YadavPatwardhan2016 PDF

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/306118900
Use and Impact of Web 2.0 Tools in Higher

Education: A Literature Review
Chapter · March 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2748.6965/1
CITATIONS READS
0 494
2 authors, including:
Akhilesh K.S. Yadav

Tata Institute of Social Sciences
18 PUBLICATIONS 15 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Akhilesh K.S. Yadav on 16 August 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Academic Libraries in
Electronic Environment
Edited by
Dr. Seema Parmar
CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, Haryana (India)
and
Anil Kumar Siwach

Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, Haryana (India)
Contents
Foreword **
About the Editors **
Preface **
Acknowledgements **
1. Academic Libraries in Digital Environment 1-17

Rajkumar V. Kulkarni
2. Copyright Piracy 18-35

Richa Gupta and Harpreet Kaur
3. E - Learning and Academic Libraries 36-47

Dr. Rani Syamalamba
4. Application of Tqm in Academic E-Libraries 48-61

Sabita Kundu
5. Information and Knowledge Management

in the Context of Digital Literacy-Some
Observations 62-80
Jaya Kalra
6. Redesigning A School Library in the Digital

Era – A Model 81-91
Dr Lopita Mukherjee
7. Quantifying Economics Research Output

of Indian Universities 92-108
Suresh K Chauhan
x Contents
8. Social Networking Sites in Education 109-113

Sonia Bansal
9. Skills Required by LIS Professionals to

Work in The 21st Century 114-127
Dr. Pinki Sharma
10. Usage Statistics of Electronic Resources 128-144

Anil Kumar Siwach
11. Contents Analysis of University

Library Websites (Delhi) 145-153
Akhlaq Ahmed
12. Combining Technologies to Library for

Harnessing the Knowledge Growth: A Case
Study of Engineering Colleges of Haryana 154-166
Narender Kumar
13. Status of Print and E-Journals in Nehru

Library, Ccshau, Hisar 167-178
Seema Parmar and Rajive K. Pateria
14. Information Seeking Behaviour: An Overview 179-217

Ved Parkash and Som Dutt
15. Use and Impact of Web 2.0 Tools in

Higher Education: A Literature Review 218-246
Akhilesh K.S. Yadav and Amala A. Patwardhan
Chapter 15
Use and Impact of Web 2.0

Tools in Higher Education:
A Literature Review
Akhilesh K.S. Yadav and
Amala A. Patwardhan
Abstract
This paper attempts to study how web 2.0 tools are being used in the
field higher education. What are the trends? What are the researches
that are being carried out on web 2.0 with respect to higher education?
This study is the output of the primary study of the select literature
on the web 2.0 technologies in higher education. The attempt is made
to study the various literature pertinent to the topic. The relevant
documents are searched by using various keywords; web 2.0 tools,
web 2.0 technologies, higher education, education 2.0, learning 2.0
and research 2.0. Theoretical or feasibility studies are more in number
than the real life studies. So real time research needs to be developed
in the integration of web 2.0 tools in the settings of higher education.
The studies about some specific types of tools were widely available
like, weblogs, wikis and social networking sites. However, the tools
like media sharing technology, content syndication, AJAX, social
bookmarking are seem to be less attended areas. Also the comparative
studies of the varied tools with reference to their pedagogical
relevance could be studied. The very peculiar characteristic of web 2.0
technologies is they offer cost effective solutions for their integration.
Yet, their use in higher education settings is very low. Further study
may be developed in order to find out the possible reasons for this
Use and Impact of Web 2.0 Tools in Higher Education... 219
low use and what would be the solutions to maximize it. There is a
gap between the technological knowledge and skills of the academics
and that of the students. There is a scope for research to find out the
reason behind this gap from the psychological perspective. The study
would be helpful to gain the background knowledge of what research
has been done in the field of web 2.0 with respect to higher education.
It provides the guidelines for carrying out further research in the field.
Keywords: Web Tools; Web 2.0; Education 2.0, E-Learning;

Social Networking; Higher Education
INTRODUCTION
The concept ‘Web 2.0’ stands for the second generation of Internet
technologies that have enveloped various fields of day to day life.
They are different from the first generation which is called as the
web 1.0 technology in various respects. The first and foremost
difference is their potential for interactivity or its openness. This
feature is unique to the second generation of web technologies. The
term web 2.0 is first coined by Tim O’Reilly and Dale Dougherty
in 2004 and later identified by many other terms like, social
networking, social media technology, user generated content etc.
Some of the major tools that are categorized in web 2.0 are: Blogs,
Wikis, Social Networking Sites, Social Book Marking, Content
Syndication (RSS), Content Tagging Services (Folksonomies),
and Mashups etc.
Various definitions are available that describe the web 2.0

phenomena precisely. According to O’Reilly (2006), “Web 2.0 is
the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the
move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the
rules for success on that new platform. Chief among those rules is
this: Build applications that harness network effects to get better
the more people use them.”
220 Academic Libraries in Electronic Environment
According to Kaplan and Haenlein (2010), “a group of

Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and
technological foundations of Web 2.0 and that allow the creation
and exchange of user-generated content.”
This second generation of Web tools holds special importance

in the field of education and research by being a new and
innovative pedagogical tool. The advent of web 2.0 has given rise
to the concept of ‘Education 2.0’ or ‘e-Learning 2.0’ in the field of
education. This concept implies the use of web 2.0 technologies
in the same institutional environment. These tools are significant
in higher education from the perspective of students, scholars,
academicians and other professionals.
WHY WEB 2.0 IN HIGHER EDUCATION?

