonality shared among all three forms of software is that they are all free of charge. If a program is freeware, one has access to use the software but cannot receive technical support for its use. Downloaded web browsers such as Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome or Opera are examples of freeware. If there is an issue in its functionality, the user has no access to support and cannot find out if the problem with the program is on the user-end or not. Shareware is a type of software that is free on a trial basis but further use must be paid for. Also, in shareware, the user is dependent on the developer to make improvements and modifications to the program. Many Web 2.0 tools, such as Voicethread and many social bookmarking tools are shareware. Open-source systems are freeware that can be redistributed by the user with modifications made by the user, with Drupal and Moodle being two examples (Open Source Initiative, n.d.). 1.11 Statement of Intent In this thesis I will examine the use of Web 2.0 tools in adult education and demonstrate how their use as a tool for instructional conversation can facilitate successful learning outcomes of graduates of adult education programs. I have covered what the 12

term Web 1.0 implies for the definition of Web 2.0 and the different categories of tools in Web 2.0 as they relate to adults over age 21 in higher education. Going forward, we have arrived at a usable definition of Web 2.0 as it relates to Web 2.0 tools versus freeware and open-source software for the purpose of discussion with in this thesis. This paper will not consider the use of Web 2.0 tools in K-12 and will limit its scope of use in brick and mortar, or campus-centered, face-to-face courses. I will conduct a literature review of effective practices of Web 2.0 tool usage and how they are a unique, historically speaking, form of instruction delivery in both blended and fully online learning environments. Several learning theories that support the use of Web 2.0 tools in online learning or blended adult learning are the Community of Inquiry model (Garrison, 2007), the Social Constructivist Theory, the Connectivism model (Siemens, 2004), and Knowles Theory of Andragogy (Conner, 2004). These models and theories, as they relate to adult online learning with Web 2.0 tools, will be explored. I will also show findings of research questions conducted via survey to faculty members of institutions that offer higher education opportunities to adult learners. These comments will be analyzed and considered against one another, exploring the usage frequency of Web 2.0 tools and related instruction-based behaviors among faculty and students. What their responses and the literature reveal of implications of the use of Web 2.0 tools in the future for instructional conversation (Meskill & Anthony, 2010) will be submitted.


CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW In this chapter I will review the literature on the use of Web 2.0 tools in adult higher education in order to establish the need to integrate such use for learning among a greater number of institutions than present. While there may be anecdotal evidence of the use of Web 2.0 tools to enhance the online learning experience, recorded scholarly empirical evidence of Web 2.0 tool usage for learning has occurred only within the last five years. Therefore, there is not a large body of literature on the subject. 2. 1 Online Learning in a Learning Management System There exists a large amount of scholarly writings that deal with online learning or e-learning. These resources base their studies on the use of the World Wide Web to deliver a Learning Management System (LMS) from a given higher education institutions server to those students enrolled in a course facilitated by an instructor through that institution. The student and instructors use the LMS, also referred to as a Course Management System, to engage in the course material. The content that students interact within is collaborated within an asynchronous or synchronous timeframe. The LMS provides students the ability to submit any assignments electronically, find what material will be covered in each module, communicate via course mail and discussion boards, take assessments and find their grades. The most widely used affordance of an LMS is the ability for faculty to facilitate asynchronous discussions among the class. The role the World Wide Web as being a resource for content outside of the LMS was not as


widely implemented before the occurrence of Web 2.0 behavior. The majority of content was delivered via instructions from the facilitator of the course within the LMS. Several years before the emergence of Web 2.0 tool usage, many faculty in higher education were looking towards a more holistic use of online interaction within the higher education setting; bringing communities outside of the classroom itself and connecting them together through technology, later supplied by the Web 2.0 learning environments. In Putting the University Online (2003) James Cornford wrote,
If information technologies destabilize boundaries, then they can also be used to shore them up. If they threaten to pull the university apart, then they can also bond it together. In this respect the online or virtual university has emerged as a potent vision for the future of higher education, utilizing new information and communication technologies (ICTs ) to radically restructure higher educational provision and to re-equip the university for its new environment. What is generally envisaged in this scenario is a university without walls. Freed from the confines of the campus and its region, the university becomes a virtual institution consisting of little more than global connections of potential students (recruitment), learners and teachers (students and staff), employers (the career function) and alumni, in terms of teaching and learning, research funders and research users, in terms if the institutions research mission, all held together by ICT applications. The vision is one of flexible, ever changing organizations for knowledge creation and distribution. the university as an institution appears to dissolve (pp. 3-4).

Cornford and Pollock, at this point in between 2000 and 2003, were envisioning online communication, integrating all areas of college community, being carried out across the Internet within an institution ICP, as he called it, which today would be considered the university intranet. Even at this point however, early online educators saw the need to utilize the Internet to connect students, faculty and the research world within any give institution via the Internet. 2.2 Perceived Limitations of LMS Bound Instruction Before those in the education field considered Web 2.0 tools, the retrieving of reference material as resources from the Internet came only two possibilities: static and possibly inaccurate material from the Internet and the passworded LMS. The initial 15

possibilities of the Internet to enhance or facilitate field of study area learning was limited to the lack of user interaction with content on the read-only web. Compounding this problem was the lack of Internet high-speed connections to enough American communities for the concept of using the Internet for higher education to catch on (McArthur & Lewis, 1998). Parikh (2003) detailed in an early experiment of integrating technology in the higher education classrooms where faculty actually created their own websites for their course material, a prototype of the now end-user-friendly Drupal software. Parikh found in that many problems arose among the faculty and students. These problems included untimely student review of material, students not being aware to be diligent to see what the professor posted for assignments online, the professor having no way of knowing (what would today be aggregated in a report) who read the accessed the online material, and the technical problems students with limited computer capabilities faced. Professors had to design their own course with limited technical experience and they also complained of the lack of interactivity, proving the passivity of websites the instructors used as course areas. The great deal of time consumption from remediation of the students' technology experience was found as a deterrent from going forward with the project. After such an experience the author revealed looking toward the then current LMS, circa 1999,
We reviewed several off-the-shelf software products like Web CT, TopClass, and BlackBoard, to find solutions to these problems. But at the time, these software products did not have all the capabilities we thought were necessary. They had server-based content management, which required high bandwidth to transfer class notes and slides every time a student wanted to review them. They required effort on the part of the student to check the website regularly rather than


automatically transferring new information to students, they did not support offline browsing. They required reformatting of the content created using commonly used software like Word and PowerPoint. They could help the technologically challenged instructors to easily develop and maintain course websites, but they could do little to annihilate the above problems. We had to find an alternate solution (Parikh 2003, p. 123).

2.3 Learning Theories and Fully Online or Blended Learning Fully online and blended learning in adult higher education draws implications for its usage from several educational theories (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008). However, in the initial stages of online learning there were few theoretical concepts based on empirical research to consult when designing a learning environment in the World Wide Web and theories related to online learning were those theories originally applied to distance learning (Jeffries, n.d.). The most influential of the theories and models that relate to Web 2.0 learning are Social Constructivism, the Community of Inquiry, Andragogy, and Connectivism (Conole & Alevizou, 2010). 2.4 The Community of Inquiry One of the recognized theoretical foundations for Web 2.0 educational settings in online learning and blended learning is the Community of Inquiry Model (Garrison, 2007). This model has its roots in theoretical observations from John Dewey and is predicated on the recognition of the unity of the public and private worlds, information and knowledge, discourse and reflection, control and responsibility, and process with learning outcomes. John Dewey argued that the value of the educative experience is in unifying the internal and external worlds. Dewey stated, the educational process has two sides-one psychological and one sociological; and that neither can be subordinated to the other or neglected without evil following (1959, p.20). For Dewey, it was essential that students be actively engaged in the process of inquiry. When action is divorced from 17

thought, teaching becomes information transmission by a kind of scholastic pipeline into the minds of pupils whose business is to absorb what is transmitted (Dewey & Childs, 1981,pp.88-89). For this reason, higher education experiences are best conceived as communities of inquiry. A community of inquiry is inevitably described as the ideal and heart of a higher education experience. A community of inquiry is shaped by purposeful, open, and disciplined critical discourse and reflection (Garrison & Vaughan 2008, p. 14).
FIGURE 2 Community of Inquiry Diagram as Shown on Website, communitiesofinquiry.com

The Community of Inquiry model is represented by the illustration in Figure 2. Briefly, social presence is defined as the ability of participants to identify with the community (e.g., course of study), communicate purposefully in a trusting environment, and develop inter-personal relationships by way of projecting their individual personalities (Garrison, 2007). Teaching Presence is the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, & Archer, 2001). Cognitive Presence is the extent to which learners are able to 18

construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2001) (Communities of Inquiry, p. 1). When the three converge it is through a collaborative constructivist meaningful learning activity. 2.5 Andragogy At the same time that Web 2.0 use in higher education has accelerated, the notion of teaching and learning as pedagogy is being replaced with Malcolm Knowles theory of andragogy, the characteristics of adult learners that can be exploited to their advantage in the higher education classroom and more specifically by using Web 2.0 tools in the classroom. Pedagogy is associated with teaching children while andragogy is associated with teaching adults. The view of learning offered by andragogy is ancient but refreshed in the 20th century by John Dewey and Malcolm Knowles, among others (Baston, 2008). The five principles of andragogy are (1) Letting learners know why something is important to learn (2) Showing learners how to direct themselves through information (3) Relating the topic to the learners' experiences (4) [realizing that] People will not learn until they are ready and motivated to learn [which] (5) Requires helping them overcome inhibitions, behaviors, and beliefs about learning (Conner, 2004) As Baston states
There is little doubt that the most dominant form of instruction in Europe and America is pedagogy, or what some people refer to as didactic, traditional, or teacher-directed approaches. A competing idea in terms of instructing adult learners [including first-year college students], and one that gathered momentum within the past three decades, has been dubbed andragogy. The entire ontology (manifested beliefs about teaching and learning) of higher education is misconceived: It does not fit with the proven realities of learning, and does not fit at all with the new nature of knowledge construction in a Web 2.0 world. The education establishment needs to


say goodbye to pedagogy and hello to andragogy to create a better fit. Here's the difference: In pedagogy, the concern is with transmitting the content, while in andragogy, the concern is with facilitating the acquisition of the content (2008).

2.6 Andragogy and Web 2.0 Learning Applying Web 2.0 tools to learning within Andragogy, Baston states
In other words, a new principle can be added to the andragogical approach: The autonomous learning your students engage in now will not require a leap of faith on your part that something good is going on. Your students can gather evidence of what's going on and you can assess that evidence. If anything, you have more oversight of the learning process than in a lecture mode. Technology greatly extends your reach. We are beyond the era when students' learning experiences left no trace except in the minds of the learners and were thus invisible. We are now in the era when student learning experiences can be visible because of the everywhere and all-the-time (ubiquitous and universal) presence of Web connections. See: http://crossroads.georgetown.edu/vkp/ and similar work under the aegis of the Carnegie Foundation for Teaching's Scholarship of Teaching and Learning for more on visible knowledge and also Carnegie's Knowledge Media Lab. All that is done digitally can be captured in some way and then can be shared. This frees students from having to be in a classroom to learn. As a result of the freer choices of learning venues and constructs, educators everywhere are beginning to design problem or project-based learning curricula or active learning opportunities, service learning, field experiences, gap-year experiences, internships, and on and on through all the open education options used over the past half century to create more opportunities for authentic, evidence-based learning. (Batson, 2008)

2.7 Social Constructivism Group collaboration within the World Wide Web, whether considered through the lens of Community of Inquiry or Andragogy, is considered a Social Constructivist activity developed by cognitive psychologist Lev Vygotsky. Social Constructivist learning environments, according to Johnassen (1994) exhibit eight characteristics that make social constructivist learning environments unique:
1. [Social] Constructivist learning environments provide multiple representations of reality. 2. Multiple representations avoid oversimplification and represent the complexity of the real world.


3. [Social] Constructivist learning environments emphasize knowledge construction inserted of knowledge reproduction. 4. [Social] Constructivist learning environments emphasize authentic tasks (activity) in a meaningful context rather than abstract instruction out of context. 5. [Social] Constructivist learning environments provide learning environments such as real-world settings or case-based learning instead of predetermined sequences of instruction. 6. [Social] Constructivist learning environments encourage thoughtful reflection on experience. 7. [Social] Constructivist learning environments "enable context- and content- dependent knowledge construction." 8. [Social] Constructivist learning environments support "collaborative construction of knowledge through social negotiation, not competition among learners for recognition." (Chen, Constructivism, n.d.)

Vygotskys Social Constructivism makes room for an active, involved teacher. For Vygotsky, the culture gives the child the cognitive tools needed for development. Adults such as parents and teachers are conduits for the tools of the culture, including language. The tools the culture provides a child include cultural history, social context, and language. Today they also include electronic forms of information access (Chen, Overview of Social Constructivism, n.d.). Undoubtedly the concept of social constructivism has been adapted for adult learners, beyond its use within pedagogy as initially developed. 2.8 Social Constructivism and Web 2.0 Learning How does the Social Constructivist theory relate to the use of Web 2.0 tools in online leaning? As stated in the Peanut Butter Wiki for social constructivism,
If the constructivist worldview is predicated on the belief that the individual must have socially mediated experiences which act as a filter through which the development of new meaning and knowledge is developed, in addition to learning being an ongoing process, one can begin to see


how the application of Web 2.0 tools might help facilitate the constructivist model. Based on the constructivist principles outlined [here], it is apparent that these principles may be used in conjunction with Web 2.0 tools. For example, authentic activity is one the guiding principles of constructivist theory, it holds that learning should be context-based, and real situations, or as authentic as possible in relation to the real world. If the question is whether or not the Web 2.0 tool will be sufficiently relevant to students, it would definitely depend on the Web 2.0 tool under discussion. Some Web 2.0 tools are perhaps more relevant to students than others, some more useful than others. Some Web 2.0 tools would enhance and cultivate students' abilities to think like a practitioner in the real world. Skill acquisition occurs a lot with the usage of Web 2.0 tools. Students would have to access prior knowledge in their use of certain Web 2.0 tools, draw upon similarities between the Web 2.0 tool and perhaps other 2.0 tools that they have used previously. Web 2.0 tools can also allow students/learners to demonstrate their understanding in a variety of ways. They can blog, edit, contribute, rank, tag, upload and enhance their web experiences through the use of Web 2.0 tools. Additionally through the use of social networking, learners can also be exposed to other learners' perspectives on a given topic or subject. With the use of Web 2.0 tools in the classroom comes a paradigm shift away from the "teacher as a dispenser of knowledge" model to a more decentralized model where the teacher acts a guide to student learning, creating a climate that is conducive to cooperation and collaborative learning. This decentralization of information is at the heart of Web 2.0 beliefs and it is part of the reason why constructivist theory connects so well with the integration of Web 2.0. (Munroe, 2010)

2.9 Connectivism Another learning theory that has become associated with adult learning within Web 2.0 behavior is Connectivism, developed by George Siemens, the founder and President of Complexive Systems Inc., a research lab assisting organizations to develop integrated learning structures for global strategy execution. In 2006 he authored the book Knowing Knowledge, an exploration of how the context and characteristics of knowledge have changed, and what it means to organizations today. In 2009, he published the Handbook of Emerging Technologies for Learning with Peter Tittenberger. Siemens is currently affiliated with the Technology Enhanced Knowledge Research Institute (TEKRI) at Athabasca University. His role as a social media strategist involves planning, researching, and implementing social networked technologies, with focus on systemic impact and institutional change. Prior to TEKRI, he was the Associate Director, Research and Development with the Learning Technologies Centre at University of 22

Manitoba. He has presented at numerous national and international conferences, on topics which include: the role of new media in learning, systemic change, social media and networked learning, elearning in vocational education, streaming media, and Connectivism (Elearn space, n.d.). Siemens, on the third page of Handbook for Emerging Technologies and Learning, stated, Unfortunately, in many universities web technology...[is]...primarily used for support of logistical processes rather than for pedagogical change (Siemens & Tittenberger, 2009). Such a statement clearly shows that the role of technology in higher education is still not serving student academic success but rather its still a tool for administrative organization. 2.10 Connectivism, Learners and Technology The concept of Connectivism came about because Siemens, within currently agreed upon learning theories, did not see them accounting for the newly expanding use of the Internet for knowledge acquisition and collaboration. Connectivism is the view that knowledge and cognition are distributed across networks of people and technology and learning is the process of connecting, growing, and navigating those networks (Siemens & Tittenberger, 2009, pg. 11) Siemens defines those networks as three individual areas
1. Neural level the formation of neural connections as new stimuli, input, and experiences shape the physical development of the brain. Research suggests connections and networks are prominent in memory formation and activation. Knowledge and learning are not held at any




particular point in the human brain. Instead, they are distributed across numerous sections. Knowledge is an emergent attribute of patterns of neural connectivity. Conceptual level - within a discipline or field of knowledge. Key concepts of a field those which are foundational to the knowledge of a discipline are networked in structure. Novice learners seeking to develop advanced understanding of a discipline do so through the formation of conceptual connections similar to those held by experts within the field. External. The formation of networks has been significantly aided through the development of participatory web technologies. Blogs, wikis, social bookmarking, and social networking sites, raise the capacity of individuals to connect with others, with experts, and with content. Understanding, in a networked sense, is an emergent element related to the shape and structure of the learners personal information and social networks. The development of RSS as a means of aggregating information and mashups as a means of combining information in various contexts, contributes to the external formation of networks which in turn assist learners in forming accurate conceptual relationships within the field. High levels of participation in social networks, especially with younger learners, suggests new ways of thinking about the role of education. (Siemens & Tittenberger, 2009, p. 16)

2.11 Text-Based Web 2.0-Enhanced Learning Twitter is a popular Web 2.0 tool for micro-blogging and is beginning to find a place in higher education learning environments. Junco, Heiberger and Loken (2010) found a positive correlation between student learning engagement and the use of Twitter for such purpose. A total of 125 students taking a first year seminar course for pre-health professional majors participated in this study with 70 in the experimental group and 55 in the control group. With the experimental group, Twitter was used for various types of academic and co-curricular discussions (Junco, Heiberger & Loken, 2010). The majority of tasks involving Twitter in the classroom were to use the tool to facilitate content discussions outside of the f2f classroom. The experimental group, using Twitter was found to get higher grades in similar tasks than the non-Twitter control group. The authors also made this statement of observations of student tweets of a book discussion:

Using Twitter produced a more rich discussion of students relationship to themes covered in the book than would have been possible during the limited class time.


Twitter allowed us to extend conversations in ways that would not have been practical during the hour-long class sessions. The first-year seminar was only 1 [hour] each week, and while it would take students some time to warm up to talk about personally impactful themes from the book, they did this readily via the electronic format. Student were also surprisingly comfortable with candid expressions of their feelings and their shortcomings as evidenced by this sample of tweets. They also engaged in a great deal more cross-communication about the book than first-year students typically do during class sessions (Junco, Heiberger and Loken, 2010 pg. 8).

Twitter has been used to enhance social presence as defined by the Community of Inquiry Model. A case study from the University of Colorado Denver focuses on the use of Twitter in a module on an instructional design and technology course (Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2009). The authors encouraged their students to use Twitter in a variety of ways: to post questions and queries to one another or to the course team, to send student tostudent direct messages, to tweet comments on relevant news events, to share resources, to reports on conferences attended, to link to student blog postings and to exchange personal information. The authors claim that the use of Twitter can enhance students' perception of a sense of 'social presence', an important quality that helps promote student involvement, commitment and retention. They conclude that Twitter is good for sharing, collaboration, brainstorming, problem solving, and creating within the context of momenttomoment experiences (Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2009). This case study illustrates something of the flexibility of Twitter to enable a range of interactions from private messages between peers, to lightweight Twitterbased tutorials, or 'twittorials' that engage the whole cohort. The evaluation also supports the social networking dimension of Twitter, with students clearly comfortable with the varieties of information exchange and the heightened perception of belonging and of social connection to both teaching 25

staff and fellow students. Also, Bradshow (2008) reported on the use of Twitter in journalism courses. He described the difficulty of engaging students who have not used social media before. Part of his aspiration was to expose students to Twitter as a means of helping them see the implications of new technologies for the journalism profession. He argues that teaching students about the tools, through the tools, will help them have a better understanding of the broader implications of these technologies for journalism (Conole & Alevizou, 2010). From David Perrys blog, an Assistant Professor of Emerging Media and Communications at the University of Texas at Dallas, several observations of Twitter for learning purposes are listed in his January 23, 2008 blog post in the following bullets,
Class Chatter: The first thing I noticed when the class started using Twitter was how conversations continued inside and outside of class. Most of these conversations were not directly related to class material, but many were tangentially related. Because the students had the shared classroom experience when something came up outside of class that reminded them of material from class time it often got twittered. This served as a reinforcement/connection between the material and the real world. Classroom Community: Once students started twittering I think they developed a sense of each other as people beyond the classroom space, rather than just students they saw twice a week for an hour and a half. This carried with it a range of benefits, from more productive classroom conversations (people were more willing to talk, and more respectful of others), and also helped me to understand what type of students they were. I learned a great deal about students lives, where they work, that one of them had Thanksgiving dinner with 50+ people. Now this type of supplementary material might not be attractive to all educators, I can definitely say that changed the classroom dynamics for the better. I think this is connected to what Clive Thompson calls the sixth sense of Twitter. Having the Sixth Sense can really help the classroom. Get a Sense of the World: You can have students look at the Public Timeline of Twitter. This is the place where all public messages get posted. The noise ratio here is pretty high, but one gets a sense of how varied are the things people are doing around the globe. Just a quick look at the timeline shows a range of languages, although English is still the predominate one. Additionally the public timeline serves as a sort of quick measure of


what people are paying attention to. During large sporting events (World Series, or NFL Playoffs, Twitter) has a large number of messages from people watching these events. Track a Word: Through Twitter you can track a word. This will subscribe you to any post which contains said word. So, for example a student could be interested in how a particular word is used. They can track the word, and see the varied phrases in which people use it. Or, you can track an event, a proper name (I track Derrida for example), a movie title, a store name see how many people a day tweet that they are at or on their way to a Starbucks. (To do this send the message track Starbucks to Twitter, rather than posting the update track Starbucks you will now receive all messages with the word Starbucks.) Track a Conference: Before going to MLA (the big language and literature conference held between Christmas and New Years) I started tracking MLA. This means anytime that someone tweeted using the word MLA I got a notice. This way I discovered several other people who were at the MLA using Twitter. (Now I also got a bunch of college students complaining about MLA citation format as well.) Instant Feedback: Because Twitter is always on, and gets pushed to your cell phone if you set it up this way, it is a good way to get instant feedback. I was prepping for a lecture and wanted to know if students shared a particular movie reference, I asked via Twitter and got instant responses. Students can also use this when doing their classwork, trying to understand the material. Tweet: I dont understand what this reading has to do with New Media? any ideas? Other students then respond. (This actually happened recently in a class of mine.) Follow a Professional: Students can follow someone else who is on Twitter, who interests them. For example if they are thinking about journalism they should follow NewMediaJim who works for NBC and Tweets about being on Airforce One, covering the Middle East etc. This is a rare inside, real-time view into journalism. He is followed by over 2,500 people at this point. Howard Rheingold also uses Twitter in his social journalism class. Follow a Famous Person: Many celebrities are on Twitter, and you can also follow politicians. Grammar: Surprisingly Twitter is actually good for teaching grammar. Why? Because of its short form those who tweet often abbreviate and abuse grammar rules, developing their own unique twitter rules. This helps to demonstrate, both how all communication needs rules/structure and how important something like a comma or a period can be. (Some Tweets become really ambiguous because of their lack of punctuation.) Rule Based Writing: Related to the above is the idea that when you change the rules (context) around any written communication you necessarily change the content of such an utterance. Rules rather than hindering communication can actually be really productive (for the long version of this argument read about Oulipo). Because Twitter is based on SMS technology it limits communication to 140 characters, it is surprising what


develops out of this limit, and how quickly one starts to think in messages of 140 characters. Maximizing the Teachable Moment: It is often hard to teach in context, Twitter allows you to do this, but better yet, allows your students to do it for you (a way that others will hear perhaps). Recently someone in my Twitter circle made a marginal comment about a male friend who was dating an older woman. Another person in the same circle called him out this. Public NotePad: Twitter is really good for sharing short inspirations, thoughts that just popped into your head. Not only are they recorded, because you can go back and look at them, but you can also get inspiration from others. This is really useful for any creative based class. Writing Assignments: Remember that game you used to play where one person would start a story, the next person would continue it, etc. . .Okay try this on Twitter. (sic) (Perry, January 2008)

