Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Web 2.0 Use in Higher Education Cover

References

  1. 1. Ajjan, H.; Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. In Internet and Higher Education, 11, (pp. 71-80). doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.05.00210.1016/j.iheduc.2008.05.002
  2. 2. Allen, I. E.; Seaman, J. (2009). Learning on demand: Online education in the United States, 2009. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/pdf/learningondemand.pdf
  3. 3. American Distance Education Consortium (2009). ADEC Guiding principles for distance learning.
  4. 4. Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education [Report]. JISC Technology and Standards Watch, Feb. 2007. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf
  5. 5. Bell, A. (2009). Exploring Web 2.0: Second generation interactive tools - blogs, podcast, wikis, networking, virtual worlds, and more. Georgetown, TX: Katy Crossing Press.
  6. 6. Bernoff, J.; Pflaum, C.N.; Bowen, E. (2008, October 20). The growth of social technology adoption. Forrester Research, Cambridge, MA, October 20, 2008. Retrieved from https://www.forrester.com/The+Growth+Of+Social+Technology+Adoption/fulltext/- /E-RES44907
  7. 7. Cocciolo, A. (2010). Can Web 2.0 enhance community participation in an institutional repository? The case of PocketKnowledge at Teachers College, Columbia University. In Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36, (pp. 304-312). doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2010.05.00410.1016/j.acalib.2010.05.004
  8. 8. Creswell, J.W.; Clark, V.L.P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  9. 9. Dede, C. (2005). Planning for neomillennial learning styles: Implications for investments in technology and faculty. In J. Oblinger & D. Oblinger (eds.), Educating the net generation, (pp. 226-247). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.
  10. 10. Dede, C.; Dieterle, E.; Clarke, J.; Ketelhut, D.J.; Nelson, B. (2007). Media-based learning styles. In M.G. Moore (eds.), Handbook of distance education (2nd ed.), (pp. 339-352). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  11. 11. Ertmer, P.A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? In Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), (pp. 25-39).
  12. 12. Ertmer, P.A.; Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.; York, C.S. (2006). Exemplary technology-using teachers: Perceptions of factors influencing success. In Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 23(2), (pp. 55-61).
  13. 13. Fowler, F.J., Jr. (2009). Survey research methods (4th ed.; L. Brickman & D. J. Rog, Eds.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.10.4135/9781452230184
  14. 14. Gay, G.; Mahon, S.; Devonish, D.; Alleyne, P.; Alleyne, P.G. (2006). Perceptions of information and communication technology among undergraduate management students in using ICT, Barbados. In International Journal of Education and Development, 2(4). Retrieved May 11, 2007, from http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu
  15. 15. Hurt, H.T.; Joseph, K.; Cook, C.D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Human Communication Research, 4, (pp. 58-65). Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ175432)10.1111/j.1468-2958.1977.tb00597.x
  16. 16. Keengwe, J. (2007). Faculty integration of technology into instruction and students’ perceptions of computer technology to improve student learning. In Journal of Information Technology Education, 6, (pp. 169-180). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3220231)10.28945/208
  17. 17. Klamma, R.; Chatti, M.A.; Duval, E.; Hummel, H.; Hvannberg, E.H.; Kravcik, M. et al. (2007). Social software for life-long learning. In Educational Technology & Society, 10(3), (pp. 72-83). Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ814052)
  18. 18. Lodico, M.G.; Spaulding, D.T.; Voegtle, K.H. (2010). Methods in educational research: From theory to practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  19. 19. Maloney, E.J. (2007, January 5). Technology: What Web 2.0 can teach us about learning In Chronicle of Higher Education, (p. B26). Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/What- Web-20-Can-Teach-Us/8332
  20. 20. Moore, M.G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. In American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), (pp. 1-6). doi:10.1080/08923648909526659 10.1080/08923648909526659
  21. 21. Moore, M.G. (2007). The theory of transactional distance. In M.G. Moore (eds.), Handbook of distance education (2nd ed.), (pp. 89-105). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  22. 22. O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0−Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
  23. 23. Palloff, R.M.; Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  24. 24. Restak, R. (2003). The new brain: How the modern age is rewiring your mind. Kutztown, PA: Rodale.
  25. 25. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
  26. 26. Shihab, M.M. (2008). Web 2.0 tools improve teaching and collaboration in English language classes. San Antonio, TX: National Educational Computing Conference. Retrieved from ProQuest database. (UMI No. 3344829)
  27. 27. Shin, N. (2003). Transactional presence as a critical predictor of success in distance learning. In Distance Education, 24, (pp. 87-104). doi:10.1080/0158791030304810.1080/01587910303048
  28. 28. Smaldino, S.E.; Lowther, D.L.; Russell, J.D. (2008). Instructional technology and media for learning (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill.
  29. 29. Solomon, G.; Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
  30. 30. Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. In Education Communication and Information, 2, (pp. 23-49). doi:10.1080/146363102200000501610.1080/1463631022000005016
  31. 31. Trochim, W.M.K. (2006). Nonprobability sampling. Retrieved from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/sampnon.php
  32. 32. Wheeler, S. (2009a). On using wiki as a tool for collaborative online blended learning. In Handbook of research on Web 2.0, 3.0, and X.0; technologies, business and social applications, Vol. 2. (pp. 511-521). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.10.4018/978-1-60566-384-5.ch028
  33. 33. Wheeler, S. (2009b). Learning space mashups: Combining Web 2.0 tools to create collaborative and reflective learning spaces. In Future Internet, 1, (pp. 3-13). doi:10.3390/fil010003
  34. 34. Wheeler, S. (2010). Open content, open learning 2.0: Using wikis and blogs in higher education. In U.-D. Ehlers & D. Schneckenberg (eds.), Changing cultures in higher education: Moving ahead to future learning, (pp. 103-114). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03582-1_910.1007/978-3-642-03582-1_9
  35. 35. Yan, J. (2008). Social technology as a new medium in the classroom. In New England Journal of Higher Education, 22(4), (p. 27). Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ794242) Acknowledgement Dr. Estable holds a Doctorate of Instructional Technology and Distance Education and currently works at SUNY Delhi as the Manger of Online Education, and previously at The Higher Colleges of Technology as the Educational Technology lead.
Language: English
Page range: 130 - 142
Published on: Mar 3, 2015
Published by: Sciendo
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year

© 2015 Michelle Rogers-Estable, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.