Many factors are responsible for the inclusion of web tools in
education systems, and driving forces that directed the attempts
to integrate these tools in higher education. Web-based teaching
and research is important because of its interactive and the
nature to keep oneself up-to-date on related topic of interest. The
important characteristic of web technology is its interactivity
and this feature has attracted the educators worldwide (Tyagi,
2012). Web technology based education would allow learner
centric approach that brings out learners’ active participation.
It would help the students in future careers and jobs, because
these abilities are what employers expect. For example, skills
in navigation, communication, and critical evaluation—and,
therefore, a new task of educational programmes are to support
in acquiring such competencies along with other subject-related
skills (Dohn, 2009). This concern about preparing the students for
the job requirements is echoed in the article by Kumar (2009).
He says educators suggest the inclusion of web tools because
higher education should prepare students for the workplace of the
future. Web application technologies give fraternities the ability to
collaborate and share their experiences, views and opinions with

their colleagues and students.
Today’s accelerated; globalised environment has posed the

challenge to perform with creativity, efficiency and innovation.
These skills could be developed in web based education
environment (Szucs, 2009). Szucs also points out another
important objective that needs consideration. Most often students
are digital natives. They are the ones who started using social
media and web tools prior to the academicians. Hence as noted
also by Kumar, as digital natives are rapidly switching to new
technologies, the higher education system need to turn up, use
and integrate these tools and technologies in the education system
so that the system could be learner centred as it is expected to be.
Same issue is raised by Patterson (2009). He asks the question:
“Youth have changed, but What About Our Education System?”
This question implies that if we need the higher education system
which is student centric, we have to adapt the system which is
well accepted and appreciated by the student community.
It has been observed that the varied educational background

of the students coming together in higher education and calls for
a need to integrate web 2.0 tools in higher education (Lal, 2012).
Moreover, some students may have work experience as well.
This should in turn result in developing competencies in them to
create their own understanding and insights regarding a concept
and sharing it with others. Moreover, it can provide a platform for
instructors and students to create their own content in different
formats and sharing those using tools like blogs, wikis, social
bookmarking, and social networks. These all tools are helpful
in reducing the cost of higher education; widening access to
educational opportunity; and enhancing the quality of learning
(Curran et. al., 2007). The objectives of this research study
mentioned here are applications of web 2.0 tools in the different
areas to the higher education system in different countries.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The present paper attempts to study how web 2.0 tools are being
used in the field higher education. What are the trends? What
researches are being carried out on web tools and technologies
with respect to higher education? The present paper attempts to
achieve the following broad objectives:
1. To identify how and which Web 2.0 technologies are being
adopted by the higher educational institutions and fraterni-
ties worldwide.
2. To study the benefits gained and the problems as well as
challenges faced in the implementation of web 2.0 tools in
higher education institutions.
3. To examine research evidence that Web 2.0 technologies can
enhance the quality of higher education.
4. To identify the research gap with respect to the use of web
2.0 tools in the field of higher education.
METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

The attempt is made to study the authentic literature pertinent
to the topic. The relevant documents are searched in various
publishing databases by using various keywords; web 2.0 tools,
web 2.0 technologies, higher education, education 2.0, learning
2.0 and Research 2.0.
SCOPE, COVERAGE AND LIMITATION OF THE

STUDY
Huge number of studies are conducted and published on the topic
worldwide. The present study doesn’t claim to be exhaustive.
Some part of the literature is selected for the review. Under the
arena of higher education, some studies with respect to colleges
and universities, distance learning and research are included in

the current study. Relevant journal articles, survey reports, case
studies and other material is reviewed in order to study the research
trends, experiences, challenges, best practices, research gaps in
implementation of web tools and technologies in higher education.
Information sources including databases, open access journals,
and reports are referred to for the present literature review. The
selected literature is not specific to any country. Literature from the
disciplines information communication technology, educational
technology and higher education is chosen for the study.
RELEVANCE OF THE STUDY

Technologies are now an indispensable component of the
academic world and much more vital with regard to the higher
education. Moreover, academic fraternities in the digital era are
closely concerned with the web technologies and their relevance
in education is unarguable. Hence at broader level, being a
part of education field, it would be relevant to study how web
2.0 technologies are being used in higher education institutions
worldwide.
WEB 2.0 USE IN HIGHER EDUCATION:

CURRENT SCENARIO
Educators worldwide are convinced about the potentials of
web technologies in bringing out changes in the field of higher
education. The report of the study conducted in 25 South African
countries regarding e-learning and web 2.0 notes that integration
of web tools and technologies in African higher education is
low. Use of ICT in education is limited to mobile technology
(E-learning and Web 2.0, 2012). Yet, the integration of Web
features in the delivery of education content via mobile technology
can enhance teaching and learning activities in Africa. This report
could be treated as a representative study for the developing

countries where the use of ICT has not penetrated deeply. In the
Indian context, some important observations have been noted.
Students are not dependent on the traditional methods of learning
like memorizing and reproducing. Since they have ready access
to factual information, they could focus on the advanced skills
like analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Individual learner is at
the core of this new collaborative learning technique. In the new
e-learning 2.0 environment, teachers act not as the instructors but
as the facilitators of new collaborative, participatory methods of
learning (Gokhale & Chandra, 2009).
The study conducted in Calicut University, India indicates

that though the students are making use of the web 2.0 tools
outside the academic sphere more, they are also using them
for the academic purpose. 36.6% of them use for academic
communication, 29.1% discuss new ideas and social issues and
8.9% publish their writing through web 2.0 tools (Mohamed &
Sumitha, 2011). Tyagi (2012) comments that the use of web 2.0
in higher education in India is still marginal and will have to
overcome a lot of obstacles in order to hold its ground as in higher
education of developed countries. He conducted the study of use
of web tools by the faculty members of the university. The study
indicates that the faculties at the university are well aware of the
web tools and technologies. Their attitude towards the use of web
2.0 is favorable. However, this is an early stage of adoption of
web tools. In another study of web tools usage in two universities
in Odisha. Results show that usage of web tools at the university
level is not very significant. The technologies except wikis and
social networking sites are not very popular among the university
academic community. Moreover, the research reveals that this low
usage is due to the lack of knowledge about the technologies. But
academic community has interest towards these tools as part of
their teaching and learning process. (Majhi & Maharana, 2011).
Also according to Karunasena, Deng and Zhang (2012) despite the
increasing popularity of these tools in learning, their capacities are

yet unexplored. The recent researches are keen on investigating the
potential of these technologies with respect to their applications in
e-learning considering the critical success factors.
Is there any significant difference in the use of web 2.0 tools

in higher education system of the developed countries and that of
the developing countries?
The study conducted in Australia by Kennedy et al. (2007)