2.12 Text-Based Social Network Enhanced Learning Facebook has emerged as possibly the most popular form of social networking. Its value in our contemporary society has been debated but it is widely used and has begun to be considered by higher education as a method for learning engagement. The use of Facebook among higher education institutions recently has been for enrollment outreach purposes (Kaya, 2010). English and Duncan explore the implications of Facebook as a support tool for student teachers in Australia in their article Facebook Goes to College published in 2008. Considering Facebooks popularity among the author-professors students, the authors created a private group for students in their student teaching practicum. The students were involved in the practicum over long distances. The authors looked to see if it had affordances for the students peer communication. The instructor facilitated


postings on the group page. The majority of posts were associated with group reinforcement, encouragement and support. Another large number of student posts were within the discussion forum Excitement and were of the greatest length and of the most detail. Less frequent posts were to get feedback from group members on issues found during practicum and possible solutions. Finally, there was a joke forum for humorous student observations of the experience. Overall, Facebook-use was found to created greater class community. The study was done on a small group of undergraduates with prior relationships to one another. Kyri and Cakir (2010) detail their considerations of Facebook for learning purposes from creating a survey sent out to students. The article from the study began with many bullets summarizing the features of social networks promoting social network applications as being related to a constructivist approach. The subjects studied were undergraduate students in a university of education in Turkey. The majority of surveyed participants owned a computer and used Facebook 15 minutes to 1 hour every day for social information and educational use (collaboration, help, digital resource sharing). The majority was found to be in favor of using Facebook for educational purposes. However, it was found that Facebook used for education but not under instructor supervision would entail negative learning outcomes. 2.13 Web 2.0 Audio-Based Tools with Minimal Visual Aid for Learning The use of hypermedia that functions as a source of visual aid, including an audio


component or not, is a method that has received more attention from higher education journals than the previously mentioned tools of Twitter and Facebook. The use of video as a method of student-student or student-teacher interaction within learning objects is possible through such tools as Voicethread, screen capturing, Skype and webinars (Meskill & Anthony, 2007). Use of these tools allow for collaboration within an increased frequency of social presence. Participants are likely, using these tools, to see body language, view facial expressions, enhanced perception of voice inflections, and deeper understanding of classmate and teacher contributions where simple text based interaction may leave a sense of transactional distance (Stein, Wanstreet & Calvin, 2009) In the August 24, 2010 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education, assistant professor of Spanish, Shannon Polchow, at University of South Carolina Upstate, detailed her experimentation with VoiceThread first in her face-to-face class and then in one of her fully online courses. Her initial interest in the tool came from a simple student suggestion,
While I felt that the class had gone well, a students simple observation led me to my latest modification: find a way for students interact with one another in an online setting. The online forum I employed enabled me to speak in an asynchronous fashion with my students, but it did not allow them to communicate with one another, leaving them isolated, alone in cyberspace to work on their assignments with no personal interaction. (Polchow, 2010)

After implementing it in her course she came to the following observations,

Before using VoiceThread in an online setting, I tested the program on my traditional classes. Both literature and language students alike really took to the program. While teaching Don Quixote, students used VoiceThread as their own personal confessional, suggesting topics that they would never ask in class. In language classes, there was a high level of participation from all students. VoiceThread gave all students their own voice in discussions, breaking down the affective filters most students carry with them into a


language classroomHowever, it is important to note that VoiceThread is not only for the foreign languages. In the library of threads, the program has been incorporated into science classes, digital storytelling, and study abroadTo my surprise, I have received unsolicited e-mails thanking me for using VoiceThread in the online class. (Polchow, 2010)

In the May 12, 2010 issue of Faculty Focus John Orlando, program director for the online Master of Science in Business Continuity Management and Master of Science in Information Assurance programs at Norwich University, details the affordances he has found from using VoiceThread. In the article he bullets the affordances of this tool as it relates to student engagement,
Student driven discussion: Discussion originates from the students themselves, and thus students tend to bring more of themselves into the conversation. Discussion is freer and more open, touching on a wider variety of issues. A growing lecture: Discussion in a traditional online forum never leaves the classroom. The class is archived and discussion forums are wiped clean for the next group, meaning that the insights are lost. But because discussion in VoiceThread is attached to the lecture itself, which can then be used for the next class, students are adding to the lecture itself, which grows from class to class. Students contribute to an ongoing conversation with future classes. Improved social presence: Students find that the ability to see and hear their instructor and classmates improves the sense of social presence of others in the classroom. Better understanding of nuance: Students are better able to understand the nuances of discussion when they can hear the tone in someones voice. Student Projects: VoiceThreads are a great way for students to deliver projects and solicit feedback from others. (Orlando, 2010)

In Carla Meskill and Natasha Anthonys 2010 book Teaching Languages Online there are quite a few examples of implementing the Voicethread tool for asynchronous (as in not real-time) collaboration through learning objects. In the third chapter, they give several examples of using VoiceThread for what they refer to as corralling which they 31

define as Instructor (or a student) redirects learners attention to specifics of language used. Using VoiceThread, they detail a ESL teacher providing mid-beginning students with a picture, visible in a provided VoiceThread window, asking them what they think is going on in the picture. The students are expected to use learned vocabulary to express emotion that they perceive as displayed by the people demonstrated in the picture (Meskill & Anthony, 2010, p. 79). Such use of images in VoiceThread can elicit the use of the audio commentary portion of VoiceThread. Using what Meskill and Anthony call modeling, students record and submit what they imagine to be the appropriate dialogue, in the learned language, to most accurately interpret the emotions or actions in the VoiceThread displayed picture (Meskill & Anthony, 2010 p.84-85). The pictures themselves can be defined as digital learning objects, an online item specifically designed for instructional purposes (Meskill & Anthony 2010 p. 191) to enhance instructional conversations (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988, 1991) or productive, interactive verbal strategies used by educators to engage learners in active thinking, negotiation of meaning, and consequently learning (Meskill & Anthony, 2007 p.81) 2.14 Web 2.0 Audio-Only Enhanced Learning Predominant platforms in online learning, such as course delivery systems like WebCT and Blackboard, as well as their constituent collaborative tools like discussion boards/forums and chat, focus on text as the primary medium. However, [the] use of audiois experiencing a renaissance fueled by the ubiquity of portable audio players, broadband Internet, and software tools that allow the relatively easy creation and 32

distribution of audio files (Schlosser, 2006, sec. 2, para. 1)(Lee & Chan, 2007, p. 90). The current audio tools enable students and faculty to publish their reports, reflections, and collaborations for broadcast in social media or for private use. Audio recording and editing can be used in many learning opportunities in higher education. Students can record their voices speaking for a language course to reflect on their pronunciation, grammar, inflection, etc. (Meskill & Anthony, 2010). Regarding distance collaboration projects, students can record feedback or content for use in a collaborative project. When preparing such feedback for submission, students and faculty can use the same freeware to edit interviews or lectures. That same freeware is used by faculty to give feedback to students regarding their web-displayed projects. The freeware is not just limited to speech, as sound effects available in audio editing tools can enhance digital storytelling as well. The term podcasting has been used to refer to audio-only Web 2.0 interaction for learning purposes. Lee and Chan (2007) presented a study, examining podcasting, as the possibility to reduce the effects of isolation, or what Stein, Wanstreet and Calvin (2009) call transactional distance or the sense of isolation from class community that can occur through web based online learning, an interchangeable term with distance education. The study was done at the aforementioned authors institution, Charles Sturt University in Wagga Wagga Australia, a leading institute in Australia for distance-learning. The study was found to be necessary as Lee and Chan site Desmond Keegan, (1996) who asserts that the separation of student and teacher removes a vital link of communication 33

between the two parties, which must be restored by means of explicit steps to re-initiate the teacher-learner interaction, albeit somewhat artificially, through measures like ongoing electronic or telephone communication. Without these measures, distance students are less likely to undergo acculturation into institutional life (Lee & Chan 2007, p. 86). Lee and Chang found that student respondents to their study considered podcasting useful in supplementing the other resources, such as the textbook, study guide and subject outline, by providing reinforcement and backup of and a different perspective on, information and concepts covered in [the] materials. (Lee & Chan, 2007, p. 96). Phillip Ice, et al., in the discussion section of a study of podcast implementation in a higher education learning environment wrote the following...
Our investigations revealed an overwhelming student preference for asynchronous audio feedback as compared to traditional text based feedback, with no negative perceptions of the technique. The fact that over one third of students cited the use of audio feedback as a key factor they would use in selecting future online courses is significant. When these findings are combined with data comparing the use of knowledge constructed using audio feedback and the level at which that knowledge was applied, we believe asynchronous audio commenting merits serious consideration in the development and delivery of future courses. Though students can project themselves and their emotions through text based communication, two thirds of students in this study cited ability to understand nuance as reason for preferring audio to text feedback. This finding is important because it extends upon Richardson and Swans social presence research, in which a strong relation was found to exist between students perceptions of social presence and satisfaction with the instructor. In addition, it is likely that an enhanced ability to detect nuance impacts student perceptions of the instructors use of humor, and openness toward and encouragement of student ideas and discussion; key immediacy behaviors cited by Arbaugh [23]. The second most commonly expressed theme, increased feelings of involvement, is important because it reinforces the sense of community and perception of being there. In terms of how audio commenting decreased social distance for students, the best example can be found in words offered by one student: It was like that bubble started getting popped in all these different places and made me feel like you were reaching in there and touching me. (Ice, Curtis, Phillips & Wells, 2007 p.18)

There are more examples where podcasts have been used to provide feedback to students. At the University of Chester, there is currently a three-year research project 34

looking at providing feedback on assignments to geography students. Here, a secure podcast is created for each student and this is split into two parts the first part is a generic feedback portion for all students and the second is student specific feedback (Murphy, 2009). 2.15 Advisement for Audio-Only Tool Use Bonk and Zhang (2008) noted the need to have instructor created podcasts not to exceed a certain length of time to insure no cognitive overload on the part of the student,
Avoid including too many podcasts of long instructor lectures; we try hard to limit our podcasts to 15-20 minutes each or less. Fort instance, Bonk has created short podcasts, each lasting around 15 minutes, for his learning theories class related content for the week, such as Robert Gagnes ideas on instructional design and comparisons of human learning and development concepts of Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky. He has also developed longer podcasts on emerging technologies in education for distance masters students and alumni of his department at Indiana University.(pg. 50)

2.16 Wikis: Text-Based Group Collaboration The use of the Wiki as a method of group collaboration is the oldest instance of Web 2.0 use and was created by Ward Cunningham and found its first use in 1995 (Cunnigham, 2005). From the wiki.org website, a wiki is described best as,
Wiki is a piece of server software that allows users to freely create and edit Web page content using any Web browser. Wiki supports hyperlinks and has a simple text syntax for creating new pages and crosslinks between internal pages on the fly (What is Wiki, 2005).

Even though it is a Web 2.0 tool as in publicly accessible, there are estimated to be many more wikis in use professionally, behind firewalls, than those available to publicly view through a simple web search (Wiki, 2011). While wikis allow group 35

collaboration they are not open in the sense that anyone can edit them. Those invited to use a wiki are given editing rights that allow them to contribute to the wiki rather than only be able to read its text. Wikis can be used for group projects that are of a long or short time length. Creating a group essay is more efficiently completed on a wiki than passing paper around. The process can alleviate the student burden of coordinating the time for physically meeting and having to make sure all members of the team are participating equally (Green & Maxwell, 2010). The best affordance of the wiki is that it cuts down on the time and energy spent on getting together to do the project so more time can be spent on creating content at a deeper level (Green & Maxwell, 2010). Green and Maxell (2010) found four crucial considerations to make when using a wiki in higher education. Firstly, they found to not assume students will become proficient in using a wiki immediately. The use of peer review as an affordance of wiki backfired as they saw students were found to be reluctant to edit each others work. Because of this, students saw making peer editing a requirement as additional pressure. Combining this with the scaffolding of instructor presence in the wiki left some students not readily finding value in a learning environment where they take complete ownership in their learning. Steward Mader is known as a wiki evangelist through the Atlassian Software Company, and is a University of Albany Masters of Science in Curriculum Development and Instructional Technology graduate. In his 2008 book Wikipatterns, he outlines the


most beneficial ways to use a wiki in business with implications for higher education. As he describes,
[Wikis] Enables the natural patterns of interaction that previously could only happen in a physical meeting- fast-paced discussion, overlapping ideas, quick decisions on changes, quick error correction, introducing different viewpoints and collaboratively working to reach agreement-but it removes the need for everyone to be in the same place at the same time, and it documents the interaction better than a traditional meeting could. (pg. 56-7)

A study conducted in 2007 at Victoria Wellington University by Irina Elgort (2007), used wikis in a face-to-face course to assist part time students to do more outside the classroom and to help to students that werent extremely comfortable with technology, to make improvements in their use of technology. The results of the study found that the wiki environment was clearly perceived as effective in supporting group work, as indicated in students comments provided in an anonymous post-course survey (Martin, 2009); proving another good example of the successful use of a wiki in, perhaps unintentional, blended learning. Most useful is a summary list of University of Delaware faculty interviewees. Each person interviewed was a faculty member at the institution who gave their impressions on the success or failures of their implementation of a wiki in their higher education classroom. English professor Chris Penna, since 2006, was using wikis in three different courses (Composition, Survey Literature, and Business Writing). In addition to face-to-face, two of these courses were also offered online to distance learners. The wiki provided a space for teammates to write their project collaboratively. He noticed that the use of a wiki got students to be more self-aware of the writing process 37

in terms of vision and revision. Students in his classes developed their own handbook in the wiki, which is open to the public eye, but reserved to his students to edit. His students are proud of the fact that what they wrote in the wiki pops up on Google (Wikis in Higher Education, 2008, p. 13). As an example of use in blended learning, U. of Delaware professor Mark Serva used wikis for his emerging technologies class, where students had a case study on Marriot Corporation, and for his Technology Management class, where it has been mostly used to support in-class debates. In order to center the information coming from Marriot executives (and avoid having all students overloading their email box and voicemail, the wiki became a question and answer space for the class project. Serva warns professors about the grading process for wikis, which can become difficult because of multiple factors, including working physically or using chat on the side, and overachievers, who can kill the discussion by writing a definitive answer from the get-go. Overall, he believes wikis are very efficient and have a low barrier to entry for anybody (Wikis in Higher Education, 2008, p. 13). Professors Pao-Nan Chou and Ho-Huan Chen (2008), from Pennsylvania State University, studied 55 college students in a 2-week project of computer programming incorporating a Wiki for course group collaboration. The students created their own web search engines in group collaboration facilitated within their group Wikis. Results showed that during the 2 week project the first week showed not one student's page reflecting any work. At the second week evidence of participation arose. It was found that activity was done in a highly competitive atmosphere with no team publishing until


others did first. The reflective learning component, a feature of group collaboration in wiki, showed little to no metacognitive displays. Students also didnt give each other any constructive criticism, only positive comments. Students disliked the use of random peer groups and dislike the perceived short amount of time for the assignment. The study showed its students needed modeling for reflective learning prior to engagement in such activities. 2.17 Blogging The use of blogging, or web logging as it was originally called, is one of the most popular activities of the read-write web and is also the most popular mode of expression for public community building and for meta-cognitive learning (Kurt, 2007) activity areas. However, blogging in education has been referred to as a grass-roots phenomenon. The major discussion on the benefits and drawbacks to blogging in higher education has taken place within higher education blogs themselves. Because blogging is a form of publishing that is public to an infinite audience, such an affordance has led to the opportunity to utilize it as the main area for academic reflection. While other instances of documenting educational tools and outcomes have taken place in scholarly journals, relatively little about blogging is documented in journals than is published (Williams & Jacobs, 2004). As of 2004, the latest documentation suggested that the number of hosted blogs created exceeded five million by the end of 2003, and ten million by the end of 2004 (Henning, 2003). The leading host of educational area-driven blogs is Edublogs, a site providing free access to WordPress blog creation. As of October 3, 2007, Edublogs 39

founder James Farmer, announced that the number of education centered blogs, those created by students, faculty or entire on Edublogs reach the number of 100, 000 (VanFossen, 2007). 2.18 Blogging Popularity in the Professional World For adults entering the work-environment after having completed a degree program that may have resulted in a career change, the use of blogging in future work environments will be robust based on its simplicity of use. The interest, on the part of the business community in the ease of blogging as a public space for comment and information dissemination resulted in the first international conference on the business use of blogs in the United States in June 2003 and the start of the Socialtext initiative. Bausch, Haughey and Hourihan (2002) argue that while formal knowledge management tools are complicated and may be deemed an imposition on the time of a worker, informal systems such as blogs provide an opportunity to capture knowledge where it is created in an organization, sharing that knowledge thought an organization (Williams and Jacobs 2008). The nature of blogging engines allows for the creation of a legitimate warehousing of captured knowledge, and archiving for later retrieval (Bausch, Haughey & Hourihan, 2002). As a knowledge management tool, blogs provide the potential for relatively undifferentiated articles of information passing through an organization to be contextualized in a manner that adds value, thus generating knowledge from mere information. Comments systems and democratic posting privileges allow employees in an organization to give voice to ideas and provide feedback on procedures in a manner 40

not previously possible in a distributed office environment. Further, personalized responses to news and messages are a simple means of developing an understanding of the collective knowledge of an organization and a means of broadening that knowledge, thus creating intelligence from knowledge (see Por & Molly, 2000). Thus, in a business context, blogs provide a forum for learning. It logically follows therefore that the experience of collective knowledge generation can and should be applied to traditional educational environments (Williams & Jacobs, 2008). 2.19 Use of Blogging in Higher Education The most widely cited educational implementation of blogging as a learning activity as it use for meta-cognitive exercise. John Flavell, (1979) is known to be the first person who used the term metacognition when describing the control of the cognitive processes of knowledge, experience and regulation (Kurt, 2007). Anderson (2002) divides meta-cognition into five primary components: (1) preparing and planning for learning, (2) selecting and using learning strategies, (3) monitoring strategy use, (4) orchestrating various strategies, and (5) evaluating strategy use and learning (Kurt, 2007). Reflection is the key student engagement in blog writing. Reflection has been defined as a process of turning experience into learning (Boud, 2001, p.9). Some researchers argue that reflection is the highest level of individual learning (e.g., Baumgartner et al., 2004; Bartlett-Bragg, 2003; Boud, 2001) and learning journals are, moreover, used for self-reflection. The learner therefore externalizes new knowledge in weblog posts. Afterwards, the learner can refer to these posts and build on already learned knowledge assets. Simultaneously, the individual learning process is documented 41

and may be later analyzed meta-cognitively (Hain & Back, 2008). Well known institutions that have documented the use of blogs include the University of Iowa, Rice University, Harvard University, who was the site of the first blogging initiative at a major education institution, following their conference, What is Harvards Digital Identity in November of 2002 (Williams & Jacobs 2004). 2.20 Multi-User Virtual Environments The use of social networking website applications such as Twitter, Facebook, blog sites, passworded wikis and audio editing are the most widely documented areas of Web 2.0 behavior supplemented in the higher education learning environment. These are not the only technical instances of Web 2.0 behavior in learning. There are more Web 2.0 tools made available each week that it is impossible to integrate all of them. The rapidity with which Web 2.0 tools are taken away from public usage and new ones appear in their place proves that this is an area of activity that is constantly evolving. Some areas that will be examined now are of even more current trending and therefore have received less affordance-focus documentation but are among the most current consideration. One more area revealed here are Multi-User-Virtual-Environments (MUVE), with Second Life receiving the most scholarly writing. 2.21 Second Life and Social Learning Theory Smith and Berge (2009) relate Albert Banduras Social Learning Theory, the idea that we learn from our interactions with others in a social context, to Second Life (SL), an MUVE. Second Life is a virtual reality program where participants create 42

avatars, mostly quite unlike their physical selves, to participate in higher education learning solely within Second Life. SL participation starts with Banduras concepts of imitation and behavior modeling. SL is a new, highly creative platform for observational learning. Currently, hundreds of higher educational institutions are involved in Second Life. The drawbacks to engagement in SL are the inability to express attitude or emotional reactions with ones avatar. The other most pressing issue of SL is the need for students to self-monitor their SL behavior and the need for instructors in SL to outline clearly their expectations of appropriate behavior in this virtual world. 2.22 Multi-User-Virtual-Environments (MUVE) in Higher Education The use of Second Life, also known as Simulations (Prenksy, 2001a), in higher education institutions has not been a one-size-fits-all implementation, and mirroring the reality that social interaction takes place in a variety of contexts, Baker, Wentz and Woods (2009) noted the following use of Second life in the study area of psychology,
To date, there are few specific psychology-related sites in SL. One of these, the University of Derbys SL-Labs, focuses on teaching and research in psychology; projects at this site examine the use of virtual worlds in the teaching of psychology. At another site, the virtual hallucinations project attempts to re-create aspects of perceptual distortions experienced by persons with schizophrenia. Avatars enter and move through a building in which objects change appearance; disembodied voices are also heard throughout the area. Other possibilities exist for using SL as a teaching tool for psychology. For example, instructors or students might build a virtual re-creation of an important historical venue (e.g., a working recreation of Pavlovs lab), or a large-scale model of the brain and nervous system, or an avatar-sized operant chamber (p. 61).

