Factors, issues and interdependencies in the incorporation of a Web 2.0 based learning environment in higher education

This work investigates the effect a Web 2.0 learning environment may have in higher education in adding value to the students’ existing competencies. The major issues that this work examines are whether the incorporation of a Web 2.0 environment in higher education has an effect on the students’ performance and what are the significant factors that should be taken into account in the deployment of these technologies to achieve the maximum possible benefits and whether and how they correlate to each other. These factors are derived from the students’ views on the use of technology in a university course deployment and from the students’ personal opinions about a pilot course in a Web 2.0 learning environment. Although the results indicate no direct effect on the students’ performance, significant factors have been revealed via a thorough assessment, which has been performed in the context of a semester–long course, utilizing statistical process control techniques. The derived factors are namely: “Technology as an educational reinforcement”, “Technology as a tool to enhance comprehension” and “Enhancement of student interest and experience”, while in the second one “Completeness of the educational approach”, “Satisfaction from the educational approach” and “Course demands”. These factors can then form the basis for a feedback processes and a monitoring mechanism for a continuously updated educational process.

[1]  Vivek Venkatesh,et al.  FACTORS IMPACTING UNIVERSITY INSTRUCTORS’ AND STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF COURSE EFFECTIVENESS AND TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION IN THE AGE OF WEB 2.0 , 2016 .

[2]  Shauna J. Sweet,et al.  Analysis of Multivariate Social Science Data (2nd ed.) , 2011 .

[3]  R. Mason,et al.  Using Web 2.0 for learning in the community , 2007, Internet High. Educ..

[4]  Chien Chou,et al.  Students' perceptions of instructors' roles in blended and online learning environments: A comparative study , 2015, Comput. Educ..

[5]  Thomas Li-Ping Tang,et al.  Students' perceptions of teaching technologies, application of technologies, and academic performance , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[6]  Douglas C. Montgomery,et al.  Introduction to Statistical Quality Control , 1986 .

[7]  E. Lesaffre Superiority, equivalence, and non-inferiority trials. , 2008, Bulletin of the NYU hospital for joint diseases.

[8]  Tracy K Kent Supporting Staff Using WebCT at the University of Birmingham in the UK. , 2003 .

[9]  Paul Lam,et al.  Student Response (Clicker) Systems: Preferences of Biomedical Physiology Students in Asian Classes. , 2015 .

[10]  J. Cooper,et al.  The digital divide: the special case of gender , 2006, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[11]  Laura Păuleţ-Crăiniceanu,et al.  Integrating the Web 2.0 Technologies in Romanian Public Universities. Towards a Blended Learning Model that Addresses Troubled Student-faculty Interaction , 2014 .

[12]  A. K. M. Najmul Islam,et al.  The Role of Perceived System Quality as Educators’ Motivation to Continue E-learning System Use , 2012 .

[13]  Marc Spaniol,et al.  Advances in Web-Based Learning – ICWL 2018 , 2018, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[14]  Mary C. Dyson,et al.  Evaluating Virtual Learning Environments: What Are We Measuring?. , 2003 .

[15]  Liping Deng,et al.  From Moodle to Facebook: Exploring students' motivation and experiences in online communities , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[16]  Richard A. Johnson,et al.  Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis , 1983 .

[17]  D. Streiner Starting at the Beginning: An Introduction to Coefficient Alpha and Internal Consistency , 2003, Journal of personality assessment.

[18]  W. Blackwelder,et al.  Current Issues in Clinical Equivalence Trials , 2004, Journal of dental research.

[19]  Erik Christensen,et al.  Methodology of superiority vs. equivalence trials and non-inferiority trials. , 2007, Journal of hepatology.

[20]  L Landow,et al.  Current Issues in Clinical Trial Design: Superiority versus Equivalency Studies , 2000, Anesthesiology.

[21]  Jihan Rabah,et al.  Benefits and Challenges of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Integration in Québec English Schools. , 2015 .

[22]  Dirk Ifenthaler,et al.  The Changing Importance of Factors Influencing Students’ Choice of Study Mode , 2015, Technol. Knowl. Learn..

[23]  Albert L. Harris,et al.  Web 2.0 and Virtual World Technologies: A Growing Impact on IS Education , 2009, J. Inf. Syst. Educ..

[24]  Roger M. Sauter,et al.  Introduction to Statistical Quality Control (2nd ed.) , 1992 .

[25]  Sotiris Bersimis,et al.  Unisuite: An innovative integrated suite for delivering synchronous and asynchronous online education , 2013, 2013 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON).

[26]  Benjamin S. Bloom,et al.  A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives , 2000 .

[27]  Adel Ben Youssef,et al.  The Impact of ICT on Student Performance in Higher Education: Direct Effects, Indirect Effects and Organisational Change , 2008 .

[28]  Lorraine Carter,et al.  A Model for Meaningful E-Learning at Canadian Universities , 2017 .

[29]  Dennis E. Clayson,et al.  Grades and the Student Evaluation of Instruction: A Test of the Reciprocity Effect , 2006 .

[30]  Karen Swan,et al.  A collaborative, design-based approach to improving an online program , 2014, Internet High. Educ..

[31]  Denis Gillet,et al.  Not Yet Ready for Everyone: An Experience Report about a Personal Learning Environment for Language Learning , 2010, ICWL.

[32]  Roger Lindsay,et al.  The Role of Information and Communication Technologies in a University Learning Environment , 2001 .

[33]  Marco Lazzari,et al.  Creative use of podcasting in higher education and its effect on competitive agency , 2009, Comput. Educ..