suggests that the students in higher education indicated that they
were not fully aware of web 2.0 tools. This study was conducted
in the year 2007. Has the scenario changed thereafter? Another
research conducted in the same country in 2012 pointed out that
the web tools are still somewhat unfamiliar to the students. Yet
these communication tools could be effectively integrated for
collaborative learning in the distance education system. The
research shows that flexibility and ease of use are favorable for
the distance education environment. (Den Exter et al., 2012).
The research conducted at University of Brighton, UK show
that with the use of web tools and technologies, the change in
teaching methods is possible. However, two key points have been
identified a) Scalability: academics might need great support from
pedagogical and technical experts. b) professional development:
academicians understand the professional development from the
technological point of view. But they did not recognize the need to
upgrade their pedagogical approach for interactive learning with
web tools. (Newland & Byles, 2013).
The case studies discussed above talked about the use of

web 2.0 tools in higher education. However, following studies
suggest that only some of the tools are being frequently used in
the area of higher education. Willems and Bateman (2011) note
that social networking sites like Facebook provide the alternative
learning management system. It also forms the social community
for the students who are geographically dispersed. It provides the

opportunity for peer teaching, resource sharing. The problems
in using social networking sites also have been pointed out such
as decisions about friend or not to friend, privacy issues, virtual
integrity etc.
A study conducted in Hong Kong University regarding the

educational applications of blogs by the post graduate students.
The study shows the usefulness of blogs in teaching and learning.
Most of the teachers and students accepted the blogs as effective
learning management system (Churchill, 2011). In this context,
blogs are enabling technology, rather than technology that directly
results in the learning of particular knowledge and skills. Blogging
technology adds a new dimension to teachers’ effectiveness by
enabling them to do things to supplement classroom teaching
and learning that are not possible otherwise. Student learning
supported with blog technology can extend beyond the class
time and classroom walls, and can be expanded and enriched
to involve relevant issues and resources unconsidered in the
initial curriculum design of a course. It is important to add that
handheld technologies like mobile phone emerge as important
tool supporting educational application (Wankel & Blessinger,
2012; Cavanaugh, Hargis, Kamali & Soto, 2013).
Weblog is a tool which have also emphasized on the impact

in higher education. Weblogs are considered to be very effective
with respect to individual learning by means of reflection as most
effective method of it. The efforts of individual learning could
be multiplied through interaction and discussions. Additionally, it
is argued that this style of teaching relates to a growing trend in
higher education in which the focus of learning is moving away
from building a basic knowledge store and toward emphasizing
a wider range of skills (Hain & Back, 2008). Podcast is another
web tool and were found to be popular tools beyond expectation.
When it comes to students engagement, the combination of audio
and visual source as presented in mashups has been the effective

tool for instruction as compared to sole teaching method (Barnatt,
2009). Ibrahim (2012) has also pointed out the potential uses
of mashups in some important areas of higher education. He
designed and conducted a sequence of mashup tutorials to the
class of students, to teach the students how to construct mashups
by using and reusing data that is stored either locally or remotely.
Mashups can be a good tool for postgraduates to utilize, since
students can tailor-make mashups to their own field of research.
Ibrahim also focuses on two major issues; training and motivation
to the participants.
The survey at the University of Edinburgh by Franklin and

Van Harmelen (2007) lists the varied educational applications of
different web 2.0 tools.
 Blogs and RSS feeds instead of newsletters.
 Use of Web 2.0 mapping technologies such as Google Maps
to supplement or replace the online versions of the University
campus maps.
 Social bookmarking technologies such as del.icio.us (now
delicious.com) to manage course reading lists, perhaps in a
collaborative way so that students can benefit from others’
discoveries of relevant material. Social bookmarking can
support development projects and research projects, allow-
ing an information resource base to be constructed in a col-
laborative way.
 Podcasts of public lectures which can be downloaded after
the event from the relevant part of the University’s website.
Provide podcasts as part of support materials – e.g. podcast
of library tour.
The study conducted at the University of Delaware in the year

2008 gives detailed account of the use of wikis in higher education
(University of Delaware, 2008). The report emphasizes the way
wikis are used to add value in higher education through Wikipedia,

Open Textbooks, E-portfolios, Wiki as a Living Course Website.
The report also quotes the STOLEN Principle (S- Specific Overall
Objective, T- Timely, O- Ownership, L- Localized Objective, E-
Engagement Rules and N- Navigation) using Wikis educationally.
Wikis have very specific features. Wikis hold unique and effective
features of information sharing and collaboration that are highly
useful in co-operative learning. Wikis can provide a wide platform
for the academic community to share the information, conduct the
discussion and work in groups. (Parker & Chao, 2007). Reher and
Haustein (2010) give the details of the use of social bookmarking,
how they could be used by the researchers. The study offers the
comparison of the various social bookmarking sites. Keiser (2012)
conducted similar study regarding the use of social bookmarking
in the arena of research.
Blogs, wikis and social networking sites are enjoying high

levels of attention as tools to support learning, RSS remains
the “poor cousin” of these technologies in the higher education
though they posses high potential (Lee et al., 2008). Social
networking sites have been gaining great popularity since they
facilitate in building maintaining and social contacts, and share the
information (Schlenkrich & Sewry, 2012). Forkosh-Baruch and
Hershkovitz (2011) examine the use of SNS by higher-education
institutes in Israel. The study signifies the use of facebook on the
basis of certain factors such as activity patterns, content patterns
and interactivity in institution’s facebook and twitter accounts.
This research finding shows that majority of the accounts were
less active and very few of theThe study suggests that the potential
of social networking sites in higher education institutions in Israel
has not been fully utilized.m were comparatively more active. The
virtual life of social networking sites with respect to the usage and
content pattern resemble patterns in the Israeli higher education
community in the real life.
Wheeler (2010) suggests that wikis and weblogs have high

potential of usability in the field of higher education. Blogs
promote reflective thinking while wikis have proved themselves
as the effective collaborative learning tool. However, students find
difficulty in keeping their engagement going. In direct response
to this issue, Wheeler suggests 5 stage wiki activity model that
promotes the activity from individual work to group collaboration
through complex skills acquisition and effective implementation.
It also observes that wikis have highest frequency of use followed
by blogs and SNSs (Aharony, 2011). One study of Flickr feasibility
study was conducted in Institute of Museum and Library Services
(IMLS) as reported by Jacob Jett, et al. (2013). The study by
Tyagi (2012) indicates overall impact of web 2.0 on the academic
environment. It brings out the changes in terms of enhancement of
student motivation, improves participation, facilitates learning and
social skills, stimulate higher order cognitive skills and increased
self directed learning.
WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN RESEARCH

Research is treated as one of the important aspects of higher
education, since it deals with creation, transfer and sharing of
knowledge. Certain research evidences are reviewed that talk
about usefulness of web tools in the arena of research. Web 2.0
tools have the potential to be at the core of the research activity
which is an important aspect of higher education (Ullrich et al.,
2008). These claims have the base of observations: First, on the
wealth and variety of web based services that are available today,
and second, on the low complexity of exploiting the functionality
of the services. Holmes and Dubinsky (2009) discuss the practical
implications of web tools in the area of translational research.
According to them, in case of using web tools in the research
environment, one –size- fits-all approach is not applicable. Instead
different tools must be tried for varied groups in the research arena
e.g. research faculty, medical professionals, and administrators.