Squire and Jenkins (2003) illustrate a number of ways that simulations can be used in education. First, they suggest that simulations can function as out-of-classroom assignments, allowing students to work through challenges on their own and at their own 43

pace. Second, simulations can also be a problem-based learning experience, testing students abilities to transfer specific tasks previously learned to an online medium (Oblinger, 2004). Third, simulations can serve as a flexible pedagogical medium because students are motivated to mobilize information to solve simulated-based situations; they do not just memorize facts (Squire & Jenkins, 2003; Teoh, 2007). 2.23 Survey Question Rationale Based on scholarly evidence of Web 2.0 use in higher education, a series of questions were developed on the part of the author to be used in the survey distributed to higher education faculty in two Adult higher education focused institutions, Empire State College in New York and Granite State College in New Hampshire. Having started with a series of embryonic, brainstormed questions that might reveal Web 2.0 usage, further research in literature regarding Web 2.0 use for learning purposes led to the creation of the resulting questions. The first question posed asked the individual faculty member to choose from a Likert scale how much of their teaching involved online learning as opposed to purely face-to-face teaching. Based on literature from Garrison and Vaughan (2008), it was concluded that there is a need to address, among faculty, how much of their workload is teaching online or face-to face. It cannot be assumed that a higher education institution faculty member has authority to determine whether they will engage in learning online or not. The need for a greater number of higher education faculty to shift greater focus to teaching fully-online or in blended learning has its foundation on economy-centered and 44

student-centered realities of current higher education institutional practices. As Garrison and Vaughan (2008) state,
[The second set of changes] is within the institutions themselves. There are budget constraints, an increasing focus on research, and growth in class sizes, resulting in a commensurate loss of contact with the professor. Efficiencies are needed to address the cost of higher education while addressing quality concerns. The challenge cannot be met by simply increasing funding for higher education. This is not a realistic prospect. Institutions of higher education have begun to recognize that they are in a difficult situation in terms of reducing costs while addressing quality concerns (p. 144-145).

Understanding that teaching in higher education is not exclusive to only certain areas of study, the second question asks faculty to type, in their own words, what their area of study is. The conducted literature review yielded varying examples of Web 2.0 tool integration over more than just one area of study. Utilizing Twitter within language coursework by Perry coursework, audio tools for language learning (Meskill & Anthony 2010), or wikis for language studies (Wikis in Higher Education, 2008) are just three examples from the literature review that exemplify the possibility for creative implementation of these tools at faculty discretion. The next question of what makes a successful online learning experience to that faculty member sought to illicit a wide possibility of responses. The literature review shows that successful online learning engages students and teacher in the previously mentioned learning theories of the Community of Inquiry (Garrrison, 2007), Social Constructivism (Munroe 2010) and Connectivism (Siemens & Tittenberger, 2009, pg. 11). The question was posed in hopes that the answers may reflect on the qualities inherent in the associated learn theories that were explored in the literature review.


In the fourth survey question, name recognition and association of specific Web 2.0 tools were determined. Later, the faculty member was asked to determine which they use for personal life and which they use in coursework. This was determined a necessary component to ask as a large body of media and print resources describe faculty use of Web 2.0 tools outside of learning (Conole & Alevizou, 2010). While some were found to use these tools to communicate with students away from the classroom, fewer detailed use of exploring these tools for learning purposes. Faculty questions, based on this knowledge, were Are you familiar with Web 2.0 tools? a list was provided, Do you use them in your personal life? and Do you use Web 2.0 tools in your online courses? The list of Web 2.0 given in the survey contained twenty four tools that are known currently as Web 2.0 courseware as defined in chapter one or are software tools that, anecdotally, are used to aid in group collaboration in different areas of study such as Prezi or any video editing technology. As is evident by the list, only a portion of the Web 2.0 tools in the composed list are those that have been detailed in the literature review as contributing to learning outcomes as related to the learning theories discussed in this literature review (Churches, 2008). By providing faculty the ability to display their knowledge of the vast majority of known tools, implications can be drawn from faculty responses. Based on the evidence of student-validated importance of Web 2.0 (Kayri & Cakir, 2010), the following question was Do your students use Web 2.0 tools for your course even if you dont require it? From the potential answers from faculty, 46

implications can be drawn on whether faculty may need to support students to a greater or lesser extent in their attempt to use the technology for learning purposes. Such a seemingly endless number of Web 2.0 tools entering and leaving the education community environment (Shaffhauser, 2010) led to the following question to be If you are unfamiliar with any of them, please state which ones [from the list]. Finally, due to the inherent drawback of the survey tool used, the final two questions were combined. The provided number of questions allowed nine questions. These two questions asked if faculty had not yet integrated one or more Web 2.0 tools into their teaching, would they and what they may see as deterrents or drawbacks to doing so. Both questions were determined valuable to be able to arrive at an understanding of faculty attitudes towards Web 2.0 tools in learning, as the literature review showed evidence of faculty apprehension or lack of confidence in Web 2.0 tools for learning outcomes (BonderupDohn, 2009)


CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY The overarching question of this research project has been to find if the use of Web 2.0 tools for higher education learning purposes can aid instruction through this new technology. Having conducted the literature review, the evidence of the positive impact Web 2.0 tools have on higher education learning environments in higher education journals shows new possibilities for learning collaboration with technology. Learning theories such as Community of Inquiry (Garrison, 2007), Social Constructivism (Munroe, 2010), Andragogy (Conner, 2004), and Connectivism (Siemens & Tittenberger, 2009) are known to be associated with learning through computer technology. The use of textbased tools (Perry 2008), audio-based tools (Meskill & Anthony, 2010), wikis (Mader, 2008), blogs (Kurt, 2007) or Multi-User Virtual Environments (Squire & Jenkins, 2003) have been documented as aiding the higher education learning environment. The nascent implementation of Web 2.0 tools have been such that there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence of Web 2.0 tool use for learning in higher education but not as much empirical evidence (Conole & Alevizou, 2010). Also, there are many Web 2.0 tools not featured in the literature review that have been anecdotally in use, but their benefits or weaknesses as learning activities have not been documented. Another consideration is that the vast number of faculty in international and domestic higher education over all areas of study may reveal, anecdotally, a more concentrated implementation of Web 2.0 tools over one area of study than another. The literature reveals, too, the positive outcomes of Web 2.0


tool usage but, do any faculty, anecdotally, have negative experiences with Web 2.0 tool usage? 3.1 Formulated Survey Questions To address this inquiry resulting from the literature review, the author created a group of questions to distribute to faculty that would show further evidence of Web 2.0 usage. In this questionnaire, faculty were asked how much they teach online, what their area of study is, what tools do they use or not for teaching versus personal web community-participation, as in using Facebook. They also were asked if the tools worked or not. Through the completion of a survey, it was considered chance that faculty may reveal an open-minded attitude toward technology supplementation in ones field of study, or on the other end, a belief that Web 2.0 tools are not necessary to enhance cognitive presence, to view through the Community of Inquiry model. 3.2 Protocol of Participating Institutions Based on the literature review of the theory of andragogy, two higher education institutions whose student body are the average age of 36, therefore displaying adult lifestyle characteristics, are Empire State College in New York State and Granite State College in New Hampshire. These two institutions were then invited, via email correspondence to participate in the survey. Before engaging in inviting any survey participants, IRB approval was submitted and granted by University of Albany and Empire State College. IRB approval was not necessary to obtain from Granite State


College. Among University of Albany and Empire State College, exempt approval was granted. 3.3 Participant Invitations In order to protect the rights of the participants, the survey was created to be taken anonymously by participants, by their own will, with any of the questions being optional. All responses were kept on a password protected computer whose sole user was the survey administrator, this thesis author. If participants had questions regarding the survey they were given my contact information and the contact information of the participating departments of University of Albany and Empire State College; only when distributed within the Empire State College intranet. The responses will also be destroyed after the study has been published. In order to separate the survey responses, for organizational purposes, two separate hyperlinks to the survey were created, one for Empire State College and one for Granite State College. The resulting survey responses were extracted to a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to facilitate data comparison. 3.4 Invitation Distribution At Empire State College, after having been granted IRB approval through their graduate department, the authors survey email was sent out within their intranet email system. The email contained the invitation, a human subjects disclaimer and the hyperlink to the survey itself. Only teaching faculty members were sent the email, therefore administrators and staff were not included in the study as it focused on the perspective of an instructor. Regarding the number of how many faculty members


received the email invitation and read it, a definitive number is not possible to obtain. As stated before, faculty were instructed that, based on their comfort level, they did not have to answer any of the given questions or may disregard the survey completely, a choice given in order to protect participant rights. The same email was sent through the Granite State College intranet email system to faculty. Granite State College has similar attributes to Empire State College. On the outset the clearest difference between the two is that Empire State College offers graduate level study and Granite State College only offers undergraduate studies. Another difference between the two, as gleaned from the Facts & Figures (Granite State College, 2010) page of the Granite State College website is that, while Empire State college faculty includes full time, part-time and adjunct instructors totaling near one thousand (Empire State College, 2010), Granite State College faculty are, as stated on the page, only 323 adjuncts, implying that they do not have fulltime faculty. Through email correspondence it was made known to me that 66 faculty members received the email invitation. 3.5 Eliciting Data from Experiences Through Question Formulation The first question asked, Please give a rough estimate of how much of your teaching load is fully online and/or blended. The answer choices were provided as a Likert scale where faculty check the appropriate box from the following options, #1 = none, #2 = 10%, #3 = 25%, #4 = 50%, #5 = 75%, #6 = 100%, allowing a variety of responses. The second question asked, What is your Area of Study? The accompanying answer field was a blank text field to allow participants to respond using 51

whatever language they wished to describe their fields. The third question asked What, to you, makes a successful on-line learning experience for students? The accompanying answer field was a blank text field to allow participants to respond in an unrestrained, free-prose manner. The fourth question was accompanied by a list of well-known Web 2.0 applications. The limitations of the survey host Survey Monkey limited options for this questions presentation. A more effective presentation of the accompanying list would have been to provide a checkbox before the name of each tool. However, given that Survey Monkey limits the options for question presentations, the participant had to fill in the accompanying text box the familiar tool names through typing. This fourth question was, Are you familiar with any or some of these Web 2.0 tools. If so, which ones? The list of tools were as follows in the third figure. The fifth question was, Do you use any of these tools in your personal life? The accompanying answer field was large enough to allow for an elaboration past Yes or No. Question number six was, Do you use web 2.0 tools in your online or blended course? Again, the accompanying answer field was large enough to allow for elaboration. The seventh question asked, Do your students use Web 2.0 tools for your course, even if you dont require it? The accompanying answer field was also a long text box, allowing more than a one-word answer if the participant wished to explain further. The eighth question asked, If you are unfamiliar with any of them, please state which ones. The accompanying answer field allowed for longer passage responses. The ninth and final question stated, Have you considered (but not yet) integrating


FIGURE 3 List of Well-Known Web 2.0 Tools Listed in Fourth Survey Question 1. wikis 2. Audacity, Garageband, podcasting 3. Facebook 4. Twitter 5. Elluminate 6. YouTube 7. Wordpress (any blogging) 8. diigo 9. Delicious 10. mindmeister 11. Google docs 12. open textbooks 13. M.O.O.C.s 14. Prezi 15. Forscene (or any other video editing tools) 16. Jing (screen casting) 17. High-end software (Maple, Virtuallabs, Finale) 18. Second Life 19. Zoho 20. RefWorks 21. Skype 22. SlideShare 23. Scribd 24. Zotero 25. VoiceThread

Web 2.0 tools in online learning for adult learners? Also, what might be some deterrents or drawbacks to you? Such an open-ended question was created in hopes of eliciting a variety of responses. 3.6 Response Time Consideration Once the survey link was made available to participants, there was no deadline set on when responses could be submitted. By doing so, it was hoped to attract as many faculty members as possible to participate. The following responses were analyzed, personally, in a private setting by the author, reviewing the resulting Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. 53

3.7 Summary The onset goal of this study was to find adult-higher education faculty usage and opinions on the effectiveness of Web 2.0 tool usage in online learning. The ultimate goal is to be able to draw implications from the responses on how Web 2.0 tools have been, could be or will be used as tools for instruction. To reach these goals several research questions were created based on a literature review. In order to address the research questions methodologically, the author created a survey within University of Albany and Empire State College Office of Regulatory Research Compliance guidelines and sent it to the foreseen, appropriate participants. As a result, 62 individuals took part in the survey invited to Empire State College faculty and 18 individuals took part in the survey intended for Granite State College faculty. I will detail the responses that were combined into the survey data analysis in a discussion in the following chapter.


CHAPTER FOUR RESPONSES AND DISCUSSION In this chapter, the responses and discussion portion of the thesis will be addressed, and faculty responses for each question will be revealed. In the discussion area of the responses to each question, patterns will be examined and determined from each question response as related to previous question responses. By reflecting on the data in this way, a pattern may be found regarding current Web 2.0 thinking among faculty based on the presented data. The survey hyperlink emailed yielded fewer responses than hoped for based on college website documentation of faculty-body. However, it was noted to the author by Dr. Carla Meskill that such a number of responses was high for the authors first attempt at gathering survey data. The Empire State College web site states that the faculty at Empire State College is a rough estimate of over one thousand full-time, part-time and adjunct instructors (Empire State College, n.d.). Given that the survey email was sent through Empire State Colleges intranet it is impossible to determine how many faculty read the email then disregarded it, read the email and intended to participate but did not, or received the email and choose to not open it to read. After having sent the email through the intranet email system, 42 emails were received by the author as an Out of Office or does not like recipients format automated messages. Also, after sending out the email, several instructors emailed the author concerned that they shouldnt take part in the survey. Broadly, these faculty members email responses were concerned with them not using Web 2.0 tools for learning activities. These respondents seemed under the impression that because they didnt use Web 2.0 tools in online courses, then, they ought 55

to be excluded from the survey. The author, in email replies, assured them that, even though they may not have experience with these tools, their opinions were more than necessary and valuable. It is not possible to determine if these same faculty members then participated in the survey because responses were documented as anonymous by the survey tool. Granite State College lists on its website as having over 300 adjuncts, implying that they do not have faculty members (Granite State College, 2010). However, the email survey invitation was noted to the author by the Granite State College administrator that volunteered to send it through their intranet system, as having been sent to 66 faculty members. 4.1 Responses to First Question from Both Institution Respondents
FIGURE 4 Combined Responses of Percentage of Coursework Taught Online
50 40 30 20 10 0 0% 10% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Empire State College Granite State College Combined

The first question (Q1) on the survey to Empire State faculty was Please give a rough estimate of how much of your teaching load is fully online and/or blended. The participants were given a Likert scale of choices in percentages. These choices were 0%, 10%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%. Of the 62 respondents, all of them answered this


question. As can be seen in Figure 4, 10 respondents stated that they did not teach online at all, eight responders stated that they taught 10% online, 10 teach 25 % online, four teach 50%, seven teach 75% online and 23 respondents teach 100% online. Therefore, faculty respondents represented the following teaching loads by percentage yields 16% didnt teach online, 12% teach 10% online, 16% teach 25% online, 6% teach 50% online, 11% teach 75% online and 37% of respondents identified themselves as teaching 100% online. At Granite State College, the same question yielded different responses. Although their website states that they have over 300 adjuncts teaching for Granite State, the email survey was sent by the Dean of Curriculum through their intranet to 66 faculty members. Of those, only 18 took part in the survey. These faculty members' response to Q1 yielded the following s: no faculty identified themselves as having no online teaching load, one respondent identified as teaching 10 % online and no faculty member identified himself or herself as teaching 25% online. Two faculty members identified as teaching 50% online, five identified themselves as teaching 75% online and 10 respondents labeled themselves as teaching 100% online. Therefore, the percentages of teaching load responders yield 0% identified themselves as not teaching online, roughly 5% only teach 10% online, 0% teach only 25% online, 11% teach 50% online, 27% teach 75% online and over 55% teach 100% online. 4.2 Discussion of First Question Responses It is not possible to derive conclusive evidence of trends based on the question of how much a faculty teaches online and the resulting replies. While it does stand that a 57

large number of respondents stated they taught 100 % online, a definition of teaching 100% online was not determined. It is possible to infer that those who choose 100% teach neither blended learning courses or face-to-face coursework. It is doubtful that a respondent may identify teaching online in a blended setting as teaching 100% online. The extent as to what amount of a faculty members blended coursework is face-to-face versus online is completely up to the individual faculty member. Therefore, other percentages may infer that the faculty member teaches 25% percent of their courses online and the remainder is engaged face-to-face. Conversely, the survey respondent may be an adjunct faculty member whose learning activities are 100% online however they may only teach 25% of their professional activities for the surveyed institution. The purpose of this study is not to attach metrics to the thoughts and technology centered attitudes to a faculty members employment status of part-time, full-time or adjunct, with the institution. As we move to the upcoming questions, patterns may be revealed from the data found in the first question. The answers to Q1, considered as a standalone presentation of empirical evidence, do not display any similarities or differences between the two participating institutions. It is not possible to gauge Web 2.0 tool attitudes and usage among faculty based on their teaching load status. It should also be noted that this study does not aim to draw conclusions of teaching effectiveness at Empire State College versus Granite State College. Conclusively, data from both institutions will be combined when presented.


4.3 Responses to the Second Question When asked to fill in an open-ended response field of each respondents area of study, the terminology used to describe ones field of study involved at times adventitious descriptions to, perhaps, identify their area of interest as much as their area of study. The combined figures presented from Q2 are compiled in Appendix B. Figure 5 provides the reader with quotes of each response, by those labeling themselves as Arts accompanied by that respondents answer to Q1.
FIGURE 5 Faculty Discipline Identification (Arts) and Percentage Taught Online Arts

Graphic Design for the Web including Adobe CS5 Fireworks, Dreamweaver, Flash, for Print & Web Photoshop, eCommerce. (10%) Social Theory, Cultural Studies and the Arts (all three in about equal parts) * (25%) The Arts (25%) Cultural Studies, Arts * (75%) Area of teaching is art history and philosophy (100%) Arts (100%)

Studying the table in Figure 5 illustrates the multidiscipline course load as perceived by faculty. For example, two respondents identified themselves as of the area of study of the Arts. Other faculty members that may technically be associated with the Arts include those who identified themselves as teaching Graphic Design for the Web including Adobe CS5 Fireworks, Dreamweaver, Flash, for Print & Web Photoshop, eCommerce, and teaching Social Theory, Cultural Studies and The Arts (all three in about equal parts). Another instructor identifying themselves as part of the arts, listed themselves as teaching Cultural Studies, Arts. Some faculty members identified


themselves as teaching more than one area of study, like area of teaching is art history and philosophy. Those whose area of study may be classified as human development are those who identified themselves as teaching the following areas: two identified as Community and Human Service/Human Development, psychology, community and human services, human services. Also, two stated early childhood education with one of those including the humanities as Human Development Educational Studies. The preceding information is illustrated in Figure 6.
FIGURE 6 Faculty Discipline Identification (Human Development) and Percentage Taught Online

Human Development
Community and Human Services (50%) Early childhood [education] (100%) CHS/HDV (50%) Community and Human Services (100%) Human Development, Educational Studies * (none) Human Development (10%) ECE [early childhood education]; humanities (50%) ECE [early childhood education] (75%) Early Childhood Education (75%) Human Services (75%)

Nine identified themselves as teachers of Business, Management and Economics as represented by Figure 7. Within this area there was a respondent who identified himself or herself as a graduate level instructor labeling their area of study as MBA. Two other instructors recognized themselves as teaching Economics and Finance and one more added the term International Business. One, alone, defined


FIGURE 7 Faculty Discipline Identification (B, M & E) and Percentage Taught Online

Business, Management & Economics (BME)

Business, Management and Economics (none) Business, Management and Economics (10%) BME but also do cultural studies * (25%) BME (25%) Business & Economics (25%) BM & E (25%) Finance, Accounting, International Business (75%) Management (100%) Business, Management and Economics (100%) BME and SMT * (100%) BME (100%) MBA (100%) Economics and Finance (10%)

themselves as teaching Management. One other showed a range of study knowledge by labeling themselves as teaching BME but also do cultural studies. Finally, one identified their area of study as BME and SMT, with the definition of SMT within the Empire State College Course Catalog as Science, Math and Technology.
FIGURE 8 Faculty Discipline Identification (Language Arts) and Percentage Taught Online

Language Arts
Romance Language (none) Writing (none) Literature (10%) English Literature (75%) American Sign Language (100%) Cultural Studies, English, Literature, Writing * (100%) Foreign Language Spanish (none)

Within the language arts, for the purpose of this study, foreign languages were included as is illustrated by Figure 8. These courses are inferred as similar to English 61

language coursework, as higher education-level foreign language coursework most likely involves higher-order thinking skills with regard to language usage, versus fundamental language learning in the k-12 foreign language curriculum. Using this as an organizational reference, the terms these faculty used to identify themselves included, Writing, Cultural Studies, English, Literature, Writing, Foreign Language, Romance Language, Spanish, English Literature, or literature. Finally, one identified him or herself as teaching American Sign Language. A relatively large number identified themselves as teaching Cultural Studies. Encyclopedia Britannica defines this term as, Interdisciplinary field concerned with the role of social institutions in the shaping of culture. Originally identified with the Center for Contemporary Cultural Studies at the University of Birmingham (founded 1964) and with such scholars as Richard Hoggart, Stuart Hall, and Raymond Williams, today cultural studies is recognized as a discipline or area of concentration in many academic institutions and has had broad influence in sociology, anthropology, historiography, literary criticism, philosophy, and art criticism (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2011). Using that as a definition, it is clear that the term includes a broad assimilation of different fields as illustrated by Figure 9. Considering Figure 9, four defined themselves as teaching cultural studies. Others defined themselves as teaching, Cultural Studies, English, Literature, Writing, combining areas as noted before in the detailing of those in the arts. Other labels included Social Theory, Cultural Studies and the Arts (all three in about equal parts) again, an


FIGURE 9 Faculty Discipline Identification (Cultural Studies) and Percentage Taught Online

Cultural Studies
Cultural Studies (none) Cultural Studies (10%) Historical Studies and Cultural Studies (25%) Historical Studies and Cultural Studies (both really ancient) (25%) Cultural Studies (25%) BME but also do cultural studies * (25%) Social Theory, Cultural Studies and the Arts (all three in about equal parts) * (25%) Cultural Studies, Arts * (75%) Cultural Studies and Historical Studies (75%) Cultural Studies (75%) Cultural Studies- Media and Communications, Digital Media, Digital Arts (100%) Cultural Studies, English, Literature, Writing * (100%) 2 Areas - Educational & Cultural * (100%)

overlap with the previous categories, and 2 Areas - Educational & Cultural. Another within the BME program added but also do cultural studies. More labels included Cultural Studies - Media and Communications, Digital Media, Digital Arts, Cultural Studies, Arts, and Historical Studies and Cultural Studies (both really ancient). Those identifying themselves as teaching psychology numbered two. However, more combined areas such as Psychology, Statistics, Research Methods, Psychology and Education, My AOS is education (specifically adult education), although I teach psychology, research methods and statistics, Education and Psychology, and Biological Psychology. One other determined themselves as having the area of study Behavioral Science and one labeled themselves, Animal Behavior/Ecology. This labeling is illustrated in Figure 10.


FIGURE 10 Faculty Discipline Identification (Psychology) and Percentage Taught Online

Psychology, Statistics, Research Methods (none) My AOS is education (specifically adult education), although I teach psychology, research methods and statistics * (50%) Animal Behavior/Ecology (75%) Psychology (75%) Psychology (100%) Biological Psychology (100%) Education and Psychology * (100%) Behavioral Science (100%) Psychology and education * (100%)

Using Empire State Colleges course catalog identifier of SMT or Science, Math and Technology, only one faculty member used this acronym to define their area and only one other defined themselves as solely teaching mathematics, as shown in Figure 11.
FIGURE 11 Faculty Discipline Identification (S, M & T) and Percentage Taught Online

Science, Math & Technology

SMT (10%) Mathematics (50%) BME & SMT * (100%)

One might infer that the lack of respondents within the mathematics field implies that the need for face-to-face assessment proctoring cannot successfully be adapted for online asynchronous learning environments. Another previously stated, added Science, Math and Technology to their area of study of Business, Management and Economics.


Another group of faculty identified themselves as teaching Social Theory, with two using that specific term. Others, using a broader scope include self definitions like, Social Theory, Cultural Studies and The Arts (all three in about equal parts), Social Theory, Structure, and Change, another identified themselves as teaching Historical Studies, Social Theory, Structure and Change, or Social Sciences. Figure 12 illustrates the preceding information.
FIGURE 12 Faculty Discipline Identification (Social Theory) and Percentage Taught Online

Social Theory
Social Theory (none) Social Theory, Structure, and Change (none) Social Theory, Cultural Studies and The Arts (all three in about equal parts) * (25%) Social Sciences (100%) Social Theory (100%) Historical Studies, Social Theory, Structure and Change (100%)

FIGURE 13 Faculty Discipline Identification (Education) and Percentage Taught Online

Human Development Educational Studies * (none) Teacher Education Literacy (10%) Learning assistance (10%) My AOS is education (specifically adult education), although I teach psychology, research methods and statistics * (50%) Education (100%) 2 Areas - Educational & Cultural * (100%) Self-Directed Learning (My academic background is in English with a concentration in writing.) (100%) Education and Psychology * (100%) Adult Learning and Development (100%) Education, full-time in MAT program (100%) MAT - science education; general education (100%) Education - Asst. Professor for Master of Arts in Teaching Program (100%) Psychology and education * (100%)


There was also a high representation of those associating themselves with the field of education although only one faculty labeled themselves as teaching the one word identifier education as displayed in Figure 13. Others within this field, included, Learning Assistance, Psychology and education, 2 areas- Educational and Cultural (both repeat from the previous discussion), Education - Asst. Professor for Master of Arts in Teaching Program, MAT - science education; general education, Education, full-time in MAT program, Human Development and Educational Studies (a repeat of previously stated respondent), My AOS is education (specifically adult education), although I teach psychology, research methods and statistics. That response was another repeat but is interesting to note here due to its revealing of the theory of adult learning. Another similar instructor identified himself or herself as teaching Adult Learning and Development. Yet another very interesting respondent labeled himself or herself as teaching Self-Directed Learning (My academic background is in English with a concentration in writing.). Finally, as previously noted, others use the term Education and Psychology to describe there area of study. A few faculty participants noted their area of study outside of the larger groupings within this survey. They include those that labeled themselves as teaching History, Project Management, U.S. History and Politics, Religious Studies, food writing, food history, food and culture, and Service Members Opportunity Colleges (or SOC) as shown in Figure 14.


FIGURE 14 Faculty Discipline Identification (Miscellaneous) and Percentage Taught Online

History (none) History (25%) History (75%) History (75%) Project Management (100%) U.S History and Politics (100%) Religious Studies (10%) Food writing, food history, food and culture (50%) SOC [Service Members Opportunity Colleges] (100%)

From the resulting examination of responses, a wide area of study was revealed. More noteworthy is the revealing that fields of study can overlap to a great degree. What these instructors teach on a daily basis cannot be neatly assigned to one area. To draw an analogy to Brick and Mortar campuses, many instructors, in this case, would be traveling great distances around the campus during the day. The question now is, how many of these areas are exclusively, or 100% online? Because the respondents were not limited to the fully online teacher, is there a pattern to what area teacher responded and how much of their teaching is online? Do some areas yield more online learning than others? 4.4 Discussion of Question Number Two as Related to Question Number One Using the categories defined in the response detail for question two, we will now look to find if a pattern emerges between the area of study and the amount of coursework taught online. In Figures 5 through 14, the amount that each faculty member teaches online is specified in parentheses after the area of study identifier. In the discussion area 67

for question number three we will discuss how the data from Q3 relates to the data from questions one and two. 4.5 Question 2- 0% Online Discussion Of the ten that answered Q1 as not teaching online at all, no area of study involving the Arts is represented. The area of language arts, including foreign languages represent five percent not online, psychology related area of study is one percent business is one percent, social theory related is two percent, history is one percent, educational/human development is one percent and cultural studies is one percent. From this data, without looking to the greater usage of online learning the inference, that language arts studies are more popular to teach f2f might be possible to make. It is also possible that this inference may be found wrong when revealing more data. 4.6 Question 2- 10% Online Discussion Those that identified themselves as teaching 10% online showed almost as equal a representation of the different areas of study as those how answered that they teach 0% online. Of the nine respondents that answered as to teaching 10% online, one was the course Graphic Design for the Web including Adobe CS5 Fireworks, Dreamweaver, Flash, for Print & Web Photoshop, eCommerce. Interestingly, for this faculty member that involves a subject where 100% of its assignments are created on a computer. Other 10% online instructors include one who teaches Science, Math and Technology, two who teach Business, Management and Economics or finance-related courses. One teaches literature, one is involved in human development, and two are involved in


education; specifically, Learning assistance and Teacher Education-Literacy. Also, one teaches Cultural Studies, and one teaches Human Development. 4.7 Question 2- 25% Online Discussion Interestingly, at this point it should be noted that 10 respondents identified themselves as teaching 25% online. While 10 respondents noted teaching 0% and nine respondents teach 10%, this means that, of 80 respondents, 8% did not teach online, 8.9% teach 10% and 8% taught 25% online. So far, the distribution of teaching load is even among the data detailed. Of those 25% online teachers, one teaches the Arts, four teach a business area, one teaches Social Theory, Cultural Studies and The Arts (all three in about equal parts) and, combining the terms historical and Cultural Studies, four teach this combined subject area 25% online. Judging by this information, history, cultural and business courses may be easy to transfer or more creatively designed online. 4.8 Question 2- 50% Online Discussion Of those that teach 50% online, meaning that 50% of their constructed learning activities take place online, only six respondents identified themselves as such. This is the smallest represented number in the administered survey. Of those, two identified themselves as teaching Community and Human Services, one teaches mathematics, one teaches food writing, food history, food and culture, one is involved in adult education, and one teaches early childhood development. The evidence of a mathematics professor being able to successfully create online learning activities is interesting in that perhaps this faculty member has been able to create meaningful learning activities that do not 69

require proctoring. Also, it is interesting to remind that this same instructor is the only respondent of the survey that identified them specifically as teaching mathematics. 4.9 Question 2- 75% Online Discussion Those who answered as teaching 75% online numbered 12 out of the 80 respondents, yielding a percentage of 6% representation among all surveyed. Of these respondents, three identified themselves as teaching course work related to cultural studies. Also, one teaches psychology, one teaches human services, one teaches history, two teach early childhood education, two teach history, one teaches literature, one teaches Animal Behavior/Ecology, and one teaches Finance, Accounting, and International Business. Here, the largest number teaching 75% online are those that teach cultural studies and the two that teach early childhood education. Perhaps for these courses, the ability to integrate multimedia content and maintain stimulating discussion board questions make it more possible to have these 75% online. The question here that cant be answered from the data is what makes up the 25% that is face-to face among these disciplines? Hopefully, by examining subsequent questions, an answer may be found. 4.10 Question 2- 100% Online Discussion The overwhelmingly largest number of respondents who saw it relevant to answer this survey were those whose teaching load is 100% online. Thirty-three respondents of the 80 saw fit to take part in the survey, creating a percentage of 41.25%, not more than half but still the largest single group of respondents sorted from question number one. Of the participants that identified themselves as teaching 100% online, there is an equally 70

proportionate representation of their areas of study. Also, it should be noted that areas of study representation among these faculty can overlap. For example, one of the fully online instructors label themselves as teaching U.S. History and Politics, another history politics economics philosophy and another Historical Studies, Social Theory, Structure and Change. Of those that teach Cultural Studies this represented two faculty, those that teach a history related course 100% online were three teachers. Those who teach 100% online represent all previously defined and discussed areas of study. Among these of interest is the American Sign Language course, being taught fully online and implying that sign language demonstrations may happen via video embedded in the learning management system. Self-directed learning is taught 100% online,

further proving Knowles view that adult learners are self-disciplined and must be so enough to do well in a course that is not in a more traditional learning environment. The only graduate level programs instructors are identified in this survey are 100% online as did Project Management, a technology based course. Finally, the military student related course (SOC) is fully online. This can be assumed as an effect of being able to retain these military students, whose location and ability to go to a specific physical location for learning is extremely hampered by their service. 4.11 Responses to Third Question Faculty response to the third question, What, to you, makes a successful online learning experience for students? yielded 77 statements out of the 80 respondents. Of those 77, three respondents choose to leave the question field blank rather than fill in any correspondence. Subsequently, six of the 80 respondents replied with a survey answer 71

that displayed no knowledge and understanding of online learning best practices. For example, such responses were I dont know! or Not applicable. Among the remaining respondents, several terms repeated as associated with successful online learning. The most used terms included, the word presence which was used by five of the 80 faculty members. Another term popular as associated with successful online learning was feedback. The term feedback as associated with instructor response was found in eight of the 80 responses. Another popular subject to associate with online learning among respondents involved student and instructor engagement in the discussion boards. Ten respondents, the largest number in the survey to use a similar term, referred to the use of the discussion board in student engagement. 4.12 Discussion of Third Question Responses as Related to Q1 and Q2 Upon broad review of this data, clear evidence of experience-based reflection emerges. The amount a faculty member teaches online, with a few exceptions, is similar to the number of words used to express their beliefs of successful online learning. In particular, the sheer volume of word count of the majority of Q3 answers among teachers who teach 100% online, regardless of area of study, shows being involved in online teaching leads to a development of beliefs and values in it among faculty. 4.13 Question 3- 0% Online Discussion The starting point for the statement that more immersion in online teaching lends towards a belief system can be found in the answers by the faculty that do not teach online at all. As stated before, there were several respondents that left the Q3 field blank. Five of these blank or I dont know type responses were from this faculty group. Not 72

included in this group of answers but related is the response of one business, management and economics professor of Not applicable. From this response one could draw varying conclusions. On one hand, they could potentially be suggesting that because they do not teach online, there is no need for them to formulate an opinion about it. Another possible conclusion could be to say that if they have an opinion, it is not applicable or has no relevance to their area of study. Two faculty of similar fields of Social Theory did have responses of easy access and utility and the other stated opportunities for meaningful interaction with other students and faculty. A psychology professor teaching no online coursework stated that Students remaining engaged throughout term leads to successful learning, another instance of a faculty member not involved but that, perhaps, may have been an online instructor at one point or has reflected on colleagues experience. The most involved response of the non-online instructors came from a writing professor whose response incorporated an understanding of the possibilities of Web 2.0 tools by stating If they can meet once that helps, or at least see each other once via Skype. Short of that, I'd say hearing each other's voice is better than no audio. 4.14 Question 3- 10% Online Discussion Those who responded as teaching 10% online showed significantly more insight than those who taught no online courses. Even though those 10% only teach only slightly more than those who dont teach online, only one of the nine respondents, in the teacher education area of study, gave a negative answer. Yet, this one reveals at least more self-reflection by answering Still working on it. The overwhelmingly consistent quality of these responses is that these instructors see successful online learning has most 73

to do with instructor participation or technical accommodations. One of the two longest answers, from a human development faculty, states the instructor getting, and staying engaged, and the students having sufficient independence so as to not wait around for lots of direction. The graphic design instructor, only teaching 10% online, suggested Clear objectives, succinct/focused information presented in different formats to target audio/visual/tactile learners, quick replies, practical exercises. Both of these show the understanding among faculty of the extent an instructor must be present in their coursework. Remaining answers in this category imply student success is a direct result of faculty effort. This belief can be seen in the answers faculty presence and engagement, Communication, and Feedback from the Instructor. 4.15 Question 3- 25% Online Discussion Among those 10 respondents who teach 25% online, one Business, Management and Economics faculty left the question blank and the faculty member who labeled themselves as teaching Historical Studies and Cultural Studies (both really ancient) left their answer to Q3 as I dont really know. Among the remaining eight faculty of this group, answers exhibited statements on instructor-facilitated presentation combined, or not, with the need for stimulating discussion board questions. One exception is an arts faculty who suggested student-responsibility related success, and Prompt student completion of all work, including timely emails and phone calls. The only social theory professor in this category suggested a hierarchy-based-needs-list: Top thing: Being able to get a response or feedback from the instructor--nothing else comes close. Also: Clear and uncluttered communication so the student knows what and when it is expected. Nice 74

to have: Visual stimulus and classmate interactions. The three of four BME professors who gave a response cited the presence of good discussion questions, access to timely supporting materials, hearing other points of view, and networking, which may have been used as a synonym for interaction. The history professor implied the debated validity of sites such as Wikipedia by stating that a successful online learning experience was a result of accessibility and reliability of materials--this is a challenge in the Web 2.0 world. The second history professor respondent (of the three in this area of study) stated, again, the need for instructor facilitation: something that makes the student use the information to develop conceptual understanding or critical thinking skills. As the student applies or uses the info, he learns. Finally, the cultural studies professor exhibited reflection on the community of inquiry model by suggesting that success online came from students [feeling] as though they are part of a learning community. 4.16 Question 3- 50% Online Discussion The least number of respondents identified themselves as teaching 50% online, having yielded six responses, or 7.5% of all respondents. Of the two community health services/human development faculty, one stated that the responsibility for success laid on the student by suggesting it is a result of students participating in rich, meaningful discussions; sharing resources and pulling in supplemental material based upon current events that are relevant to the course; students taking the time to reflect upon the material rather than posting a quick response of "I agree - great post". This instructors colleague responded concerning a technology-centered responsibility: Primarily is the interface. Students need to look at the online site and "see" where to go for their learning activities. 75

This might sound overly simple but a good interface allows students to get used to the navigational process. The mathematics faculty suggested Gardeners Multiple Intelligences by stating that a successful online learning outcome was a result of Using a variety of resources/technical tools to appeal to a variety of student learning styles. Both education faculty in this category responded that success is from the discussion board questions. As one expanded: Interactivity. The ability to have engaged discussions but to also provide activities that allow the student to bring their experiences into the discussions. The only faculty who qualified themselves as teaching Food writing, history and critique, suggested success was based on modeling after a face-to face classroom by stating success came from the instructors quick feedback... just like in the classroom. 4.17 Question 3- 75% Online Discussion Those who identified themselves as teaching 75% online were still among a minority, being 12 respondents or 15% of the total. The three cultural studies respondents of this group determined that clear communication and access, was key: Ability to engage with other students without being located near them physically or temporally; structure; ability to review interactions with other students and professor, and the creation of engaging learning activities, multi-media tools and texts led to student success online. The psychology faculty members showed a preference for blended learning by stating that a successful online learning experience incorporated another component that is face-to-face. The Animal Behavior/Ecology professor was the only one to use theoretic terminology by stating that a successful online learning experience 76

involved experiential learning. The faculty member that identified him or herself as teaching Finance, Accounting and International Business, alluded to the responsibility of the instructor by stating success stemmed from attention to detail, a lot of supporting material and availability of instructor to answer questions, provide guidance. Both early childhood education faculty, again, reference teacher work by stating success came from engagement from day one- connecting on discussion boards, chat sessions, and course messages, and their facilitated discussions with or without Web 2.0 tools. The other stated, Instructors who are available daily to check [discussion board] for teachable moments, well organized format, phone conferences, crafting of [discussion board] questions that allow opportunities for constant student sharing, use of additional technologies (Elluminate). Both history professors answered that being present in the study, responding in a timely fashion to student posts, and engaging them with relevant questions, which is true of any history learning. and Discussion, collaboration, & reliable, regular contact with instructor, respectively. Finally, the only English literature professor suggested the use of Web 2.0 tools by stating successful online learning came from Regular and sustained interaction with the instructor through various interfaces (chat, discussion board, email, etc.), also various kinds of online activities (videos, surveys, readings, etc.). The one human service faculty exhibited instructor responsibility by stating the key was Timely, frequent feedback and assessment. 4.18 Question 3- 100% Online Discussion As stated before, the largest single group of respondents was those that teach 100% online, being 33 of 80 or 41.25% of total participants. The range of areas of study, 77

as represented in Q2, shows an equal distribution of area expertise. Both cultural studies respondents in this category put more weight on what students achieve if given the most robust learning environment possible. As one states, they believe in Clear, simple instructions & subject lines. Interaction with other students who post things promptly and thoughtfully. A sense of instructor's presence & personality. Attractive and enjoyable visuals & multimedia. The other cited a rigorous, robust, research and activity based learning experience that is learner driven and provides students with the necessary tools and strategies for success. The only community and human service faculty to teach 100% online cited Frequent contact with each other and with other students. Opportunity for both synchronous and asynchronous communication. Occasional use of telephone calls for clarification and increased social and emotional closeness. It is interesting how this faculty member still holds value on the use of the telephone as opposed to tools such as Skype or Oovoo. The only foreign language teacher that teaches 100% online made a reference to poorly designed learning environments by citing it should be, User-friendly. A clear way to find necessary tools without wading through multiple web pages and searching through piles of rubble. Among the sciences, a faculty member whose area of study is labeled Psychology and Education placed emphasis on the instructor with, Be as engaging as possible with frequent in depth feedback and communication. A faculty labeled Behavioral Science cited Facilitated interaction while a biological psychology professor cited the relatively brief and cryptic answer of Full participation in discussions.


Among education faculty, a greater variety of responses emerged, as they represented the most responses from one area of study, seven respondents. The only early childhood education faculty with 100% online teaching cited, engagement, quick response time, immediate feedback, well designed courses, creative design and use of new tools. Another drew comparisons to their face-to-face teaching: that students feel engaged and comfortable with the learning environment so that they take risks and learn more than they thought they would -- this is my philosophy for face-to-face as well as online. Interesting to note among two similar faculty, one who labeled themselves as teaching Adult Learning and Development only stated, Meaningful connections while their colleague, labeled as teaching Self Directed Learning, an associated concept, cited the following: One in which a student is able to fully engage in the course material without being tripped up by the logistics of the technology. I've found that this is much easier said than done. I teach nontraditional students, and some have quite weak computer skills. Of most interest is the response from a faculty that labeled themselves as teaching education and psychology 100% online stated,
In no particular order: 1. a student who exercises his/her self-motivation and selfdiscipline 2. a student who exercises critical thinking as part of the learning process 3. a student who can think that high quality learning can take place online without going to a traditional classroom 4. a student who is able to communicate through good writing 5. a student who practices perseverance to stay up to speed.