Cifuentes et. al. (2009) also asserts the contribution that web
tools could give in the area of research. Majhi and Maharana
(2011) identified one point- many members from the research
and academic community are quiet interested to use the tools
for the academic purpose. However, they do not have sufficient
knowledge and skills to use them. This is why Stuart (2009)
notes that, despite the huge potential of web technologies for the
transforming of the research and publishing process, adoption is
seemingly a slow affair.
PERCEPTIONS, ATTITUDES AND EXPECTATIONS

Barnatt looks at web 2.0 from the perspectives of the teachers.
Through web tools, the academicians could establish themselves
as online brands market themselves in the academic world through
their web publications like blogs (Barnatt, 2009). The attitudes
of the teachers that they are hesitant about the use of web tools
because of inadequate time, risk of embarrassment or issue of
professional integrity. Educational institutions are comparatively
slow in adopting the changes than the students. Technologies have
brought the changes in pedagogical practices as well as teachers
perceptions and expectations. (Wheeler, 2010). Strawbridge
(2010) points out yet another important decision about choosing
the right tool is critical for the academicians. Also he notes that the
teacher has to play a multi-faceted role of designer, coordinator,
moderator, mediator and mentor. Rodriguez (2011) raised the
similar issue. He claims that it is a challenging task for the
faculty to employ technology in their instruction. The students
need to be encouraged to be active participants in teaching and
in their learning which creates a more engaging environment
for all constitutes. It is observed that some faculty members feel
that some web tools and technologies could improve students’
learning, their interaction with faculty and with other peers, their
writing abilities, and their satisfaction with the course; few choose
to use them in the classroom.
Research evidences show that the academics or the teachers

are more reluctant to use web tools. Comparatively, students’
approach towards the using the web tools has been very positive
(Ajjan & Hartshorne, 2009; Campión, Nalda & Rivilla, 2012).
The gap that is visible among the higher education and web
tools is reported by some of the researchers. Weller and Dalziel
(2007) projected the conflict between web 2.0 and traditional
higher education system. Systematic hierarchical approach in
the traditional education system is not acceptable in digital and
web environment. Most higher education institutions follow
consultative approaches when developing or adopting software
with the specification process taking months and maybe years to
complete in order to ensure that the system would be sustainable.
Such approaches do not match well with the faster, loose knit, rapid
turnover mentality of the web 2.0 approach. In the JISC report
(2009) on the web 2.0 in higher education also pointed out the
above mentioned conflict and adds that deployment is in no way
systematic and the drive is principally bottom up, coming from
the professional interest and enthusiasm of individual members.
Newland & Byles (2013) points out the gap between academic
expertise and student expectations with regard to e-learning.
To bridge the gap, institutions must address the professional
development of academics so they have the skills needed to
implement systemic change.
ADVANTAGES OF USING WEB 2.0 TOOLS

Many researchers have rightly pointed out the most important
feature of web tools that they possess the potential to bring out
innovation in the higher education system worldwide (Collis
& Moonen, 2008). This innovation could be materialized with
inherent capacities of the tools. The teaching and learning methods

were tutor controlled in the traditional environment (Strawbridge,
2010; Kesim & Agaoglu, 2007; and Berlanga et. al., 2010). But
now the focus has shifted from the tutor to student. This major
change that is being possible with web 2.0 tools has been observed
by the researchers (Berlanga et al., 2010; Karunasena, Deng &
Zhang, 2012).
Due to its user centric nature, many opportunities of web tools

could be visible in education system. As Wheeler (2010) points
out, web tools and technologies bring out openness and flexibility
in the learning process. Now the education process is not rigid and
closed in the specific framework of classroom teaching. Because
of the flexibility that web tools exhibit, they have been considered
as important means of informal learning has been appreciated
by Selwyn (2007). As these web technologies are open access
media, the learners in any part of the world are free to use them
for the educational purpose. Use of web tools in higher education
promotes personalised and self regulated learning (McLoughlin
& Lee, 2010). Karunasena, Deng and Zhang (2012) and Rosen
and Nelson (2008) suggest the feature of web 2.0 tools as
collaborative and participatory nature. Advanced simulation and
gaming applications facilitate the learners with opportunities to
engage themselves in learning by incorporating effective learner-
centered learning approaches such as problem based learning and
collaborative learning. These applications are useful in obtaining
skills required in real-life situations.
Similar studies are taken up by Serrat and Rubio (2012)

who set the core values derived from the use web tools e.g.
participation is one of the peculiarities that define web 2.0 and the
associated values are diversity, reciprocity, transparency, respect
to different opinions and socialization of individual knowledge.
Collis and Moonen (2008) talk about 3 perspectives: instructional
quality, institutional quality, and technology quality of emerging
web tools that would help enhance the quality of higher education.
Koshi (2013) redefines web based learning as– lifelong learning,
learner-directed learning, contextualized learning, customized
learning, trans-formative learning, collaborative learning and
cooperative learning. Eijkman (2009), and Hossain and Aydin
(2011) point out the feasibility of web 2.0 in case of multicultural
learning and cross cultural education. Since the access to web
technology has no physical and geographical limits, they could be
effectively used in the distance education as pointed out by Den
Exter et. al. (2012). Such case studies highlights the capacities of
web tools in distance education whereby teacher’s guidance, clear
instructions are possible. Also underlines the need to match the
structure of web based learning systems with pedagogical goals
and the student-teacher context. It is suggested that web tools
and technologies would be highly relevant in case of the distance
education virtual campus (Yamamoto & Karaman, 2011; Bower
et. al., 2010). As technology develops, distance learning may
become main stream.
Education system is being driven by 10 major shifts in web

2.0 environment, which is described as open content, multiple
teachers and 24/7 learning, social and collaborative construction
of knowledge, conversation rather than lecture, know “where”
learning, more active readers, web as notebook, writing beyond
simple text, working toward mastery rather than the test, and
striving for contribution rather than completion (Richardson,
2007). It is stated that web tools and technologies are the important
means of informal education (Serrate and Rubio, 2012). They
bear the capacity to harness collective intelligence. This capacity
was initially thought of by O’Reilly (2005). The development of
academics as online brands: This might in future presents a great
opportunity for Higher Education institutions to develop such
individuals and to associate their brands with them. The students
may arrive at the institutions not just having viewed marketing
materials online, but having also been experienced the teaching
by one or more faculty members (Barnatt, 2009). The teachers

express their opinions that building the links between pedagogical
methods and web tools is not always easy, but that it can make
university courses more lively, enjoyable and permeable to other
contexts, at the same time supporting the development of core
study skills, like collaboration, critical thinking, reflection and
a variety of technological skills from practical tool handling,
through digital identity development to personal data security
strategies (Buchem & Hamelmann, 2011).
In many of the researches, collaboration is one of the major

features as noted by the students and academicians. There are
many advantages of web tools e.g. promote creative, intuitive,
associational and analogical thinking; provide potential for
increased access; and, exposure to quality information, and to
have combination of solitary and social interaction (Safran,
Helic & Gütl, 2007). With the use of web tools it has become
easy to publish one’s work (may be through blog) and various
studies demonstrate that when the student knows that his/her own
work will be available on the Internet, they would do it with great
interest and effort. Additionally, students could receive direct
feedback on his/her work. (Simões & Borges Gouveia, 2011).
When the higher education is getting costlier, web tools offer low
cost and effective solutions for communication and information
sharing (Koshi, 2013; Grosseck, 2009).
CHALLENGES AND THREATS

Along with the advantages, various studies report the challenges
and threats with respect to the use of web 2.0 tools in higher
education. As discussed earlier, the issue of scalability and
professional development e.g. most academics need the support
from the team of pedagogical and technical specialists. Academics
understand their professional development requirements in
relation to technology, but they did not identify the need to change
their pedagogical approach for collaborative learning with web

technologies (Newland & Byles, 2013). According to the report of
E-learning and Web 2.0 (2012), poor technological infrastructure,
often high cost of educational technologies and the lack of
initiatives for ICT based learning facilities are the major issues.
Further, very significant point has been noted- web 2.0 has created
a cult of ‘digital narcissism and amateurism’ which implies that
the principle of web tools that encourages anybody to share, to
publish, to disseminate any information is irrespective of the
quality, authority and knowledge of the person. This would lead
to creation of new knowledge but with no significance (Koshi,
2013). Lal (2011) points out the challenges related to availability,
accessibility, and acceptance of technology and difficulty in
enthusing and motivating students to use and leverage such tools.
Gokhale and Chandra (2009) point out certain challenges with
special reference to India such as lack of:
 penetration of ICTs in semi-urban and rural India.
 reliable communications infrastructure.
 course content, except in the IT domain.
 content in vernacular languages.
 psychological acceptance due to the absence of the personal
touch associated with classroom lessons.
 teachers and experts for development, deployment, and de-
livery of the e-learning solutions, as well as experience and
understanding of the e-learning market.
 standards and a long gestation period for implementation.
Serrate and Rubio (2012) point out one important challenge

at an institutional level. If web technologies lead the education
system in collaborative and participatory way, the higher education
authorities have the threat of losing control over the education
system. One more challenge from the institutions’ view point as
identified by Barnatt (2009) is the rise of academics as online
brands may be seen as a threat by some institutions, as this would

reduce the importance of institutions. Major issue pointed out by
Alexander (2006) attaching to web technologies are the fluid and
emergent nature of the medium that results in disappearance of
content through movement or deletion and the ease with which
copyright can be violated. Management is not convinced about
the introduction of web tools and technologies in higher education
due to lack of awareness, generation gap, rapid pace of change
of web based services that higher education institutions might
not be able to cope up and lack of digital media literacy among
the teachers. Privacy, IPR and data protection is still a question
mark while implementing web based learning. It is quiet crucial
to decide whether to use open web 2.0 tools or to use the tool
developed in-house.
Challenges as pointed out by Franklin and Harmelen (2007)

and Grosseck (2009) are web 2.0 is a relatively new technology;
there are many unresolved problems and issues in its use in
university. Major amongst them are - intellectual property rights
for material created and edited by university as well as external
faculty; use of appropriate pedagogies with the integration of web
tools; assessment of the material that may be collectively created
and is often open to ongoing change; the choice of types of systems
for institutional use; how to implement web based services across
a university; whether it is best to host the services within the
university or make use of externally hosted services; integration
with institutional systems; accessibility; control over content;
longevity of data; data preservation; information literacy; and
staff and student training. According to Simões & Borges Gouveia
(2011) important challenge is to maintain the balance between
the necessary conventional part of education, to preserve past
human effort and talent, as also traditional skills and knowledge
legacy, and the possibilities that technology introduces in terms of
students’ self expression and co-construction of knowledge.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Buchem and Hamelmann (2011) and Gray et al., (2012) suggest
significant principle while implementing web 2.0 application in
higher education. Hands-on training about using web tools: in
depth training to faculty and students is very essential for the
faculty and the students so as to gain the confidence to use the
tools aptly. Rodriguez (2011) draws attention to one important
issue of Intellectual Property Rights for the instructional resources
that are used in web 2.0 based teaching. There needs to be a radical
redesign and reconceptualisation of learning experiences, learning
environments as pointed out by Garrison and Vaughan (2008);
Dykman and Davis (2008) and Davis (2012). Lwoga (2012)
sets certain basic yet very important recommendations while
implementing web tools in the area of higher education; especially
relevant for developing countries. The recommendations say
that develop institutional policies and guidelines on ICT and
e-learning. Franklin & Van Harmelen (2007) underlines certain
considerations regarding the use of web tools. The issues that they
have pointed out are:
 Whether to put the tools within the VLE or make them more
generally available.
 The level of visibility to the outside world, and in particular
how to allow/enable people from outside the university to
contribute.
 How to monitor the systems for inappropriate and offensive
use, and deal with such use.
 How to encourage uptake and use.
 Whether to automatically enrol all members of the University
or do it by request.
 Whether to make activities student or staff led.
 How not to use Web 2.0 tools that will affect learning and
teaching
SCOPE FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