Such a statement exhibits a great deal of reflection for online learning as related to being an adult learner. The last noted undergraduate education professor put the effort again on the instructor by stating, Clarity of purpose and assignments, consistent


opportunities for interaction among students, regular and quick responses from instructor. Including graduate-education faculty, the entire graduate school faculty in the survey labeled themselves as teaching 100% online. The only MBA professor cited the instructors role by stating demonstrable caring and communication from the professor; positive and supportive as well as incisive and direct feedback. Of the three MAT (Masters of Arts in Teaching) faculty, the one involved in science education cited collaboration; clarity (of instructions and sequencing); engagement & interest while the second, not specifying their discipline, cited a learning environment that was experiential, inquiry-based, interactive and the third stated Timely feedback, interactions with peers through online discussions, practical application of concepts studied in the course through observations of teachers of implementation in their own classrooms. Among the three history-only faculty, one cited student effort by stating, they achieve stated objectives of the courses, the other two referenced the instructor, saying instructor presence, interactivity, the ability to create a visually interesting yet easy to navigate learning space. and Deep engagement with ideas, critical reading and writing. Of the single area of study respondents, the project management faculty cited similarities to the face-to-face environment: A successful on-line experience should result in a student acquiring the same knowledge as they would have in a classroom setting. The Religious Studies faculty cited, Devising exercises & assignments that 80

are engaging and interesting. Retaining sufficient on-line presence so that students are motivated to engage with the course. The American Sign Language professor cited the instructor role: My online is through Distance Learning via telecommunications. The bond between students and the teacher, the connection, is the most important part. If they don't see you as an actual human being then it will most likely fail. The Business & Management faculty cited: increase interaction through technology, another brief response. The one social theory professor cited, Interactive student participation that integrates theory, practice, case study, and contemporary events while the social sciences instructor identified only student engagement. The SOC (military service online) professor cited presence and engagement with each student individually and with the class as a whole. One professor who identified him or herself as teaching management cited only one word, Communication. The only two faculty involved in the arts revealed heavy reflected responses of: One that enables students to explore topics of interest to them and generate meaningful learning from that exploration and teacher participation and effort at being present in ways that empower students to learn on their own. 4.19 Fourth Question In Q4, faculty were given a list of 25 then current Web 2.0 tools and asked which of them they were familiar with. The list was purposely ended at 25 count. There is anecdotal evidence of far more than 25 Web 2.0 tools are of use in the Internet community and it is not possible to give a finite tally of all Web 2.0 tools in existence, under the definition of Web 2.0 in the first chapter. The given list included many Web 81

2.0 tools that were assumed most educators would be familiar with based on tool usage within the current higher education community. Figure 15 displays the tally of responses from the number of faculty that identified each tool. Those more common tools that were attached to the questionnaire lists were: #1wikis, #3 Facebook, #4 Twitter, #6 YouTube, and #21 Skype. Also within the list, the term podcasting (#2) was used as a generic term for any audio only asynchronous feedback. The tool of # 5, Elluminate was included, as there is scant empirical evidence of its use in higher education as a learning tool, it was included to hopefully elicit testimony of its use in learning. Also included in the list was #13, M.O.O.C.s (Massively-Open-Online-Course), which are not technically Web 2.0 tools but have been cited as among the emerging technologies. M.O.O.C.s also were included to see if any respondents were aware of this new term at all. The other tools included in this check list included, #7 blogging (listed as WordPress), # 8 diigo, # 9 Delicious, # 10 mindmeister, #11Google docs, #12 open textbooks, #14 Prezi, #15 Forscene, #16 Jing, #17 high-end software like VirtualLabs, #18 Second Life, #19 Zoho, #20 RefWorks, #22 SlideShare, #23 Scribd, #24 Zotero and # 25 VoiceThread, as previously shown in Figure 3. 4.20 Responses to Fourth Question Among the 80 survey respondents, all faculty members answered this question except two respondents. Extremely short answers ranged from one respondent each that stated No none or Yes. Among those that listed specific tools, the shortest came from one respondent who stated, of all 25 listed, only hearing of Facebook. YouTube, also, showed to be the most recognized Web 2.0 tool of all twenty-five. The majority of 82

the remaining respondents answered the question by listing the tools they were familiar with by word or by number as assigned in the list. Several faculty respondents did not list tools in their answers but rather responded with full sentences. Any reference to a tool name by a survey participant was entered, recorded and shown in Figure 15. 4.21 Discussion of Fourth Question Responses One could assume that if one teaches online more so than another they are exposed to or are perhaps more interested in Web 2.0 tools as a means to facilitate learning and therefore might seek out opportunities for professional development opportunities or professional reflection regarding Web 2.0 tools as a possibility to use in their courses. However, comparing the responses to Q4 to the respondents previous answers for Q1, Q2 and Q3, a far less predictable pattern emerges. 4.22 Question 4- 0% online discussion Among those 10 respondents who do not teach online, two did not answer the question, that being a Spanish professor and writing professor. Such evidence is hard to rationalize as accurate as it is not possible that one hasnt even heard of Twitter or Facebook. The Spanish professor also gave their response to Q2, asking for attitudes on successful online learning, as blank. The writing professor however did not list any tools in Q4 but referred to Skype in Q3 by stating that a successful online learning experience involved, If they can meet once that helps, or at least see each other via Skype. Short of that, I'd say hearing each other's voices is better than no audio. In the 0 %- online group, the only BME professor attached to this group answered Q4 with the


FIGURE 15 Faculty Recognition of Web 2.0 Tools by Tool Name

Faculty Recognition of Web 2.0 Tool

80 60 40 20 0

Second Life

















high end







word None and for Q3 attached the words Not applicable to their beliefs of online learning. Also, the only cultural studies professor listed YouTube as the only Web 2.0 tool they recognized from the varied list. The only professor of the group labeled Psychology, Statistics, Research Methods list knowing of podcasting, YouTube, Google docs and RefWorks. While the Spanish professor left their answer blank, their colleague teaching Romance Language listed as knowing of wikis, podcasting, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google docs, tools identified by the survey administrator as among the most likely for faculty to be familiar with. Interestingly, both the history and Social Theory, Structure and Change professor gave the exact same answers of knowing Facebook, YouTube, RefWorks and Skype. Also of note is that the history professor answered Q3 with the words no clue. Interestingly, the human development professor claimed in Q3 to have too little experience to say but when asked Q4 typed the following, Yes, with wikis, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Elluminate, Second Life, Skype and WordPress. In terms of use, I use 84


wikis, Elluminate, YouTube WordPress, and Skype. One could infer that while this professor doesnt perhaps use a Learning Management System, perhaps their face-to-face coursework involves these tools. However, if this is the case, it doesnt answer why they stated as not teaching online. Also, while the one social theory professor listed only four tools, their colleague in the social theory department listed as knowing of wikis, Facebook, Twitter, Elluminate, YouTube, WordPress, diigo, Google docs, Second Life, Skype. 4. 23 Question 4- 10% Online Discussion Of the nine 10% online teaching respondents, all of them responded to the fourth question by listing tools accordingly. The shortest answers from this group came from another Economics and Finance professor who listed him or herself as only having heard of Elluminate, possibly because of its use for asynchronous communication among higher education professionals. On the other hand, their colleague in this group listed themselves as knowing of Facebook, Twitter, Elluminate and YouTube. Six of the nine respondents listed as knowing of wikis, while those that did not are the economics professor, the second economics professor and a cultural studies professor. The professor of graphic design, utilizing many high-learning curve software programs in their course work listed as knowing of only wikis, podcasting, Facebook, Twitter, blogging and Google docs. The only Science, Math, and Technology professor, another potential higher level user of technology, cited knowing of wikis, Facebook, Twitter, Elluminate, YouTube, mindmeister and RefWorks, showing potential evidence of using concept mapping tools as a learning activity. The learning assistance instructor listed themselves 85

as knowing of wikis, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, suggesting that they have never considered implementing these tools for learning. The cultural studies professor in this group knew more than just YouTube, like his non-online teaching colleague by listing knowing of Facebook, Twitter, Elluminate, Youtube, WordPress, Google docs, Skype, quite a lot for one who teaching online only 10%. The teacher education instructor claimed to be still working on figuring out how to answer Q3 but knows of wikis, YouTube, Google docs and RefWorks. So far, it is interesting to note how many faculty list of knowing of RefWorks yet not of more common referencing tools such as Delicious or diigo. The human development instructor showed a more varied knowledge by stating as recognizing wikis, Facebook, Twitter, Elluminate, Google docs, Skype and SlideShare, the first statement of this tool among the discussed faculty members. Finally, the literature professor listed the most of all 10% online instructors with: wikis, podcasts, Facebook, Twitter, Elluminate, YouTube, delicious, Google docs, Jing, Second life and Skype. 4.24 Question 4- 25% Online Discussion Among the 10 faculty members that labeled themselves as teaching 25% online, all of them answered Q4 with a response, not one leaving it blank. The most common area of study among these people are the B, M & E professors, totaling four or 40% of the 25% online category. A wide spectrum is revealed among them as one of these professors states their answer to which of the 25 tools they recognized as about a handful of these. Also of note is the fact that this same professor left their answer to Q3 as blank. On the other hand, the second business professor who cited Good discussion 86

questions/interaction in Q3 labeled himself or herself as knowing of Facebook, Twitter, Skype, YouTube, have heard about wikis, Google docs. The third colleague, whose answer to question three was similar, stated in their answer for Q4 as I use podcasts for information (#2). Finally among these respondents, the professor who stated online success was access to timely supporting materials, hearing other points of view, networking showed the most number of recognized tools by citing wikis, podcasting, Facebook, Twitter, Elluminate, blogging, YouTube, Delicious, diigo, Google docs, Second Life and Skype. The only arts professor in this category listed as knowing of wikis, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Skype and open textbooks, one of the few instances so far of this tool being mentioned, signaling that the respondent may be keeping themselves aware of current trends in academic technology and Web 2.0 tools. Predictably, the only Social Theory/Cultural Studies faculty member with a very well stated view on student online success revealed a wide number of tools they recognized. However, certain popular ones were left off of their list, which included wikis, podcasting, Facebook, Elluminate, YouTube, Google docs, RefWorks, Skype, Scribd and VoiceThread. Also, on this faculty members list was the high-learning curve, videoediting tool Forscene, one of the few times mentioned in the survey. Yet, the same faculty member did not list himself or herself as having heard of Twitter, one of the more popular. However, this faculty members colleague, a cultural studies professor, identified as knowing of the more common tools of wikis, podcasting, Facebook, Twitter Elluminate, YouTube and Google docs. Of the three history professors, one labeled the fewest tools as knowing wikis, YouTube, Delicious, VoiceThread, oddly not Facebook 87

or Twitter. The second colleague knowing the fewest tools, citing wikis, podcasts, Elluminate, YouTube, and Google docs, and, again, no Facebook or Twitter. Their colleague, the third respondent cited, Don't use them but have heard of/been introduced to 1-6, 9 & 10, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21. Referring to the lists numbering system, this respondent was the first to show evidence of the tool Prezi. 4.25 Question 4- 50% Online Discussion Those who identified themselves as teaching 50% online, be it blended or 100% online coursework along side face-to-face courses numbered the fewest in the survey at only six respondents of the 80 total. Two of the six shared the same area of study of community and human services. Of these two, one revealed the most interesting answer to Q4 by stating All of the above I have experimented with. This same faculty member, it should be compared, in Q3 considered that student limitations of understanding how to navigate the LMS interface was a major hurdle to student success. Likewise, their colleague, who cited student success as sharing resources and pulling in supplemental material based upon current events that are relevant to the course, revealed the largest number of tools recognized by citing 1-11, 18, 20-22. The only food writing, food history, food and culture faculty member cited the following from the list, Facebook, YouTube, blogging (I use Blogger), Delicious, Scribd, zotero implying that they might be engaging students in their blog, whose topic is most likely food. The faculty member whose area of study was education (specifically adult education), although I teach psychology, research methods and statistics cited the most tools of the 50% category by listing, wikis, Facebook, Elluminate, YouTube, Twitter, WordPress, 88

Google docs and Skype. Their colleague, the early childhood education professor only knew of Youtube, Facebook, Skype. The final 50% online professor, and one of the few math professors, revealed the least common list so far by citing Elluminate, YouTube, Jing, high-end software (Maple, Virtuallabs, Finale), and Skype. 4.26 Question 4- 75% Online Discussion Those who identified themselves as teaching 75% were the second largest number of respondents, totaling 12 of the 80. Comparing each respondents answer to Q4 against Q3 revealed conflicting observations. The only English literature professor of this group cited providing online activities to foster student success and when answering Q4 stated most, but not all. Three of this groups respondents shared similar areas of study: Cultural Studies, Cultural Studies and Historical Studies, and Cultural Studies, Arts. Of these three, the Cultural Studies professor only listed Facebook from the list. Both the Cultural Studies and Historical Studies and Cultural Studies, Arts shared wikis, Facebook, Twitter, Elluminate, YouTube, Google docs and Skype. The professor adding historical studies added podcasting and blogging, Second Life and RefWorks while the professor combining the arts did not cited knowing of these tools. The psychology professor in this category cited in Q3: another component that is face to face as being the key to student success but only cited as knowing of YouTube, WordPress, Delicious and Skype. The two identified only as history professors in this group cited the fewest tools, one stating use YouTube and the other stating wikis, Facebook, Elluminate. The professor in this category whose area of study was labeled Finance, Accounting, International Business cited a varying list of wikis, Facebook, 89

Twitter, YouTube, blogging, Google docs, Skype and SlideShare, revealing the greatest number of tool recognition among area of study peers who teach less online. Most interesting among this percentage online is one of the two early childhood education professors who stated, I am familiar, but do not use wiki, Twitter, Facebook. I LOVE and use Elluminate. Their colleague revealed a large number of tools recognized by citing the common wikis, podcasting, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, diigo (a rare citing in this survey), Google docs and Skype. The only human services professor of this group cited the most number of tools by listed all on the list except, mindmeister, open textbooks, M.O.O.C.s, Forscene, or Zotero. Finally, the only Animal Behavior/Ecology instructor in the entire survey here listed Experiential learning as key to student success and listed a varied response of tools with wikis, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, diigo, Delicious, Google docs and Skype. It is interesting that this person did not list blogging or Elluminate, a common tool among higher education faculty professionals. 4.27 Question 4- 100% Online Discussion As stated before, the highest number of survey respondents labeled themselves as teaching 100% online was 33 of 80 total or 41.25% of all respondents. A wide number of areas of study were represented as well. The most interesting fact is that even though these respondents all teach 100% online and exhibited deep reflection on student online success, the answers revealed in Q4 were still varied in experience. Of the two cultural studies professors the one who further labeled themselves Cultural Studies, English, Literature, Writing included attractive and enjoyable 90

multimedia as contributing to student success however stated in Q4, I know of the existence of lots of these, but don't use many of them. The vast majority of what I do is independent study via email. Their colleague, however, whose area of study was labeled Cultural Studies - Media and Communications, Digital Media, Digital Arts noted in question four All of the Above. I use most of them every day and have used all of them at one point or another showing the broad spectrum of the term Cultural Studies. Their colleague, teaching project management, listed Yes - wikis, Facebook, YouTube, Skype and that what is learned online should be a similar experience to learning face-to-face. Among the business area of study, the only MBA professor cited Elluminate and YouTube, not even Facebook or Twitter. Among the four undergraduate professors of Business, Economics and or Management, a varied response ensued. The one faculty recognized as only teaching Management also cited only Facebook and YouTube in question four. Their colleague, who attached Science, Math and Technology to their area of study cited All but [Prezi, Forscene, Jing, and VoiceThread]. The third BME professor cited wikis, Facebook, Second Life, Skype, SlideShare, Google docs, Delicious, YouTube, Elluminate, Twitter. The fourth revealed the most tools by stating wikis, Facebook, Twitter, Elluminate, YouTube, Google docs, Second Life, Skype and SlideShare. Among all, none cited evidence of podcast identification. The only foreign language professor of the 100% group cited User-friendly. A clear way to find necessary tools without wading through multiple web pages and searching through piles of rubble in Q3 yet only cited in Q4 as knowing of wikis, podcasts, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google docs and Skype. Among the three history professors here, a variety of 91

responses ensued as well. The professor labeling themselves as U.S. history and politics cited creating an easy to navigate learning space as contributing to student success and cited tools 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 18, 21 and 25. The related colleague who labeled their area of study as history politics economics philosophy cited in Q4 as knowing of wikis, podcasts, Elluminate, YouTube, Google docs, Skype but also stated that Twitter, Facebook and Second Life are dis-educational, a statement refuted in the literature review. The third colleague labeled Historical Studies, Social Theory, Structure and Change only answered the Q4 list with the statement minimally. Other short answers included the only Social Sciences professor who answered Q4 with the statement with Yes and a Biological Psychology professor who cited No that they do not recognize any of these tools and the SOC (Service Members Opportunity Colleges) stated as an answer to Q4, Yes. Among the other graduate faculty the one labeled Education - Asst. Professor for Master of Arts in Teaching Program implied the potential of Web 2.0 use by stating Have used - Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Elluminate-Have heard of Second Life, wikis, and Skype. Likewise, the faculty member labeled MAT - science education; general education cited in Q4, I have use wikis, Elluminate, YouTube, Delicious, Google docs, SlideShare, VoiceThread, Second Life, mindmeister. The appearance of Second Life (a very high-learning curve tool), mindmeister and VoiceThread in that response shows evidence of the persons use of it for learning opportunities. However, their colleague teaching Education, full-time in MAT program cited only wikis, Twitter, Facebook, Elluminate, YouTube and Skype. Other undergraduate-education related faculty showed somewhat similar responses 92

amongst each other. However, of these four, the faculty labeled as teaching educational and cultural stated I know about most of them, while the two label education and psychology shared Twitter, YouTube, blogging and Google docs but one added, separately, wikis, Facebook, Elluminate, and Second Life and the other only added podcasting, and Skype. It should be noted that this last faculty member gave the longest response to Q3, however no part of their answer implied the use of Web 2.0 tools. Their colleague, that labeled themselves as teaching education, cited the expected wikis, podcasts, Twitter, Facebook, Elluminate, YouTube, Google docs, Second Life, Skype and the rarely mentioned SlideShare. The early childhood education professor included Use of new tools as key for student success and responded to Q4 with Facebook, Twitter, Elluminate, YouTube, WordPress, Google docs, showing little assimilation to Web 2.0 tools for learning. The Religious Studies professor who cited creating engaging exercises in Q3 cited in Q4, I am familiar with: Facebook, Google docs, wikis, Twitter, Elluminate, YouTube, Skype, Scribd, and zotero. The Arts professor cited fewer tools than expected with wikis, Twitter, Elluminate, YouTube, blogging, Delicious, Google docs, Second Life and VoiceThread. The presence of VoiceThread in their response, however, hints at their use of tools in learning. Their colleague, teaching art history and philosophy, knew of the same tools except wikis yet recognized Twitter, Delicious, and Skype over the Arts professor. The American Sign Language teacher, who stressed that success in their course hinged on telecommunication, cited only wikis, podcasts, YouTube, Google docs and Skype. The social theory professor that cited incorporating contemporary events in Q3 cited a large list of known tools citing 1, 2, 93

3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 18, 20, 21. However, the behavioral sciences professor also used the word interaction in their answer to Q3 and knew the same tools as the social theory professor but added Delicious and did not know of open textbooks, Second Life and RefWorks, comparatively. Two related faculty of Adult Learning and Development and Self-Directed Learning respectively shared a similar list of known tools. The Self Directed Learning instructor stated wikis, Facebook, Twitter, Elluminate, YouTube, WordPress, Google docs, Jing, Second Life, Skype, zotero, podcasting while their counterpart added Jing and SlideShare but did not cite YouTube, blogging, or VoiceThread (which is similar to Jing) like their colleague. 4.28 Responses to Fifth Question In the fifth question, participants were asked which tools among the given list from question 4 are used in facultys personal lives. The overall responses to Q5 are displayed in Figure 16.
FIGURE 16 Faculty Response to Fifth Question

50 40 30 20 10 0 "No" "Yes" "Yes" list or sentence answer

Among all of the respondents answers to Q5, no participant left the answer blank. The total number of No answers is 10 total with one answering not relevant. 94

Those that answered the question with one word of Yes. are 19, not giving any further indication of which tools recognized in Q4, specifically, are those they use in their personal life. Those that answered yes, giving further information of which tools numbered eight. Those faculty that list tools or gave an answer in the form of a sentence total 43 that could be in the Yes category or non-decisive. Of the yes answers, the first tool featuring the greatest number of citations is Facebook with the next highest being YouTube. 4.29 Question 5- 0% Online Discussion As suspected, responses from those who reported themselves as not teaching online at all had the least detailed responses. First, the faculty member in this group that teaches writing did not answer Q4 in order to show what tools they are familiar with but in Q5, when asked if they them for personal use, responded yes, showing no insights of exactly which they use. Likewise, the Spanish professor that did not answer Q3 or Q4, gave an answer in Q5 of no making it difficult to infer anything from their response as well, other than the possibility that they do not use these tools with any sort of personal investment or as research. Also, the Romance Language instructor and Social Theory, Structure, and Change instructor listed knowing several tools but only answered Yes for question five. The other social theory instructor in this group also listed several tools in Q4 but claimed to only use YouTube outside of work. The business instructor answered Q3 with not applicable, recognizing tools in Q4 with none and when asked if any are in their personal lives wrote No. The cultural studies professor in this group wrote, I dont know! for Q3, citing in Q4 only of YouTube, not 95

Facebook as assumed then insinuated in Q5 that they dont use YouTube in their personal lives. Of those that answered in the affirmative with some expansion, the psychology teacher used podcasting and YouTube personally, but doesnt cite RefWorks or Google docs from their answer in question four. Confusingly, the history professor stated as knowing of Facebook, YouTube, Skype and RefWorks in Q4, added that they didnt use only Google docs in question five. Of this uncommunicative group, the human development teacher stated as using wikis, Elluminate, YouTube, WordPress, and Skype for work and wikis, WordPress, and Skype in their personal life. 4.30 Question 5- 10% Online Discussion Among faculty that teach 10%, the Learning Assistance, Economics and Finance and teacher education professor claimed to not use any of the tools they cited as recognizing in question four. The Graphic Design for the Web including Adobe CS5 Fireworks, Dreamweaver, Flash, for Print & Web Photoshop, eCommerce instructor simply stated Yes for Q5, implying from the high level of computer tasks this instructor involves their students, that it is an understatement. Excitingly, the literature professor of this group cited as using not just YouTube but wikis for their personal use, inferring that they might be incorporating it in their coursework. Curiously, the BME professor that listed several tools in Q4 cited in Q5 as only using YouTube and the human development instructor, with their vast recognition of tools only uses Skype, in his or her personal life. Similar in response was the science, math and technology teacher that listed many tools in Q4 but only uses Facebook for personal use. The longest answer 96

of the group, the cultural studies professor, is one up from their non-online teaching colleague in that they listed many tools and at least use Facebook and Twitter personally. 4.31 Question 5- 25% Online Discussion Of the faculty that teach 25% online, the level of tool usage for ones personal life is increased as compared to those who teach 10% or less online. First, citing those who dont, the Historical Studies professor who answered Q3 as Don't really know answered No for any tool usage in their personal lives. Unfortunately, their two colleagues in the same area of study only use YouTube. The arts instructors are no different, as they list knowing many tools but only use YouTube. On the other hand, the Cultural Studies professor in this group uses all of the seven tools for personal use that they list in question four. Likewise, the instructor teaching Social Theory, Cultural Studies and The Arts (all three in about equal parts) uses wikis, YouTube, blogging, Google docs, RefWorks, Skype and Scribd, also noting, "Personal includes research. The majority of 25% online instructors being from the Business, Management and Economics department, showed a varying range of experience. The first discussed, left the student online success question blank, noting a handful of these in Q4 but stated in Q5 as using Facebook, YouTube and Google docs. Two of their colleagues in this area of study noted yes for the large number of tools cited in four and the last of the group stated I use podcasts for information (#2) and answering Q5 stated Skype for personal phone calls, inferring that the information gleaned from podcasts are academic-focused and not merely entertainment.