This study is the output of the primary study of the select literature
on the web 2.0 technologies in higher education. After reviewing
the part of the literature, many aspects are coming on the surface
of mind in which further study could be developed. First of all, the
theoretical or feasibility studies were available more in number as
compared to the real life case studies. So real time research needs
to be developed in the integration of web tools in the settings of
higher education. The studies about some specific types of tools
were widely available like, weblogs, wikis and social networking
sites. However, the tools like media sharing technology, content
syndication, AJAX, social bookmarking seems to be less attended
areas. Also the comparative studies of the varied tools with reference
to their pedagogical relevance could be studied. There is a wide
scope of further research in different areas of higher education
institutions. The very peculiar characteristic of web technologies
is they offer cost effective solutions for their integration. Yet, their
use in higher education settings is very low. Further study may be
developed in order to find out the possible reasons for this low use
and what would be the solutions to maximize it.
CONCLUSION
Web 2.0 tools have the great potential to serve the higher
education community with various aspects. Yet their potential is
not fully utilized. Especially in the developing countries the level
of use of web tools is very low. Though the developing countries
are lagging behind in using web tools in higher education, the
studies reveal that the attitude of the students and teachers towards
web tools are favorable. As far as libraries in higher education
institutions are concerned, there has been very less research
carried out investigating and evaluating the implementations
of Library 2.0 features in libraries. There is a gap between the
technological knowledge and skills of the academics and that
of the students. This gap would be characterized by two groups:

digital migrants and digital natives. This could be considered
as on type of digital divide. So the current status of use would
not exist in the near future. Hence there is a scope for research
to find out the reason behind this gap from the psychological
perspective. Also, educators are having the knowledge of web 2.0
and they are effectively using them but many of the educators
lack the knowledge and skills about them. The use of web 2.0 in
higher education is much varied. There are number of feasibility
studies on the use but success stories are less. Hence attention
must be paid on the recommendations given for the successful and
effective implementation of web tools.
REFERENCES
1. Ajjan, H., and Hartshorne, R. 2009. Investigating faculty de-
cisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical
tests. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(2), 71-80.
2. Aharony, N. 2011. Web 2.0 in the profession-
al LIS literature: An exploratory analysis. Journal of
Librarianship and Information Science, 43(1), 3–13.
doi:10.1177/0961000611400938
3. Alexander, B. 2006. Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for
teaching and learning? Educause Review, 41(2), 32-44.
4. Barnatt, C. 2009. Higher Education 2.0. The International
Journal of Management Education, 7(3), 47–56. doi:10.3794/
ijme.73.250
5. Berlanga, A. J., Peñalvo, F. G., and Sloep, P. B. 2010.
Towards eLearning 2.0 University. Interactive Learning
Environments, 18(3), 199–201. doi:10.1080/10494820.2010.
500498
6. Bower, M., Hedberg, J. G., and Kuswara, A. 2010. A frame-
work for Web 2.0 learning design. Educational Media
International, 47(3), 177–198. doi:10.1080/09523987.2010
.518811
7. Buchem, I., and Hamelmann, H. 2011. Developing 21st

century skills: Web 2.0 in higher education: A Case Study.
E-learning papers, (24). Available at: http://elearningpapers.
eu/sites/default/files/media25535.pdf
8. Campión, R. S., Nalda, F. N., and Rivilla, A.M. 2012. Web 2.0
and Higher Education: Its educational use in the University
Environment. European Journal of Open, Distance and
E-Learning. Available at: http://www.eurodl.org/materials/
contrib/2012/Santiago_et_al.pdf
9. Cavanaugh, C., Hargis, J., Kamali, T. and Soto, M. 2013.
Substitution to augmentation: faculty adoption of iPad mo-
bile learning in higher education. Interactive Technology and
Smart Education, 10(4), 270 – 284
10. Churchill, D. 2011. Web 2.0 in education: a study of the ex-
plorative use of blogs with a postgraduate class. Innovations
in Education and Teaching International, 48(2), 149–158. do
i:10.1080/14703297.2011.564009
11. Cifuentes, L., Sharp, A., Bulu, S., Benz, M., and Stough, L.
M. 2009. Developing a Web 2.0-based system with user-
authored content for community use and teacher education.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4),
377–398. doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9141-x
12. Collis, B., and Moonen, J. 2008. Web 2.0 tools and
processes in higher education: quality perspectives.
Educational Media International, 45(2), 93–106.
doi:10.1080/09523980802107179
13. Curran, K., Murray, M., and Christian, M. 2007. Taking the
information to the public through Library 2.0. Library Hi
Tech, 25(2), 288-297.
14. Davis, K. 2012. Connecting across continents: collaborative
learning in a Web 2.0 world. New Library World, 113(9),
415–428. doi:10.1108/03074801211273894
15. Den Exter, K., Rowe, S., Boyd, W., and Lloyd, D. 2012.
Using Web 2.0 technologies for collaborative learning in dis-
tance education—case studies from an Australian University.
Future Internet, 4(4), 216–237. doi:10.3390/fi4010216
16. Dohn, N. B. 2009. Web 2.0: Inherent tensions and evi-