4.32 Question 5- 50% Online Discussion Among this small group, two stated yes to the large number of tools they listed in Q4, the adult education and food-writing instructors. The early childhood education teacher cited as knowing of YouTube, Facebook and Skype but cited in Q5, no- i use skype professionally. The math professor uses four of the five tool in Q4 except highend software, which is disconcerting because one hoped he or she was using Virtual Math Labs outside of their coursework. Finally, both Community and Human Services instructors used a relatively large number of tools with one using six tools while the colleague claims to use 19 of the 25 tools, except M.O.O.C.s, Forscene, high-end software, Zoho, Zotero and VoiceThread, inferring a vast amount of experience with Web 2.0 tools. 4.33 Question 5- 75% Online Discussion Unfortunately, those teaching 75% online were not more forthcoming with detailing their usage of the listed Web 2.0 tools. Even though they listed a great many tools they were familiar with, the Human Services, Cultural Studies, Art, Early Childhood Education, and Finance, Accounting and International Business answered Q5 with a simple yes, giving no further detail. Likewise, another Cultural Studies professor cited in Q4 that the only tool they ever heard of was Facebook and the only tool they use personally is Facebook. Also, the 75% online history teacher that cited engaging them in relevant questions in Q3 knows only of YouTube and uses YouTube. Hopefully, this professor is using YouTube to address important current events with their online students. Just as confusing is the response from the second early childhood 98

education instructor who loves and uses Elluminate cites using none in their personal life. Finally, the Animal Behavior/Ecology instructor listed many tools and at least, hints at robust coursework usage by answering Q5 with just professional. 4.34 Question 5- 100% Online Discussion The purpose for designing Q4 and Q5 were not to have faculty pick from only the options of the checklist. The intention was to create the answer field for both of these as open-ended response questions to elicit responses regarding unaccounted-for Web 2.0 tools. Perhaps there were other tools they used not on the list. Perhaps having an openended question would give them the opportunity to freely detail their accounts in as personal a way as possible. Unfortunately, when asked, if they use any of the tools in their personal lives, eight of the thirty-three 100% online instructors typed the word Yes. From such an answer, it was impossible to determine to what extent each or any tool is used. Other curious instances can be seen when sorting the data. For example, a Biological Psychology professor, when asked Q4, the list of tools, typed no yet when asked Q5, if they used any of these tool typed Yes. Likewise the SOC faculty gave Yes as an answer to identify the tools but when asked which they used for personal replied, Yes. Also, the only social sciences instructor of the group replied Yes identifying 25 tools and typed No to identify those they used personally. The professor labeling themselves as teaching Historical Studies, Social Theory, Structure and Change when asked which tools they recognized typed minimally and No to whether they used them personally. The one of four undergraduate business instructors in this group took it upon themselves to be humorous when answering Q5. Even though 99

in Q4 they showed evidence of deep Web 2.0 awareness, when asked which they use in their personal life they entered, what's a personal life?..., alluding to being overworked. Interestingly, the history professor that called Twitter, Facebook and Second Life diseducational, when asked which he used in his personal life, typed not relevant. The remaining respondents were at least a little more forthcoming. The Cultural Studies, English, Literature, Writing instructor stated using email to communicate and for Q5 stated Facebook, Google docs (work and personal). The only Community and Human Services instructor of the group actually identified a tool not on the list by stating that they use Skype, Facebook, and Ning, not previously mentioned. The only foreign language instructor in this group showed clear evidence of Web 2.0 integration in their personal life by listed the same tools they listed as being aware of in Q4: wikis, podcasting, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google docs and Skype. Hopefully this faculty member has looked for ways to incorporate these tools into their coursework. The three psychology professors and one behavioral science in this group showed evidence of only scant use. Even though they each listed more than five tools as recognized, usage was lower. The psychology and education professor cited only using Facebook, YouTube, blogging and Google docs. The citing of blogging points to the possibility that this faculty member might, someday, expand their palette of Web 2.0 tool usage to the learning environment in the future. The behavioral science professor uses only Facebook and Delicious. The psychology professor cited the odd combination of YouTube, WordPress, Google docs and Skype. Other areas of study revealed thin experience with Web 2.0 tools combined with more confusing answers. When asked 100

what tools the Education - Asst. Professor for Master of Arts in Teaching Program professor knew of, they stated Have used - Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Elluminate. Have heard of Second Life, wikis, and Skype but in Q5, when asked what they use personally stated, YouTube. Confusing as well, the MBA professor stated they knew of Elluminate and YouTube and curiously omitting Facebook in Q4 and stated in Q5 that they used Facebook and Youtube. The management professor stated in Q3 the word communication while states as knowing of YouTube and Facebook and only stated using YouTube. The U.S. history and politics professor listed knowing many tools but stated using only Facebook, YouTube and Skype. Some, however, willingly gave up information. The Religious Studies professor with a healthy knowledge of tools, in Q5 answered, I use YouTube and Zotero; only the latter is part of my academic work, though, and I have not yet used it as a teaching tool signaling some reflection on integration. The arts professor entered a second reference to Ning with, I've used Ning to develop a family site; I use Delicious to track my personal bookmarks. The self-directed learning instructor stated, I subscribe to podcasts to stay abreast of the literary world. The remaining eight professors listed as using at least five tools each including wikis, Facebook, Twitter, Google docs, Skype, and Delicious with one of these eight, a B, M & E professor, added the use of Elluminate for personal use. 4.35 Responses to Sixth Question Question six asked faculty, in open-ended response, Do you use web 2.0 tools in your online and /or blended learning courses? In hopes to elicit fee-prose reports from 101

them on the various ways they may have or have not used Web 2.0 tools, the question field was set as an open-ended response. The responses can be seen in Figure 17.
FIGURE 17 Percentage of Faculty Answers to Whether They Use Web 2.0 Tools in Their Coursework
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 % did not respond % do not use tools in courses % do use tools in courses

Unfortunately, the majority of responses submitted were either one word of Yes or No. Out of eighty respondents, the total number of answers that were a simple No was 25, or 30% of the entire survey. Those that answered Not yet or Not really n/a or some short answer beginning with a negative response were 9 of 80 total. Two respondents as well, opted to not answer Q6 at all. Those that answered with a simple word of Yes totaled 16 respondents. Likewise, those that answered in list form but with no further expansion, with or without the word Yes at the start of the sentence, were 18. Those that answered in the positive but in a sentence form totaled 10. Combining the data, overall we have 42.5% that do not use Web 2.0 tools in their coursework, 55% do use one or more Web 2.0 tools in their coursework and 2.5% did not respond. 4.36 Discussion of Sixth Question Responses Considering 40% of the total respondents teach 100% online, it is favorable to say that those who teach online more than peers are more interested and more likely to 102

incorporate Web 2.0 tools in their coursework. The area where the resultant data is not entirely clear as related to the thesis is whether or not the Web 2.0 tools are used for learning purposes or presentation. Based on current knowledge of YouTube and the large number of faculty that state of using it in their coursework, it is most likely the case that YouTube, for these faculty, it is used as a method of content presentation rather than collaboration. 4.37 Question 6- 0% Online Discussion As somewhat predicted, when asked if they use any Web 2.0 tools in their coursework, all that do not teach online noted that they did not use Web 2.0 tools. It was hoped that by allowing for an open-ended response, some faculty may reveal that in their face-to-face coursework they use Twitter or diigo as a coursework learning activity. This was not the case. 4.38 Question 6- 10% Online Discussion Among those nine teaching 10% online only the Graphic Design for the Web including Adobe CS5 Fireworks, Dreamweaver, Flash, for Print & Web Photoshop, eCommerce instructor and the literature instructor entered yes. While there are many possibilities to assume how the Graphic Design teacher incorporates Web 2.0 tools in their coursework, it can be inferred from the literature instructors use of wikis and YouTube from Q5, in their personal life, they might use YouTube for video content and hopefully they use wikis to facilitate student collaboration. The other positive answer came from the Cultural Studies instructor here, who only uses Facebook and Twitter in


their personal lives but uses WordPress in their coursework, implying their students are engaging in the metacognitive activity of maintaining their own WordPress blogs. 4.39 Question 6- 25% Online Discussion Of the ten 25% online teachers, the Arts teacher stated No. Two of the four BME professors stated not yet and Not really, implying that they may have tried it or are aware of an importance for them to integrate Web 2.0 tools. The other two BME instructors answered with a simple yes. Judging by the great list of tools they each imply using from Q 4 and Q5, it can be inferred that they have a lot of experience integrating Web 2.0 tools in coursework. Excitingly, the Social Theory, Cultural Studies and The Arts (all three in about equal parts) instructor stated using YouTube, RefWorks [for] instruction implying that the instructor has incorporated RefWorks as a teaching tool. Finally, of the three history-related instructors in this category, two answered No but the other stated using Google docs, perhaps to share files with students for peer collaboration, or student-instructor content-interaction. 4.40 Question 6- 50% Online Discussion Among the six faculty that teach 50% online, they show a relatively large amount of learning facilitation with Web 2.0 tools. Of the two community and human servicerelated faculty members, one stated only using YouTube (most likely to present videos), while their colleague listed using wikis, Twitter, Elluminate, YouTube, blogging, diigo, mindmeister, Google docs, Prezi, Jing, RefWorks, Skype and SlideShare in their coursework! Speaking now of the two that gave sentences for answers, the food-study related faculty member stated for Q6, some of my reading assignments are on my 104

website implying that this faculty member already has a great understanding of creating a web presence as well as the adult education instructor who stated as using some WordPress for e-portfolios implying a usage of e-portfolio, a new topic being discussed among the higher education community as an authentic assessment. Finally, there is inferred evidence of screen capturing and video integration as the early childhood education instructor here just stated no yet stated as using Jing, among others, in their personal life and the mathematics professor stated Yes to using Web 2.0 tools in coursework with a personal list of Elluminate, YouTube, Skype as well as Jing. 4.41 Question 6- 75% Online Discussion Among those 12 instructors who teach 75% online, only one answered No, that being the cultural studies professor that only knew of and used Facebook. Only one faculty member of this category used Web 2.0 tools to any great degree, this being the second cultural studies professor, who cited as using Elluminate, Google docs, RefWorks, and Skype. The only 75% English literature professor here showed evidence of tool integration for learning by stating, yes. I use: wikis, blogging, YouTube, Google docs. Other respondents were much less forthcoming. The psychology, Human services, Animal Behavior/Ecology, Cultural Studies, Arts, history and Finance, Accounting and International Business instructors gave answers like Yes or Some with no further insight given. Another history professor in this group claimed to only know of YouTube, to use YouTube personally and uses it in coursework. The early childhood development instructor that stated to love Elluminate typed only the word Elluminate in the Q6 answer field. The last history teacher of this group listed in the 105

survey showed knowing of many tools, uses them for personal on occasion but stated in Q6 as using these unspecified Web 2.0 tools for one course only. 4.42 Question 6- 100% Online Discussion Of the 33 participants that teach 100% online, surprisingly, there were no detailed accounts of Web 2.0 usage for learning purposes among the different areas of study. Twelve of the 33 gave a negative answer when asked if they use Web 2.0 in their coursework. One more respondent as well left Q6 blank. Twenty respondents gave a positive answer in some form. Of those that were a negative answer, some peculiar comparisons could be seen across each participants responses. For example, the Cultural Studies, English, Literature, Writing professor claimed to not know of any of the tools from the list but used Facebook and Google docs personally yet when asked which they used for learning wrote hardly any, implying many different possibilities. However, somewhat predictably, their colleague that teaches Cultural Studies - Media and Communications, Digital Media, Digital Arts replied, Yes to Q6 but in previous answers typed, for example, All of the Above. I use most of them every day and have used all of them at one point or another. Speaking of advanced technology, another psychology professor when answering Q6 replied, Flash, implying that they used Adobe Creative Suite applications or just viewing videos with the Flash application. More revealing are answers from the Self-Directed Learning instructor, who gave for an answer, I've used Jing when a student has difficulty with the software. I use Google Sites with students pursuing assessment of prior learning through portfolio. One BME professor wrote, I 106

would like to add some of them, but do not have the time to plan their incorporation. Confusingly, a psychology and education professor recognized several tools and used tools personally yet when asked if they used them for learning typed, no, don't even know what it is. While some listed tools, most were YouTube, Elluminate and Skype. Two faculty that did go through the trouble to list more were a Business, Management and Economics professor who listed as using wikis, YouTube, Elluminate and, surprisingly, Second Life. It is exciting to consider how they might be using Second Life, but they gave no further information. The other, a Social Theory professor listed using wikis, podcasting, YouTube, blogging and open textbooks. This instance of being the only respondent to claim to use open textbooks implies other exciting possibilities of using them with coursework. Finally, one U.S. History and Politics professor typed that they used Facebook in the past. 4.43 Responses to Seventh Question In question numbers seven of the survey respondents were asked, Do your students use Web 2.0 tools for your course, even if you dont require it? Creating the answer field as an open-ended response, it was hoped that that would allow faculty to share their experiences of their online students Web 2.0 capabilities. As it was not deemed possible to infer that students had one level of acclimation to certain web tools, it was hoped that the resultant data would show some range of anecdotal reference on the part of faculty. The recorded, overall responses to Q7 are shown in Figure 18.


FIGURE 18 Responses to Asking if One is Aware of Student Personal Web 2.0 Usage for Coursework
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 % blank % "No" % [don't know] "Yes,"

As shown in the chart above, the overall number that answered with a one word of No or Not Really or n/a totaled 24 of the 80 total respondents or 30%. Taking into account that one respondent left the question blank, many others answered with phrases exacting to or similar to I dont know, Im not sure or even ? The total number of these particular responses combined was 27 out of 80 total, or 33.75 percent. A total number of 27 answered the question in the affirmative with either just one word of Yes or a longer answer, making that 27 out of 80, or 33.75%. Therefore, it is more likely that professors believe their students have no Web 2.0 facility or are unaware if they do than the likelihood of a professor being aware of students participating in learning activities with a Web 2.0 tool. 4.44 Discussion of Seventh Question Responses Given the large number of respondents that stated No, Yes or I dont know, it is more possible to find inferences from those who responded by reviewing how that answer relates to the respondents answers to previous questions.


4.45 Question 7- 0% Online Discussion Of those that stated as teaching no coursework online, it is possible to infer that this faculty did not know if their students used Web 2.0 tools or the faculty member did not know what they are. One professor of human development gave some insight by stating that they use wikis, WordPress and Skype in their coursework but that the course they teach, Educational Planning, was not one that would benefit from the use of Web 2.0 tools. Also, of the ten 0% online respondents, only one professor replied, Yes, previously stating that they use podcasts and YouTube in their face-to -face coursework. From this response it is possible to infer that this one professor of Psychology, Statistics, Research Methods is at least aware that Web 2.0 tools are part of their students lives and that this professor has made it a point to at least present resources or content via Web 2.0 tools, causing their students to look to multimedia over just the textbook and lecture. 4.46 Question 7- 10% Online Discussion Of the nine instructors that teach 10% online, three respondents answered No while four respondents answered with a sentence of I dont know or something similar. Interestingly, the only cultural studies instructors of this group stated in a previous question that they used WordPress in their course and answered Q7 as such, I don't require it; about 40% participate in it. This is a positive sign as it shows that as the instructor models blogging, 40% of their students willingly engage in blogging as a learning activity without it being a requirement. Also within this group, while it is not surprising that the instructor that labeled themselves as teaching Graphic Design for the Web including Adobe CS5 Fireworks, Dreamweaver, Flash, for Print & Web Photoshop, 109

eCommerce, stated Yes when asked if students use Web 2.0 in their course freely. It is also promising to note that the literature professor that teaches 10% online states that their students do use Web 2.0 tools in their course, which already includes wikis and YouTube, and that for them a successful online learning experience involves strong interactivity, mix of text-based and rich media. 4.47 Question 7- 25% Online Discussion Among those that teach 25% online, we find a positive upswing in usage, as only four of the ten 25% online professors stated No or I dont know. Of the remaining, some responses do not specify tools but hint at activity. For example, an arts instructor stated that they did not use Web 2.0 tools in their courses but that students used Web 2.0 tools in their courses, on their own sometimes. The same can be said for one business instructor and one history instructor in this group. Yet another business professor revealed that when asked if their students willingly use Web 2.0 tools in their course: Based on feedback in study group and assignments, yes. While, its not possible to determine if this instructor is using the term feedback to describe their own feedback to students or something else entirely, it signals that this person has possible Web 2.0 activity going on in their coursework. Also of note, the cultural studies professor here that previously stated, I use YouTube to show music was the first identified to mention Wikipedia as though it were of the category of Web 2.0 even though Wikipedia is only used as a resource when they stated, My students tend to over-use Wikipedia.


4.48 Question 7- 50% Online Discussion Of those that teach 50% online three, or half, stated that their students did not use Web 2.0 tools or that they werent aware if they did. At this point, judging by how Q7 responses relate to previous responses, it is possible to infer that if a professor does not know if their students use Web 2.0 tools in the coursework, then, the students are not doing so. Of the two community and human services instructors, one stated that they used YouTube in their course work and that their students use YouTube in their course. However, it is not possible to determine from this if the students search for videos on the site that are relevant to a discussion topic or if the students themselves create videos for the course, post them to YouTube and direct classmates and the professor to them. This instructors colleague, however, listed him or herself as using thirteen Web 2.0 tools in their coursework and that students did not use them on their own, perhaps because that instructor is already directing their students in their usage of these tools. Interestingly, but unfortunate because of a lack of detail, both the food related professor and mathematics professors stated Yes to question seven. It would be exciting to hear from the math professor, especially, on how they incorporate Web 2.0 tools in the mathematics curriculum but they give no further insight. 4.49 Question 7- 75% Online Discussion Of those that teach 75% online, seven of the 12 stated No or gave an indecisive answer if their students use Web 2.0 tools on their own for school. Of the five that stated an affirmative answer, only two gave answers that offered insight into how students might be using any tools. The remaining three did not give answers to Q7 or Q6 beyond 111

the word Yes. One of the respondents, a history professor, gave a more detailed answer by stating that students use only what I prompt them to use yet the only tool they state themselves as using was YouTube. It is hard to determine if they meant that the students are only instructed when to use YouTube or if there are any other tools that they did not mention. The other respondent that gave an answer beyond one word was an early childhood education instructor who stated that whether the students used them in the coursework was dependent on the course. From this it can be inferred that students do use tools as directed by this instructor and that the tools must be one or more of the tools they listed: wikis, podcasts, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, diigo or Google docs. 4.50 Question 7- 100% Online Discussion The majority of respondents to this question of those that teach 100% online gave answers that can be categorized as being unaware of or knowing that the students probably do use them but the faculty did not know which tools exactly. By majority, the number is 11 of the 30 that answer that they do not know or roughly 36.7 percent. Analyzing the answers to these respondents preceding questions show conflicting occurrences. For example, a psychology professor in this category stated using YouTube, blogging, Google docs and Skype but stated in their course they use [Adobe] Flash yet didnt know if their students were using Web 2.0 tools in their interactions with the content. Shedding some light on this subject, a Community and Human Services instructor stated, I don't believe so. Many do not have sophisticated computers nor time to learn new tools. Elluminate is a challenge for most of them. Such a statement gives evidence to student-involvement realities. 112

Of the 100% online instructors, 10 answered Q7 with a definitive, No making that 33.3% of this group. Among these respondents, the answer they gave to the question Do you use Web 2.0 in your course was a definitive No as well. As one of these respondents, an art history and philosophy instructor added, no - they participate largely through discussion board. I would like to use them, but GSC [Granite State College] does not support many of these (i.e. VoiceThread). This shows an example of faculty interest being impeded by the technology support offered by their institution. Those 100% online instructors that answered Yes or a similar response in the affirmative, numbered nine out of 30 or 30%. Among these, only one respondent gave any detail other than just stating the word yes. In fact, the answer given for seven of these nine respondents in Do you use any of the tools in class was Yes as well. Given that, one can only assume that the tools they use in class and the tools their students use as an addendum must be only the tools these faculty members listed in Q4 or Q5. The one faculty of the nine answering Yes that gave any detail was a management professor, who stated they used YouTube in class, in their own and their students used YouTube in class for their submissions, perhaps presenting their own created videos or videos they found that each involve interacting with material. Another that gave detail was an arts professor that wrote, I embed a Delicious feed in my course; I assign online videos. Such a response was the kind I was hoping to have found from other, less forthcoming, respondents.


4.51 Responses to Eighth Question Question number eight asked faculty, in an open-ended response field, what tools from the Q4 list were they unfamiliar with. The purpose of the open-ended response here was not to gather statistics of how many didnt know what a wiki was, what a podcast was, etc., but rather to allow for personal reflection on any tools they arent familiar with. The overall responses to the eighth question are shown in Figure 19.
FIGURE 19 Responses to Eighth Question
60 40 20 0 # left blank # "do not understand question" # "tools not listed in Q4"

Among the 80 respondents, 19 respondents left this answer field blank, making it such that 23.75% of the total number did not reveal any further consideration of the tools from the list they were unfamiliar with. Between the remaining respondents most responded with a list of tools or a statement similar to any tool I didnt list in question 4 or some other response revealing curious insight. Finally, among all 80 respondents, four responded with a statement of not understanding the question while one other at least wrote, What does this question mean...any of your long list or any that my students use? I am rather unfamiliar with any I did not list above and only really familiar with Elluminate, Facebook, Ning, and the Yahoo version of Skype.


4.52 Question 8- 0% Online Discussion Comparing this groups answers to Q8 to each of its respondents answers to previous questions inferred a great deal of confusion on this faculty groups part. Sorting out the others, two, a Business, Management, and Economics and Social Theory, Structure, and Change faculty, left the answer blank while four took the time to type an answer similar to whatever is not listed above. A Psychology, Statistics, Research Methods instructor stated as knowing of podcasts (#2) and YouTube (#6) yet answered Q8 as not knowing [7-25], thereby omitting reference to wikis (#1), Facebook (#3), Twitter (#4), or Elluminate (#5). A writing professor listed tools they are unfamiliar with yet did not cite those they are familiar with in Q4. Likewise, the Spanish professor stated they did not know of most of them but did not state the ones they were familiar with. Overall, the answers submitted by these respondents show little personal interest in Web 2.0 tools. 4.53 Question 8- 10% Online Discussion Of the nine respondents in this group, two left the answer field blank. Otherwise, the eight remaining gave more information than the 0% online instructors. Four instructors listed tools by their assigned number. Among the more vague, a business professor listed the ones they were unfamiliar with as all yet in Q4 stated they were familiar with Facebook, Twitter, Elluminate, YouTube, WordPress and blogging, Google docs, and Skype. Also, a teacher education professor listed himself or herself as knowing of wikis, YouTube, Google docs and RefWorks yet listed those that they did not know of as none. 115

4.54 Question 8- 25% Online Discussion Of the ten respondents in this category three left the answer blank. Among others, the arts professor stated himself or herself as knowing of 1, 3, 4, 6, 12, 21, yet stated in Q8 that they did not know what #1 [wikis] are. A social theory professor at least answered Q8 by listing some that they have heard of and dont know the rest presumably those not listed in their answer to question four. Another BME professor stated here really have not used anything except Skype and podcasts. The remaining in this group gave answers similar to most of the list or the ones I didnt number. 4.55 Question 8- 50% Online Discussion Among the 50% teaching online group, of the six respondents, three left the answer field blank. One of these non-responders, the community and human service instructor and mathematics professor, it can be inferred, left it blank due to the heavy use of Web 2.0 tools already embedded within their course, thirteen tools and four tools, respectively. The remaining faculty stated answers related to the ones I did not name. 4.56 Question 8- 75% Online Discussion Among these twelve faculty, only two did not respond to question eight. The remaining faculty did list those tools that they were unfamiliar with. The majority of tools listed as not being most known were diigo, Delicious, mindmeister, M.O.O.C.s (technically not a Web 2.0 tool), Forscene, Scribd, Zotero and VoiceThread. 4.57 Question 8- 100% Online Discussion Of those 30 faculty members that teach 100% online, a surprising number within this group were unaware of a large number of tools. Also, among these thirty, seven of 116

them did not answer the question. Of these faculty however, those that didnt answer the question showed in previous answers to know of many tools with several embedding them in their coursework. The faculty who gave a response signaling that they did not understand the question numbered five out of the thirty. Of those that answered the question, most revealed the tools they were unfamiliar with in list form. Some did not, giving more of the type of response one had hoped for from the previous respondents. For example, the graduate professor in the MAT program wrote, I sort of know about most of them but I haven't used them all - I would like to know more about video editing (I have trouble with what I use); not sure what a M.O.O.C is. This faculty member showed that, even though they werent robust implementers of Web 2.0 tools, they did consider wanting to learn about specific ones. A community and human service professor wrote I am rather unfamiliar with any I did not list above and only really familiar with Elluminate, Facebook, Ning, and the Yahoo version of Skype. The majority of the respondents lists reflected at last some familiarity with wikis, podcasts, Twitter, Facebook, Elluminate, Google docs and Skype. 4.58 Responses to Ninth Question The final question of the survey asked respondents, Have you considered (but not yet) integrating Web 2.0 tools in online learning for adult learners? Also, what might be some deterrents or drawbacks to you? The answer field supplied was an open-ended response field allowing for free expression on the part of the respondent. Overall responses are shown in Figure 20.


FIGURE 20 Responses to Ninth Question

50 40 30 20 10 0 % did not answer % did not understand have no interest in have interest in Web % % question Web 2.0 for teaching2.0 tools for teaching

Of the eighty participants, three left the answer field blank and seven gave a oneword response of No. The number of participants that answered with an answer of n/a or one that signaled they did not understand the question or may not be qualified to answer it was a total of seven. The question was constructed as a two part question, the first question could most likely have been answered with a Yes or No and the second question would allow the respondent to go into further detail. Surprisingly, quite a few respondents did not answer the first part and instead answered the second part. By doing so, these faculty members did not make it completely clear whether they considered using Web 2.0 tools or not. The total number of those that answered the second part but not the first was seventeen out of eighty. These answers, even without being preceded by a Yes or No, could still be classified as a negative response based on the respondents answer to the second part of question nine. The number of respondents stating that they did not have an interest to integrate Web 2.0 tools in their coursework by answering both question parts totals six. The number that answered with an affirmative response totaled forty. Summarizing, 3.75% did not answer, 8.75% did not understand the question, 30% have no interest in using Web 2.0 tools in their coursework and 50% of total respondents 118

stated that they would like to incorporate Web 2.0 tools. In the following sections we will learn more regarding their decisions as we draw inferences from their prose. 4.59 Question 9- 0% Online Discussion Among those that do not teach online at all, the writing professor, who did not answer regarding familiarity with the tools but mentioned that using Skype might be a useful tool, responded to Q9 with, I'm not teaching online at the moment, but I would integrate these tools. Such a response signals that this faculty member can recognize new trends in pedagogy. Two faculty members, put the owness of why they shouldnt incorporate them on the students as a psychology professor cited that [students] feel overwhelmed by technology. Their colleague, a human development instructor gave a more curious response. This professor is well versed in Web 2.0 tools as they state that they use wikis, blogging, Skype, YouTube, and Elluminate yet as far as their students are concerned they wrote,
I am concerned that some Web 2.0 tools may give students the impression that whatever is written is good information. For example, Wikipedia may and likely does contain information that is not authoritative/scientific and supported by evidence or consensus in academic fields. Undergraduate students in particular may be susceptible to believe most anything they read. I do see a value in Web 2.0 tools for fostering creativity and collaboration. I just think we need to acknowledge the risks and use them appropriately. Of course, I have only limited experience in teaching online, which is the focus of your question.

A business professor in this group stated their beliefs in face-to face teaching by stating, No. I favor traditional teaching methods (not on-line). While two more stated a one-word response of No. and another stated, Not sure what it is the remaining three gave similar responses of not having the time for training or no familiarity with Web 2.0 tools. 119

4.60 Question 9- 10% Online Discussion Among the nine faculty members in this group, two instructors gave evidence in previous answers of their use of Web 2.0 tools in the classroom. However their answers for Q9 were very different. The Graphic Design for the Web instructor might use Web 2.0 tools with their students but stated in Q9, There is no substitute for hands-on instruction in person. This professors colleague, a literature professor that incorporates strong use of Web 2.0 in their course work stated that they see few if any drawbacks for implementing Web 2.0 tools. Of the more earnest answers here, the Learning Assistance professor, while not using any, would very much like to learn and a teacher education professor stated that they are just becoming aware. Otherwise, one other answered a single No and another did not answer the question at all. The remaining three instructors here put the responsibility on themselves by stating, No - too complicated and too many technology issues (failures) make it not reliable. Simpler is better for me, indicating they may have tried but were unsuccessful, and I do not know how to use them or what value they have to students and one thing is that I am parttime, the other is that the learning curve is sometimes more than I am able to muster up. 4.61 Question 9- 25% Online Discussion Of the five in this group that gave an affirmative answer in Q6, varying statements came from these people in question nine. One of these, a social theory professor, stated that I don't have nearly the hours required to play in prep time while others had a less defeatist approach by stating, interested, learning it and being able to use it remotely, signaling an interest in mobile learning, an emerging technology, or I 120

have considered podcasts for students studying at a distance or not a problem for me. Another professor in this group uses Web 2.0 tools in coursework but gave this insight, many of the students I work with have limited internet skills and understanding. The key is to find a balance unlike more traditional aged students who have grown up with the technology, implying that students between the ages of 18 to 21 are more able to adapt to technology than older students. Those in the 25% online group that answered No stated, The big deterrent is superficiality. Students consult the Wikipedia, but don't penetrate the actual academic sources as they should, another reference to Wikipedia as a resource, or deterrents - time required to learn to use these, I work in two programs and have much more to do than I have time for -- learning new tools that keep proliferating and knowing many of my students don't use more than Facebook and Twitter, I see no point to trying to learn them. I simply haven't time. Finally, there was another statement placing owness on the adult learners life-responsibilities: A lot of my students don't want to be online any more than necessary so I keep it simple. 4.62 Question 9- 50% Online Discussion Unfortunately, while the six respondents that teach 50% online might spend more time in this learning environment than the colleagues previously discussed, that doesnt mean they have had more opportunities to consider implementing Web 2.0 tools. The community and human services professor in this group, stated previously of using several Web 2.0 in coursework and personally, but when asked in Q9 if they would use them even if they havent yet, responded No. The math professor stated as using Web 2.0 tool in coursework but left Q9 blank. The food-studies professor showed a great 121

understanding of Web 2.0 tools, stated an affirmative to whether their students use Web 2.0 tools on their own for coursework but stated in Q9, many adult learners have limited web experience (in fact, I sometimes have to coach them in basic word processing). Another community and human services professor stated,
yes, have considered it. The deterrent is that it takes time to learn how to do this, which ones are the best for what you are trying to achieve, training/support on how to do this, workload does not allow to experiment with this unless it's on your own time and there's very little of that left. A drawback is students may not know how to use some tools and then you spend additional time training them, they have difficulty in the course because of technology; turns them off from the study and possibly the college.

Of the two more positive sounding answers, an early childhood education instructor stated I need to know how and an adult education professor did not answer the question but stated, I am leading the college in an effort to examine e-portfolios therefore all of these questions are ones that we are also asking but in informal ways. 4.63 Question 9- 75% Online Discussion Among this group, nine of the 12 respondents responded affirmatively, while one respondent left the field blank and two responded with a negative answer. These two that answered No put responsibility on themselves by stating that a deterrent was lack of knowledge, training and Not beyond specifics above. KISS principle obviates additional uses at this time. Among those that answered in the affirmative for Q9, some expressed concerns such as, I have considered using YouTube and Google docs. Drawbacks: time needed to rethink course and find useful materials, time and $ is the sticky widget, also The major deterrent, besides getting the programs installed on college computers, is encountering students who are unable to access or download those tools. Two gave the 122

same answer of, time to learn software, time to teach students software. Another stated, I am willing to learn more, but spend a minimum of 3 hours per day teaching 2 online classes. The drawback for me would be the time and energy it would take to learn and successfully integrate new tools into my course. The English professor, heavily into Web 2.0 tools for learning, stated, this semester I am using a lot of YouTube and blogging... and I find my adult learners are not so savvy with either. There's a learning curve there that is not present with my traditional students. From this statement we find another statement of experience with adult learners not being able to adept quickly to Web 2.0 tools. Yet, the finance professor stated for Q9, Yes - no drawbacks. they are more willing to learn and accept new technology. 4.64 Question 9- 100% Online Discussion Among the 30 respondents in this category, the most insight was revealed but with the majority revealing the perceived drawbacks. Of this group, eleven stated No or with insight that inferred they have doubts over Web 2.0 tool benefits. Nineteen gave a positive response, albeit, some with very detailed reflections on the deterrents, and three responded signaling they did not understand the question. Of the eleven that submitted a negative response, three responded with a word of No and two more responded with No and then a statement regarding the lack of time to learn to use these tools. Among the remaining seven negative answers, the majority stated faculty time for learning was an issue and whether these tools have any benefit for learning was at question. For example, one art history instructor referenced VoiceThread when speaking of how their institute will not allow downloading it on an institutional 123

computer, and then stated, the big drawback to many of these tools is ramp up time versus reward in terms of improved student learning outcomes. Two others stated, course is not designed to make good use of Web 2.0 and small payoff in result (improved learning) compared to steep investment in development and learning; skepticism about benefits. (Quality of student writing and thinking is what education hopes to raise; many of these tools are dysfunctional to that purpose.) One has to infer that this faculty must be referencing a micro-blogging tool such as Twitter, which doesnt allow more than 140 characters of text. Other negative faculty responses reveal personal deficiencies. For example one stated, Would love to, but never have any time. 3 weeks in July is all we've got to even think about curricular planning, and we're too exhausted by then, plus that's the only time to do scholarship and another, I have considered it however first, I am not tech. savvy enough to create some of the things I would like to do. For example, I would like to create an interactive tutorial but I am not sure which one of the tools listed I would use for that. Second, I do not like any tech. that requires the video recording of people (especially me) for the world to see. Such statements makes one wonder where they found research statements or anecdotal evidence that supports not using Web 2.0 tools to justify their opinions. Of the nineteen that stated in the affirmative, a range of insight was revealed. Two professors did not state any drawbacks. One, the Cultural Studies - Media and Communications, Digital Media, Digital Arts stated, No drawbacks. They are required in all of my courses and studies. Students must use them and a business professor gave a long list of tools they were incorporating and stated in Q9, already doing it. A 124

management instructor stated, I have integrated YouTube and have begun to look into others. Finally an MAT professor stated, I love integrating them but I am mostly on my own with tech support; as an early implementer I am eager to try them (need to improve teacher ed; always trying) but I know many other faculty who are quite reluctant to use them. One of the more interesting responses, revealing a respondent who learns quickly, was from a psychology professor who stated, I had to look up Web 2.0 to find out exactly what it is. Certainly things like Flickr could be helpful for photos of human developmental stages, and our version of Blackboard requires Flash. A Community and Human Services professor who uses Elluminate in their online course gave this statement, I use Elluminate all the time. Drawbacks for both my students and me is lack of time to learn new software. Other deterrents are that some students still only have dial-up access. Many students seem to have old or slow computers. Too many "bells and whistles" seem to confuse students and disrupt the flow and clarity of the learning experience. Other faculty also reference self-efficacy when stating, yes, time is a problem, plus once they are in the courses, it takes a substantial amount of time to keep courses up to date and train adjuncts to use them. New tools come out all the time and many of them seem like a fad, where a new version will come out next semester. I use Facebook, but want to keep professional and private life separate. Another in this group stated, Yes. But the playing field has to be level for all students - not all students have the PC capability to incorporate all these. Among the remaining responses, most


reference that they do not have the personal time, need training for use and are not knowledgeable of the educational benefits of implementing these tools. 4.65 Conclusion After allowing sufficient time for faculty invited from Empire State College and Granite State College, eighty faculty members participated out of, perhaps, hundreds employed by both institutions. Forty percent of all respondents labeled themselves as teaching one hundred percent of their teaching time online. The remaining faculty labeled themselves as teaching not at all, ten percent, twenty-five, and seventy-five. Each of those groups was equally populated. Those that labeled themselves as teaching half of their time online were among the fewest. The full range of possible areas of study was represented among faculty members. The largest number of one area of study was the thirteen business-related instructors out of the eighty. The less time instructors had in the online environment, the less informed their beliefs or attitudes were towards student success. The majority of instructors felt it was the instructors responsibility to ensure student online learning success. Given a list of popular Web 2.0 tools that have been used for learning within higher education, the majority of faculty recognized Facebook, Twitter or YouTube. Those respondents that recognized the most tools also used the most in their personal life and in the classroom. Many professors were not aware of their students own use of Web 2.0 for their assignments. A little more than half of the faculty respondents cited that they use Web 2.0 tools in their coursework. However, many of those that do not use them are willing to use them and are interested learning of their benefits. Of those that use them already, few cited any drawbacks. Those that dont use 126

them but want to cite, mostly, the lack of time to learn a new Web 2.0 and a lack of time to determine how to integrate them in their coursework. In the following chapter I will suggest implications of faculty implementation impediments and offer possible solutions to allow greater implementation of Web 2.0 tools among adult-centered higher-education instructors.


CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The current scholarly evidence, both empirical and anecdotal, of successful Web 2.0 tool integration can form the foundation for the implementation of Web 2.0 tools for learning activities in the blended or fully online learning environment. The literature review of empirical evidence of Web 2.0 tool use among faculty in higher education shows robust use of various tools. However, the amount of literature available in empirical form is relatively slim, suggesting that those involved in using such educational technology for learning are vociferous in their reporting yet are among a small, closecommunicating niche. From reports of successful implementation of these tools, the question was asked among faculty at two adult-friendly, higher education institutions, asking their thoughts on using Web 2.0 tools in their coursework. At the two institutions, faculty were also surveyed how much they teach online and what their area of study is. They were asked to go in free-prose length on what makes a successful online learning experience, in their estimation. Professors were also shown a list of twenty-five, currently popular, Web 2.0 tools in education. They were asked to refer to this list when determining which ones they used, recognized, did not use or which they know their students use. They were also asked if they use Web 2.0 tools in their courses, in hopes of uncovering what the implementation gave them insight into. If they didnt use Web 2.0 tools, they were asked if they would and if there was anything holding them back from delving into this emerging use. From the faculty responses collected from the administered survey, responses were aggregated to find commonalities or differences that suggest why instructors are using these tools or not. Of these respondents, there was not 128

an overwhelming number who cited vibrant use of Web 2.0 tools that mimic the usage illustrated in this thesis literature review. Only 33.75% of respondents cited using Web 2.0 tools as a learning activity. In the remainder of this chapter I will offer what most faculty reported as impediments towards such low rate of use. Within faculty opinions of impediments some misconceptions of Web 2.0 were displayed. I will discuss these findings as they potentially inform contemporary teaching practices and professional development and possibilities for the future. 5.1 Impediments A broad overview of responses showed that faculty who teach more online than less cannot be assumed to be inclined to use these tools. Most importantly, while many in the survey did not use Web 2.0 tools in their course work, many of those that currently dont did give responses that indicated they would, given certain situations. Those situations include, Ability to personally install any tools on institution computers. Time to research the tools Perceived lack of technology capability on the part of students. Time for faculty to experiment with any tool to determine how it could be usefully integrated for learning purposes in their study area. Many respondents knew of the most common Web 2.0 tools of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. but fewer knew of the more documented useful tools such as VoiceThread, podcasting tools or programs such as Second Life. There apparently is little time for them to learn how to use these tools, as twenty-nine of those that responded 129

to Q9 with an expanded response stated that time was, as one faculty called it the sticky widget. It seems, judging by responses, that there is little opportunity for them to be in a situation to learn more about how one conducts themselves using a Web 2.0 tool or how it might be useful. In some areas of the survey it was stated by faculty that they themselves are not allowed access to such software applications because they are unauthorized to download an application on their institution issued computer. For example one instructor noted, getting the programs installed on college computers. Some faculty respondents put the blame on their adult students lack of selfefficacy. Many stated reasoning that their students dont have the time to use Web 2.0 tools, or students dont have adequate enough personal technology be it in the form of personal computers, laptops, broadband capabilities etc. 5.2 Misconceptions A large number of faculty displayed some misconceptions regarding Web 2.0 tools. For these instructors, such misconceptions fostered a low rate of willingness to consider Web 2.0 tools as a learning activity. For example, more than a few respondents showed to be unaware of what a Web 2.0 tool is actually is. Many other faculty cited the use of the site like YouTube as a learning tool. Such statements imply that many instructors are unaware of what the role of any Web 2.0 tool is when used as a tool for learning or instructional conversation, or group collaboration. Most faculty, it can be implied, see presenting a YouTube video as using it for a learning purpose. However, as illustrated in the literature review, presenting a video, be it, a hard copy VHS in a 130

classroom or a hyperlink on the World Wide Web is not an example of studentinteraction with content via technology. Similarly, some faculty revealed the understanding that a student using Wikipedia as a reference was an example of using Web 2.0 tools for learning purposes. These instructors stated that their students use of Wikipedia was not enough of a serious method for gathering resources in preparing for assignments or interaction. It can be implied that faculty not engaged in Web 2.0 tool usage for teaching are under the assumption that students referencing from Wikipedia is an instance of using a Web 2.0 tool for a learning activity. Such student activity is an example of extracting content from the Internet, not being engaged in group collaboration via a student Wiki, i.e. PBWiki. As noted before, some faculty blamed student lack of self-efficacy. However, several of those surveyed that were using Web 2.0 tools in their online classroom stated that the faculty made the use of such tools a requirement and that students had few problems learning and then using whatever associated Web 2.0 tool for the course. Such evidence implies that adult higher education students are likely to assimilate quickly to a previously unfamiliar Web 2.0 tool if using such tool in their coursework is mandatory, not optional. 5.3 Implications From reflecting on the responses to the survey and then discussing how the answers of the faculty members revealed similarities or differences in their attitudes and use of Web 2.0 tools for learning, implications can be made of how these tools might 131

attain greater status as a learning tool among educators rather than as a passing fad. Because the survey was administrated to only two higher education institutions out of the vast number that are cultural breeding grounds for the future intellectual communities of our society, it is not possible to infer that every professor in every college is aligned in attitude with those surveyed. It is possible to draw possibilities for how tools can be integrated based on the survey responses. There is one positive note from the survey that can lead the way towards greater faculty use. That is the fact that faculty members do not have an issue with online learning itself. The vast majority of respondents to Q3, asking them what makes a successful online learning experience, revealed reflective accounts of effective online learning. It can be implied that, if given the opportunity to use Web 2.0 tools in a purposeful way for learning, these faculty members would be able to successfully integrate the tool judging by their cogitative views of online learning. In the future, institutions or the faculty in their own time of personal professional development will have to be made aware of how to engage students for learning purposes with technology, in this case Web 2.0 tools. Instructors learning such activities will help them put the student in a more cognitively rigorous interaction with classmates and instructor than when being presented with content online. Such an occurrence in the future might led to greater use of Web 2.0 among faculty, as implied by the large number of respondents who stated that they were unaware of such existence of the twenty five tools listed in Q4 but were or were not more likely to incorporate them if given more information. 132

It can be implied that if these faculty members were involved in face-to-face sessions with other faculty members who have a similar interest and could converge upon one place, adequate professional development time could be used for integrating Web 2.0 tools. Perhaps a conference room in a department of their institution could host a several hour intensive-investigation of a single Web 2.0 tool and how it could be used in a course, leading to an increase in its implementation. Evidence of possible success given such a professional development workshop might be inferred given suggestions from responses cited in data, such as, I need time during summer (less teaching-intensive) to learn in a workshop. Many faculty do not use Web 2.0 tools, as examined in chapter two, as a method for learning. These same faculty do not know if their students use them or not on their own for coursework. It can be implied that if these faculty were made more aware of what Web 2.0 tools are, they would be more able to identify them within student interactions. Also, if they are more able to identify such use, they will be more able to assist students in their personal pursuits of utilizing Web 2.0 tools for assignments. Such previously unseen recognition can aid instructors to view ways to incorporate Web 2.0 tools within coursework. In some areas of the survey it was stated by faculty that they themselves are not allowed access to such software applications because they are unauthorized to download an application on their institution issued computer. Anecdotally, it has been brought to the authors attention that one of the institutions surveyed intends to install all new computers with virtual desktops and an appstore Among faculty and student used 133

computers. This would imply that students and faculty would be able to access their own network desktop interface by logging in to any computer anywhere. The main component of the appstore will allow students or faculty of this institution to take whatever software suits their needs, be it Second Life, Adobe Flash player upgrades (to aid in viewing YouTube videos), Skype, and also non-freeware such as Adobe Dreamweaver, Photoshop, older versions of Microsoft Office, etc. Such an endeavor would greatly free an instructors restraint from engaging in Web 2.0 tool usage for learning, implying another contributor to growth. The average age of an adult learner at these institutions is age thirty-six. Anecdotally those born the years of 1974 (making them thirty six as of 2010), have grown up in an advanced technological age, having been the first exposed to personal computers, the Internet and mobile devices from a young age. Therefore statements among respondents that only students between the ages of 18 and 21 are capable of quickly grasping new technology may be a great underestimation of the adult-learners abilities on the part of the professors. Again, the idea that older students cant learn new technology quickly may have abetted the faculty members decision to not pursue such technology for learning. The advancements in broadband services to rural area as detailed in chapter one can aid to increase student online learning success and possibly the comfort level on the part of faculty to integrate web 2.0 tools. The sooner one learns how to use a new technology, the better during their time as a student so one can have a rich and varied learning experience within any Web 2.0 tool. The attractiveness of a potential employee's resume if it includes experience with a Web 134