dent challenges for education. International Journal of
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 343–
363. doi:10.1007/s11412-009-9066-8
17. Dykman, C. A., and Davis, C. K. 2008. Part One--The Shift
toward Online Education. Journal of Information Systems
Education, 19(1), 11-16.
18. Eijkman, H. 2009. Using Web 2.0 to decolonise transcultural
learning zones in higher education. Campus-Wide Information
Systems, 26(3), 240–255. doi:10.1108/10650740910967401
19. E-learning and Web 2.0: transforming higher education in
Africa: Recommendations for successful implementation.
2012. Development and Learning in Organizations, 26(5),
28–31. doi:10.1108/14777281211258680
20. Forkosh-Baruch, A., and Hershkovitz, A. 2011. The use of
social networks by higher-education institutes in Israel. In
Y. Eshet-Alkalai, A. Caspi, S. Eden, N. Geri, Y. Yair (Eds.),
Learning in the digital era, (14–20). Raanana: The Open
University of Israel. Available at: www.openu.ac.il/re-
search_center/chais2011/.../Forkosh_Hershkovitz.pdf
21. Franklin, T., and Van Harmelen, M. 2007. Web 2.0 for con-
tent for learning and teaching in higher education. Available
at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/dig-
italrepositories/web2-content-learning-and-teaching.pdf
22. Garrison, D. R., and Vaughan, N. D. 2008. Blended learning
in higher education: framework, principles, and guidelines.
San Fransisco: John Wileys.
23. Gokhale, P. A., and Chandra, S. 2009. Web 2.0 and e-learn-
ing: the Indian perspective. DESIDOC Journal of Library &
Information Technology, 29(1), 5–13.
24. Gray, K., Waycott, J., Clerehan, R., Hamilton, M.,
Richardson, J., Sheard, J., and Thompson, C. 2012. Worth
it? Findings from a study of how academics assess students’
Web 2.0 activities. Research in Learning Technology, 20(1).
doi:10.3402/rlt.v20i0.16153
25. Grosseck, G. 2009. To use or not to use web 2.0 in higher

education? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1),
478–482. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.087
26. Hain, S., and Back, A. 2008. Personal learning journal–
course design for using weblogs in higher education. The
Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 6(3), 189–196.
27. Holmes, K. L., and Dubinsky, E. K. 2009. Integration of Web
2.0 technologies in the translational research environment.
Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 28(4), 309–335.
doi:10.1080/02763860903249027
28. Hossain, M. M., and Aydin, H. 2011. A Web 2.0-based col-
laborative model for multicultural education. Multicultural
Education & Technology Journal, 5(2), 116–128.
doi:10.1108/17504971111142655
29. Ibrahim, R. 2012. The potential for using mash-ups at a high-
er education. Research Journal of Information Technology,
4(2), 56–70.
30. Jacob Jett, Senseney, M., and Palmer, C. L. 2013. A model for
providing web 2.0 services to cultural heritage institutions:
The IMLS DCC Flickr Feasibility Study. D-Lib Magazine,
19(5/6). Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may13/
jett/05jett.html
31. JISC, 2009. Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World. Available
at: www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/hewe-
b20rptv1.pdf
32. Kaplan, A. M., and Haenlein, M. 2010. Users of the
world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social
Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68. doi:10.1016/j.
bushor.2009.09.003
33. Karunasena, A., Deng, H., and Zhang, X. 2012. A Web
2.0 based e-learning success model in higher education.
Available at: http://www.ier-institute.org/2070-1918/lnit23/
v23/177.pdf
34. Keiser, B. E. 2012. Social Bookmarks. Online, 36(4), 19-23.
35. Kennedy, G., et al. 2007. The net generation are not big us-
ers of Web 2.0 technologies: Preliminary findings. In ICT:
Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings

ASCILITE Singapore 2007. Available at: http://www.asci-
lite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/kennedy.pdf
36. Kesim, E., and Agaoglu, E. 2007. A paradigm shift in dis-
tance education: Web 2.0 and social software. Turkish Online
Journal of Distance Education, 8(3), 66–75.
37. Koshi, L. 2013. Web based education. University News,
51(29), 14-16.
38. Kumar, S. 2009. Undergraduate perceptions of the useful-
ness of web 2.0 in higher education: Survey development. In
Proceedings of the 8th European conference on e-learning.
Available at: http://web2integration.pbworks.com/f/Underg
raduate+Perceptions+of+the+Usefulness+of+Web+2.0+in+
Higher+Education.pdf
39. Lal, P. 2012. Unleashing web 2.0 for Higher Education.
Available at: http://csidl.org/handle/123456789/255
40. Lee, M. J., Miller, C., and Newnham, L. 2008. RSS and
content syndication in higher education: subscribing to a
new model of teaching and learning. Educational Media
International, 45(4), 311–322.
41. Lwoga, E. 2012. Making learning and Web 2.0 technologies
work for higher learning institutions in Africa. Campus-Wide
Information Systems, 29(2), 90-107.
42. Majhi, S., and Maharana, B. 2011. Familiarity of Web2.
0 and its application in learning: A case study of two
Indian Universities. International Journal of Library and
Information Science, 3(6), 120–129.
43. McLoughlin, C., and Lee, M. J. 2010. Personalised and self
regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars
of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 28–43.
44. Mohamed H. K. and Sumitha, E. 2011. Perception and use of
social networking sites by the students of Calicut University.
DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology,
31(4), 295-301.
45. Newland, B., and Byles, L. 2013. Changing academic teach-

ing with Web 2.0 technologies. Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, 51(3), 315-325. doi:10.1080/147032
97.2013.796727
46. O’Reilly, T. 2006. Web 2.0 compact definition: Trying again.
Available at: http://radar.oreilly.com: http://radar.oreilly.
com/archives/2006/12/web_20_compact.html
47. O’Reilly, T. 2005. What is Web 2.0: design patterns and busi-
ness models for the next generation of software. Available at:
http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
48. Parker, K., and Chao, J. 2007. Wiki as a teaching tool.
Interdisciplinary Journal of e-learning and Learning Objects,
3(1), 57–72.
49. Patterson, S. 2009. Creating a virtual library classroom tool
for digital age youth. New Knowledge Environments, 1(1).
Available at: http://schools.uvic.ca/index.php/INKE/article/
view/163
50. Reher, S., and Haustein, S. 2010. Social Bookmarking in
STM. Online, 34(6), 34-42.
51. Richardson, W. 2007. Teaching in a Web 2.0 World. Kappa
Delta Pi Record, 43(4), 150–151. doi:10.1080/00228958.20
07.10516471
52. Rodriguez, J. E. 2011. Social media use in higher education:
key areas to consider for educators. MERLOT Journal of
Online Learning and Teaching, 7(4). Available at: http://jolt.
merlot.org/vol7no4/rodriguez_1211.htm
53. Rosen, D., and Nelson, C. 2008. Web 2.0: A new generation
of learners and education. Computers in the Schools, 25(3-4),
211–225. doi:10.1080/07380560802370997
54. Safran, C., Helic, D., and Gütl, C. 2007. E-Learning practices
and Web 2.0. In Proceedings of the International Conference
of’Interactive computer aided learning’ICL2007:
E-Portofolio and Quality in e-Learning. Available at: http://
halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00197260/
55. Schlenkrich, L., and Sewry, D. 2012. Factors for success-