2.0 tool that is relevant to their prospective employer will make it more possible that they are a finalist in this currently difficult job market as describes in chapter one. Recently, a news posting on IBMs website details the use of Second Life (Ghandi, 2010) for employee collaboration, hinting that there may be even more activity within the professional world using Web 2.0 tools for employee work-related communication and collaboration. 5.4 Conclusion-More Considerations for the Future Web 2.0 tool usage is not a recent development that has yet to reach a wider population of society to integrate. Tools such as Facebook and YouTube, Amazon.com and Wikipedia, shown in chapter one, are some examples of Web 2.0 tools that have become part of the fabric of community interaction. Web 2.0 tool usages as a learning tool, to foster group collaboration, began as a practice at the same time that Web 2.0 was introduced, as discussed in chapter two. However, as the responses to the survey show, Web 2.0 tools for teaching is still an idea that few engage in to full capacity. It may be implied, while not a focus of this thesis, that if the use of Web 2.0 in the k-12 academic community increases, its use in higher education will have a more firm foundation to scale such activities for learning. As our society becomes more globally communicative, because of Web 2.0 tools, the possibility of using these same tools or resources for learning might become an assumed practice. In whatever way that Web 2.0 tools become more of a standard for incorporating learning for online coursework in higher education, there is little evidence to suggest that a lack of familiarity among humans in general will dissolve the notion of it as a possible tool for learning among higher education faculty. 135

Admin. (2010, September 20). Surprising Facts About Online Education. Retrieved November 23, 2010 from http://www.degreescout.com/online-education-news/surprising-factsabout-online-education Adult Education and Economic Growth Act of 2009, S. 1468 111th Congress. 2009. Baker, S. C., Wentz, R. K. & Woods, M. M., (2009). Using Virtual Worlds in Education: Second Life as an Educational Tool. Teaching of Psychology, 36. pp. 59-64. Retrieved December 16, 2010 from http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a907770663~db=all~order=page Bartlett-Bragg, A. (2003) Blogging to Learn, Knowledge Tree, no. 4. Batson, T. (2008). The Institutional Path for Change in This Age: Andragogy, not Pedagogy. Campus Technology. Retrieved January 11, 2011 from http://campustechnology.com/Articles/2008/10/The-Institutional-Path-for-Change-inThis-Age-Andragogy-not-Pedagogy.aspx?Page=1 Baumgartner, P., Bergner, I. and Pullich, L. (2004) Weblogs in Education - A Means for Organisational Change, Multimedia Applications in Education Conference (MApEC) Proceedings 2004. Zimmermann, L., Graz, pp. 155-166. Bausch, P., Haughey, M. & Hourihan, M. (2002). We Blog: Publishing Online with Weblogs. New York: John Wiley & Sons, (Chapter 8). [Verified 6 June 2004] Retrieved Feburaury 4, 2011 from http://www.blogroots.com/chapters.blog/id/4 Berners-Lee, T. (April, 30, 2010). People: Tim Berners-Lee. Retrieved from October 25, 2010 from http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/ Bonderup-Dohn, N. (2009) Web 2.0: Inherent tensions and evident challenges for education. Ijcscl, 4 (3), pp. 343-363. doi: 10.1007/s11412-009-9066-8 Bonk, C. J., & Zhang, K. (2008). Empowering Online Learning: 100+ activities for reading, reflecting, displaying, & doing. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Boud, D. (2001) Using journal writing to enhance reflective practice, in: English, L. M. and Gillen, M. A. (eds.) Promoting Journal Writing in Adult Education. New Directions in Adult and Continuing Education No. 90. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 9-18. Bradshow, P. (2008) 'Teaching Students to twitter: the good, the bad and the ugly' Blog post 15/02/2008. Retrieved January 21, 2011 from http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2008/02/15/teaching students to twitter the Good the bad and the ugly/ Chen, I. (n.d.). Constructivism. Retrieved from December 17, 2010 from http://viking.coe.uh.edu/~ichen/ebook/et-it/constr.htm


Chen, I. (n.d.). Overview of Social Constructivism. Retrieved December 17, 2010 from http://viking.coe.uh.edu/~ichen/ebook/et-it/social.htm Churches, Andrew. (2008). Blooms Digital Technology. Retrieved February 23, 2011 from http://www.scribd.com/doc/8000050/Blooms-Digital-Taxonomy-v212 Communities of Inquiry (2007). The Model of A Community of Inquiry. Retrieved from http://communitiesofinquiry.com/model Conner, M. L. "Andragogy and Pedagogy." Ageless Learner, 1997-2004. Retrieved November 12, 2010 from http://agelesslearner.com/intros/andragogy.html Conole, G. & Alevizou, P. (2010). A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in Higher Education. Retrieved February 12, 2011 from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/EvidenceNet/Conole_Alevizou_2010.pdf Cornford, J., & Pollock, N. (February 1, 2003). Putting the University Online: Information, Technology, and Organizational Change. Buckingham, U.K.: Open University Press. Cultural Studies. (n.d.). Britannica.com. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. Retrieved April 1, 2011 from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1367046/cultural-studies Cunningham, W. (2005). Wards Personal Page. Retrieved October 14, 2010 from http://c2.com/~ward/ Dewey, J. (1959). My pedagogic creed. In J. Dewey: Dewey on education (pp. 19-32). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. (Original work published 1897) Dewey, J., & Childs, J. L. (1981). The underlying philosophy of education. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The later works, 1925-1953, Vol. 8 (pp. 77-103). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1933) Du, H.S. & Wegner, C. (2005). Learning with Weblogs: An Empirical Investigation, Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). Pp. 7b-7b. Dunlap, J. C. & Lowenthal, P. R. (2009). Tweeting the night away: Using Twitter to enhance social presence. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2).

Elearn space. (n.d.) About George Siemens. Retrieved January 16, 2011 from
http://www.elearnspace.org/about.htm Empire State College. (n.d.) About Us. Retrieved January 16, 2011 from http://www.esc.edu/esconline/online2.nsf/html/aboutus.html?opendocument&lnkid=pnav


English, R., & Duncan-Howell, J. (2008). Facebook goes to College: Using Social Networking Tools to Support Students Undertaking Teaching Practicum. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4 (4) Retrieved September 1, 2010 fromhttp://jolt.merlot.org/vol4no4/english_1208.htm Garrison, D.R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. pp. 61-72. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1). Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended Learning in Higher Education: frameworks, principles and guidelines. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ghandi, S. (2010). IBM dives into Second Life. Retrieved March 15, 2011 from http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/library/os-social-secondlife/index.html Gleason, B. W. (2001). Portal technology Opportunities, Obstacles, and Options: A View from Boston College. In R. N. Katz & assoc. (ed.), Web Portals and Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Graham, P. (2005, November). Web 2.0. [web log comment]. Retrieved November, 20, 2010 from http://www.paulgraham.com/web20.html Granite State College. (2010). Facts & Figures. Retrieved from http://www.granite.edu/aboutgsc/facts-and-figures.aspx Green, M. & Maxwell, G. (2010) Wikify Your Course: Designing and Implementing a Wiki for your Learning Environment. EDUCAUSE Quarterly. 33 (3). Hain, S. & Back, A. (2008). Personal Learning Journal_ Course Design for Using Weblogs in Higher Education. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 6 (3). Retrieved September 2, 2010 from http://www.ejel.org/volume7/issue3 Hinchcliffe, D. (October 4, 2007). All We Got Was Web 1.0, When Tim Berners-Lee Actually Gave Us Web 2.0. Retrieved from http://tux.gigaleet.com/web-2-0/tim-berners-leeactually-gave-us-web-2-0.php Ice, P., Curtis, R., Phillips, P., Wells, J. (2007). Using Asynchronous Audio Feedback to Enhance Teaching Presence and Students Sense of Community. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/jaln/v11n2/using-asynchronous-audio-feedback-enhanceteaching-presence-and-students%E2%80%99-sense-community Jeffries. R. (n.d.). Research in Distance Education. Retrieved on February, 11, 2011 from http://www.digitalschool.net/edu/DL_history_mJeffries.html


Junco, R., Heiberger, G. and Loken, E. , The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, no. doi: 10.1111/j.13652729.2010.00387 Johnson, A., (2010 March 18). U.S. Schools in category 5 budget crisis. Msnbc.com. Retrieved November, 20, 2010 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35883971/ns/us_newseducation/ Kayri, M., & Cakir, O. (2010). An Applied Study on Educational Use of Facebook as a Web 2.0 Tool: The Sample Lesson of Computer Networks and Communication. International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology, 2 (4). Retrieved September 1, 2010 from http://airccse.org/journal/ijcsit2010_curr.html Kurt, M., (2007). Activating Metacognition through Online Learning Log (OLL). Retrieved from www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED500092 Lee, M. W. & Chan, A. (January 2007). Reducing the Effects of Isolation and Promoting Inclusivity Through Podcasting. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE , 8 (1). Retrieved September 10, 2010 from http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED494811.pdf Mader, S. (2008). Wikipatterns. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley Publishing, Inc. Martin, J. (2009). Developing Course Material for Online Adult Instruction. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5 (2). Retrieved October 16, 2010 from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol5no2/martin_0609.htm Matkin, G. W. (2009). Open Learning: What Do Open Textbooks Tell Us About the Revolution in Education? Retrieved from http://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/docs/ROPs-MatkinOpenLearning-03-31-09.pdf McArthur, D. J., & Lewis, M. W. (1998). Untangling the Web: Applications of the Internet and Other Information Technologies to Higher Learning. Santa Monica, CA.: Rand Education. Meskill, C. & Anthony, N., (2007). The Language of Teaching Well with Learning Objects. MEROLT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3 (1). Pp 79-93. Meskill, C., & Anthony, N. (2010). Teaching Languages Online. Toronto: MM Textbooks. Munroe, (2010). Web 2-0 and Constructivist Theory. Retrieved December 13, 2010 from http://socialconstructionism.pbworks.com/w/page/17016216/Web%2020%20and%20Constructivist%20Theory Murphy, B. (2008). Podcasting in Higher Education. Retrieved January 12, 2011 from http://itnow.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/3/22.full.pdf+html


Open Source Initiative. (n.d.). The Open Source Definition. Retrieved February 11, 2011 from http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php OReilly, T. (n.d.). About OReilly. Retrieved December 13, 2010 from http://oreilly.com/about/ OReilly, T. (September 30, 2005a). What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. Retrieved December 12, 2010 from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html OReilly, T. (September 30, 2005b). What is Web 2.0: 2. Harnessing Collective Intelligence. Retrieved December 12, 2010 from http://oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web20.html?page=2 Oblinger, D. (2004). The next generation of educational engagement. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 8, 1-18. Orlando, J. (May 12, 2010). Using Voicethread to Build Student Engagement. Retrieved January 14, 2011 from http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/asynchronous-learning-andtrends/using-voicethread-to-build-student-engagement/ Parikh, M. A. (2003). Beyond the Web: Leveraging Multiple Internet Technologies. In A. Aggarwal (Ed.). Web-Based Education: Learning from Experience. (120-130). London: IRM Press. Parry, M. (August 2010). Online, Bigger Classes May Be Better Classes Experimenters say diversity means richness. Retrieved January 14, 2011 from http://chronicle.com/article/Open-Teaching-When-the/124170 Perry, D. (January 2008). Twitter for Academia. Retrieved January 16, 2011 from http://academhack.outsidethetext.com/home/2008/twitter-for-academia/ Pink, D. H. (2006). A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future. New York: Penguin Books. Polchow, S. (August 24, 2010). Using VoiceThread to Give Students a Voice Outside the Classroom. Retrieved February 9, 2011 from http://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/using-voicethread-to-give-students-a-voiceoutside-the-classroom/26367 Pr, G. & Molloy, J. (2002). Nurturing Systemic Wisdom Through Knowledge Ecology. [Verified 6 June 2004] retrieved January 13, 2011 from http://www.co-il.com/coil/knowledge-garden/kd/KE.pdf Prensky, M. (Ed.). (2001a). Digital Game-Based Learning. New York: Mc-Graw Hill.


Prensky. M., Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants.(2001b). Retrieved March 20, 2010 from www.marcprensky.com/.../Prensky%20%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigra nts%20-%20Part1.pdf Schaffhauser, D. (2010). The Super-Secret, Never-Before-Revealed Guide to Web 2.0 in the Classroom. Retrieved Januaryb 15, 2011 from http://campustechnology.com/articles/2010/10/01/the-super-secret-never-beforerevealed-guide-to-web-2-0-in-the-classroom.aspx Sebastian, R. (2009). Web-based Tools for Adult Education Professional Development & Communication. Retrieved January 12, 2011 from http://www.scribd.com/doc/9693680/Adult-Education-Communication-Tools Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Retrieved on November 28, 2010 from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm Siemens, G. & Tittenberger, P. (March 2009). Handbook of Emerging Technologies for Learning. Retrieved February 13, 2011 from http://umanitoba.ca/learning_technologies/cetl/HETL.pdf Smith. M., & Berge, Z. (2009). Social Learning Theory in Second Life. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5 (2). Retrieved January 16, 2011 from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol5no2/berge_0609.htm Stein, D.S., Wanstreet, C.E. & Calvin, J. (2009) How a Novice Adult Online Learner Experiences Transactional Distance. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10 (3). Pp 305311. Teoh, J. (2007). Second Life, a Simulation: Barriers, Benefits, and Implications for Teaching. Retrieved February 12, 2011 from http://etec.hawaii.edu/proceedings/2007/ Tharo, R. & Gallimore, R. (1991). The instructional conversation: Teaching and learning in social activity. Research Report: 2, National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in societal context. New York: Cambridge University Press. Toffler, A. (1970). Future Shock. New York: Bantam Books. Tomlinson, R. (n.d.). The First Network Email. Retrieved December 12, 2010 from http://openmap.bbn.com/~tomlinso/ray/firstemailframe.html Truong, K. (June 14th 2010). For-Profit Colleges Are Projected to Sharply Increase Their Share of Adult Students. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved November, 9, 2010 from http://chronicle.com/article/For-Profit-Colleges-Projected/65942


U.S Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American Technology: Learning Powered by Technology; National Education Technology Plan 2010. Retrieved on November, 18, 2010 from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010 What is Wiki. (2005). Retrieved December 12, 2010 from http://www.wiki.org/wiki.cgi?WhatIsWiki Wiki. (2011). Retrieved January 14, 2011 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki Wikis in Higher Education. (2008). Retrieved January 20, 2011 from udel.edu/~mathieu/wiki/.../2008-5-23_Wikis_in_Higher_Education_UD.pdf Williams, J. B, & Jacobs, J., (2004). Exploring the use of blogs as learning spaces in the higher education sector. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 2004, 20(2), 232-247. Retrieved Decemerb 14, 2010 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet20/williams.html VanFossen, L. (October 2007). 100,000 Edublogs. Retrieved January 11, 2011 from http://lorelle.wordpress.com/2007/10/03/100000-edublogs/


APPENDIX A Questions for Faculty via SurveyMonkey Q1 How much of your teaching load is online? Q2 What is your Area of Study? Q3 What to you makes a successful online learning experience for students? Q4 Are you familiar with Web 2.0 tools? (Please refer to the list below) 1. wikis 2. audacity, garageband, podcasting 3. Facebook 4. Twitter 5. Elluminate 6. YouTube 7. WordPress (any blogging) 8. diigo 9. delicious 10. mindmeister 11. Google docs 12. opentextbooks 13. M.O.O.C.s 14. prezi 15. Forscene ( or any video editing) 16. Jing (screencasting) 17. high-end software (Maple, Virtuallabs, Finale) 143

18. Second Life 19. Zoho 20. RefWorks 21. Skype 22. SlideShare 23. Scribd 24. Zotero 25. VoiceThread #5 Do you use them in your personal life? #6 Do you use web 2.0 tools in your online courses? #7 Do your students use Web 2.0 tools for your course, even if you dont require it? #8 If you are unfamiliar with any of them, please state which ones. #9 Have you considered (but not yet) integrating Web 2.0 tools in online learning for adult learners? #9a. What are some of the deterrents or drawbacks?


APPENDIX B Responses to Question Two Table of area of study responses (Q2) categorized by the author statements with corresponding answers to Q1. An asterisk (*) denotes one repeated instance of combined areas of study. Arts
Graphic Design for the Web including Adobe CS5 Fireworks, Dreamweaver, Flash, for Print & Web Photoshop, eCommerce (10%) Social Theory, Cultural Studies and the Arts (all three in about equal parts) * (25%) The Arts (25%) Cultural Studies, Arts * (75%) Area of teaching is art history and philosophy (100%) Arts (100%)

Science, Math & Technology (SMT)

SMT (10%) Mathematics (50%) BME & SMT * (100%)

Human Development
Community and Human Services (50%) Early childhood [early childhood education](100%) CHS/HDV (50%) Community and Human Services (100%) Human Development, Educational Studies * (none) Human Development (10%) ECE [early childhood education]; humanities (50%) ECE [early childhood education] (75%) Early Childhood Education (75%) Human Services (75%)

Business, Management & Economics (BME)

Business, Management and Economics (none) Business, Management and Economics (10%) BME but also do cultural studies * (25%) BME (25%) Business & Economics (25%) BM & E (25%) Finance, Accounting, International Business (75%) Management (100%) Business, Management and Economics (100%) BME and SMT * (100%) BME (100%) MBA (100%) Economics and Finance (10%)


Language Arts
Romance Language (none) Writing (none) Literature (10%) English Literature (75%) American Sign Language (100%) Cultural Studies, English, Literature, Writing * (100%) Foreign Language Spanish (none)

Cultural Studies
Cultural Studies (none) Cultural Studies (10%) Historical Studies and Cultural Studies (25%) Historical Studies and Cultural Studies (both really ancient) (25%) Cultural Studies (25%) BME but also do cultural studies * (25%) Social Theory, Cultural Studies and the Arts (all three in about equal parts) * (25%) Cultural Studies, Arts * (75%) Cultural Studies and Historical Studies (75%) Cultural Studies (75%) Cultural Studies- Media and Communications, Digital Media, Digital Arts (100%) Cultural Studies, English, Literature, Writing * (100%) 2 Areas - Educational & Cultural * (100%)

Psychology, Statistics, Research Methods (none) My AOS is education (specifically adult education), although I teach psychology, research methods and statistics * (50%) Animal Behavior/Ecology (75%) Psychology (75%) Psychology (100%) Biological Psychology (100%) Education and Psychology * (100%) Behavioral Science (100%) Psychology and education * (100%)


Social Theory
Social Theory (none) Social Theory, Structure, and Change (none) Social Theory, Cultural Studies and The Arts (all three in about equal parts) * (25%) Social Sciences (100%) Social Theory (100%) Historical Studies, Social Theory, Structure and Change (100%)

Human Development Educational Studies * (none) Teacher Education Literacy (10%) Learning assistance (10%) My AOS is education (specifically adult education), although I teach psychology, research methods and statistics (50%) * Education (100%) 2 Areas - Educational & Cultural * (100%) Self-Directed Learning (My academic background is in English with a concentration in writing.) (100%) Education and Psychology * (100%) Adult Learning and Development (100%) Education, full-time in MAT program (100%) MAT - science education; general education (100%) Education - Asst. Professor for Master of Arts in Teaching Program (100%) Psychology and education * (100%)

History (none) History (25%) History (75%) History (75%) Project Management (100%) U.S History and Politics (100%) Religious Studies (10%) Food writing, food history, food and culture (50%) SOC [Service Members Opportunity Colleges] (100%)



Institutional Review Board

Institutional Review Board: DHHS FWA00001970 Notice of Approval IRB Protocol Number: 10-225 Date: November 24,2010 Principal Investigator: Michael Fortune Title: Masters Thesis Review Type: Exempt Category # 2 Approval Type: 0 New lSI Modification IRB#3 Approval Date: November 24. 2010 Expiration Date: None 1. 2. 3. 4. Summary of Modification: remove Excelsior College as recruitment site; add Empire State College, Thomas Edison College, Granite State College and Athabasca University as recruitment sites; revised questionnaire Provisions of Approval: nfa Informed Consent: An adequate standard of informed consent has been met when required. Principal Investigator Responsibilities: It is the responsibility of the PI to ensure that all investigators and staff associated with this study meet the training requirements for conducting research involving human subjects, follow the approved protocol, use only the approved forms, keep appropriate research records, and comply with all University at Albany Policies, federal, state and local laws, Declaration of Helsinki and the Selmont Report. Research Records: Accurate and detailed research records must be maintained. All research records (including all IRS correspondence) must be kept for a minimum of 3 years after the completion of the research. This research is subject to an audit under the terms of the IRS's Quality Improvement Program. Changes: Any changes in the above referenced study may not be initiated without prior IRS review and approval. Changes include (but are not limited to) study personnel, consent forms, protocol, procedures, addition of funding source. Funded Research: If your research is funded, you mustalso submit sponsor information and two copies of the grant/funding application for IRS review with the human subjects section(s) highlighted. This is true whether the source of funding is internal or external. University Permissions: A.) Institutional Research, Planning and Effectiveness (IRPE) permission may be required if your research participants are recruited from the UAlbany Campus. It is the responsibility of the investigator to contact IRPE at (518) 437-4791 for a determination. B.) All UAlbany permissions (e.g., classroom, team or organization permissions) must be kept on file with your research records. Posters or Flyers: All flyers posted to recruit participants must have the IRS stamp. If posters or flyers are to be posted on the UAlbany campus, they must be registered with the Office of Student Involvement and Leadership in Campus Center 130 prior to posting on the academic Podium. External Permissions: All external permissions (e.g., schools, businesses, organizations, etc.) must be kept on file with your research records. Study Closure: A study is considered to be open and active until the investigator has submitted a Closure Form (available at www.albany.edu/research/compliance/Forms.htm) to the IRS. Until a Closure Form is received, I RS oversight of the research will remain active.


6. 7.



10. 11.

The IRB wishes you success with your research.

Mark Muraven, Ph.D. IRB Chairperson On behalf of the Institutional Review Board Cc: Carla Meskill ORRC, LCSB 28 1400 Washington Ave, Albany, NY 12222 PH: 518-442-9050 FX: 518-442-9997 IRB@uamail.albany.edu