ful use of social networking sites in higher education. South
African Computer Journal, 49. Retrieved from http://sacj.
cs.uct.ac.za/index.php/sacj/article/viewArticle/78
56. Selwyn, N. 2007. Web 2.0 applications as alternative envi-
ronments for informal learning-a critical review. In Paper
for CERI-KERIS International Expert Meeting on ICT and
Educational Performance (pp. 16–17). Available at: https://
www1.oecd.org/edu/ceri/39458556
57. Serrat, N., and Rubio, A. 2012. Coming from outside the
Academy. Values and 2.0 culture in higher education.
Interactive Learning Environments, 20(3), 293–308. doi:10
.1080/10494820.2011.641684
58. Simões, L., and Borges Gouveia, L. 2011. Web 2.0 and high-
er education: pedagogical implications. Available at: http://
upcommons.upc.edu/handle/2099/5736
59. Strawbridge, F. 2010. Is there a case for Web 2.0 in higher
education? Do the benefits outweigh the risks? Available at:
http://online.education.ed.ac.uk/gallery/strawbridge_web_2.
pdf
60. Stuart, D. (October/November, 2009). Web 2.0 fails to ex-
cite today’s researchers. Research Information. Retrieved
August 15, 2014, from http://www.researchinformation.info/
features/feature.php?feature_id=236
61. Szucs, A. 2009. New Horizons for Higher Education through
e-learning. eLearning Papers, (14), 4.
62. Tyagi, S. 2012. Adoption of Web 2.0 technology in high-
er education: A case study of universities in the National
Capital Region, India. International Journal of Education
and Development using ICT, 8(2), 28–43.
63. University of Delaware. 2008. Wikis in higher educa-
tion: An exploratory report about the value of wikis in
higher education, from a faculty perspective. Available
at: http://www.udel.edu/sakai/training/printable/wiki/
Wikis_in_Higher_Education_UD.pdf
64. Wankel, L. A., and Blessinger, P. 2012. New vistas in higher

education: an introduction to using social technologies. In
Laura A. Wankel, Patrick Blessinger (ed.) Increasing Student
Engagement and Retention Using Social Technologies
(Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher Education, Volume
6), Emerald Group Publishing, pp.3-16. doi:10.1108/
S2044-9968(2012)000006B003
65. Weller, M., and Dalziel, J. 2007. Bridging the gap between
web 2.0 and higher education. Practical Benefits of Learning
Design (pp. 76-82). Sydney: LAMS Foundation. Available
at: http://lams2007sydney.lamsfoundation.org/pdfs/04g.pdf
66. 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 (pp. 103–114). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03582-1_9
67. Willems, J., and Bateman, D. 2011. The potentials and pit-
falls of social networking sites such as Facebook in higher
education contexts. Changing demands, changing directions.
Proceedings ascilite Hobart 2011. Available at: http://www.
ascilite.org.au/conferences/hobart11/downloads/papers/
Willems-poster.pdf
68. Ullrich, C., Borau, K., Luo, H., Tan, X., Shen, L., and Shen,
R. 2008. Why web 2.0 is good for learning and for research:
principles and prototypes. In Proceedings of the 17th in-
ternational conference on World Wide Web (pp. 705–714).
Available at: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1367593
69. Yamamoto, G. T., and Karaman, F. 2011. Education 2.0. On the
Horizon, 19(2), 109–117. doi:10.1108/10748121111138308
View publication stats

YadavPatwardhan2016 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

YadavPatwardhan2016 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Use and Impact of Web 2.0 Tools in Higher

Chapter · March 2016

Akhilesh K.S. Yadav

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Anil Kumar Siwach

1. Academic Libraries in Digital Environment 1-17

2. Copyright Piracy 18-35

3. E - Learning and Academic Libraries 36-47

4. Application of Tqm in Academic E-Libraries 48-61

5. Information and Knowledge Management

6. Redesigning A School Library in the Digital

7. Quantifying Economics Research Output

8. Social Networking Sites in Education 109-113

9. Skills Required by LIS Professionals to

10. Usage Statistics of Electronic Resources 128-144

11. Contents Analysis of University

12. Combining Technologies to Library for

13. Status of Print and E-Journals in Nehru

14. Information Seeking Behaviour: An Overview 179-217

15. Use and Impact of Web 2.0 Tools in

Use and Impact of Web 2.0

Keywords: Web Tools; Web 2.0; Education 2.0, E-Learning;

Various definitions are available that describe the web 2.0

According to Kaplan and Haenlein (2010), “a group of

This second generation of Web tools holds special importance

WHY WEB 2.0 IN HIGHER EDUCATION?

collaborate and share their experiences, views and opinions with

Today’s accelerated; globalised environment has posed the

It has been observed that the varied educational background

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

SCOPE, COVERAGE AND LIMITATION OF THE

and universities, distance learning and research are included in

RELEVANCE OF THE STUDY

WEB 2.0 USE IN HIGHER EDUCATION:

could be treated as a representative study for the developing

The study conducted in Calicut University, India indicates

increasing popularity of these tools in learning, their capacities are

Is there any significant difference in the use of web 2.0 tools

The study conducted in Australia by Kennedy et al. (2007)

The case studies discussed above talked about the use of

for the students who are geographically dispersed. It provides the

A study conducted in Hong Kong University regarding the

Weblog is a tool which have also emphasized on the impact

and visual source as presented in mashups has been the effective

The survey at the University of Edinburgh by Franklin and

The study conducted at the University of Delaware in the year

wikis are used to add value in higher education through Wikipedia,

Blogs, wikis and social networking sites are enjoying high

Wheeler (2010) suggests that wikis and weblogs have high

WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN RESEARCH

e.g. research faculty, medical professionals, and administrators.

PERCEPTIONS, ATTITUDES AND EXPECTATIONS

Research evidences show that the academics or the teachers

ADVANTAGES OF USING WEB 2.0 TOOLS

inherent capacities of the tools. The teaching and learning methods

Due to its user centric nature, many opportunities of web tools

Similar studies are taken up by Serrat and Rubio (2012)

Education system is being driven by 10 major shifts in web

by one or more faculty members (Barnatt, 2009). The teachers

In many of the researches, collaboration is one of the major

CHALLENGES AND THREATS